From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 Jul 1999 09:57:44 PST This "FAQ" is auto-posted once a month via cron triggered script, and may be triggered off by hand from time to time in between if the info is requested by someone, such as when the House recently voted down the AW Ban and the Media threw a hissy fit. The purpose of this FAQ is to inform people what they can do about Media generated lies and misinformation. While the FCC only handles Broadcast Media, (TV and Radio), some of these techniques will work for magazines and newspapers too. If I've missed something, or you find errors, let me know and I'll add/fix it. 1.a. Send letters of complaint to the Station Manager every time it happens with all the time, details, other info, and your complaint(s). 1.b. Send an additional copy for their FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Public file. 1.c. Send an additional copy to the FCC itself, in case they don't put it in their Public file. 2.a. Send a letter of complaint to their Station Owner as per above, with copies as per above (1.b and 1.c). 3. Send copies of their replies to you along with yours to them to their FCC Public file, so that it gets nice and fat, again, with copies to the FCC itself. 4. If you can afford it, send all corespondence by Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested. Send a copy of the Return Receipt with everything that goes to the FCC itself, so that they will have additional evidence if the Station is cheating on their Public File. 5.a. Go to the Public Library and look up "Standard Rate and Data Services" (SRDS) "Directory of National Advertisers." It is found in many major Libraries (in the business/reference stacks), and lists EVERY current advertiser, who the players are at both the company and advertising agency(s), and the appropriate telephone and fax (and probably E-Mail by now) addresses. If your Library doesn't have it, it can be requested. Otherwise you can watch their commercials for a few days to a week, listing all their advertisers. There are other references that have the addresses for the nation's business headquarters too. look them all up and pass the addresses and phone/FAX numbers etc., around so that everyone can bitch to the sponsors. IF enough people do that, it'll get back to the Station. Tell them if the Station continues their nastiness you'll _consider_ changing to brand(X), (otherwise they'll just write you off as a loss). 5.b. The above, (5.a.), can be a lot easier and less time consuming if you're dealing with a newspaper's or a magazine's ads, as they are right in front of you for the listing. 6. If they put on something good or even just more reasonable, call and compliment them on it, but do _not_ send any kudos to their FCC file, or write to them about it. That way they have to keep it up and hope, as there is nothing good in the file or in writing that they can show the FCC to justify their Station's License. 7. Federal Communications Commission, Complaints and Compliance Division Room 6218, 2025 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 FAX: 202-653-9659 FCC Attn: Edythe Wise -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | The _only_important_difference_ between Nazi-ism, Fascism, weapon in every | Communism, Communitarianism, Socialism and (Neo-)Liberalism hand = Freedom | is the _spelling_, and that the last group hasn't got the on every side! | Collective brains to figure it out. -- Bill Vance - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: NYC strip searches Date: 02 Jul 1999 10:32:18 -0400 (EDT) The BBC was all over this story this morning (7-2-99). It appears that the NYC police have been strip searching all arrestees, even those on misdeamenor charges. This conflicts with a court decision that misdemeanor arrestees are immune from strip searching unless the police have a reasonable belief that they harbor weapons or contraband. 63,000 people strip searched are involved in a class-action suit against the city. The city is acknowledging that these people were illegally searched and some are due compensation. One woman has won a $5 million settlement in a seperate case. The coverage implied, but didn't state exactly, that some of these searches were full cavity searches. regards, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: S L I C K Year 4, #30 (2/2) (fwd) Date: 02 Jul 1999 17:27:34 PST On Jul 2, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ECONOMY Most households in the U.S. have a lower net worth than they did in 1983. Between 1983 and 1995, the net worth of the top 1 percent swelled by 17% while the bottom 40 percent of households lost 80 percent; The Environmental Research Foundation puts out an email publication called "Rachel's Environment and Health", which this week focuses on the relationship between health and economic inequality. If you'd like to subscribe (no cost) to this publication, let me know at: grassroots5@juno.com R.S. That defies everything I see in the news, but mirrors what I see around me. MEDIACRATS The mediacrats concern about the gap between the revenue received by George W and Algore is premature. Several precincts from Indonesia, Punjab and Bejing have not yet been reported. LETTER TO THE EDITOR Recd the following in reference to the slander of Thomas Jefferson by Clinton and his mass media co-conspirators. Dear RichSlick, Let's not forget, notwithstanding the bizarre emphasis in reportage on this study, that the DNA tests establish beyond reasonable doubt that the scurrilous political charges made against Jefferson during his first term were utterly false. The single remaining doubt concerning Jefferson's paternity involves Ms. Hemmings's fifth child, who had not yet been conceived, much less born, at the time of the original slanders. Mark E. Slagle AN INTERESTING ITEM Personal Approval. Zogby reported polling on Slick last week. His personal disapproval numbers sunk to a record low 67% unfavorable - which sort of explains why the WH found an extra Trillion dollars just sitting around waiting for him to spend on free drugs for the Greedy Geezers. Limbaugh 6/25. More Interesting Items can be now be found on Rod Martin's (no relation) "Vanguard" at Interesting Items by Alex Gimarc WAR Having lost only one fighter in the Balkan Massacre, 'tis obvious we have no need to manufacture more planes, ie the F-22 or any addl B-2's. We are the master of the skies for the forseeable future (unless, of course, the Clinton Admin snuck a pile of Chinese/Indian/Pakistan spies into Lockheed, Boeing, and Northrup.) Besides, CNN said the cost to the tax payers for that F-117 loss was zero, because it was out of production. Call it our belated Peace Dividend. B-1 BILL The USAF sez it wants to stand down until such time our nation is threatened. The message is: no more military adventures, Bill. USAF news. KATHIE'S KORNER Friends, we have to force them to answer us about the Endangered Species Act. It was a law, and it expired in 1993. Yes, it had many lovers who keep propping it up and trying to pass it off as a living entity, but the thing stinks! I don't mind acknowledging that Congress would reauthorize it if only they could agree on what should be included in it, but how then is it any different from any other bill that might have been passed if it got enough votes? I don't mind acknowledging that Congress keeps on authorizing funding for it, but I DO mind that they do. That's MY money (and yours) and they're spending it on a figment of their imaginations until they act. Why are we letting them get away with it? Pray for America! Reply to: Kathie INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION CANCELLED Today the Dallas suburb of Carrollton announced it cancelled it's fireworks show, so as not to disturb egrets in the area. (The town was just successfully sued by bird- brains for $70,000, for upsetting the fowl.) April 7th has been declared Egret Independence Day. REMEMBER THE GOOD OLE DAYS... when fathers took their sons out to celebrate July 4th by setting off one-inchers, two inchers, cherry bombs and dago bombs? PEN PALS More Y2K info by Wyse Computer Santa Cruz Operations SCO Y2K Welcome YAHOO YAHOO COMES OUT AGAINST GUN OWNERS. THIS SPACE FOR RENT Reliable Internet Access for only $14.95 a month. Over 550 access numbers in 21 States and growing. Click here for complete info If you have your own web site, you know it's not enough to be on the internet with 30,000,000 geeks. Oh, search engines are great---for the other guy, but wouldn't you prefer to be a little more direct? Instead of trying to reach millions of people who can't spell your name, here's your chance to target thousands of politically active people like yourself. Send e-mail for details to RichSlick. There's more in life than Slick. Well, at least that's what Peggy tells me from time to time. Below is a partial list of web sites maintained by readers of Slick. Check them out, and let me know what you think. PARTING THOUGHT I wonder what would happen if a new special prosecutor was appointed now that the Independent Prosecutor Law has expired? Would it take on a life of its own like the Endangered Species Act? * * * * * Subscribe to this Slick e-zine featuring Kathie's Korner, and receive absolutely free, a copy of Rich's Major Media Mailing List containing over 400 e-mail addresses. To subscribe, send your check for $12.50 to the address at the top of this message. Be sure to include your e-mail address. THE TRUTH IS... A. Powerful. C. In the eye of the beholder. B. Irrelevant. D. All of the above. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: S L I C K Year 4, #30 (1/2) (fwd) Date: 02 Jul 1999 17:29:12 PST On Jul 2, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] You are encouraged to pass this message on to anyone who might be interested in its contents. Better yet, print a copy for a friend who is not on-line. Any and all comments on the subject matter are always welcome. From the Desk of Rich Martin P O Box 531918 972/263-6631 Grand Prairie, TX 75053 RichSlick@aol.com "Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind" Plato, circa 400 BC _______________________________________________ Happy Independence Day, 1999 Iowa and NH have oft been criticized for kicking off the presidential primaries too early. We don't need 2-yr prez campaigns. But as early as they are usually, it looks like first-in-the-nation is too late this time. The mass media has already ordained a Gore v Bush election, with George W winning by a large margin. We know how they got there. Bush has a proven track record of one thing, getting votes from all demographics, including traditional Dem voters, that can spill over to other party candidates. He has a knack of making people find their similarities, instead of their differences. For the first time since the Civil War, Texas has more Republicans in office than Dems. And George W's intangibles are largely responsible. As for Gore, the mystery is even less. While people are criticizing the First Lady for campaigning on the tax payers dime, the veep travelled all-expenses-paid AND collected a salary all last year when his major function was delivering over 200 campaign speeches. He has so many Dem iou's to collect, Iowa and NH are meaningless. The convention votes are all sewed up. No sense to vote in the primaries. A publicly-paid-for political convention that makes no sense to view. How much are they charging US? The days of subsidized campaigns are numbered. How Slick is Slick? Another Clinton lie. There weren't 100,000 Albanians killed by the Serbs any more than there are 100,000 new street cops. If the Serbs were slaughtering the men of Kosovo, as reported, why did they release all those guys we saw paraded on CNN with torture marks all over their backs? If Milosevic was another Hitler, wouldn't they all be with their Allah right now? And if you believe that one, he now sez we've got another trillion dollars to spend. Will that be enough to re-purchase the FICA IOUs they have borrowed? And why does their forecast show the Natl debt climbing every year, despite this "surplus"? If it quacks like a lie... ALGORE TAX Now that we've got another trillion dollars in excess taxes, perhaps Algore will think twice about doubling his hidden tax on telephone usage. Yeah, and donkeys fly. More taxes, sez he. Less cars. More fedl regs. Less freedom. Everything that is Less should be More, and everything that should be More, is Less. MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX One thing is for sure, Congress no longer can say we can't afford to eliminate the Marriage Penalty Tax which penalizes couples thousands of dollars in addl taxes for choosing to get married. (I guess that's what they mean when they say: voluntary tax.) The only reason to maintain the tax is: they want to continue to encourage co-habitation thru the tax code, which explains a lot of the morality deficit we've been experiencing lately, or they want to encourage the only loophole to avoid the tax, d-i-v-o-r-c-e. FIGURES DON'T LIE, BUT LIARS FIGURE How much gall does it take for a Congressman to get in front of a natl network tv camera and say: we can't afford a broad based tax cut when their prez has said he just found another trillion dollars on top of the existing surplus? WHITEWATER LIARS Don't you just get a kick of how CNN flashes pics of the meandering Whitewater River and scrub brush when they talk about Webb Hubbel getting off with no addl jail time? CNN is determined to keep the genl public from finding out that Castle Grande, aka White Water, is an upscale community, and not a wilderness that the Clintons' bought a share of for $1,000. These mediacrats are lying every bit as much as the perjurer in the White House. Their obvious euphoria that Hillary will not be called as a witness and be placed between a rock and a hard place, convinced me they need to pluralize their name, to the Clintons' News Network. POLICE STATE Rep Hyde's bill to end the confiscation of property without due process has cleared the House. But even if the Senate concurs and the bill is signed by the prez, to end this "hidden tax" source, the job still won't be complete. It won't be finished until the govt (city/state/fedl) returns all the property it un-Constitutionally stole from citizens, or at the very least, gave them their day in court. I guess the country can't afford to be fair to them either. REFUGEES As loyal readers know, I pointed out on these pages at the time that the ethnic-Albanians were crossing the border with only the clothes on their back into Macedonia, Albania, etc, they appeared well dressed. Later we found these poor refugees lined up in cars at check-points to return to their homes. It seems they escaped with more than the clothes on their backs afterall. And guess what, their crops are still there too, not burned, as widely reported. DOW JONES The prez cites the over-valued stock market and projected increased tax burden as evidence that the economy is great---his allies in the press dutifully repeat his claims. Are you better off than you were 10 yrs ago? Well I'll tell you, if there's 25-30 year old that isn't better off now than when he was a teenager, he's probably in jail. And if you're 40, and you haven't collected more stuff since your 30th, it's not because the economy has been so great. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Harris Poll never calls me... (fwd) Date: 02 Jul 1999 22:26:35 PST On Jun 28, Don Loftus wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] So now you can register with them instead. Go to -- http://www.harrispollonline.com/ and go through the registration process and then maybe we can be part of the unsilent majority. Don Loftus Gainesville, FL --------------------- Political pollsters will use Internet By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY WASHINGTON - Veteran pollsters Gordon Black and Humphrey Taylor are bringing political polling into the Computer Age. But critics say their cyber-polling isn't representative of the population . Black and Taylor plan to use the Internet instead of the telephone to conduct polls on the 2000 elections. They say that with larger samples and instantaneous communication and tabulation, results can be faster, cheaper and more accurate. "We think we can outperform telephone polls in terms of scope, accuracy and the amount of information," Black says. Plans announced Wednesday by the two top executives of Harris Black International call for taking periodic measures of races for president, governor, Senate and as many as 100 congressional districts where the contests are competitive. Their Internet samples are recruited by advertising for volunteers on various Web sites. When a poll is to be taken, volunteers are e-mailed a questionnaire that they complete and return. Black says his company has 3.6 million volunteers in its database, which is expected to grow to 10 million-15 million by the end of the year. Harris Black is rated by Inside Research as the nation's second-fastest growing market research firm . The company believes its election polls via the Internet will be just as good as or better than polls conducted via telephone for news organizations, candidates, political parties and interest groups. To make the case, Taylor outlined results of a Harris Black poll taken over the Internet last week. It shows Texas Republican Gov. George W. Bush beating Democratic Vice President Gore by 20 percentage points if the 2000 presidential race were held at the time of the poll. That finding is not much different from independent telephone polls this month that show Bush ahead of Gore by 14- 18 percentage points. But CBS News polling director Kathy Frankovich says, "It's not a question of guessing right, it's a question of who you are sampling and whether it's representative of the population as a whole." The key argument against Internet polling is that telephones are found in 92% of American households, but only 48% of households are connected to the Internet. Critics say it's impossible to get a representative sample of the electorate when more than half of potential voters have no chance of participating. "For a sample to be representative, all members of the population you want to poll have to have an equal probability of falling into the sample," says Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, which polls for USA TODAY by telephone. Similar arguments were made in the 1960s against shifting to telephone polling from face-to-face interviews. But when telephone use approached 90% of homes in the 1970s, the resistance disappeared. Black and Taylor say they can adjust for that gap by assigning weights to various groups polled and making them conform to general electorate characteristics. For example, if the Internet poll sample contained only 7% blacks, although blacks are 14% of the electorate, black responses would be given double weighting. That technique is widely used in telephone polling now. But Newport notes that with Internet users still a minority of the population, weighting techniques would have to be applied much more heavily, increasing the chance that results would be wrong. Warren Mitofsky, a pioneer in exit polling - sampling voters at polling places on Election Day - opposes Internet polling . "People recruited into (Internet) panels are self-selected, with characteristics that differ from the population," Mitofsky writes in the June/July issue of Public Perspective magazine to be released next week. "People on the Internet do not represent the adult population of the country. Internet panelists (by virtue of their voluntary status) do not even represent people on the Internet." [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Thoughts for this weekend (fwd) Date: 03 Jul 1999 10:31:58 PST On Jul 3, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Saturday, July 03, 1999 4:59 AM IN CONGRESS, July 4th, 1776 A DECLARATION By the REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, In GENERAL CONGRESS assembled. When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to the Separation. We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodations of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only. He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their Public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People. He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and payment of their Salaries. He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance. He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent our Legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of, and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People. He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized Nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People. Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our Brittish Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. JOHN HANCOCK, President Attest. CHARLES THOMSON, Secretary. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: NFRA (1/2) (fwd) Date: 03 Jul 1999 10:34:35 PST On Jul 3, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, July 02, 1999 11:36 PM July 2, 1999 Dear NFRA Friends and Supporters: 1. More and more, the courts are recognizing that education is for the benefit of students, not government or unions. In this case, a court ruled that children who attend private religious schools have the same right to subsidized Internet service as those who attend government schools. The purpose of the service is education, regardless of where the chair for the student is located. On the other hand, is it the role of government to use tax dollars from businesses and families to provide this service? What is the role of education? Personally I oppose "public" education. I do support education of the public. Who cares what the venue is, as long as it is student oriented? To me, by definition, unionized education is a failure, since union rules and non education concerns control schools. For Religious Schools, a Victory on Money for Net Access A federal judge has ruled that a state program in Wisconsin that subsidizes Internet access at schools, including religious schools, is constitutional and does not violate the First Amendment's provision for separation of church and state. The opinion, issued by Judge John C. Shabaz of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in Madison, came in what is arguably the first case to consider the extent to which the government may help religious schools in their efforts to give their students access to the Internet. (The New York Times -- Free registration required -- -- Read the story.) 2. Gayle Gardner, of the Hawaii Republican Assembly has sent this article to me. Again, there is a reason we celebrate the Fourth of July. What We Should Celebrate This Independence Day By Ben Boychuk {Will appear in Investor's Business Daily} Ask 10 average Americans where the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" appears, and seven of them couldn't tell you. But as we celebrate 223 years of independence, it's worth asking why, and what can be done about that. America more than any other nation is based on an idea. We aren't racially, ethnically, religiously or geographically defined like other nations. Rather, America was born and lives in the tradition of liberty and law. And no words in the English language better express the American project than the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Americans must learn these truths if we are to excel as a nation and a people. Yet few Americans know the words. For many they are a distant echo of the past barely heard and dimly understood . But some courageous state lawmakers are fighting to restore America's founding principles by reaching out to the next generation. Unfortunately, they are meeting fierce political opposition. Take New Jersey. State Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll, a Republican, sponsored a bill that would require public school students there to recite those sentences from the Declaration, along with the Pledge of Allegiance. Why? Carroll worries that kids don't have a good sense of why America is special. "The language of this little passage . . . sets forth in one little paragraph the entire basis for the American government," he explained. The bill passed the assembly but now languishes in the state senate. The reason: Garden State liberals object to words like "men," "Creator," and "right to life." They say the men who founded the country are bad role models for kids, and that their ideas are old hat. Typical is the claim of Assemblywoman Nia Gill, who said that "at the time these words were written only white men, and only white men with property, were perceived to be the beneficiaries of these words." This is absurd and false. In New Jersey, for instance, women -- and even blacks - were voting by the late 1700s. But Gill's view is the conventional wisdom. And New Jersey isn't the only state where this sort of battle is being fought. In California, a '96 law requires high school students to read the Declaration, the Constitution and other important founding-era documents. Again, Democrats hammered the bill. One assemblyman said it "contradicts freedom (and) by its nature is calculated to teach fascism, not democracy." Nevada State Sen. Mark James authored a similar bill after visiting schools in his Las Vegas district. He found that most of the students couldn't answer the simplest questions on a U.S. citizenship test. James's bill also passed, but only after a contentious 2-1/2 hour debate -- longer than any legislative debate in recent memory. Why are the words and ideals of the Declaration so hated? Carroll thinks it's because liberals see America as "an ongoing horror show" of racist and sexist oppression. That may be part of it. A better explanation may be that the principles of liberty and equality the founders enshrined in the Declaration stand in direct opposition to the modern liberal agenda. The Founders were clear: Human beings are born with rights, which come before government. The role of government is limited to protecting those rights, not making up new ones, such as Franklin Roosevelt's "freedom from fear." Seen that way, it's easy to understand why so many liberal politicians oppose teaching these ideas to children. They may actually grow up believing in limited government, equality under the law, and no taxation without representation. The Declaration sets forth a truth - "applicable to all men and all times," in Lincoln's words -- that stands in the way of tyranny. It also sets a standard of freedom and equality. Americans haven't always met that standard. But it is the standard every American must learn and know if we wish to remain a free people. It is the standard we ought to honor and celebrate this Independence Day. Ben Boychuk is Director of Publications at The Claremont Institute. 3. The theft of money from families by tax and regulation policy is the worst form of anti-family values an elected official can exhibit. The higher the taxes, the lower the freedom for families and business. Money does equal freedom. Do you want to send your children to private school? You don't have the funds. Do you want to teach your children at home, yourself? You need a two income household just to survive. Does a business want to grow? It can't because of the regulations, reports and audits by government at all levels. Why are home based businesses growing so rapidly, because of less government regulation. Don MacDonald of New Jersey sent me this review of an interview this morning with Lawrence Kudlow, former economic advisor to President Reagan. He, along with Steve Forbes, gave Christine Todd Whitman the idea that if you cut taxes by 30% in New Jersey, you will win and have a healthy economy. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Bald Eagle Bites Clinton (fwd) Date: 03 Jul 1999 11:12:47 PST On Jul 03, InTheRiver wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Amazing symbolism so close to Independence Day, wouldn't you say?... > Bald Eagle Bites Clinton > > A Bald Eagle, the emblem of the United States, bit President Clinton at a > ceremony on the White House lawn yesterday. > > Mr Clinton's staff had arranged for the eagle, Challenger, to be present when > he announced that the species was being taken off the endangered list after a > 27-year conservation project. The President described the eagle as the > "living symbol of our democracy" and then moved over to talk to the bird's > handler, Al Cesari. > > Mr Clinton looked distinctly uneasy as he stood just out of pecking distance > of the bird, whose image appears on the great seal of the United States, on > the dollar bill and a host of other national symbols. As the President turned > to congratulate volunteers from the eagle-salvation programme who were > standing behind Challenger's perch, the 10-year-old bird bent forward and > pecked him hard on the left hand. > > Mr Clinton withdrew his hand quickly, shook it and inspected the damage, as > an embarrassed Mr Cesari moved in. A spokesman for the White House said > later: "The President was bitten, but no blood was drawn. He told aides as he > left the ceremony that he was sure that bird was not the only creature in > Washington who would like to have a go at him." > > The eagle had been reduced from an estimated population of half a million, > when it was chosen as America's emblem in 1783, to only 417 pairs in 1963. > > The London Telegraph, July 3, 1999 - Monte Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Freedom [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Would You Sign This? (3/3) (fwd) Date: 03 Jul 1999 13:49:17 PST On Jul 03, Dennis Justice wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] and we have begged them in the name of our common heritage to disavow this renegade government that is leading us inexorably to our doom. However, they have been deaf to the voice of reason and fairness. We must, therefore, of necessity, hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, until such time as they renounce the initiation of force and, thereby, demonstrate their peaceful intentions so that we may once again consider them friends in peace. We, therefore, as sovereign individuals living in the United States of America, together and singly, relying on the justice of our cause, solemnly publish and declare that we are, and of right ought to be, free and independent people; that we are absolved from all allegiance to the United States Government, and that all political connection between us and the Government of the United States is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that as free and independent people we have the full power to defend ourselves, make alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent people may, by right, do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm belief in the inevitability of a social order whose highest value is the non-initiation of force, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. [Timothy J.O'Brien; Autumn 1986, Page 2, of The Libertarian Party NEWS] ====================================================== ========== [Editor's Note: Karl Hess; Editor of the LP News] As you have probably guessed by now, the document you have just read is a faithful paraphrase of the Declaration of Independence of the colonial states of America. It was prepared by a libertarian activist and freelance writer, Timothy J. O'Brien, of Troy, MI. In past experiments, when the original text has been circulated to American audiences, the overwhelming response has been one of rejection. At an American airbase, for instance, most of the people who were asked to sign the declaration refused and gave as their reason their belief that the document was radical, revolutionary - and communist! The paraphrased version, using more modern language and omitting clearly dated references or bringing them accurately up to date, undoubtedly would strike many people as downright treasonous. And, of course, when the original was published it was treasonous. Yet, think carefully about it: Isn't it a valid, if extreme, statement of the way many citizens could reasonably be expected to view their own government these days? Is not that government, in many areas, literally at war with its own citizens? To be sure, America remains the most free nation on earth. It remains for many people of the earth a steady and beckoning beacon of hope and freedom and opportunity. But, on balance, wouldn't it be prudent to revive the spirit of our original Declaration of Independence? And isn't that declaration most perfectly reflected, these days, in the positions of the Libertarian Party, and in the principles of the libertarian movement? How would your neighbors react to a request to sign the Declaration of Independence today - particularly our modernized version? Could this be a way to "feel out" politics in your area? Could this document be used as a support for your own libertarian statements if they are attacked as being too radical? It is offered here for whatever uses you can make of it - or simply to test your own politics. Would you sign this document? Would you have signed the original? And aren't these truly basic questions for any American? Above all, this reminder of our American heritage is meant as a reminder also of the reflection of that heritage in the Libertarian Party and in the libertarian movement. GET $10 OFF ANY ORDER @ healthshop.com! No min. purchase req. Save on vitamins & supplements. Use coupon code: EGROUPS at checkout http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/432 eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/libertyactivists2 http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Would You Sign This? (2/3) (fwd) Date: 03 Jul 1999 13:50:30 PST On Jul 03, Dennis Justice wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] free people to abject slaves, it has failed utterly in its responsibility to protect people from criminal aggression. * It has severely restricted the freedom of individuals living under other oppressive governments to move here to seek refuge and the opportunity to be freely productive and, thereby, contribute to the betterment of all. * It has caused the judiciary to degenerate into a kangaroo court of arbitrary powers that is a mockery of justice. * It has made its own courts arbiter of disputes to which it is itself a party. * It has created innumerable new offices and administrative and regulatory bodies sending forth swarms of officers and agents to harass our people and devour the fruits of their labor. * It has maintained, even in times of peace, a standing military force of frightening and wholly unnecessary proportions. * It has made both military and police forces superior to and beyond the control of civilian authority. * It has imposed upon us laws and edicts which are abhorrent to a free people: * Maintaining large numbers of armed agents among us far beyond what is needed to assist individuals in their self-defense. * Imposing the doctrine of Governmental Immunity to insulate its agents from responsibility for their wanton and reckless acts. * Restricting our trade both among ourselves and with other people around the world. * Imposing taxes without our consent. * Undermining and finally destroying the jury trial - a free people's last defense against a dictatorial government. * Conscripting free individuals into involuntary servitude in the military to have life and limb wasted in pointless foreign wars. * Abolishing the concept of private property and the rights implicit in self-ownership by arbitrary rules, regulations, ordinances, and codes in a relentless expansion of its domination and control over the lives of free people. * Taking away our most cherished freedoms including the rights to life, liberty, and the peaceful, honest pursuit of happiness. * Declaring itself invested with the power to legislate for us in all matters whatsoever, even including how our children shall be raised and educated. * It has abdicated its responsibility by ignoring victims of aggression and, instead, naming itself complainant in criminal cases, all the while preying on honest people for its support by violence and extortion. * It has plundered our wealth, corrupted our money, and far exceeded its income, creating a massive debt impossible to legitimately retire. * It has raised up large armies of mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with a cruelty and ruthlessness scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous age, and totally unworthy of the government of a civilized nation. * It has employed our fellow citizens to bear arms against us, to become the extortionists and executioners of their friends and families, or to fall themselves to government intimidation. * It has caused domestic discontent and has recklessly challenged other dictatorial powers (such as the government of the Soviet Union whose known method of conquest is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions), threatening to bring nuclear annihilation down on us in defense of foreign governments. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a dictatorship, is unfit to rule over a free people. Nor have we neglected to admonish our fellow citizens. We have warned them many times of attempts by this government to extend an unjustified jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the principles which formed the foundation of this republic. We have appealed to their sense of goodness and justice, [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Would You Sign This? (1/3) (fwd) Date: 03 Jul 1999 13:51:34 PST On Jul 03, Dennis Justice wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This is a test. Grade yourself. =============== [libertyactivists2] Would You Sign This? Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 10:17:21 -0400 From: liberty2@mindspring.com Reply-To: libertyactivists2@egroups.com To: "Activist" Would You Sign This? Sooner or Later, the time comes when people find it necessary to reject the government that rules over them and demand respect for the sovereignty to which they are, by their very nature, entitled. Consideration for everyone affected compels them to explain the reasons for the change. It is obvious that every individual is free and independent and has certain basic rights -- for example; the right to live peacefully and honestly, and to pursue whatever ends he (or she) sees as being in his own best interests so long as he doesn't interfere with the equal rights of everyone else. The only legitimate purpose of government is to ensure that no one violates anyone else's rights. Therefore, a just government can only serve those people who voluntarily support it. Whenever any form of government exceeds its legitimate authority and begins destroying the very values it was instituted to protect, it is the right of the people to either change it or abolish it, and to set up a new government designed in such a way that its power is strictly limited to its proper functions. Of course, common sense says such drastic steps should not be taken except in extreme circumstances. And, historically, people will tolerate a great deal of oppression rather than change a system with which they have grown familiar and comfortable. But, when a long series of abuses, invariably pursuing the same goal, demonstrates a plan to reduce them to virtual slavery, it is their right (indeed, it is their duty!) to reject such government and institute a new system to provide for their future security. Such is the situation in which Americans now find themselves and the reason they must, once again, demand emancipation from a dictatorial government. The history of the present government is a history of insidious and incessant erosion of rights which has resulted in an absolute tyranny over the lives and property of the good people of this country. The evidence is overwhelming: * It has made absolute the power of the majority to rule over individuals, and by legislation, executive order, and judicial decree has created and encouraged a system which rewards indolence and penalizes productive effort. * It has redefined fundamental rights as privileges and required people by regulations and licensing restrictions to obtain its permission merely to be left in peace to trade honorably in the marketplace. * It has outlawed numerous peaceful, honest activities and occupations and, in areas not entirely prohibited, required free citizens to give up some of their rights in order to enjoy others - rights which are priceless to honest people and a danger only to despots. * It has created a massive bureaucracy with unending reporting requirements in order to bury our people in forms and paperwork and, thereby, wear them down and beat them into submission. * It has harassed, jailed, and murdered individuals who bravely resisted its invasions of their rights. * In single-minded pursuit of its goal to reduce [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: NEA Convention Flash! - 7/3 (fwd) Date: 03 Jul 1999 17:48:11 PST On Jul 3, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Saturday, July 03, 1999 12:43 PM The Education Intelligence Agency Convention Flash! - July 3, 1999 Now on the Web at http://members.aol.com/educintel/eia + Greetings from the NEA Representative Assembly, where 9,242 delegates (some 700 fewer than last year) are meeting to discuss and vote upon the union's direction. Thankfully, this year's invocation (unlike last year's) contained no reference to school vouchers, but that was soon remedied in the keynote address of NEA President Bob Chase. The soft-spoken Chase opened with a few jokes, listed some of NEA's electoral, internal and public relations victories, and then commended NEA's Florida affiliate for its resistance to the state's new school voucher law, calling the law "purely and simply a disgrace." Then, appropriating the analogy of North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt, Chase compared vouchers to "applying leeches and bleeding a patient to death," claiming the aim of the voucher movement "is to discredit, defund -- and eventually destroy -- public education." Chase plugged new unionism and finished with an emotional reference to the massacre at Columbine High School. Chase choked back tears as he remembered teacher Dave Sanders, who died while trying to protect his students. But his sincere anguish about the tragedy did not overcome his impulse to offer up yet another scapegoat for the actions of two evil youths: no, not easy access to guns. The "run-amok marketplace" was Chase's choice for one of the "broader lessons of Littleton." Here are his words: "It bombards them with violent images. It preys on them commercially. It exploits them sexually. At every turn, it throws acid on their innocence. "Harvey Cox, the Harvard divinity professor, says, 'the Market is becoming more like the Yahweh of the Old Testament... the Supreme Deity, the only true God, whose reign must now be universally accepted....' " And I would add, we all know this market god will stop at nothing in the name of money. Yes, the market is eager to grab hold of the public schools. It would love to do to teachers what it did to HMO doctors: turn us into profit centers, profit maximizers. "But we can deal with that -- we're grown-ups. We can fight back. What is shameful is when that same predatory marketplace uses all its sophistication to exploit children." When Chase finished his speech, he received a lengthy standing ovation. After the applause died down and the delegates returned to their seats, Vice President Reg Weaver resumed the business at hand by reminding delegates of the "big giveaway" to benefit NEA's political action committee. In past years, the raffle has included prizes such as new cars and vacations. The irony was hot, but no one seemed inclined to strike. + NEA has forbidden the press to speak to the delegates on the floor -- first I've ever heard of this policy. I wonder if it suddenly sprang to life after I suggested that delegates could visit me in the press section. In any event, I will make it a special point to show up early, prior to the opening of each meeting, if you care to come over and introduce yourself. I will arrange a mutually agreeable time to meet with anyone who wishes to have a more extensive conversation. + A new business item that would have had the Representative Assembly, rather than the Board of Directors, approve the state merger guidelines, went down to defeat. The pro-merger forces within NEA seem committed to an incremental approach, and there was visible distress that the subject was even being discussed on the floor. The delegates will vote (secret ballot) on Monday on the changes to the by-laws that will be required to implement the guidelines. The amendments, which require only a majority vote, are expected to pass easily. + Much more to tell, but we'll stick to RA events for these flashes and cover more detailed information in the coming weeks. # # # The Education Intelligence Agency conducts public education research, analysis and investigations. Director: Mike Antonucci. Ph: 916-422-4373. Fax: 916-392-1482. E-Mail: EducIntel@aol.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #142 (1/3) (fwd) Date: 03 Jul 1999 22:54:31 PST On Jul 03, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 4, 1999 #142 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html READ THE DECLARATION Today's the day, folks. Put the fireworks away. Close up the picnic basket. Sit the kiddies down around you. Then, reach for that text we call the "Declaration of Independence." At a mere 1,300+ words, it will not take very long to read. And, if you don't have a copy handy, go over to the Constitution.org page and rip off one. http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm Because, it's about time we had a little discussion about freedom -- from the point of view of the Founding Fathers. And the Declaration of Independence is a very good starting point. Besides, many of the complaints the Founders had with the King are again very pertinent. Thomas Jefferson set the tone for us again today: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." That's where we are now: suffering the loss of our personal freedom under that ever reaching hand of the central government. Everything in our lives from womb to tomb is controlled by the federal government. Like indentured serfs or share croppers, government takes half of everything we make throughout our life and, at death, takes half of what we have managed to accumulate after taxes. Worse yet, federal agents constantly violate the Fourth Amendment by spying on the American people a la Big Brother. For instance, federal laws requiring banks to report any "suspicious transactions" to a massive IRS computer require that banks report deposits or withdrawals of more than $10,000. Or, federal officers just "take" personal possessions with no real reason other than they have the guns. Last year, the Justice Department confiscated 42,454 cars, boats, houses, and other belongings -- valued at over $604 million -- from Americans who were never convicted of any crime. To start the discussion, here are a few similarities between the Colonists and the King and today's American citizen and the overbearing central government. "He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." "He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them." And so it is today, because the federal government has set one size fits all laws, rules and regulations. State and local governments are relegated to little more than setting speed limits and taxing. They need federal permission for anything important. The U.S. General Accounting Office reported that between April 1, 1996 and March 31, 1999, the federal government issued more than 12,925 new regulatory rules. Of these, 188 were listed as 'major rules.' A major rule is defined as a new regulation estimated to cost Americans more than $100 million each year. That's what they call "reinventing government" today. Few of us know anything about any of these "rules," but we can end up in prison for not obeying them. Worse, in 1995 there were already over 200 thick books of rules and regulations we are all expected to obey. "He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." And so it is today. The federal government is the largest employer in the United States, and many of these bureaucrats have nearly unlimited power over the people. Worse, many in the bureaucracy actually believe their positions are necessary. "He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature." The Constitution does not give the federal government plenary authority within the States. Law enforcement is a State matter. Yet, there is a standing army of over 70,000 well armed federal agents wandering the country who are accountable to no one. They kill people -- Ruby Ridge and Waco are well known examples -- with impunity. All should be disarmed. Because, there is no reason they cannot call the sheriff or local police for protection like everyone else. One function for the gunslingers of the federal government would be to protect our borders. Yet, the government is a complete failure at that task. We are inundated with illegal aliens -- and tons of illegal drugs. The Declaration of Independence is said to be the promise. The Constitution is the implementation. Both are instructions from the people to government. Both must be enforced by the people. We are the people. But, we have not been supervising our public servants. And, if we do not put our collective foot down really quick, the tables will turn and we will soon become their servants. Some bureaucrats already act like the American people are their servants. That is why the Declaration of Independence is again starting to become very applicable. EPA FEARS AIRPORTS Back in April, the environmental whackos blew a few tons of hot air and CO2 at another of their air pollution meetings. And, of course, they identified a new source of atmospheric pollution. As Reuters reported: The meteorologists attending a world summit on climate change in the Costa Rican capital San Jose called on the industrial powers to recognize that airplanes along with industry were contributing to global warming. "Airplanes emit gasses that change the atmosphere and exacerbate the greenhouse effect, such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, sulfates and soot," said Ram Sundararam, secretary of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Sundararam then urged airplane manufacturers to start taking into account the damage to the environment caused by aircraft. Well folks, if you believe in the global warming myth, they've got a good point there. And here in the United States, it is a very interesting point, too. Air transportation is one of the areas in which EPA fears to tread. Yet, many airports are among the top [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #142 (2/3) (fwd) Date: 03 Jul 1999 22:55:10 PST On Jul 03, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] 10 industrial air pollution sources in their cities. Nationwide, aircraft contribute only about 1 percent of smog-forming gases. Still, while pollution from other sources is stabilizing or decreasing, the pollution from airports continues to grow. In fact, due to the growth in air travel and the lack of controls on airport pollution, airports are probably America's largest pollution growth segment. For instance, just one 747 arriving and departing from the average airport produces as much smog as a car driven over 5,600 miles, and as much polluting nitrogen oxides as a car driven nearly 26,500 miles. Locally, the Kentucky airport hosts about 1,200 aircraft daily, and many of those are large cargo planes -- which are allowed to use the oldest, noisiest and dirtiest engines available. Aircraft, of course, do not use catalytic converters. And, they certainly do not get tail-pipe tests. Yet, they are fuel driven vehicles. Politically speaking, though, aircraft are the "third rail" of environmentalism. That's because the Lords and Ladies of Capitol Hill are very frequent flyers and will not allow themselves to be inconvenienced. Then, there's also a seldom spoken fact about campaign contributions and lobbyist provided perks. . . . So, figure what 1,000+ aircraft per day can do for local air quality. Then, ask your friendly EPA air control regulator why the hell they are messing with the working folks' little automobiles when the airport gets to pump out ten to one-hundred thousand pounds of pollution a day. One may gain a little insight into the problem by the string of gratuitous expletives used in the reply. Anyway, the green-on-the-outside and red-on-the- inside environmental groups report that airplanes account for up to 4% of two global warming gases: carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Their analysts predict that, within 50 years, airplanes will account for as much as 10% of all such pollution. Many of us continue to tell them that if half of us would plant just one tree once a year all that would go away. But, never mind. According to the bureaucrats at EPA, airports create smog, contaminate waterways and contribute to global warming. They also generate significant amounts of noise pollution. However, there is not a damn thing EPA can do about it, so they place the burden on personal vehicles. One thing Craig Brown did not mention last week in his piece about the groups fighting personal vehicle tail-pipe testing in Northern Kentucky was that their local airport was allowed to expand again. A very expensive environmental impact study was completed in preparation for the airport expansion, and some very interesting details were gleaned. The area has not been out of what EPA calls "attainment" for over a decade. So, EPA allowed the airport to expand and add yet another few hundred flights daily. But, just to be sure the people of Northern Kentucky shall not violate air quality, some EPA honcho sitting in Atlanta, GA unilaterally demanded that their personal vehicles be tested. As the bureaucratic story goes, some EPA air testing center about 60 miles (in Ohio) north of the closest point in Northern Kentucky was out of "attainment" a couple times years ago. And, the airport is expanding. So, from EPA's point of view, someone must pay. Trucks, trains, buses and aircraft are protected. Transient traffic through the area cannot be regulated. That leaves only the people who live there to control. We have shown time after time that this is an unconstitutional -- and hence, illegal -- act. But, that means nothing to members of government. Therefore, it is time to force them to touch that third rail and watch 'em squirm. YAHOO FREEZES OUT WEB PUBLISHERS First Congress tries to get its regulatory foot in the door by censoring us "for the protection of the children" who don't belong in the Internet unsupervised, anyway. Then, goofy Al Gore has unelected bureaucrats at FCC tax us in a round-about way. Lately, a group of governors and mayors want to tax us, saying they are missing about $149-million in tax revenue -- which, in effect, amounts to peanuts when divided by 50 states and over 100 municipalities. Now comes the big-boy on the web saying it owns all intellectual data users place on web sites on their computers. Such is the state of freedom here in the land of the free. Apparently, we are little more than serf- citizen profit centers for those with deep pockets. They are starting to act like they own us and everything we have or produce. The latest assault on common sense comes from the legal-eagles at Yahoo, which just acquired the GeoCities system. On June 25, Yahoo presented web page publishers on GeoCities with some "new terms." Under those new terms of service, web page publishers must give Yahoo a "royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content." Which means, they can sell any of your intellectual property to anyone at any time and there is nothing you can do about it. Yahoo says they own the work of all web site publishers on their system. So, if and when they market it, they keep all profits. Worse yet, according to reports by Declan McCullagh at Wired News and others, Yahoo froze out all web page publishers on the GeoCities system until they agree to the new terms. Which means, web page publishers cannot even remove their pages from the offending system. "Yahoo, which launched its Yahoo-GeoCities site [last] Monday, says it owns all Web pages, articles, and images on member sites and has 'irrevocable' rights to them for all time," McCullagh reports. "This presents a problem for those GeoCities members who have painstakingly assembled large sites with dozens, even hundreds, of pages of valuable material." Yeah, no doubt! It's what is called a damn, dirty trick, too. At the very least, Yahoo could have given people a warning so they could remove whatever information and data they did not wish to give to Yahoo. Apparently, Yahoo is not the only corporation pulling that type of stuff, either. Tripod also has the same deal for web page publishers using its system. Tripod claims to have "a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive, worldwide, unrestricted license to use, copy, modify, transmit, distribute, and publicly perform or display the submitted Member Web Page." As Sandeep Junnarkar reported June 30 at CNET News.com: "Previous GeoCities users are flocking to the "Boycottyahoo" site, hoping the pressure will persuade Yahoo to withdraw or change the terms of service that users must agree to before they can edit or update their Yahoo- GeoCities Web pages." The boycott site can be found at: http://www.sitepowerup.com/boycottyahoo/boycottyahoo.htm The "Boycottyahoo" site urges users to stop using Yahoo to show the company that there is "a large, diverse Internet outside" the Yahoo network, which includes Broadcast.com. "Don't buy products from merchants at 'shopping.Yahoo.com,' and let them know why," one of the message on the site reads. It appears that the boycott may be working, too. As of this writing, Yahoo began backing down from that ridiculous stunt. Tripod is making noises about softening its position, too. And, other servers are now advertising that they do not do that. "This is huge folks," writes Jim Townsend (aka: "Vor the Admin"). "By simply rocking Yahoo's boat a little we've helped start a chain of events which will, eventually, change the nature of the ToS of every significant free web space provider on the net." He then goes on to propose the adoption of a "Homesteader's Bill of Rights" to be presented to providers. There will be no freedom on the Internet unless we all work to enforce it. Therefore, we must be relentless and fight any government or group attempting to rein us in. And, if that includes a few providers . . . well, so be it. After all, we made them and we can destroy them. Meanwhile, perhaps web page publishers will [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #142 (3/3) (fwd) Date: 03 Jul 1999 22:55:49 PST On Jul 03, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] remember to add that little copyright mark and say that ALL rights are reserved -- before a server "changes the rules." SUPREME COURT QUOTES (compiled) The text and the structure of the Constitution protect various rights and principles. Many of these, such as the right to trial by jury and the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, derive from the common law. The common-law lineage of these rights does not mean they are defeasible by statute or remain mere common-law rights, however. They are, rather, constitutional rights, and form the fundamental law of the land. (1) By the same token, the contours of sovereign immunity [of the States] are determined by the founders' understanding, not by the principles or limitations derived from natural law. (1) The Constitution, after all, treats the powers of the States differently from the powers of the Federal Government. As we explained in Hall: "In view of the Tenth Amendment's reminder that powers not delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or to the people, the existence of express limitations on state sovereignty may equally imply that caution should be exercised before concluding that unstated limitations on state power were intended by the Framers." (1) The Federal Government, by contrast, "can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication." Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, (1816); see also City of Boerne v. Flores, (1997); United States v. Lopez, (1995). (1) We believe, however, that the founders' silence is best explained by the simple fact that no one, not even the Constitution's most ardent opponents, suggested the document might strip the States of the immunity.(1) Our historical analysis is supported by early congressional practice, which provides "contemporaneous and weighty evidence of the Constitution's meaning." Printz. (1) By "splitting the atom of sovereignty," the founders established "two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it." Saenz v. Roe, (1999), quoting U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, (1995) (concurring opinion). "The Constitution thus contemplates that a State's government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens." Printz. When the Federal Government asserts authority over a State's most fundamental political processes, it strikes at the heart of the political accountability so essential to our liberty and republican form of government. (1) States are not mere political subdivisions of the United States. State governments are neither regional offices nor administrative agencies of the Federal Government. The positions occupied by state officials appear nowhere on the Federal Government's most detailed organizational chart. The Constitution instead 'leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,' (The Federalist No. 39), reserved explicitly to the States by the Tenth Amendment. (2) Whatever the outer limits of that sovereignty may be, one thing is clear: The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a Federal regulatory program. (2) Congress has vast power but not all power. When Congress legislates in matters affecting the States, it may not treat these sovereign entities as mere prefectures or corporations. Congress must accord States the esteem due to them as joint participants in a federal system, one beginning with the premise of sovereignty in both the central Government and the separate States. Congress has ample means to ensure compliance with valid federal laws, but it must respect the sovereignty of the States. (1) Although the Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the people, it does not follow that the National Government becomes the ultimate, preferred mechanism for expressing the people's will. The States exist as a refutation of that concept. In choosing to ordain and establish the Constitution, the people insisted upon a federal structure for the very purpose of rejecting the idea that the will of the people in all instances is expressed by the central power, the one most remote from their control. (1) We have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts. ... The allocation of power contained in the Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce directly; it does not authorize Congress to regulate state governments' regulation of interstate commerce. (2) But whether or not a particularly strong federal interest enables federal regulation, no Member of the Court has ever suggested that such a federal interest would enable Congress to command a state government to enact state regulations. No matter how powerful the federal interest involved, the Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate. (2) Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the "consent" of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached-upon Branch approves the encroachment. The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the "consent" of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States. (2) Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear "formalistic" in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day. (3) We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. (3) The Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs. We warned that this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations, "The Federal Government," we held, "may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." (3) Footnotes: 1.) Alden et al. v. Maine No. 98-436. June 23, 1999 http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-436.ZS.html 2.) New York vs. U.S. et al 488 U.S. 1041 (1992) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-543.ZS.html 3.) Printz, v. U.S. (95-1478, 1997) http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/95-1478.html ~ End ~ Happy Independence Day [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: What good is a gun? (1/3) (fwd) Date: 03 Jul 1999 23:43:50 PST On Jul 03, Eugene Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi Folks, Happy Fourth of July! WHAT GOOD CAN A HANDGUN DO AGAINST AN ARMY.....? By Mike Vanderboegh 5 December 1998 A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed: "If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)" If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, once told me: "If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic." Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply- stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question that strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question. Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical. A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly- operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be airdropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked), and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good. The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a perhaps half-hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle. Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a- box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.) Pretty soon you've got the best-armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so- called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.) They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all. Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas-present fashion out in the middle of the desert. I forget the name of the Senator who observed, "You know, a million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about serious money." Consider that there are at least as many firearms-- handguns, rifles and shotguns-- as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million- - that's a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined. Consider also that those deer hunters are not only armed, but they own items of military utility-- everything from camouflage clothing to infrared "game finders", Global Positioning System devices and night vision scopes. Consider also that quite a few of these hunters are military veterans. Just as moving around in the woods and stalking game are second nature, military operations are no mystery to them, especially those who were on the receiving end of guerrilla war in Southeast Asia. Indeed, such men, aging though they may be, may be more psychologically prepared for the exigencies of civil war (for this is what we are talking about) than their younger active-duty brother- soldiers whose only military experience involved neatly defined enemies and fronts in the Grand Campaign against Saddam. Not since 1861-1865 has the American military attempted to wage a war athwart its own logistical tail (nor indeed has it ever had to use modern conventional munitions on the Main Streets of its own hometowns and through its' relatives backyards, nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their "rebellious" neighbors, but that touches on the political aspect of the question). But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, "A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you're talking serious firepower." No [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [2ndamendmentnews] Anti Gun Politicians Attack Entire Bill of Rights (1/2) (fwd) Date: 04 Jul 1999 10:41:04 PST On Jul 04, Weldon Clark wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Anti Gun Politicians Attack Entire Bill of Rights Throw a monkey wrench into the anti gun politician's calculations. The anti gun politicians even want electronic surveillance. Point out to your Congressmen you want ALL your rights. Keep up the pressure. Defeat the anti gun provisions to the Juvenal Justice Bill. You are advised to call your congressperson at the following toll-free numbers. US Capitol Switchboard 1-888-449-3511 1-800-449-3511 For e-mail addresses of Congressman & Senators contact www.2ndamendment.net For legislative updates contact www.nealknox.com and go to "Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line" ***************************** The Hill's Hidden Crime Agenda by Dave Kopel Dave Kopel is an adjunct professor at New York University Law School and an associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute. As the House is poised to vote on a major crime bill, the media can be expected once again to focus only on the bill's gun control provisions. Unfortunately, by ignoring the other provisions, a wide variety of dangerous measures may sneak past public scrutiny. That is just what happened with the recently passed Senate "juvenile crime bill," S. 254. The bill is laden with provisions to expand forfeiture, increase wiretapping without warrant, promote drug testing and immunize police who commit violent crimes from criminal punishment. When senators are presented with a 648-page-long bill, few bother to read it. Thus, many senators who voted for S. 254 may have been unaware that the bill contains a sweeping new forfeiture provision that allows U.S. attorneys to base forfeiture on violations of state law even misdemeanors. Currently, there is a special federal forfeiture statute that applies to the transfer of military information to a foreign government and any federal crime in which a person is physically harmed, such as rape or assault. It states that if a convicted criminal makes money from selling their story of the crime, any profits from the sale may be forfeited. S. 254 significantly expands that statute to include any felony, including state felonies, and any state misdemeanor involving physical harm. Instead of just applying to profits from the sale of a criminal's story, the statute as revised by S. 254 would allow forfeiture of any enhanced value, in any property owned by the criminal, that resulted from the crime. But the measure ignores the constitutional fact that forfeitures for state law violations ought to be determined by state legislatures and carried out by state and local prosecutors, not by the federal government. Also buried deep within S. 254 is language that for the first time allows the police to intercept the content of electronic communications -- the contents of pager messages -- without a warrant. Those messages can reveal information about a person's travel schedule, private life and current location. The bill's "cloned pager" language is the latest expansion of wiretap authority to be buried in a large, complex bill where the public, which is generally skeptical about wiretapping, is not likely to notice. "Public safety" seems to demand that the public be protected from any opportunity to debate whether the federal government needs more power to peek in on the public without a search warrant. Another section of S. 254 includes provisions to encourage suspicionless drug testing for students -- even though Littleton murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, whose rampage was the pretext for rushing the legislation through Congress, were both "drug free" according to their autopsies. Although they ignored the wiretap and drug testing provisions of S. 254, the media did glance at the bill's body armor provisions, but the media didn't report the provision's details, which turn a reasonable concept into a very unreasonable law. S. 254 requires at least a two-sentencing-level increase for any crime in which the defendant uses body armor. Such an increase can add as much as 36 months to a defendant's sentence. There is no requirement that the defendant's "use" be in conjunction with a violent crime or for any type of offensive purpose. The enhancement would apply to a liquor store owner who cheats on his taxes while wearing body armor for protection from robbers. Reflecting a view of law enforcement that would have horrified the framers of the Constitution, the bill grants a special exemption from the body armor sentencing enhancement. The exemption applies only to law enforcement officers who while "acting under color of the authority" of law enforcement, "violate the civil rights of a person." In other words, police officers who wear body armor while robbing drug dealers, prostitutes and gambling operations are immune from the sentencing enhancement. So are police officers who rape, rob or murder while on the job. So if the police arrest a gun store owner for improper paperwork and the owner is wearing body armor at the time of his arrest, he may spend an additional three years in [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [2ndamendmentnews] Anti Gun Politicians Attack Entire Bill of Rights (2/2) (fwd) Date: 04 Jul 1999 10:42:35 PST On Jul 04, Weldon Clark wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] prison. But if the arresting officers, who are also wearing body armor, rape the arrestee with a toilet plunger, they are specifically exempt from additional punishment. If representatives don't even know what is in a bill they're voting for, they are not really representatives. If Congress is serious about "law and order," it ought to take the time to read the laws it is considering before calling a final vote. ******************************** Hastert Wants A Deal by Neal Knox July 3 update -- Happy Independence Day everybody. Speaker Hastert and Trent Lott said a week or so ago that they would appoint conferees on the Juvenile Justice bills before the July 4 recess. They didn't. The Speaker now says it will be after the recess, and is pushing for a compromise on the gun show bill, and acceptance of the rest of the gun package the House and Senate have passed. A Judiciary Committee member told me yesterday that no conferees may ever be appointed. Sen. Bob Smith, who is an announced candidate for President but isn't on the public radar screen, may have prevented Lott from appointing Senate conferees for he's put a "hold" on the appointment. A "hold" is a Senatorial courtesy that leaders may honor for quite a while, but not forever -- unless they agree with what the "Hold-er" is trying to do. Speaker Hastert says its critical to Republicans to "pass some common-sense gun legislation" or "our friends on the other side of the aisle are going to shoot it at us a bullet at a time." Some political building of the gun issue occurred this week when leading anti-gunners were wringing their hands over the failure to reach an agreement before the recess. I don't think anyone, including the agitators, thought there would be any kind of agreement before this week-long recess. Mr. Hastert told the Washington Post that since pro-gun Democrats and Republicans want 24 hours as the maximum for an "instant check" at gun shows and the anti-gunners want up to 72 hours, "the solution is obvious.... There's a 48- hour difference." As the speaker knows, the difference is much greater than that, for the Senate-passed bill requires up to three business days, which could mean a week -- long after the show vendors had packed up their gear and gone home. Other sticking points are the Senate bill's licensing and paperwork required of show operators, including whether a vendor includes an individual with a single gun brought into a show to trade. And still, what constitutes a gun show? Most of Congress and NRA have agreed to background checks at gun shows, so that's not the issue. I still think there will be an agreement on all the gun provisions except the critical details of the gun show background check. However, in all the arguing over gun provisions, most have not noticed the extensive broadening of Federal powers in the underlying Juvenile Justice bill. As prominent scholar Dave Kopel noted in an article posted on the Web a few days ago, "The bill is laden with provisions to expand forfeiture, increase wiretapping without warrant, promote drug testing and immunize police who commit violent crimes from criminal punishment." Where are the Liberals now that we need them? --------------------- As I said after election night, the question in California isn't whether there will be new gun laws but how many. Gov. Gray Davis hasn't yet said whether he will sign the one handgun per month bill that passed the House Thursday. He will. In New Jersey, several usually pro-gun Senators voted for a bill mandating that only "smart handguns" can be sold in the state -- once they are available. The original bill required only "smart guns" after five years, whether or not any existed. Now if a "feasible smart gun" is developed, only that one type can be sold in the state. **************************** The 2ndAmendmentNews Team The way to protect your own rights is to protect the rights of others. Our right to own and use firearms is under attack. This list was created in a hurry due to the emergency presented by anti-gun politicians and the media dancing in the blood of those who died in the recent massacre. We receive e-mail addresses from various sources that represent the recipients as receptive to our timely, low-to- moderate volume gun-rights-related alerts (generally no more than weekly, never more than daily, depending on legislative and other circumstances). Occasionally recipients turn out to be not interested, and we remove them immediately with our sincere apology for any inconvenience. If you wish to be removed send an e mail to 2ndamendmentnews- owner@onelist.com and include "unsubscribe". If you know anyone who would appreciate these alerts, please let us know and we'll enroll them on a trial basis. Also, feel free to forward our alerts. If you've received this as a forward and wish to subscribe please send a reply to me at wh.clark@cwix.com or behanna@fast.net Cordially Yours, The 2ndAmendmentNews Team 2ndAmendmentNews is published by volunteer activists who support the full original individual rights intent of the 2nd Amendment and oppose any appeasement on gun rights. The moderators include Chris Behanna, Weldon Clark (an NRA director), Russ Howard (past NRA director) and Steve Cicero. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776. --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- What do fashion and football have in common? http://www.onelist.com They both have communities at ONElist. Find yours today! [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: What good is a gun? (1/3) (fwd) Date: 04 Jul 1999 12:07:13 -0700 At 11:43 PM 7/3/1999 PST, you wrote: >On Jul 03, Eugene Gross wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >Hi Folks, > >Happy Fourth of July! > > >WHAT GOOD CAN A HANDGUN DO AGAINST AN ARMY.....? >By Mike Vanderboegh >5 December 1998 Fascinating article, but I only received part 1 of 3. Could you please re-send parts 2 & 3? Thanks. BTW: the author wrote: >I forget the name of the Senator who observed, "You know, a million here >and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about serious >money." If you're still in correspondence with him, you might mention that this quote is normally attributed to Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson. Actually, Dirsken said "billion", not "million", but who wants to quibble over a mere three orders of magnitude? :-) Happy Fourth. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: What good is a gun? (3/4) (fwd) Date: 04 Jul 1999 13:57:32 PST On Jul 03, Eugene Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] gravity and rush out all at once, inundating the two grasshoppers and crushing them. Hopper turns to his remaining fellow grasshoppers and shrieks, "That's why!" I'm paraphrasing from memory here, for I've only seen the movie once. But Hopper then explains, "Don't you remember the upstart ant on that island? They outnumber us a hundred to one. How long do you think we'll last if they ever figure that out?" "If the ants are not frightened of us," Hopper tells them, "our game is finished. We're finished." Of course it comes as no surprise that in the end the ants figure that out. Would that liberty-loving Americans were as smart as animated ants. Courage to stand against tyranny, fortunately, is not only found on videotape. Courage flowers from the heart, from the twin roots of deeply held principle and faith in God. There are American heroes living today who have not yet performed the deeds of principled courage that future history books will record. They have not yet had to stand in the gap, to plug it with their own fragile bodies and lives against the evil that portends. Not yet have they been required to pledge "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor." Yet they will have to. I believe with all my heart the lesson that history teaches: That each and every generation of Americans is given, along with the liberty and opportunity that is their heritage, the duty to defend America against the tyrannies of their day. Our father's father's fathers fought this same fight. Our mother's mother's mothers fought it as well. From the Revolution through the world wars, from the Cold War through to the Gulf, they fought to secure their liberty in conflicts great and small, within and without. They stood faithful to the oath that our Founders gave us: To bear true faith and allegiance-- not to a man; not to the land; not to a political party, but to an idea. The idea is liberty, as codified in the Constitution of the United States. We swear, as did they, an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And throughout the years they paid in blood and treasure the terrible price of that oath. That was their day. This is ours. The clouds we can see on the horizon may be a simple rain or a vast hurricane, but there is a storm coming. Make no mistake. Lincoln said that this nation cannot long exist half slave and half free. I say, if I may humbly paraphrase, that this nation cannot long exist one-third slave, one-third uncommitted, and one-third free. The slavery today is of the mind and soul not the body, but it is slavery without a doubt that the Clintons and their toadies are pushing. It is slavery to worship our nominally elected representatives as our rulers instead of requiring their trustworthiness as our servants. It is slavery of the mind and soul that demands that God-given rights that our Forefathers secured with their blood and sacrifice be traded for the false security of a nanny-state which will tend to our "legitimate needs" as they are perceived by that government. It is slavery of a more traditional sort that extorts half of our incomes to pay, like slaves of old, for the privilege of serving and supporting our master's regime. It is slavery to worship humanism as religion and slavery to deny life and liberty to unborn Americans. As people of faith in God, whatever our denomination, we are in bondage to a plantation system that steals our money; seizes our property; denies our ancient liberties; denies even our very history, supplanting it with sanitized and politicized "correctness"; denies our children a real public education; denies them even the mention of God in school; denies, in fact, the very existence of God. So finally we are faced with, we must return to, the moral component of the question: "What good can a handgun do against an army?" The answer is "Nothing," or "Everything." The outcome depends upon the mind and heart and soul of the man or woman who holds it. One may also ask, "What good can a sling in the hands of a boy do against a marauding giant?" If your cause is just and righteous much can be done, but only if you are willing to risk the consequences of failure and to bear the burdens of eternal vigilance. A new friend of mine gave me a plaque the other day. Upon it are written these words by Winston Churchill, a man who knew much about fighting tyranny: "Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." The Spartans at Thermopylae knew this. The fighting Jews of Masada knew this, when every man, woman and child died rather than submit to Roman tyranny. The Texans who died at the Alamo knew this. The frozen patriots of Valley Forge knew this. The "expendable men" of Bataan and Corregidor knew this. If there is one lesson of Hitlerism and the Holocaust, it is that free men, if they wish to remain free, must resist would-be tyrants at the first opportunity and at every opportunity. Remember that whether they the come as conquerors or elected officials, the men who secretly wish to be your murderers must first convince you that you must accept them as your masters. Free men and women must not wait until they are "selected", divided and herded into Warsaw Ghettos, there to finally fight desperately, almost without weapons, and die outnumbered. The tyrant must be met at the door when he appears. At your door, or mine, wherever he shows his bloody appetite. He must be met by the pistol which can defeat an army. He must be met at every door, for in truth we outnumber him and his henchmen. It matters not whether they call themselves Communists or Nazis or something else. It matters not what flag they fly, nor what uniform they wear. It matters not what excuses they give for stealing your liberty, your property or your life. "By their works ye shall know them." The time is late. Those who once had trouble reading the hour on their watches have no trouble seeing by the glare of the fire at Waco. Few of us realized at the time that the Constitution was burning right along with the Davidians. Now we know better. We have had the advantage of that horrible illumination for more than five years now-- five years in which the rule of law and the battered old parchment of our beloved Constitution have been smashed, shredded and besmirched by the Clintonistas. In this process they have been aided and abetted by the cowardly incompetence of the "opposition" Republican leadership, a fact made crystal clear by the Waco hearings. They have forgotten Daniel Webster's warning: "Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands-- what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world." Yet being able to see what has happened has not helped us reverse, or even slow, the process. The sad fact is that we may have to resign ourselves to the prospect of having to maintain our principles and our liberty in the face of becoming a disenfranchised minority within our own country. The middle third of the populace, it seems, will continue to waffle in favor of the enemies of the Constitution until their comfort level with the economy is endangered. They've got theirs, Jack. The Republicans, who we thought could represent our interests and protect the Constitution and the rule of law, have been demonstrated to be political eunuchs. Alan Keyes was dead right when he characterized the last election as one between "the lawless Democrats and the gutless Republicans." The spectacular political failures of our current leaders are unrivaled in our history unless you recall the unprincipled jockeying for position and tragi-comedy of misunderstanding and miscommunication which lead to our first Civil War. And make no mistake, it is civil war which may be the most horrible corollary of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to the Clintonistas and their destruction of the rule of law. Because such people have no cause for which they are willing to die (all morality being relativistic to them, and all principles compromisable), they cannot fathom the motives or behavior of people who believe that there are some principles worth fighting and dying for. Out of such failures [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: What good is a gun? (4/4) (fwd) Date: 04 Jul 1999 13:58:14 PST On Jul 03, Eugene Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] of understanding come wars. Particularly because although such elitists would not risk their own necks in a fight, they have no compunction about ordering others in their pay to fight for them. It is not the deaths of others, but their own deaths, that they fear. As a Christian, I cannot fear my own death, but rather I am commanded by my God to live in such a way as to make my death a homecoming. That this makes me incomprehensible and threatening to those who wish to be my masters is something I can do little about. I would suggest to them that they not poke their godless, tyrannical noses down my alley. As the coiled rattlesnake flag of the Revolution bluntly stated: "Don't Tread on Me!" Or, as our state motto here in Alabama says: "We Dare Defend Our Rights." But can a handgun defeat an army? Yes. It remains to be seen whether the struggle of our generation against the tyrants of our day in the first decade of the 21st Century will bring a restoration of liberty and the rule of law or a dark and bloody descent into chaos and slavery. If it is to be the former, I will meet you at the new Yorktown. If it is to be the latter, I will meet you at Masada. But I will not be a slave. And I know that whether we succeed or fail, if we should fall along the way, our graves will one day be visited by other free Americans, thanking us that we did not forget that, with help of Almighty God, in the hands of a free man a handgun CAN defeat a tyrant's army. Mike Vanderboegh P.O. Box 926 Pinson, AL 35126. Mo10Cav@aol.com Copyright 1998. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: What good is a gun? (1/4) (fwd) Date: 04 Jul 1999 13:56:09 PST Ok, 2nd try..... On Jul 03, Eugene Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi Folks, Happy Fourth of July! WHAT GOOD CAN A HANDGUN DO AGAINST AN ARMY.....? By Mike Vanderboegh 5 December 1998 A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed: "If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)" If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, once told me: "If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic." Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply- stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question that strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question. Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical. A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly- operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be airdropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked), and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good. The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a perhaps half-hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle. Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a- box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.) Pretty soon you've got the best-armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so- called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.) They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all. Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas-present fashion out in the middle of the desert. I forget the name of the Senator who observed, "You know, a million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about serious money." Consider that there are at least as many firearms-- handguns, rifles and shotguns-- as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million- - that's a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined. Consider also that those deer hunters are not only armed, but they own items of military utility-- everything from camouflage clothing to infrared "game finders", Global Positioning System devices and night vision scopes. Consider also that quite a few of these hunters are military veterans. Just as moving around in the woods and stalking game are second nature, military operations are no mystery to them, especially those who were on the receiving end of guerrilla war in Southeast Asia. Indeed, such men, aging though they may be, may be more psychologically prepared for the exigencies of civil war (for this is what we are talking about) than their younger active-duty brother- soldiers whose only military experience involved neatly defined enemies and fronts in the Grand Campaign against Saddam. Not since 1861-1865 has the American military attempted to wage a war athwart its own logistical tail (nor indeed has it ever had to use modern conventional munitions on the Main Streets of its own hometowns and through its' relatives backyards, nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their "rebellious" neighbors, but that touches on the political aspect of the question). But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, "A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you're talking serious firepower." No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry are disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, "a people numerous and armed." The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until they do, American gun owners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: July 4th Commentary: Who Shall Protect the People? (3/3) (fwd) Date: 04 Jul 1999 15:55:52 PST On Jul 04, Bill Utterback wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] property ownership should not be the sole basis for voting rights. Anyone who served in the militia deserved the vote: "Let every man who fights or pays, exercise his just and equal right in their election." (Letter to Samuel Kercheval. July 12, 1816.) Indeed, as Chilton Williamson detailed in his 1960 book American Suffrage from Property to Democracy 1760-1860, arguments like Jefferson's were used throughout the United States to broaden suffrage; property-owner or not, anyone who bore the burden of militia service ought to belong to the polity. And what of those excluded from the polity? Jefferson recognized that if the slaves were ever armed, then slavery would end. As he wrote to Edward Coles in 1814: "Yet the hour of emancipation is advancing, in the march of time. It will come; and whether brought on by the generous energy of our own minds; or by the bloody process of St Domingo, excited and conducted by the power of our present enemy [England], if once stationed permanently within our Country, and offering asylum and arms to the oppressed, is a leaf which our history not yet turned over." Modern gun prohibition advocates sometimes assert that while guns might have been alright in Jefferson's time, there is too much gun misuse today for people to be allowed to have weapons. The most sophisticated version of this theory is developed by Indiana University law professor David Williams in articles in the Yale, Cornell, and New York University law reviews. Since Americans today are no longer virtuous and united, they are no longer "the people" envisioned by the Second Amendment, Williams writes; accordingly, the Second Amendment right to arms has disappeared. Jefferson would not have agreed, for he well familiar with frequent misuse of guns. Writing to his grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph, he emphasized the necessity "of never entering into dispute or argument with another. I never saw an instance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument. I have seen many, on their getting warm, becoming rude, & shooting one another." If the widespread presence of guns in Jefferson's Virginia led to needless deaths over petty arguments (just as it would on the 19th century American frontier, or in the 20th century inner city), how could Jefferson still champion a right to arms? Because he recognized that a disarmed people would not, in the long run, remain an independent, responsible, and free people. The price of trying to save fools from their folly would be the liberty of all. Back in June 1776, three weeks before the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's draft constitution for Virginia set forth what would have been the first constitutional proposal in human history to provide for a right to arms. (The 1689 English Bill of Rights included an arms right, but that measure was only a statute.) Jefferson's proposal "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements" was not adopted that year by Virginia. The Jeffersonian intellectual revolution, however, was only beginning. When writing in 1824 to the great English Whig John Cartwright, Jefferson could observe: "The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." A few days before his death on July 4, 1826 -- the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence -- Jefferson could see that the revolution he had helped to spark was burning throughout the world: "All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are the grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them." This Fourth of July, take some time out from the baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet, and ponder what the holiday really commemorates: The American Passover, the beginning of a long national journey toward freedom, founded on the truth that God created man to be free. What will you do to nurture the legacy of freedom and responsibility bequeathed to you by the great Thomas Jefferson? All items quoted in this article can be found in The Portable Thomas Jefferson (Viking, 1975). Dave Kopel is Research Director of the Independence Institute, http://i2i.org [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: July 4th Commentary: Who Shall Protect the People? (2/3) (fwd) Date: 04 Jul 1999 15:56:39 PST On Jul 04, Bill Utterback wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >free people. The price of trying to save fools from their folly >would be the liberty of all. *** Think on these things. *** for Liberty, *** Bill Utterback In honor of Independence Day, below is an essay about Thomas Jefferson that= will appear in the July, 1999, issue of Chronicles magazine. Have a glorious Fourth of July! Best wishes, Independence Institute Thomas Jefferson Forever By Dave Kopel The greatest writer of the early American republic, and the greatest exponent of natural rights and the dangers of government power was Thomas Jefferson. It is no wonder then, that Jefferson has been so aggressively vilified by the partisans of political correctness. Jefferson was likewise disdained by many in the 19th and early 20th century who, quite correctly, saw his ideas as an obstacle to the large national regime they wished to build. How sad it is to that the current occupant of the White House bears the middle name "Jefferson" -- even though the real Jefferson taught his nephew Peter Carr: "Nothing is so mistaken as the supposition that a person is to extricate himself from a difficulty, by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming an untruth, by an injustice. It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth." Thomas Jefferson would not be surprised at the degenerate character of the childish man who currently disgraces the Jefferson name. For "There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual, he tells lies without attending to it. This falsehood of tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions." But this column is about another Jeffersonian virtue which William Jefferson Clinton has attempted to destroy: the virtue of arms, and all that it entails about the relationship between the people and their government. In the same 1785 letter to nephew Peter Carr (who was also Jefferson's ward), Jefferson advised the fifteen-year-old about building character through the shooting sports: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore by the constant companion of your walks." Jefferson's views on the importance of arms for youth remained strong two decades later, as expressed in his 1818 Report of the Commissioners of the University of Virginia: "the manual exercise, military maneuvers, and tactics generally, should be the frequent exercise of the students, in their hours of recreation." It might not have surprised Jefferson to learn that a people who never learned to hunt while growing up, and whose main connection with sports was watching them as passive spectators through a passive medium (television), might not develop the boldness and independence of mind to want real independence and responsibility in their own lives. Instead, they would prefer the comfortable servitude of a nanny state run by people like the Clintons. Of course the benefits of early training in arms extended to more than good character. As Jefferson pointed out to Giovanni Fabbroni in 1778, the Americans had a lower casualty rate than the Redcoats. "This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." Even so, Americans were not as well-armed as Jefferson wished. The only book Jefferson ever wrote was Notes on the State of Virginia (1782), in which he explained the arms shortage that had developed during the Revolutionary War: "The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with arms usual in the regular service. But this injunction was always indifferently complied with, and the arms they had have been so frequently called to arm the regulars, that in the lower parts of the country they are entirely disarmed." So as President, Jefferson successfully urged Congress to appropriate federal funds to provide firearms to state militiamen who did not own their own guns. Congress complied, and during Jefferson's second term and Madison's first, "public arms" were supplied at federal expense to state militias all over the nation. [For more on the topic of public arms in the Jefferson administration, see Dave Kopel & Stephen Halbrook, "Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Early Republic" recently published in the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, and available at http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/hk-coxe.htm .] The militia was intended to prevent the conquest of America by a foreign power, but it was also intended to prevent the conquest of America by a central national government and its standing army. At his first inaugural, Jefferson explained that "a well-disciplined militia" is "our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them" and also a guarantee of "the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense." As Jefferson understood, there was an intimate connection between sovereignty and the possession of arms. As long the people were armed, the people would rule. In an 1811 letter to Destutt de Tracy, Jefferson acknowledged that demagogues could arise. But while the force of a demagogue "may paralyze the single State in which it happens to be encamped, sixteen other, spread over a country of two thousand miles diameter, rise up on every side, ready organized for deliberation by a constitutional legislature, and for action by their governor, constitutionally, the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms; and that militia, too, regularly formed into regiments and battalions, into infantry, cavalry and artillery, trained under officers general and subordinate,legally appointed, always in readiness, and to whom they are already in habits of obedience." In France, thought Jefferson, the republicans fell because there were no local centers to resist national control. "But with us, sixteen out of seventeen States rising in mass, under regular organization, and legal commanders, united in object and action by their Congress, or, if that be in duresse, by a special convention, presents such obstacles to an usurper as forever to stifle ambition the first conception of that object." Without arms, the weak were the prey to the strong, as in the feudal system of Europe, where the largest and the strongest made quasi-slaves of the rest of the society. But as Jefferson explained in his famous October 1813 letter to John Adams, the proliferation of firearms had allowed an aristocracy of virtue and talent to supplant the aristocracy of brute force: "For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talent. Formerly, bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, the politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground for distinction." Because arms and sovereignty were so bound together, Jefferson argued that [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: July 4th Commentary: Who Shall Protect the People? (1/3) (fwd) Date: 04 Jul 1999 15:57:33 PST On Jul 04, Bill Utterback wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] *** I have copied two messages below which bear reading and *** contemplation. The first tells of a nutcase who shot people *** in Chicago yesterday. I note that even the Associated Press *** writer makes no claims that the police can be expected to *** protect the people. A glaring omission in the story is that *** no one was quoted as stating the obvious: That so long as the *** people are disarmed, any nutcase can go around shooting people *** any time he feels like it and is not likely to be stopped so *** long as he keeps the duration of his activity reasonably short. *** Is it any wonder that nutcases often choose the "gun free *** zones" of our schools to release their frustrations by *** shooting people? "Going postal" has become the descriptive *** phrase for this kind of activity because of postal workers *** doing the same thing in the "gun free zone" of the post office. *** It is clearly ridiculous to think that new gun laws or stupid *** "hate crime" laws are going to deter a lawbreaker, but the *** people mill around in confusion and call to their politicians *** to solve this problem with more unconstitutional legislation. *** The only answer is for the people to assume responsibility for *** their own lives. The people must assume responsibility for *** their own spirituality, their own emotional and physical *** healing, their own protection, their own government, their own *** obligation to assist others in difficulty, and all aspects of *** their own lives. We will never be successful in restoring *** limited, Constitutional government until the people learn that *** they must assume responsibility for their own lives. *** for Liberty, *** Bill Utterback JULY 03, 23:42 EDT Chicago Shooter Still at Large By EVELYNE GIRARDET Associated Press Writer CHICAGO (AP) =97 A black former college basketball coach was shot to death while walking with his children =97 apparently by a gunman who within an hour also wounded six Orthodox Jews walking home from synagogue and shot at an Asian-American couple. A white man in his late 20s appeared to have carried out the attacks Friday night over a distance of about 10 miles on residential streets in Chicago and two suburbs, police said. No arrests had been made by late Saturday. Witnesses to each of the shootings told police the shots were fired from the same car =97 a light blue Ford Taurus. The shooter used a .22-caliber gun and .380-caliber semiautomatic weapon as he fired at six different locations in Chicago before traveling on to the nearby suburbs of Skokie and Northbrook. Tests showed the bullets used in the Chicago shootings matched the bullets found in Skokie. Police Superintendent Terry Hillard said the crimes appeared to be motivated by racial hatred, although investigators later stopped short of labeling the shootings hate crimes because the gunman did nothing to indicate his motives. The FBI was assisting. ``We're not saying it's not a hate crime,'' police spokesman Pat Camden said. ``What we are saying is at this particular moment in the investigation, the elements for a hate crime are not there.'' The shootings began Friday evening in Chicago's Rogers Park neighborhood as the Orthodox Jews were returning home from Sabbath services. Police said the victims were easily identifiable by their traditional dress. Witnesses said a man got out of his car and fired on two people from about 15 feet away, wounding one. After that, shots were fired from a car, Police Lt. Nick Nickeas said. Of the six people wounded, three were in fair condition, a 15-year-old boy was in good condition and two were released. A short time later, former Northwestern University coach Ricky Byrdsong was shot in the back while walking near his home in the suburb of Skokie. Two of his four children were with him. They were not hurt. Byrdsong, 43, had been working for an insurance company since he was fired by Northwestern in 1997 after four seasons. Then within an hour of the Chicago shootings, shots were fired at two Asian-Americans riding in a vehicle in Northbrook. They were not injured. The Anti-Defamation League said the attacks were ``clear and despicable acts of anti-Semitic and racist hate violence.'' Residents in Byrdsong's quiet, upper middle-class neighborhood said they were shaken by the shootings. ``This is a neighborhood throwback to the 50's,'' said Mara Roveda, who lives across the street from where Byrdsong was shot. ``It's full of kids. We all know each other.'' In Rogers Park, residents were reluctant to comment because of the Sabbath, but those who did said the neighborhood has become known for its safety. Police tightened security around the neighborhood's synagogues Saturday. Howard Carroll, a former state senator who lives in the neighborhood, said many people were convinced that the victims were chosen because of their ethnic and religious background and the day was chosen because of the Sabbath. ``It's a Friday night =97 you know Orthodox Jews are going to be out walking around the neighborhood or to the synagogue,'' said Carroll, who is Jewish but not Orthodox. Added another resident, Aaron Grossman: ``This makes no sense, but we have to go on.'' On Saturday night, the American Jewish Committee offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the suspect. ``It is shocking,'' said Michael Kotzin, executive vice president of the Jewish Federation in Chicago. ``But when you have people with hatred in their hearts and weapons in their hands it is not aberration.'' *** The second message copied below is an excellent exhibition of *** the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson on the subject of personal *** responsibility in regard to integrity, firearms and *** government. The reason why we have an Independence Day to *** celebrate is because the Spirit of '76 was about the people *** assuming responsibility for their own lives. *** I would like to emphasize a quote from Dave Kopel's comments *** below: >Because he (Jefferson) recognized that a disarmed people would >not, in the long run, remain an independent, responsible, and [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: While you were away - Repubs planning a knife in our backs (fwd) Date: 05 Jul 1999 12:51:32 PST On Jul 5, jurist wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Please cross-post until all RKBA listservs and Boards get this and take action: RKBA Defenders, Will the treason never cease? I urge you to call, fax and e-mail Trent Lott who just won't let Clinton's new attacks on the Constitution, a.k.a. the 'juvenile justice bill,' stay dead. Like Dr. Frankenstein, Trent Lott -- a REPUBLICAN -- is fighting tooth and nail to bring that monster back to life. Call his office and let him know that he is dead wrong in his choice of action, as nothing he does will appease the Left and he sure as hell is alienating his core constituency. Sen. Trent Lott (R MS) T 202-224-6253 F 202-224-2262 H 601-965-4644 senatorlott@lott.senate.gov LET'EM HAVE IT! Senator Bob Smith on the other hand, is standing alone to make sure it stays dead. Let's call and lend our support. He is the only thing between us and new laws killing gunshows, outlawing normal-size magazines , etc. Sen. Robert Smith (R-NH) T 202-224-2841 F 202-224-1353 H 603-228-0453 opinion@smith.senate.gov In Liberty, Rick V. article follows: Printed under Fair Use Yahoo! News AP Headlines Thursday July 1 7:21 PM ET Lott Plans Gun-Control Negotiations By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - In the polite parlance of the Senate, Majority Leader Trent Lott on Thursday dismissed Sen. Bob Smith's threat to hold up legislative business if negotiations are opened with the House on new gun control restrictions. Threat or no threat, Lott told reporters, negotiators will be appointed and the process will begin in mid-July. "At some point, you have to go forward," Lott, R-Miss., told reporters at a news conference. He promised "to talk to Senator Smith about how we go to conference." Smith, one of three senators running longshot bids for the GOP presidential nomination, opposes the new gun restrictions in the Senate-approved juvenile justice bill. The House passed a juvenile justice bill that significantly weakened the Senate's proposed gun control measure. Leaders of both houses say they will appoint negotiators to work out the differences after the summer recess. Smith, R-N.H., believes that the Senate's gun provisions stand a chance of surviving the talks. He's also not sure whether he likes weakened gun proposals that won brief favor in the House before lawmakers there decide to reject gun controls entirely. On Wednesday, he sent letters to Lott and Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, saying he was considering a procedural maneuver to block the appointment of conferees, the first step in the process. Senate tradition permits its members to hold up legislative process by objecting to it for any reason. Going to conference, Smith told reporters, is ``not worth the risk,'' and he's considering everything from a hold to a filibuster to stop conferees from being named. "The odds are the conferees will be favorable to the Senate's position," Smith said. "I'm going to do everything in my power to see to it that we don't get to conference." Rather, Smith said, GOP leaders should put the House bill up for a vote in the Senate and bar amendments. But Lott has no such plans, and he made clear that he intends to talk Smith out of the confrontation. If Smith persists, Lott said he would call for a Senate vote on the matter. "I wouldn't mean it as an affront to anybody," Lott said. "Anyway, we won't do it till we come back and give it time." Smith said no one has tried to force to retreat from his position. "Thus far my arms are intact and no one has threatened me with anything," Smith said. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/washington/story.html?s=v/ap/19990701/pl/gun_control_67.html See also front page of July 3, 1999 Washington Times; "Lott hopes to free up 'gun bill' - Juvenile crimes real point, he says The Right to Self Defense is a Fundamental Human Right - RKBA [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: NEA Convention Flash! - 7/5 (fwd) Date: 05 Jul 1999 12:52:51 PST On Jul 5, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Senator-anoint Hillary Rodham joins the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy! Kevin McGehee Fairbanks/North Pole, AK mcg592@mcgeheezone.com http://www.mcgeheezone.com/ ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 10:30 AM The Education Intelligence Agency Convention Flash! - July 5, 1999 Now on the Web at http://members.aol.com/educintel/eia First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton addressed the National Education Association Representative Assembly today and called for greater support and resources for public education and teachers. Mrs. Clinton received wild applause for virtually every point she made and received several standing ovations. But it was the non-reaction of the assembly when she delivered fulsome praise for the nation's charter schools that was the only unplanned-for incident during the entire speech. "I also hope you will continue to stand behind the charter school public school movement," Mrs. Clinton began, "because I believe that parents do deserve greater choice within the public school system to meet the needs of their children." She described how positively impressed she was by the high standards she saw at a Washington, DC charter school that required children to master Latin. She told the audience that despite the rigorous requirements, the school had a large waiting list. She wondered why we couldn't have more schools like it. "Well, slowly but surely we're beginning to create schooling opportunities through the public school charter system that are providing those kinds of options for parents and students," Mrs. Clinton continued, "raising academic standards and empowering educators, and I invite educators to be at the forefront of this. Because I know that the NEA has already helped to create a number of charter schools. And I'm very pleased that you have done this, because I think when we look back on the 1990s, we will see that the charter school movement, led by committed, experienced, expert educators, will be one of the ways we will have turned around the entire public school system." Mrs. Clinton paused, but not a single cheer or clap emerged from the 15,000 people in the audience. Mrs. Clinton returned to firmer ground, praising our America's public education system as having "the best schools and the smartest kids." The crowd cheered and applauded raucously as she finished, with many signs supporting her candidacy for U.S. senator from New York, President of the United States, and one for governor of Florida. Sometime tomorrow, the delegates will consider New Business Item 36, which says in part: "NEA recognizes that the growing experience with charter schools is increasingly negative, that charters have been seized on by right-wing forces as a wedge to break up and resegregate education and prepare the way for privatization... that charter schools overwhelmingly fail to provide any of the benefits they originally claimed to offer. NEA will publicly oppose further extension of charter schools." # # # The Education Intelligence Agency conducts public education research, analysis and investigations. Director: Mike Antonucci. Ph: 916-422-4373. Fax: 916-392-1482. E-Mail: EducIntel@aol.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: 1st NEA Convention Flash! - 7/4 (fwd) Date: 05 Jul 1999 12:54:43 PST On Jul 4, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, July 04, 1999 2:08 PM The Education Intelligence Agency Convention Flash! - July 4, 1999 Now on the Web at http://members.aol.com/educintel/eia + Happy Independence Day! I've been assured that keeping the press off the RA floor was not instituted for my benefit, although enforcement has been less than stringent in the past. I've also been assured that delegates may visit me in the press section without hindrance, and some have done so already. + I have not seen a comprehensive list of all the amendments to be offered to NEA's resolutions this year, but what I have seen contains nothing that could be considered extraordinarily controversial. There is one curious addition to Resolution F-7, concerning strikes, about which I'm eager to hear the rationale. New language (separated here by brackets) inserted into the resolution would make it read, in part: "The Association believes that, when a picket line is established by the authorized bargaining unit, crossing it, [whether physically or electronically,] is strikebreaking and jeopardizes the welfare of [education] employees and the educational process." The definition of "electronically" crossing a picket line at a school should prove interesting. + NEA has been utilizing Dr. Seuss' Cat in the Hat to promote its "Read Across America" campaign. This year, the entire NEA Executive Committee performed a musical number while dressed from head-to-toe in Cat in the Hat costumes. In addition, there were the obligatory daily anti-voucher sermons containing yet another reference to bloodsucking vermin. If Dr. Seuss had attended this year's convention, it's likely he would have called it "Leeches in Speeches." The NEA RA delegates also addressed a host of new business items. New Business Item 9 passed unanimously. It commits NEA to provide support to its Florida affiliate in defeating the Florida Civil Rights Initiative being sponsored by Ward Connerly. Connerly, you may recall, was the driving force behind California's Proposition 209, which prohibits the state from awarding contracts or college admissions on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender. New Business Item 10 commits NEA to oppose the takeover of school districts by mayors. The mayors of Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Oakland were accused of power grabs. But even though they are all liberal Democrats, they were not accused of engineering a left-wing conspiracy. New Business Item 11 was defeated. It would have committed NEA to organize a "National March on Washington for Equal, Integrated, Quality Public Education" to occur within one year's time. NEA's assessment of the time necessary to plan such a march (six to 18 months) and the cost ($2.5 million) soured the delegates on the idea. New Business Item 14 was also defeated. Sponsored by new Illinois Education Association President Jean Tello, it addressed the question of state affiliate mergers. Under the new guidelines, NEA will allow no more than six state affiliates to merge, unless additional mergers are approved by the Board of Directors. NBI 14 would have required that approval to rest in a secret ballot vote of the Representative Assembly. Illinois delegate Marsha Zirdt, speaking in favor of NBI 14, pointed out that while last year's RA had defeated the Principles of Unity by 58% - 42%, the Board of Directors had approved them by a 2-1 margin. "At times, the NEA Board of Directors does not see eye-to-eye with the RA," she said. The majority of delegates were more than satisfied to let the board decide the pace of state mergers. The vote, on the open floor, indicated that the large states who led the opposition to merger last year -- New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and Michigan -- had not changed their positions from last year. By far the most striking difference was in the vastly enlarged California delegation. During last year's debate, about one-third of the delegation openly opposed merger and, judging by the ultimate margin, many more did so in the privacy of the voting booth. This year, the entire delegation, save some 20 or so sitting in one corner, voted against NBI 14. Clearly, some work was done on caucus discipline during the past year. + EIA had previously reported on the proposed amendment that would have allowed NEA members to vote on the union's political spending of dues money. The amendment was ruled out of order because it was interpreted as meaning contributions to political candidates, which is the forum of the NEA political action committee and does not utilize dues money. The sponsors of the motion submitted an amendment, which addressed this distinction, calling for a vote on the spending of dues money for "political activities." This corrected the original problem, but was also ruled out of order for being more restrictive than the original motion, making it subject to deadlines which had passed. I expect this motion will return next year, properly vetted. + Tomorrow: Hillary speaks! (And please, no more leeches.) # # # The Education Intelligence Agency conducts public education research, analysis and investigations. Director: Mike Antonucci. Ph: 916-422-4373. Fax: 916-392-1482. E-Mail: EducIntel@aol.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Australian Crime Rates Date: 05 Jul 1999 13:54:23 -0700 I read something recently about how crime rates "down under" had skyrocketed since Australia banned all firearms about 2 years ago; does anybody have any hard-and-fast factual data, or know where I could look? I checked the NRA web site, figuring they'd have SOMETHING on it, but no joy. Is there some kind of Australian shooter's society, and do they have a web page? I'd appreciate any help you folks can offer. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Silver Subject: Re: Australian Crime Rates Date: 06 Jul 1999 13:16:00 -0700 Go to the "Facts" section of our site: www.guntruths.com/ Steve Silver Kenneth Mitchell wrote: > I read something recently about how crime rates "down under" had > skyrocketed since Australia banned all firearms about 2 years ago; does > anybody have any hard-and-fast factual data, or know where I could look? I > checked the NRA web site, figuring they'd have SOMETHING on it, but no joy. > Is there some kind of Australian shooter's society, and do they have a web > page? > > I'd appreciate any help you folks can offer. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net > 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) > --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ > > - -- Steve Silver Attorney at Law: http://www.silver-legal.com/ The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society: http://www.thelsas.org/ Get the TRUTH About Guns: http://www.guntruths.com/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: NEA Convention Flash! - 7/6 (fwd) Date: 06 Jul 1999 14:25:10 PST On Jul 6, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 10:30 AM The Education Intelligence Agency Convention Flash! - July 6, 1999 Now on the Web at http://members.aol.com/educintel/eia The last reporter has gone, the press section sits empty except for idle = NEA staffers, and the most dramatic debate so far of the 1999 Representative Assembly went unobserved by the nation's media. Only one substantive issue was addressed this morning, and that was the question of loan forgiveness for Education Minnesota, the only fully merg= ed state affiliate of both NEA and AFT. Long-time readers of this communiqu=E9 will recall the details of the controversy arising from EM's merger last September, in violation of NEA rules. EM was in fact disaffiliated from N= EA, until votes from the union's Executive Committee and Board of Directors reaffiliated it under specific guidelines, including the commitment to pa= y NEA full national dues for the 1998-99 fiscal year for the entire (merged= ) membership. The agreement was for a payment of $2,354,000 (plus interest) to be made = over a period of 10 years. This year, EM submitted a new business item asking = for that loan to be forgiven. Literally hundreds of delegates on both sides a= sked to address the issue. A two-hour debate ensued. Judging by the content of= the remarks, the debate was less about a $2.3 million loan, and more about th= e direction toward merger that NEA is taking. "I did not hear about the merger of Education Minnesota from my colleague= s in Minnesota," said NEA Board member Kerry Costello from Massachusetts. "I d= id not hear about it from the president of the NEA. I heard about it in the newspaper." The "for" arguments were carried by Judy Schaubach of EM, John Syer of NE= A Alaska, Eric Feaver of Montana, and Maureen Dinnen of Florida. Montana, N= ew Mexico and Florida have already voted to merge with their AFT counterpart= s. Because the assembly had already agreed to implement the state merger guidelines (more details on that next week), many speakers felt that trea= ting Minnesota differently was both academic and punitive. "I urge you to vote= yes on New Business Item 78 and let's move on," said California Teachers Association President Wayne Johnson. The "against" arguments were carried by many of the same speakers from la= st year's Principles of Unity debate: Bob Haisman of the Illinois Education Association, Mary Washington of the Louisiana Association of Educators, a= nd Julius Maddox of the Michigan Education Association. Maddox recalled that last year's RA had agreed that "no state affiliate w= ill merge until guidelines are in place." He compared the requirement that EM= pay its dues to the "tough love" that parents and teachers often administer t= o children. Yet another merger vote came to a roll call. And the results could hardly have been closer. The final tally: YES - 4,091(49.8%); NO - 4,131 (50.2%)= . EM will be liable for an additional $240,000 or so per year. As EIA reported early this year, this also is problematic for EM, since it has promised i= ts members that under no circumstances would the merger itself require a due= s increase. Generating the funds will be a public relations as well as financial difficulty for EM. In examining the apparent leanings of state affiliates on this merger-rel= ated vote, it was clear that Washington, Wisconsin, Arizona, Oregon, Missouri = and the four merging states were still a solid bloc for merger. Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Iowa, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico and Alaba= ma still stand firmly opposed. Pennsylvania and Ohio still seem split. The most noticeable changes from last year were the increased numbers fro= m the California delegation who joined with the pro-merger forces, and the = very large vote against NBI 78 turned in by the Texas delegation, despite the recent local merger of its Austin affiliate. There will be many more items up for debate in what promises to be a very late evening, but the next EIA communiqu=E9 will not be issued until Mond= ay afternoon. Should you want some news about particular items before then, please let me know and I will send them to you individually. I expect tha= t the charter school new business item mentioned yesterday will be defeated= , or at least substantially amended by the NEA delegates. # # # The Education Intelligence Agency conducts public education research, analysis and investigations. Director: Mike Antonucci. Ph: 916-422-4373. = Fax: 916-392-1482. E-Mail: EducIntel@aol.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: OT: U.S. Army Soldiers Magless and Muzzled Way Down in Kosovo Date: 07 Jul 1999 09:46:10 -0700 Say it ain't so, Senator Robert "Cool Ranch" Dolito. In an AP photo printed on page A6 of the July 5, 1999 issue of The Boston Globe, there you sit, enjoying some G.I. chow at a "holiday barbecue" at Camp Bondsteel near the southern Kosovo town of Vitina, as highlighted by the AP photo's accompanying caption. Propped against the near end of the wooden table at which you and a half-squad of BDU-clad soldiers sit is one of those Clintonista-feared and Clintonista-hated assault rifles, a real, bona fide M-16A2 black rifle capable of celebrating (functional) diversity either in semi-automatic or full automatic mode. (Well, what do you know? It actually takes a battle rifle in the hands of an honorable American of character to save a village! How about that?) Back to the main point. Missing from the empty well of the M-16A2 rifle shown in the photograph is a Clintonista-feared and Clintonista-hated high capacity magazine loaded with 30 rounds of 5.56mm mil spec ball ammunition! It also appears as if that M-16A2 rifle's muzzle is covered by a protective plastic cap, ostensibly to prevent WASPs, Roman Catholics or other assorted "Christian Right" extremists from deciding to nest, along with a copy of The Ten Commandments, deep inside that rifle's barrel during Senator "Cool Ranch" Dolito's visit? Humor aside, reflect back to the date of the infamous, horrific truck bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. Recall that over 240 brave U.S. Marines and U.S. Navy corpsmen assigned to the U.S. Marine unit stationed there lost their lives as a smiling, suicidal Saracen drove his explosives laden lorry past USMC sentries who, by policy, were not allowed to have their M-16 rifles' magazine wells charged with loaded magazines, which heightened state of readiness might have allowed them to instantaneously chamber live rounds upon detecting danger and to bring significant firepower to bear on an advancing terrorist madman. Would the sentries alone have been able to stop the Beirut truck bomber? We will never know, will we, because some special assistant to an assistant bonehead at either the Department of State or the Department of Defense or at some other stratospheric level within the Pentagon probably intimidated the local USMC commanding officer into conforming with stateside, peacetime policies mandating the carriage of unloaded weapons at a military facility if not on a supervised rifle range.. Hey, we would not have wanted to anger the Hezbollah Hollow Hee Haw Boys' Choir, now would we? What would the Hezbollah terrorists active in Lebanon have thought if camouflage-clad U.S. Marines had actually been allowed to perform sentry duty at their barracks while carrying weapons charged with fully loaded magazines? Again, we will never know, will we? But we sure as heck know now that Senator Bob Dole, a decorated war hero, is apparently content to sit in southern Kosovo, a confirmed unsecured combat zone, with U.S. Army soldiers next to whom one unloaded and oh-so-Clintonally-child-safe M-16A2 rifle rests as a powerful symbol of all that is wrong with a still superbly trained and highly motivated U.S. military that has been used worldwide as a political football by so-called President Clinton and his (liquor) cabinet of (it takes a) village idiots. President Clinton, Secretary of Defense Cohen and Senator Dole, if you should happen to see a copy of this e-mail message, which I sincerely hope will be forwarded to selected members of Congress who serve on U.S. House and U.S. Senate Armed Forces Committees, would you please advise the Chairman of the JCS and commanders in the field that unloaded personal weapons in combat zones may lead (again) to unloaded coffins bearing the bodies of soldiers or Marines (killed in action) who should have been prepared to take up, to chamber a live round in, and then to fire their already loaded magazine-equipped rifles at a second's notice in the event of a sudden attack upon their camp or compound? Our brave soldiers' rifles "magless" and "muzzled" in Kosovo? Shame on President Clinton, shame on Secretary Cohen, shame on General Clark (commander of NATO forces in Kosovo) and his boss at the JCS in the Pentagon, shame on local U.S. Army unit commanders, and some shame, too, on Senator Dole for sitting by and not demanding unequivocally that soldiers in his presence be ordered to bear rifles, pistols and other issued automatic weaponry charged with fully loaded magazines to enable an immediate, aggressive defense against any enemy's assault on their position. Combat zones are inherently unsafe. Mandating that our soldiers (and our Marines) carry unloaded weapons way down in Kosovo is an unforgivable blunder that must be corrected before lives are lost in action with hostile forces. Correct this unfortunate situation, now, Mr. President, Secretary Cohen, General Clark and Senator Dole. Just do it. Let soldiers be soldiers. Let Marines be Marines. Stop "managing" combat zones as if they were Clintonized, politically correct Fortune 500 office environments. One telephone call should make "loaded weapons" happen at Camp Bondsteel and elsewhere, way down in Kosovo. Thank you, gentlemen, for attending, in prompt fashion, to this important matter. Respectfully, Christopher C. Ferris (Street address deleted) Nashua NH ferriscc@mainstream.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: great article by the house conservative at Salonmagazine, Clinton's lapdog e-zine (fwd) Date: 07 Jul 1999 10:08:38 PST On Jul 7, Shimm, David wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] What's gun control got to do with it? The 20,000 laws already on the books couldn't stop the Columbine massacre, and one more won't either, but liberals just don't get that. - - - - - - - - - - - - By David Horowitz July 6, 1999 | The other day I picked up a phone message from a woman concerning a charity event for homeless youngsters that I was helping organize in Hollywood. The woman is a liberal, and she said she had found a friend who was willing to volunteer her home for an event we had planned for the children -- then she paused -- "but not if Charlton Heston comes." Then she paused again. "In fact," she said, "none of my friends' homes will be available if Charlton Heston comes." It was unnecessary for her to say, as she also did under her breath, "They murdered those kids," to alert me to the fact that this was about the Columbine tragedy in Colorado, where two sociopathic teenagers had barged into a high school and ambushed their classmates before turning their weapons on themselves. Nor did she have to connect the dots and say that the passions that Heston provoked as head of the National Rifle Association, which had thwarted the passage of gun control legislation in the aftermath of these events, was the cause of her friends' determination to shun Charlton Heston and make him a social pariah. Accustomed as I am to such intolerant reflexes in people who otherwise think of themselves as "liberal," this one caused me to stop and reflect for a moment on what it had revealed. Consider, dear reader, the people you know and call your friends. How many individuals could you name whom these friends would want to bar from a social gathering whose sole purpose was to raise money for homeless kids? O.J. Simpson? Slobodan Milosevic? David Duke? For myself, I don't have a single conservative friend or acquaintance who would say, "If Barbra Streisand wants to help us raise money for poor kids, I don't want her in my house." (OK, maybe one or two.) Charlton Heston is no conservative troglodyte. He is a New Deal Democrat, the former chairman of the Hollywood committee for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s march on Washington, a lifelong champion of civil rights and artists' rights (he was a staunch defender of the National Endowment for the Arts) and generally a decent, humane and ecumenical soul. Of course, such data is irrelevant in this matter, because the ideological hatred liberals bear toward Heston has no real-world referrent in terms of who the man actually is. Even Heston's role as spokesman for the NRA doesn't make their passion any more intelligible to someone outside their ideological bubble. Do the 3 million mainly lower-middle-class and working-class members of the NRA want to see children die? Would the legislation they defeated have indisputably saved those children or others to come? The fact is that there are 20,000 gun laws already on the books, 17 of which were violated by the Columbine killers. What would one more law accomplish that the other 20,000 could not? Especially one that would merely mandate background checks on buyers at gun shows? Is there any evidence that these shows are the sites of a significant number of criminal purchases or that such legislation would have any effect on armed crimes? The Brady Bill has been violated on 250,000 occasions, according to police records, but not a single violator has been punished. Is there any correlation at all between stringent registration laws and low gun deaths? Apparently not. A social scientist named John Lott has just published a study that claims that communities in which citizens are armed have lower incidences of gun violence than communities where guns are relatively absent. In places where gun violence has actually been reduced, like New York, where the murder rate has been cut by a phenomenal 60 percent, the reason appears to be aggressive police methods, which have come under fire from many of these same liberals who think gun control is the answer. Do the people who hate Chuck Heston adore Rudy Giuliani? Hardly. I do not intend this as an argument for or against the gun legislation that was proposed and that failed in the wake of Columbine. It is merely a case for sobriety in assessing the issues that make up the dispute. The gun legislation in question may have been worthy or not. The point is that any difference it might make is so insignificant that it could not justify the foam-at-the-mouth response of its proponents or the stigma they have attached to people, like Heston, who disagree with them about it. Why are liberals so hypocritically bigoted? It's not a question that can be casually dismissed. After all, the conservatives who would shun a Barbra Streisand make no fetish out of "diversity" the way liberals do, nor do they wave the bloody flag of past witch-hunts whenever they come under attack, as liberals are known to do as well. Moreover, the little auto-da-fi over the possibility that Chuck Heston would materialize at a charity event is no aberrant case. George Stephanopoulos' recent memoir captures a parallel moment at the very center of the political process. Before impeachment irretrievably embittered the atmosphere of the Clinton White House, Stephanopoulos and the president were discussing an open congressional seat and the prospect of an upcoming special election. "It's Nazi time," Clinton remarked to Stephanopoulos, meaning time to get back to campaigning against Republicans. Two years later, at the outset of another campaign, Clinton told Dick Morris, "You have to understand, Bob Dole is evil, what he wants is evil." This of a war hero who had played the role of consensus builder in his years as Senate majority leader. Nor is Clinton alone in his rabid hatred of the Republican opposition. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., publicly referred to House Republicans as "Nazis" merely for proposing to keep the expansion of Medicare within the rate of inflation lest the whole system go bankrupt, as a presidential commission indicated it would. Other Democrats, like Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., referred to Republicans as racist for similar disagreements on budgetary allocations. As in the case of gun control legislation, there is no perceivable connection between the offenses and the demonization of the offenders by liberals. Outside the KKK-Farrakhan hate fringe (which embraces bigots on the left and right), there is no conservative analog to this liberal paranoia. Perhaps there is a Republican officeholder who every now and then enters the electoral cycle with the war cry "It's commie time," but I certainly haven't met him. The current Clinton security leaks are grave enough to have generated a hundred Joe McCarthys, but not one has yet appeared. There is simply no analog to the liberal passion of conservative bashing that has unfairly stained the reputations of figures as disparate as Bork, Thomas, Gingrich, Barr, Connerly and now DeLay. Conservatives have not even laid a glove on such obvious targets as Barney Frank and Maxine Waters. They tend to think of their opponents as irresponsible or simply misguided. But they do not treat them as agents of the devil. But then Republicans are political amateurs. They typically leave a business in the business sector to go fight City Hall over practical matters. They want to restrain the leviathan that is suffocating enterprise. Or, less nobly, they want to harness it to some self-interested goal. Liberals have a grander design. Their interest in politics is missionary. They see government as a means to social redemption, to change the world. They're not there to tinker with gun control laws. They're there, as Hillary Rodham Clinton put it, "to define what it means to be human in the 21st century." In the nightmares of NRA supporters, this means to do whatever it takes and to trample over any rights necessary to remove all 240 million guns from public possession in the quest for a utopia where violence no longer exists. The reason liberals are so bigoted lies in a vision that has ancestral roots in the Puritan origins of the American new world. They see themselves as soldiers in the army of the saints -- a vision incomplete without the counter-army of Satan, the dark adversary corrupting the innocent and blocking their progress. People like Charlton Heston stand in the way of their impossible dream. In the fantasies of these liberal Lenins, all the little dead children killed in drive-bys across America could be walking the safe streets of the 'hood if only the Chuck Hestons of this world would disappear. salon.com | July 6, 1999 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: great article by the house conservative at Salonmagazine,Clinto n's (fwd) Date: 07 Jul 1999 13:23:49 PST On Jul 7, James W. Winchester wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] "Shimm, David" wrote: > What's gun control got to do with it? > > safe streets of the 'hood if only the Chuck Hestons of this world would > disappear. > salon.com | July 6, 1999 This opinion piece is important for two reasons. One, the lesser, is that Salon is a rant magazine of the left. One can only wonder how it was published. Some may recall a tirade a month or two ago by a rabid anti firearms advocate who wants a complete ban on everything to do with guns. The really important message in this article is that it hits on what I have come to believe is the driving force of gun prohibitionism: self appointed moral supremacy and class elitism. The rhetoric of gun prohibition is remarkably similar to the temperance movement early this century, which also had moral/class issues. In my opinion, the firearms community has been very dense in not perceiving this battle for what it is: imposition of repressive laws to advance a control agenda on people the liberals don't like. It isn't the guns, it is people who use guns. Even among shooters, one can see this classism within the shotgun sports. Print this article out and memorize it; post it where you can read it often. If you don't understand the dynamics, you can't understand why the antis shape the argument the way they do, namely, to always seek the high moral ground and put shooters as allies of criminals. It is obvious in every anti article I see; reasonable and commonsense are now always invoked in new abridgments. Why? Who knows what reasonable and commonsense mean? The listener supplies the interpretation. If you oppose it, you are an extremist with no moral/social responsibility. If we are going to have success, we must join the battle on this high ground and quit fighting an emotional issue with facts and logic; facts and logic will only be considered after the moral case is made. Just some thoughts. Jim Winchester VP-CSSA [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: RE: Branch Davidians (fwd) Date: 07 Jul 1999 13:24:48 PST On Jul 7, Bob Mueller wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Saturday July 3 1:08 AM ET Branch Davidian Suit Will Continue WACO, Texas (AP) - A federal judge has cleared the way for a lawsuit that claims the federal government is responsible for the fiery and deadly end to the 1993 Branch Davidian standoff. U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. pared the number of defendants and plaintiffs, but ruled Thursday that the case can go to trial, said Mike Caddell, lead attorney for the Davidians. ``I think what the judge did is a great victory for the Davidians and for the country,'' Caddell said. ``Our folks can't be happier, and look forward to having their day in court.'' The lawsuit - filed by surviving Davidians and the relatives of the dead - challenges the government's conclusion that the Davidians started the fire and that they also shot first during the federal raid on their compound. David Koresh and about 80 followers died in the fire that ended the 51-day standoff. The defendants include Attorney General Janet Reno and top officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FBI, including then-Director William Sessions. ``We're still reviewing the decision at this point,'' said Myron Marlin, a Justice Department spokesman. The multimillion-dollar lawsuit has been on hold since early May while an appeals court considered whether Smith should be removed from the case. The plaintiffs wanted another judge because Smith has ruled in criminal cases involving Branch Davidians. The Davidians contend that when federal agents punched through the walls and fired tear gas into the cult compound on April 19, 1993, the canisters ignited, burning the building and the people inside. Congressional hearings have pointed to mistakes by the law enforcement officers, but none has been charged with a crime. Bob Mueller I don't speak for Compuware or USTA Second Amendment Research Network http://www.infinet.com/~bmueller/Index.html [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: great article by the house conservative at Salonmagazine,Clinto n's (fwd) Date: 07 Jul 1999 17:16:22 -0400 (EDT) > >Print this article out and memorize it; post it where you can read it often. If >you don't understand the dynamics, you can't understand why the antis shape the >argument the way they do, namely, to always seek the high moral ground and put >shooters as allies of criminals. It is obvious in every anti article I see; >reasonable and commonsense are now always invoked in new abridgments. Why? Who >knows what reasonable and commonsense mean? The listener supplies the >interpretation. If you oppose it, you are an extremist with no moral/social >responsibility. If we are going to have success, we must join the battle on >this high ground and quit fighting an emotional issue with facts and logic; >facts and logic will only be considered after the moral case is made. > > I agree with your recommendation and also with your interpretation of why the article is important. In a sense it is important that the article appeared in Salon, in another sense it is not important. David Horowitz is a wonderful writer and a former left-winger converted over a period of years to a social conservative. He is Salon's "token conservative". He has said that writing for Salon is important in that it reaches a very different audience from conserative publications, and it is important to get these thoughts heard among lefties who may be open to reason. So, Salon hasn't experienced some change of publisher's heart, they merely publish a token "right wing" writer. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Boston Globe Online: Hostage Foiled Gunman's Plan for Massacre - Police Date: 07 Jul 1999 17:42:27 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------9B2AE512D3145942E751241F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With respect to Jim Winchester's recent suggestion about using the same tactics as the opposition to increase support for the RKBA cause, here's a solid, simple example. This Reuters-offered story has been played out on the Net for the past day, but read with great care the line about the brave (if scared) employee armed with a concealed .45 ACP pistol who most certainly saved a number of people from summary execution by an armed madman. "If just one life can be saved ..." goes the HCI chant ... well, this carrier of a concealed pistol (in the People's Republic of California where the AG wants gun owners to turn in their SKS carbines) prevented a massacre, in the words of responding police. Why are we not hearing about this "saving of many lives" on ABC, CBS and NBC? Because David Horowitz is right on the mark in his Salon article ... the agenda of the Clintonistas and their media bedfellows has nothing whatsoever to do with saving individual lives, but everything to do with eventually removing all firearms from the hands of non-elites who do not toe their line. Power (firearms) in the hands of common, everyday, responsible people is a scary thought to the Clintonistas. As we know all too well. /ccf http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/188/nation/Hostage_foiled_gunman_s_plan_for_massacre_police_sayP.shtml --------------9B2AE512D3145942E751241F Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="Hostage_foiled_gunman_s_plan_for_massacre_police_sayP.shtml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Hostage_foiled_gunman_s_plan_for_massacre_police_sayP.shtml" Content-Base: "http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/188/ nation/Hostage_foiled_gunman_s_plan _for_massacre_police_sayP.shtml" Content-Location: "http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/188/ nation/Hostage_foiled_gunman_s_plan _for_massacre_police_sayP.shtml" Boston Globe Online: Print it!
Boston Globe Online: Print it!

THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

Hostage foiled gunman's plan for massacre, police say

By Reuters, 07/07/99

ANTA CLARA, Calif. - One of three gun store employees held hostage Monday headed off a potential massacre by turning the tables on a gunman armed with one of the store's rented rifles, police said yesterday.

Sergeant Anton Morec of the Santa Clara Police Department said the alleged gunman, Richard Gable Stevens, 21, was subdued after tense moments Monday evening at a shooting range and gun store.

''He intended to go out in a blaze of glory,'' Morec said, stating that Stevens had accumulated more than 100 rounds of ammunition for his rented 9mm semiautomatic weapon.

''It certainly looks like he intended to take a lot more people out.''

Morec said Stevens arrived at the National Shooting Club Monday and rented the rifle for target practice at the club shooting range.

Stevens later returned to the club's gun store and sprayed the ceiling with gunfire. He then herded three employees into an alley, saying he intended to kill them, Morec said.

One store employee, however, was carrying a .45 caliber handgun concealed beneath his shirt. When Stevens looked away, the employee fired, hitting Stevens several times, Morec said.

The employee held Stevens at bay until police arrived, Morec said. When Stevens refused to comply with police demands that he show his hands, he was shot again with several rounds of rubber bullets.

Morec said Stevens was taken to a hospital where he was listed in critical condition from the initial gun wounds. Criminal charges against him were pending.

Police said the quick action by the gun club employee may have headed off a massacre.

A suicide note found in Stevens's vehicle and addressed to his parents indicated he may have planned to go on a much broader shooting spree, Morec said. ''Now you'll spend the rest of your lives fighting lawsuits from my victims' relatives and die with only dimes perhaps,'' Morec quoted the note as saying.

This story ran on page A13 of the Boston Globe on 07/07/99.
© Copyright 1999 Globe Newspaper Company.

--------------9B2AE512D3145942E751241F-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Waco News -- 7-7-99 (5/5) (fwd) Date: 08 Jul 1999 10:14:46 PST On Jul 8, Paul M Watson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The Rules of Engagement, the authors wrote an updated version which received a great deal less circulation. Waco Update: The Delta Force Was There by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair June 1, 1999 http://www.counterpunch.org/waco2.html (Excerpts) Amid Nato military supremo Wesley Clark's onslaught on the civilians of Serbia the question arose: did Clark hone his civilian-killing skills at Waco, where the FBI oversaw the largest single spasm of slaughter of civilians by law enforcement in US history, when nearly a hundred Branch Davidians died amid an assault by tanks, flame-throwers and snipers. The tanks were from Fort Hood, where Wesley Clark was, in early 1993, commander of the Cavalry Division of the US Army's III Corps. In our last issue we cited a congressional report commissioned in the aftermath of Waco which described how Texas governor Anne Richards had consulted with Clark's number two at Fort Hood. Then, on April 14, there was a summit at the Justice Department in Washington, where Attorney General Janet Reno, top Justice Department and FBI officials and two unnamed senior Army officers reviewed the final assault plan scheduled for April 19. The two Army officers at the Justice Department that day were Colonel Gerald Boykin, and his superior, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the head of Special Forces at Fort Bragg. Though Clark (who had served with Schoomaker) was not directly involved in the onslaught on the Branch Davidians, the role of the US Army in that affair throws into harsh relief the way prohibitions against the use of the US military for civilian law enforcement can be swiftly by-passed. Boykin and Schoomacher were present because the Army's Fort Bragg-based Combat Applications Group-popularly known as the Delta Force-had been enlisted as part of the assault team on the Branch Davidian Compound. It appears that President Clinton had signed a waiver of the Posse Comitatus Act, with the precedent being Ronald Reagan's revocation of the Act in 1987, allowing the Delta Force to be involved in suppressing the Atlanta prison riot. The role of the Delta Force, the identity of the two Army officers, the revocation of Posse Comitatus all form part of the disclosures of a forthcoming documentary film, Waco: A New Revelation, put together by the same team that produced an earlier, excellent film, Waco: Rules of Engagement. Following our questions about Wesley Clark's possible involvement at Waco, producer/researcher Mike McNulty called us with some details of his new documentary-directed by Jason van Bleet and due to be released in July. After energetic use of Freedom of Information Act enquiries, plus research in three repositories in Texas holding evidence from the Waco inferno, plus other extensive investigations, McNulty and his team have put together an explosive file: ? 28 video tapes from the repositories show that in the final onslaught on the Waco compound were members of the US military in special assault gear and with name tags obscured. As noted above, Clinton's revocation of the Posse Comitatus Act made this presence legal. McNulty isolates Vince Foster as the White House point man for the Waco operation. McNulty cites Foster's widow as saying that the depression that prompted the White House lawyer's death was fueled by horror at the carnage at Waco for which the White House had given the ultimate green light. Foster was writing a Waco report when he died. McNulty says that some documents about Foster and Waco were among those removed from his office after his death, later to surface in a White house store room sheltering archives of the First Lady. The film, McNulty says, discloses how the federal assault team placed explosives on top of a compound bunker whither the feds believed the Branch Davidian leaders might flee. Material evidence collected by McNulty shows that the FBI/Delta assault force bombarded the compound with pyrophoric - i.e. fire-causing - projectiles. End update [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Waco News -- 7-7-99 (4/5) (fwd) Date: 08 Jul 1999 10:17:07 PST On Jul 8, Paul M Watson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] defendant guilty of a crime. In a similar case in early June, 1999, Richardson v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors must find defendants in a drug conspiracy case guilty of specific violations. Otherwise, wrote Justice Breyer, jurors may simply conclude[d] from testimony, say, of bad reputation, that where there is smoke there must be fire. Davidian supporters therefore can have some confidence that the Supreme Court will find at least find against the additional 25 year sentences for four defendants. Attorneys also will argue that the gun convictions should be thrown out of Court because the jury was improperly instructed and Judge Smith himself originally threw out the conviction. Attorneys for Graeme Craddock and Paul Fatta will argue there was insufficient evidence against their clients. For more information on the trial and appeals, click here. JUNE 20, 1999 WHAT S NEW IN WACO WEB PAGES MOUNT CARMEL SURVIVORS WEB PAGE is now at: http://start.at/mt.carmel The page includes: Table of Contents and Ten Commandments; Branch Davidian Trial Transcripts; Mt. Carmel Visitor Center and Events page; Addresses and contact information; Mt. Carmel Chatrooms and Instructions pages. MICHAEL: A TRIBUTE FROM HIS MOTHER by Sandra Connizzo. Is at Mark Swett s The Research Center home page at: http://home.maine.rr.com/waco/mikes.html Michael Schroeder was ambushed and killed by ATF agents February 28, 1993 as he tried to return to his wife and children at Mount Carmel. There is evidence agents first wounded him and then later approached the wounded man and shot him twice in the head at close range. (For evidence see Chapter 5 of my book THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE.) DAVE HARDY S WACO PAGE Hardy is an attorney working on obtaining evidence through the Freedom of Iformation Act. He is always coming up with new documents, photographs and videos which he puts on his web page. For the latest check out: http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/waco.html The full tour begins at the very bottom of the page. JUNE 15, 1999 BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO WILL CARRY WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT Blockbuster, the nation's largest video rental company, will add Waco: The Rules of Engagement (http://www.waco93.com) to its shelves in either August or September. This success follows HBO cable television airing the film on April 19, 1999, the sixth anniversary of the fire that destroyed Mount Carmel. Nominated for an Academy Award in the Documentary Features category last year, Waco: The Rules of Engagement combines archival news footage, video and audio tapes, testimony from the televised House of Representatives investigation, and interviews with survivors. In addition to an Oscar nomination, Waco: The Rules of Engagement was honored with the prestigious International Documentary Association's Distinguished Documentary Achievement Award in 1997. JUNE 2 FROM WACO TO KOSOVO About the time the US/NATO bombing of Kosovo and Serbia began, George Stephanopoulos's book All Too Human was released. The quote that quickly found its way all over the internet came from page 214. He recounts a meeting between Clinton and Anthony Lake on the killing of 18 US Marines in Mogadishu (the Marines had killed more than 1,000 Somali civilians during the "fire fight"): "We're not inflicting pain on these fuckers," Clinton said, softly at first. "When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers." Then, with his face reddening, his voice rising, and his fist pounding his thigh, he leaned into Tony as if it were his fault: "I believe in killing people who try to hurt you, and I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pricks." Several columnists have compared Clinton s actions in Waco (where Davidians defending Mount Carmel killed four federal agents) and Kosovo. In her April 15, 1999 column The Deadly Price Of Good Intentions, Arianna Huffington wrote: Nor is Kosovo the first time that the administration's policies of good intentions have produced disastrous results. Who can forget Waco? There is no doubt that the president and his attorney general wanted the best for the men, women and children inside the Branch Davidian compound. They intended to save them from David Koresh. Yet, six years ago next Monday, their actions led to the people they wished to protect being burned to death." The parallels between Waco and Kosovo are telling. In Waco, tanks and guns employed to save women and children in fact precipitated disaster. In both cases Clinton demonized one man -- the president called Koresh ``dangerous, irrational and probably insane.'' And, similarly, the administration ignored dire warnings. ``I directly considered the possibility of a mass suicide,'' Janet Reno testified before the House Judiciary Committee. But she dismissed the reports, in the same way that the administration chose to ignore reports that Milosevic would use the NATO bombing to drastically step up his campaign of ethnic cleansing. (Note: there is greater evidence that tank action caused the fire fire that killed 76 Davidians on April 19, 1993 than that it was a mass suicide. ) On June 2, 1999 Benjamin Tyree, in a column entitled Familiar Fruits of Policy Tree, compared Waco and Kosovo, saying: The bookends of this sorry peirod in our history are two fiery events of misbegotten and miscarried moral outrage and official overreaching. Tyree compared the publicity stunt BATF raid and the FBI s gas and tank attack to save the children to Clinton s need for a distraction from building China-related Scandals by saving Kosovar Albanians from the Serbs. In both cases, those to be saved suffered grievously. On June 27, 1999 Jack Kemp wrote in a Washington Times Op-Ed, Artfully Woven Web of Deceit, It was, in short, a debacle, an international Waco, which no amount of "spinning" by NATO and the media can erase. The column which got the most circulation on the Internet is described below. JUNE 1, 1999 GENERAL CLARK, WACO & MCNULTY S NEW FILM Well-know writers Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair s May 21, 1999 article Was Clark at Waco? on their web page http://www.counterpunch.org made quite a stir on the Internet. However, after getting more details from Mike McNulty, chief researcher for and co-producer of the Academy Award-nominated film, Waco: [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Waco News -- 7-7-99 (3/5) (fwd) Date: 08 Jul 1999 10:19:06 PST On Jul 8, Paul M Watson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The judge said there is insufficient evidence for the court to determine, as a matter of law, how the fire started, although he noted that there is nothing to support plaintiffs' claim that the government started the fire intentionally. The judge dismissed the claim that the government started the fire on purpose in an attempt to "burn the Davidians out.'' "If the tanks inserting the tear gas actually did topple lit lanterns into carelessly stored hay, there could be a finding of negligence,'' Smith wrote. "Finally, the decision not to allow the fire trucks immediately upon the property has not been addressed by the parties. There might be a claim for negligence in that regard, also.'' An issue that the judge said is "not so readily dismissed'' is the plaintiffs' assertion that FBI agents fired into the compound without provocation during the final tear gas assault and after the fire started. "If plaintiffs' allegations are true, due process would be implicated as such behavior would rise to a level that would shock the conscience,'' Smith said in his ruling. "Plaintiffs present at least some evidence to support their claim, including the affidavits of Clive Doyle, David Thibideau, and the opinions of Edward F. Allard and Maurice Cox, experts in thermal imaging who proffer the opinion that certain images on the FLIR tape taken on April 19 are muzzle flashes from a fully automatic firearm being fired from outside the compound.'' Also, the judge noted, the plaintiffs offered a report by FBI special agent Charles Riley, who said he heard gunshots coming from an FBI sniper position on the day of the fire. Horiuchi was stationed in that position at the time of the fire. The judge dismissed all other FBI agents from causes of action arising from the fire. "Defendant Horiuchi may also be entitled to qualified immunity, but there are sufficient facts at issue that dismissal based upon qualified immunity is inappropriate at this time,'' Smith wrote. In dismissing others of the plaintiffs' claims, the judge described some as "outrageous,'' "frivolous'' and "supported by the rankest hearsay and other suspect sources.'' ============== http://www.accesswaco.com/auto/feed/news/local/1999/07/01/930879254.06303.5292.0130.html Posted for info purposes only JUNE 30, 1999 TRIAL OVER OWNERSHIP OF MOUNT CARMEL DELAYED AGAIN On April 19, 1999 150 people gathered at Mount Carmel to observe the sixth anniversary of the fire that killed 76 Davidians and mourn as well the six who died February 28, 1993. Clive Doyle and his mother have moved into a trailer on the property and, with the help of supporters, are maintaining the visitor center there. However, Davidian survivors still must deal with squatters on the property. Judge Alan Mayfield of Waco's 74th State District Court has delayed at least six times the trial over the ownership of the 77 acre property. (The former common law wife of a former leader and a former member both claim ownership.) Davidian followers of David Koresh, led by Clive Doyle, have the strongest title to the land, have built a memorial and a museum on the property and continue to pay taxes on it. Davidians and supporters found hope in a paragraph from a June 27, 1999 Dallas Morning News article by Tony Plohetski about the flow of visitors that still visit Mount Carmel weekly. The reporter wrote: Mr. Koresh's followers have custody of the property, although a man who says he is the divinely appointed leader of the religious group has filed suit for its ownership. A state district court judge has said he will dismiss the suit. According to a report from Clive Doyle, that was not the case: In regards to our getting the Mt. Carmel property back. On Friday, the 11th, of this month, we spent the best part of the day in Court, dealing with an individual by the name of Douglas Mitchell, who had brought counter claims of ownership and who had thus muddied the waters as to who should receive recognition as to being the rightful title-holders. What started out as a docket call turned into a pre-trial which resulted in the judge throwing out Mr. Mitchell's motions. The judge basically said that what Mr. Mitchell was asking the Court to decide, such as who should be the leader of the Church, who were true members as opposed to false, and how church by-laws and doctrines should be interpreted and administered, we all areas that the Constitution of the U.S.A. restricts the Court from meddling in. Having dispensed with this counter-claim we had another docket call this past Friday in regards to our original request. Monday, the 28th was scheduled for the case to go to trial, at which time our motions, and those of any other contenders were supposed to be heard. We were number 5 on this docket list. The participants in number one position were prepared to go to trial. Numbers 2, 3 and 4 were eliminated for one reason or another which moved us up to second place. At that time we were told by the judge that even though all parties in our case were ready to go to trial, he did not have a Court room for us and so we are back on hold. We are waiting, once again for a new Court date." JUNE 22, 1999 DAVIDIAN PRISONER S APPEAL GOING TO SUPREME COURT On June 22, 1999 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Walter J. Smith s ruling that five Davidian prisoners should receive 25 year sentences for carrying illegal weapons during the murder of federal agents this despite the fact the jury found them innocent of murder, found them guilty of carrying weapons in error, and did not find they carried illegal weapons. (See http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/97/97-50708-CR0.HTM) Davidian attorneys had argued that the March 24, 1999 Supreme Court decision in Jones v. United States (97-6203 http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-6203.ZS.html ) supported their contention that Smith could not unilaterally find Davidians had illegal weapons. In that case the Supreme Court found that a judge could not impose additional sentences for crimes unless a jury had found the defendant guilty of the crimes. However, the Fifth Circuit argued that in Jones the legislative history contained conflicting indications of whether Congress intended the statute at issue to lay out three distinct offenses or a single crime with three maximum penalties. . . In contrast, the legislative history of 924(c)(1) discloses that Congress consistently referred to the machine gun clause as a penalty and never indicated that it intended to create a new, separate offense for machine guns. Davidian attorneys remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will ignore this questionable reasoning and look at the Constitutional issue of whether a judge can unilaterally find a [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Waco News -- 7-7-99 (2/5) (fwd) Date: 08 Jul 1999 10:21:02 PST On Jul 8, Paul M Watson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] During the hearing, Friend-of-Bill Webster Hubbell denied repeatedly that he and Clinton had discussed the Waco situation informally, and improperly. However, an Associated Press article claimed Hubbell had revealed he was giving Clinton updates on Waco. And House staffers discovered a memorandum in which then-Treasury official Ron Noble asserted Hubbell would take the matter up with Clinton if the Treasury Department's review did not downplay BATF errors. Clearly, Noble condones covering up government crimes against citizens. (For more details of /references for this coverup see Chapter Six and Chapter Thirteen of of my book The Davidian Massacre.) JULY 2, 1999 JUDGE SMITH ALLOWS CIVIL SUITS TO GO FORWARD!! Judges Dismisses Most Lawsuits by Davidians Survivors; 3 Key Issues Remain By Tommy Witherspoon Waco Tribune-Herald staff writer A federal judge in Waco threw out the bulk of claims and defendants in lawsuits filed against the U.S. government by Branch Davidian survivors, but his ruling Thursday keeps alive three critical issues that will give the families of cult members their day in court. In an 87-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. granted a majority of the government's motions to dismiss elements of the lawsuits, but said the issue of whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms used excessive force during the Feb. 28, 1993, raid at David Koresh's compound must be decided at trial. Also to be determined at trial is the question of whether the FBI used excessive force when officers fired into the compound during the insertion of tear gas and during the April 19, 1993, fire in which Koresh and 75 of his followers were killed. The judge also ruled that the question of whether the FBI "was negligent in relation to the fire on April 19 and its extinguishment'' will be decided at trial. However, under federal law, only the question of whether the FBI used excessive force can be decided by a jury. The other issues will be determined by the judge. Smith's ruling involved 10 lawsuits filed by Davidian survivors and their relatives which were consolidated into one suit and transferred to Waco's federal court. The suits, some of which were filed in Houston and elsewhere, involved 209 plaintiffs and 42 defendants, including U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, former FBI Director William S. Sessions, former ATF Director Stephen H. Higgins, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston of Waco and a host of FBI, ATF and Texas National Guard officials. The judge's ruling dismisses all of the individual defendants except for FBI assistant special agent in charge Lon T. Horiuchi, who was in a sniper position at the time of the fire. The order also winnows the number of plaintiffs to 84, with the judge ruling that those dismissed had no valid cause of action for a variety of legal reasons. Russell Coleman, a Justice Department spokesman in Washington, D.C., said government officials had not seen the ruling and would not be able to comment until reading it. Mike Caddell, the Houston attorney who represents about three-fourths of the plaintiffs, said he was thrilled with the ruling, although he, too, had not read it. "Frankly, that is more than I had hoped for,'' he said. "I don't know if I ever had high hopes for it because there has been so much stacked against us at this point. That is an outstanding victory for us. I could not be happier.'' Caddell and Ramsey Clark, who represents many of the other defendants, fought to have Smith recused from hearing the lawsuits after they were consolidated and transferred to Waco, alleging to the U.S. Supreme Court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans that Smith showed bias against the Davidians in rulings and statements made during the criminal trial of cult members in San Antonio. "We were very pessimistic because of Judge Smith's prior rulings, both in the criminal case and in some of his rulings in our case. We thought that it would be wrong to dismiss the whole case, but the government certainly made a vigorous argument for doing so. The government pulled out all the stops in trying to get this case disposed of,'' Caddell said. Caddell, who said that he is "not a conspiracy buff,'' said the judge's ruling will allow the Branch Davidian survivors and the families of those cult members who died to find out more about what happened during the initial raid, the 51-day standoff and the final day when Koresh's sprawling compound burned with most of his followers inside. "The Davidians are clearly a troubled bunch. I have never made any bones about that,'' Caddell said. "But the system failed the Davidians badly. To give the Davidians a day in court is a victory for the system and a victory for all of us. I think it is a victory in a sense that a tragic event like this needs to be fully investigated and fully aired, and I don't think that has ever happened. There are 500 containers of evidence, many of which have never been opened or never been reviewed.'' The Davidians now will be able to present what Caddell calls "convincing evidence'' that government agents firing into the compound killed cult members after the fire erupted. "It now appears virtually certain that the government was firing into the Mount Carmel compound on the final day,'' Caddell said. "I think the evidence is convincing that many of those people, including women and children who were huddled in the dining room, were killed by government agents when they might have, in fact, tried to get out of a burning building.'' Clark, a former U.S. attorney general, had not seen the ruling, but said he is gratified that "we are in court.'' The judge dismissed claims relating to the planning of the raid, the ensuing standoff and the final assault. However, he ruled that "some circumstances relating to the initial raid and final fire'' could justify negligence claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. "As previously noted, if one or more ATF agents shot into the compound indiscriminately and without provocation, such would be the type of behavior that could lead to liability,'' Smith wrote in his order. "Additionally, although the decision to use tear gas to attempt to oust the Davidians from the compound may not be actionable, the method in which it was inserted may have been negligent if government agents actually blocked the Davidians from safely exiting the building after inserting the tear gas.'' [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Waco News -- 7-7-99 (1/5) (fwd) Date: 08 Jul 1999 10:23:07 PST On Jul 8, Paul M Watson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- WACO NEWS -- 7-7-99 >From Carol Moore As you've noticed, there hasn't been a Waco Update in quite a while--blame it on Clinton's wag the dog war against Serbia, which I was busy organizing against the last few months. However, the good news is I've decided since there always seems to be so much "Waco News" I'm going to start putting it up on my web pages as it happens and send more -- and shorter -- reports to all of you! SO BOOKMARK THE WACO NEWS PAGE http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/waco-news.html Check it out at least twice a month; there s always something happening! JULY 2, 1999 WACO COVER-UP CO-CONSPIRATOR LEAD CANDIDATE FOR INTERPOL TOP SPOT July 02, 1999 18:22:45 ET FORMER U.S. OFFICIAL CHOSEN TO HEAD WORLD POLICE A former U.S. law enforcement official on Friday was chosen as the lead candidate to head Interpol, the global law enforcement organization. Ron Noble, former Treasury undersecretary for enforcement, was named during an executive session at Interpol headquarters in Lyon, France. Noble, 42, best known as the chief investigator of the failed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms raid on the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco, Texas, is the only person the United States has ever nominated to head Interpol in the 75-year history of the organization. Attorney General Janet Reno personally picked Noble for the position. The move marks a shift in U.S. policy, and comes as American's celebrate Independence Day. Until recently, American federal law enforcement agencies have not played an active role in Interpol. Founded in 1923, the International Criminal Police Organization [Interpol], using the resources of law enforcement agencies in 177 member countries, acts as a global clearinghouse for information on crime threats. The organization cannot make arrests, but it does issue "red notices." Those notices are honored by 135 countries that arrest suspects solely on the basis of a "red notice" with no further information. The USA, however, does not currently honor Interpol's red notices. "Interpol is a great law enforcement organization, but at the turn of the century, with technology taking off by leaps and bounds, it is at a crossroads," Noble told USA TODAY in a recent interview. "You can move from country to country in hours, and from a communications and business perspective, you can move at the speed of light with the advent of the Internet. Interpol is the one organization that can help in getting the right people together and coordinating and fighting crime in those areas." ----------- Notes on Ron Noble from Carol Moore: During last winters House Impeachment hearings Clinton chose Ronald K. Noble (who oversaw the Treasury Department s 1993 whitewash report on Waco) and Edward S.G. Dennis, Jr. (who oversaw the Justice Department s 1993 whitewash report on Waco) to participate in the Wednesday, December 9th morning panel on Prosecutorial Standards for Obstruction of Justice and Perjury. So this is a form of payback In late April, 1993 Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen selected Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Law Enforcement Ronald K. Noble to head the Waco investigation. Noble had approved the decision to go ahead with the raid. Since he had not been confirmed at that point, Noble had no formal authority. Noble had little interest in issuing a report that either would challenge significantly BATF's investigation or operations modus operandi or would admit these led to crimes against the Davidians. During the 1995 House Waco hearings, Republicans were angry to learn BATF ignored David Koresh's July, 1992 invitation to BATF, through gun dealer Henry McMahon, to inspect his guns. They solicited from a number of expert and law enforcement witnesses opinions that such an invitation always should be accepted, if only as a means of gathering information for a search warrant. One representative castigated Treasury official Ron Noble for not mentioning the invitation in the official Treasury Department report. During the hearing, Noble asserted the Treasury Department had investigated the issue of firing from helicopters thoroughly--even though the allegation was never mentioned in the department's official report. (He ignored more than a dozen eyewitness reports, photographic, video and other evidence of such firing.) A document discovered by House staffers revealed that on the morning of February 28 an unnamed BATF agent in Waco informed BATF's Washington office that the BATF raid had been speeded up because of David Koresh's "comments" that he knew about the upcoming raid to the undercover agent. When asked about it, Ron Noble tried to explain this away as an after-the-fact record, of no consequence. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: CHANNEL 5 POLL (fwd) Date: 08 Jul 1999 13:05:49 PST On Jul 8, C. D. Tavares wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >"Is Hillary a carpetbagger?" http://home.digitalcity.com/boston/wcvbpoll/ The funny part: the AOL tag line announcing the page combined two stories on that page, making an unintentional editorial comment: "Is your home safe? Hillary vote!" (I'm forwarding this to the national list I can access, and asking others to spread it farther. After all, if Hillary has the right to oppress all US citizens from the position of Senator from New York, all US citizens have the right to vote for or against her in a poll in Boston.) -- Tavares@alum.mit.edu http://home.earthlink.net/~cdtavares [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: NEW anti-gun group (fwd) Date: 08 Jul 1999 20:14:19 PST On Jul 8, gil pyles wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Dear Second Amendment Activists: =20 Are you now aware of: "The Bell Campaign"? =20 It is the newest anti-freedom, anti-Second Amendment, anti-gun = organization in the nation. Take note. Here are some of their goals: =20 1.) Firearms Registered (can you say Kalifornia Konfiscation?) 2.) Gun Owners Licensed 3.) One Gun-A-Month (can you say None-Gun-A-Month?) 4.) No CCW 5.) Eliminate Assault Weapons & "Junk" guns 6.) Regulate gun Shows (can you say eliminate) =20 Please take the time to call them on their toll-free 800 number to request information. You need to see their professional-glossy newsletter "ONE CLEAR VOICE" =20 Call them now and have them mail you some of their information. =20 Toll free: 1-800-RINGING (1-800-746-4464) =20 In their newsletter it states 34,034 people died from guns in 1996. =20 It also states that one child was killed with a 25mm semi-automatic handgun. 25mm? Can somebody tell me what a 25mm is? =20 There is a link to thank Rosie O'Donnell on their web site for having a=20 founder of The Bell Campaign on Rosie's show, Mary Leigh Beck. =20 bell@bellcampaign.org =20 http://www.bellcampaign.org/ =20 Fax: (415) 821-5811 =20 Media: Contact Laurie Leiber at (800) 746-4464.=20 If you would like to say thank you to Rosie O'Donnell for = having Mary Leigh Beck on her show, log on to Rosie's website at = http://rosieo.warnerbros.com/, click on the button at the bottom of the = page marked "Contact Rosie." When you get to the contact page, look for = the yellow stars and click on "email Rosie."=20 =20 =20 And lastly, there is this link on their web site, to the Gun Free Kids site, where it states they will be back in the House & Senate with gun control. =20 http://gunfreekids.policy.net/ =20 Welcome to Gun Free Kids. Even though the entire gun safety bill was = voted down in the House of Representatives in mid-June, all is not lost. = Your support on this issue is still vital.=20 Gun safety provisions that would protect our children and make our = schools safer still can be added during the Senate-House Conference on = the Juvenile Justice Bill, which is expected to convene in mid-summer.=20 Gil Pyles Vice President-SACMO The Second Amendment Coalition of Missouri=20 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Chicago/Indiana shooter poll (fwd) Date: 08 Jul 1999 20:13:11 PST On Jul 8, Wayne J. Warf wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] As you may know, the individual who shot the black basketball coach in Chicago also murdered a Korean graduate student on July 4 here in Bloomington, IN. Our anti-gun mayor is hoping that this can be ridden into a seat in Congress (so it effects you too). We'd like to dissuade him, the local paper is running a poll, if you could help out, it would be most appreciated. Thanks It's at: www.hoosiertimes.com -- -Wayne J. Warf Kirkwood Hall Rm.#201 Network Manager Research & University Graduate School Office: 855-5687 (24 hr. voicemail) Indiana University [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Alaskans: Action Needed (fwd) Date: 10 Jul 1999 10:12:09 PST On Jul 10, CJE wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Gov. Knowles yesterday vetoed SB 130 which would have required CLEO signatures on transfers, essentially making AK a "shall-issue" state for NFA transfers. In AK as elsewhere, CLEO refusal to sign such transfers has been an effective de-facto means of gun-control. Here is the transcript of his veto message: "SB 130 makes it a primary statutory function of the Department of Public Safety to administer transfers of firearms. This provision is intended specifically for the selling and trading of fully automatic weapons. "These weapons designed to kill people are prohibited by Alaska law, but permitted under federal law with proper certification," Knowles said in his veto message on the bill. "I do not wish to expend state resources to perform federal functions that allow lethal weapons in our state." Knowles said the bill trivialized the Department of Public Safety's mission to protect life and property by adding weapons transfers as a primary departmental responsibility. Under current Alaska law, firearms such as machine guns, automatic weapons, and sawed-off-shotguns are prohibited weapons that are illegal to possess, sell, transfer or manufacture unless done in accordance with federal law. Federal law allows for the sale or transfer of these weapons if the person obtains federal approval, which includes obtaining a certificate from a chief law enforcement officer attesting to the person's suitability to have such a weapon. Commissioners of the Department of Public Safety have refused to execute these federal certificates for at least the last two decades. And because local police departments in the state will rarely complete these forms, people who want to own these prohibited automatic weapons are hard pressed to meet the federal requirements for certification. SB130 attempts to assist this type of gun ownership by requiring the state to sign the federal transfer certification forms. "Alaska's policy to not sign these transfer forms is in line with other states including Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona, Montana, and Texas," Knowles said. "They have done so for good reason: to authorize a person to own such a weapon requires extensive and time consuming background investigation and a leap of faith which responsible peace officers will not take. Even federal agencies in Alaska, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Marshal, have refused to sign these forms and have passed the duty on to state and local law enforcement creating, essentially, an unfunded mandate. "Supporters of this bill claim its intent is merely to assist gun collectors who want to trade their automatic weapons, but we must weigh the desires of an honest collector with the overall public safety," Knowles concluded. "I cannot endorse legislation intended to facilitate ownership of these weapons." **************************************************** Gov. Knowles' veto message is replete with distortions and outright lies. No. 1, NFA weapons are NOT illegal in Alaska. No. 2, they demonstrably do not present a threat to "public safety." Those are just the highlights. Please call the Gov.'s office and contact your state legislators if you're an Alaskan. Help from other quarters is most welcome. Hopefully, with our support, they can over-ride this egregious usurpation of our Civil Rights. Cliff Elsmann Pissed off in Anchorage [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #143 (1/3) (fwd) Date: 10 Jul 1999 21:52:46 PST On Jul 10, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 11, 1999 #143 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html A DARK CELEBRATION Hillary is throwing a huge party in Washington and this is one gig we may all want to watch. This time, it's a New Years eve party. She seems to think they will be celebrating the entering of a new century. But never mind that part. We are not going to tell Washington that a century has 100 years, not 99. Anyway, the reason this New Years eve party may be great fun to watch is because it looks like there may be a lot of unexpected fireworks. You see, they'll need things like lights and water to make this a happening, and the District of Columbia is not sure either will be available. So, we're hoping that C-SPAN has battery operated cameras so we can watch Hillary blow a fuse and rant, rave, cuss and throw things at people, live and in color, on national television. According to the Washington Post in a June 28 report, the District government recognizes that its Y2K repair program is not likely to be completed on time. So, they plan a massive New Years eve mobilization of emergency personnel and staff to ensure that critical city services are not interrupted if computer systems fail. Rather than partying, the city's police will be stationed at more than 120 locations across the city, working 12-hour shifts, to take walk-in requests for emergency services. Twenty-one "warming centers," supplied with food, water and beds, will open. School crossing guards will be on call, ready to replace traffic lights at major intersections. And D.C. General Hospital will have 175 extra staff working. "Our intent is not to alarm people, but put people at ease that things are under control," Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said. "We are going to have this city work for people." Commander David B. McDonald, the supervisor of police Y2K planning, added: "We want to reassure the residents and visitors to the District that even if Armageddon comes, we will assist and protect the public." How comforting. The people may have no electricity, water or heat, but over at the White House they'll (try to) celebrate. This is the typical Democratic "let them eat cake" approach to government, apparently. As the Washington Post reports: Of the city's 73 agencies, 19 -- including key departments such as Health, Housing and Community Development; Tax and Revenue; Child and Family Services; and Public Works -- are not even halfway done with their year Y2K repairs and planning. Which means, they will not be working. Congress gave the District $62 million in emergency funding to help pay for the work. The District hired more than 300 consultants and budgeted a total of $76 million. But, they didn't start in time. So, there is an excellent chance the nation's capitol will go dark on New Years eve. The D.C. General Hospital is only 48% ready. Even their pagers will not work. Eighty percent of the 1,000 pagers assigned to staff at D.C. General and other divisions of the city's hospital and health care network are not Y2K compatible. Ditto for most of the patient monitoring equipment and the patient records computer. Actually, the phone company says they are 98% certain it won't go down. The power companies say they are 99% certain everything will work. But, the city administration apparently does not believe them. So, they are calling in the Red Cross and the National Guard. And, as an attempt to keep some services going, the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority is spending more than $1-million to rent several locomotive-size generators to ensure that water will flow if the electricity goes out. City officials are also urging residents to prepare for the new year by stocking up on food, fuel, bottled water and other supplies as they would for a winter storm. At the end of June, the Department of Health was only 25% ready, the Department of Housing and Community Development 25%, the Real Estate Services Branch 25%, the D.C. Housing Authority 40%, Department of Public Works 45%, D.C. Health and Hospitals/Public Benefits Corp. 48%, Telecommunications 48%, D.C. Public Schools 50%, University of the District of Columbia 50%, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs 50%, D.C. National Guard 60%, Energy Office 65%, Metropolitan Police Department 65%, Emergency Management 70%, Water and Sewer Authority 80%, Office of the Chief Technology Officer 80%, and Doug Fiedor 100%. So, because the District government is negligent, slow and can't pay attention very well, they are asking the federal government for an additional $75 million in emergency funds -- tax money from people who live in the States. And that's why the administration's Millennium celebration (a year early), may be great fun to watch. ENGLISH FIRST Some educational concepts were tried, tested and conclusively proven effective over half a century ago. So, it's difficult to understand why today's liberal education establishment dropped them. Teaching English in school seems like a no brainer. We live in an English speaking country. Everyone living here needs to know English. It's as simple as that. Yet, some in the educational establishment decided to teach every immigrant kid in their original language and English as only a second language. Consequently, there are many thousands of immigrant kids living in this country who know very little English. Last year, via a state wide referendum, the people of California protested. Well, the startling (to liberals) results are starting to pour in. Now, former bilingual education students are learning English faster in English-only classrooms than almost anyone predicted. And, that is the conclusion today, not just of bilingual education opponents, but of many formerly pro-bilingual teachers, according to reports. One Orange County teacher who once taught and supported bilingual classes describes her first-grade students as "little sponges" who "absorb everything." She says that her 20 "English-deficient" students add and subtract, read, write and speak in English, much to her surprise. This is quite a concept for liberals to accept, actually. Kids learn languages very quickly, and there were hundreds of instances of this back in my old neighborhood. Back then, our teachers said we shall learn English, and so we did. When Mrs. Sharon said we must [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #143 (3/3) (fwd) Date: 10 Jul 1999 21:50:40 PST On Jul 10, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] sizable commercial passenger aircraft. Some of the information can be found at http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/Pub_list.htm Other problems are noted at http://olias.arc.nasa.gov/ASRS/callback.html The problem seems to be two fold: First, the schedules of many pilots are so tight they do not always get the rest they need and deserve to function optimally. Second, a number of pilots do not get proper nutrition while flying. Nor do they always get the time to actually sit down and eat something, like normal people. Which brings us to an important point that needs to be studied (hint) by a good medical research group -- easy research. What is the safety implication when you mix both sleep deprivation and hypoglycemia in a working commercial airline pilot? Long-haul truck drivers must adhere to a strict rest schedule and are hassled by authorities from coast to coast to insure that they do. So, why are things different for commercial airline pilots? Perhaps those frequent flyers on Capitol Hill might be interested in investigating this sleep deprivation problem in professional airline pilots. FAA doesn't seem to care. MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS MEAN FREEDOM Due to (government says) rising drug prices, reduced competition in the health care field because of consolidations, and insurers playing catch-up after initially setting low rates to gain market share, analysts expect workers' health-care premiums to rise by 7 to 11 percent for large companies this year and in 2000. Worse yet, premiums for midsize firms may rise as much as 20 percent this year. It also seems that, as costs rise, so does consumers' dissatisfaction with the medical care delivery system, especially with those operating the insurance companies. For instance, at least 29 percent were said to be discouraged by the complex referral rules in point-of- service plans. And it's true, freedom of choice in medical care is quickly diminishing. Insurance company clerks are directing the treatment plan, or so it seems to many. Further compounding the cost problems is the fact that, for more than 30 years, states have been passing legislation that forces insurers to cover health care providers such as chiropractors and podiatrists, and services such as drug and alcohol abuse. Back in 1968 there were only five such mandates, by the end of last year there were 1,260 to worry about. Most "experts" in the health care industry readily admit that the primary reason health care costs are rising is government interference. And it stands to reason that the greater the number of services mandated, the greater the costs. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) recently introduced "The Patients' Health Care Choice Act of 1999" (H.R. 1687), that includes a number of proposals designed to improve access to health insurance. The bill addresses the inequities created by the different tax treatment afforded employer-paid health benefits -- which are fully tax deductible for both employer and employee -- and health insurance purchased by the unemployed or individuals who work for small businesses, who must pay with after tax dollars. The bill tries to correct problems caused by government mandates by giving everyone a tax break for health care expenditures. But there's a better way. Everyone in government knows it. But many politicians are afraid to implement it because they will then lose some control over the lives of the American people. Last May, 43 Senate Republicans wrote Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) recommending corrections in Medical Savings Account legislation. This program was started for a measly four years and limited to just a few thousand people. The four-year MSA pilot program is now in its third year and many people who were previously uninsured are signing up. Hundreds of thousands more would, too, if the federal government would just get out of the way. Presently, MSAs are only available to the self- employed and employees of firms with 50 or fewer workers. The Senators want to "allow" anyone to open an MSA, and permit both employees and employers -- rather than either one or the other as the law now stands -- to contribute to the accounts. They also want to make the MSA program permanent, which would encourage more insurers to enter the market. Another encouraging point is that the General Accounting Office estimated that some 37 percent of MSA participants were previously uninsured. The socialists in government hate the Medical Savings Account plan because it is very simple, effectively gives control back to the patient and those not requiring much medical treatment might actually profit from it. Here's why: Let's say that you have $4,000 per year for medical insurance. Under the MSA plan, this then becomes tax free money, exempt from income tax. A requirement of the plan is that you use half (or thereabouts) of that money to purchase a (catastrophic) health insurance plan with a $2,000 (or thereabouts) deductible. The other $2,000, then, goes into your personal medical savings account for whatever medical treatment you may need that year. A patient may save that money in an interest bearing account forever, tax free. Or, they may use part of what they have accumulated for anything they wish. But, if not used for medical treatment, it will be taxed at that person's normal income tax rate. Better yet, the patient picks the doctor, clinic or hospital they wish to hire for treatment. And, the patient can make any deal they wish for treatment. So, if Doctor XY down the road is giving good treatment at half the cost of Doctor ZA on the other side of town, go to whomsoever you wish -- and save the money. It's your money, after all. Medical Savings Accounts, or MSAs; they may not be for everyone, but it sure sounds like a good deal on this end. ~ End ~ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #143 (2/3) (fwd) Date: 10 Jul 1999 21:51:49 PST On Jul 10, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] learn to diagram a sentence (yuk!), that order included everyone in the large class, including those who had only been in the country six months to a year. To not do it correctly was to fail the class. No exceptions were made. The correction, back then, was called summer school. So, this year, it's no real surprise that more immigrant parents than expected are choosing to keep their children in English-only classes rather than exploit a silly loophole in the California law that would let them put their kids back in bilingual classes. In fact, when asked, fewer than 10 percent of parents in Los Angeles who were eligible to do so under the loophole wanted their kids back in bilingual classes. Another interesting development also occurred: The new law included $50 million a year funding for adult English classes and they too have become extremely popular with parents. However, there are always nay-sayers around. These seem to be located around the socialist capitol of San Francisco. San Francisco and a couple other districts skirted the law and refused to disband bilingual classes. Apparently, those school districts cannot deal with success. Now comes the people of Arizona. The silly bilingual education movement originated in Arizona back in the 1960s. And, although the State sinks $70 million into the program annually, legislators say bilingual instruction works for only 7% of students. So, Arizona legislators are fed up with the failures of bilingual education and are considering bills to reform it. The chairman of the State Senate's education committee calls it "mass-production criminality." "On average, you have a baby-sitting exercise taking place," said Republican state Sen. John Huppenthal. For instance, the Tucson school district has 12,000 students in bilingual classrooms. Yet, only 3.2% of them learned enough English last year to be reclassified as fluent and moved into mainstream classes. The people of Arizona figured out that bilingual education is little more than a big, feel-good liberal scam. A petition drive, started by a teacher, is underway for a referendum to abolish bilingual education altogether. Hector Ayala, a high school English teacher in Tucson, started the statewide campaign called "English for the Children." Modeled after California's successful Proposition 227, the Arizona movement hopes to abolish bilingual education in November 2000. "Mexican students are dropping out at over twice the rate of Anglos," Ayala said. "They're generally reading at a third-grade level [in high school]." State Senator Joe Eddie Lopez (D), a former union organizer and one-time aide to U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, wants to salvage bilingual education and keep the children ignorant. He's still floating that old "throw more money at the problem" liberal canard. Among other things, Lopez wants more money to hire skilled bilingual teachers and to monitor the progress of bilingual students. He is also demanding $2,000 raises for bilingual teachers. Rewarding failure seems to be the liberal way. All business of all governments and branches of governments in the United States should be conducted exclusively in English. Furthermore, a working knowledge of English should be a requirement for everything from citizenship to driving a vehicle. Other languages should be taught in government schools, but core curriculum classes should always be taught only in English. That is our American way. The immigrants of old conformed. The new ones can, too. BAD SCHEDULING CAUSES ERRORS In 1997, Mitler, Merrill, et al conducted a federally mandated study of sleep deprivation in long haul truck drivers (New England Journal of Medicine, 1997, 337: 755-761). They, of course, found that sleep deprivation in association with demanding work schedules is an important public safety concern. And, they concluded that: "Sleep- deprivation to a degree that is known to impair performance did occur, suggesting that sleep deprivation could be a contributory factor in accidents involving long-haul truck drivers." Nothing striking about that at all. Tired people often make a lot more mistakes than rested people. And, those commercially driving large trucks, buses, trains, and aircraft should be well rested. A glaring little secret is, they often are not. In fact, sometimes they are actually sleeping while working. For instance, according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) nearly 75% of all aircraft accidents are do to pilot error. That is probably stretching it some, but let's go with that, anyway. When a commercial airline pilot flies less than 8 hours in a 24 hour period, FAA mandates that they must get at least 8 hours "rest." If a commercial airline pilot flies 9 or more hours in a 24 hour period, FAA requires they get 11 hours "rest" each 24 hour period. That sounds good on paper, but there are a few problems with it in practice. Many of today's commercial airline pilots are scheduled in such a way that they may get very little "rest" at times. That is, they can be called at home after something less that a full night's sleep and told to report within 90 minutes. Therein, they fly an hour or two to wherever, let passengers out and pick up new ones and immediately take off for another destination. From that other destination, they would make yet another quick turn- around and go to a third destination, where they could have some down time. So, total "flying" time may be just under 8 hours, but they have actually been working anywhere from 10 to 12 hours. But, according to FAA rules, they only need 8 hours of "rest." And, now is when things start to get interesting. "Rest," in pilot lingo, means any time out of the aircraft. That is, the schedule could put them back at the aircraft again in 8 hours. So, it would take our pilot approximately 30 minutes to get to the hotel, some time to eat and whatnot, then sleep fast for five or six hours, and report to reverse the whole schedule. Schedules similar to this are very common for many commercial pilots. Sometimes, actually, they get worse. And, remember, the 20 minutes or so it takes to "check out" the aircraft and go through the pre-flight check list is technically part of the "rest" the pilot gets from flying. Sleeping while working, therefore, is not all that uncommon. One of the war stories related while interviewing pilots was from a young man who admitted he dozed off for about 30 minutes while in the air. His big surprise was that the fellow sitting next to him was also sleeping. The aircraft was doing its thing on autopilot. Another captain told of the second officer preparing to land after a long day. Autopilot was off at the time and the captain was going over his checklist. The captain looked up to see they were significantly off course for their approach to the runway and yelled to the copilot to correct. "Oh (expletive deleted)!" the copilot said. "I must have been sleeping." It's not unheard of for pilots to be so tired they do not properly go through their landing check lists. One pilot actually forgot to put the wheels down on a [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #143 (3/3) (fwd) Date: 10 Jul 1999 21:50:40 PST On Jul 10, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] sizable commercial passenger aircraft. Some of the information can be found at http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/Pub_list.htm Other problems are noted at http://olias.arc.nasa.gov/ASRS/callback.html The problem seems to be two fold: First, the schedules of many pilots are so tight they do not always get the rest they need and deserve to function optimally. Second, a number of pilots do not get proper nutrition while flying. Nor do they always get the time to actually sit down and eat something, like normal people. Which brings us to an important point that needs to be studied (hint) by a good medical research group -- easy research. What is the safety implication when you mix both sleep deprivation and hypoglycemia in a working commercial airline pilot? Long-haul truck drivers must adhere to a strict rest schedule and are hassled by authorities from coast to coast to insure that they do. So, why are things different for commercial airline pilots? Perhaps those frequent flyers on Capitol Hill might be interested in investigating this sleep deprivation problem in professional airline pilots. FAA doesn't seem to care. MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS MEAN FREEDOM Due to (government says) rising drug prices, reduced competition in the health care field because of consolidations, and insurers playing catch-up after initially setting low rates to gain market share, analysts expect workers' health-care premiums to rise by 7 to 11 percent for large companies this year and in 2000. Worse yet, premiums for midsize firms may rise as much as 20 percent this year. It also seems that, as costs rise, so does consumers' dissatisfaction with the medical care delivery system, especially with those operating the insurance companies. For instance, at least 29 percent were said to be discouraged by the complex referral rules in point-of- service plans. And it's true, freedom of choice in medical care is quickly diminishing. Insurance company clerks are directing the treatment plan, or so it seems to many. Further compounding the cost problems is the fact that, for more than 30 years, states have been passing legislation that forces insurers to cover health care providers such as chiropractors and podiatrists, and services such as drug and alcohol abuse. Back in 1968 there were only five such mandates, by the end of last year there were 1,260 to worry about. Most "experts" in the health care industry readily admit that the primary reason health care costs are rising is government interference. And it stands to reason that the greater the number of services mandated, the greater the costs. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) recently introduced "The Patients' Health Care Choice Act of 1999" (H.R. 1687), that includes a number of proposals designed to improve access to health insurance. The bill addresses the inequities created by the different tax treatment afforded employer-paid health benefits -- which are fully tax deductible for both employer and employee -- and health insurance purchased by the unemployed or individuals who work for small businesses, who must pay with after tax dollars. The bill tries to correct problems caused by government mandates by giving everyone a tax break for health care expenditures. But there's a better way. Everyone in government knows it. But many politicians are afraid to implement it because they will then lose some control over the lives of the American people. Last May, 43 Senate Republicans wrote Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) recommending corrections in Medical Savings Account legislation. This program was started for a measly four years and limited to just a few thousand people. The four-year MSA pilot program is now in its third year and many people who were previously uninsured are signing up. Hundreds of thousands more would, too, if the federal government would just get out of the way. Presently, MSAs are only available to the self- employed and employees of firms with 50 or fewer workers. The Senators want to "allow" anyone to open an MSA, and permit both employees and employers -- rather than either one or the other as the law now stands -- to contribute to the accounts. They also want to make the MSA program permanent, which would encourage more insurers to enter the market. Another encouraging point is that the General Accounting Office estimated that some 37 percent of MSA participants were previously uninsured. The socialists in government hate the Medical Savings Account plan because it is very simple, effectively gives control back to the patient and those not requiring much medical treatment might actually profit from it. Here's why: Let's say that you have $4,000 per year for medical insurance. Under the MSA plan, this then becomes tax free money, exempt from income tax. A requirement of the plan is that you use half (or thereabouts) of that money to purchase a (catastrophic) health insurance plan with a $2,000 (or thereabouts) deductible. The other $2,000, then, goes into your personal medical savings account for whatever medical treatment you may need that year. A patient may save that money in an interest bearing account forever, tax free. Or, they may use part of what they have accumulated for anything they wish. But, if not used for medical treatment, it will be taxed at that person's normal income tax rate. Better yet, the patient picks the doctor, clinic or hospital they wish to hire for treatment. And, the patient can make any deal they wish for treatment. So, if Doctor XY down the road is giving good treatment at half the cost of Doctor ZA on the other side of town, go to whomsoever you wish -- and save the money. It's your money, after all. Medical Savings Accounts, or MSAs; they may not be for everyone, but it sure sounds like a good deal on this end. ~ End ~ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Freedom - Competing views (2/2) (fwd) Date: 11 Jul 1999 21:51:13 PST On Jul 11, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The ancients understood the conditions of liberty better than that.. Cicero quotes Cato as saying that the Roman constitution was superior to that of other states because it "was based upon the genius, not of one man, but many; it was founded, not in one generation, but in a long period of several centuries and many ages of men. For, said he, there never has lived a man possessed of so great a genius that nothing could escape him, nor could the combined powers of all men living at one time possibly make all the necessary provisions for the future without the aid of actual experience and the test of time." Neither republican Rome nor Athens (the two free nations of the ancient world) could thus serve as an example for the rationalists. For Descartes, the fountainhead of the rationalist tradition, it was indeed Sparta that provided the model; for her greatness "was due not to the preeminence of each of its laws in particular...but to the circumstance that, originated by a single individual, they all tended to a single end." And it was Sparta which became the ideal of liberty for Rousseau as well as for Robespierre and Saint-Just and for most of the later advocates of "social" or totalitarian democracy..................... The first condition for such an intelligent use of reason in the ordering of human affairs is that we learn to understand what role it does in fact play and can play in the working of any society based on the cooperation of many separate minds. This means that, before we can try to remold society intelligently, we must understand its functioning; we must realize that , even when we believe that we understand it, we may be mistaken. What we must learn to understand is that human civilization has a life of its own, that all our efforts to improve things must operate within a working whole which we cannot entirely control, and the operation of whose forces we can hope merely, to facilitate and assist so far as we understand them. Our attitude ought to be similar to that of the physician toward a living organism: like him, we have to deal with a self-maintaining whole which is kept going by forces which we replace and which we must therefore use in all we try to achieve. What can be done to improve it must be done by working with these forces rather than against them. In all our endeavors at improvement we must always work inside this given whole, aim at piecemeal, rather than total, construction, and use at each stage the historical material at hand and improve the details step by step rather than attempt to redesign the whole. None of these conclusions are arguments against the use of reason, but only arguments against such uses as require any exclusive and coercive powers of government; not arguments against experimentation, but arguments against all exclusive, monopolistic power to experiment in a particular field97power which brooks no alternative and which lays a claim to the possession of superior wisdom97and against the consequent preclusion of solutions better than the ones to which those in power have committed themselves.' Edited by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Charles R. Kesler A DIGRESSION ON LIBERTY By Kevin McGehee It does not surprise me that, as the article points out, "What we have called the `British Tradition' was made explicit mainly by a group of Scottish moral philosophers led by David Hume, Adam Smith, and Adam Ferguson..." In my genealogical pursuits I've learned a little about how it came to be that William "Braveheart" Wallace's battle cry was "Freedom" rather than, say, "Scotland", or "Independence". Although by Wallace's day Scotland had essentially become two countries, Highland and Lowland, under a single Scottish crown (however much that crown might already have been mortgaged to the English, but that's another story), previously the realm had been -- well -- two countries, Scottish and Pictish, under a single Scottish crown. The later Highland culture was the direct descendant of the melded Scottish-Pictish nation of Kenneth MacAlpin, Duncan, Macbeth, and so on, while the Lowlanders of Wallace's day were a mixture of English and Norman as well as Scottish, and the feudal system brought by the Normans held sway there. I don't know to what degree the pre-feudal clan system may have been from the ancient Picts as opposed to the medieval Celtic Scots who arrived from north Ireland, but similar structures certainly can be seen in early Irish history, suggesting this was a Celtic form. What the clan system meant to the pre-feudal Scots and the later Highlanders was a profound decentralization of authority. Before the introduction of feudalism, the King of Scots was regarded as the *Ard Righ,* or High King, while the heads of certain clans were lesser kings. Any clan chief could claim the right to an audience with the High King, just as any clan member could claim, by right, the respectful attention of his chief. In fact, the High King was considered the Chief of Chiefs, so that the relationships have a direct correspondence. This looks very much like our own federal system, in some ways. Feudalism involved a much more rigid hierarchical arrangement, with a commoner having no rights whatsoever against his lord, and being valued only for what he contributed to his lord's wealth and power. Replace the lord with the bureaucracy of Continental socialism, and wealth and power for such a bureaucracy's "enlightened" program, and the descent isn't hard to make out. Clearly, the tradition that the Celtic Scots brought to northern Britain during the Middle Ages was closer to the traditions of liberty that have now become known as the British model, than is that of feudalism (which, by coincidence I'm sure, was brought by Normans from -- ahem -- France). Perhaps the last gasp of pre-feudalism in Scotland came in Wallace's day, but clearly his idea of freedom didn't die with him at the hands of the then-feudal English. If, as the recent movie suggests, Wallace inspired the Norman-descended Robert Bruce to continue the fight for Scottish independence (a fight Scotland lost only when England submitted to a Scottish king, not the other way around), it seems reasonable that it became embodied in the Scottish soul, both Highland and Lowland, so that men like Hume, Smith and Ferguson could put it into words. After all, the bloodshed pertaining to the Scottish Reformation during the 1600s was a result of the Lowland Scots' resistance to having an English-style hierarchical system imposed upon their church. This after centuries of feudalism. Other cultures may have contributed to this thread of history -- not least the Picts, but also perhaps the other peoples, Angles, Saxons, etc., who settled in Britain after the Celts had been established there -- but the Celts deserve a big part of the credit. Kevin McGehee Fairbanks/North Pole, AK mcg5"@mcgeheezone.com http://www.mcgeheezone.com/ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Freedom - Competing views (1/2) (fwd) Date: 11 Jul 1999 21:53:05 PST On Jul 11, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] A slight digression follows. -KM ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Sunday, July 11, 1999 11:36 AM Freedom Competing views Though freedom is not a state of nature but an artifact of civilization, it did not arise from design. The institutions of freedom, like everything freedom has created, were not established because people foresaw the benefits they would bring. But once its advantages were recognized, men began to perfect and extend the reign of freedom and , for that purpose, liberty took place mainly in the eighteenth century. It began in two countries, England and France. The first of these knew liberty, the second did not. As a result, we have had to the present day two different traditions in the theory of liberty: one empirical and unsystematic, the other speculative and rationalistic, the first based on an interpretation of traditions and institutions which had spontaneously grown up and were but imperfectly understood, the second aiming at the construction of a utopia, which has often been tried but never successfully. Nevertheless, it has been the rationalist, plausible, and apparently logical argument of the French tradition, with its flattering assumptions about the unlimited powers of human reason, that has progressively gained influence, while the less articulate and less explicit tradition of English freedom hasbeen on the decline. This distinction is obscured by the facts that what we have called the French tradition of liberty arose largely from an attempt to interpret British institutions and that the conceptions which other countries formed of British institutions were based mainly on their description by French writers. The two traditions became finally confused when they merged in the liberal movement of the nineteenth century and when even leading British liberals drew as much on the French as on the British tradition. It was, in the end, the victory of the Benthamite Philosophical Radicals over the Whigs in England that concealed the fundamental difference which in more recent years has reappeared as the conflict between liberal democracy and `social' or totalitarian democracy. This difference was better understood a hundred years ago than it is today. In the year of the European revolutions in which the two traditions merged, the contrast between `Anglican' and `Gallican' liberty was still clearly described by an eminent German-American political philosopher. `Gallican Liberty' wrote Francis Lieber in 1848, `is sought in the government, and according to an Anglican point of view, it is looked for in a wrong place, where it cannot be found. Necessary consequences of the Gallican view are, that the French look for the highest degree of political civilization in organization, that is, in the highest degree of interference by public power. The question whether this interference be despotism or liberty is decided solely by the fact who interferes, and for the benefit of which class the interference takes place, while according to the Anglican view this interference would always be either absolutism or aristocracy, and the present dictatorship of the ouvriers would appear to us an uncompromising aristocracy of the ouvriers. Since this was written, the French tradition has everywhere progressively displaced the English. To disentangle the two traditions it is necessary to look at the relatively pure forms in which they appeared in the eighteenth century. What we have called the `British Tradition' was made explicit mainly by a group of Scottish moral philosophers led by David Hume, Adam Smith, and Adam Ferguson, seconded by their English contemporaries, Josiah Tucker, Edmund Burke, and William Paley, and drawing largely on a tradition rooted in the jurisprudence of the common law. Opposed to them was the tradition of the French Enlightenment, deeply imbued with Cartesian rationalism; the Encyclopedists and Rousseau, the Physiocrats and Condorcet, are their best-known representatives. Of course, the division does not fully coincide with national boundaries. Frenchmen like Montesquieu and later, Benjamin Constant and, above all, Alexis de Tocqueville are probably nearer to what we have called the British then to the French tradition. And, in Thomas Hobbes, Britain has provided at least one of the founders of the rationalist tradition, not to speak of the whole generation of enthusiasts for the French Revolution, like Godwin, Priestly, Price, and Paine, who (like Jefferson after his stay in France) belong entirely to it. Though these two groups are now commonly lumped together as the ancestors of modern liberalism, there is hardly a greater contrast imaginable than that between their respective conceptions of the evolution and functioning of a social order and the role played in it by liberty. The difference is directly traceable to the predominance of an essentially empiricist view of the world in England and a rationalist approach in France. The main contrast in the practical conclusions to which these approaches led has recently been well put, as follows: " One finds the essence of freedom in spontaneity and the absence of coercion, the other believes it to be realized only in the pursuit and attainment of an absolute collective purpose", and one stands for organic, slow, half-conscious growth, the other for doctrinaire deliberateness; one for trial and error procedure, the other for an enforced solely valid pattern. It is the second view, as J.S. Talmon has shown in an important book from which this description is taken, that has become the origin of totalitarian democracy. The sweeping success of the political doctrines that stem from the French tradition is probably due to their great appeal to human pride and ambition. But we must not forget that the political conclusions of the two schools derive from different conceptions of how society works. In this respect the British philosophers laid the foundations of a profound and essentially valid theory, while the rationalist school was simply and completely wrong. Those British philosophers have given us an interpretation of the growth of civilization that is still the indispensable foundation of the argument for liberty. They find the origin of institutions, not in contrivance or design, but in the survival of the successful. Their view is expressed in terms of "how nations stumble upon establishments which are indeed the result of human action but not the execution of human design." It stresses that what we call political order is much less the product of our ordering intelligence than is commonly imagined. As their immediate successors saw it, What Adam Smith and his contemporaries did was "to resolve almost all that has been ascribed to positive institution into the spontaneous and irresistible development of certain obvious principles97and to show with how little contrivance or political wisdom the most complicated and apparently artificial schemes of policy might have been erected. This "antirationalistic insight into historical happenings that Adam Smith shares with Hume, Adam Ferguson, and others" enabled them for the first time to comprehend how institutions and morals, language and law, have evolved by a process of cumulative growth and that it is only with and within this framework that human reason has grown and can successfully operate. Their argument is directed throughout against the Cartesian conception of an independently and antecedently existing human reason that invented these institutions and against the conception that civil society was formed by some wise original legislator or an original "social contract". The latter idea of intelligent men coming together for deliberation about how to make the world anew is perhaps the most characteristic outcome of those design theories. It found its perfect expression when the leading theorist of the French Revolution, Abbe Sieyes, exhorted the revolutionary assembly "to act like men just emerging from the state of nature and coming together for the purpose of signing a social contract." [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fwd: http://www.wral-tv.com/homepage-high.shtml (fwd) Date: 12 Jul 1999 13:24:59 PST On Jul 12, Mike Copeland wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Please vote, I'm sick of these too, but we need to keep the pressure on. -Mike > WRAL TV Flash Poll > > http://www.wral-tv.com/homepage-high.shtml > > Should gun ownership be more strictly regulated? > > at 12:30 PM > 61 % yes > 38 % no > > total votes 762 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: What is 'The West'? (1/2) (fwd) Date: 12 Jul 1999 17:56:31 PST On Jul 12, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 11:13 AM What is 'The West'? By Mackubin Thomas Owens A review of David Gress, From Plato to NATO: The Idea of the West and Its Opponents (New York: Free Press, 1998), 610 pp., $28. `The West,' as we all know, won the Cold War. Many have attributed this triumph not to the West's military superiority over the Soviet Union, but to the strength of its institutions, i.e. liberal democracy and capitalism. When the Berlin Wall fell, optimists concluded that the West, having emerged victorious from the twilight struggle with communism, would see its `values' expand over the face of the globe. As Francis Fukuyama wrote in his 1991 essay (later expanded into a book) `The End of History?' only by accommodating the ways of the West could the rest of the world extricate itself from the `mire' of history. Fukuyama's essay called forth a number of responses, most notably Harvard professor Samuel Huntington's vision of a coming `clash of civilizations.' Huntington especially objected to Fukuyama's suggestion that with the collapse of the last ideological rival to liberal democracy, Western values would be universally accepted throughout the world at large. For Huntington, the West is only one of eight civilizations or cultures, raising the possibility that far from declining in the future, conflict would take on a cultural aspect. Indeed, an implication of Huntington's thesis is that the future could manifest itself as the `West against the rest.' All of this, of course begs the question: what, exactly, is the West? David Gress sets out to answer this question in his provocative new book, From Plato to NATO: The Idea of the West and Its Opponents. Mr. Gress observes that when most people talk about the West, they have in mind democracy and free markets. Based on this understanding, defenders of the West argue that the in the future, societies and cultures will converge toward a beneficent democratic and capitalist norm. Detractors define the West by the same qualities, but denounce it as the legacy of Eurocentrism: exploitative, patriarchal, and racist_an evil culture that deserves no future and is destined to be replaced by multiculturalism and feminism. The problem, says Mr. Gress, is that this understanding of the West is superficial and therefore incorrect. It is not enough to know that the West is democratic and capitalist, Mr. Gress claims. These features are manifestations of an underlying, paradoxical, and unique civilizational identity. To truly understand the West one must know how democracy and capitalism emerged and why. Accordingly, he sets out to retrieve the more complex meaning of the West as it evolved over two millennia. According to Mr. Gress, the West most Americans have encountered is the one presented in college `Western Civilization' courses. These courses arose in the aftermath of World War I as a way of providing a liberal education for returning soldiers and for assimilating immigrants. Dubbed the `Grand Narrative' by Mr. Gress, the story told by these courses presented the West as the seamless progress of liberty and individual rights from their origins in Periclean Athens to their culmination in liberal American democracy. Versions of the Grand Narrative were advanced by such educators as John Herman Randall of Columbia and Mortimer Adler and Maynard Hutchins of the University of Chicago. Will Durant popularized a variation of the Grand Narrative for three generations of interested citizens with his multi-volume The Story of Civilization. For a half century, the Grand Narrative succeeded in assimilating students and citizens into a single cultural tradition. These generations included those who fought World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. But in the 1960s, the West of the Grand Narrative came under attack, first from radicals who accused it of elitism, and later from multiculturalists who demonized it as, `of all civilizations, uniquely rapacious, racist, sexist, exploitative, environmentally destructive, and hostile to all human dignity. It was unredeemable. Only if the West went down to destruction could the rest of the human race hope to survive.' Mr. Gress's provocative thesis is that the critics of the Grand Narrative were right but for the wrong reason: the Grand Narrative was inadequate not because it was exclusive, chauvinistic, or politically incorrect, but `because it defined the West as modernity and its core, liberty, as an abstract principle derived from the Greeks and transported, outside time, to its modern resurrection in the Enlightenment and in twentieth-century liberal American democracy.' According to the author, the Grand Narrative described an ahistorical West of progress and morality that, `torn from its moorings in religion and in the actual practice of imperfect liberties, proved defenseless when called on its faults.' The moral relativism and political correctness pilloried by the late Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind were particularly egregious manifestations of this defenselessness. Mr. Gress seeks to redefine the real West in terms of certain critical conflicts and interactions: Greece with Rome; both with Christianity; and all three with the concept of `heroic freedom' imported by the Germanic tribes that settled in parts of the former Roman Empire. In thus redefining the West, he repudiates four staples of the Grand Narrative. Undoubtedly, Mr. Gress's most controversial claim is that the West did not begin with the Greeks. The real West, he contends, began in the fourth century when the Roman Empire was Christianized. The character of the West was essentially established by the eleventh century, culminating in the medieval synthesis of Christianity and classical Greek and Germanic culture. In other words, Greek philosophy and political ideas were grafted on to an already existing Christian West. This synthesis Mr. Gress calls the `Old West.' Second, Mr. Gress argues that liberty emerged from this synthesis not as a result of planning and foresight but by accident. The balance of power in Europe prevented the rise of a permanent empire, and political liberty began to emerge where rulers could not exercise total control. Mr. Gress argues that it was in these `niches of freedom' that partial forms of liberty were established, providing incentives for people to work, save, and invest without fear of expropriation. Over time, these factors gave rise to the `New West,' the synthesis of political liberty, property rights, and economic development. Third, although it is the New West of democracy, capitalism, and science _not the Old West of Christian morality, Germanic heroic freedom, and classical Greek virtue_ that most people have in mind when they speak of the West today, Mr. Gress argues that the New West cannot survive if it does not maintain its connection with the Old. As the American Founders understood and even today's liberals have come to recognize, liberty without virtue is untenable in the long run. Finally, Mr. Gress rejects the claim that Western ideas are universal, i.e. appropriate for all the peoples of the world. On this issue he joins Samuel Huntington in rejecting Francis Fukuyama. If he means by Western ideas the `values' arising from the superficial West that he has just demolished he is, of course, correct. Moreover, as Allan Bloom also demonstrated, the attempt to universalize the `values' of the superficial West_capitalism and egalitarianism disconnected from morality and religion_actually undermines the West by unleashing multiculturalism and relativism. But if he means the universal principles that arise from the organic as opposed to the superficial West, he necessarily places himself at odds with the American Founders, who firmly believed that the principles informing the creation of the United States, as articulated in, e.g. the Declaration of Independence, applied potentially to all human beings. The Founders generally agreed that human beings have `natural ends' that are conducive to [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Republics and Democracies (5/6) (fwd) Date: 12 Jul 1999 20:13:59 PST On Jul 12, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] * * * Now obviously this change from basic truth to superficial demagoguery, in the one medium for mass indoctrination of our youth which has been available to the Federal Government until such time as it achieves control over public education, did not just happen by accident. It was part of an overall design, which became both extensive in its reach and rapid in its execution from 1933 on. Let's look at another, less important but equally striking, illustration. Former Governor Lehman of New York, in his first inaugural message in 1933, did not once use the word "democracy". The poison had not yet reached into the reservoirs from which flowed his political thoughts. In his inaugural message of 1935 he used the word "democracy" twice. The poison was beginning to work. In his similar message of 1939 he used the word "democracy," or a derivative thereof, twenty-five times. And less than a year later, on January 3, 1940, in his annual message to the New York legislature, he used it thirty-three times. The poison was now permeating every stream of his political philosophy. Spreading the Big Lie By today that same poison has been diffused, in an effective dosage, through almost the whole body of American thought about government. Newspapers write ringing editorials declaring that this is and always was a democracy. In pamphlets and books and speeches, in classrooms and pulpits and over the air, we are besieged with the shouts of the Liberals and their political henchmen, all pointing with pride to our being a democracy. Many of them even believe it. Here we have a clear-cut sample of the Big Lie which has been repeated so often and so long that it is increasingly accepted as truth. And never was a Big Lie spread more deliberately for more subversive purposes. What is even worse, because of their unceasing efforts to destroy the safeguards, traditions, and policies which made us a republic, and partly because of this very propaganda of deception, what they have been shouting so long is gradually becoming truth. Despite Mr. Warren and his Supreme Court and all of their allies, dupes, and bosses, we are not yet a democracy. But the fingers in the dike are rapidly becoming fewer and less effective. And a great many of the pillars of our republic have already been washed away. Since 1912 we have seen the imposition of a graduated income tax, as already mentioned. Also, the direct election of Senators. We have seen the Federal Reserve System established and then become the means of giving our central government absolute power over credit, interest rates, and the quantity and value of our money; and we have seen the Federal Government increasingly use this means and this power to take money from the pockets of the thrifty and put it in the hands of the thriftless, to expand bureaucracy, increase its huge debts and deficits, and to promote socialistic purposes of every kind. We have seen the Federal Government increase its holdings of land by tens of millions of acres, and go into business, as a substitute for and in competition with private industry, to the extent that in many fields it is now the largest - and in every case the most inefficient - producer of goods and services in the nation. And we have seen it carry the socialistic control of agriculture to such extremes that the once vaunted independence of our farmers is now a vanished dream. We have seen a central government taking more and more control over public education, over communications, over transportation, over every detail of our daily lives. We have seen a central government promote the power of labor-union bosses, and in turn be supported by that power, until it has become entirely too much a government of and for one class, which is exactly what our Founding Fathers wanted most to prevent. We have seen the firm periodicity of the tenure of public office terrifically weakened by the four terms as President of Franklin D. Roosevelt, something which would justly have horrified and terrified the founders of our republic. It was the fact that, in Greece, the chief executive officers stayed in power for long periods, which did much to prevent the Greeks from ever achieving a republic. In Rome it was the rise of the same tendency, under Marius and Sulla and Pompey, and as finally carried to its logical state of life-rule under Julius Caesar, which at last destroyed the republic even though its forms were left. And that is precisely one reason why the Communists and so many of their Liberal dupes wanted third and fourth terms for FDR. They knew they were thus helping to destroy the American Republic. We have seen both the Executive Department and the Supreme Court override and break down the clearly established rights of the states and state governments, of municipal governments, and of so many of those diffusers of power so carefully protected by the Constitution. Imagine, for instance, what James Madison would have thought of the Federal Government telling the city of Newburgh, New York, that it had no control over the abuse by the shiftless of its welfare handouts. We have seen an utterly unbelievable increase in government by appointive officials and bureaucratic agencies - a development entirely contrary to the very concept of government expounded and materialized by our Constitution. And we have seen the effective checking and balancing of one department of our government by another department almost completely disappear. Destroying Our Republic James Madison, in trying to give us a republic instead of a democracy, wrote that "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be denounced as the very definition of tyranny." The whole problem for the Liberal Establishment that runs our government today, and has been running it for many years regardless of the labels worn by successive administrations, has not been any divergence of beliefs or of purposes between the controlling elements of our executive, legislative or judicial branches. For twenty years, despite the heroic efforts of men like Taft to stop the trend, these branches have been acting increasingly in complete accord, and obviously according to designs laid down for them by the schemers and plotters behind the scenes. And their only question has been as to how fast the whole tribe dared to go in advancing the grand design. We do not yet have a democracy simply because it takes a lot of time and infinite pressures to sweep the American people all of the way into so disastrous an abandonment of their governmental heritage. In the Constitution of the American Republic there was a deliberate and very extensive and emphatic division of governmental power for the very purpose of preventing unbridled majority rule. In our Constitution governmental power is divided among three separate branches of the national government, three separate branches of State governments, and the peoples of the several States. And the governmental power, which is so divided, is sometimes exclusive, sometimes concurrent, sometimes limited, at all times specific, and sometimes reserved. Ours was truly, and purposely, a "mixed constitution." In a democracy there is a centralization of governmental power in a simple majority. And that, visibly, is the system of government which the enemies of our republic are seeking to impose on us today. Nor are we "drifting" into that system, as Harry Atwood said in 1933, and as many would still have us believe. We are being insidiously, conspiratorially, and treasonously led by deception, by bribery, by coercion, and by fear, to destroy a republic that was the envy and model for all of the civilized world. Finally, let's look briefly at two or three important characteristics of our republic, and of our lives under the republic, which were unique in all history up to the present time. First, our republic has offered the greatest opportunity and encouragement to social democracy the world has ever known. Just as the Greeks found that obedience to law made them free, so Americans found that social democracy flourished best in the absence of political democracy. And for sound reasons. For the safeguards to person and property afforded by a republic, the stable framework which it supplied for life and labor at all levels, and the resulting constant flux of individuals from one class into another, made caste impossible and snobbery a joke. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Republics and Democracies (1/6) (fwd) Date: 12 Jul 1999 19:43:45 PST On Jul 12, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I'm afraid I don't go along all the way with the attached. To suggest that therevwas a specific 20th-Century conspiracy to turn America, in the minds of its people, from a republic into a democracy, overlooks the fact that there has been a "democratic" political party in America -- the Democratic- Republicans, followed by their direct descendants the Jacksonian Democrats from whence have come the modern Democratic Party -- from the very beginning. If words are so powerful as the author clearly believes (and they are), the subversion of our republic began the first time a Democrat was elected to national office. Anyway, there's a great deal in this that is of value. I'm just leery of the conspiracy stuff. That there were Communist conspiracies in undeniable, but this guy gives them more credit than I would. ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 10:42 AM Republics and Democracies R. Welch The Origin of the Idea of a Republic The first scene in this drama, on which the curtain clearly lifts, is Greece of the Sixth Century B.C. The city of Athens was having so much strife and turmoil, primarily as between its various classes, that the wisest citizens felt something of a more permanent nature, rather than just a temporary remedy, had to be developed - to make possible that stability, internal peace, and prosperity which they had already come to expect of life in a civilized society. And through one of those fortunate accidents of history, which surprise us on one side by their rarity and on the other side by ever having happened at all, these citizens of Athens chose an already distinguished fellow citizen, named Solon, to resolve the problem for both their present and their future. They saw that Solon was given full power over every aspect of government and of economic life in Athens. And Solon, applying himself to the specific job, time, and circumstances, and perhaps without any surmise that he might be laboring for lands and centuries other than his own, proceeded to establish in "the laws of Solon" what amounted to, so far as we know, the first written regulations whereby men ever proposed to govern themselves. Undoubtedly even Solon's decisions and his laws were but projections and syntheses of theories and practices which had already been in existence for a long time. And yet his election as Archon of Athens, in 594 B.C., can justly be considered as the date of a whole new approach to man's eternal problem of government. There is no question but that the laws and principles which Solon laid down both foreshadowed and prepared the way for all republics of later ages, including our own. He introduced, into the visible record of man's efforts and progress, the very principle of "government by written and permanent law" instead of "government by incalculable and changeable decrees" (Will Durant). And he himself set forth one of the soundest axioms of all times, that it was a well-governed state "when the people obey the rulers and the rulers obey the laws." This concept, that there were laws which even kings and dictators must observe, was not only new; I think it can be correctly described as "western." Here was a sharp and important cleavage at the very beginning of our western civilization, from the basic concept that always had prevailed in Asia, which concept still prevailed in Solon's day, and which in fact remained unquestioned in the Asiatic mind and empires until long after the fall of the Roman Empire of the East, when Solon had been dead two thousand years. The Tyrants of Democracy Unfortunately, while Solon's laws remained in effect in Athens in varying degrees of theory and practice for five centuries, neither Athens nor any of the Greek city-states ever achieved the form of a republic, primarily for two reasons. First, Solon introduced the permanent legal basis for a republican government, but not the framework for its establishment and continuation. The execution, observance, and perpetuation of Solon's laws fell naturally and almost automatically into the hands of tyrants, who ruled Athens for long but uncertain periods of time, through changing forms and administrative procedures for their respective governments. And second, the Greek temperament was too volatile, the whole principle of self-government was too exciting - even through a dictator who might have to be overthrown by force - for the Athenians ever to finish the job Solon had begun, and bind themselves as well as their rulers down to the chains of an unchanging constitution. Even the authority of Solon's laws had to be enforced and thus established by successive tyrants like Pisistratus and Cleisthenes, or they might never have amounted to anything more than a passing dream. The ideal was there, of rule according to written laws; that those laws were at times and to some extent honored or observed constituted one huge step towards - and fulfilled one prerequisite of - a true republic. But the second great step, of a government framework as fixed and permanent as the basic laws were supposed to be, remained for the Romans and other heirs of Greece to achieve. As a consequence Athens - and the other Greek city-states which emulated it - remained politically as democracies, and eventually learned from their own experiences that it was probably the worst of all forms of government. But out of the democracies of Greece, as tempered somewhat by the laws of Solon, there came as a direct spiritual descendant the first true republic the world has ever known. This was Rome in its earlier centuries, after the monarchy had been replaced. The period is usually given as from 509 B.C. to 49 B.C., Rome having got rid of its kings by the first of those dates, and having turned to the Caesars by the second. But the really important early date is 454 B.C., when the Roman Senate sent a commission to Greece to study and report on the legislation of Solon. The commission, consisting of three men, did its work well. On its return the Roman Assembly chose ten men - and hence called the Decemviri - to rule with supreme power while formulating a new code of laws for Rome. And in 454 B.C. they proposed, and the Assembly adopted, what were called The Twelve Tables. This code, based on Solon's laws, became the written constitution of the Roman Republic. The Twelve Tables, "amended and supplemented again and again - by legislation, praetorial edicts, senatus consulta, and imperial decrees - remained for nine hundred years the basic law of Rome" (Durant). At least in theory, and always to some extent in practice, even after Julius Caesar had founded the empire which was recognized as an empire from the time of Augustus. What was equally important, even before the adoption of The Twelve Tables, Rome had already established the framework, with firm periodicity for its public servants, of a republic in which those laws could be, and for a while would be, impartially and faithfully administered. For, as a Roman named Gaius (and otherwise unknown) was to write in about 160 A.D., "all law pertains to persons, to property, and to procedure." And for a satisfactory government you need as much concern about the implementation of those laws, the governmental agencies through which they are to be administered, and the whole political framework within which those laws form the basis of order and of justice, as with the laws themselves which constitute the original statute books. And the Romans contrived and - subject to the exceptions and changes inflicted on the pattern by the ambitions and cantankerous restlessness of human nature - maintained such a framework in actual practice for nearly five hundred years. The Romans themselves referred to their government as having a "mixed constitution." By this they meant that it had some of the elements of a democracy, some of the elements of an oligarchy, and some of those of an autocracy; but they also meant that the interest of all the various classes of Roman society were taken into consideration by the Roman constitutional government, rather than just the interests of some one class. Already the Romans were familiar with governments which had been founded by, and were responsible to, one class alone: especially "democracies," as of Athens, which at times considered the rights of the proletariat as supreme; and [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Republics and Democracies (2/6) (fwd) Date: 12 Jul 1999 20:04:42 PST On Jul 12, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] oligarchies, as of Sparta, which were equally biased in favor of the aristocrats. Here again the Roman instinct and experience had led them to one of the fundamental requisites of a true republic. Checks and Balances In summary, the Romans were opposed to tyranny in any form; and the feature of government to which they gave the most thought was an elaborate system of checks and balances. In the early centuries of their republic, whenever they added to the total offices and officeholders, as often as not they were merely increasing the diffusion of power and trying to forestall the potential tyranny of one set of governmental agents by the guardianship or watchdog powers of another group. When the Tribunes were set up, for instance, around 350 B.C., their express purpose and duty was to protect the people of Rome against their own government. This was very much as our Bill of Rights was designed by our Founding Fathers for exactly the same purpose. And other changes in the Roman government had similar aims. The result was a civilization and a government which, by the time Carthage was destroyed, had become the wonder of the world, and which remained so in memory until the Nineteenth Century - when its glories began receding in the minds of men, because it was surpassed by those of the rising American Republic. Now it should bring more than smiles, in fact it should bring some very serious reflections, to Americans, to realize what the most informed and penetrating Romans, of all eras, thought of their early republic. It is both interesting, and significantly revealing, to find exactly the same arguments going on during the first centuries B.C. and A.D. about the sources of Roman greatness, that swirl around us today with regard to the United States. Cicero spoke of their "mixed constitution" as "the best form of government." Polybius, in the second century, B.C., had spoken of it in exactly the same terms; and, going further, had ascribed Rome's greatness and triumphs to its form of government. Livy, however, during the days of Augustus, wrote of the virtues that had made Rome great, before the Romans had reached the evils of his time, when, as he put it, "we can bear neither our diseases nor their remedies." And those virtues were, he said, "the unity and holiness of family life, the pietas (or reverential attitude) of children, the sacred relation of men with the gods at every step, the sanctity of the solemnly pledged word, the stoic self-control and gravitas (or serious sense of responsibility)." Doesn't that sound familiar? But while many Romans gave full credit to both the Roman character and their early environment, exactly as we do with regard to American greatness today, the nature and excellence of their early government, and its contribution to the building of Roman greatness, were widely discussed and thoroughly recognized. And the ablest among them knew exactly what they were talking about. "Democracy," wrote Seneca, "is more cruel than wars or tyrants." "Without checks and balances," Dr. Will Durant summarizes one statement of Cicero, a monarchy becomes despotism, aristocracy becomes oligarchy, democracy becomes mob rule, chaos, and dictatorship." And he quotes Cicero verbatim about the man usually chosen as leader by an ungoverned populace, as "someone bold and unscrupulous ... who curries favor with the people by giving them other men's property". If that is not an exact description of the leaders of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and the New Frontier, I don't know where you will find one. What Cicero was bemoaning was the same breakdown of the republic, and of its protection against such demagoguery and increasing "democracy," as we have been experiencing. This breakdown was under exactly the same kind of pressures that have been converting the American Republic into a democracy, the only difference being that in Rome those pressures were not so conspiratorially well organized as they are in America today. Virgil, and many great Romans like him were, as Will Durant says, well aware that "class war, not Caesar, killed the Roman Republic." In about 50 B.C., for instance, Sallust had been charging the Roman Senate with placing property rights above human rights. And we are certain that if Franklin D. Roosevelt had ever heard of Sallust or read one of Sallust's speeches, he would have told somebody to go out and hire this man Sallust for one of his ghost writers at once. About thirty years ago a man named Harry Atwood, who was one of the first to see clearly what was being done by the demagogues to our form of government, and the tragic significance of the change, wrote a book entitled Back To The Republic. It was an excellent book, except for one shortcoming. Mr. Atwood insisted emphatically, over and over, that ours was the first republic in history; that American greatness was due to our Founding Fathers having given us something entirely new in history, the first republic - which Mr. Atwood described as the "standard government," or "the golden mean," towards which all other governments to the right or the left should gravitate in the future. Now the truth is that, by merely substituting the name "Rome" for the name "United States", and making similar changes in nomenclature, Mr. Atwood's book could have been written by Virgil or by Seneca, with regard to the conversion of the Roman Republic into a democracy. It is only to the extent we are willing to learn from history that we are able to avoid repeating its horrible mistakes. And while Mr. Atwood did not sufficiently realize this fact, fortunately our Founding Fathers did. For they were men who knew history well and were determined to profit by that knowledge. Antonyms, Not Synonyms Also, by the time of the American Revolution and Constitution, the meanings of the words "republic" and "democracy" had been well established and were readily understood. And most of this accepted meaning derived from the Roman and Greek experiences. The two words are not, as most of today's Liberals would have you believe - and as most of them probably believe themselves - parallels in etymology, or history, or meaning. The word "democracy" (in a political rather than a social sense, of course) had always referred to a type of government, as distinguished from monarchy, or autocracy, or oligarchy, or principate. The word "republic", before 1789, had designated the quality and nature of a government, rather than its structure. When Tacitus complained that "it is easier for a republican form of government to be applauded than realized," he was living in an empire under the Caesars and knew it. But he was bemoaning the loss of that adherence to the laws and to the protections of the constitution which made the nation no longer a republic; and not to the fact that it was headed by an emperor. The word democracy comes from the Greek and means, literally, government by the people. The word "republic" comes from the Latin, res publica, and means literally "the public affairs." The word "commonwealth," as once widely used, and as still used in the official title of my state, "the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," is almost an exact translation and continuation of the original meaning of res publica. And it was only in this sense that the Greeks, such as Plato, used the term that has been translated as "republic." Plato was writing about an imaginary "commonwealth"; and while he certainly had strong ideas about the kind of government this Utopia should have, those ideas were not conveyed nor foreshadowed by his title. The historical development of the meaning of the word "republic" might be summarized as follows. The Greeks learned that, as Dr. Durant puts it, "man became free when he recognized that he was subject to law." The Romans applied the formerly general term "republ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Republics and Democracies (6/6) (fwd) Date: 12 Jul 1999 20:17:49 PST On Jul 12, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] In the best days of our republic Americans were fiercely proud of the fact that rich and poor met on such equal terms in so many ways, and without the slightest trace of hostility. The whole thought expressed by Burns in his famous line, "a man's a man for a' that," has never been accepted more unquestioningly, nor lived up to more truly, than in America in those wonderful decades before the intellectual snobs and power-drunk bureaucrats of our recent years set out to make everybody theoretically equal (except to themselves) by legislation and coercion. And I can tell you this. When you begin to find that Jew and Gentile, White and Colored, rich and poor, scholar and laborer, are genuinely and almost universally friendly to one another again - instead of going through all the silly motions of a phony equality forced upon them by increasing political democracy - you can be sure that we have already made great strides in the restoration of our once glorious republic. And for a very last thought, let me point out what seems to me to be something about the underlying principles of the American Republic which really was new in the whole philosophy of government. In man's earlier history, and especially in the Asiatic civilizations, all authority rested in the king or the conqueror by virtue of sheer military power. The subjects of the king had absolutely no rights except those given them by the king. And such laws or constitutional provisions as did grow up were concessions wrested from the king or given by him out of his own supposedly ultimate authority. In more modern European states, where the complete military subjugation of one nation by another was not so normal, that ultimate authority of the ruler came to rest on the theory of the divine right of kings, or in some instances and to some extent on power specifically bestowed on rulers by a pope as the representative of divinity. In the meantime the truly western current of thought, which had begun in Greece, was recurrently, intermittently, and haltingly gaining strength. It was that the people of any nation owed their rights to the government which they themselves had established and which owed its power ultimately to their consent. Just what rights any individual citizen had was properly determined by the government which all of the citizens had established, and those rights were subject to a great deal of variations in different times and places under different regimes. In other words, the rights of individuals were still changeable rights, derived from government, even though the power and authority and rights of the government were themselves derived from the total body of the people. The Key Word is "Inalienable" Then both of these basic theories of government, the eastern and the western, were really amended for all time by certain principles enunciated in the American Declaration of Independence. Those principles became a part of the very foundation of our republic. And they said that man has certain inalienable rights which do not derive from government at all. Under this theory not only the Sovereign Conqueror, but the Sovereign People, are restricted in their power and authority by man's natural rights, or by the divine rights of the individual man. And those certain inalienable and divine rights cannot be abrogated by the vote of a majority any more than they can by the decree of a conqueror. The idea that the vote of a people, no matter how nearly unanimous, makes or creates or determines what is right or just, becomes as absurd and unacceptable as the idea that right and justice are simply whatever a king says they are. Just as the early Greeks learned to try to have their rulers and themselves abide by the laws they had themselves established, so man has now been painfully learning that there are more permanent and lasting laws which cannot be changed by either sovereign kings or sovereign people, but which must be observed by both. And that government is merely a convenience, superimposed on Divine Commandments and on the natural laws that flow only from the Creator of man and man's universe. Now that principle seems to me to be the most important addition to the theory of government in all history. And it has, as I said, at least tacitly been recognized as a foundation stone and cardinal tenet of the American Republic. But of course any such idea that there are unchangeable limitations on the power of the people themselves is utterly foreign to the theory of a democracy, and even more impossible in the practices of one. And this principle may ultimately be by far the most significant of all the many differences between a republic and a democracy. For in time, under any government, without that principle slavery is inevitable, while with it slavery is impossible. And the American Republic has been the first great example of that principle at work. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ic" specifically to that system of government in which both the people and their rulers were subject to law. That meaning was recognized throughout all later history, as when the term was applied, however inappropriately in fact and optimistically in self-deception, to the "Republic of Venice" or to the "Dutch Republic." The meaning was thoroughly understood by our Founding Fathers. As early as 1775 John Adams had pointed out that Aristotle (representing Greek thought), Livy (whom he chose to represent Roman thought), and Harington (a British statesman), all "define a republic to be - a government of laws and not of men." And it was with this full understanding that our constitution-makers proceeded to establish a government which, by its very structure, would require that both the people and their rulers obey certain basic laws - laws which could not be changed without laborious and deliberate changes in the very structure of that government. When our Founding Fathers established a "republic," in the hope, as Benjamin Franklin said, that we could keep it, [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Republics and Democracies (4/6) (fwd) Date: 12 Jul 1999 20:10:56 PST On Jul 12, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] But it was a great Englishman, G. K. Chesterton, who put his finger on the basic reasoning behind all the continued and determined efforts of the Communists to convert our republic into a democracy. "You can never have a revolution," he said, "in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution." And in 1931 the Duke of Northumberland, in his booklet, The History of World Revolution, stated: "The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise." While an even more recent analyst, Archibald E. Stevenson, summarized the situation as follows: "De Tocqueville once warned us," he wrote, "that: 'If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event will arise from the unlimited tyranny of the majority.' But a majority will never be permitted to exercise such 'unlimited tryanny' so long as we cling to the American ideals of republican liberty and turn a deaf ear to the siren voices now calling us to democracy. This is not a question relating to the form of government. That can always be changed by constitutional amendment. It is one affecting the underlying philosophy of our system - a philosophy which brought new dignity to the individual, more safety for minorities and greater justice in the administration of government. We are in grave danger of dissipating this splendid heritage through mistaking it for democracy." And there have been plenty of other voices to warn us. So - how did it happen that we have been allowing this gradual destruction of our inheritance to take place? And when did it start? The two questions are closely related. For not only every democracy, but certainly every republic, bears within itself the seeds of its own destruction. The difference is that for a soundly conceived and solidly endowed republic it takes a great deal longer for those seeds to germinate and the plants to grow. The American Republic was bound - is still bound - to follow in the centuries to come the same course to destruction as did Rome. But our real ground of complaint is that we have been pushed down the demagogic road to disaster by conspiratorial hands, far sooner and far faster than would have been the results of natural political evolution. These conspiratorial hands first got seriously to work in this country in the earliest years of the Twentieth Century. The Fabian philosophy and strategy was imported to America from England, as it had been earlier to England from Germany. Some of the members of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, founded in 1905, and some of the members of the League for Industrial Democracy into which it grew, were already a part of, or affiliated with, an international Communist conspiracy, planning to make the United States a portion of a one-world Communist state. Others saw it as possible and desirable merely to make the United States a separate socialist Utopia. But they all knew and agreed that to do either they would have to destroy both the constitutional safeguards and the underlying philosophy which made it a republic. So, from the very beginning the whole drive to convert our republic into a democracy was in two parts. One part was to make our people come to believe that we had, and were supposed to have, a democracy. The second part was actually and insidiously to change the republic into a democracy. The first appreciable and effective progress in both directions began with the election of Woodrow Wilson. Of Wilson it could accurately have been said, as Tacitus had said of some Roman counterpart: "By common consent, he would have been deemed capable of governing had he never governed." Since he did become President of the United States for two terms, however, it is hard to tell how much of the tragic disaster of those years was due to the conscious support by Wilson himself of Communist purposes, and how much to his being merely a dupe and a tool of Colonel Edward Mandell House. But at any rate it is under Wilson that, for the first time, we see the power of the American presidency being used to support Communist schemers and Communist schemes in other countries - as especially, for instance, in Mexico, and throughout Latin America. It was under Wilson, of course, that the first huge parts of the Marxist program, such as the progressive income tax, were incorporated into the American system. It was under Wilson that the first huge legislative steps to break down what the Romans would have called "our mixed constitution" of a republic, and convert it into the homogenous jelly of a democracy, got under way with such measures as the direct election of Senators. And it was under Wilson that the first great propaganda slogan was coined and emblazoned everywhere, to make Americans start thinking favorably of democracies and forget that we had a republic. This was, of course, the slogan of the first World War: "To make the world safe for democracy." If enough Americans had, by those years, remembered enough of their own history, they would have been worrying about how to make the world safe from democracy. But the great deception and the great conspiracy were already well under way. New Deal or Double Dealing? The conspirators had to proceed slowly and patiently, nevertheless, and to have their allies and dupes do the same. For in the first place the American people could not have been swept too fast and too far in this movement without enough alarms being sounded to be heard and heeded. And in the second place, after the excitement of World War I had sunk into the past, and America was returning to what Harding called "normalcy," there was a strong revulsion against the whole binge of demagoguery and crackpot idealism which had been created under Woodrow Wilson, and which had been used to give us this initial push on the road towards ultimate disaster. And during this period from 1920 until the so-called Great Depression could be deliberately accentuated, extended, and increased to suit the purposes of the Fabian conspirators, there was simply a germination period for the seeds of destruction which the conspirators had planted. Not until Franklin D. Roosevelt came to power in 1933 did the whole Communist-propelled and Communist-managed drive again begin to take visible and tangible and positive steps in their program to make the United States ultimately succumb to a one-world Communist tyranny. Most conservative Americans are today well aware of many of those steps and of their significance; but there are still not enough who realize how important to Communist plans was the two-pronged drive to convert the American republic into a democracy and to make the American people accept the change without even knowing there had been one. >From 1933 on, however, that drive and that change moved into high gear, and have been kept there ever since. Let's look briefly at just two important and specific pieces of tangible evidence of this drive, and of its success in even those early years. In 1928 the U.S. Army Training Manual, used for all of our men in army uniform, gave them the following quite accurate definition of a democracy: * * * A government of the masses. Authority - derived through mass meeting or any form of 'direct' expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. * * * That was in 1928. Just when that true explanation was dropped, and through what intermediate changes the definition went, I have not had sufficient time and opportunity to learn. But compare that 1928 statement with what was said in the same place for the same use by 1952. In The Soldiers Guide, Department of the Army Field Manual, issued in June of 1952, we find the following: * * * Meaning of democracy. Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run - and that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Republics and Democracies (3/6) (fwd) Date: 12 Jul 1999 20:08:00 PST On Jul 12, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] and when they guaranteed to every state within that "republic" a "republican form" of government, they well knew the significance of the terms they were using. And were doing all in their power to make the feature of government signified by those terms as permanent as possible. They also knew very well indeed the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to avoid for their own times, and to prevent for the future, the evils of a democracy. The Founders Knew the Difference Let's look at some of the things they said to support and clarify this purpose. On May 31, 1787, Edmund Randolph told his fellow members of the newly-assembled Constitutional Convention that the object for which the delegates had met was "to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of democracy ..." The delegates to the Convention were clearly in accord with this statement. At about the same time another delegate, Elbridge Gerry, said: "The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want (that is, do not lack) virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots." And on June 21,1788, Alexander Hamilton made a speech in which he stated: It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity. Another time Hamilton said: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy." Samuel Adams warned: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that 'did not commit suicide.'" James Madison, one of the members of the Convention who was charged with drawing up our Constitution, wrote as follows: ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Madison and Hamilton and Jay and their compatriots of the Convention prepared and adopted a Constitution in which they nowhere even mentioned the word "democracy", not because they were not familiar with such a form of government, but because they were. The word "democracy" had not occurred in the Declaration of Independence, and does not appear in the constitution of a single one of our fifty states - which constitutions are derived mainly from the thinking of the Founding Fathers of the Republic - for the same reason. They knew all about democracies, and if they had wanted one for themselves and their posterity, they would have founded one. Look at all the elaborate system of checks and balances which they established; at the carefully worked-out protective clauses of the Constitution itself, and especially of the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights; at the effort, as Jefferson put it, to "bind men down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution," and thus to solidify the rule not of men but of laws. All of these steps were taken, deliberately, to avoid and to prevent a democracy, or any of the worst features of a democracy, in the United States. And so our Republic was started on its way. And for well over a hundred years our politicians, statesmen, and people remembered that this was a republic, not a democracy, and knew what they meant when they made that distinction. Again, let's look briefly at some of the evidence. Washington, in his first inaugural address, dedicated himself to "the preservation ... of the republican model of government." Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was the founder of the Democratic Party; but in his first inaugural address, although he referred several times to the Republic or the republican form of government he did not use the word "democracy" a single time. And John Marshall, who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, said: "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." Throughout the Nineteenth Century and the early part of the Twentieth, while America as a republic was growing great and becoming the envy of the whole world, there were plenty of wise men, both in our country and outside of it, who pointed to the advantages of a republic, which we were enjoying, and warned against the horrors of a democracy, into which we might fall. Around the middle of that century, Herbert Spencer, the great English philosopher, wrote, in an article on The Americans: "The Republican form of government is the highest form of government; but because of this it requires the highest type of human nature - a type nowhere at present existing." And in truth we have not been a high enough type to preserve the republic we then had, which is exactly what he was prophesying. Thomas Babington Macaulay said: "I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both." And we certainly seem to be in a fair way today to fulfill his dire prophecy. Nor was Macaulay's contention a mere personal opinion without intellectual roots and substance in the thought of his times. Nearly two centuries before, Dryden had already lamented that "no government had ever been, or ever can be, wherein timeservers and blockheads will not be uppermost." And as a result, he had spoken of nations being "drawn to the dregs of a democracy." While in 1795 Immanuel Kant had written: "Democracy is necessarily despotism." In 1850 Benjamin Disraeli, worried as was Herbert Spencer at what was already being foreshadowed in England, made a speech to the British House of Commons in which he said: "If you establish a democracy, you must in due time reap the fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impatience of public burdens, combined in due season with great increase of public expenditure. You will in due season have wars entered into from passion and not from reason; and you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and perhaps endanger your independence. You will in due season find your property is less valuable, and your freedom less complete." Disraeli could have made that speech with even more appropriateness before a joint session of the United States Congress in 1935. In 1870 he had already come up with an epigram which is strikingly true for the United States today. "The world is weary," he said, "of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians." But even in Disraeli's day there were similarly prophetic voices on this side of the Atlantic. In our own country James Russell Lowell showed that he recognized the danger of unlimited majority rule by writing: Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor. W. H. Seward pointed out that "Democracies are prone to war, and war consumes them." This is an observation certainly borne out during the past fifty years exactly to the extent that we have been becoming a democracy and fighting wars, with each trend as both a cause and an effect of the other one. And Ralph Waldo Emerson issued a most prophetic warning when he said: "Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors." If Emerson could have looked ahead to the time when so many of the editors would themselves be a part of, or sympathetic to, the gang of bullies, as they are today, he would have been even more disturbed. And in the 1880's Governor Seymour of New York said that the merit of our Constitution was, not that it promotes democracy, but checks it. Across the Atlantic again, a little later, Oscar Wilde once contributed this epigram to the discussion: "Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people." While on this side, and after the First World War had made the degenerative trend in our government so visible to any penetrating observer, H. L. Mencken wrote: "The most popular man under a democracy is not the most democratic man, but the most despotic man. The common folk delight in the exactions of such a man. They like him to boss them. Their natural gait is the goosestep." While Ludwig Lewisohn observed: "Democracy, which began by liberating men politically, has developed a dangerous tendency to enslave him through the tyranny of majorities and the deadly power of their opinion." The Prerequisite for Revolution [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: What is 'The West'? (2/2) (fwd) Date: 12 Jul 1999 21:32:04 PST On Jul 12, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] creation of the United States, as articulated in, e.g. the Declaration of Independence, applied potentially to all human beings. The Founders generally agreed that human beings have `natural ends' that are conducive to happiness, among which are safety, liberty, and property. Following Blackstone, they believed that all men possessed certain natural rights, but that only certain constitutions secured them. This, it seems to me, is the proper claim on behalf of the real West: that liberty firmly anchored in virtue and morality most accords with human nature and therefore most conduces to human happiness. To dispute the Founders' reformulation of Aristotle's argument--that there are things that are by nature right for human beings--is to accept the logic of moral relativism. This objection notwithstanding, From Plato to NATO is an insightful and impressive work. Mr. Gress especially is to be commended for reminding the adherents of the New West of their debt to Christianity and the Germanic heroic ethos. Those who would defend the West must understand what it is they are defending. Mr. Gress demonstrates that all too often, this is not the case. Mackubin Thomas Owens is an Adjunct Fellow of The Claremont Institute and professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Newport, RI. Subscribe to the Claremont Institute's Precepts to receive the latest news and information about national politics and other topics via e-mail. 1998 The Claremont Institute [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: EIA Communique - 7/12 (2/2) (fwd) Date: 12 Jul 1999 21:33:14 PST On Jul 12, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] is still well short of a two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, by the time NEA meets next year in Chicago four states -- Minnesota, Florida, Montana and New Mexico -- will be merged. The guidelines limit the number of merged state affiliates to six. After that number, each merger will have to be approved by a vote of the Board of Directors. An effort to require a vote of the Representative Assembly for additional mergers was defeated on the floor of the assembly. Where does all this leave national merger? It will not come up for another vote during Bob Chase's tenure and, assuming Vice President Reg Weaver becomes the next NEA President in 2002, is unlikely to come up pri= or to 2004. + Emily Gurnon of the San Francisco Examiner went to local malls on July= 4 and asked about 50 teenagers to identify the nation from whom had America= won its independence. Here are a few of the answers: * "Japan or something. China. Somewhere out there on the other side of the world. It's like Independence Day for the presidents, or some s--- like that." * "It wouldn't be Canada, would it?" * "I'm gonna have to go with Spain." * "I don't know, I don't even, like, have a clue." * "I want to say Korea. I'm tripping." + If you don't normally read The Atlantic Monthly, please go to http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/current/9907vouchers.htm and read Matth= ew Miller's extensive piece on school vouchers. His interview with NEA Presi= dent Bob Chase is most enlightening. + From last year's EIA annual report, NEA Confidential: "The importance = of political fund-raising at the NEA RA has been almost completely ignored, = even by vociferous critics of the union." NEA's PAC raised $797,000 during the four days of the 1999 RA, an average of $83 per delegate. + Quote of the Week: "The church has long had a mission of working for justice and for strong, self- reliant families and communities. Yet, when workers choose to form a union in order to promote the good jobs our communities need and to have a voice in providing quality services, some Catholic institutions act just like other employers who interfere with th= eir workers' choice.... The workers say that, instead of respecting their cho= ice, Catholic Healthcare West is using funds that could go to patient care to = pay a consulting firm to train supervisors on how to pressure employees not t= o form a union. Assigning supervisors to intimidate workers whose work life they control is hardly consistent with the support for workers' freedom t= o form unions that has been expressed in countless official church document= s over the years.... Catholic institutions ought to set an example by respecting the workers' voice as our teachings require." -- Monsignor Geo= rge G. Higgins of Washington, D.C. in today's Los Angeles Times. # # # The Education Intelligence Agency conducts public education research, analysis and investigations. Director: Mike Antonucci. Ph: 916-422-4373. = Fax: 916-392-1482. E-Mail: EducIntel@aol.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: EIA Communique - 7/12 (1/2) (fwd) Date: 12 Jul 1999 21:34:14 PST On Jul 12, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 11:03 AM The Education Intelligence Agency COMMUNIQU=C9 - July 12, 1999 Now on the Web at http://members.aol.com/educintel/eia + EIA is hip-deep in documents, notes, tapes, photos and interviews from= the NEA Representative Assembly. There is so much material that it would take months to cover it all in weekly installments. Instead, EIA's annual repo= rt will be devoted to events from the convention, broken down into the follo= wing topics: strategic plan, vouchers, charters, merger, staff relations, frin= ge issues, and what's to come in 2000. The report will be posted in full on = the web, and will also be available free in print form. Though it's probably = a mistake to start taking orders for an unwritten report, I'll take names a= nd addresses of those who would like the print version and send them out in = that order once it is completed. + The last communiqu=E9 went out during the lunch break on the RA's last= day, leaving many of you in the dark about the eight-hour-long afternoon sessi= on, during which the fate of the last 50 of the union's new business items we= re debated and decided. The first of these was NBI 36, which would have made it NEA policy to "publicly oppose further extension of charter schools." The item was rule= d out of order by NEA President Bob Chase on a technicality. Just prior to debate on NBI 36, the assembly voted to approve most of NEA's resolutions= en masse, including A-26, which states the union's policy on charters. Accor= ding to NEA rules, a new business item cannot restrict a resolution that has b= een approved at that year's RA. Another item, which would have called for divestment of teachers' retirement funds from the tobacco industry, suffe= red the same fate. I have no evidence that the agenda was manipulated to achi= eve this result, but the timing of the resolutions vote certainly helped avoi= d what could have been a divisive debate about the union's current charter schools policy. The delegates were more discriminating than in past years about items that had little to do with education. NBI 39, which would have involved u= nion affiliates in campaigns against sweatshop labor, was defeated. The assemb= ly voted not to even consider items about Northern Ireland's Good Friday agreement and the NEA's procedure for deciding whether or not to support = acts of war. As the evening wore on, delegates made several attempts to suspend the rules in order to limit debate on each new item. And though some of t= hese were successful, it was soon clear that the proceedings were not moving f= ast enough for most of the delegates. The hall began to empty and pizzas were ordered by some who remained. After NBI 63 passed, the rules were suspend= ed to allow for voting on each remaining item without debate, as long as the= re was no objection from the floor. NEA Vice President Reg Weaver, chairing = the assembly at the time, misunderstood the intent of the motion, and instead required a majority vote in order to debate each item. Each of the debate votes failed, so each of the remaining items was voted on, up or down, without debate. This infuriated a large number of delegates, but not enough to overrule the majority who clearly wanted to finish up business and close = out the proceedings. So, without debate, the assembly committed NEA to: documenting "the positive impact of higher salaries on the quality of education employees and the performance of their students;" monitoring "t= he impact of vouchers on public higher education, public school students, low-income families, women, and minorities;" promoting "the true beginnin= g of the 21st century and the 3rd millennium as January 1, 2001;" encouraging state affiliates to "help initiate legislation to fully protect the union rights of staff in charter schools;" and, in accordance with NEA rules, referring to the Executive Committee two measures that called for boycott= s -- one of Walmart Corporation, and the other of "any company when it, its owners, or its major stockholders have taken a favorable school voucher position." (EIA confidently predicts the Executive Committee will quietly decide not to pursue either of these boycotts.) The most revealing of the final 50 items were two submitted by Walter Domeika of Connecticut. NBI 79 called for NEA to "develop a code of ethic= s for UniServ staff for voluntary adoption by state and local affiliates." = This was defeated. But NBI 80 passed. It reads: "NEA shall provide assistance = as requested by local affiliates and elected leaders to reduce the interfere= nce by nonelected affiliate staff in policy-making and governance matters of = the affiliate." In addition to Domeika's supporters in Connecticut, this item picked up a great deal of support in the delegations of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and California. Clearly some states continue to have a serio= us tug-of-war over the role of the staff, particularly in areas deemed to be= the domain of the elected leadership. Which affiliates will ask NEA for assistance to "reduce the interference" by staff and what specific assist= ance NEA will provide are two questions to which EIA will seek the answers in = the coming year. + I neglected to give you the results of the important secret ballot vot= es that took place during the RA. The constitutional amendment that would ha= ve required 3 percent representation on the NEA Board of Directors for membe= rs with disabilities was defeated 82.3% to 17.7%. All five amendments to the by-laws drafted to institute the state merger guidelines passed by an ave= rage of 78.8% to 21.2%. Though clearly an overwhelming margin, it once again disguises the depth of opposition to merger by a substantial number of delegates. The amendments were supported by the leaders of nearly all the anti-merger state affiliates, yet a solid 21 percent still voted no. Thro= w in one of the three or four hot-button issues (say, AFL-CIO affiliation) and= NEA [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Revolution Brewing (fwd) Date: 13 Jul 1999 11:16:21 PST On Jul 13, RJK.Sr. wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > Revolution brewing: Disregard laws that violate conscience > > by Charley Reese > > Published in The Orlando Sentinel on July 1, 1999. > > There may be a revolt brewing in America. It seems to be happening in > that part of America so mysterious to the political and news-media > elite -- the areas that surround, like interstellar space, the elitist > strongholds in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. There > was a hint in Utah a year or so ago when audience members at a school > event defiantly sang a song that some federal judge had commanded that > they could not sing. More recently, on the East Coast, a group of > parents and students decided to pray in defiance of a court order. The > American majority may be fed up with special-interest-group lawyers, > using some sorehead as a token plaintiff, persuading political > appointees in black robes to jerk Americans around. Somehow, an idea > has arisen that a minority may dictate to the majority. That's a > perversion of custom. The majority respects the right of minorities to > dissent, but minorities must also respect the rights of the majority. > Furthermore, freedom means just that -- freedom. It does not mean that > Americans must pray only when and where they are told to do so by a > government increasingly more concerned with control than with freedom. > It is the government, not the people, which is violating the > Constitution and making a mockery of the Bill of Rights. The plain > meaning of the First Amendment is that the federal government should > simply butt out of religious matters altogether. The only restriction > is that the federal government may not establish an official state > religion. That could be done only by congressional action. The fact > that religious people express their religion while they happen to be > standing on federal property or attending some state-financed event > does not establish a religion. And that would be clear if federal > judges were really intent on interpreting the meaning of the > Constitution rather than just using it as an excuse to legislate their > own biases. After all, the same Congress that passed out the First > Amendment also established chaplains and opened its sessions with > prayers. I hope that America's young people will take up the challenge > issued by Darrell Scott, whose daughter was one of those killed at > Columbine High School. Scott, invited to appear before a congressional > subcommittee, no doubt sharply surprised the politicians by attacking > them. "What has happened to us as a nation?" he asked. "We have > refused to honor God, and, in doing so, we opened the doors to hatred > and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy > occurs, politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA > [National Rifle Association]. They immediately seek to pass more > restrictive laws that continue to erode away our personal and private > liberties. Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the > answer." Scott, by the way, told the politicians that he was not a > member of the NRA nor a hunter, and did not own a gun. His point was > simply that the NRA and gun legislation had nothing to do with the > tragedy that occurred. The problem, he said, is spiritual and not > legalistic or a matter of hardware. "We do need a change of heart and > a humble acknowledgement that this nation was founded on the principle > of simple trust in God," Scott told the politicians. He issued this > challenge to America's young people: "Dare to move into the new > millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your > conscience and denies your God-given right to communicate with him." > Now that is the true American spirit. Patrick Henry is surely smiling. > [Posted 06/30/1999 5:10 PM EST] [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: RE: Kleck's self defense study online? (fwd) Date: 13 Jul 1999 11:20:36 PST On Jul 13, Bob Mueller wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry" is at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf "Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws" is at http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?ABSTRACT_ID=161637 Bob Mueller - Consultant Compuware Corporation The United States Trotting Association 614-224-2291 Ext. 3234 bmueller@ustrotting.com Get into Harness Racing at http://www.ustrotting.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Minor firearm and homicide stats/study reference. (fwd) Date: 13 Jul 1999 11:17:46 PST On Jul 13, Rae Starr wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] If anyone else is collecting, the following appeared on another list. From Nov 30, 1998 to Jan. 1999, the FBI reported conducting 643,000 checks for firearm-purchase applicants, of which only 13,000 were denied -- the majority due to felony backgrounds. But of the 13,000, none had been arrested, let alone tried, for the felony of trying to illegally purchase a firearm. (Paraphrased from: Gary Fields, "13,000 guns denied, but no one arrested," _USA Today_, Thursday, Jan. 21, 1999, p. 3A.) - - - Studies which support the deterrent effect of concealed carry laws, have been criticized on methodological grounds -- social science rarely having the resources or powers to approach anything like definitive proof. However, laws have often been imposed on the 2nd Amendment right, on the basis of no particular research. The burden of proof (not to mention the burden of amendment) was on the authors of those laws. So the "inconclusive-or-flawed- methodology" argument against folk like Kleck, actually exposes the opposing side more. - - - The folowing somewhat illustrates the light manner in which data-thin pieces toss around criticisms and conclusions. And how self-defense findings seem to hold up when scholars bother to replicate the work, themselves. The first wave of studies flocked to epidemiology as a way to treat gun ownership as a public health problem. "[p. 405] [T]here is growing interest in [p. 406] actually using the methodology of public health to propose, or evaluate proposed, ''cures'' for criminal behavior, especially homicide.[2] [2] See, for example, Joseph L. Annest _et al_., National Estimates of Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries, 273 J. A.M.A. 1749 (1995); Arthur L. Kellermann, Lori Westphal, Laurie Fischer, & Beverly Harvard, Weapon Involvement in Home Invasion Crimes, 273 J. A.M.A. 1759 (1995); Hattie Ruttenberg, The Limited Promise of Public Health Methodologies to Prevent Youth Violence, 103 Yale L. J. 1885 (1994). For an early study, see R.K. Wright & J. H. Davis, Studies in the Epidemiology of Murder -- a Proposed Classification System, 22 J. Forensic Sci. 464 (1977)." These prompted further examination, which were far less dismissive. Even so, the reviewers tended to dismiss pro-2nd-Amendment findings, unless they, themselves had actually studied the data. Note, for example, Polsby's dismissal of estimates of life-saving uses of firearms by a flip "This seems too high." While Polsby's re-analysis of McDowall, Loftin & Wiersema regarding concealed carry laws, apparently convinced him that while firearm deaths increased, the overall homicide rate declined: "[p. 409] Readers may be skeptical about the efficacy of specific measures of private protection against crime and, in particular, may doubt that owning a gun is a sensible method of protecting oneself from crime.[15] They may point out that very few criminals are actually killed or otherwise disabled, seized, [p. 410] or driven off by citizens defending their person or property. The number is small, but it is not trivial.[16] A recent and careful study found that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies, less likely to be injured by criminals, and less likely to be raped.[17] The deterrent effect of widespread private ownership of guns must also be considered. The fact that a sizable fraction of potential crime victims is armed makes violent crime a dangerous activity and, by thus increasing the expected cost of violent crime, presumably reduces, though by an unknown percentage, the amount of that crime.[18] The _net_reduction may be small, however, and conceivably even negative. Guns are weapons of aggression as well as of protection. An increase in their supply may lower the cost of committing crimes (and so increase the crime rate and the demand for public protection) at the same time that it is raising the cost of crime (with the effects described in the preceding paragraph) by reducing the probability that the attempt at crime will succeed. It is at least plausible, however, that guns are more effective defensively than offensively.[19] They require little skill or strength to use, compared for example to knives, blunt instruments, and fists. They are ''equalizers,'' tending to neutralize the natural advantage of people who select into criminal activity. Moreover, even persons strongly opposed to private ownership of handguns do not believe that private security guards should be forbidden to carry handguns for defense against crime." "[15] The idea that it is a sensible method of self- or home-protection is called a ''myth'' in Ruttenberg, _supra_ note 2, at 1905. [16] See Wright & Davis, _supra_ note 2, at 466 (table 2). [17] Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150 (1995). Kleck and Gertz find that _at least_ 40,000 people a year (disproportionately black and Hispanic) use guns in situations where ''they 'almost certianly' saved a life by doing so.'' _Id_. at 180. This seems too high. [18] As emphasized by the papers cited in note 14 _supra_, however, this is provided that criminals do not know who is armed and who is unarmed. Otherwise they may simply shift their attentions to the latter. We say ''may'' rather than ''will'' because the shift to the formerly less desired class of victims may involve significant costs unless, before some victims were known to be armed, criminals were picking their victims are random. Another study in the same ''Guns and Violence Symposium'' in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in which the Kleck & Gertz study cited in note 17 _supra_ appeared found that recent changes in state law that have greatly expanded eligibility to carry concealed weapons resulted in an increase in firearm homicides. David McDowall, Colin Loftin, & Brian Wiersema, Easing Concealed Firearms Laws: Effects on Homicide in Three States, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 193 (1995). But Daniel Polsby, reinterpreting their data, found that _overall_ homicide rates had decreased, quite possibly as a result of expanded gun ownership. Daniel D. Polsby, Firearms Costs, Firearms Benefits and the Limits of Knowledge, 86 _id_. at 207; Polsby, Daniel D. Polsby Replies, 86 _id_. at 227. [19] This would be consistent with the evidence that increasing the eligibility to carry a concealed weapon reduced the overall homicide rate while increasing the firearms homicide rate. See note 18 _supra_." (Tomas J. Philipson and Richard A. Posner, [both U. of Chicago], "The Economic Epidemiology of Crime," _Journal of Law and Economics_, vol. 34 (October 1996), pp. 405-433.) - - - The latter note likely illustrates a feature of secular humanist morality: gun control advocates, studying homicide, may well not have differentiated between deaths in self-defense, and deaths from criminal victimization. Being non-judgmental and as concerned about the life of a shot-felon versus a life of a shot-innocent-victim, the solution would seem to be to preserve both lives, by victim-disarmament. But when then threat of victim-self-defense is lessened, more people cross the line into more-feral beahvior, and the overall homicide rate goes up. Arguably, those-who-murder aren't the misunderstood, basically-redeemable folk that secular humanist society wants them to be. Evidently, they don't murder by accident-of-passion or social-circumstances-beyond- their-control -- but are rationally-responsive to deterrents. Thus, they are voluntary and culpable murderers -- not victims. Whether we care most about mere life, or about innocent life, it appears, per Polsby, that upholding the Constitutional right to be armed, saves the most lives. Only if we value criminal life most, might we prefer gun control. For it appears that gun ownership reduces homicide from other causes. And in a free market, studies suggest that criminality isn't particularly profitable, hence the honest citizen might be more likely to own a quality firearm in good working order and know how to use it, than the criminal is -- particularly if the criminal is financially and physically impaired by lifestyle hazards, such as drug addiction or prior injuries. Rae Starr [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: IL House Republican Gun Survey (fwd) Date: 13 Jul 1999 16:27:00 PST On Jul 13, David Wisniewski wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] http://illhouse.wvmt.com/comm/survey.html -- David Wisniewski RKBA & Official Kmart/Rosie O'Donnell Protest Page davidwiz@erols.com http://rosie.acmecity.com/happy/365 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg Subject: Re: Fratrum: What good is a gun? (4/4) (fwd) Date: 14 Jul 1999 09:29:13 -0700 (PDT) I never saw Part 2 of this - can you resend? tia, Brewster -- *********************************************************************** "Corruptissimae republicae, plurimae leges." Tacitus W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: McGehee's News & Comment Special: July 13, 1999 (fwd) Date: 14 Jul 1999 12:42:16 PST On Jul 13, McGeheeZone.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] McGEHEE'S NEWS & COMMENT (c) 1999 KEVIN McGEHEE North Pole, Alaska mcg592@mcgeheezone.com http://www.mcgeheezone.com/ Permission granted to anyone wishing to forward, redistribute, or broadcast this article WITH FULL ATTRIBUTION. ================================================================ CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS GONE NATIVE If you receive The American Spectator, but haven't read the "Smoke-Filled Room" feature in the July 1999 issue, you should. Already in deep kimchi with the party's grassroots over other issues, such as the recent near-miss over gun control, the congressional Republicans seem to have dug themselves an even bigger kimchi pit in the emergency funding bill for operations in Kosovo, adopted a few weeks back. Although Congress defended their bill, which spent more than twice what President Clinton requested, as reversing years of Clintonista neglect of the military, in reality the bill that was adopted was laden with fat, pork, and more fat -- the vast majority of it inserted by Republicans. Because the bill was an emergency appropriation (a misnomer for this exceedingly inappropriate act), legislators were freed of the balanced-budget spending caps they agreed to back in '97. They didn't have to find ways to offset the spending, so they did their best drunken sailor imitation. My own senior Senator, Ted Stevens (RINO), chairthing of the Senate Appropriations Committee, packed the bill with millions for the dear old Last Frontier, that bastion of self-reliance, Alaska. The Senate is far from alone in its malfeasance, and in some ways it might be easier to take if it *were* only the Senate. After all, the Senate sniffed disdainfully at the whole "Contract with America" business, and rejected several elements of it after the House passed nine out of ten; the Senate doomed the House's valiant attempt to demonstrate that even the pettiest malfeasance in the Oval Office deserved punishment, by holding a show trial in which, unlike those of Stalinist Russia, the defendant was prejudged innocent regardless of the evidence; the Senate passed that revolting, exploitive post-Littleton gun control bill that the House wisely rejected, and the Senate's "leadership" remains determined to enact the ghoulish scheme. But no, the House is the Senate's accomplice in the Kosovo pork bill. Having seen how eagerly the Senate conferees were loading the bill with pork, House conferees joined the party -- perhaps in hopes of improving relations with the stuffy, creaky, arteries-hardened-to-brittleness upper house after all that unpleasantness over impeachment and gun control... Well, the Revolution of 1994 is over. No wonder people are casting about for an alternative, viable or otherwise, to the GOP. Some dissident Republicans in Congress are aware of the peril, but if their voices are heard this side of an electoral debacle in 2000, I'll be surprised. The party's establishment, both in and out of Congress, is too complacent once again, buoyed by optimistic poll numbers despite the experience of President Bush after Desert Storm faded from memory. When these establishment figures and their sympathizers are challenged on congressional lapses they are too quick to defend their side by attacking the other side. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Albore, Hillary, yadda yadda yadda. They sound like the militia types in 1996 who decided to campaign for Clinton's re-election in hopes things would get so bad afterward that the armed revolution they hoped for would finally come about. But in this instance the establishment Republicans may very well be right. A number of close Supreme Court decisions have incrementally rolled back post-New Deal jurisprudence in recent years; if Albore gets to name Chief Justice Rehnquist's successor it's a certainty that those good 5-4 decisions will be followed by years of BAD 5-4 decisions. Still, the Republican Party needs to come up with a new slogan. Another 16 months of "Albore, Hillary, yadda yadda yadda" ain't gonna cut no ice with grassroots voters fed up with a Capitol Hill GOP gone native. Having survived eight years of Clinton, there's every chance those voters will decide they can survive four years of Albore. July 13, 1999 ================================================================ **Visit the McGEHEE'S NEWS & COMMENT archives** http://www.mcgeheezone.com/news&comment/ The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s), and do not reflect those of any person or group with whom the author(s) may be affiliated, unless explicitly labelled as doing so. ================================================================ Sponsored in part by The Freedom Bookstore http://www.mcgeheezone.com/capitalism/freedombooks.htm [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FW: Gun Rights Policy Conference (fwd) Date: 15 Jul 1999 14:22:58 PST I have the html plus attachment the following post refers to. I make it a policy not to post such, but in this case, I'll make an exception for those who want them. Spread far and wide, of course. Bill Vance On Jul 15, David Wisniewski wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This got sent to me today. I've removed the two attachments. If you want the attachments, mail me off list. -David -----Original Message----- Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 1:02 PM Dear Pro Gun Webmaster: In just a few short weeks, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) will be hosting the 14th annual National Gun Right Policy Conference Sept 17-19 in St. Louis, MO. I need your help today! Since GRPC was first organized in 1986, the Conference has become one of the most important and prestigious pro-gun rights events of the year. GRPC '98 which was held in Seattle, Washington saw more than 470 registrants representing the firearms industry and organizations from over 37 states. The event garnered extensive local, state and national press coverage, as well as widespread firearms and firearms related industry support. With anti-gun hysteria at a fever pitch fueled by frivolous suits filed against firearm manufacturers, now is the time to organize. If we want to keep our gun rights then we must expect to win. With momentum that is building behind the gun rights movement, GRPC '99 could very well be the pivotal turning point in preserving the Second Amendment. I have sent this e-mail today because I need your help and support in promoting this free pro-gun rights event. Included with my e-mail are 2 attached files. Please post both of these on your website today. The first file is a news story about GRPC. In fact, one of our featured speakers will be Congressman Bob Barrr (R-7th-GA) a long time friend of gun owners. The second attached file is a banner ad which would be of great help to the pro-gun rights movement if you place it on your site today. It is imperative that we as gun owners unite together and present a solid front against the gun grabbers if we want to retain our precious freedoms. All sites that place the GRPC banner and/or press release will be listed on the official program and agenda as a contributor to GRPC '99. Please help us spread the word about the 1999 Gun Rights Policy Conference today. The rights you save may be your own. I hope to see you and members of your staff at this important event. Sincerely, Alan M. Gottlieb Chairman Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms P.S. Please feel free to call me at (425) 454-4911 for more details on this important pro-gun rights event. P.P.S. The banner should link to http://www.saf.org/GRPC1999.html <<1999 GRPC.html>> <> [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: On-Line RKBA Debate - Washington Post (fwd) Date: 15 Jul 1999 21:59:07 PST On Jul 15, David Wisniewski wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/99/courts071699.htm Live Online - Holding Court with Joan Biskupic Friday at 10 a.m. EDT. -- David Wisniewski RKBA & Official Kmart/Rosie O'Donnell Protest Page davidwiz@erols.com http://rosie.acmecity.com/happy/365 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: New update of Federalist Papers Date: 16 Jul 1999 08:25:14 PST There's a new update to the Federalist Papers out, (available at amazon.com). This one has been translated to modern language, and with an original version, the glossary will show exactly what changes were made and why. The Authoress/translater, (sorry, I didn't catch her name, and as fast as they were going, I was lucky to get as much of the title as I did), earned her bones as a translator, translating English to/from American Sign Language, and moved on to 1700's style English from there. This includes Indexing to the, (included), U.S. Constitution, and if I caught it right, some modern political referents as well. This version promises to be interesting, and possibly a good weapon in our arsenal for bringing folks up to speed in our war with the Statists/Fascists/Clintonistas et al. "The Federalist Papers In Modern Language Indexed ....", is published by Merril Press. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: NAACP Makes "Racist Mistake" (fwd) Date: 16 Jul 1999 08:25:56 PST On Jul 16, Bill Utterback wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Of announce@lp.org Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 3:20 PM NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 World Wide Web: http://www.lp.org/ ======================================= For release: July 15, 1999 ======================================= For additional information: George Getz, Press Secretary Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: 76214.3676@Compuserve.com ======================================= Anti-gun lawsuit by the NAACP is really an attack on civil rights, say Libertarians WASHINGTON, DC -- The NAACP is making a "racist mistake" by filing a lawsuit against gun manufacturers -- and is following in the shameful footsteps of the Ku Klux Klan, the Libertarian Party charged today. "With this lawsuit, the NAACP is not only attacking the civil rights of African-Americans, but is also continuing the legacy of the KKK and other racist organizations that have historically tried to keep guns out of the hands of blacks," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "Politics makes strange bedfellows -- and what could be stranger than the NAACP climbing into bed with the grand wizards of the KKK by supporting their racist agenda?" This week, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) announced at its national convention that it will file a federal suit in New York on Friday against 85 gun manufacturers for "dumping guns into black communities and turning them into war zones." The NAACP -- which argued that "the illegal trafficking of firearms disproportionately affects minority communities" -- wants the court to ban sales at gun shows and limit how many guns can be sold in one transaction. But the reality is, the gun control measures endorsed by the NAACP will disproportionately affect minority communities, where people are exposed to higher crime rates and slower police response times, said Dasbach. "The NAACP apparently wants to limit the ability of its members to defend themselves and their families against violent crime," he said. "That's shameful enough, but what's even worse is that this lawsuit continues the disgraceful legacy of white racists who don't think blacks can be trusted with guns." In fact, anyone who studies history knows that gun control laws have frequently targeted African-Americans, said Dasbach -- going all the way back to the post-Civil War period, when Southern whites were determined to keep guns away from emancipated slaves. According to Don B. Kates, an author who studied post-Civil War gun laws, a flurry of Southern states passed laws designed to ban or tax inexpensive handguns so poor blacks couldn't afford them, including Tennessee (1870), Arkansas (1881), and Alabama (1893). That trend continued into the 20th Century. In 1902, South Carolina banned the sale of handguns to everyone except "sheriffs and their special deputies: i.e., company goons and the KKK." In 1911, New York City passed the Sullivan Law, which allowed police to screen handgun applicants -- so they could reject blacks, eastern Europeans, and Jews. And in 1968, Congress passed more gun control legislation, partly in response to the urban riots that followed the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. "Given America's shameful legacy of attempting to deprive African-Americans of basic civil rights -- by denying them the right to exercise the Second Amendment -- it's baffling that the NAACP would join this attack," said Dasbach. "This lawsuit is a betrayal of everything a civil rights organization should represent." Ironically, the NAACP itself has a history of using firearms to defend African-Americans from racists, he noted. In Monroe, North Carolina in 1957, for example, 60 armed blacks from the local NAACP chapter were able to repel an attack from a KKK motorcade after the Klansmen shot at the house of Dr. Albert E. Perry, the NAACP vice president. "It would be a shame if such despicable attacks against black Americans became more common in the future -- because the NAACP had disarmed its members," said Dasbach. "As that incident in Monroe proved, the best way to protect minority communities is by giving them the freedom to defend themselves." The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008 Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072 For subscription changes, please mail to with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Prozac (again) Date: 17 Jul 1999 01:24:29 PST I just heard Joyce Reilly, (Gulf War Nurse/activist), on the Michael Reagan Talk Show. She's turned up the interesting tidbit that the Drug Companies and the Government have still been doing their little experiments, and on the Populace as well as the Military. It seems that the various Drugs like Prozac et al, have been adulterated with LSD. No wonder the kids are going nuts. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: George W. Bush: Only People with "Justified Backgrounds" Have Right to Date: 17 Jul 1999 15:47:06 -0700 Re-entered text - excerpted from page 6, Nashua NH Telegraph, Friday 07/17/99 (continuation of page 1 article) BUSH CITES FORBES AS REASON CASH WILL FLOW Bush defends decision not to adhere to limits (by Dan Balz, Washington Post) Waterloo, Iowa - Gore, campaigning in Iowa, criticized Bush's record on gun control, including signing legislation that allows Texas residents to carry concealed weapons. "In a dangerous society, the people in my state felt like they needed to protect themselves," Bush responded. "If that's the case, then we ought to know who they are and we ought to make sure that they're trained and they ought to make sure that their background justifies them being able to protect themselves," he said. COMMENTS: Wow, I wonder if my beloved wife, my adult (21 years old) daughter and I have "backgrounds" which, in the interesting words of Presidential candidate George W. Bush, "justify" us being able to protect ourselves from violent criminals? We would not want to engage in any "unjustified" self-protection against violent criminals if our "backgrounds" were not to meet with George W. Bush's approval, now would we? (Sheesh!) And George W. Bush is touted by the RNC as a "pro-gun" Republican? He must be a close relative of compromising Trendy a whole Lott and Denny's Grand Slam compromising Breakfast Hastert. Weary of baby-kissing George W. Bush's "distance" from actively and solidly supporting your right to keep and bear arms? Weary of post-1994 election Republican smiles and promises and back slaps ... but no repeal of the AW / mag ban, no repeal of the Brady Law and no wholehearted support of nationwide state CCW license reciprocity? Weary of supporting apologetic Republicans who are afraid to defend freedom? Weary of supporting weak-kneed Republicans who allow Clinton, Gore and Bradley and their Congressional allies to advance their respective agendas to incrementally destroy freedom? Weary of supporting spineless Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) who stand for nothing at all since you stand for something of consequence ... restoration of freedom? Ready to support a statesman who stands side-by-side with you to restore and defend your right to keep and bear arms? Then, join uncompromising, responsible American gun owners nationwide in MAKING A DIFFERENCE !!! ELECT Senator BOB SMITH (I-NH) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. (http://www.smithforpresident.org) It's your freedom. It's my freedom. It's our freedom. Let's all join BOB SMITH'S team ... and take our freedom back in November 2000! Christopher C. Ferris Nashua NH USA ferriscc@mainstream.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Cutting our losses Date: 17 Jul 1999 13:38:08 PST My post to another list..... Folks, there seems to be a bit of argument about the viability of third Party candidates and the Parties themselves, so excuse me for sticking my, *ahem*, in the works, too. First, the only 3rd Party to take over another Parties place in this Country, was The Republican Party, and the Party they took over from, was the Whigs. At that time, the Whig Party had all but Officially disbanded their organization, and didn't even field any Candidates that year. Before a, "3P", can really, "take over", we're going to have to do that with the Demo's. I.e., relegate them to something no-one wants to even associate with. We're well on the way if we don't blow it, but we have to do it _first_. At this point, even if one of their POTUS Candidates win, unless he has a lot more support than is currently available, it will avail nothing. In other words, no Party Support equals NO Agenda Implemented. They are indeed doing a bit better than they used to, but not yet at the National Level. Now the Peoples Idiotic Republic Of Washatonia has Jungle Primaries, so I will happily support the Third Parties that show up there, but unless they can show, "_MAJOR_ Market Share", so to speak, it'll be back to the GOP when it comes down to the playoffs. If they can't show enough Primary votes to equal their opponents, forget it. This Country is, (if it isn't allready there), reaching the breaking point, and we either turn it around, or sucomb to Tyranny. Where the, "3P", Candidates can gain ground without acting as spoilers enabling the Demo's, go for it, but that's not in the Top Jobs, _yet_. Continuing to work in the City/Town/County/State Levels is the place for them at the moment. A couple more Election Cycles down the road, if they are successful here, then they'll have the support they need at the higher levels to be able to do something, but trying to go for the Top Jobs just now is worse than p*ssing into the wind. At the moment, this is most evident in Minnesota. I wish, "Jesse the Gov", well, but he's not really accomplishing a lot for lack of lower down support. I know a lot of folks won't like this, but if it comes down to a race between the Reps/Dems/3P Candidates for Prez, I'm still looking at, voting for "Dubya", this time around,unless, "B-1 Bob", or whomever, beats him out in the Primaries. We can't afford any more, "Clinton Lites", at whatever levels they're operating. It's time to get hardnosed with the Demos, and letting obvious Spoilers into the mix at this point, is _NOT_ the way to get rid of them. You may recall that's what got us, "Blow Job Billy", in the first place, and thenfor a second helping, as well. Again, if the, "3Po's", get a share of the votes roughly equal to their opponents in the Primaries, go for it, but anything less, dump 'em till next time, they ain't gonna cut it for us this time around. It's called, "cutting our losses". -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Neil Dickey Subject: Re: Cutting our losses Date: 17 Jul 1999 20:19:29 -0500 (CDT) roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) wrote: >Folks, there seems to be a bit of argument about the viability of third >Party candidates and the Parties themselves, so excuse me for sticking my, >*ahem*, in the works, too. As most of us are aware, this "discussion" has been going on, ad nauseum, for years, and with no end in sight. >First, the only 3rd Party to take over another Parties place in this >Country, was The Republican Party, and the Party they took over from, was >the Whigs. At that time, the Whig Party had all but Officially disbanded >their organization, and didn't even field any Candidates that year. Before >a, "3P", can really, "take over", we're going to have to do that with the >Demo's. I.e., relegate them to something no-one wants to even associate >with. We're well on the way if we don't blow it, but we have to do it >_first_. An additional point worth making here is that the major reason the then-new Republican Party was successful in the election of 1860 is because the Democratic Party had very considerately torn itself apart for the occasion. The fragments nominated three different candidates for President, with the result that the Republicans won the electoral college with rather less than a majority of the popular vote. Those who are on their way to Nirvana over the possibility of a third-party conservative run for the Presidency might wish to give this example some thought. The Republicans didn't so much "take over" from the Whigs, as had the contest handed to them by the fatally divided Democrats. Disclaimer: Nothing I have said here should be construed in any way as an indication of support for any traitorous Republocrat or Demublican. I bow reflexively before the wisdom contained in the observation that there is no difference whatever between them twa'. I merely offer an example from history. He who hath ears to hear, let him hear. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Harry E. Barnett" Subject: Re: Cutting our losses Date: 17 Jul 1999 23:17:14 -0700 Bill Vance said: >My post to another list..... [snip] >Before >a, "3P", can really, "take over", we're going to have to do that with the >Demo's. I.e., relegate them to something no-one wants to even associate >with. We're well on the way if we don't blow it, but we have to do it >_first_. Bill, your declaration, "but we have to do it first" I accept without argument. True enough. But... "We're well on the way if we don't blow it..."? Bill, if I didn't know better, I would say you've been smoking rope. I would be interested in hearing the reasons why you think "we're well on the way" to making the Democrats something no one wants to even associate with. I just don't see it, or anything even close to it. The Democrats are not factional, like the Whigs were. They vote as a fairly solid block. I don't think they are likely to fragment and fall apart, creating a party vacuum for a 3P to step into. Furthermore, the Whig Party self-destructed over an issue which had facets of morality, factions, sectionalism, and economics: slavery. Morality and character are not even part of the equation with the Democrats and about two-thirds of the electorate. (This is NOT to say the Republicans are any better.) What internal factions the Democrats have vote together for "party harmony" because they recognize it is all about POWER. They realize that if they want to keep power, want to be "The Law", they have to be a solid gang, with the loyalty of a mafia, a cosa nostra, and they are successful at this with a vengeance. Current sectionalism is nothing like, and nowhere near approaching the degree of the U.S. North-West-South sectionalism of the mid-nineteenth century. And as long as the electorate believes the Democrats are responsible for the "booming economy", economic dysfunction necessary to provide fertile ground for a 3P is not in the cards. In fact, I think a good argument could be made for, "We're well on our way to an oligarchy posturing as a two-party system," and we turned the corner in that direction in 1995-1996 after the '94 elections, even though we could have gone either way then. Neither of the parties subscribe to the principle, "Everyone is equal before the law," as if "The Law" had some embodiment outside their persons and subjective feelings. "L'Etat, c'est moi," is closer to their approach. They are simply quarrelling between themselves which party is to be legally recognized as, "The State". The Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and "The Law" as non-subjective abstract concept to which everyone is accountable is a strange and foreign concept to them, and as partisan institutions, they both respond with a total lack of comprehension when anyone tries to remind them that is what made this country unique when it started out. The number of citizens understanding the importance of this concept is dwindling year by year. The number of civilians populating the Federal government, or even State, Regional, or local government, is nearly completely barren of such citizens. So I just don't see this, "We're well on the way," thing. FWIW. I hope you can tell me why I'm wrong. Harry Barnett -- harryb@hbbse.com -- "Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened." G. Washington, Farewell Address, 1796. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg Subject: Re: Cutting our losses Date: 18 Jul 1999 20:57:11 -0700 (PDT) You're 100% right. As usual :-) Brew -- *************************************************************** " Madness consists in not recognizing the facts; in making wishes the fathers of thoughts; in conceiving things to be other than they really are; in trying to realize desired ends by means which countless previous experiments have shown to be inappropriate. " Aldous Huxley _After Many A Summer Dies the Swan_, 1939 *************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: S L I C K Year 4, No. 31 (3/3) (fwd) Date: 18 Jul 1999 20:21:51 PST On Jul 18, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] More Y2K info by Word Perfect Corel's Year 2000 Policy YAHOO YAHOO COMES OUT AGAINST GUN OWNERS THIS SPACE FOR RENT Reliable Internet Access for only $14.95 a month. Over 550 access numbers in 21 States and growing. Cyber77-ISP, web hosts, unlimited access, high-speed servers During my vacation, I met with Al Olson prez of Cyber 77 to see if he was as politically conservative as he led me to believe. I came away knowing he is one of US. If you're not happy with your provider, give Al a try. Keep the money in the family, where it will do the most good. PARTING THOUGHT Gerry Jackson, editor of The New Australian in response to a socialist defending a policy on the grounds that it was progressive noted "So is cancer, but I don't recommend it as a cure for anything." * * * * * Subscribe to this Slick e-zine featuring Kathie's Korner, and receive absolutely free, a copy of Rich's Major Media Mailing List containing over 400 e-mail addresses. To subscribe, send your check for $24.95 to the address at the top of this message. Be sure to include your e-mail address. Anyone wishing to carry Slick at their WWW site should contact me by e-mail. Having the current Slick updated once or twice a week gives visitors a reason to come back soon. THE TRUTH IS... A. Powerful. C. In the eye of the beholder. B. Irrelevant. D. All of the above. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: S L I C K Year 4, No. 31 (2/3) (fwd) Date: 18 Jul 1999 20:22:56 PST On Jul 18, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] lion's share of the dollars. NATIONAL CONVENTIONS We the People will soon be paying for parties for the major parties to hold a natl convention, that last time, the networks claimed wasn't worth televising. This election, the presidential candidates, we have been told, are a foregone conclusion. If it has so little public interest the net works don't want to air it, why should the public have to pay for their convention(s)? Just because they write the laws? TERM LIMITS Good news. The GOP has announced they will resurrect their call for Term Limits if they are relegated to becoming the minority again. If you're interested in making a 100 converts in Congress, I've got an idea. AN INTERESTING ITEM Greenpeace. The Canadian equivalent of the IRS revoked the charitable status of Greenpeace and donations to it by Canadians. They found that Greenpeace provides no net public benefit, instead costing the Canadian government significant tax revenues by virtue of the jobs lost when Greenpeace obstructionism shuts down resource development like logging, mining, road construction, fishing, etc. within Canada. Greenpeace adopted a "we don't care, you can't hurt me" attitude and reminded reporters that they had a lot of money in the bank and had just completed a $60 million office building in Germany for their headquarters. Anchorage Voice of the Times, 7/11. More Interesting Items can be now be found on Rod Martin's (no relation) "Vanguard" at Interesting Items by Alex Gimarc INFLATION Anybody who believes the govt reports that inflation is "virtually non-existent", doesn't do his/her own shopping, sorta like Bob Dole, who didn't know the price of a gallon of milk. Pork, liver & chicken have gone up drastically. Even frozen dinners are up 20-30%! ANNUAL CONGRESSIONAL RAISE Here we go again. After giving themselves a 4% increase in the cost-of-living-allowance (COLA), Congress is paving the way to increase their salaries further by doubling the Presidential salary for the next occupant of that office. Without a presidential pay raise, Congressional leaders will soon be making more than the president, and that wouldn't be kosher. JUDICIAL PAY RAISE Congress has also raised the salaries of fedl judges to $150 K for District Judges to $192K for the Chief Justice. One more raise and the Chief Judge will be making more than the prez was. DEBT How come nobody wants to talk about how much the Natl Debt is going to climb while we accumulate that tril dollar surplus? TOBACCO DEAL Isn't it ironic, after agreeing to an out-of-court settlement to pay $206 bil to re-imburse the cost of related tobacco illnesses (which most states usurped for themselves instead of passing it on to the tax payers who paid the for those illnesses) a Fla state court has found the tobacco industry guilty of the same crime to the same people. If the natl settlement wasn't meant to raise some taxes, make some pay offs to friendly lawyers and protect the cig industry, what was its purpose? They could have increased taxes without going thru the messy court system and saved US billions of lawyer contingency fees they've siphoned from the state treasuries. HEALTH The liberals are still trying to replace the best medical system in the world, with their own version of "fairness." They think if they can legislate an HMO upgrade, We the People aren't smart enough to realize who's going to pay for the additional services/rights. Afterall, if We were so smart, why do we belong to an HMO in the first place? If Congress wants to do something, they shoud vote to repeal the marriage penalty tax . It is immoral to tax couples who get married, but not those who live in sin. And it is patently NOT in the nation's best interest to have a tax loop hole which is triggered by getting a d-i-v-o-r-c-e. KATHIE'S KORNER You don't have to be Einstein to figure out the flaws in some of this thinking. And yet...the other day our local daily reported on a govt study that showed that many poor people would be better off with more money. (Too bad they weren't allowed to keep the money taken from them for studies like that!) The reporter mentioned that money is one of the three things married couples fight about most, and concluded that giving them more money should make their marriages happier too. It mentioned that children are also one of the three things couples fight about most. But this reporter failed to draw the next obvious conclusion: that if giving them more money ought to make these couples happier, so ought giving them more children. Pray for wisdom, for ourselves and our country's leaders. Reply to: Kathie Confidential to Mr. Petras: You might check out an excellent book called The Great Salmon Hoax by James Buchal. THE GREAT SALMON HOAX It's about $15 plus postage. LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR Here's an error message I never saw before. 523 ... The IP address 198.81.17.2 is blacklisted. Contact your administrator for details. REMEMBER THE GOOD OLE DAYS... when your driver's licenses did NOT have your picture on it? when you didn't need work papers (DL, SS card) to apply for work in this country? when court houses weren't protected with metal detectors and armed guards. Y2K Test your computer for Y2K compliance. Download the YMARK 2000 test available at NSTL Home [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #144 (2/3) (fwd) Date: 17 Jul 1999 20:12:49 PST On Jul 17, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The only "deal" Carter made was that Resendez wanted promises for his safety while in jail, regular visiting rights for family and a psychological evaluation. That was approved by Harris County District Attorney John Holmes. And, before long, Carter received the call and a quiet surrender was scheduled. They met on a remote bridge connecting Zaragosa, Mexico with El Paso, Texas. No police helicopters, Army tanks or SWAT teams were necessary. Carter said that he immediately recognized Maturino Resendez when he rode across the bridge in a pickup. "That's a face that has just been shown all over the country for a long period of time now, and it's a face that I've been working on for the better part of six months," Sergeant Carter reported. "So when I did see that face there was a little bit of excitement there because I finally said, 'This is going to happen.'" Note here, dear reader, that not one thing was mentioned about a gun yet. Here we have a Texas Ranger standing on a bridge -- white cowboy hat and badge visible -- with empty hands because Sergeant Carter's gun was holstered. And now, here comes even more police work at its finest: "He stuck out his hand, I stuck out my hand and we shook hands, and then I handcuffed him and he was in custody," the Texas Ranger said. That's all there was to that. The perpetrator was under arrest. The suspect was in custody. The manhunt was over. Sergeant Carter's bosses say that the international manhunt would have continued if not for the relationship Carter cultivated with the suspect's sister. "This really, as far as we can tell, would not have happened without Ranger Carter," Department of Public Safety spokesman Mike Cox told reporters. But the 32-year-old Carter rejected sole credit for the arrest, citing assistance from the FBI, U.S. Marshals and other agencies. And, of course, the FBI was all bent out of shape that a Texas Ranger made the arrest. So, they jumped the gun with a full press conference, seeming to take credit. A rookie Texas Ranger Sergeant captured someone on their "Most Wanted" list without asking them for an assist -- and without firing a shot or even drawing his weapon. That is unacceptable to the suits. But, that is exactly what went down. One Texas Ranger spokesman called it a "surrender without shots." We hate to keep bringing up old stories, but think of what the difference would have been if the Texas Rangers handled Waco. . . . I had occasion to spend a couple weeks beating the bushes with an old Ranger Captain a few decades ago. One thing I immediately noticed was that people respected him. He had awesome speed with both his hands and a gun, but that was not the reason. That Texas Ranger showed respect for all others. And, because of that, people honestly liked and respected him. It's nice to hear that there may still be some of that around in law enforcement. And it looks like Texas Ranger Sergeant Drew Carter may be one such person. We salute you, Sergeant Carter, for some very good police work. THE WELFARE SCAM About thirty years ago, the Johnson Administration started a scheme intended to lock in the Negro vote for the Democratic Party. "We'll have 'em eating out of our hands forever," Johnson told aides. And so they did. The "Great Society" program changed urban life for all races, but impacted heaviest on the Black community. Where once there were families -- mothers, fathers and children -- living together peacefully in our cities, suddenly young girls could "get paid" for having children out of wedlock and "fathers" were but an unnecessary interference. Actually, girls with children could not "get paid" if a man was living with them. So, within a decade, single parent households, on welfare, became common. I actually visited five generations of unwed welfare mothers living in one house. And, except for the children, no males were allowed -- else the welfare would be cut off. So, what of the boys? They were lost in the "Great Society" scam. Essentially, the boys from this arrangement became throw away humans, not needed or wanted for anything more than a little coupling once in a while. Government passed laws precluding young boys from picking up part time jobs, which kept them broke. Government schools don't care if the kids learn or not. Teachers pass them on to the next grade no matter what they don't know. Even graduating from high school is no insurance kids can read their diploma anymore. So, it's no surprise that, after a few generations of this government interference, there were a lot of feral boys running the streets in the inner-city. Nor is it a surprise that many of them banded together, in predatory street gangs. These boys crave structure. They receive no adult supervision, so they form their own structure. That we do not like their structure is neither here nor there. These kids might be totally ignorant, but they are not stupid. They found someplace to belong. Part of the initiation for most of these street gangs is to stick up a store or someone on the street. The initiation for some of the street gangs is to kill someone. In fact, there are some gangs that are enforcement agents for other gangs. That is, they kill people for profit. We find a few thousand kids involved in such structured groups in every inner-city today. Generally speaking, most are involved in the illegal drug trade. And, again, that is no surprise. These are ignorant, feral boys. There is no other opportunity open to them. They can either join a gang and traffic in drugs, or they can rob and steal. That's about it in many inner-city neighborhoods. But, the socialists got the Black population voting for the Democrats. That's all that Johnson wanted. Now comes NAACP honcho, Kweisi Mfume, trying to blame gun manufacturers for the actions of feral boys. "Easily available handguns are being used to turn many of our communities into war zones," said Mfume. "The fact that the illegal trafficking of firearms disproportionately affects minority communities in this country is indisputable. Urban communities have sadly become so accustomed to the prevalence of firearms in their neighborhoods that they are no longer shocked at the sound of gunfire." Not said is the fact that things were not like that before the national socialists interfered. People walked the streets safely in every Detroit neighborhood back then. Today, everyone is susceptible to assault and robbery. That's our liberal Great Society in action. It's killing people. The Democrats paid dearly to lock in that Black vote, too. Just about a year ago, the Heartland Institute added up the cost of all those liberal Great Society programs. It's astonishing: "Between 1965 and 1997, welfare spending cost taxpayers $6.98 Trillion (in constant 1997 dollars). After adjusting for inflation, the cost of the War on Poverty has [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #144 (1/3) (fwd) Date: 17 Jul 1999 20:13:46 PST On Jul 17, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 18, 1999 #144 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html REINING IN GOVERNMENT Under Hillary's Marxist medical conspiracy, 78 new felonies were to be created. One would think that, after her scheme was thoroughly trounced, that would be the end of it. But no, Chester (Trent Lott) the rights molester has again allowed our personal rights to be debated in the Senate. This time, the scheme is under the guise of a patient's "bill of rights." How quaint. How unconstitutional! If government wishes to "create" a good medical program for the citizens of the United States, it is easy. I refer them back to my proposal made during the Hillary debacle. In a nutshell, that proposal was: Have but one form of medical insurance for all elected, appointed and hired federal bureaucrats. That program should not only be mandatory for all federal bureaucrats and their families, but the very same program mandatory for all Medicare and Medicaid recipients. Except to say that this would be the only medical insurance program paid with taxpayer funds, no other laws, rules and regulations would be necessary. The elected ones and their bureaucratic buddies, who always demand the best of everything for themselves, would soon have a very efficient program operational. And really, just because they work in government, there is no reason they should have better medical treatment than that available to our grandparents or the poor people down the road. That would be a Constitutional program. What the Senate is discussing now is no more Constitutional than the gun laws Chester the rights molester allowed to be discussed last month. Because, simply put, they have no authority to legislate on these issues. So, we need a fix for their foolishness: A few years ago, federal bureaucrats exerted their authority over isolated "wetlands" via the Constitution's Commerce Clause using diabolical logic we might wish to apply to other matters. Some bright light in the government decided that since migratory birds fly across state lines, federal agencies can regulate isolated wetlands that might be seen by flying migratory birds. That is, areas the birds might wish to use as a stopover while flying to wherever could be regulated. Under this silly "glancing geese" logic, property owners who never imagined they owned wetlands subject to regulation are finding out they now do. We need an amendment to the Constitution halting debate or action of any proposed law, rule or regulation violating the original intent of the Founding Fathers. A "glancing citizen's" amendment. That is, if a citizen's committee in any State "glances" at a proposed law, rule or regulation impacting on the rights of citizens and finds that it may be unconstitutional, they may halt all action on the matter until a full Constitutional study is completed. Then, if the proposing bureaucrats are found to be in violation of the Constitution, they are to be prosecuted for violation of their Oath of Office and minimum sentences shall be applicable. Lying to the American people should count, too. For instance, federal officials are saying we now have a Trillion-dollar budget surplus. What a whopper! The national debt is $5.85 Trillion and still growing at the rate of about $293 million per day. http://www.dailyrepublican.com/nationaldebt.html Which means, each citizen's -- every man, woman, child, and illegal alien -- share of this debt is about $20,700.00. Entitlements -- direct government payments to individuals, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. -- make up nearly half of all federal spending. Interest payments on the debt we've already accumulated makes up nearly half of what's left. Therefore, in order to balance the budget, all cuts must come out of the one- quarter of the budget that's left. The federal debt increased $120 Billion in 1998. Does that sound like a budget surplus to anyone? That's an increase of another $450 per every man, woman and child; or $1,800 for a family of four. Furthermore, it should be mandatory that every elected official certify that they have studied and understand each and every clause in every bill on which they vote. If they do not, they should be subject to prosecution for criminal negligence. After all, these bills can adversely affect hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting citizens. Therefore, legislators should be held to a much higher standard that any other professional person. Bringing up the rear is the problem of campaign contributions. No person, except a registered voter within a politician's district, should ever be allowed to contribute to an election campaign. And no bureaucrat should ever be able to accept anything of value for themselves or their families. Nothing. That is the only way we can halt the billion dollar lobby industry from effecting the vote on Capitol Hill and the regulations promulgated by the regulatory politburos. It is our responsibility, as citizens, to demand accountability from all government officials. These few steps will help. POLICE WORK WITH BRAINS Sergeant Drew Carter was taking some time off for fishing in the Gulf of Mexico when he got the call last Sunday. It was from a suspect's sister, in Albuquerque, N.M. That was the call Sergeant Carter had been waiting for, so he forgot the fishing, jumped on a plane and went back to work. Over the next two days, the young Sergeant brokered negotiations that led to one of the most high- profile arrests (the media says) in his department's history. "Honesty's never hard. Sincerity is something people sense. That's what I did. I was honest with the family," Carter said, wearing a white cowboy hat and his shiny Texas Ranger badge. For weeks, the Texas Ranger Sergeant had been building a relationship with the family of suspected serial killer Angel Leoncio Reyes-Resendis, AKA Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, or the "railroad serial killer." Carter was trying to get a man on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List to turn himself in. "I will say that there were very personal one-on-one discussions with family members representing the subject and myself and other people that brought this about," Carter said. And, finally, it all paid off. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: RE: Cutting our losses Date: 18 Jul 1999 10:22:55 -0700 These seem like a prologue to another "least of two evils" argument. Neither party takes the Constitution seriously. Both are dedicated to big gov with ever-expanding powers. Gun prohibition is merely one aspect of the fundamental problems with Democratic and Republican parties. If we wish to change this, we better understand social change better than our opposition, which currently has all of the advantages: a compliant media, a complacent and ignorant populace. I suggest, as usual, the Libertarian Party as the vehicle for changing everyone's attitude toward gov. It has lots of advantages, which I won't list here. Everyone's major objection is "extreme", relative to today's values. However, remember that Civil Rights won not because Martin Luther King was initially seen as a nice guy who was 'right', but rather he was positioned as a moderate compared to the Black Panthers. The BPs gained most of their goals. Similarly, the Socialists won far more than they ever dreamed -- Repubs revere such Socialist wet-dreams as Social Security. Socialist Party had 30 people in Congress at the height of its power. A credible 'extremist' party, with sufficient vote to swing the election, is a requirement for serious political change. We better get one quick. Lew > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Neil Dickey > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 1999 6:19 PM > To: roc@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: Cutting our losses > > > roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) wrote: > > >Folks, there seems to be a bit of argument about the viability of third > >Party candidates and the Parties themselves, so excuse me for > sticking my, > >*ahem*, in the works, too. > > As most of us are aware, this "discussion" has been going on, ad nauseum, > for years, and with no end in sight. > > >First, the only 3rd Party to take over another Parties place in this > >Country, was The Republican Party, and the Party they took over from, was > >the Whigs. At that time, the Whig Party had all but Officially disbanded > >their organization, and didn't even field any Candidates that > year. Before > >a, "3P", can really, "take over", we're going to have to do that with the > >Demo's. I.e., relegate them to something no-one wants to even associate > >with. We're well on the way if we don't blow it, but we have to do it > >_first_. > > An additional point worth making here is that the major reason > the then-new > Republican Party was successful in the election of 1860 is because the > Democratic Party had very considerately torn itself apart for the > occasion. > The fragments nominated three different candidates for President, with the > result that the Republicans won the electoral college with rather > less than > a majority of the popular vote. Those who are on their way to > Nirvana over > the possibility of a third-party conservative run for the Presidency might > wish to give this example some thought. The Republicans didn't > so much "take > over" from the Whigs, as had the contest handed to them by the > fatally divided > Democrats. > > Disclaimer: Nothing I have said here should be construed in any way as an > indication of support for any traitorous Republocrat or Demublican. I bow > reflexively before the wisdom contained in the observation that > there is no > difference whatever between them twa'. I merely offer an example > from history. > He who hath ears to hear, let him hear. > > The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, > unless other- > wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by > inertia and | > | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed > and | > | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. > | > | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. > Churchill | > | **Finger for public key** | > | > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #144 (3/3) (fwd) Date: 17 Jul 1999 20:12:04 PST On Jul 17, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] been more than twice the price tag for defeating Germany and Japan in World War II. "The $6.98 Trillion cost of the War on Poverty nearly equals the entire cost of the private-sector industrial and business infrastructure of the U.S. For $6.98 Trillion one could purchase every factory and all the manufacturing equipment, with enough money left over to purchase every airline, railroad, trucking firm, the entire commercial maritime fleet, every telephone, television, and radio company, every power company, every hotel, and every retail and wholesale store in the nation" That's some very expensive votes! Incidentally, $6.98 Trillion would be more than enough money to give every welfare family a cash payoff of a million bucks. It would have also paid 6,980,000 skilled trade union jobs for 25 years. We'll investigate where all the money went some other time. THE LEGALITY OF INCOME TAX By: Larry Becraft becraft@hiwaay.net The recent renewed interest in the issue of the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment has drawn some comments that the amendment legally did nothing: in the words of the Supreme Court, the amendment did not confer any new taxing powers. Based on this statement of the Supreme Court, some contend that this issue is meaningless. Those who believe this are mistaken and do not understand what the Supreme Court has decided in the series of cases regarding the income tax. Under the United States Constitution, Congress can impose two types of taxes: direct taxes, which must be apportioned via the census, and indirect taxes which must be uniform. Before the Supreme Court's decision in the Pollock case, the Court had determined that income taxes imposed upon the income of public officials were excise taxes which need not be apportioned, but only uniform. But things changed with the decision of the Court in Pollock. At issue in the 1894 Pollock case was the question of whether income from real property (land) and personal property (stocks and bonds) could be subjected to a federal income tax via a law which was not apportioned. In Pollock, the Court held that a tax upon the income from land was a direct tax. Clearly, Congress could tax the income from land and has always had that power, provided the tax was apportioned, which is extremely difficult. However, since the 1894 federal income tax was uniform and not apportioned, it was held unconstitutional. Even today, it would be virtually impossible to apportion an income tax on land. If you wish to read the first Pollock decision, it is posted on FindLaw at: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/157/429.html After the first Pollock decision and in response to a petition for rehearing, the Court had to determine the remaining question of whether taxes on the income from personal property were also direct taxes which must be apportioned. Again, the Court concluded that an income tax on the income from personal property could only be taxed via an apportioned tax. If you wish to read the opinion of the Pollock Court on rehearing, it is also posted at FindLaw: http://laws.findlaw.com/US/158/601.html In summary, the Pollock Court held that, while Congress has always had the power to tax incomes from real and personal property, such taxes had to be apportioned; an uniform income tax could not tax such income. Once this is understood, the meaning of the above statements about "no new taxing power" becomes clear. However, the Supreme Court in Pollock held the whole 1894 federal income tax void. A decision simply invalidating the 1894 income tax insofar as it concerned the income from real and personal property would have left the tax to be borne entirely by "professions and occupations" and the Court determined that Congress would not have adopted the 1894 tax if the tax was invalid as to incomes from real and personal property. For this reason, the whole act was voided. Go to http://www.uhuh.com/laws/pollock.htm to find that part of the decision in the Pollock case which so held. Based upon the decision in Pollock, the 16th Amendment is absolutely essential to enable Congress to impose an uniform tax upon incomes from real and personal property, contrary to the popular beliefs of some. Without the amendment, Congress could not impose uniform taxes upon the income of real and personal property. But further, if the 16th Amendment were declared today to be void because of the defects discovered by Bill Benson, income taxes on the income of real and personal property would fall. But it does not stop there. Clearly just like the Pollock Court observed, Congress would not have imposed this tax to be borne entirely by the professions and occupations if the taxes on income from real and personal property were constitutionally invalid. Thus everyone should have an interest in the question of the ratification of the 16th Amendment. [Editor's notes on background] Larry Becraft is a practicing attorney. Anyone with an avid interest in federalism and Constitutional law will find a gold mine of research completed on the "BeCraft Briefs" web page at: http://fly.hiwaay.net/~becraft Joseph Banister, CPA, was a special Agent (criminal investigator) in the Department of the Treasury, IRS Criminal Investigation Division. While working for the IRS, he became unable to resolve conflicts between the way the IRS administered the Federal Income Tax laws and his oath of office. So, he resigned from the IRS. All taxpayers should download a copy of his "Investigating The Federal Income Tax: A Preliminary Report." The report is very enlightening! http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/ Bill Conklin is a paralegal and tax consultant who has 6 published wins against the IRS in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. He is author of "Why No One is Required to File Tax Returns and What You Can Do About It," another very interesting text. http://www.anti-irs.com Devvy Kidd, popular author, activist and very nice lady, has a very informative web page at: http://www.devvy.com/index.html Recently, Devvy and Larry Becraft formed The Wallace Institute. More information on The Wallace Institute can be found at: http://www.devvy.com/wallace.html While there, please pay close attention to the "Brochure" and "IRS KO: Long 1 IRS 0" sections. Bill Benson is the author of "The Law That Never Was." Check out some of his reasoning in a letter to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue at: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/uncerlt2.htm ~ End ~ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Cutting our losses Date: 19 Jul 1999 10:43:25 -0400 (EDT) > >>My post to another list..... > >>Before >>a, "3P", can really, "take over", we're going to have to do that with the >>Demo's. I.e., relegate them to something no-one wants to even associate >>with. We're well on the way if we don't blow it, but we have to do it >>_first_. > > [deletions for brevity] > >"We're well on the way if we don't blow it..."? > >I would be interested in hearing the reasons why you think "we're well on >the way" to making the Democrats something no one wants to even associate >with. I just don't see it, or anything even close to it. > >The Democrats are not factional, like the Whigs were. They vote as a fairly >solid block. I don't think they are likely to fragment and fall apart, >creating a party vacuum for a 3P to step into. > Harry, I agree totally. If anything, the Dem's are a much stronger coalition then they were 10 years ago. I see the Dem's as being a rallying party for diehards who are dependent upon the government - the county and municipal workers, the Federal workers, welfare recipients, various random social workers. This is a core constituency that will *never* go away. Blacks are another core constituency that will never go away, as are union members. The fact is that the Republicans are less focused, less able to politically maneuver, and have elevated mediocrities like Lott and Hastert into positions of power. 'W' is just another example of the R's screwing up. Last time they stuck with Dole, even though he was a horrible campaigner, now they are elevating "W" way too early. I think that a third party effort is by definition going to draw from disatisfied factions of the R's. Maybe a pure populist candidated could pull a small portion of D's - mainly disatisfied lefties. I'm very discouraged about *any* of these guys dismantling the overreaching Federal guv. I think we are going to be living in the stranglehold of power-grubbing mediocrities for a long time. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: SATIRE: Gore Announces Operation "Disarm Police-Disarm America" Date: 19 Jul 1999 11:44:10 -0700 (THIS IS A SATIRE) New York (Disassociated Press) - Vice President Al Gore said last Sunday that mandatory disarmament of local, county and state law enforcement officers will be only the first step in removing handguns deemed unsafe by attorneys suing firearms manufacturers from the highways and streets of America's states, cities, towns, villages and hamlets to be or not to be. Backed up by a choir of Barney (I love you-you love me) theme song singing Empire State police chiefs wearing purple dinosaur suits and carrying holsters and magazine carriers stuffed only with bags of Skittles and Snickers bars, Gore told a cheering crowd of classic New York control freak liberals, "Fellow 'beautiful beople', it makes good sense to begin removing handguns from our society by having law enforcement officers set the example for the unwashed masses who possess handguns lawfully and for criminals who misuse unlawfully possessed handguns to follow." Gore continued, "So, starting next week, local police chiefs, county sheriffs and directors of state police agencies nationwide will be holding mandatory roll calls at which all of their commissioned officers will be required to surrender their issued duty handguns and any off-duty handguns registered with their respective departments. Various federal agencies have been tasked to monitor this disarmament of local, county and state law enforcement agencies. And I want to take a moment to offer special praise to and adhesive gold stars for the foreheads of over fifty police chiefs throughout the State of New York who rushed to beat the deadline by being among the first progressive police executives to sign up gleefully to remove handguns, dangerous weapons each and every one, from the unworthy hands of their untrustworthy officers. Well done! First, we'll deal with police officers, then, we'll move on to the general public!" Flanked by a giggling gaggle of chanting Congressional Clintonistas wearing brightly colored "Disarm Police-Disarm America" T-shirts, Gore continued, "Since we know with certainty that law enforcement officers possess and carry registered handguns, their holsters, office desks, equipment lockers, department armories and home gun safes are the logical places for us to empty out first as we begin Operation 'Disarm Police-Disarm America' in the near future. We are hopeful that all law enforcement officers affected will cooperate fully with this critical effort to promote public safety, to stop 'gun violence', and, most of all, to protect the children of this nation from the mere presence of dangerous handguns. Once all local, county and state law enforcement officers have no further access to handguns, we are quite confident that law abiding citizens and criminals who possess unregistered handguns will learn the words to 'We Are The World' and, celebrating diversity by holding hands and singing in three part harmony, will march down to designated 'Disarm Police-Disarm America' handgun surrender locations and turn in their handguns for destruction." Most shocked and stunned local, county and state police officers contacted for reaction to Operation "Disarm Police-Disarm America" refused to comment. However, one anonymous deputy sheriff in a rural county of a Western state responded, "Surrender my handguns to those clowns in Washington, D.C.? Ha! Have you ever wondered why Gore and Clinton don't hold anti-gun 'flanked by fat bleacher cops' press conferences out West or in any other rural part of America? Because out here, gun ownership is freedom, and vice versa, and Gore and Clinton had better damn well not forget it." When asked for his reaction to Gore's initiative in disarming the nation's police officers, Presidential candidate Bill Bradley countered, "Hey, I want one of those 'Disarm Police-Disarm America' T-shirts, size XXXL!" Representatives of various pro-Second Amendment organizations merely smiled when asked to offer opinions about Gore's bold move to empty street cops' holsters all across the U.S.A. (THIS IS A SATIRE) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Cutting our losses Date: 19 Jul 1999 09:51:16 PST On Jul 17, Harry E. Barnett wrote: >Bill Vance said: >>My post to another list..... > > >[snip] > >>Before >>a, "3P", can really, "take over", we're going to have to do that with the >>Demo's. I.e., relegate them to something no-one wants to even associate >>with. We're well on the way if we don't blow it, but we have to do it >>_first_. > > >Bill, your declaration, "but we have to do it first" I accept without >argument. True enough. But... > >"We're well on the way if we don't blow it..."? > >Bill, if I didn't know better, I would say you've been smoking rope. No, "el Ropo's", aren't on my shopping list.....:-) >I would be interested in hearing the reasons why you think "we're well on >the way" to making the Democrats something no one wants to even associate >with. I just don't see it, or anything even close to it. The growth of the 3P's are a prime indicator of disatisfaction with _both_ Parties, not just one of them. THere's a whole lot of folks out there, that are flat ashamed to admit that they voted for Clinton et al. It's not as fast as I'd like it, but a lot of folks are getting wise to the Demo's little games, and the GOP's as well. >The Democrats are not factional, like the Whigs were. They vote as a fairly >solid block. I don't think they are likely to fragment and fall apart, >creating a party vacuum for a 3P to step into. Perhaps not, but there are cracks in the dam. Not all of their factions are as homogenous as you might think. Look at the way the Animal Rights and Enviro whackos tear into each other from time to time. We should be working to widen the gaps wherever possible. >Furthermore, the Whig Party self-destructed over an issue which had facets >of morality, factions, sectionalism, and economics: slavery. Morality and >character are not even part of the equation with the Democrats and about >two-thirds of the electorate. (This is NOT to say the Republicans are any >better.) What internal factions the Democrats have vote together for "party >harmony" because they recognize it is all about POWER. They realize that if >they want to keep power, want to be "The Law", they have to be a solid gang, >with the loyalty of a mafia, a cosa nostra, and they are successful at this >with a vengeance. Current sectionalism is nothing like, and nowhere near >approaching the degree of the U.S. North-West-South sectionalism of the >mid-nineteenth century. And as long as the electorate believes the >Democrats are responsible for the "booming economy", economic dysfunction >necessary to provide fertile ground for a 3P is not in the cards. And this is causing the 3P ranks swell as never before. It's not happening fast, but it is happening. >In fact, I think a good argument could be made for, "We're well on our way >to an oligarchy posturing as a two-party system," and we turned the corner >in that direction in 1995-1996 after the '94 elections, even though we could >have gone either way then. Neither of the parties subscribe to the >principle, "Everyone is equal before the law," as if "The Law" had some >embodiment outside their persons and subjective feelings. "L'Etat, c'est >moi," is closer to their approach. They are simply quarrelling between >themselves which party is to be legally recognized as, "The State". And in a Country created by, "Enemies Of The State", too. That reminds me, if you happen upon, "An Ememy Of The State", or it's update, "The LaNague Chronicles", by F. Paul Wilson, you might find some interesting ideas. Some of it's a bit idealistic, but they're a good read regardless. >The Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and "The Law" as >non-subjective abstract concept to which everyone is accountable is a >strange and foreign concept to them, and as partisan institutions, they both >respond with a total lack of comprehension when anyone tries to remind them >that is what made this country unique when it started out. The number of >citizens understanding the importance of this concept is dwindling year by >year. The number of civilians populating the Federal government, or even >State, Regional, or local government, is nearly completely barren of such >citizens. > >So I just don't see this, "We're well on the way," thing. Perhaps I should have said, "well started". >FWIW. I hope you can tell me why I'm wrong. I can't say that you are completely right or wrong here. Things are in flux always, as they are here, but there are indications everywhere. N. Carolina refusing to give up Beauregard's Battle Flag, (the Stars and Bars) as their State Flag, graduation ceremonies in which only a moment of silence is mandated, has one person starting it, and suddenly the whole audience is reciting the Lord's Prayer, these examples go on and on. A whole lot of folks are starting to wake up, and they're just not puting up with the crap anymore. These things too, are happening slowly, but all together, they're happening more and more, building eventually a momentum all their own. There is hope, and wherever possible, it should be encouraged. If it weren't for folks who just keep plugging along no matter what, nothing would get accomplished. If you don't think things can be turned around, how do you explain all those anguished howls over that Initiative(X) thats going to limit vehicle registration to $30 while putting _all_ tax increases up to a vote of the people? >Harry Barnett > >-- harryb@hbbse.com >-- "Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for >the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a >government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public >opinion should be enlightened." G. Washington, Farewell Address, 1796. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: RE: Cutting our losses Date: 19 Jul 1999 10:09:05 PST On Jul 18, Lew Glendenning wrote: >These seem like a prologue to another "least of two evils" argument. > >Neither party takes the Constitution seriously. Both are dedicated to >big gov with ever-expanding powers. > >Gun prohibition is merely one aspect of the fundamental problems with >Democratic and Republican parties. > >If we wish to change this, we better understand social change better >than our opposition, which currently has all of the advantages: a compliant >media, a complacent and ignorant populace. > >I suggest, as usual, the Libertarian Party as the vehicle for changing >everyone's attitude toward gov. It has lots of advantages, which I >won't list here. Agreed, but they need to form a coalition with the other 3rd Party Organizations before they'll get very far. As I mentioned in another reply, they also need to work on the Ron Paul method of gaining Office as the probable method of early success. Get a major number of Candidates in Office _first_, _then_ worry about what Party name they're operating under. The plethora of 3PO's just means they're helping to marginalize each other at this point. >Everyone's major objection is "extreme", relative to today's values. > >However, remember that Civil Rights won not because Martin Luther King >was initially seen as a nice guy who was 'right', but rather he was >positioned as a moderate compared to the Black Panthers. The BPs gained >most of their goals. > >Similarly, the Socialists won far more than they ever dreamed -- Repubs >revere such Socialist wet-dreams as Social Security. Socialist Party >had 30 people in Congress at the height of its power. > >A credible 'extremist' party, with sufficient vote to swing the election, >is a requirement for serious political change. We better get one quick. > >Lew Again, greed. As an example, a group advocating Private Ownership of NBC, (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical), Weapons is needed to regain our reasonable reaquisition of the Right to own Conventional Weaponry. A simultaneous move to limit Government to Weapons that are allowed to the Citizenry wouldn't hurt the effort at this point, either. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Cutting our losses Date: 19 Jul 1999 10:40:02 PST On Jul 19, John Curtis wrote: >>>My post to another list..... >> >>>Before >>>a, "3P", can really, "take over", we're going to have to do that with the >>>Demo's. I.e., relegate them to something no-one wants to even associate >>>with. We're well on the way if we don't blow it, but we have to do it >>>_first_. >> >> [deletions for brevity] >> >>"We're well on the way if we don't blow it..."? >> >>I would be interested in hearing the reasons why you think "we're well on >>the way" to making the Democrats something no one wants to even associate >>with. I just don't see it, or anything even close to it. >> >>The Democrats are not factional, like the Whigs were. They vote as a fairly >>solid block. I don't think they are likely to fragment and fall apart, >>creating a party vacuum for a 3P to step into. >> > > Harry, I agree totally. If anything, the Dem's are a > much stronger coalition then they were 10 years ago. I see > the Dem's as being a rallying party for diehards who are > dependent upon the government - the county and municipal workers, > the Federal workers, welfare recipients, various random social > workers. This is a core constituency that will *never* go > away. Blacks are another core constituency that will never > go away, as are union members. > > The fact is that the Republicans are less focused, less able to > politically maneuver, and have elevated mediocrities like Lott and > Hastert into positions of power. 'W' is just another example of > the R's screwing up. Last time they stuck with Dole, even though > he was a horrible campaigner, now they are elevating "W" way too > early. > > I think that a third party effort is by definition going to draw > from disatisfied factions of the R's. Maybe a pure populist > candidated could pull a small portion of D's - mainly disatisfied > lefties. > > I'm very discouraged about *any* of these guys dismantling the > overreaching Federal guv. I think we are going to be living in > the stranglehold of power-grubbing mediocrities for a long time. > > ciao, > > jcurtis True enough as far as it goes, however nothing stays the same forever. A die-hard Rights definsive Party is definitely needed. To play this right, the basic agitprop should be along the lines of, "Everyone from the Founders on down to those now living knows that Government allways gravitates to more and more Power. It's now at the point where Tyranny instead of Freedom is in vogue amongst those in all branches of Government. As disapointing as this is, our philosofical war with Government hasn't changed an iota. It is as it's _allways_ been, Freedom Lovers vs. the Autocrats." A good place to draw the line might be Y2K. The Power Grabs of the diehard Demo's, Government Workers Unions, Lawyer Lobby, Welfare Lobby, Social Security Robbers, Social Worker Drones et al, are the villains, and need to be _painted_ as the villains who caused it to happen through their Lust for more power, instead of operating for the true Public Good. This should be started now to get the idea in the Public discourse. They've had 30-40 years to fix the problem, and did nothing except feather their own nests. Any other ideas/thoughts welcome of course. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Cutting our losses Date: 19 Jul 1999 14:05:06 -0400 (EDT) > >True enough as far as it goes, however nothing stays the same forever. A >die-hard Rights definsive Party is definitely needed. To play this right, >the basic agitprop should be along the lines of, "Everyone from the Founders >on down to those now living knows that Government allways gravitates to more >and more Power. It's now at the point where Tyranny instead of Freedom is >in vogue amongst those in all branches of Government. As disapointing as >this is, our philosofical war with Government hasn't changed an iota. It is >as it's _allways_ been, Freedom Lovers vs. the Autocrats." > I think this is the great political divide, and it cuts right down to the personal level. I'm going to sign up with the Libertarian party. They have some weakneses, but its a lot better than being a Republican (which I am now). Lott and Hastert have just gone too far over the line and are now full blown Statists. My politics are anti-Statist to an extreme, because that is the counterbalance that is needed, given the current creeping Socialism and anti-rights paternalism of the current government. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Cutting our losses Date: 19 Jul 1999 13:15:01 PST On Jul 19, John Curtis wrote: >>True enough as far as it goes, however nothing stays the same forever. A >>die-hard Rights definsive Party is definitely needed. To play this right, >>the basic agitprop should be along the lines of, "Everyone from the Founders >>on down to those now living knows that Government allways gravitates to more >>and more Power. It's now at the point where Tyranny instead of Freedom is >>in vogue amongst those in all branches of Government. As disapointing as >>this is, our philosofical war with Government hasn't changed an iota. It is >>as it's _allways_ been, Freedom Lovers vs. the Autocrats." >> > I think this is the great political divide, and it cuts right > down to the personal level. > > I'm going to sign up with the Libertarian party. They have some > weakneses, but its a lot better than being a Republican (which I > am now). Lott and Hastert have just gone too far over the line > and are now full blown Statists. > > My politics are anti-Statist to an extreme, because that is the > counterbalance that is needed, given the current creeping Socialism > and anti-rights paternalism of the current government. > > ciao, > > jcurtis In which case, definitely try to promote, "Ron Paulism", as the most viable method of gaining Office. I know it's not as, "Spiritually Satisfying", as fighting for lost causes, but at least it has the virtue of working. We have to face the fact that most 3P races are indeed lost causes. This is not their fault, but just a fact that has to be dealt with. The Socialist/ Statist types need to be crowded out of the primaries in _all_ Parties, and so all Parties need such, "infiltration". The fewer of them get through the process, the better for everyone, regardless of who wins, or what Party claims, "victory". Once there are enough 3P types in Office to equal or outnumber the two main Parties, then and only then, can a 3P claim a, "victory", for it's own. However, even that won't mean much on it's own. There's still the problems of the Educrats, Gov. Employee Unions, Beaurocracies, Lawyers lobby, Welfare-ites, et al to deal with. These too, need, "infiltrating". -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Cutting our losses Date: 19 Jul 1999 17:11:33 -0400 (EDT) Bill Vance replies below: >> My politics are anti-Statist to an extreme, because that is the >> counterbalance that is needed, given the current creeping Socialism >> and anti-rights paternalism of the current government. >> >> ciao, >> >> jcurtis > >In which case, definitely try to promote, "Ron Paulism", as the most viable >method of gaining Office. I know it's not as, "Spiritually Satisfying", as > I agree - my personal strategy would be to stay registered Republican, join the Libertarian party. Money to Libertarians (basically helping their propaganda.) Every time I talk to R's on the phone (asking for money, I'm a modest donor) I'll tell 'em about Hastert and Lott and how disgusted I am. I can't see giving money to R's and to gun-rights organizations, when they are getting to be mutually opposed. My other line with R's is: (going to use this with fund raisers) "If you reduce the top tax rate to 28% (like it was under Reagan) I'll give you $1000 a year. I don't think you mean it." My heart is with the Libertarians, and my wallet is to follow, but I'll play the official Republican enrollment at the voting booth. just thinking out loud. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Cutting our losses Date: 19 Jul 1999 15:51:42 PST On Jul 19, John Curtis wrote: >Bill Vance replies below: > >>> My politics are anti-Statist to an extreme, because that is the >>> counterbalance that is needed, given the current creeping Socialism >>> and anti-rights paternalism of the current government. >>> >>> ciao, >>> >>> jcurtis >> >>In which case, definitely try to promote, "Ron Paulism", as the most viable >>method of gaining Office. I know it's not as, "Spiritually Satisfying", as > > I agree - my personal strategy would be to stay registered > Republican, join the Libertarian party. Money to Libertarians > (basically helping their propaganda.) Every time I talk to > R's on the phone (asking for money, I'm a modest donor) I'll > tell 'em about Hastert and Lott and how disgusted I am. > > I can't see giving money to R's and to gun-rights organizations, > when they are getting to be mutually opposed. > > My other line with R's is: (going to use this with fund raisers) > "If you reduce the top tax rate to 28% (like it was under Reagan) > I'll give you $1000 a year. I don't think you mean it." > > My heart is with the Libertarians, and my wallet is to follow, but > I'll play the official Republican enrollment at the voting > booth. > > just thinking out loud. > > ciao, > > jcurtis Roger out loud. :-) My personal thought in that the Caucuses take place at different times and places, is that we should all get together, take a big slug of dramamine, register in the first Parties Caucus, work to oust bad Candidates/ Incumbents, putting in as many good, (or at least acceptable) Candidates as possible, and then just short of the nextParties Caucus, "change our minds", and register with the second Party, and of course do it all again with them. Some folks would have a problem with that, but hey, I changed my mind, so what? :-) -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: EIA Communique - 7/19 (1/2) (fwd) Date: 19 Jul 1999 17:23:00 PST On Jul 19, McGeheeZone.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 12:19 PM The Education Intelligence Agency COMMUNIQU=C9 - July 19, 1999 Now on the Web at http://members.aol.com/educintel/eia + My thanks to Ralph Bristol of WORD radio in Greenville/Spartanburg, So= uth Carolina, for having me as a guest on his show last Tuesday afternoon. We discussed education finances, in particular the unusual formulations in E= IA's March 1998 report, One Yard Below: Education Statistics from a Different Angle. It seems those formulations are still timely. Last Friday, the National Education Association sent out a press release with the headline "State-by-State Data Reveals Gap in School Modernization Funding." In an effort to win support for three school modernization bills working their = way through Congress (S. 223, H.R. 1660 and H.R. 1760), NEA accumulated "scho= ol modernization facts" for each of the 50 states. The selected statistics (available in full at http://www.nea.org/lac/modfacts/) highlight school construction spending, current maintenance conditions, interest on school debt, enrollment growth, and number of students per computer. NEA consistently lobbies for increased spending on public education, so this effort comes as no surprise. What's lost is any sense of context. Whatever the amount we spend, where that amount goes is very much influen= ced by the priorities of NEA and its state and local affiliates. So, if there= are gaps in school modernization funding, NEA can claim it is due to inadequa= te levels of funding, but it is also a measure of how existing money is allocated, a process in which teachers' unions figure prominently and, ma= ny times, decisively. Peruse the following table. The first column lists total state and local district school construction spending for 1995-96, from the new NEA data. The second column lists spending on instruction salaries and benefi= ts for the same period, from the National Center for Education Statistics. T= his would include classroom teachers and specialists, but not principals, administrators, custodians, bus drivers or other support personnel. The t= hird column is the amount spent on instruction salaries and benefits for every dollar of school construction spending. State Construction Salaries/Benefits Ratio Alabama 173,344,000 1,880,893,000 $10.85 Alaska 154,414,000 530,848,000 $3.44 Arizona 557,822,000 1,838,961,000 $3.30 Arkansas 124,232,000 1,156,728,000 $9.31 California 1,157,262,000 14,906,016,000 $12.88 Colorado 350,793,000 1,911,826,000 $5.45 Connecticut 75,829,000 2,517,698,000 $33.20 Delaware 51,817,000 413,977,000 $7.99 Florida 1,550,291,000 5,924,977,000 $3.82 Georgia 764,117,000 3,884,882,000 $5.08 Hawaii 114,925,000 599,825,000 $5.22 Idaho 128,068,000 591,517,000 $4.62 Illinois 611,361,000 5,975,695,000 $9.77 Indiana 345,944,000 3,264,845,000 $9.44 Iowa 123,955,000 1,502,923,000 $12.12 Kansas 201,787,000 1,347,571,000 $6.68 Kentucky 269,021,000 1,839,284,000 $6.84 Louisiana 119,049,000 1,983,414,000 $16.66 Maine 27,366,000 783,081,000 $28.62 Maryland 321,850,000 2,979,411,000 $9.26 Massachusetts 303,987,000 3,617,675,000 $11.90 Michigan 463,698,000 6,174,188,000 $13.32 Minnesota 571,839,000 2,877,499,000 $5.03 Mississippi 160,164,000 1,145,269,000 $7.15 Missouri 366,262,000 2,476,767,000 $6.76 Montana 21,013,000 494,754,000 $23.55 Nebraska 127,506,000 940,182,000 $7.37 Nevada 162,425,000 731,329,000 $4.50 New Hampshire 53,122,000 633,505,000 $11.93 New Jersey 534,673,000 6,099,480,000 $11.41 New Mexico 133,245,000 810,265,000 $6.08 New York 1,609,883,000 15,211,632,000 $9.45 North Carolina 482,483,000 3,239,141,000 $6.71 North Dakota 27,426,000 309,981,000 $11.30 Ohio 492,625,000 5,746,152,000 $11.66 Oklahoma 124,588,000 1,538,044,000 $12.35 Oregon 222,849,000 1,665,059,000 $7.47 Pennsylvania 1,005,020,000 7,347,403,000 $7.31 Rhode Island 7,029,000 670,249,000 $95.35 South Carolina 248,363,000 1,696,498,000 $6.83 South Dakota 4,531,000 330,677,000 $72.98 Tennessee 323,179,000 2,250,947,000 $6.96 Texas 1,995,268,000 10,202,725,000 $5.11 Utah 252,317,000 1,011,146,000 $4.01 Vermont 39,899,000 390,975,000 $9.80 Virginia 531,648,000 3,422,689,000 $6.44 Washington 648,637,000 2,970,219,000 $4.58 West Virginia 15,778,000 1,068,890,000 $67.75 Wisconsin 458,767,000 3,341,949,000 $7.28 Wyoming 47,053,000 327,067,000 $6.95 DC 12,346,000 309,349,000 $25.06 According to NEA, 81 percent of the schools in Rhode Island report a need to upgrade or repair a building to reach a "good overall condition." Sixty-one percent of state schools report at least one inadequate buildin= g feature, such as the roof or plumbing. Seventy-five percent of state scho= ols report at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor, such as air qual= ity or heating. Each one of the three bills NEA is touting would provide the state with some $80 million in tax credits for interest costs of school modernization bonds. Yet the state is spending $95.35 on instruction salaries and benefits for every dollar it spends on school construction. Should Rhode Island be rewarded for sacrificing the plumbing and heating for teacher compensatio= n? New Hampshire, with a smaller total budget and a smaller payroll, still manages 7.5 times more construction spending than does Rhode Island. Meanwhile Arizona, spending a large portion of its budget on school construction, is no doubt being vilified by the union for its low ranking= on the teacher salary scale. How can we intelligently discuss whether we are spending enough on a particular activity if we do not examine where we are spending the curren= t funds? If additional money is applied to school modernization, will the m= oney that is currently going to school modernization stay there, or will it be applied elsewhere, perhaps to salaries and benefits? + Quote of the Week: "I am reminded of the story of Esau in Genesis. You know the story well. Esau returns from the hunt, tired and hungry, and he sells his birthright to Jacob for a mess of pottage. Likewise today, inner-city parents are tired of too many schools that are underperforming= ; [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: EIA Communique - 7/19 (2/2) (fwd) Date: 19 Jul 1999 17:25:52 PST On Jul 19, McGeheeZone.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] hungry for something better for their children. And a growing number are willing to sell their birthright, public schools, for a fistful of vouche= rs being offered by right-wing politicians. I understand the frustration. Bu= t make no mistake about it: For urban public schools, vouchers are not the cure; they would be one more cancer." -- National Education Association V= ice President Reg Weaver, speaking before the NAACP Annual Convention on July= 13. # # # The Education Intelligence Agency conducts public education research, analysis and investigations. Director: Mike Antonucci. Ph: 916-422-4373. = Fax: 916-392-1482. E-Mail: EducIntel@aol.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: Re: George W. Bush: Only People with "Justified Backgrounds" Have Right to Self-Defense? Date: 20 Jul 1999 08:33:13 -0500 (CDT) We, had a death struggle for the Texas Conceal Carry law, between every stinking liberal socialist group the democrats could drag out and Bush held firm never giving an inch, how many Republicans can you remember doing that lately? Every night the Liberals were crying about the wild West death in the streets. The man has guts and balls and when he stands for something he hangs in there. Bush, unlike just about all other Republican, knows how to talk in "feel good", "Socker Mom" bull shit terms that makes them feel good. He still votes and pushes the right things, and more important he kills all the Socialist crap the New Deal Democrat Socialist attempt to sneak buy. While they were all wailing on the TV he still killed most of the socialist bills this session in Texas. After the Colorado shootings the Liberal media tried to catch him and he paused and said something to the effect of, I wish there was a way we could pass a law to change the hate in mens hearts. That was his answer to will you support more gun laws after this terrible incident. He even put the state flags at half mast for a week out of respect. Its time to wake up and smell the coffee, this man knows how to play the Socialist game and win, thats all that matters, not talking what ever way you each would like. He looks good, talks right for TV, is a likeable guy, even the Texas Democrats say he is the best Gov. we have had as far and anyone can remember. People, quit bitching and get on the band wagon. Were going to the White House, we have 8 years of Hillary New Age Religion Globalism to undue before we can even work on passing improvements. Regards, Paul Watson, Dallas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: The Pope and America (2/2) (fwd) Date: 20 Jul 1999 22:06:09 PST [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] inclusion in society, so that all Americans might enjoy the protection of law, participate in the responsibilities of citizenship, and have the opportunity to make a contribution to the common good. Whenever a certain category of people - the unborn or the sick and old - are excluded from t= hat protection, a deadly anarchy subverts the original understanding of justi= ce. The credibility of the United States will depend more and more on its promotion of a genuine culture of life, and on a renewed commitment to building a world in which the weakest and most vulnerable are welcomed an= d protected. As they have done throughout your country's history, the Catholic people = of the United States will continue to make an important contribution to the development of American culture and society. The recently completed Speci= al Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for America has highlighted the range an= d variety of activity which Catholics, out of commitment to Christ, underta= ke for the betterment of society. May this transforming and elevating work continue to flourish for the good of individuals, the strengthening of families, a= nd the benefit of the American people as a whole. Your Excellency, these are some of the thoughts prompted by your presence here as your country's diplomatic representative. These reflections evoke= a prayer: that your country will experience a new birth of freedom, a freed= om grounded in truth and ordered to goodness. Thus will the American people = be able to harness their boundless spiritual energy in service of the genuin= e good of all humanity. Be assured that the various Offices of the Holy See will be ready to assist you in the fulfillment of your mission. Upon you = and upon the people of the United States of America I cordially invoke abunda= nt divine blessings. --- Click here to go to the web site of the Vatican. Return to top. --- All pages copyright =A9 1997 The Claremont Institute [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: The Pope and America (1/2) (fwd) Date: 20 Jul 1999 22:07:05 PST "On Jul 20, McGeheeZone.com wrote:" [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 5:32 PM Address Delivered by Pope John Paul II as he Received the Diplomatic Credentials of U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, Lindy Boggs December 16, 1997 {Originally published by the web site news service of the Vatican} Your Excellency, It gives me great pleasure to welcome you to the Vatican for the presentation of the Letters of Credence by which you are appointed Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of Amer= ica to the Holy See. I am grateful for the greetings which you convey from President Clinton, and I reciprocate with good wishes to him and to the American people. You represent a nation which plays a crucial role in world events today. = The United States carries a weighty and far-reaching responsibility, not only for the well-being of its own people, but for the development and destiny= of peoples throughout the world. With a deep sense of participation in the j= oys and hopes, the sorrows, anxieties, and aspirations of the entire human family, the Holy See is a willing partner in every effort to build a worl= d of genuine peace and justice for all. I am certain that, following upon t= he good work of your predecessors, you will apply your many personal talents and your long experience of public life to strengthening understanding an= d cooperation between us. The Founding Fathers of the United States asserted their claim to freedom and independence on the basis of certain "self-evident" truths about the human person: truths which could be discerned in human nature, built into= it by "nature's God". Thus they meant to bring into being, not just an independent territory, but a great experiment in what George Washington called "ordered liberty:" an experiment in which men and women would enjo= y equality of rights and opportunities in the pursuit of happiness and in service to the common good. Reading the founding documents of the United States, one has to be impressed by the concept of freedom they enshrine: = a freedom designed to enable people to fulfill their duties and responsibilities towards the family and towards the common good of the community. Their authors clearly understood that there could be no true freedom without moral responsibility and accountability, and no happiness without respect and support for the natural units or groupings through wh= ich people exist, develop and seek the higher purposes of life in concert wit= h others. The American democratic experiment has been successful in many ways. Millions of people around the world look to the United States as a model,= in their search for freedom, dignity, and prosperity. But the continuing success of American democracy depends on the degree to which each new generation, native-born and immigrant, make its own the moral truths on which the Founding Fathers staked the future of your Republic. Their commitment to build a free society with liberty and justice for all must = be constantly renewed if the United States is to fulfill the destiny to whic= h the Founders pledged their "lives...fortunes...and sacred honor." I am happy to take note of your words confirming the importance that your Government attaches, in its relations with countries around the world, to the promotion of human rights and particularly to the fundamental human right of religious freedom, which is the guarantee of every other human right. Respect for religious conviction played no small part in the birth and early development of the United States. Thus John Dickinson...said in 17[6]6: "Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declaration of pre-existing rights. They do not depend on parchments or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth" (Cf. C. Herman Pritchett, The American Constitution, McGraw-Hill, 1977, p. 2). Indeed, it may be asked whether the American democratic experiment would have been possible, or how well it will succeed in the future, without a deeply rooted vision of divine providence over the individual and over th= e fate of nations. As the Year 2000 draws near and Christians prepare to celebrate the bi-millennium of the birth of Christ, I have appealed for a serious examination of conscience regarding the shadows which darken our times (c= f. Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 36). Nations and States too can make this a time of reflection on the spiritual and moral conditions = of their success in promoting the integral good of their people. It would tr= uly be a sad thing if the religious and moral convictions upon which the American experiment was founded could now somehow be considered a danger = to free society, such that those who would bring these convictions to bear u= pon your nation's public life would be denied a voice in debating and resolvi= ng issues of public policy. The original separation of Church and State in t= he United States was certainly not an effort to ban all religious conviction from the public sphere, a kind of banishment of God from civil society. Indeed, the vast majority of Americans, regardless of their religious persuasion, are convinced that religious conviction and religiously infor= med moral argument have a vital role in public life. No expression of society's commitment to liberty and justice for all can = be more basic than the protection afforded to those in society who are most vulnerable. The United States of America was founded on the conviction th= at an inalienable right to life was a self-evident moral truth, fidelity to which was a primary criterion of social justice. The moral history of you= r country is the story of your people's efforts to widen the circle of [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) Date: 21 Jul 1999 08:51:59 PST >From the Noban list. On Jul 21, Paul M Watson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Bill Vance wrote: >On Jul 20, McGeheeZone.com wrote: > >>Bryan Williams wrote: >>>Help us take back the Republican party. No matter what you do for the >>>Presidential primary, get involved at the Precinct level and state party >>>level. The State GOP chairs, elected by the State Committees, who are in >>>turn elected by the grassroots, make up 1/3 of the Republican National >>>Committee, which elects the National Chairman. The other 2/3 are made up >>>of people chosen by the delegates to the National Convention. (This is why >>>Presidential politics is important - we need good people as delegates to >>>the National Convention). While this varies from state to state, the >>>process is basically the same. Find out what it is, recruit, train, and >>>take over. It can be done. >> >>Now THAT makes sense! >> >>Still, we have to get it through our heads that the hard work is just >>*beginning* after the election victory party. As long as we continue to let Big >>Media focus our whole attention on nothing but elections, it won't matter who we >>elect because, as so many have stated so often here, they'll sell us out as soon >>as our backs are turned. >> >>That last sentence need not be strictly true, but WE NEED TO ASSUME IT IS once >>the people we elect are in office. So maybe getting screwed over by this >>Congress will in the long run prove good for us. Some of us Nobanners obviously >>were overdue for a deflowering... >> >>Kevin McGehee >>North Pole, Alaska >>mcg592@mcgeheezone.com >>http://www.mcgeheezone.com/ > >Agreed, but this needs to be done with _all_ Parties to freeze out the >Socialist/Statist type Candidates, wherever they stick their heads up. I >know that requires a healthy swig of dramamine for dealling with the DNC >these days, but without doing it, we're just going to get more Schumers and >Fineswines from them. Why let them have a free hand anywhere? This is what I keep attempting to tell people, it is the grass roots that makes a party, this is what happened to the Democrats after Watergate the liberals took over the party and changed many of the rules to get rid of the back room power appointments. Same thing happened to the Republicans with Reagan, the Christian groups took over the power and the Dole-Rockefeller liberals never have liked them in the party. It is a heck of a lot more productive to just get your side to run for all the county party slots by showing up to the local party meetings and packing the place with your side than to try and start a whole new party to compete head to head. I have heard several very patriot minded people who were appointed or hired to powerful positions because they were the local person who helped so much with the party elections they were recommended for the medium positions in the administration. One was a New England school board lady who hated outcome based education and got hired into the number 3 slot in the department of education under Reagan. People do not realize its these underlings that run the government and get the job from political hacks who recommend them. In stead of bitching about how much the Republican and Democrats suck we need to simply take over the party power. It is to late in the game to form a new party or elect a 3ed party candidate. Besides a conservative party or Christian party or gun owners party or anti-abortion party can only muster 30%. You have to play to the middle dumb un-informed voters who can so easily be swayed by TV liberals. There is no easy magic bullet like a 3ed party yet. Hard work from with in both party in this 2 party system is the best plan of action. Regards, Paul Watson [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) Date: 21 Jul 1999 13:23:27 -0400 (EDT) > >job from political hacks who recommend them. In stead of bitching about >how much the Republican and Democrats suck we need to simply take over the >party power. It is to late in the game to form a new party or elect a 3ed >party candidate. Besides a conservative party or Christian party or gun >owners party or anti-abortion party can only muster 30%. You have to play >to the middle dumb un-informed voters who can so easily be swayed by TV >liberals. There is no easy magic bullet like a 3ed party yet. Hard work >from with in both party in this 2 party system is the best plan of action. >Regards, >Paul Watson > Paul, You are exactly right here. 3rd party is nonsense, its like tilting at windmills. If you really believe that G.W. is pro-gun, I would go with him. R's are working on passing a tax cut that: eliminates the AMT and estate taxes and cuts rates in each bracket by 10%. (That brings the top bracket down to 35.64, still a long way from Reagan's 28% top bracket). Republican moderates are blocking it in the House. Losers. We need to displace those moderates. My issues are : 1. guns, 2. taxes. I've got some little issues around privacy, regulation, encryption, and property rights, but if we can get the two elemental issues square, the rest will follow. Guns and Taxes. Keep the guns and get rid of the taxes. regards, Jack Curtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: skip Subject: Re: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) Date: 21 Jul 1999 11:23:19 -0700 Bill Vance wrote: > > >From the Noban list. > > On Jul 21, Paul M Watson wrote: > > [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Bill Vance wrote: > > >On Jul 20, McGeheeZone.com wrote: > > > >>Bryan Williams wrote: > >>>Help us take back the Republican party. No matter what you do for the > >>>Presidential primary, get involved at the Precinct level and state party > >>>level. The State GOP chairs, elected by the State Committees, who are in > >>>turn elected by the grassroots, make up 1/3 of the Republican National > >>>Committee, which elects the National Chairman. The other 2/3 are made up > >>>of people chosen by the delegates to the National Convention. (This is why > >>>Presidential politics is important - we need good people as delegates to > >>>the National Convention). While this varies from state to state, the > >>>process is basically the same. Find out what it is, recruit, train, and > >>>take over. It can be done. > >> > >>Now THAT makes sense! I have no problem with this goal or methodology, but would throw in one note of caution. The Christian Coalition adopted this strategy earlier, and got off to a great start. Unfortunately, the outcome was far short of what they hoped because they didn't really take over the party. Instead, by violating the first principle of politics - compromise - they split the party and started an internal power struggle that effectively gave the Democrats (Clinton and the congressional minority) control of the national agenda despite controlling both houses of congress, many state legislatures and most governor's mansions. The lesson learned, I think, is that if you're going to take over a party, remember always that it's the power you're after, not sole control of the agenda. If you can get and keep the power, you can advance your agenda - in time and with patience - but first and foremost you've got to develop and keep a broad base of popular support. Single issue zealotry won't do that, as the Christian Coalition's anti-abortion movement has proven in spades. The Christian Coalition and related organizations made great start, but they failed to establish a broad power base by scaring people off (with the help of the lefty media). IMO, their real mistake was impatience - putting quick advancement of their agenda ahead of attracting widespread support for a broad agenda. They looked like single issue zealots and scared off people who might have agreed, but didn't share their priorities. They squandered their opportunity. Now they're a media-demonized footnote in the history books, whose principal value is to teach others what NOT to do. FWIW, Skip. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) Date: 21 Jul 1999 12:24:43 PST On Jul 21, skip wrote: >Bill Vance wrote: >> >> >From the Noban list. >> >> On Jul 21, Paul M Watson wrote: >> >> [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >> >> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Bill Vance wrote: >> >> >On Jul 20, McGeheeZone.com wrote: >> > >> >>Bryan Williams wrote: >> >>>Help us take back the Republican party. No matter what you do for the >> >>>Presidential primary, get involved at the Precinct level and state party >> >>>level. The State GOP chairs, elected by the State Committees, who are in >> >>>turn elected by the grassroots, make up 1/3 of the Republican National >> >>>Committee, which elects the National Chairman. The other 2/3 are made up >> >>>of people chosen by the delegates to the National Convention. (This is why >> >>>Presidential politics is important - we need good people as delegates to >> >>>the National Convention). While this varies from state to state, the >> >>>process is basically the same. Find out what it is, recruit, train, and >> >>>take over. It can be done. >> >> >> >>Now THAT makes sense! > >I have no problem with this goal or methodology, but would throw in one >note of caution. The Christian Coalition adopted this strategy earlier, >and got off to a great start. Unfortunately, the outcome was far short >of what they hoped because they didn't really take over the party. >Instead, by violating the first principle of politics - compromise - >they split the party and started an internal power struggle that >effectively gave the Democrats (Clinton and the congressional minority) >control of the national agenda despite controlling both houses of >congress, many state legislatures and most governor's mansions. I don't think it was them so much as the Liberal/Moderate/Country Club set that split the Party and started the Power Struggle, not to mention the demonization. Granted, Christian Coalition had their part to play in this, but it was minimal compared to what the rest did about/to them. >The lesson learned, I think, is that if you're going to take over a >party, remember always that it's the power you're after, not sole >control of the agenda. If you can get and keep the power, you can >advance >your agenda - in time and with patience - but first and foremost you've >got to develop and keep a broad base of popular support. Single issue >zealotry won't do that, as the Christian Coalition's anti-abortion >movement has proven in spades. > >The Christian Coalition and related organizations made great start, but >they failed to establish a broad power base by scaring people off (with >the help of the lefty media). IMO, their real mistake was impatience - >putting quick advancement of their agenda ahead of attracting widespread >support for a broad agenda. They looked like single issue zealots and >scared off people who might have agreed, but didn't share their >priorities. >They squandered their opportunity. Now they're a media-demonized >footnote >in the history books, whose principal value is to teach others what NOT >to do. > >FWIW, Skip. That may be, but I don't think we've seen the last of them yet. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Harry E. Barnett" Subject: Re: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) Date: 21 Jul 1999 14:55:32 -0700 Bill Vance wrote: >On Jul 21, skip wrote: > [***snip***] >>The Christian Coalition and related organizations made great start, but >>they failed to establish a broad power base by scaring people off (with >>the help of the lefty media). IMO, their real mistake was impatience - >>putting quick advancement of their agenda ahead of attracting widespread >>support for a broad agenda. They looked like single issue zealots and >>scared off people who might have agreed, but didn't share their >>priorities. >>They squandered their opportunity. Now they're a media-demonized >>footnote >>in the history books, whose principal value is to teach others what NOT >>to do. >> >>FWIW, Skip. > >That may be, but I don't think we've seen the last of them yet. > D'ya suppose they could be persuaded to work for the Democrats? Just a thought. harryb -- "Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened." G. Washington, Farewell Address, 1796. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: skip Subject: Re: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) Date: 21 Jul 1999 17:46:14 -0700 "Harry E. Barnett" wrote: > > Bill Vance wrote: > > >On Jul 21, skip wrote: > > > [***snip***] > >>The Christian Coalition and related organizations made great start, but > >>they failed to establish a broad power base by scaring people off (with > >>the help of the lefty media). IMO, their real mistake was impatience - > >>putting quick advancement of their agenda ahead of attracting widespread > >>support for a broad agenda. They looked like single issue zealots and > >>scared off people who might have agreed, but didn't share their > >>priorities. > >>They squandered their opportunity. Now they're a media-demonized > >>footnote > >>in the history books, whose principal value is to teach others what NOT > >>to do. > >> > >>FWIW, Skip. > > > >That may be, but I don't think we've seen the last of them yet. > > > > D'ya suppose they could be persuaded to work for the Democrats? > > Just a thought. harryb > Harry, I didn't go into it in my little sermonette, but you and I, as WA residents, have a case in point that others do not - Ellen Craswell's campaign for governor. Her solid 17% of devoted Christian supporters gave her a solid victory in a 7-candidate primary, but in the general election, her devoted Christian backing wasn't nearly enough to avoid a humiliating defeat. I can see the RKBA folks repeating that delusional mistake unless they adopt a "big tent" philosophy. Where's Loboazul (RIP) when we need him? He understood this politics crap perfectly. Skip. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) Date: 21 Jul 1999 21:40:46 PST On Jul 21, skip wrote: >"Harry E. Barnett" wrote: >> >> Bill Vance wrote: >> >> >On Jul 21, skip wrote: >> > >> [***snip***] >> >>The Christian Coalition and related organizations made great start, but >> >>they failed to establish a broad power base by scaring people off (with >> >>the help of the lefty media). IMO, their real mistake was impatience - >> >>putting quick advancement of their agenda ahead of attracting widespread >> >>support for a broad agenda. They looked like single issue zealots and >> >>scared off people who might have agreed, but didn't share their >> >>priorities. >> >>They squandered their opportunity. Now they're a media-demonized >> >>footnote >> >>in the history books, whose principal value is to teach others what NOT >> >>to do. >> >> >> >>FWIW, Skip. >> > >> >That may be, but I don't think we've seen the last of them yet. >> > >> >> D'ya suppose they could be persuaded to work for the Democrats? >> >> Just a thought. harryb Not a bad one either. We need good folks engaging in Politics in _all_ Parties, to oust/freeze out the Statists everywhere. The more the merrier! >Harry, > >I didn't go into it in my little sermonette, but you and I, as WA >residents, have a case in point that others do not - Ellen Craswell's >campaign for governor. Her solid 17% of devoted Christian supporters >gave her a solid victory in a 7-candidate primary, but in the general >election, her devoted Christian backing wasn't nearly enough to avoid >a humiliating defeat. Having a bout with Cancer didn't help her chances much either. Her Hubby engaging in a Spoiler race after that didn't endear him to nuch of anybody, but then he didn't care. Such didn't help the 3P's reputation with a lot of folks. > I can see the RKBA folks repeating that delusional >mistake unless they adopt a "big tent" philosophy. Where's Loboazul (RIP) >when we need him? He understood this politics crap perfectly. > >Skip. Kevin McGehee has, (by default), filled his shoes to some extent, over on NoBan, but even though some of us voted him, "List Lobo", in recognition, it was not unanimous, even though there were no negative votes, so he thanked us and begged off. None of us can do all the things Jim did, in all ways, but we all carry on as best we can. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: RE: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) Date: 22 Jul 1999 16:23:00 -0700 A "big tent" philosophy is the same as "least of two evils". If you want to make social change, have a consistent 5% of the vote that can swing the election. RKBA loses every time people chose "least of 2 evils" instead of the Libertarian Party when faced with choices such as Feinstein vs ?idiot Republican opponent in last campaign?. Lew > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of skip > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 5:46 PM > To: roc@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) > > > > > "Harry E. Barnett" wrote: > > > > Bill Vance wrote: > > > > >On Jul 21, skip wrote: > > > > > [***snip***] > > >>The Christian Coalition and related organizations made great > start, but > > >>they failed to establish a broad power base by scaring people > off (with > > >>the help of the lefty media). IMO, their real mistake was > impatience - > > >>putting quick advancement of their agenda ahead of attracting > widespread > > >>support for a broad agenda. They looked like single issue zealots and > > >>scared off people who might have agreed, but didn't share their > > >>priorities. > > >>They squandered their opportunity. Now they're a media-demonized > > >>footnote > > >>in the history books, whose principal value is to teach > others what NOT > > >>to do. > > >> > > >>FWIW, Skip. > > > > > >That may be, but I don't think we've seen the last of them yet. > > > > > > > D'ya suppose they could be persuaded to work for the Democrats? > > > > Just a thought. harryb > > > > Harry, > > I didn't go into it in my little sermonette, but you and I, as WA > residents, have a case in point that others do not - Ellen Craswell's > campaign for governor. Her solid 17% of devoted Christian supporters > gave her a solid victory in a 7-candidate primary, but in the general > election, her devoted Christian backing wasn't nearly enough to avoid > a humiliating defeat. I can see the RKBA folks repeating that delusional > mistake unless they adopt a "big tent" philosophy. Where's > Loboazul (RIP) > when we need him? He understood this politics crap perfectly. > > Skip. > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: RE: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) Date: 22 Jul 1999 16:29:45 -0700 The way you make both parties pro-RKBA is to have the swing vote, and resolutely vote for iron-clad promises, and resolutely vote against both parties when they don't have acceptable candidates. Only by having a consistent segment of votes which can be gained by adnering to the 2nd Amendment can we win this fight. We don't need to "win" every election in the sense of supporting the least of 2 evils. All that does is allow the Republican to be better than Feinstein, for example, and vote for more "moderate" gun control measures. We win by denying the election to even moderates on this issue, by voting for the absolutely acceptable candidate. Only then can the votes be counted by the major party candidates, and figured into the next election. Lew Glendenning > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-roc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of John Curtis > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 10:23 AM > To: roc@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) > > > > > >job from political hacks who recommend them. In stead of bitching about > >how much the Republican and Democrats suck we need to simply > take over the > >party power. It is to late in the game to form a new party or elect a 3ed > >party candidate. Besides a conservative party or Christian party or gun > >owners party or anti-abortion party can only muster 30%. You have to play > >to the middle dumb un-informed voters who can so easily be swayed by TV > >liberals. There is no easy magic bullet like a 3ed party yet. Hard work > >from with in both party in this 2 party system is the best plan > of action. > >Regards, > >Paul Watson > > > Paul, > > You are exactly right here. 3rd party is nonsense, its like > tilting at windmills. > > If you really believe that G.W. is pro-gun, I would go with him. > > R's are working on passing a tax cut that: eliminates the AMT and > estate taxes and cuts rates in each bracket by 10%. > > (That brings the top bracket down to 35.64, still a long way > from Reagan's 28% top bracket). > > Republican moderates are blocking it in the House. Losers. > > We need to displace those moderates. My issues are : > > 1. guns, 2. taxes. I've got some little issues around privacy, > regulation, encryption, and property rights, but if we can get the > two elemental issues square, the rest will follow. > > Guns and Taxes. Keep the guns and get rid of the taxes. > > regards, > > Jack Curtis > > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Perrine Subject: RE: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) Date: 22 Jul 1999 16:32:26 -0700 On Thursday, July 22, 1999 4:23 PM, Lew Glendenning [SMTP:rlglende@alink.net] wrote: > > A "big tent" philosophy is the same as "least of two evils". > > If you want to make social change, have a consistent 5% of the vote > that can swing the election. > > RKBA loses every time people chose "least of 2 evils" instead of the > Libertarian Party when faced with choices such as Feinstein vs ?idiot > Republican opponent in last campaign?. > > Lew Once one decides that either of the two major parties is worse than the other ..... or can do no more harm....then it is easy enough to vote libertarian or UStaxpayers...... But then the thing to do is to point out to your rep / senator that last time he only won by 5 percent and while your candidate: Libertarian / US Taxpayers may well not get much over 5 percent this is enough to cause your rep to lose while it matters not a whit to us any longer whether the Republicans or Democrats are shredding the constitution it matters considerably to those presently elected or planning on seeking office. Who knows it might even penetrate their skulls by election time that while a Libertarian or US TAXPAYER can not win they can certainly keep either of the other parties from winning in any virtually any race then the present establishment might find it expedient to vote a lot of things they promised n years and undo lots of horrible things they have done since Jack - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: RE: Taking back OUR PARTY (was Re:_George_W_Bush, etc.) (fwd) Date: 22 Jul 1999 18:45:19 PST On Jul 22, Lew Glendenning wrote: >The way you make both parties pro-RKBA is to have the swing vote, and >resolutely vote for iron-clad promises, and resolutely vote against >both parties when they don't have acceptable candidates. Granted, but we also need letter writers constantly bitching them out for voting the HCI line, and telling them, "You _would_ have had my vote, but...." >Only by having a consistent segment of votes which can be gained by adnering >to the 2nd Amendment can we win this fight. We still have to tell them when they cross the line. >We don't need to "win" every election in the sense of supporting the least >of 2 evils. All that does is allow the Republican to be better than >Feinstein, for example, and vote for more "moderate" gun control measures. > >We win by denying the election to even moderates on this issue, by voting >for the absolutely acceptable candidate. Only then can the votes be counted >by the major party candidates, and figured into the next election. Sometimes at any rate. If a 3P Candidate has an even chance, fine, but otherwise, voting for someone who loses just gets one of the above into Office. Better a wishy-washy, "Moderate", than a guaranteed Socialist. At least the, "Moderate", might be amenable to pressure. And again, tell them, "if they don't start flying right," ....... >Lew Glendenning -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: S L I C K Year 4, Issue 32 (2/3) (fwd) Date: 23 Jul 1999 08:52:57 PST On Jul 23, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] on there being a "surplus" in any given year. Not a bad=20 idea. Now let's have the same contingency added to every=20 new spending bill. Truth is, we all know, spending, not tax=20 laws, will determine the total taxes we end up paying. If=20 they spend it, we end up paying for it. The less of our=20 money they spend, the less taxes we have to pay. Why is=20 that so hard to understand? =20 Drudge=20 MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX The GOP $800 bil (over 10 years) tax cut making it's way=20 thru Congress includes a REDUCTION in the amount of new taxes a couple pays when they choose to stop living-in-sin=20 and get married. Perhaps I should look at this as "a half a loaf", but I just think it's like the lesser of two evils. Taxing=20 people when they marry, and making d-i-v-o-r-c-e the=20 only loop hole, is counter-productive to our society, our=20 nation and our families. It flies in the face of good govt. Receive E-mail=20 Updates from Senator Ashcroft! =20 INTEREST ON NATL DEBT COMES DUE That ugly old national debt increased $70,054,451,201.23=20 in June...that wasn't a $ 70 bil increase in the debt in June.=20 That was the INTEREST payment on the debt in June!=20 Meantime the world just sleeps while our pockets and our=20 children's pockets get picked! =20 Bill S. < uw-bill@uwsa.com >=20 VALU-JET I suspect that employees, and perhaps companies, are=20 criminally liable for the Valu-Jet fatal crash. I read where=20 the pilot was earning $25K a year, about 1/6 of her counter- parts in the major airlines. Nevertheless, what bothers me=20 most is: why is the govt just getting around to bringing the=20 criminal charges? Everyone of US is guaranteed a speedy=20 trial by our contract with our govt. It used to be that=20 justice delayed was justice denied. Many a guilty person was=20 set free because of the govt's stalling tactics.=20 Question: why are these charges being leveled at this time?=20 RADIO TALK SHOW Mark Davis' talk show is broadcast nationally from Ft=20 Worth on ABC Sundays. He's sharp as a tack, but last week he=20 said something that surprised me. He was denigrating the=20 rights of Indians on their reservations. Effectively he was=20 saying: you and your lands are part of the USA, just like=20 the rest of us, GET USED TO IT. Problem is, this doesn't=20 take into account the various treaties and laws passed by=20 our Congress. It seems that Davis figures those aren't any=20 more binding on our govt than the 2nd Amendment. Question. If the laws of the nation aren't any more binding=20 than the words of our infamous leader, what are we?=20 AN INTERESTING ITEM Blood Alcohol Number. The General Accounting Office=20 (GAO) released the results of an investigation into positive=20 impacts of moving the blood alcohol limit from 0.1% to=20 0.08%. They found that the 16 states that have adopted the=20 lower limit have seen no change in the number nor severity=20 of auto accidents since the change. The finding refutes=20 claims by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and=20 Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Anchorage Daily News, 7/12.=20 More Interesting Items can be now be found on Rod Martin's=20 (no relation) "Vanguard" at =20 Interesting Items by Alex Gim= arc =20 KATHIE'S KORNER Just finished reading a book called "Better Not Bigger."=20 Thought it might have been written by Pamela Anderson Lee=20 after her much-touted surgery, but no! It was written by an=20 even bigger boob, name of Eben Fodor. Early in the book he=20 refers to the property rights paradox, where people keep=20 wanting to decide what they can do with what they own and=20 forgetting, he says, that all such rights are given to us by=20 government. WHOA! Have we come that far since the=20 Declaration of Independence? I haven't.=20 But I'm glad I read it, because it points out so well=20 why we should depend on government for police protection,=20 including military protection, and for judges. NOT for our=20 water, air, food, education and sanitation. Mr. Fodor says=20 that everytime another family is added to the community,=20 they create a drain on the economy. This is only true when =20 govt, which hasn't a clue how to run a business and does not=20 want to learn, provides the necessities. Mr. Fodor and his=20 compatriots want communities to stop growth until they can=20 provide the necessary infrastructure. Can you imagine=20 Safeway stores saying they're going to lock their grocery=20 stores during the periods of heaviest shopping until they=20 can afford to grow? Or Chevron gas stations closing down=20 during the peak driving season lest they spend too much on=20 labor and overhead? Pray for wisdon and for the country. Reply to: Kathie < fishrap@netdex.com >=20 Congratulations, Kathie. This is your 100th column in Slick.=20 Very much appreciated by me and many readers. REMEMBER THE GOOD OLE DAYS... when cops eliminated suspects, instead of illuminating them?=20 when Carter was prez, and we had double digit inflation?=20 First thing we did when we got home from the grocery store=20 was to peel off the price ticket, to see how much the price=20 went up since it was first placed on the shelf. Two price=20 increases was not unusual. when LBJ was prez, and every hot summer weekend we braced=20 ourselves for another inner city burning, Chgo, Watts, etc?=20 when you saw a small plane in the sky, pointed it out and said: "there's a Piper Cub!"=20 PEN PALS Darlie Routier has been being held at Lew Sterett jail=20 in Dallas for the last 8 mos. Sunday, she was allowed to=20 address a group of supporters who raised $1,000 for her=20 appeal. The lady was railroaded. Y2K [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: S L I C K Year 4, Issue 32 (3/3) (fwd) Date: 23 Jul 1999 08:52:18 PST On Jul 23, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Last of a series. Test your computer for Y2K compliance. Download the=20 YMARK 2000 test available at NSTL H= ome =20 More Y2K info by Lone-tar Year 2000 Compliant =20 I have a y2k preparation list that may be downloaded and=20 printed at the following address. Feel free to offer it to=20 your list readers. = Y2k=20 Preparation List =20 Carol Burnett < cburnett@interconnect.net > YAHOO =09 YAH= OO=20 COMES OUT AGAINST GUN OWNERS =09=09 THIS SPACE FOR RENT Reliable Internet Access for only $14.95 a month. Over 550 access numbers in 21 States and growing. Cyber77-ISP, web hosts, unlimited acces= s,=20 high-speed servers =20 If you have your own web site, you know it's not enough=20 to be on the internet with 30,000,000 geeks. Oh, search=20 engines are great---for the other guy, but wouldn't you=20 prefer to be a little more direct? Instead of trying to=20 reach millions of people who can't spell your name, here's=20 your chance to target thousands of politically active=20 people like yourself. Send e-mail for details to RichSlick. PARTING THOUGHT Don't believe anything you read on the Net unless: 1) you can confirm it with another source, and/or 2) it is consistent with what you already know to be true. Hmmm. Maybe we should apply this to the tv-networks mainstream press, etc. also. How novel. Words to live by. * * * * *=20 Subscribe to this Slick e-zine featuring Kathie's Korner, and receive absolutely free, a copy of Rich's Major Media=20 Mailing List containing over 400 e-mail addresses. To=20 subscribe, send your check for $24.95 to the address at the=20 top of this message. Be sure to include your e-mail address. THE TRUTH IS...=20 A. Powerful. C. In the eye of the beholder.=20 B. Irrelevant. D. All of the above. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: S L I C K Year 4, Issue 32 (1/3) (fwd) Date: 23 Jul 1999 08:53:39 PST On Jul 23, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] =A9 1999 Rich Martin Permission to repost is granted, in full preferred. You are encouraged to pass this message on to anyone=20 who might be interested in its contents. Better yet, print a=20 copy for a friend who is not on-line. Any and all comments=20 on the subject matter are always welcome.=20 From the Desk of Rich Martin P O Box 531918 972/263-6631 Grand Prairie, TX 75053 RichSlick@aol.com "When the people fear the government you have tyranny...=20 when the government fears the people you have liberty."=20 Thomas Jefferson _______________________________________________=20 Happy Birthday Lynn,=20 1999 What's with the new highway phenomenon, coast-to-coast=20 concrete highway dividers. Lady Bird would be mortified.=20 They make the road narrow, and can sneak up on you at night.=20 I hope the insurance industry is keeping stats on the=20 accidents they cause vs prevent.=20 Like in Serbia, the cost of success can be expensive.=20 With memories of the newly crowned Stanley Cup Champion=20 Dallas Stars still dancing in our heads, the Stars announced=20 a 10% increase in ticket prices for next year, and 20% for=20 the following year. My boss shelled out $200 for a single=20 ticket to see one of the early play-off games, but in NYC=20 they were paying $800 to see the Knicks lose to the NBA=20 champion San Antonio Spurs. Hee, hee. How Slick is Slick?=20 Chapaquidick history is being re-written. In the new=20 version, Teddy leaves the car when a cop appears so as not=20 to be embarrassed doing the young campaign worker, Mary Jo=20 Kopeckne. The plan is for her to drive off, and return to=20 pick him up when the cop leaves, but she crashes in the mean=20 time because she can't handle the big machine. It took the=20 Kennedy team 30 yrs to come up with this plausible denial.=20 Clinton would have had them printing that story before the=20 sun came up. B-1 BILL (MAD BOMBER) =20 Thu Jul 15,1999 -- U.S. warplanes struck 13 Iraqi air=20 defense targets Wednesday in an intensifying campaign=20 against Saddam Hussein's forces. CLEANSING COMPLETED Milivoje and Julijana Ristic, who were killed yesterday=20 (July 21) in the village of Maticane, were buried in Kosovo=20 Polje today. After this crime, the last remaining Serbs have=20 moved out of Maticane. Slavko Kojic, brother of the 3=20 priests from the Kojic family, was killed in Vrbovce=20 village. Parish centre in Pristina has once again been=20 attacked today, and a large number of Serbs has moved out of=20 the town.=20 Hieromonk Stefan, clergyman of Budisavci monastery,=20 disappeared on Monday, July 19. Vujadin Vujevic, teacher=20 from Budisavci who was teaching in Klina, was with him and=20 disappeared too. Albanians had threatened both of them=20 before. TiM GW Bulletins For=20 addl info: Bob Djurdjevic < bobdj@djurdjevic.com >=20 IRA The IRA has refused to disarm it's members. The killing=20 goes on. I guess it's time Clinton bombed Belfast until they=20 surrender their arms. We've got to do something. They've=20 been killing each other since the days of Queen Elizabeth I. CLINTON LEGACY Cut back the space program and reduced America's first=20 space lab, Freedom, to a fraction of it's original size. Eliminated the Super-Conductor/Super-Collider which was=20 expected to reduce energy costs drastically. MEDIACRATS The mass media is dutifully repeating Clinton's lies=20 that he gave JFK, Jr., his first tour of the WH residence,=20 despite they reported several prior visits on their own=20 pages. (I guess they don't listen to/read what they write.)=20 The false image is: he was the first president that cares. =20 BURN THE FLAG Interesting that liberals are taking the position that=20 it takes an amendment in order to outlaw burning the flag in=20 public, because of the first amendment guarantees freedom=20 of speech. Isn't that funny, since they don't think the 2nd=20 Amendment hinders Congress ability to infringe on gun=20 ownership. Perhaps they need to pass a 3-day waiting period=20 ---to make sure no criminals are burning flags.=20 CAMPAIGN ABUSE =20 PBS got caught swapping contributor lists with the DNC.=20 If the GOP had any guts they would say: that's it, no more,=20 we've had enough and stop sending taxpayer dollars to the=20 PBS/DNC team. Fine them. Penalize them. Sue them. Break up that unholy alliance as if they were Serbia and Montenegro.=20 HIDDEN TAXES If the fedl govt is truly interested in reducing the amount of oil we consume, why do they tax diesel fuel higher=20 (6 cents more a gal) than gasoline? If they wanted to=20 encourage diesel as a fuel, as they claim, diesel fuel would=20 be taxed less than regular gasoline? Am I being cynical to suggest they aren't interested in doing what they know is the right for the nation; it is politically easier to tax 18-wheelers=20 than cars?=20 TAX CUT Republican moderates (there are no moderate Dems)=20 were forced to tow the party line, or run the risk of having=20 their man, Danny Hassert, lose his job as Speaker of the=20 House. As a compromise, they made the tax cut contingent=20 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FWD: A UN gun-control seminar... (2/2) (fwd) Date: 23 Jul 1999 09:11:05 PST On Jul 23, Mikey wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ,=20 or baseball bats. Oh yeah? How about this image: a hunter stalking a deer=20 armed only with a carving knife. A duckshooter in his hide in the middle of = a=20 lake, whisky in one hand and baseball bat in the other. Sorry. Guns are more lethal than most things we know. The shooters know that= .=20 And in their heart of hearts, they also know that guns are the instruments=20 which allow even children to kill. Then the discussion moves to the media. All those awful movies =96 and they = are=20 awful =96 teaching our kids to kill. But those same movies are shown in Japa= n,=20 Canada, Singapore and New Zealand. And we don't kill with firearms at nearly=20 the same rate. Could that be because our societies are not so saturated with=20 guns? It certainly seems to be the case that our entertainment and news media make=20 guns desirable. But it's only our gun laws which make them available. Withou= t=20 a gun, surely there can be no shooting. Our next speaker is one academic to recognise that the gun on the hip of a=20 mercenary in West Africa is conceivably just one serial number away from the=20 gun found loaded in a nightstand in Idaho, then used by a curious five=20 year-old to blow away his younger sister. Guns don't come from the cabbage patch. They're manufactured in quiet valley= s=20 in Connecticut and the Caucasus, smart industrial parks in Austria and=20 Brazil. And almost without exception, each of them begins life as a=20 legitimate, legal gun. >From the Program on General Disarmament at Maryland University, Natalie=20 Goldring. NATALIE GOLDRING It's worth saying again. Almost without exception, every illicit gun starts=20 out as a legal gun. Eventually, a criminal may acquire that weapon. But it's=20 the licensed dealer or the lawful gun owner who provides the gun.=20 Whether it's by sale, by neglect or by theft, the transfer from the legal to=20 the illegal market is by definition performed by a so-called law-abiding gun=20 owner. Recently there's been much discussion of disarming the "black hats" while no= t=20 offending the "white hats." Some gun owners insist that they can always be=20 relied upon not to abuse their weapons, that because they were entrusted wit= h=20 guns at some point in the past they will by definition remain risk-free in=20 the future. Whether such a theory is applied to police officers, demobilised=20 soldiers, hobby hunters, householders keeping guns for violent retribution o= r=20 indeed national governments, this has proved to be an unrealistic expectatio= n. To a trauma surgeon delving into gunshot wounds in Cape Town or Melbourne, i= t=20 matters little if the weapon was fired by a law-abiding husband or a mobster= ,=20 whether it was military in appearance or had previously been used only to=20 shoot pigeons. Be it by accident, suicide, crime or conflict, the damage don= e=20 to the victim, family and wider society is likely to be much the same. And the guns all came from the same gun makers, and we know who they are. Our next speaker is very close to the grass-roots. He sees the damage done=20 with guns on a daily basis. From Gun Free South Africa, he's here to tell us=20 what works in his community. Joseph Dube. JOSEPH DUBE It is undeniably important to address the root causes of violence, conflict=20 and injury. At the same time, we must focus on the instruments of violence.=20 Most gun control advocates follow the public health model. Put simply, this=20 maintains that guns are to gun violence as mosquitoes are to malaria. We acknowledge that firearms do not in themselves cause violence. But=20 regardless of the context =96 crime, conflict, domestic assault, suicide =96 = guns=20 do increase the severity of violence, the number of victims and the potentia= l=20 for children to become killers. It's very true that guns don't kill. It's the bullets which do that. But no matter which facile slogan is used, if neither a gun nor a bullet is=20 to hand, surely no shooting can occur. Thank you. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FWD: A UN gun-control seminar... (1/2) (fwd) Date: 23 Jul 1999 09:11:46 PST On Jul 23, Mikey wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hague Appeal for Peace seminar The Hague, Netherlands 14 May 1999 Moderator's remarks=20 Philip Alpers Coalition for Gun Control, New Zealand Good evening. Thank you all for choosing gun violence, and we do appreciate=20 that you had a choice of seminars. My name is Philip Alpers, and I'm an advocate of gun control. I'm a New=20 Zealander, and that means that I come from a country where even the police d= o=20 not wear guns. Not many others are so fortunate. Our speakers this evening represent=20 countries which are saturated with guns (South Africa, the United States),=20 across the spectrum to those which have banned many guns, either partly (as=20 in Canada, Australia and New Zealand) or entirely, as has happened with=20 handguns in Britain. I'm sorry to say that three countries are only represented here in their=20 absence. The official programme promised Wendy Cukier from Canada, Rebecca=20 Peters from Australia and Gill Marshall-Andrews from England. Due to the=20 pressure of work and other commitments, all three women were forced to send=20 their apologies. It's said that about 300,000 people are killed with small arms in conflict=20 every year. What's often neglected is that, according to United Nations=20 figures, an additional 200,000 are killed with firearms every year in=20 situations which have nothing to do with warfare. Not all of these are=20 murders. Some of them are suicides, and some are accidents. But I've yet to=20 meet a gun control advocate (or a parent) who sees suicide, or a child's=20 accidental death by firearm, as somehow less tragic or less preventable than=20 a gun murder.=20 Of course some shootings are far more mediagenic than others. When a mass=20 killing happens in a city with a lot of TV cameras (like Littleton, Colorado= )=20 it's a tragedy. But it pays to remember that for every victim shot dead in a=20 mass killing, about 49 others are killed with a gun in a tragedy which is=20 less attractive to the editors of the evening news.=20 As with rape, gun violence suffers from the myth of "stranger danger."=20 Another thing it pays to remember is that for every victim killed by a=20 stranger wielding a gun, many, many more =9695% in some countries =96 are ki= lled=20 by someone they know. Often the killer is an estranged, or a current partner= .=20 If you want to know the truth about firearm-related killings, one of the mor= e=20 accurate gun control posters simply reads: "The person most likely to kill=20 you with a gun already has a key to your home." Our first speaker hails from a land which provides an object lesson =96=20 sometimes good, sometimes not-so-good =96 to all of us. Michael Beard was=20 working with Martin Luther King's speechwriter at the time King was shot. He=20 was on the campaign trail for John F Kennedy, and then for Bobby Kennedy,=20 when they were both shot.=20 With 30 years in gun control advocacy, Michael has spent most of my lifetime=20 working for sanity in American gun laws. There aren't many people better=20 placed to tell us what's going on in America today. From the Coalition to=20 Stop Gun Violence in Washington DC, Michael Beard. MICHAEL BEARD Here I'd like to say a word about a new initiative in America. It's called=20 the Bell Campaign=20 This is one of the most exciting things I've seen in my seven years in gun=20 control. With 4.3 million dollars already raised from a single initial grant= ,=20 the Bell Campaign is a national grass-roots movement modelled on Mothers=20 Against Drunk Driving. Like MADD, it's inspired and driven by the passion of=20 the victims of gun violence. These astonishing people can say things that those of us who haven't lost=20 loved ones never could. Take Mary Leigh Blek of Orange County.=20 Died-in-the-wool Republican, Mary Leigh and her husband Charlie lost a son t= o=20 gun violence. Ever since then, the Bleks have spent most of their waking=20 hours campaigning for gun control in one of the staunchest enclaves of=20 conservatism in America. The week before last, up in Denver, Colorado and at the door to the NRA=20 convention, Mary Leigh said two things I remember. First: "It's a lot easier to childproof a gun than it is to bullet-proof a child" And then, speaking directly to the gun lobby, Mary Leigh said: "Your love for your guns is no match for our love for our children." In a series of videotaped interviews, I recently asked the Bleks and all the=20 other founding board members of the Bell Campaign the same question: "As you=20 go about campaigning for gun control, is your child alongside you?" Without exception, every one of them said yes. Most of them said it through=20 tears. For these people =96 and thank God for them and for their courage =96 = gun=20 control advocacy has become an important part of healing. Or, if healing is=20 not possible, then it's just an important part of going on. I'm confident that these are the people who will transform what's become a=20 stale argument. Just as they did with the landmine campaign. Just as they di= d=20 with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The survivors, the victims of gun=20 violence are an extraordinary breed.=20 Here's one of them. Our next speaker is Dr Mick North, from the Gun Control=20 Network, in Scotland. MICK NORTH After 14 women were shot to death at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique, it took=20 nine years to enact stringent new gun control legislation in Canada.=20 After 16 children and their teacher were shot to death at Dunblane Primary=20 School, it took 12 days for British Prime Minister John Major to announce=20 tough new gun laws. A year and a half later, the incoming Labour government=20 enacted even stronger restrictions than the Tories had intended. After 35 people were killed by a lone gunman at Port Arthur, Tasmania, it=20 took Australia's Prime Minister John Howard 12 days to broker an agreement=20 between the states for the most successful civilian disarmament programme of=20 recent times. Nearly 700,000 guns were given up by their owners, crushed, an= d=20 then thrown into smelters. If an equivalent result had been achieved in=20 America, 40 million guns would have been removed from circulation. We have a dreadful habit of talking about our gun laws only in the three or=20 four days after each massacre. It's sick, it's odious, but nowadays only the=20 very worst multiple killings generate sustained discussion of gun control = =96=20 let alone new laws. And the discussion far too often moves away from the point. We're told that=20 if guns hadn't been available, the killings could have been done with knives= [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Re: The Filibuster Is * On * (fwd) Date: 23 Jul 1999 21:16:20 PST On Jul 23, Huck wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Ok people, here's one we can win too. Remember this, without those firearms and the 2nd. Amendment, you can forget all the rest. Everything you need to do is contained in this e-mail. All we are talking about here is the tools to maintain our freedom a little longer! And yes, this most definitely applies to Y2K and after. Even if you don't personally believe in having guns around for your own use, we need your help if America is to remain free. Huck Gun Owners of America wrote: > Senator Smith Throws Down the Gauntlet! > -- Stands up to Trent Lott by forcing filibuster on anti-gun crime > bill > > Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert > 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 > Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 > http://www.gunowners.org > > (Friday, July 23, 1999) -- Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) has set > the Senate wheels in motion for a series of votes to stop Senator > Bob Smith's filibuster on the juvenile crime legislation. The first > vote has been set for Monday, July 26. > > So far, Senator Smith (I-NH) has prevented any progress on the > anti-gun crime bill by promising to use the ancient art of > "filibuster." Yesterday, that promise became reality when Smith > objected to a motion by Sen. Lott to move the bill along. > > This is truly a David v. Goliath stand-off. The Senate leadership, > led by the Majority Leader, is trying to roll Senator Smith and > bring his delaying tactics to an end. > > Of course, Senator Lott must first clear at least six parliamentary > "hurdles" that have been erected by Senator Smith. > > The key vote will occur on Wednesday or Thursday when the Senate > will determine whether the Gore/Lautenberg gun control crime bill > (S. 254) will move forward. > > That vote will be on an effort to shut down debate on Sen. Smith's > filibuster-- known in Washington as "invoking cloture" on the > filibuster-- and will decide whether Sen. Lott can substitute the > virulently anti-gun crime bill (S. 254) in lieu of the crime bill > that was passed by the House. > > Eventually, Senator Lott wants to send the crime legislation to a > House-Senate conference committee to iron out the differences > between the two bills. But that can only come after he's cleared > the Smith "hurdles"-- a process that should take several days. Lott > can clear each one of these hurdles with a 60-vote majority in the > Senate. > > If that happens, President Clinton will be one step closer to > signing a crime bill that is replete with gun bans and gun owner > registration. > > But if our side gets 41 votes at any point along the way, then > Senate rules will allow Smith to continue filibustering the bill-- > which could entail his standing on the Senate floor and reading long > passages from a library of pro-gun literature. You may want to tape > this from C-Span and label it "Second Amendment books on tape by > Senator Smith." > > Smith is willing to do that. He is committed to doing whatever it > takes to defend the 2nd Amendment. But he needs 40 other Senators > to stand with him! > > Again, Monday's vote will begin a whole series of votes on this > issue. Each one is slightly different, and GOA will do its best to > keep you informed as to what is coming down the pike. > > Until then, please start asking your Senators to support the Smith > filibuster. > > Senator Smith is without question THE defender of 2nd Amendment > rights in the Senate. Tell your Senator that you would like him or > her to follow Smith's lead on the upcoming series of votes. > > CONTACT INFORMATION: > > * Toll-free at 1-888-449-3511. [Please be patient when calling > this number; sometimes it rings for quite a while. But they will > answer!] > * The regular Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121. > * Fax and e-mail contact info is available at > http://www.gunowners.org/s106th.htm on the GOA webpage. > > P.S. There has been quite a bit of confusion in the media as to > what is actually transpiring on Monday. Some in the media are > reporting that Monday's vote is about the appointment of Senate > conferees. This is incorrect. Technically speaking, the purpose > for Monday's vote in the Senate is to bring up the House crime bill > (H.R. 1501) for debate. As stated above, Lott eventually wants to > appoint conferees, but that will only happen if he can overcome > every Smith filibuster. > > ************** > Cheaper Than Dirt donates a percentage of your total order to GOA if > you use http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/goa.htm to enter their online > store. > > ************** > Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting up to > date information, please consider subscribing to the GOA E-Mail > Alert Network directly. There is no cost or obligation, and the > volume of mail is quite low. To subscribe, simply send a message to > goamail@gunowners.org and include the state in which you live, in > either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, reply to any alert > and ask to be removed. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #145 (1/3) (fwd) Date: 24 Jul 1999 19:45:44 PST On Jul 24, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia July 25, 1999 #145 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html CONGRESS DOES NOT UNDERSTAND The House Appropriations Committee reported on a little waste, fraud, abuse, and misappropriation of funds by the Pentagon last week and the resultant remarks by Committee members are very funny, under the circumstances. In a July 22 piece in the New York Times by Tim Weiner; "Pentagon Misused Millions in Funds, House Panel Says," the report was quoted as saying: "This committee is little short of amazed" by the business as usual attitude of bureaucrats. "Congress says in a new report that the Pentagon defied the law and the Constitution by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on military projects that lawmakers never approved, including a super-secret Air Force program. The Pentagon acknowledged some of the accusations Wednesday night, saying honest mistakes led to its failure to notify Congress about the way it was spending money." Apparently, the House Appropriations Committee expressed "anger" and "astonishment," saying "the practice had eroded trust between the nation's lawmakers and military commanders." Chairman of the defense spending subcommittee, Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA), said the Pentagon's actions showed its belief "that it can even move money to a program Congress has closed down, maybe presuming, 'Oh, well, nobody will know'" attitude. "What do we have to do to make them understand what we mean when we say no?" Lewis asked. Great question, and we will address that shortly. . . . "The Constitution is pretty clear on this," Lewis said. It says: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law." Normally, that would mean that Pentagon cannot spend money unless Congress authorizes and appropriates it for specific programs. However, it also means that Congress may only appropriate funds for those reasons authorized by the Constitution. Inconvenient, that. Anyway, Pentagon spokesman, Kenneth H. Bacon, said, "We work very hard to respond to the directives Congress gives us. Do we get it right 100 percent of the time? Of course not." But sure, everyone admits, they spent a little unauthorized money on military trucks, missiles and tanks. So, OK, the Air Force wrongfully started and financed a highly classified, still-secret project known as a "black program" without informing Congress. And, yeah, the Air Force tried to buy an $800 million military communications satellite without Congressional authority, and illegally diverted hundreds of millions of dollars to update its C-5 transport plane. So what? If Congress expects anyone else to respect and obey its legislation, perhaps it should first set an example by honoring and respecting its job description: Our Constitution. That would mean not legislating on those matters not authorized to the federal government by the Constitution -- and especially those matters forbidden to it, such as speech, religion and the right to keep and bear arms. Then, we could ask where the gold and silver coin is that the Constitution calls for, why our borders are not protected against a constant onslaught of contraband and illegal aliens and where they found the authority to inflict seventy-some thousand armed regulators on the American people. Congress has become a major usurper of our rights to life, liberty and property. They now think they may pass all laws on all matters. Today's Congress acts more like an out of control State Legislature than a national legislature. Congress invents new rights and entitlements for some, then trashes those fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution to everyone. No Member of Congress knows all federal laws. That would be impossible because there are too many. Yet, they keep making more. Nor does any person in government know all laws, rules and regulations. There are too many for any one person to know and understand. Yet, the sickening fact is that every American citizen is required to obey each and every law, rule and regulation. So, the cold hard fact is that few people respect federal law. They tolerate them because the federal government has so many guns, but respect of the law has waned significantly in the last few decades. And that, Lords and Ladies of Capitol Hill, came about as a result of a very easy to understand unintended consequence: When the volume of law enacted by government far exceeds the ability of the governed to comprehend, there is, in effect, no law. The unexpected consequence, then, is selective tyranny. Selective tyranny is exactly what we see today. Therefore, Congress should not find it "amazing" when their decrees are not obeyed. Disobedience has become more the rule than the exception. It is no longer possible to function adequately in society without violating some federal law, rule or regulation everyday. The many continuing antics of the Clinton administration are no more than well published examples. Violations are pervasive throughout society. A VERY DANGEROUS LAME DUCK Even most Democrats will now admit that everything (they can remember) Bill Clinton told us during his first presidential campaign was a lie. Nothing ever improved, either. From the inauguration on, things went progressively down hill with the Clinton, Clinton & Gore team. Lies led to a steady dose of White House treachery and perjury, sexual abuse, campaign fraud, money laundering, defamation of character, more perjury, and then an impeachment. And now, at long, long last we see the end of it all and he is a lame duck president. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #145 (3/3) (fwd) Date: 24 Jul 1999 19:44:07 PST On Jul 24, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] 858 F.2d 345, 350 (6th Cir. 1988); and Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1486 (3rd Cir. 1990). That's right folks, behavior once classed as boorish is now deemed illegal. The law requires that opinions not be expressed. And, in effect, it relates to both thought and speech. Such is our current law. Designed for tighter control of the American people. An official U.S. Department of Labor pamphlet defines harassment as including cases where "[s]omeone made sexual jokes or said sexual things that you didn't like," with no requirement that the jokes be insulting or even misogynistic. Actually, nowadays the "offended person" does not even have to be present for the speech to be illegal. That is, speech can be punished as harassment even if it isn't overheard by anyone who is offended. Consider Schwapp v. Town of Avon, a Second Circuit case which held that: "[T]he fact that a plaintiff learns second-hand of a racially derogatory comment or joke by a fellow employee or supervisor also can impact the work environment . . ." And, the fact was, Schwapp didn't even work there during some of the incidents he complained about, nor were any of them directed at or about him. However, all of the above only pertains to us working folks. Because, as usual, the controlling elite live under a totally different set of laws. As a recent example, there is the Jones v. Clinton case in which Judge Susan Webber Wright held that it isn't sexual harassment for an employer to expose himself indecently to an employee and explicitly ask her for sexual services. Such is the so called "rule of law" in these United States today. "Congress shall make no law," except when it wants to. The courts and the regulatory bureaucracy then expand on the law, no matter how unconstitutional it may be. But, certain people get a free pass on most laws, so they don't care. NEWS THEY FORGOT LAST WEEK Michael Medved strikes out with the truth again: The "line between news and entertainment has been obliterated in our television-obsessed culture and that is because of the nature of the medium." "Infotainment," he called the news once. They "report" what incidents they want us to know, with the spin they want us to believe, and call it news. TV (and most radio) news is becoming a waste of time to watch. More and more, it has become little more than tabloid shows, written by liberals and for liberals. So, it was no surprise that America had to suffer days of babble about the Kennedy tragedy. And, a tragedy it was. He was one of the better Kennedys. Still, let's put this "news" in its proper prospective: If an adult male takes two people out for a ride on one of the darkest nights of the year, finds his headlights do not work, yet speeds down a winding country road anyway, we would call that negligence. If that same adult male is only trained for visual flying and takes those same friends up in his new airplane on that same dark night, flies over water where there are zero in the way of lights or other markers with which to get a correct visual prospective, is that less than negligence? The media loves the Kennedys. Some Americans still like the Kennedys. Therefore no one brings up the little point of where most of the Kennedy's wealth came from -- Joe Kennedy Sr.'s connections to the mob. The Kennedy money came from organized crime activities. In today's vernacular, Joe Kennedy would be labeled as an organized crime kingpin. But, the media likes the Kennedys, so that makes everything copacetic. In other news, California's Socialist-Democratic Governor, Gray Davis, showed his strong authoritative side and disdain for our Constitutional rights by signing into law what is called "the toughest gun ban in the nation." They say it is "aimed at restricting assault weapons." Actually, it is little more than a control thing. A gross abuse of power. "Californians can proudly claim they have the toughest civil weapons law in the nation," he told a news conference in San Francisco. Sure. Take guns away from law abiding citizens so it's easier for street punks to rob them at will. That's the socialist way of getting their foot in the door for stricter people control laws later. In Washington, Representative Michael Forbes (NY) quit the Republican Party to move in with the Social- Democrats. Turns out there were some honorable people working for him, though. His staff said he had betrayed them and their party, so nearly the entire staff in Forbes' Washington and New York offices resigned. Good for them! He deserved it. However, others in Washington don't feel that way about principles. Principles, to most of the Lords and Ladies on the Hill, are directly related to only one thing: Campaign contributions. So, when Senator Bob Smith moved away from the Republican Party, they got all bent out of shape. Smith makes some very good points, though. The Republican Party is quickly moving away from a lot of us. This new round of unconstitutional gun legislation is but one of the well publicized indicators. Over in New York, The New York Post reported that New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY) "won't run for the U.S. Senate if he's challenged in the GOP primary" next year by Congressman Rick Lazio (R-NY). Maybe so, and we hope it's true. Hillary may not run, either. It looks like she's just in it to collect money, and probably so she can take advantage of being treated like the queen bee while Bill is still in office. When Bill Clinton is out, so is she. She knows that in 2001 her job prospectives are zilch. The Clintons will be quickly dumped into the dustbin of history, with popularity ratings somewhere between that of Garfield and Carter. There are some very well placed bureaucrats gearing up to release a lot of juicy information on those two, just as soon as they are out of power. It seems that former Mayor of Cincinnati and current TV talk show host Jerry Springer plans to run for U.S. Senator. That's an idea currently spouted by Ohio Democratic Party leaders. They deserve Springer, too. He fits right in with the Democratic Party's mentality. I mean, this is the kind of politician who is so dumb he paid a street walker with a personal check. Now the Republicans are carping about "public" television and radio stations swapping their membership lists with other socialist political operatives. Come on guys, get real here! Public television and public radio couldn't be any more patrician if they were wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democratic Party. Of course they cooperate with liberals in any way possible. They always have. These "Public Broadcasting" stations are part of the liberal PR apparatus. ~ End ~ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #145 (2/3) (fwd) Date: 24 Jul 1999 19:44:51 PST On Jul 24, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] That's what we are all hoping for, anyway. However, like the old man said, "it ain't over till it's over." And folks, it ain't hardly over yet. Now comes Y2K. And Clinton has a whole host of unconstitutional presidential powers -- near limitless powers -- available, including all those War and Emergency Powers an unthinking, wayward Congress incorrectly gave to the administration. Asked if he thought Clinton might use those powers to declare martial law and stay in power, Rep. Jack Metcalf (R-WA) replied: "That is my fear. It seems to me that the only emergency that we might see coming is the Y2K. [And with] a power-hungry president, who knows what he might do." Metcalf has good reason to feel that way, too. Word on the street has it that financial institutions, never a group to worry about the rights of the American people, have already asked the White House for assurances of military protection against any Y2K ramifications -- presumably by angry people. Also, Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT), who chairs the Senate Y2K task force, has asked the Pentagon what plans it has "in the event of a Y2K-induced breakdown of community services that might call for martial law." The Pentagon indicated they would be ready. Bennett predicts that worldwide Y2K problems are now "inevitable." He fears they will lead to serious economic recession in some parts of the world. And even if all American organizations fix their own computers in time, Bennett said they still face disaster from likely shutdowns of telephones, banking and other services abroad, because it is not likely they will make the required fixes in time. None of that sounds like much of a bother to most American neighborhoods. But, that interesting fact is apparently not important. Bennett concludes contingency plans must be made. Including plans for a national emergency enforced by martial law. A House subcommittee also recommended that President Clinton consider declaring a Y2K "national emergency," which would give Clinton complete dictatorial power over the American people. So, let's take a quick look at this "national emergency" thing: Back in 1973, the Senate studied all the unconstitutional War and Emergency powers available to a president whenever he calls a national emergency, as some lawmakers are now asking him to do. Here is one very informative passage from Senate Report 93-549 of 1973: "This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communications; regulate the operation of private enterprises; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens." That sounds just like communism. A dictatorship. Even so, since 1973, the War and Emergency powers have been increased and FEMA was formed to act as a Politburo to implement a national emergency. FEMA would then make all laws, rules and regulations and direct enforcement for the duration of the emergency. And, if the Clinton administration is anything like the Roosevelt administration, the "emergency" will never go away. In The Federalist Papers, No. 47, James Madison labels that arrangement thusly: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether on one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." Under the law, only the president may declare a national emergency, and only the president may end it. We should also remember that this same opportunity was allowed by Article 48 of the German Constitution in the 1930's. Therefore, the German President -- Hitler -- was also able to suspend the Constitution by presidential decree alone. So, is Clinton a lame duck president? That depends. How much do you trust him? Congress has given him the tools to stick around almost indefinitely, as a dictator. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW In the First Amendment to the Constitution, we see the words: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." But Congress, of course, intentionally neglects that which it is mandated to do as being too mundane and replaces the mandates with other things not authorized and even forbidden. So, this seems to be a good time to review a few of the more hilarious ways government regulates our everyday speech. For instance, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just about completed their national speech code. Under the EEOC's speech code, it is illegal to say things they label as "severe or pervasive" enough to create a "hostile or offensive work environment." EEOC has yet to completely define exactly what "severe and pervasive" is, but apparently they know it when they hear it and will prosecute accordingly. However, in the mix of the verboten are those words which are descriptive of race, religion, sex, national origin, veteran status and whatever else they may dream up on a case by case basis. So, according to EEOC, common words used in the workplace like "draftsman" and "foreman" (instead of "draftsperson" and "foreperson") are now illegal. So are "Men Working" signs. And, of course, sexually suggestive jokes are out, even if they are not of a misogynistic variety. Making a joke about "ebonics" is also unlawful according to the federal government. Posting derogatory pictures of the Ayatollah Khomeini is illegal, as is commenting on the burning of American flags in Iran. According to one wayward court, that would be classed as "offensive speech implicating considerations of race." The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered recently: "In essence, while [harassment law] does not require an employer to fire all 'Archie Bunkers' in its employ, the law does require that an employer take prompt action to prevent such bigots from expressing their opinions in a way that abuses or offends their co-workers. By informing people that the expression of racist or sexist attitudes in public is unacceptable, people may eventually learn that such views are undesirable in private, as well. Thus, Title VII may advance the goal of eliminating prejudices and biases in our society." That is from: Davis v. Monsanto Chem. Co., [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Re: RICO Suit Against NBC & Kennedy (Rhode Island) (3/3) (fwd) Date: 24 Jul 1999 21:56:14 PST On Jul 24, Huck wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > criminal investigations pursuant to18 USCS 1510 and 1511. > > 38. Defendants NBC and WJAR has violated FCC rules. > > 39. Defendant Kennedy has knowingly, pursuant to 18 UCSC 1510 and 1511, > organized and maintained the aforementioned criminal conspiracy in > concert with the other named defendants. He has also violated 18 USCS 4 > ("Misprision of a felony") in that he had knowledge of the commission of > a felony. > > 40. The Town of North Providence=92s agents and armed, uniformed police > officers have, and will continue to have, knowledge of the actual > commission of a felony in violation of 18 USCS 4. Being armed in the > commission of a felony is in itself a felony pursuant to 18 USCS 921. > > 41. Defendants NBC and WJAR has knowledge of the actual commission > of a felony in violation of 18 USCS 4. > > 42. Defendants John and Jane Does 1-4 have actual knowledge of the > commission of a felony in violation of 18 USCS 4. > > 43. Defendants BATF agents John Does 1-4 have, and continue to have, > knowledge of the commission of multiple felonies at prior buybacks in > violation of 18 USCS 4. > > 44. Defendants BATF agents John Does 1-4 have actual knowledge of the > commission of the felony theft of firearms by uniformed, armed police > officers at prior buybacks in the state of Rhode Island, in violation of > 18 USCS 4. > > 45. Defendants BATF agents John Does 1-4 refuse to take enforcement > action against the other defendants under the terms of their employment > by the government of the United States of America and in violation of > their oath of office and in contravention of the GCA 1968, the Brady Law, > the NFA, and the RICO Act. > > 46. Plaintiff Traudt has suffered the violation of civil rights pursuant > to 42 USCS 1983, in that his civil rights as guaranteed by the > Constitution of the United States of America, have been violated under > color of federal law, state law, and usage by BATF agents James and > Joanne Does 1-4, and by the Town of North Providence, and by defendant > Kennedy. > > 47. Defendant NBC knew, or should have known, that the actions of its > employees in Rhode Island violated federal and state laws, and as such is > violative of 18 USCS 3 in that it had knowledge of past prior acts and > the commission of felonies by defendants Jane and John Does 1-4. > > 48. Defendant NBC holds a broadcast license from the Federal > Communications Commission under the rules stipulated in 47 USCS 303 and > 309, and must use its license in the furtherance of the "public interest" > or risk suspension of its license. NBC, through its affiliate WJAR-TV, is > not acting in the "public interest" when it knowingly participates in the > destruction of criminal evidence, the creation of an unregulated black > market in firearms, the hindrance of criminal investigations, the > interstate transport in automatic weapons, the larceny of firearms, the > destruction of Rhode Islanders personal property, and the participation > in organized criminal activities made illegal under 18 USCS 1510 and 1511. > > 49. Defendant NBC had, based on in-house investigative resources, superior > knowledge that the Providence Police Department (here not named as a > defendant) had not properly disposed of firearms at the last WJAR/NBC > buyback in Providence, RI, and had super knowledge that corruption in the > Providence Police Department was widespread, yet still facilitated a gun > buyback where firearms were surrendered to these same armed, uniform > personnel largely responsible for their own crime wave in Providence, and > the subject of numerous investigations. > > 50. It is a fact that weapons from the last buyback in Providence were > sold by Providence Police officers in Coventry, RI. > > 51. It is a fact that at prior buybacks municipalities in this state have > violated the same laws cited above=20 > > Plea for Relief > > 52. Traudt hereby request temporary injunctive relief from this court in > the form of an order barring the July 31st gun buyback from taking place. > > 53. Traudt hereby requests permanent injunctive relief barring any > further gun buybacks from taking places in this state. > > 54. Traudt hereby requests reasonable attorney=92s fees in his pro se > capacity. > > 55. Traudt seeks compensate damages from the defendants. > > 56. Traudt seeks the suspension of the FCC broadcast license of WJAR-TV > for its numerous and repeated participation in the aforementioned criminal > acts. > > JURY TRIAL > Plaintiff a jury trial for issues so triable. Plaintiff seeks injunctive > relief where deemed appropriate by the court. > Pro se, > > _____________________ > Scott Traudt > 3595 Post Road > A-22-204 > Warwick, RI 02886 > 401-734-9896 > > Dated: July 22, 1999. > > ________________________________________________________________ > Get free e-mail you don't need Web access to use -- > Or get full, reliable Internet access from Juno Web! > Download your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagh. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Re: RICO Suit Against NBC & Kennedy (Rhode Island) (2/3) (fwd) Date: 24 Jul 1999 21:57:05 PST On Jul 24, Huck wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > 12. The Town of North Providence does not hold a Federal Firearms > license pursuant to 27 CFR 178.21. > > 13. The Town of North Providence will not be doing background checks and > criminal records checks on individuals as mandated by federal law, nor > will they be doing the required NICS computer felony check as required by > "The Brady Act." > > 14.The Town of North Providence will not be filling out, nor keeping > records form 4473 "yellow sheets" as required under federal law 27 CFR > 178.124. > > 15. The Town of North Providence will engage in the transport of stolen > weapons in violation of 27 USCS 33. > > 16. The Town of North Providence will, by and through its armed, > uniformed police officers, commit de facto larceny of a firearm in > violation of 27 CFR 178.33(a) by failing to return stolen weapons to > their rightful owners. > > 17. The Town of North Providence will take possession and maintain > ownership and control of automatic weapons in violation of "The National > Firearms Act of 1934."("NFA"). > > 18. The Town of North Providence will fail to make a $200 payment to the > government of the United States of America for each weapon so regulated > under the NFA and surrendered for monetary compensation to the Town of > North Providence, in violation of 27 CFR 178.81. > > 19. The Town of North Providence will take possession of automatic > weapons made illegal by their manufacture after May 19, 1986 pursuant to > 27 CFR 178.36. > > 20. The Town of North Providence is engaging in the conduct of a firearms > enterprise as defined by 27 CFR 178.41 and in violations of same CFR. > > 21. The Town of North Providence is knowingly and recklessly disregarding > > the record keeping requirements of 27 CFR 178.121 and in particular the > guidelines of section 922(m) in that it is knowingly making non-entries > regarding its firearms purchases. > > 22. The Town of North Providence is knowingly failing to make positive > identification of all sellers of a firearm to itself pursuant to 27 CFR > 179.63. > > 23. The Town of North Providence is knowingly failing to identify each > and every armed and uniformed member of its police department taking > possession of weapons regulated under the NFA, Brady, GCA 1968, the CFRs, > and Rhode Island Law. > > 24. The Town of North Providence is failing to complete a federal "Form > 5" as defined by 27 CFR 179.90 in the purchase of firearms. > > 25. The Town of North Providence is violating the record keeping > provisions of 27 CFR 179.131. > > 26. The Town of North Providence is in complete violation of 27 CFR > 178.124 in that it cannot dispose of a firearm without completing a > federal form 4473 form for each such weapon. > > 27. Defendants Town of North Providence, defendants Kennedy, defendants > Jerry and Jennifer Does 1-4, defendants James and Joanne Does 1-4, > defendants John Does 1-4, and defendants NBC and WJAR constitute a > criminal conspiracy as defined by the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt > Organization Act (18 USCS 1 et. seq.) in that, by incorporating all of > the Facts Numbers 9 through 26 et. al., they obstructed federal criminal > investigations (Section 1510) and state and local criminal investigations > > (Section 1511) by virtue of Facts 30, and 31-35, which are here > incorporated by reference. > > 28. Defendant Town of North Providence will destroy evidence of crimes > for which there is federal punishment. Defendants Jerry, John, Jennifer, > and Joanne, and Kennedy all have knowingly and willingly participated and > facilitated the aforesaid acts and will continue to do so on or about > July 31st. > > 29. Pursuant to 18 USCS 4, Traudt is making judicial notice of these > acts. > > 30. Defendants Town of North Providence and defendants Jerry, John, > Jennifer, and Joanne Does 1-4, and Kennedy all have knowingly and > willingly participated in the larceny of weapons regulated under federal > and state law (11-47-22) and the destruction of personal property made > illegal by 11-47-22. > > 31. Defendants Town of North Providence and defendants Jerry, John, > Jennifer, and Joanne Does 1-4, and Kennedy all have knowingly encouraged > individuals to commit felonies in violation of RIGL 11-47-5 in that they > have facilitated the intrastate transport of firearms by convicted felons. > > 32. Defendants Town of North Providence and defendants Jerry, John, > Jennifer, and Joanne Does 1-4, and Kennedy all have knowingly facilitated > the larceny of firearms by creating and facilitating a conspiracy to > avoid federal and state firearms laws regarding the larceny of firearms > and the return of stolen firearms to their rightful owners, who have a > state and Common Law property interest in such weapons. Such actions are > violative of RIGL 11-47-5.1 and 11-47-22. > > 33. Defendants Town of North Providence and defendants Jerry, John, > Jennifer, and Joanne Does 1-4, and Kennedy all have knowingly facilitated > the intrastate transport of firearms in violation of 11-47-10 and > 11-47-11 in that transport of firearms is illegal in Rhode Island to > anywhere but ones business, a bona fide gun range, or a licensed gun > dealer subject to 27 CFR et. seq. > > 34. Defendants Town of North Providence and defendants Jerry, John, > Jennifer, and Joanne Does 1-4, and Kennedy all have knowingly facilitated > violations of 11-47-35 and 11-47-35.2 in that there is a 7 day waiting > period for the transfer of firearms in the state of Rhode Island. > > 35. Defendant Town of North Providence is in violation of RIGL 11-47-58 > in that it has violated the state pre-emption regarding the regulation of > firearms. North Providence has no statutory right to create and maintain > firearms regulations or enforcement actions in contravention of state law. > > 36. Defendants NBC and WJAR and defendants Jerry and Jennifer Does 1-4 > have knowingly violated federal and state laws regarding the creation and > continuance of a criminal enterprise as defined by RICO and in > contravention of the Federal Communications Commission laws regarding the > conduct of federal broadcast license holders. > > 37. Defendants NBC and WJAR and John and Jane Does 1-4 have used > interstate commerce via the internet to aid and assist a criminal > conspiracy in violation of the aforementioned federal and state laws. In > summary, they have aided and abetted the destruction of firearms, the > larceny of firearms, the intrastate transport of firearms, the violation > of numerous federal and state gun control laws, and the obstruction of [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Re: RICO Suit Against NBC & Kennedy (Rhode Island) (1/3) (fwd) Date: 24 Jul 1999 21:57:57 PST On Jul 24, Huck wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Y'all gonna get a kick out of this one! Huck > >From jurist@attymail.com (Jurist) > Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:03:35 -0400 > "http://www.subguns.com/forums/wwwgunrelated/messages/6890.html" > http://www.subguns.com/forums/wwwgunrelated/messages/6890.html > > The Flackrabbits have struck in Providence, RI: United States District > Court Case Number 99-353T "Traudt vs. Town of North Providence et.al."... > > Posted by Scott Traudt on July 22, 1999 at 13:20:23: > > Gun buybacks are going the way of AM radio next week, folks, served up to > like room service courtesy of the Flackrabbits and their friends... > > Here's the whole nine yards and the kitchen sink... > > You boys and girls ought to get a kick out of seeing Rep. Patrick Kennedy > defend himself against charges of black marketing guns and violating the > RICO statutes... > > And NBC gets whacked, too... > > Enjoy, > > The Head Flackrabbit > >>>>>> > UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT > DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND > SCOTT TRAUDT: > > Plaintiff, : > > vs. : Civil Action #: > > TOWN OF NORTH PROVIDENCE, AGENTS JOHN DOES 1-4 OF THE UNITED STATES > BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS, NATIONAL BROADCASTING > CORPORATION AND ITS AFFILIATE, WJAR-TV CHANNEL 10, EMPLOYEES JERRY AND > JENNIFER DOES 1-4 OF WJAR-TV CHANNEL 10, REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK KENNEDY, > AND JAMES AND JOANNE DOES 1-4, > > Defendants, > > COMPLAINT > > Plaintiff, Scott Traudt ("Traudt") brings this action for temporary > injunctive relief, permanent injunctive relief, nominal damages, > compensatory damages, and the costs of suit pursuant to 18 USCS 3, 18 > USCS Section 4, 18 USCS 921 ("The Gun Control Act of 1968" and "The > National Firearms Act of 1934"), 18 USCS 922 ("The Brady Act of 1994"), > 18 USCS 1961 ("The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act"), 42 > USCS 1983 ("The Civil Rights Act of 1871"), 47 USCS 303 and 309 > ("Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs") and, via the assertion of > pendent Rhode Island State Law claims pursuant to Title 11-47 of the > Rhode Island General Laws. Common Law claims are also asserted. > > The Parties > > 1. Plaintiff Traudt is a citizen of the United States of America who did > not come by his citizenship pursuant to the 16th Amendment to the United > States Constitution. Traudt is a citizen of the State of Rhode Island and > Providence Plantations ("Rhode Island"). Traudt is a resident of the City > of Warwick, Rhode Island. > > 2. Defendant Town of North Providence, 2000 Smith St., North Providence, > RI 02911, is a municipality sued pursuant to Title 45 of the Rhode Island > General Laws. > > 3. Defendant John Does 1-4 of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and > Firearms, 380 Westminister Mall, Providence, RI 02903, are sued in their > official capacities as being those agents of the United States Government > who had a duty to act to prevent the violations of federal law to be > summarized in the following, who omitted to act, and who are those > individuals Traudt is under obligation of the federal duty elucidated in > 18 USCS Sections 3 and 4 to make judicial notice of in the misprision of > a felony(s). > > 4. Defendants Jerry and Jennifer Does 1-4 are as yet unknown employees > of the federally regulated (pursuant to the Federal Communications > Commission) and federally licensed television station WJAR-TV 10 operating > out of transmission sites in Cranston and Providence, Rhode Island, and > who are conducting interstate commerce across state lines via the > "internet," (commonly called "the web"), and who are conducting such > business activities through an as yet unknown internet service provider > ("ISP"). WJAR-TV is an affiliate of a New York Station, defendant > National Broadcasting Corporation ("NBC"), 30 Rockefeller Center, NY, NY > 10112. > > 5. Representative Patrick Kennedy ("Kennedy"), 286 Main St., Providence, > RI 02860, is a United States Congressman representing the 1st > Congressional District of Rhode Island. Kennedy is sued here in his > official capacity. > > 6. Defendants James and Joanne Does 1-4 are staffers of Kennedy and are > sued in their official capacities as federal employees. > > 7. Defendant NBC is a New York corporation. > > Jurisdiction > > 8. The violations of federal and state laws alleged by Traudt took place > in Rhode Island, and will take place in Rhode Island, on or about July > 31st and at dates as yet uncertain prior to July 31st. > > The acts and omissions to act by defendants require immediate local > federal remedy. NBC is a New York corporation sued because of violations > of federal and state law and also because of its status as an out-of- > state legal entity. > > Venue > > 9. There is only one United States District Court for the District of > Rhode Island. There are no alternatives for Traudt, who is compelled > pursuant to 18 USCS 3 and 4 to make judicial notice of the misprision of > a felony occurring in his presence or to which he has knowledge before > the fact, and that he has knowledge after the fact. > > Facts > > 10. On or about July 31st, 1999, defendants are seeking to hold an event > entitled a "gun buyback." At this event, which is being run under the > authority and management of uniformed, armed police officers of the Town > of North Providence, firearms subject to regulation under various federal > and state laws are to be surrendered by individuals in return for the > payment of $25 in cash or gift certificates. > > 11. Federal firearms regulations are listed in the Code of Federal > Regulations (CFRs) in title 27. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg Subject: Re: Fratrum: Re: RICO suit/Bill Vance Date: 25 Jul 1999 07:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Hey, Bill, been meaning to ask - whence this passion for splitting up your longer posts into multiple messages? Somebody's firewall out there refusing to pass anything bigger than 700 lines, or what? This RICO Rhode Island one (delicious, BTW) was only 396 lines total - surely nobody'd email moat would have a hiccup over that . . . or would it? Brewster -- *********************************************************************** " So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot. " George Orwell *********************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Fratrum: Re: RICO suit/Bill Vance Date: 25 Jul 1999 09:04:22 PST Most other lists seem to handle it fine, but of late, I've had to bust 'em up to get a post through to ROC. Otherwise they just, "disapear". I tried "Split -150 filename", but that didn't allways work, so I dropped it to -140, and a few still disapeared, so now I've dropped it down to 130 lines per post, and so far all of those are getting through. As none of these bounce, I've no idea where the, "pinch point", is. On Jul 25, wbg wrote: >Hey, Bill, been meaning to ask - whence this passion for splitting >up your longer posts into multiple messages? Somebody's firewall out there >refusing to pass anything bigger than 700 lines, or what? This RICO >Rhode Island one (delicious, BTW) was only 396 lines total - surely >nobody'd email moat would have a hiccup over that . . . or would it? > > >Brewster >-- >*********************************************************************** >" So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire > by people who don't even know that fire is hot. " > > George Orwell >*********************************************************************** >W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA >*********************************************************************** -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg Subject: Re: Fratrum: Re: RICO suit/Bill Vance Date: 25 Jul 1999 10:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Bill Vance responded: > Most other lists seem to handle it fine, but of late, I've had to bust 'em > up to get a post through to ROC. Otherwise they just, "disapear". I tried > "Split -150 filename", but that didn't allways work, so I dropped it to -140, > and a few still disapeared, so now I've dropped it down to 130 lines per > post, and so far all of those are getting through. As none of these bounce, > I've no idea where the, "pinch point", is. Thanks for the information. Maybe we could check in with whoever's operating the listserv and determine whether that bottleneck could be expanded a bit. Brewster -- *************************************************************** " Madness consists in not recognizing the facts; in making wishes the fathers of thoughts; in conceiving things to be other than they really are; in trying to realize desired ends by means which countless previous experiments have shown to be inappropriate. " Aldous Huxley _After Many A Summer Dies the Swan_, 1939 *************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Be CAREFUL with the "unbiased" media (fwd) Date: 25 Jul 1999 10:25:21 PST On Jul 25, ataylor@nmsu.edu wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >X-From_: root@airgunhq.com Sat Jul 24 12:33:31 1999 >To: Multiple recipients of list PRN >Reply-To: PRN@airgunhq.com >Sender: root@airgunhq.com >From: adbco@netaxs.com (Andy Barniskis) >X-Mailer: NetXpress 2.54.beta3 >Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 13:31:57 -0500 >Organization: AirPower Information Services >Subject: Get tougher with the press. . . > > Time to get tougher with the media > > As a card-carrying curmudgeon, I'm always embarrassed when >someone comes along with an opinion more cynical than mine -- and >then they persuade me they are right. When that happens I feel >obligated to confess it in public. > > My gun club has been approached by several reporters from >the broadcast media recently, and has (to their credit) taken >what I regarded as a very paranoid stance with them. My personal >experience (and I emphasize, personal) with the media has been >mostly positive; that is, I have had few complaints with the way >they have treated my statements about gun rights, and their >reporting of issues I have been involved with has been generally >objective. Not always, but generally. So, I regarded the gun >club's stance as being a little too far on the side of caution. > > I was wrong, and a friend showed me with a few words how if >I had given things even a moment's deeper thought, I would have >realized it -- from past experience. My friend reminded me of >something that had happened almost 10 years ago, that I had >forgotten, in part from taking too short a view. > > Earlier in this decade, when New Jersey was about to pass >some of the more heinous portions of their infamous gun bans, my >club in Pennsylvania hosted an "educational" event for the media, >demonstrating and explaining many of the aspects of firearms >technology that often are misreported. (We hosted it in >Pennsylvania, because even at that time, it would have been >illegal to transport -- or even possess -- some of the firearms >in the Peoples State of New Jersey.) Typical demonstrations >showed how an AK-47 does less damage than a typical hunting rifle >to various targets like watermelons and milk jugs, and that a >skilled shooter with a revolver could fire more rounds faster >than even a full-automatic machine gun. > > It was a good demonstration, and many of the reporters >enjoyed themselves immensely. But, the coverage that reached the >TV and the newspapers was only so-so -- objective at best, but >often missing or garbling the points. And, we all know what >happened in New Jersey. > > I do not blame the reporters. What I saw that reporters >wrote was generally accurate, if not as detailed as I might have >wished. Some of the reporters I know more or less personally >(and I note they are still reporters, not editors), and I know >they sympathize with the gun-rights position. Like many efforts >to penetrate the media, I felt the day of demonstrations had been >worth the old college try, but probably had not been worth the >effort, with hindsight. But, I had never regarded the effort as >counterproductive. > > That was until my friend reminded me that the film footage >that was taken that day still turns up frequently as file footage >on local TV stations -- except that now it is shown out of context >in anti-gun "news" items that show, for example, someone firing >a machinegun on our plinking range, like that's an everyday event >at gun clubs (my club doesn't allow full-autos, or more than five >rounds in a semiauto) followed by a fractional-second of a watermelon >being vaporized -- not by the machinegun, but by a .300 Winchester >Magnum that was demonstrated for comparison. While not stated, >the visual message communicated is, "There are still a lot of >nuts out there buying machineguns over the counter and see how >horribly powerful they are!" So, new laws will be written to >address a problem that doesn't exist, but that we graciously >supplied the graphics to persuade people that it does! > > In other words, our naive, pollyanna belief that "education" >would contribute to persuading people of our position was based >on a false premise; that our enemies were enemies out of >ignorance, and not out of malice. Working from that false >premise, what we did was provide them with weapons that, with >slight modification via editing, they would cynically use against >us for years to come. The reporters, who may have been impressed >and in fact "educated" that day, served only as ammo carriers for >their bosses, taking the weapons we handed them back to base to >be aimed at us for the next ten years or more. > > The reason my friend's enlightening observation embarrassed >me was that I realized I already had understood it at a personal >level; I have several times had reporters ask me to pose with >guns, and I always have flatly refused, having made that mistake >only once, at age 18. That my vanity did not permit me to >generalize my experience in 35 years is embarrassing. > > To summarize in a concrete conclusion, it is, DO NOT allow >the media to come anywhere near your facilities with cameras. Be >reticent about on-site interviews, and if you allow a media >person on your grounds, have them sign an agreement that they >accept the condition that no photographs or film will be taken -- >otherwise they accept that their presence will constitute >"defiant trespass." Remember that even a genuinely sympathetic >reporter is in the employ of an avowed enemy, and anything you >provide to them WILL be used against us in the future, even if >that reporter, himself, may be as offended by that later use as we >are. > > I have to admit this is an example of an element of what I >have been preaching for some time, occurring to me only of late - >- that we have moved into a new reality where we are no longer >just slightly misunderstood members of society, who can heal our >problems by "education" and persuasion. Today when we are >"paranoid," most of our fears are real -- and hats off to anyone >who is more paranoid than I have been. > >--Andy Barniskis > > PLEASE CROSS-POST AND RE-POST TO APPROPRIATE LISTS [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: Fratrum: Re: RICO suit/Bill Vance Date: 25 Jul 1999 18:26:19 -0400 OK I just went and checked what the max length for a posting was. It was set to 10000 chars. I just upped that to 20000. Chad ROC list maintainer --On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 9.04 +0000 Bill Vance wrote: > Most other lists seem to handle it fine, but of late, I've had to bust 'em > up to get a post through to ROC. Otherwise they just, "disapear". I > tried "Split -150 filename", but that didn't allways work, so I dropped > it to -140, and a few still disapeared, so now I've dropped it down to > 130 lines per post, and so far all of those are getting through. As none > of these bounce, I've no idea where the, "pinch point", is. > > On Jul 25, wbg wrote: > >> Hey, Bill, been meaning to ask - whence this passion for splitting >> up your longer posts into multiple messages? Somebody's firewall out >> there refusing to pass anything bigger than 700 lines, or what? This RICO >> Rhode Island one (delicious, BTW) was only 396 lines total - surely >> nobody'd email moat would have a hiccup over that . . . or would it? >> Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC Web and Macintosh Consulting -- full service web hosting Chad Leigh chad@pengar.com chad@shire.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Fratrum: Re: RICO suit/Bill Vance Date: 25 Jul 1999 16:16:01 PST Thanks Chad, that should help. Bill On Jul 25, $NAME wrote: >OK > >I just went and checked what the max length for a posting was. It was set >to 10000 chars. I just upped that to 20000. > >Chad >ROC list maintainer > > >--On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 9.04 +0000 Bill Vance >wrote: > >> Most other lists seem to handle it fine, but of late, I've had to bust 'em >> up to get a post through to ROC. Otherwise they just, "disapear". I >> tried "Split -150 filename", but that didn't allways work, so I dropped >> it to -140, and a few still disapeared, so now I've dropped it down to >> 130 lines per post, and so far all of those are getting through. As none >> of these bounce, I've no idea where the, "pinch point", is. >> >> On Jul 25, wbg wrote: >> >>> Hey, Bill, been meaning to ask - whence this passion for splitting >>> up your longer posts into multiple messages? Somebody's firewall out >>> there refusing to pass anything bigger than 700 lines, or what? This RICO >>> Rhode Island one (delicious, BTW) was only 396 lines total - surely >>> nobody'd email moat would have a hiccup over that . . . or would it? >>> > >Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC >Web and Macintosh Consulting -- full service web hosting >Chad Leigh >chad@pengar.com chad@shire.net -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: EIA Communique - 7/26 (fwd) Date: 26 Jul 1999 13:13:57 PST On Jul 26, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, July 26, 1999 11:02 AM The Education Intelligence Agency COMMUNIQU=C9 - July 26, 1999 Now on the Web at http://members.aol.com/educintel/eia + Strange Places: Inside the 1999 National Education Association Representative Assembly is now available via e-mail. EIA's annual report = will be sent to you upon request as a 91 kilobyte attachment of ASCII text (th= at's 14,000 words of unformatted copy -- no italics, no bold print, etc.) Thos= e of you who want a print copy will have to wait a little longer, as it still needs to be formatted, sent to the printer, then mailed to you. There are sections devoted to the NEA strategic plan and budget, vouchers, charters, merger, staff relations, fringe issues, and what's to come in the year 2000. There are also a few "slices of life" from the four-day event in Orlando, Florida. After reading Strange Places, I doubt= if you will want any more details of the 1999 RA, but I will be available to elaborate for the real union junkies. + The dog days of summer are the dog days for education reporting, too. = But July and August are often prime-time for labor negotiations. And, as usua= l, the most entertaining labor negotiations are not between school districts= and teachers' unions, but between teachers' unions and staff unions. Last Friday, staffers from the Pennsylvania State Education Association set up an informational picket outside the union's headquarte= rs in Harrisburg. The staff union has a lot of problems with management's proposals. For one thing, the 220-member staff is very worried about the possibility of a PSEA merger with the Pennsylvania Federation of Teachers. Both PSEA and PaFT executives are solidly in favor of a merger, but rank-and-file activists are split on the issue. Because the staff union w= as ousted and replaced by an AFL-CIO-affiliated staff union in Minnesota, th= e PSEA staff is concerned about contract, pension and bargaining agent protections in the event of a merger. The staff is also demanding release time for its union president. Details about wage demands are unavailable,= but it is known that the staff want a raise above inflation. The staff accuses union management of wanting to increase the employee probationary period from six to 12 months, and eliminate the requirement for "just cause" to fire an employee during this period. "PSE= A is a generous employer that lives by the principles it espouses from the oth= er side [of the bargaining table]," PSEA Assistant Executive Director Gerry Brandon told The Harrisburg Patriot. Staff evaluations are also a sticking point and may be even more difficult to resolve because of bad blood. A measure at the NEA Representative Assembly to reduce "interference" by the staff in policy-making and governance decisions picked up a lot of votes from the Pennsylvania delegation. Staffers gave their union strike authority if no agreement is reached by this Sunday, August 1. + Superior Court Judge John F. Sheehan acquitted former NEA-Rhode Island President Ronald L. DiOrio of pension fraud charges. DiOrio was charged w= ith misrepresenting his employment status with NEA-RI in order to receive a s= tate pension. The union's former executive director, Donald C. Hill, is still facing charges related to the same case, though his lawyer plans to seek dismissal. In rendering his decision, Judge Sheehan noted that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove conspiracy. "Mere suspicion, no matter how strong, does not justify a guilty verdict," Sheehan said. "I might add th= at I have grave suspicions. But I'm compelled to follow the law." + Jennifer Jacobson of the Montgomery Journal (Maryland) highlighted an under-reported problem in public education that teachers have been tellin= g EIA about for years -- parents. "Thirty years ago your job was just to te= ach the subject matter," said teacher Tom Wheeler. "Kids came from two-parent families. They came to school on time and left when the day was over. Par= ents took care of their emotional and social needs." Of course, not all parents are neglecting their children's needs. But some are, and it leads to repercussions for all students, all parents, an= d the curriculum. Talk to a teacher about the students in his or her class = and you probably won't hear 34 stories about 34 different pupils, but 34 stor= ies about the three or four pupils who occupy all the time and attention. Bec= ause some parents don't discipline their children, the kids run amok at school= and learning for all students is disrupted. Because some parents don't feed t= heir children in the morning, the schools have a breakfast program. Because so= me parents don't keep an eye on their children, the schools have counselors = and truant officers. And because some parents don't teach their children basi= c facts about sex, drugs and proper behavior, the schools do it. The problem is that most parents do take care of their responsibilities. Even with smaller classes, schools are limited in how m= uch they can divide up students by social, emotional and academic needs. Consequently, parents who are taking care of their kids feel their author= ity is being usurped by a "standardized curriculum" of discipline, meals, counseling, care, and social education that may not be suitable for their children. It might even contradict what they are taught at home. It's tricky. If Johnny's mom and dad aren't doing their jobs, it's much more difficult for the school to do its job. But it doesn't do anyon= e any good for the school to become Johnny's mom and dad. + In a spasm of public service, the National Education Association filed suit "to stop abuses occurring under the Cleveland voucher program that h= urt children and misuse taxpayer money." NEA joined the Ohio Education Association, the ACLU, People for the American Way, and Americans United = for Separation of Church and State in the suit. "What's happened in Cleveland is symptomatic of the lack of oversight and financial drain caused by the whole voucher experiment," said NEA President Bob Chase. EIA will wait patiently, in the name of consistency, for NEA's lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Education. The state superintenden= t spent $380,000 on an audit of the 550 employee, $121 million agency, whic= h determined it to be "inefficient and overly bureaucratic." According to a= n Associated Press report: "It has too many meetings, doesn't pay attention= to its workforce and has no way of figuring out if its programs are working,= the study says." + Because EIA previously repeated a San Francisco Chronicle story about high-schoolers who didn't know the most basic facts about the American Revolution, it's only fair to tell you of a public school in Baltimore, Maryland, where history is a priority. Mary Summers of Forbes visited Lin= da Duncan's first-grade class at George G. Kelson Elementary. Duncan uses th= e Core Knowledge program. "What was thrown into Boston Harbor?" Duncan asked. "TEA!" the children responded. To ensure that the children were not just parroting, Summers interrupted to ask, "Why did they do it?" "Because the king was taxing the tea," they answered. Still not satisfied, Summers asked, "What does that mean, 'taxing'?" "He was taking their money!" the kids yelled. There is hope for American public education, after all. + Quote of the Week: "The Association also believes that a racially dive= rse student population may not be achieved or maintained in all cases simply = by ending discriminatory practices and treating all students equally regardl= ess of race." -- From a new NEA resolution. # # # The Education Intelligence Agency conducts public education research, analysis and investigations. Director: Mike Antonucci. Ph: 916-422-4373. = Fax: 916-392-1482. E-Mail: EducIntel@aol.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: News: Cato Daily Dispatch Date: 26 Jul 1999 18:38:59 -0500 FYI: for those who just don't get enough e-mail or good web sites- excerpted from: Cato Online Update Vol. 4 No. 7 July 26, 1999 5) Cato Daily Dispatch http://www.cato.org/dispatch/dispatch-index.html The Cato Daily Dispatch, a recently added daily feature on our web site at http://www.cato.org/, is a daily compendium of libertarian-related news and events published at 11:00 a.m. ET each weekday and is also available by e-mail. It's a quick look at the news of the day, with links to past Cato Institute scholar commentaries, policy analyses, and briefing papers relevant to the latest happenings. Bob in Mississippi - State Motto: Virtute et Armis ("By Valor and Arms") Get my PGP Public Key(s) at - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: [richslick] S L I C K Year 4, No. 33 (1/2) (fwd) Date: 27 Jul 1999 09:59:06 PST On Jul 26, Bill Vance wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] "On Jul 27, RichSlick@aol.com wrote:" [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] You are encouraged to pass this message on to anyone who might be interested in its contents. Better yet, print a copy for a friend who is not on-line. Any and all comments on the subject matter are always welcome. To have your address removed from this list, reply with the word CANCEL in the subject. This is the first issue to be sent via the egroup ListServ. Please contact me if you encounter any problems. If all works well, we will soon have a discussion list to which all readers can post. Kewl? From the Desk of Rich Martin P O Box 531918 972/263-6631 Grand Prairie, TX 75053 RichSlick@aol.com "In a age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell _______________________________________________ Happy 1st Wally & Laurie, 1999 I was sitting on the couch watching the only thing on tv (the JFK Jr tragedy) when they told how Uncle Teddy almost lost his last election and had to sell his compound in Fla. Come to think of it, didn't he make a tidy little profit on the sale. Was it Indonesia's Riady who paid the premium? Now this was the month to be a Texas sports fan Texas. The Rangers had 4 players on the All-Star team---2 were PITCHERS! And since they've gotten back, they only lost a single game, 58-40 at this writing. Fireballer Nolan Ryan became the first Ranger to be voted into the Hall of Fame. And as if it that wasn't enough, did you watch the Tour de France? Cancer survivor, Lance Armstrong, who just happens to be another Texan, won that prestigious event. And then there's Jeff Bagley leading the Astros to another Division Title. Yes, a July to remember. C'mon Cowboys. How Slick is Slick? The prez sez the GOP across-the-board tax cut would "blow a $3 tril hole" in the fedl budget, and suggests we implement "targeted tax cuts" such as "credits for child care." The only difference between a new fedl program and a "targeted tax cut" is the way it's financed? Instead of giving money back to the over-taxed, he is proposing that money be spent on a new fedl program to make it easier for parents to leave their kids for someone else to raise. FAMILY VALUES I'd rather we take the $250 bil he proposes and split it up between parents who stay home to raise their own children. The national benefit would be astronomical. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE Like a teenager searching to find out who he is, Danny Hassert put his job on the line stating: the Republican Party in the party of big tax cuts. He just doesn't get it. The answer is SMALLER GOVERNMENT. Stop new fedl spending, cut old fedl spending, and the cuts will come. Cuts are the result of good governing; you don't get good govt by cutting taxes. THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS Last month Slick took a break from "running the country" and went on a 5-day tour to assess the results of his policies for last 6 yrs. Obviously, he's not pleased with the results. CLINTON LEGACY File-Gate, where they took a political dirty trickster, put him on the Pentagon payroll, and then funneled 100's, maybe 1,000's, of raw FBI files. Concrete barriers built to divert traffic away from the White House. Bosnia, Iraq, Sudan (aspirin factory) and would have bombed Haiti if Carter would have followed WH orders and left. (The B-52's were on the way, and had to be re-called.) Jennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinskey, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Wiley, and on and on. JOBS I keep referring to all those so-called experts advising us on the state of the economy thru their rose- colored glasses. Here's what I mean. The headline said "Texas 2nd in job cuts during 1st half of 1999," as if it were a good thing. 34,505 jobs gone, and the Star-Telegram reports it in a one-sentence paragraph on pg 4F (7/18/99). The sentence goes on to say Calif is no. 1 in job cuts and as a nation we're 42% ahead of last years record pace. Ahead!? HILLARY Trying to explain her drop in the NY polls, "experts" are explaining: she reminds men of their first wife. Howz that for negative campaigning? (The message she's giving her core-supporters is: it's those old dirty men you divorced who don't want her to be your Senator. Ladies, get behind me.) Typically brilliant. SENATOR HILLARY Hillary says she is still for her failed natl healthcare plan but now she's believes "in the school of small steps". In her words, she realizes she must be sneakier to get her plan to nationalize 7% of the American economy. Same goal; new tactic. MEDIACRATS Isn't it funny to watch the mass media cheer Hillary's enormous fund raising skills, while criticizing George W's unprecedented successes as un-American. 74,000 donors contribute $37 mil to Geo W., and they get absolute amnesia, or maybe it's alzheimers, when it comes to identifying which candidate is raising money by the ton from Hollywood fat cats & budhist nuns, and which is receiving donations averaging $500. DNC DISINFORMATION (LIES) When Clinton got caught with his pants down, he said: So what, JFK and Thos Jefferson were just as loose. Now that the DNC has been caught "swapping" donor lists with the DNC, we see the same pattern of deception. They are spreading the word thru their loyal media allies, PBS also swapped lists with the RNC. C'mon now. What would the GOP want with a list of liberals who donate to "the Washington Week in Review" featuring 4 liberals debating under "moderator" Paul Duke? The GOP would pay for a list of NRA subscribers, not PBS donors. I smell disinformation campaign from a WH dirty tricks gangster. Any body seen Craig Livingstone lately? THE GRAND OLD PARTY The GOP would like to go back to it's roots and recover it's mandate with half-hearted tax cuts, but what about the rest of The Contract? Term Limits haven't been mentioned. Devolution forgotten. Thems the horses that got them there, and Danny Hassert hasn't got a clue. CNN CNN reports 260,000 faulty COSCO (China OverSeas Co) safety seats are being re-called. For detailed info, CNN suggests you go to the COSCO web site (to get their side of it.) 60 MINUTES NYC mobster, Anthony Casso, turned states evidence after being given a "deal" by the feds. The feds are now welshing on the agreement, citing other infractions (not part of the original deal). Moral of the story, there is no honor among thieves. AN INTERESTING ITEM World Cup. Feminist harpies managed to spoil the victory of the American Women's soccer team over the ChiComs. Women's sports spokesmen made the rounds of the Sunday shows 7/11 with claims that they would have never been successful winning the World Championship without the assistance of the federal government in Washington via Title IX. In other words, the feminists are saying that the only way women can be the best in the world at anything is via the benefices of Uncle Sugar putting the screws to men's intercollegiate sports programs. The little bit of the championship game I watched Saturday didn't have any victims playing that I could see. More Interesting Items can be now be found on Rod Martin's (no relation) "Vanguard" at Interesting Items by Alex Gimarc TOBACCO DEAL Isn't it ironic, after agreeing to an out-of-court settlement to pay $206 bil to re-imburse the govt for related tobacco illnesses (which most states usurped for other programs, such as pay raises for govt employees, instead of passing it on to the people who paid for those illnesses) a Fla state court has found the tobacco industry guilty of the same crime to the same people. If the natl settlement wasn't meant to raise some taxes, make some pay offs to friendly lawyers and protect the cig industry, what was its purpose? They could have increased taxes without going thru the messy court system and saved US tens of [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: [richslick] S L I C K Year 4, No. 33 (2/2) (fwd) Date: 27 Jul 1999 10:00:28 PST On Jul 26, Bill Vance wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] billions of lawyer contingency fees they've obligated US to pay. Based on the most recent court verdicts, it is obvious that many tobacco executives should be imprisoned and tobacco should be outlawed out-right. It is the only thing that would be consistent with the court decisions. LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR Mass media spoke people are having a ball making fun of Mir, calling it denigrating names, like they always do when they want to belittle someone/something. (Voo Doo Economics, Butcher-from-Baghdad, and Star Wars.) But the truth is, that turtle has an 11-year head start on this rabbit. REMEMBER THE GOOD OLE DAYS... when a man could go out on his blue collar job, and earn enough money to let the mother of his 3 children run the home. when Neil Armstrong culminated a decade long quest to land on the moon, and we had sugar plums of men dancing on Mars in the next ten? when it was a priority to build a SuperConductor to cut costs of energy to a fraction of the existing rates, instead of building "bigger and better" machines of war? when it was okay to dream? LETTER-TO-THE EDITOR Dear Rich, How can I subscribe to your great news letter? I love the way you expose those sh*t heads that are running our government. Excuse my bad language, but they make me want to cuss. We are living in Romania, working with the street kids and building an home/orphanage for abandoned children....of which there are many here because of the bad economy. Romania is in a big, big mess - partially because of interference from the west. Do you have any reports about here or the Balkans? Sue Bates < inasmuch@fx.ro > R.S. Dear Sue, I have set you up with a complimentary subscription. Keep up the good work, and please feel free to contact Slick at any time about the news in Romania. WAR The House Appropriations Committee has voted to divert funds from the all-purpose $200 mil/copy stealth F-22 Raptor F-22 to upgrade existing F-15's and F-16's. Seems to me, they're overlooking a more serious problem. Stop Loss Final decision is expected to be made in the Senate-House conference. CORRECTION With reference to the last issue: Sheesh Rich ,..... I'm going to have to read your letters more thoroughly. It's Chuck Burnett not Carol!! < cburnett@interconnect.net > R.S. Oopsie. sorry, Chuck. PEN PALS Mary Doclar < doclar@star-telegram.com ) [Star-Telegram 7/18/99, pg B-1] wrote a story on Darlie Routier's situation at Dallas Lew Sterritt Jail. She's in Dallas for the last 8 months by order of State District Judge Robert Francis, so she could attend hearings concerning her appeal. It upsets Dallas County Dist Attny Greg Davis who prosecuted her. "My thought is she's been here too long...She needs to be transported back to Death Row. If they need her presence in Dallas, she can be transported back here." He has good reason to want her back Gatesville. While in Dallas, she can make several 15-minute collect phone calls a day, and have 5 20-30 minute visits a week. Back in Gatesville she's entitled to one phone call every 90 days and one 2-hr visit a week. while in Dallas, she was able to speak to group of supporters by phone, including her husband Darin, who raised $1,000 for her defense. THIS SPACE FOR RENT Reliable Internet Access for only $14.95 a month. Over 550 access numbers in 21 States and growing. Cyber77-ISP, web hosts, unlimited access, high-speed servers If you have your own web site, you know it's not enough to be on the internet with 30,000,000 geeks. Oh, search engines are great---for the other guy, but wouldn't you prefer to be a little more direct? Instead of trying to reach millions of people who can't spell your name, here's your chance to target thousands of politically active people like yourself. Send e-mail for details to RichSlick. PARTING THOUGHT Was the volunteer intern given a high paying job ($50 - 80K) in the Pentagon before, or after, she did the prez? Is this what they mean by quid pro quo? * * * * * Subscribe to this Slick e-zine featuring Kathie's Korner, and receive absolutely free, a copy of Rich's Major Media Mailing List containing over 400 e-mail addresses. To subscribe, send your check for $24.95 to the address at the top of this message. Be sure to include your e-mail address. Anyone wishing to carry Slick at their WWW site should contact me by e-mail. Having the current Slick updated once or twice a week gives visitors a reason to come back soon. THE TRUTH IS... A. Powerful. C. In the eye of the beholder. B. Irrelevant. D. All of the above. GET $10 OFF ANY ORDER @ healthshop.com! No min. purchase req. Save on vitamins & supplements. Use coupon code: EGROUPS99 at checkout. http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/463 eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/richslick http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [2ndamendmentnews] Republican Leadership Betrays Firearms Owners (fwd) Date: 27 Jul 1999 19:38:55 PST On Jul 27, Weldon Clark wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Republican Leadership Betrays Firearms Owners The Senate Bill S254 contains provisions to follow private sales at gun shown. This produces record that can be used against you in the future. It is a registration of sale of a firearm. Registration is the one think that makes confiscation possible. The only reason the anti gun politicians can steal the guns is that they have a record of firearms ownership. GET BETWEEN THESE RECORDS AND YOUR GOVERNMENTS ANY WAY YOU CAN. Call your Senators and call the offices of these so-called Republican leaders and complain. Defeat the anti gun provisions including the "registration" of sales to the Juvenal Justice Bill. You are advised to call your congressperson at the following toll-free numbers US Capitol Switchboard 1-888-449-3511 You can also call them using the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. For the latest happening at NRA contact www.2ndamendment.net For legislative updates contact www.nealknox.com and go to "Scripts from the Firearms Coalition Legislative Update Line" ***************************** By Neal Knox -- About an hour ago Majority Leader Trent Lott vitiated the scheduled cloture vote on Sen. Bob Smith's filibuster on considering H.R. 1501, the House-passed gun law- free version of the Juvenile Justice Bill. Apparently, Sen. Smith decided not to block consideration of the bill, but to try to block amending it by substituting the language of the Senate-passed gun-provision laden S. 254. I know he was considering such a change in tactics in mid- afternoon. Sen. Lott then laid down a series of cloture votes to stop Sen. Smith's promised filibusters on substituting the Senate bill, appointing conferees, instructing them to insist on the Senate bill and other parliamentary issues. Those votes, each of which will require 60 votes to pass, will occur beginning at 9:45 a.m. Wednesday. The Majority Leader also offered first and second degree amendments to each of those motions to prevent Sen. Smith or anyone else from offering pro-gun amendments. Each of the cloture petitions were signed by 16 Republican Senators, Trent Lott (Miss.), Frank Murkowski (Alaska), Chuck Hagel (Nebraska), Bill Frist (Tenn.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Rick Santorum (Pa.), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colo.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), John Ashcroft (Missouri), Robert F. Bennett (Utah), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Jim Jeffords (Vt.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Christopher Bond (Mo.) and Connie Mack (Fla.). Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.) signed the initial petition. All but a couple were rated by NRA as "A" or "A-Plus." But all except Campbell and Gregg voted for final passage of S. 254. Unless those folks vote against their own cloture petition, the Republicans can kiss their control of the Senate goodbye. All those gun-owning, union-defying Democrats who have been electing Republicans in the belief that they would protect their gun rights are about to go back to their party. For a better understanding of what's going on, see the Knox Report from earlier today and Saturday. **************************** The 2ndAmendmentNews Team The way to protect your own rights is to protect the rights of others. Our right to own and use firearms is under attack. This list was created in a hurry due to the emergency presented by anti-gun politicians and the media dancing in the blood of those who died in the recent massacre. We receive e-mail addresses from various sources that represent the recipients as receptive to our timely, low-to- moderate volume gun-rights-related alerts (generally no more than weekly, never more than daily, depending on legislative and other circumstances). Occasionally recipients turn out to be not interested, and we remove them immediately with our sincere apology for any inconvenience. If you wish to be removed send an e mail to 2ndamendmentnews- owner@onelist.com and include "unsubscribe". If you know anyone who would appreciate these alerts, please let us know and we'll enroll them on a trial basis. Also, feel free to forward our alerts. If you've received this as a forward and wish to subscribe please send a reply to me at wh.clark@cwix.com or behanna@fast.net Cordially Yours, The 2ndAmendmentNews Team 2ndAmendmentNews is published by volunteer activists who support the full original individual rights intent of the 2nd Amendment and oppose any appeasement on gun rights. The moderators include Chris Behanna, Weldon Clark (an NRA director), Russ Howard (past NRA director) and Steve Cicero. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776. --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- ONElist: your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: Texas offical disputes FBI account of Davidian fire Date: 28 Jul 1999 10:49:40 -0500 (CDT) http://www.dallasnews.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [INLINE] Official disputes FBI account of Davidian fire =20 Justice Department denies incendiary devices used =20 07/28/99 =20 By Lee Hancock / The Dallas Morning News =20 =A9 1999, The Dallas Morning News =20 WACO, Texas - The head of the Texas Department of Public Safety said Tuesday that evidence held by the Texas Rangers since the 1993 Branch Davidian siege calls into question the federal government's claim that its agents used no incendiary devices on the day that a fire consumed the sect's compound. =20 "There's some evidence that is at least problematic or at least questionable with regard to what happened," said James B. Francis Jr. of Dallas, chairman of the Texas Department of Public Safety. =20 Mr. Francis declined to detail the evidence but said, "With the proper experts analyzing it, it might shed light as to whether an incendiary device was fired into the compound that day." =20 Myron Marlin, a spokesman with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., dismissed the allegation. =20 "It's more nonsense. We know of no evidence to support an allegation that any incendiary device was fired into the compound on April 19, 1993," Mr. Marlin said. =20 He declined to comment further, citing a continuing wrongful-death lawsuit filed by surviving sect members and families of the more than 70 people who died when the compound burned. =20 Sources close to the government's Davidian investigation say the current questions center on several 40 mm munitions found in the compound wreckage. =20 In repeated sworn statements and testimony, FBI and Department of Justice officials have maintained that FBI agents did not fire a shot during the 51-day siege. =20 FBI and Justice officials have insisted that FBI agents did not use any pyrotechnic or incendiary devices during the tear-gas assault that ended with the compound consumed by fire. =20 The Texas Rangers have had custody of the evidence from the Davidian investigation since 1993, when they were assigned to investigate the standoff and its fiery ending. The siege began with a firefight and the deaths of four agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which had tried to search the compound for illegal weapons and arrest Branch Davidian leader David Koresh. =20 Mr. Francis said Tuesday that some FBI officials made statements to Texas Rangers immediately after the fire "that are contradictory" to the federal government's account of what happened. =20 Complaints studied =20 Mr. Francis told The Dallas Morning News that he only recently became aware of those statements as he began looking into complaints about the lack of public access to evidence in the Davidian investigation. =20 Mr. Francis said he became concerned enough to contact U.S. District Judge Walter Smith of Waco, who has presided over all the cases arising from the deadly standoff. DPS recently filed a motion asking Judge Smith to take control of the evidence in the case. =20 "I took the steps to turn it over to the court so the court could decide what to do," Mr. Francis said. "I think it's very important that whatever the evidence is and whatever it shows, that all of it come out and let the chips fall where they may." =20 Judge Smith, who heard the criminal case arising from the Davidian siege, is presiding over the wrongful-death lawsuit filed by sect members against the federal government. =20 In a ruling issued July 1, Judge Smith refused to dismiss Davidian claims that the FBI may have fired at the compound April 19 and allegations that FBI negligence was responsible for the final tragedy. A trial has been set for mid-October, but both sides have said the complexity of the case may mean it will not go to trial until next year. =20 Mr. Francis said he told Judge Smith that a Justice Department policy blocking all public access to the Davidian evidence had created what amounted to an "absurd" shell game, with the DPS stuck in the middle. =20 "I said, 'It is in effect a cover-up. It is not intended to be, but in effect it is," Mr. Francis said. "It is a complete stonewall." =20 Mr. Francis said he doesn't think there was "some grand conspiracy to hide the evidence. I think it evolved into a situation where that was the effect of it." =20 He said the judge asked only "how much space are we going to need," when Mr. Francis proposed turning over the evidence in the case to his federal court in Waco. =20 Material gathered =20 After the siege, about 40 Texas Rangers were assigned to investigate and gather evidence in the case, and their investigation became the backbone of a 1994 criminal trial in which eight Branch Davidians were convicted of charges ranging from manslaughter to weapons violations. =20 More than 24,000 pounds of evidence was gathered from the burned wreckage of the Branch Davidian compound, and much of that remains in federal storage in Waco. =20 Evidence used in the federal prosecutions was transferred to DPS headquarters in Austin for safekeeping. Although Texas Rangers had custody of the material, Justice Department officials retained authority over who could see it. They ordered DPS officials to route requests for access to Washington. =20 Mr. Francis and others in the agency said DPS officials became increasingly frustrated as they learned that Justice Department officials routinely sent those requests back to Austin with the explanation that the evidence was in the custody of Texas officials. =20 "It was a perfect Catch-22 to block everybody from seeing the evidence," Mr. Francis said. "There is some evidence there that the world needs to see, in my opinion. The government does not want this evidence out, and yet, that's not right." =20 Justice Department lawyers filed a response Friday asking the judge to delay action on the DPS motion until next week to allow federal authorities to try to negotiate an agreement. =20 The lawyers declined to comment on the matter Tuesday. But several said privately that the dispute is nothing more than a legal issue. =20 "It's not a matter of trying to hide anything," one lawyer said. =20 The issue began coming to a head last spring when DPS officials began fielding complaints that a Colorado documentary researcher had been allowed access to the evidence. =20 Evidence reviewed =20 The researcher, Michael McNulty, was a producer and principal researcher in a 1997 documentary that alleged that government agents fired into the Davidian compound and set off devices that started the fire. He is preparing a new documentary on the standoff, with release expected in September. =20 Mr. McNulty's visits were approved by a Justice Department public-affairs official who has since left the agency, and they were supervised by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston, the Waco-based federal prosecutor who handled the Branch Davidian case from its inception. =20 Mr. Johnston said he supported the decision to give Mr. McNulty access because "I didn't want to be a party to even a perception that we had something to hide." =20 "Although I may not agree with him on many things, I believe that Mr. McNulty has a right to his opinions," Mr. Johnston said. =20 In those visits, Mr. McNulty said, he and an expert assisting his film company examined a 40 mm shell casing and two 40 mm projectiles that he contends are pyrotechnic devices. =20 He said they also found that at least six items listed in Texas Ranger inventories as silencers or suppressors were actually "flash-bang" devices. Those devices are commonly used by law-enforcement officers to stun suspects, and they sometimes ignite fires in enclosed spaces because they emit a loud bang and flash driven by a small pyrotechnic charge. =20 Mr. McNulty said he thinks those devices could be key evidence because Texas Rangers' evidence logs indicate they were recovered from areas of the compound in which the fires broke out. =20 Mr. McNulty said he shared his information about the devices with Mr. Johnston and with lawyers representing Branch Davidians in their wrongful-death lawsuit. =20 "It's our belief that these pieces of ordnance could - and probably did - have an impact on the fire on April 19th," he said. =20 A fire investigation conducted after the standoff concluded that the fire was set by sect members. =20 Mr. McNulty said he was contacted last week by Mr. Johnston and asked to speak with a Texas Ranger who questioned him for more than two hours. =20 Mr. McNulty said the discussion led him to think the Rangers have opened a preliminary criminal investigation. =20 Mr. Johnston, Mr. Francis and DPS officials in Austin declined to say whether the agency has opened an investigation. =20 After Mr. McNulty's last visit in March, Mr. Johnston said, lawyers from the Justice Department who are handling the Davidian wrongful-.death lawsuit contacted him to complain that anyone had been allowed access to the evidence. =20 Dallas Morning News Washington bureau staff member David Jackson contributed to this report.=20 =20 [ Texas & Southwest | Dallasnews.com ] =20 =A91999 The Dallas Morning News =20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Interesting editorial (fwd) Date: 28 Jul 1999 08:35:49 PST Seems to me that there's some good points for 3P fans, too..... On Jul 27, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----------Forwarded article---------- GOP must broaden the attack in 2000 By DAVE HAMRICK Editor-at-large, Fayetteville (GA) Citizen Believe me, I'm in favor of a tax cut... a big one... the bigger the bett= er. But if the Republican Party is banking on a fight with President Clinton = over the size of its proposed tax cut to carry the day in the 2000 elections, = I fear for the future. Most people favor a tax cut. I don't need anybody's poll to tell me that.= Taxes eat us alive as we try to take care of the necessities and have a little = left over to enjoy the fruits of an economy that can crank out some really interesting and fun quality-of-life enhancers. But most people also, wrongly in my opinion, favor a small tax cut, a gra= dual tax cut. The reason people favor the wrong approach to tax cutting is that they ha= ve bought the media hype, fed by both parties in Congress and the president,= that there is a budget surplus. They also buy the argument of one particular p= arty that we should =93save Social Security=94 and accomplish some other wish-= list items before we, the taxpayers, get to cash in on these supposed good times. First, there is no budget surplus. There is a projected surplus based on = current spending levels. If Congress changes hands in 2000, there will never be a surplus, and there's no absolute guarantee that Republicans won't go craz= y and spend it all either. So we're arguing about how to spend a fantom windfal= l that may or may not ever exist. Second, the president once again is winning the rhetorical war by making = a statement that is undeniably correct... if you accept the premise that it= 's based on. He argues for =93saving Social Security=94 rather than passing = a tax cut, as if the two were mutually exclusive, and as if the long-term goal shoul= d be =93saving=94 the program, i.e. putting enough money into it to keep it go= ing just as it is. We need to do away with Social Security, but even if we decide to keep th= is obsolete program as it is, we can fund it and still begin taking realisti= c steps toward whittling taxes down to a long-term, sustainable, reasonable level= that doesn't force everyone with a five-figure or less income to struggle his = or her entire life just to render unto Caesar that which Caesar has no right to require. If we reduce taxes, the economy is stimulated so that the revenue generat= ed by the lower tax rates increases. It may not increase enough to completely w= ipe out the effects of the cut, but the final result is certainly not a simple subtraction problem. And if there is indeed a reduction in revenue from the tax cut, that's ev= en better because at that point maybe the politicians won't occupy all their= waking hours looking for ways to =93spend=94 the surplus. And if you think having a Republican Congress will keep that from happeni= ng, think again. Republicans have to get reelected just as Democrats do, and = part of getting reelected is to keep the money flowing to the district. Now I've spent most of this column arguing for a big tax cut, and I said = at the top that Republicans shouldn't put too many eggs in that basket. Here's w= hat I would propose, if anybody asked me. Go ahead and cut back on the tax cut. You're not going to get a big one p= ast the president anyway, and after he vetoes it and you come back with a smaller= one that he'll accept, he'll use the situation to crow about having saved Soc= ial Security from those crazy Republicans and their =93risky=94 tax cut plan. Get the tax cut in place, and then get serious about a balanced budget amendment. Push harder than you've every pushed for it. Explain through t= he press, and through advertising if you can't get the press's attention, th= at the only way to protect the American people from the natural effects of polit= ical back-scratching (you scratch mine, I'll scratch yours) is to make deficit spending illegal. And make Social Security reform =97 not =93saving=94 business as usual =97= the number one issue in 2000. Retired people who are living on Social Security have = been robbed, pure and simple, and today's work force is being robbed too. That= case would be so easy to make that even GOP speech writers should be able to f= igure it out. Another suggestion: Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan grou= p that spends all its time studying the federal budget to find the fat, has iden= tified a bunch of useless, obsolete programs and says that if they were cut, we = would save $1.2 trillion over five years. Check it out at www.cagw.org, or call 1-800-BE ANGRY. Republicans should thoroughly study CAGW's suggestions =97 they don't hav= e to accept them all, but identify a few hundred billion worth that they can reasonably stand behind =97 and introduce bill after bill after bill gett= ing rid of those programs. Then when the president vetoes all of them, there will= be plenty of issues to run on in 2000. There's plenty more that can be done if the thinkers in the GOP will broa= den their horizons a little. If that doesn't happen, we'll see a repeat of `9= 8. (c) 1999, The Fayetteville (GA) Citizen http://www.thecitizennews.com/ Kevin McGehee North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mcgeheezone.com/ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: latest Drudge report Date: 28 Jul 1999 14:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Gentlefolk: Here's a heads up on the latest Orwellian scheme being propagated by the usual suspects. See www.drudgereport.com in the days ahead for updates. jcurtis XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1999 20:28:41 ET XXXXX WHITE HOUSE PROPOSES MASSIVE COMPUTER MONITORING SYSTEM; WILL TRACK BANKING, TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER NETWORKS The Clinton administration has developed a plan for an extensive computer monitoring system, overseen by the FBI, that will track banking, telecommunications and other industries, it will be reported on Wednesday. The National Security Council is conducting a legal and technical review of the new Clinton plan, a final report is scheduled to be made public in September. NEW YORK TIMES reporter John Markoff has been shown a draft, according to publishing sources, and was busy on Tuesday afternoon preparing a story. In some government circles, the proposed system has been nicknamed "Hillary." The plan calls for the development of a "sophisticated software system to monitor activities on non-military government networks" and a separate system to "track all transactions used in the banking, telecommunications and transportation industries." The system is intended to alert law enforcement officials to computer attacks that might cripple governmental or the nation's economy. But it could also become a massive government utility used for surveillance of citizens, critics contend, with great potential for misuse. "Law enforcement agencies obviously would be under great temptation to expand the use of the information in pursuit of suspected criminals," the TIMES will report. The plan has drawn fire from civil libertarians because it blends "civilian and military functions" in protecting the nation's computer networks. Law enforcement agencies would be under great temptation to expand the use of the information in pursuit of suspected criminals. And the plan would put a new and powerful tool into the hands of the FBI. Developing. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: interesting connections (fwd) Date: 28 Jul 1999 11:16:17 PST On Jul 28, R. Lunn wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Devon g Davis wrote: > An antigun group is partly responsible for fires are Woodstock '99 > > > http://www.alamanceind.com/nation/nation_3.html For those with web problems and who can't read mime attachements: http://www.alamanceind.com/nation/nation_3.html WWW.ALAMANCEIND.COM Matt Maggio, Publisher & Editor Email What do you call any group that hands out over 200,000 candles at the end of a rock-music festival whose name is synonymous with druggy and drunk revelers getting out of hand? The word is irresponsible; a gun-control group did it at Woodstock 99 on Sunday - resulting in mass rioting. Small fires started by concertgoers wielding candles fast converged into a massive inferno - even forcing concert staff to jump from seven-story towers set ablaze. Refrigerated trucks carrying refreshments were set ablaze by stoned, candle-wielding fans. Stoned fans leapt naked through flames. Automatic fire extinguishers trying unsuccessfully to extinguish the fires turned the place into a foggy sea of Halon. New York state police in riot gear battled druggy rioting fans. But the real story of Woodstock 99 was who was responsible for the riots and destruction. PAX, a New York-based gun control group centered in the entertainment industry, was a cosponsor of Woodstock 99, and handed out candles for an antigun protest to every single fan there - when it knew or should have known that most if not almost all those it handed candles to would have been drunk, stoned on dope, or both. PAX did so in full awareness that rock concerts in the U.S. have had a bad history of mass disorders and even fatal riots, so when its executive director and cofounder Dan Gross said that "peace, love and music is what Woodstock is all about," he should have added rioting. And there is no dissociating PAX from Woodstock; PAX's web site lists Woodstock's promoter John Scher as a member of its board of advisers. And who funds groups that hand out candles to a city-size mob in full awareness that most all in it are stoned? Handgun Control, New Jersey CeaseFire, together with such New York elites as Calvin Klein, DKNY Jeans, The Gap Foundation, numerous recording-industry companies, HBO, MTV, and Time-Warner Cable - all are listed by PAX as sponsors on its web site. And who runs an outfit that hands out hundreds of thousands of candles to a horde of people it knew or should have known were stoned? Sarah and James Brady are listed among its advisers on its web site, as is Richard Aborn, former president of Handgun Control. Other listed advisers - other than a fistful of antigun politicians including Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, and Carolyn McCarthy - are mostly in the entertainment industry, many high executives. Matt Maggio Editor & Publisher All Stories Copyright 1999 Matt Maggio ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ----------------------- DVC Regards, >>Dick<< [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Another Gun Ban Poll Date: 28 Jul 1999 17:46:44 -0700 About.com is running a poll about banning guns. Check out http://civilliberty.about.com/library/blgpoll.htm?IN2PID=933219336.026210&IN 2ID=933219336.026210&TMog=11929274144934&Mint=100590962283541 (You may need to paste each line into your web browser.) Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: "property ownership is not absolute" (fwd) Date: 29 Jul 1999 15:37:26 PST On Jul 29, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 11:23 AM Making noise on private property rights: Landowners increasingly challenge restrictions By Blair Anthony Robertson Bee Staff Writer (Published July 28, 1999) Most days, you=92ll find Ernie Bierwagen out in the orchards. Even at 84,= he always seems eager to work the land he loves. His feet have trampled over all 127 acres of his Nevada County property, = up and down every rolling hill. His calloused hands have pruned the plum trees. This is the land where he was born, where he grew up, married, taught his= five kids to be good stewards of the land. This is where he took out revolving equity loans over the years to cover production costs, rolling the dice that the apples, peaches, pumpkins and= plums would yield enough money to pay back the bank. He=92ll tell you: =93It=92= s riskier than heck.=94 If anyone owns a piece of land it is this man. But lately he has been distracted. Lately, Ernie Bierwagen has become som= ething of a political activist, defeating a proposed local regulation that, amon= g other things, would have told people what color they could have painted their h= ouses and barns. Earth tones only. Bierwagen is one of many frustrated landowners in California and througho= ut the United States joining the ranks of the private property rights movement. = By some estimates, there are 2,000 or more groups large and small, with names lik= e Defenders of Property Rights and American Land Rights Association. Sacramento is home to one of the key players in the movement, the Pacific= Legal Foundation, which for years has battled government agencies in court on b= ehalf of property owners. Bierwagen started Concerned Citizens for 174, a reference to the highway = the Nevada County Board of Supervisors wanted to designate as scenic, placing= new restrictions on property owners in the process. He printed 250 placards, = wrote op-ed pieces in the local paper, spoke out on the radio. =93I=92ve spent the last four months on this,=94 Bierwagen said over lunc= h at the homey restaurant he owns, the Happy Apple Kitchen, =93because I believe i= n what George Washington believed, what Patrick Henry believed=97that to submit = to tyranny makes you no different than the tyrants.=94 Property rights advocates are making more and more noise in Nevada County= and beyond. On occasion, some groups are winning key legal battles, though bo= th sides agree that legislation has largely gone against the property rights movement. Those on the other side of the issue say the movement has brought new concerns=97and roadblocks=97to the environmental community. =93I=92m very concerned about it,=94 said Peter Douglas, executive direct= or of the California Coastal Commission. =93The private property rights movement ha= s met with success in the courts and has really crippled the public agencies=92= ability to protect community environmental values.=94 A key issue is something called =93regulatory takings,=94 a term unfamili= ar to most folks who haven=92t logged long hours at planning meetings. Property righ= ts advocates argue that if the government imposes regulations on a property = that diminishes the land=92s use, it amounts to a taking and the government sh= ould be forced to pay for some portion of the property. Courts have generally ruled that landowners must be compensated when new regulations remove all practical use for the property. But the property r= ights camp says that isn=92t enough. Bill Craven, of Sierra Club California, says that property ownership is n= ot absolute and that governments must often impose land use laws for the gre= ater public good, whether it=92s to protect endangered species, save trees, ma= intain scenic vistas or regulate population density. To require compensation for every new regulation, argues Michael Bean, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, would put landowners in the position of demanding ransom to not develop on the property. Bean says the environmental community is concerned with the new property = rights activism, though even property activists concede their disparate groups a= re not as coordinated as the environmental organizations. Bierwagen=92s group fought its battle with little outside help and manage= d to snuff out the scenic highway idea without going to court. Concerned Citiz= ens for 174 submitted a petition with 1,200 signatures, though only 400 or so peo= ple live along the portion of highway in question. The board retreated in frustration, before it even had an informational meeting to discuss optio= ns. =93I=92m actually quite frustrated as a decision-maker,=94 board chairman= Peter Van Zant said. =93There is a genuine fear of Big Brother. There is a distrust= of local government. . . . The frustration is finding the balance point. It=92s a = moving target.=94 But Karen Knetch, the lone board member who sided with Bierwagen, said he= r board often =93overreaches=94 on property rights matters. If the local governme= nt had to purchase the land affected by the scenic highway, it could have cost $30 = million or more, she said, and would have been even more unpopular with taxpayers. =93They are taking property through regulation. I think they have approac= hed and gone over that boundary in Nevada County,=94 Knetch said of her own board. The movement may have peaked about five years ago when Republicans seized control of Congress, but property rights groups are surging once again, m= any of the activists said. In Palo Alto, homeowners have banded together to fight City Hall=92s atte= mpt to prevent the remodeling of modest homes into mansions by putting them on a historic preservation list. Down in Malibu, Peggy Ann Buckley is hoping the movement will prevent oth= ers from enduring what she has been through: a decade of court battles; the destruction of her Malibu lot to a landslide she was forbidden to secure;= nearly $1 million in legal bills; and major loans from her father, a retired she= et metal worker. Buckley, 46, has battled the California Coastal Commission over a technic= ality concerning which government agency has jurisdiction over her property. Ho= ping to recoup damages, she is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her cas= e. The Coastal Commission says it would be a major setback if agencies were required to pay every time they made a jurisdictional error. =93When we purchased this property, I was totally naive,=94 said Buckley,= who is living in a trailer on her property while the court battle continues. =93= I thought the government was there to protect us, but I=92ve seen that people don=92= t have any property rights at all. I have lost 10 years. I am so far in debt you can= =92t imagine.=94 Lawyers who take property rights cases in California say they are practic= ally destined to lose. =93The California courts have historically been more supportive of local government regulation and less supportive of private property rights than anywhere else in the nation,=94 said Michael Berger, a Santa Monica attor= ney representing Buckley and a nationally recognized authority on land taking= s. Berger said many property owners are being bullied by governments that st= art with a good idea=97say, protecting the environment=97but run amok with re= gulations. He cites a now-notorious case in Monterey in which a developer, Del Monte= Dunes, tried to build condominiums on a 37-acre ocean-front plot. The planning commission rejected several applications over five years, until the usabl= e land was reduced to a 5-acre area. Five years after the first application, the commission finally decided th= e developer couldn=92t use that portion of land either because it was a pos= sible habitat for a rare butterfly, though no such butterfly had been seen on t= he property. Even environmental groups didn=92t want to be linked to that case, which = Del Monte Dunes won in U.S. Supreme Court in May. The land is now a public park. =93Certainly, that was a case that led itself to characterization,=94 sai= d Bean, the environmental attorney. =93Our interests aren=92t served by forcing lando= wners to go back repeatedly to get approval.=94 Bean said the environmental community opposes efforts to make governments= pay for all so-called regulatory takings. But he maintains there is a way of avoiding property rights conflicts involving endangered species. That app= roach would impose a per-acre assessment on property owners within the boundari= es of habitat conservation areas. Bean said California is already a national le= ader in using assessment money to purchase land where endangered species are foun= d. Back in Nevada County, the only middle ground Ernie Bierwagen wants is to= be left alone, to be good to the land he loves and continue to reap what he = sows. And he wants to be free to paint his barn whatever color he pleases. Problems? Suggestions? Let us hear from you. / Copyright =A9 The Sacramento Bee [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Activit Alert 07/29/99 (fwd) Date: 29 Jul 1999 15:38:04 PST On Jul 29, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 10:14 AM ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 6:19 AM !! RNC ACTIVIST ALERT !! Thursday, July 29, 1999 =3D=3D=3D GOP PUTS IN THEIR "TWO CENTS WORTH," WHILE VICE PRESIDENT SCROOGE SAYS "HUMBUG" =3D=3D=3D A Dollar Saved Is Two Pennies Earned? Republicans whipped out their calculators and found the $792 billion tax rebate that liberal Democrats are objecting to in the U.S. Senate today is less than 3 cents out of every dollar of the $27 trillion in taxes hard-pressed families will for= k over to the federal government over the next 10 years. CHEAP VEEP SPEAKS: Meanwhile, Al Gore - Clinton's left-hand man - canoed up the Potomac to Capitol Hill Tuesday to tell hard-working Americans th= ey don't even deserve a two cent rebate out of every dollar they've earned and are forced to send to Washington. D=C9J=C0 VU? Remember a year ago = when Gore released his tax forms and was lambasted for giving a tiny $353 to charity? PENNY FOR YOUR THOUGHTS? Why is Gore such a penny-pincher with his money - but so quick to hand your family's budget to Washington bureaucrats? Keep the Change: The Party of Lincoln is battling Gore and other Democra= t taxaholics to: cut the despised Marriage Penalty Tax that forces 42 million married Americans to pay extra taxes simply because they fell in love and got married; cut the Death Tax, which makes land-rich but cash-poor small business owners and farmers auction away livelihoods bui= lt on generations of hard work; give parents the opportunity to save more money in a tax free account for their children's education, from kindergarten through college; allow self-employed workers to fully deduc= t their health insurance bills, and allow long-term care insurance to be fully deductible for every American. How Much is My Rebate? After locking away a full two-thirds of the overpayment for Social Security and Medicare, a senior with $30,000 in taxable income will get $510 back, a family earning $55,000 a year will get a $1,000 rebate and a single person making $25,000 a year will get a $380 rebate. That's money in your back pocket - not in the hands of Beltway bureaucrats and liberal politicians. GIVE YOUR TWO CENTS: We need your help getting this message out: forwar= d it to your friends; talk it up around the water cooler, the union hall a= nd other places; write letters to the editor and call into talk radio shows= ; call Gore and Democrats in Congress and tell them you want your "two cen= ts worth." Veep's office: 202/456-2326, e-mail: vice-president@whitehouse.gov or Senate switchboard: 202/224-3121. *************************************************** Do NOT respond to this email as it is an unmonitored account. If you have a question about the website, please email webmaster@rnc.org If you have other concerns, please email info@rnc.org IF YOU RECEIVE THE RNC NEWS VIA FORWARDING... Please subscribe today! It's completely FREE! Please note that we hate unsolicited junk mail as much as you do, so we will not give your address to anyone else! TO SUBSCRIBE, visit http://www.rnc.org To unsubscribe, visit http://www.rnc.org/unsubscribe *************************************************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Hud + Gun suit Date: 31 Jul 1999 17:00:57 PST Hey gang, check it out! HUD wants to jump onto the Gun manufacturer lawsuit bandwagon! -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #146 (2/2) (fwd) Date: 31 Jul 1999 17:31:42 PST Furthermore, "the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall arrange for 2 or more persons that have nationally recognized expertise in regulatory analysis and regulatory accounting, and that are independent of and external to the Government, to provide peer review of each accounting statement and associated report." And so it goes. Still, in any form, and for any reason, the federal regulatory bureaucracy is unconstitutional. That is the real fact Congress should be addressing. THE FLAG OF CONCERN IS RAISED There are two field grade and two company grade officers from another country who read this newsletter regularly. That is because we are friends. We met by accident a few years ago while they were acting as tourists for a few days before an important work related business meeting. And, because I wanted to brush up on their language, and they English, we have spent a few hours together over the past few years. On their last trip, there was some conversation on the topics reported here that interested them. The UN and martial law were on the front burner. Two of the men had worked with/for the UN for a while and freely related that the UN greatly fears an armed American populace. As part of one contingency plan, they know it would be nearly impossible for foreign UN forces to function in this country while so many of us are armed. The UN's desire, therefore, is that we be disarmed. No great surprise there. What they related on martial law was a real surprise, though. According to the most senior of the four, there are not enough U.S. troops to enforce martial law in this country unless the people passively allow it. Maybe so. The Army has 468,000, the Marines but 170,000 and there are 75,000+ armed federal regulators and 600,000 local police officers in the country. That's about one armed person for every 190 citizens. The gentleman was correct. After checking with an American Army officer of the same relative rank, we find that's not even enough to hold California if the people do not cooperate. In fact, because of the mountains, that is not enough to take over Eastern Kentucky, either. That is, short of air raids and the use of big guns, it is not. When asked where they will be at the stroke of midnight for the new year, the reply was a unanimous and unequivocal, "Home!" Because, as freely related to me, they expect many more problems there than we are expected to have here. And, so it appears, do many leaders in military units from countries around the world. When I mentioned that many Americans fear their guns will be confiscated, I was laughed at. The reply was something like: "One at a time. Yes. All together, at once, never." Which makes complete sense, if one thinks about it. The government is already actively working on that "one at a time" part. So, I asked straight out: "Do you think we are to have martial law?" After a bit of discussion, the answer was "probably yes," in some form. Their reasoning, however, did not deviate at all from many things we, and others, have been reporting. That is, committees from both the House and Senate have already called for martial law and questioned the Pentagon on it's readiness. All military leaves are canceled. So too are the vacations of any and all armed federal officers. The National Guard and Reserves will be on alert. And, all police departments will be at full manpower. Clearly, then, someone expects to have massive force available for something. Else, they would not be putting all those guns at the ready. But, why? Certainly, some of us could have a Y2K problem of some sort. But, 99% of us will stay home to take care of family. That being true, there will not be much policing to be done. Then other news came in. That armed encampment known as FBI headquarters closed its doors to visitors. A few days later, so did the Pentagon. It seems strange, at least on this end, that the people with all the guns, those best able to defend themselves in case of trouble, are hunkered down against the American public. Is there something going on here that we should know about, or is this just the first step in whipping their people into an "us" against "them" mentality? We think that the American people have a right to know exactly what is happening. Is the supposed threat of domestic or foreign origin? What is the threat to our family, neighborhood, city? But, we serf-citizens will never be told. So, we must raise the flag of concern. And concern, for anyone who has ever worked with me, of course means preparation. Because, ultimately, we are the ones most responsible for protection of home, family and neighborhood. Therefore, my friends, it is time to get both body and skills up to par. Whatever the threat may be, we are the initial home defense. SPIN: HYPOCRISY IN ACTION For over a week, EPA ran hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of "clean air" spots on Cincinnati radio. Like other parts of the country, the Cincinnati area was under a heat and "smog" alert and the EPA was threatening draconian new constraints on residents if they violated one of EPA's arbitrary and capricious "attainment" guidelines. The radio spots told local people to curtail such things as driving, using lawn mowers, barbecuing, and a number of other normal activities in order to keep the "smog" that is always present on hot summer days down to the level EPA demands. No matter, though. President Bill Clinton had a fund raiser scheduled in Cincinnati. Which means, Clinton came to town. And, in so doing, he was directly responsible for hundreds of unnecessary police and public official's cars to be on the road. Worse yet, the Clinton procession tied up Friday evening rush hour traffic for many thousands of home-bound drivers while they waited for the Presidential motorcade to make the 30 mile trip from the airport, through Cincinnati and over to the fat cat fund raiser. But that's not all. Being totally oblivious to the health of the local residents, President Clinton used the largest jet aircraft in his fleet, a 747, to come to the Cincinnati area. And, according to EPA and others in the "Green" cabal, a 747 arriving and departing from the average airport produces as much smog as a car driven over 5,600 miles, and as much polluting nitrogen oxides as a car driven nearly 26,500 miles. It also belches out a ton of soot. Bill Clinton knew this and should have thought twice before unnecessarily flying into an area under a heat and smog alert. Obviously, though, campaign funds are much more important to Bill Clinton than the health and lives of the metropolitan Cincinnati residents. There have been no reports yet as to exactly how many of the area's asthmatic babies and children suffered due to the nonchalant and careless antics of the President of the United States. However, the next time health statistics are reported, there is expected to be a spike for that week. Also last week, Al Gore, the Vice President and reigning chairman of the Green cabal who claims there is no controlling legal authority over administration wrongdoers, proved to America that the environmental laws, rules and regulations only apply to us serf-citizens and never to the controlling elite. While the socialist clowns in Congress were busy defending their mandate that all Americans use only "low-flow" toilets -- another goofy idea by Al Gore, originally proposed to conserve water -- Al Gore managed to use enough water for a silly campaign photo-op to flush the equivalent of two-and-a-half BILLION toilets. It seems that Vice President Al Gore and Governor Jeanne Shaheen paddled out on a section of the Connecticut River for the photo opportunity. However, there wasn't a lot of water in that river this summer. So, they had it "fixed." To make it "picture perfect," they needed more water, so a special discharge of nearly 4 billion gallons of water was let out of a dam upstream to keep their canoe afloat. "They won't release water for the fish when we ask them to, but somehow they find themselves able to release it for a politician," complained John Kassel, director of the Vermont Department of Natural Resources, to The Washington Times. Kassel accompanied Gore on the trip. "The only reason they did this was to make sure the vice president's canoe didn't get stuck." That was far from the first time Gore put personal well-being above the environment, though. During the 1996 presidential race, he had Denver officials release 96 million gallons of water, at a cost of $59,000, so he could be photographed against a roaring South Platte River. The Gore team "had to know the river levels were being raised, just like they had to know he was going to a Buddhist temple for a fund-raiser," Republican National Chairman Jim Nicholson, said. In a stop down the road, Gore announced that $819,000 from various federal sources will be spent to enhance the Connecticut River's environmental and economic resources. "We have to make the 21st century the time when we finally right the environmental wrongs of our past," Gore told a small group of less than 200 who gathered in one of Hammond Farm's fresh-cut hay fields along the Connecticut in Cornish. No word, yet, on exactly how much Gore's latest photo-op splash cost taxpayers. Truly, Gore is correct: There is "no controlling legal authority" for this administration. We are to do as we are told. They do as they wish. That's how far the "rule of law" has deviated off course in these United States. ~ End ~ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #146 (1/2) (fwd) Date: 31 Jul 1999 17:36:46 PST Any other thoughts on making Government accountable? "On Jul 31, Doug Fiedor wrote:" [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia August 1, 1999 #146 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html MAKE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE Last week, Columnist William Safire identified an obvious truth that has bothered a lot of Americans for a very long time: "We have stumbled into the era of no-fault government. Blamelessness is next to godliness; nobody in authority is held responsible for blunders, no matter how costly." Exactly. In the current scheme of things, only citizens may be held culpable by government. There is no mechanism for the people to hold government officials answerable, no matter how much they completely screw up, which parts of the Constitution they trash, or how many people they harm in the process. We the People gave the federal government its job description, but we have little or no recourse when they do not follow it. Safire writes that, for government workers, there is an "absence of penalty for failure to do one's job." Precisely! And so too is there an absence of penalty even when they do that which is expressively forbidden to the federal government. Making laws concerning liberty, religion and our right to keep and bear arms comes to mind quickly. So does the wholesale stealing of private property through bizarre forfeiture laws. Safire says that: "Only institutions may be chastised in this blame-free society -- not those individuals wrapped in anonymity who make the costly mistakes." Not exactly. How can a citizen charge a federal agency, or even a single agent, with a crime for an illegal search or seizure? The fact is, that is impossible. Because, even if that citizen can afford to hire a room full of lawyers and wins his case in every court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government will just disregard the court rulings and go about doing exactly as it wishes anyway. For instance, last month the D.C. Court of Appeals told EPA to shut up and quit bothering people with all their goofy new unconstitutional regulations. The EPA doesn't care. They stopped for about an hour. Now they're full speed ahead again. In a series of Supreme Court cases -- including "New York," "Lopez" and "Printz" -- the federal government was told that the Tenth Amendment is the controlling legal authority and that they have no authority to tell a State to do anything other than those matters expressly listed within the Constitution. Did that help? Obviously not. I just saw a State legislator's list of laws the federal government demands they pass during the next session of the General Assembly. It's a long list, too. So, as with the stupid EPA oppression, why aren't the federal officials demanding these unconstitutional law changes arrested, tried and imprisoned? They are, after all, using the power of their office in an expressly illegal manner -- and causing harm to American citizens. If a citizen uses illegal coercion and harms people, we can be sure government agents will come after that perpetrator. Why then may government agents disobey the Constitution by applying illegal coercion to State and local elected officials (and citizens) with impunity? The law should work the same for everyone. Safire labels some of this as the "evasion of accountability." That's true, to a point. But there is more to it than just that. Most often, it also amounts to a blatant abuse of power. For instance, the Fourth Amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." A warrant must be issued stating exactly "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Yet, try to go into an airport or federal building without being searched. Government even has banks, credit reporting bureaus and automobile dealerships acting as their snitches. And, if government agents find a citizen carrying over $1,000 in cash, they will steal the money. To be stopped and searched for no reason is a serious violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, as is forfeiture. Yet, it happens many thousands of times every day throughout the country. Some Constitutional violations would almost be comical if they weren't so aggravating. For instance, last week Congress sent in the clowns again to discuss what type of toilets we would be allowed to use in our homes. Watching that discussion is kind of like watching Clarabell the Clown trying to explain to Bozo something that is neither of their concerns. It's time to hire some adults we can trust to work in government. The current crew does not seem to know their place in the Constitutional scheme of things. REINING IN THE REGULATORS House Republicans finally started asking a few questions about the regulatory bureaucracy. We do not think they asked the correct questions on this round. Nevertheless, the information they demand will be interesting. For over 50 years, Congress has allowed the vast federal regulatory bureaucracy to do darn near as it wished. Congress would pass an open ended law stating some type of goal, and a bunch of desk-bound regulators (with the help of their Non Government Organization friends and interested big industry lobbyists) would promulgate a few hundred rules and regulations impacting on the unsuspecting American people with the full force of law. That being done, the federal regulation bureaucracy decided they needed their own special armed police force. Next, they wanted their own special court system, a court system in which they can hire and fire their own judges. Soon, most regulatory agencies were all three branches of government rolled into one. Then, they took their cue from the IRS's tried and proven tactics and stated that violations of their edicts would be a civil crime so that the Bill of Rights would not apply and a citizen would be guilty in one of their little kangaroo courts until proven innocent. The Democratic run Congress loved this arrangement. The people were properly controlled, and the Congress Critter could stand back and tell any constituent falling into the clutches of that unconstitutional system: "It ain't my fault, I'm on your side against this out of control bureaucracy." It is Congress' fault, though. Under orders of the socialist Roosevelt administration, Congress created the mess. Then, every year thereafter, they expanded on it. Now, Republicans in Congress are starting to look at the federal regulatory bureaucracy a little. And they realize what a real mess they have on their hands. There is little or nothing about the federal regulatory bureaucracy that even comes close to being authorized by powers given to the federal government by the Constitution. And now, being the majority in both houses, the problem is the Republicans' responsibility. Here's the problem: Most Republicans (not the old ones, they are lost causes) know that, like the IRS, the whole of the regulatory system makes a total mockery of that "rule of law" we call our Constitution. Regulatory agencies are, in fact, executive, legislative and judicial branches rolled into one bureaucracy. They are much closer to the communist politburo form of government than anything our Founding Fathers ever envisioned. But, that has become our system and no one knows how to change it back. Because, to abolish the regulatory system would mean a gross loss of power for the federal government. The people could not be controlled as strictly. Even the suggestion of a cutback would cause a chorus of socialists -- Clinton, the Democrats in Congress and their sycophants in the press -- to scream bloody murder. So, Congress is going to tinker with the regulatory system a little. Now comes the "Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999," or HR 1074. It just passed the House last week and now goes to that sink hole called the Senate. The House estimated that it costs the American people an extra $700 billion in hidden costs every year just to comply with federal rules and regulations. Republicans in the House want to know how much, if any, of this money is getting measurable results. "Americans deserve to know where their hard- earned tax dollars are going, and this bill will provide that information," said House Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley (R-VA), chief sponsor of the bill. The socialists and liberals in the federal government are up in arms, though. The Clinton administration and the old line Democrats oppose the bill, saying the benefits of federal health and safety rules are difficult to quantify and the bill would put unneeded new burdens on federal agencies. Yeah, they would have to be a little bit accountable for once. The bill requires the director of the Office of Management and Budget to submit to Congress an annual analysis of the impact of federal rules and paperwork on both the public and private sector. In that analysis, the costs and benefits of each agency and agency program, rule and regulation must be specified and the OMB must include a report on duplications and inconsistencies between agencies. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- -