From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Drugs Date: 01 Oct 1996 02:15:55 EDT On Mon, 30 Sep 96 18:21:31 PST roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) writes: >Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" >is so >simple, everyone's missing it. > >1. Educate the kids to be against it. >2. Re-Legalize it. >3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time >they > want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self >solving). Let's see. Hmmm? Didn't I say that a while back and got jumped because I was told that _I was insensitive_? By George I think I did. It seems that someone else has the same idea. >This solution costs much less in time, money, and loss of Freedom, >than >anything anyone else has come up with. > >Think of it as evolution in action. > >-- >An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | >Keep >weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | >Your >hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | >Powder >on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | >Dry. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 Oct 1996 00:58:20 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: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Drugs Date: 01 Oct 1996 01:08:00 PST On Oct 01, GARY H. BURKEPILE wrote: >On Mon, 30 Sep 96 18:21:31 PST roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) >writes: >>Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" >>is so >>simple, everyone's missing it. >> >>1. Educate the kids to be against it. >>2. Re-Legalize it. >>3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time >>they >> want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self >>solving). > >Let's see. Hmmm? Didn't I say that a while back and got jumped because >I was told that _I was insensitive_? By George I think I did. It seems >that someone else has the same idea. These days, if someone accuses me of being insensitive, I know without any doubt whatsoever, that I'm on the right track. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 07:02:40 -0400 (EDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. These signs began to appear all over yesterday. WARNING THIS AREA HAS BEEN DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE Any person congregating in a group of 2 or more persons on public space within the boundaries of this drug free zone for the purpose of participating in the use, purchase of sale of illegal drugs, and who fails to disperse after being instructed to disperse by a uniformed member of the Metropolitan Police Department, is subject to arrest. An arrest can result in a fine of not more than $300, Imprisonment for not more than 180 days or both. Boundaries _________________________ Dates and Times _________________________ Larry D. Soulsby Chief of Police (Act 11-278, Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Emergency Act of 1996) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:06:20 -0500 (CDT) I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on punks. What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of the law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) > From: Black Unicorn > Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. > > > Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. > > These signs began to appear all over yesterday. > > WARNING > THIS AREA HAS BEEN > DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE > > Any person congregating in a group of 2 or more persons on > public space within the boundaries of this drug free zone for > the purpose of participating in the use, purchase of sale of > illegal drugs, and who fails to disperse after being > instructed to disperse by a uniformed member of the > Metropolitan Police Department, is subject to arrest. An > arrest can result in a fine of not more than $300, > Imprisonment for not more than 180 days or both. > > Boundaries _________________________ > > Dates and Times _________________________ > > Larry D. Soulsby > Chief of Police > (Act 11-278, Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Emergency Act of 1996) > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 32 (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:07:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following is brought to you thanks, in part, to the kind assistance of CyberNews and the fine folks at Cornell University. Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 32 ====================================== ("Quid coniuratio est?") OCTOBER'S EVE ============= Sherman Skolnick Commentary 09/30/96 ------------------------------------ (From Mr. Skolnick's recorded message: 312-731-1100) ---------------------------------------------------- Hi! Sherman Skolnick, Citizens' Committee to Clean Up the Courts, 9800 S. Oglesby. Some say the First Lady is facing criminal indictments, and the indictments (some state, some federal) have already been handed up by a grand jury but the indictments have been sealed. Is all this political? Before the election it would cause an unprecedented situation. Bill Clinton might feel compelled to resign, but at the same time release his impounded medical records, showing, supposedly, some medical crisis -- such as, his nose might fall off from having snorted cocaine over a period of many years. Release of indictments against Hillary after the election could also be considered political. If the Independent Counsel knew before the election, why would he time the release for after? Of course, remember the Nixon situation: Prior to the 1972 landslide re-election, the press fakers played down Watergate. By the Spring of 1973, however, Watergate was the buzzword most every day. And what is Hillary facing? In New York, charges of defrauding the state while a consultant; in Little Rock, causing the misappropriation of federally insured funds of a savings & loan; in the District of Columbia, perjury and obstruction of justice regarding both Travelgate and Filegate; that is, causing the frame-up of White House Travel Office carry-over employees and using FBI records to blackmail various persons, primarily those of the Bush administration. A good question: *When* are they going to indict Hillary and Bill for the $50 million embezzlement and massive tax fraud that is the subject of *our* civil damage suit against her and others? So far, Hillary Clinton's defense is primarily to convince the federal judges in Chicago that we are, supposedly, "bad people" and no judge should listen to us! Of course, the federal judges here already hate us for our campaign of exposing bribery of the federal courts in Chicago. Now whether before or after the election, the expected indictments may cause a crisis. Even prior to the indictments the stock market was already reaching new, all-time highs, and headed for a crash. (Of course, cynics contend that the market would rally! That is, happy to be rid of the Clinton White House gang.) Now just consider the possibilities. The mass media liars and whores might finally have to admit that White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. was murdered. And that Bill and Hillary, supposedly his friends, covered it up. Vince Foster was implicated in various types of espionage, such as selling nuclear missile secrets to a foreign power; such as heading a project to spy on foreign banks, both friend and foe; such as money-laundering dope and gun-running funds, with Hillary, for a Little Rock bond broker: some 18 Arkansas-based firms would be scandalized for reportedly using dope loot to finance their business -- including Tyson Chickens, J.B. Hunt truck line, Wal-Mart, and Beverly Enterprises, the nursing home chain. The whole mess involves both political parties: both Bill Clinton and George Bush are criminally implicated in the CIA dope through the airport at Mena, Arkansas. And the dope loot was reportedly washed through the Garfield Ridge Trust & Savings Bank of Chicago, owned by de-frocked congressman Dan Rostenkowski and Hillary's brother, and then through the Chicago markets. The bottom line? Maybe all of this is to pave the way for Jay Rockefeller to become the President without an actual election. Such as by an emergency, provided for under the 25th Amendment. Will the press fakers surprise us with all of this someday? *Or*, just dribble it out to get us used to a disaster? Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief. I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation." If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1") For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom See also: http://www.europa.com/~johnlf/cn.html See also: ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Gun Ban Endorsed By GOP (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:12:23 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Joe Horn <6mysmesa@1eagle1.com> >Date: 30 Sep 96 21:02:19 EDT >From: "Barbara j. Beier" <73622.1250@CompuServe.COM> >To: BlindCopyReceiver:;@CompuServe.COM >Subject: Gun Ban Endorsed By GOP > >Hi: > >"...you just call, out my name, and you know, wherever I am, I'll coming >running, >running, running, don't you know, you got a friend..." James Taylor > >Unless you're a gun owner trying to get somebody's ear in Congress, that is. > >I have just one question: we made such a big difference in 1994 that even Mr. >Clinton acknowledged it. We gave the Republicans Congress. Why then, have they >abandoned us in 1996? > >I think it's because we ordinary folks rocked a boat we weren't supposed to. >Power...it's all the same, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat; when >you're in the halls of power, it boils down to "us" (inside the Beltway, or >Albany, etc.) against "them" (the rest of America). If it wasn't for the >Libertarians, I truly think I'd sit this election out, even if it meant not >using a sorely needed civil right. > >Folks, I believe we are in for a hellacious time over the next few months and >years as all the chickens sown of our cynical power plays during the Cold War >come home to roost. Compromise every belief you hold dear, or else fasten yer >seatbelts for a rough ride! > > >=:-o >Barb Beier > ***************************** > >AP 30-Sep-1996 15:29 EDT REF5521 > >Copyright 1996. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. > >The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, >rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The >Associated Press. > >By DAVID PACE > >Associated Press Writer > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Under pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats, >congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic violence gun ban, >abandoning most of their alternative proposal. > The final language was hammered out over the weekend as part of the huge >spending bill before the Senate. It expands the current ban on gun ownership or >possession by felons to include virtually anyone convicted of a misdemeanor >involving domest >ic violence. > "This legislation will save the lives of thousands of battered women and >abused children," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who proposed a similar ban >that was endorsed by the Senate 97-2 earlier this month. > Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., a former U.S. attorney, proposed an alternative last >week that would have extended the gun ban to people convicted of domestic abuse >misdemeanors only if physical force was involved, and only if the person was >notified of t >he gun ban when arrested, given the right to counsel and a trial by jury. > Last week, congressional Republicans initially agreed to substitute Barr's >alternative for the Lautenberg amendment. That brought protests from Senate >Democrats and the White House, since President Clinton initially proposed the >gun ban during h >is train trip to the Democratic Convention in August. > Barr contended Lautenberg's original bill was unconstitutional. States do not >uniformly define misdemeanor crimes, he said, so Lautenberg's bill would have >violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. > He also complained that Lautenberg proposal ignored the general law exemption >that would have kept the gun ban from applying to police officers and military >personnel. The final agreement included Barr's language removing that exemption. > > In the agreement reached during the weekend, congressional Republicans >dropped Barr's language requiring notification of the gun ban at the time of >arrest. They also agreed to modify Barr's language extending the ban only to >persons convicted af >ter a jury trial, or after having waived a jury trial. > Democrats claimed that would have exempted most convicted abusers from the >ban because few such cases carry punishments severe enough to guarantee the >right to a jury trial. The final agreement simply requires that persons charged >with domestic >abuse, who are entitled to a jury trial, must be given one or must waive that >right before they would come under the gun ban if convicted. > > > -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Rep. Dornan: I am preparing papers of indictment (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:13:10 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html >From: Washington Weekly >Subject: Rep. Dornan: I am preparing papers of indictment > > > > FOLLOW THE MONEY AND LOOK AT THE NOSE > Rep. Bob Dornan (R-CA) > House of Representatives - September 26, 1996 > >[Rep. Bob Dornan held a total of three one-hour special orders >last week focusing on the President and his talk of pardons to >convicted Whitewater associates. In the present speech he >describes his papers of impeachment and reads from Roger Morris >and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard] > >[...] > >Now, something else happened to me today. Besides meeting a young >man who told me he was corrupted here as a page on the elevator >in one of the Rayburn buildings, said it cost him 2 years of >school and finally he is getting out of the university late. I >also saw Clinton come to the Longworth Office Building, so I >thought I would stand in the hall, ask him about tampering with a >grand jury system by telegraphing pardon messages through the >media, specifically through PBS on Jim Lehrer's show. Got the >transcript here from the Wall Street Journal. It is unbelievable. >Outrageous is what it is. It is just what the Wall Street Journal >calls it. > >So I am standing there and out comes that battered wife, George >Stephanopoulos. That is what Bob Woodward of Watergate Woodward >and Bernstein fame, naval officer, Robert Woodward wrote: George >Stephanopoulos is like a battered wife. The volcanic eruptions >come out of the man's head with lava flowing all over George, and >he is treated like a battered wife. I did not see whose head; the >man. > >So here comes the battered wife, and he comes up and said what >are you doing. You going to talk through the man? > >I will insert `the man' a lot tonight. > >And I said, `Oh, just wanted to find out about jury tampering, >telegraphing messages through media interviews and tampering with >witnesses that are at this moment going before the grand jury in >Little Rock.' > >He says OK. > >He runs back into the Ways and Means room, a whole operation is >organized. I saw the secret service smiling. I saw the Capitol >police laughing. We saw the advance men talking in their little >hand mikes, and I cost hundreds of people, I guess, 10 or 15 >minutes as they had to run an operation kind of like the Bowery >boys, you know playing 24 A, the diversion, to fake me out, and >it worked. Got to give it to him. > >But they had to announce to the entire press corps, the AP camera >man, the Washington Post: Look, here comes the President, >everybody--actual word out of advancement: all the press look >this way. > >So of course I looked that way, too, and we are all looking, and >behind me comes Al Gore, Vice President, and the man, and up to >the microphone. I turn around, I said, `Well done, guys.' > >But he will get his day in court. I was going to remind him that >Paula Corbin Jones had her day in court and he will have his day >in court because I am filing impeachment papers. I have got >lawyers working on them and have been for about 5 or 6 months, >and this may be the crowning issue, this may be the straw on the >camel's back, telegraphing pardon messages to people. It is >unbelievable. > >So I stood there, and I looked, and the first thing that came in >my mind was baby boomers in power, and the second thing came to >my mind were the words of Maureen Dowd about the scenes on sacred >Omaha Beach, that hallowed territory, that hallowed sand where so >many Americans died, a thousand in few hours there in Utah Beach >on the gorgeous coast of Normandy, France. And I thought of >Maureen Dowd, New York Times reporter, her words: The >prepubescent yuppies running around serving the man. > >Well, listen to this, Mr. Speaker. Seven pounds of heroin were >found in the nose cone of an Air Force One aircraft taking the >President to the U.N. in New York from Bogota, Colombia. The >President in this case is Ernesto Samper, the man whose >Presidency is collapsing in Bogota, Colombia, a nation which drug >users in this country have helped to destroy, particularly >cocaine users. They have helped to destroy it. > >When you see somebody with a big red bulbous nose and doctors >tell me it is not allergies; that makes your eyes water. The nose >only swells from alcohol or from tearing up your nasal passages >with cocaine. When you see that, you will know that that is a >person who has caused--Nancy Reagan had it right, just say no-- >who has caused a thousand young police officers to be killed in >Colombia in the last year, calendar year 1995. This year we are >running ahead of a thousand young men. > > >[...] > > >Partners in Power. This is tough, so I am going to leave out the >man and only talk about people who are not protected by rule 18. > >First of all, story: London, Sunday. Imagine the respect factor >in Europe. Here is the Sunday Telegraph, London, by Ambrose >Evans Pritchard. Some day I am going to get to meet this great >journalist. > >`The longer he resists pressure to release his medical records, >the stronger the suspicions become that he is hiding something >important, perhaps even something that could affect the outcome >of some elections.' > >`Some press secretary,' I am leaving out names here, `was >distinctly ambiguous when reporters asked in public whether >someone was suffering from a sexually transmitted disease. It >seemed almost as if the press secretary wished to encourage this >sexual line of inquiry, because the calculation apparently is >that nobody cares much about encounters long ago of a sexual >nature. The impact, in post-Puritan America, would be nil.' > >Imagine the British people reading this in the tube, on the >subway. > >`But not everybody has fallen for this diversionary tactic. In a >biting editorial last week,' that I missed, so I will have to put >it in the Record in January, `the Wall Street Journal asked >whether' someone was covering up a history of drug use. `Drugs >are a much more serious matter. If the American people were ever >led to believe that somebody was a heavy user of cocaine while >head of a certain subgovernment entity in a certain state, the >scandal would be thermonuclear.' > >Stories about past drug use by some are a staple of the talk show >programs around America, but no major paper in the U.S. has had >the guts yet to publish an investigative expose. The Washington >Times almost did this week. They came that close. They sent out >sheets to people around the country saying, `Here it comes >tomorrow.' Then they backed off, and I got a headline story out >of it, interesting, with my subcommittee on a Czech general >saying that Americans were used as guinea pigs from the Korean >and maybe the Vietnam War, because it left the whole area above >the full front-page story empty. > >So he goes on to say, Ambrose Evans Pritchard, to his London >audience, in the biggest circulation paper in Great Britain, he >says: This is not because drug use is too much of a tabloid >issue. Far from it. The mainstream media were quick to print >uncorroborated allegations of a stupid convicted felon in the >slammer who claimed to have sold marijuana years ago to a young >Dan Quayle. Remember how that moved on the network news, the >headlines, of establishment paper after liberal paper? > >In the case of someone, a number of people have come forward with >direct knowledge of drug use, but the press always finds a reason >to impugn the source's credibility; hence, a fascinating meeting >with 20 of us telling Gary Aldrich, `We will protect you,' giving >him a round of applause, and then came his two little children. >Dan Burton and I said, `We were applauding for your honorable >dad, Gary Aldrich, author of `Unlimited Access.' > >Back to the London paper. This is not a tabloid, this is like the >New York Times in London, or like the New York Post or Daily >News. > >He says, in the case of these people that have come forward, >nothing short of documentary proof, though, will induce the >newspapers to examine the claims. > > >Hence, the intense speculation in Washington about the medical >records. But there are other records. A freelance journalist, >Scott Wheeler, has obtained copies of the Arkansas State police >surveillance audio tapes from the 1984 investigation of a Roger, >whose last name is Clinton, the younger brother of somebody. He >was eventually convicted for dealing in cocaine and sent to >prison. > >The tapes revealed that Roger Clinton was a drug trafficker, not >just an addict who crossed the line. He can be heard describing >how he used to smuggle large amounts of cocaine right through the >airports hidden under his clothes. And I have a tape somebody is >going to play for me tomorrow where he says, I'm not worried >about the cops surveilling me, I've got other cops watching those >cops, because I've got a friend in a high place. > >And it says, the most interesting comment he makes about the >Governor is, got to get some for my brother. He's got a nose like >a vacuum cleaner. Then there is the case of Charlene Wilson, >currently serving a prison term in Arkansas for drug offenses. >She told the Sunday Telegraph in London 2 years ago that she had >supplied somebody with cocaine during his first term. He was so >messed up that night he slid down the wall into a garbage can. > >The story has credibility because she told it under oath to a >Federal grand jury in Little Rock in December of 1990. At the >time she was an informant for the 7th Judicial District drug task >force in Arkansas. Gene Duffy, the prosecutor in charge of the >task force, talked to this Wilson lady days after her grand jury >appearance. She was terrified, the drug task force person, the >prosecutor, says, prosecutor Gene Duffy, she was terrified. She >said her house was being watched and she made a big mistake, she >shouldn't have talked. > > >That was when she told me she testified about seeing someone get >so high on cocaine he fell into a garbage can. I have no doubt >she was telling the truth. What happens to her, Duffy? She's now >in hiding in a secret place somewhere in Texas. > >What about Charlene Wilson. Charged with drug violations. In 1992 >she was sentenced to 31 years for selling a half ounce of >marijuana and $100 worth of methamphetamine to an informant. She >protested she was set up to eliminate her as a political >liability and she appealed on the grounds of entrapment. With the >help of a brilliant Arkansas lawyer, John Wesley Hall, her case >went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court--across the street, >Mr. Speaker. Finding a violation of her constitutional rights, >the court ordered the State of Arkansas to give Ms. Wilson a >fresh trial or set her free. She's being set free as of >November--probably after the election. > >And what about those grand jury transcripts? They are secret, of >course, sealed in perpetuity, but every witness has the right to >the transcripts of their own testimony if they make a formal >request. > >So she will probably formally request them and we will get to see >them and it may be too late because America has a morality test, >all day long until the polls close, a morality test on November >5. And then at the same time it has an IQ test to see what we are >going to tell the children in this country. > >In this book, `Partners In Power,' page 325: > >On one of the 1983-84 videotapes--I better give the publisher, >Henry Holt. Get this book, folks, Pop for the $27.50, for pete's >sake. Henry Hold, `Partners In Power.' > >A fabulous biographer, Roger Morris, writes: > >Yeah, there was a mansion in the guest house, Roger answered, oh, >they love it. Even sketchy State trooper entry and exit logs at >the Governor's mansion would bear him out showing him coming and >going at the family quarters accompanies by females, girl, a >friend, at least 36 times after February 7, 1983, the height of >drug trafficking, and guards recorded visits within days of the >women that he was bringing. Roger in with 2 females to change for >party. Roger and girl going to the mansion, 2 hours. Girl, in, >out. And on one of the 1983-84 videotapes filmed by the local >narcotics officers, Roger Clinton was said to tell a supplier >jauntily: Got to get some for my brother, he's got a nose like a >vacuum. > >So there it is, folks. You want the line. Get the book. > >ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE > >The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MICA). The Chair must ask the >gentleman from California to suspend for a moment at this point. > >The Chair would remind all Members that it is not in order to >engage in personalities toward the President. Although remarks in >debate may include criticism of the President's official actions >or policy, it is a breach of order to question the personal >conduct of the President whether by actual accusation or by mere >insinuation. > >The gentleman may proceed in order. > >Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a question. > >The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his question. > >Mr. DORNAN. If a Member has read--and, of course, I was talking >about this Member--over 10 books, traveled Arkansas, spoken to >people, and believes that a high public official was and may >still be a cocaine addict, do I not have a right to state that >publicly on the floor of this House? > >The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would respond not on the floor >of this House. And also in response to a question concerning the >proper bounds, the requirements of decorum in debate prohibit any >personal abuse of the President spanning the full range of >affronts from the attribution of unworthy motives to name- >calling. > >The gentleman may proceed in order. > > >Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, then let me deviate in the remaining few >moments to point out the headline--these are public issues--the >headline of yesterday's Washington Times: `In Jail, McDougal >Plays Media Queen,' is cocky. In Dayroom 212 of Pod B of the >Faulker County Jail, she is the queen, she thinks she is going to >get pardoned. `Clinton's Words Fuel Pardon Talk. Will Whitewater >Figures Go Free?' Imagine if a Republican tried this. Today's >headline: `Whitewater Log On Files Has 6-Month Gap.' > >These people are being charged with looting banks, and the >taxpayers having to make up the difference, pirating money from >banks, and if one person is immune from discussion, then let us >talk about all the others. A person is known by the company he >keeps. > >I want to close discussing this rule XVII because people watching >this House may be confused about the separation of powers. To >keep order in this place, there is comity between Members and the >Members in the other body, and it can be stretched when one >Member criticizes on the Senate floor this Member for being a >hobbyist on a gut-ripping issue like POW issues and Missing In >Action, but we have to have some comity here. > >But only in this Congress, the 104th Congress, was the office of >the President and the office of the Vice President put under the >rules, thereby damaging the separation of powers. I can assure >you after I file charges of impeachment, articles of impeachment, >and I can do it from zero to 1,000, after that, I will move when >we reassemble, God willing I am back and you are back, I will >demand in our rules from our leadership to finally show the guts >to go back to the way this existed for over 200 years, and have >this separation of powers so that the offices of the President >and the Vice President are no longer included in our rule XVIII >that demands civility between ourselves. > >Let me read one line about President Samper of Colombia: A >scathing assessment of the Bogota scene with its dozens of >censored stories, crippling folly and indolence, intellectual >shallowness, and social and mercenary corruption by the political >world it is supposed to monitor, resulting in a `day of the >locusts' talk-show demagoguery by liberals. > >Mr. Speaker, when you read this, the reaction to a young person >would be holy schnikes, how did our great country come to all >this corruption and scandals? > > > > > > > http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: piml] Rep. Waters Responds To Los Angeles - Mena Date: 01 Oct 1996 10:07:54 -0400 >>>We have citizens who say, `Ms. Waters, I do not agree with you on >>>a lot of things, but I agree with you on this. We want you to >>>stick with it, to stay with it. We are outraged at the idea that >>>our government could have known, could have been involved with >>>this, could have been a part of a plot.' > >I'm flabbergasted. I've never agreed with Waters ever before, but _this_ I >agree with; anything the government has done along these lines deserves to >be investigated and the culprits horsewhipped and hanged. Ms. Waters and the Black Caucus could be on to something here. When various random conservatives were complaining about Mena, it was just a right-wing conspiracy. When a whole bunch of prominent black people stand up and demand an investigation, its going to be harder to dismiss. (N.B. This is how the media perceives it, not my personal opinion.) Just on the face of it, it is pretty damn awful. The Feds are pushing for harsher drug penalties, using the military to fight drup producers overseas, *locking up close to 1% of the population, the highest incarceration rate of all the industrialized nations*, and at the same time they are smuggling, selling, and profiting from cocaine. I don't care what turns up, or what it takes. I don't care if this sullies Bush, Reagan and half their staffs. Clinton is guilty as sin, and the whole thing makes Watergate look like a third rate burglary. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Drugs Date: 01 Oct 1996 08:14:38 -0700 (PDT) On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Bill Vance wrote: > Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" is so > simple, everyone's missing it. > > 1. Educate the kids to be against it. > 2. Re-Legalize it. > 3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time they > want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self solving). > > This solution costs much less in time, money, and loss of Freedom, than > anything anyone else has come up with. > > Think of it as evolution in action. Bill - you'll never make it in this politics business. You got to learn that you get votes talking about MORality, not REality. Ask Newt if you don't believe me. Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (Fwd) Re: =U.S. National Guard moved drugs for (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 15:43:47 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Witness claims U.S. National Guard moved drugs for cartel > > >Copyright c 1996 Nando.net >Copyright c 1996 Reuter Information Service > >HOUSTON (Sep 30, 1996 5:48 p.m. EDT) - A former insider of the Gulf >drug cartel testified on Monday in the >trial of alleged drug kingping Juan Garcia Abrego that members of the >U.S. National Guard shipped marijuana >and cocaine in military trucks for the illicit organisation. > >Carlos Rodriguez, now serving up to 60 years in federal prison on >drug charges, said one of the cartel >members had "a special deal" with a group in the National Guard to >transport drugs from south Texas to >Houston. > >National Guard members "carried the drugs in an army trailer or >something, a military truck," he said. >Rodriguez did not say when the shipments were made, but they would >have occurred before his arrest in April >1993. > >It was not the first time in a trial that was expected to produce >revelations about public corruption in Mexico that >testimony has shown U.S. officials were not immune to the lure of >drug money. > >Earlier, cartel insiders said the organisation bribed guards at a >federal highway checkpoint in south Texas so >that their drug shipments could pass through without problems. > >One cartel member also testified that the drug ring paid U.S. >Immigration and Naturalisation Service workers in >south Texas to stash cocaine in INS buses that were used to carry >illegal immigrants to Houston. > >Agents at highway checkpoints routinely waved the buses through >without searching for drugs because they >were assumed to be clean, the witness said. Once in Houston, both the >drugs and immigrants were dropped >off. > >Garcia Abrego, once on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, faces up to >life in prison if convicted on 22 drug-related >counts. He was captured in January in Monterrey, Mexico, and flown to >Houston for trial. > >Prosecutors say the former cookie factory worker from Texas led the >Gulf cartel, which shipped up to one-third >of the cocaine used in the United States from its base in northern >Mexico. Defence attorneys said the >government has the wrong man. > >Rodriguez testified on Monday that he believed Garcia Abrego was the >head of the cartel. He described a >meeting in the border city of Matamoros in which a top lieutenant in >the drug ring introduced to him to the >defendant. > >"He introduced him as the Patron, El Jefe (the boss)," he said. > >Rodriguez said the Gulf cartel got its cocaine from the Cali cartel >in Colombia and would fly it to isolated >airstrips in northeastern Mexico for delivery to the United States. >Corrupt officials on the Mexican side of the >Rio Grande, which forms the Texas-Mexico border, would look the other >way so the drugs could get through. > >He estimated that more than 50 tons of cocaine were shipped to New >York City via south Texas and Houston >during his several years with the drug ring. > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >** For PGP public key send message with "request pgp key" as subject ** >** It will automatically be sent to you return email. ** >** PGP Encouraged. >================================================== ** > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ** For PGP public key send message with "request pgp key" as subject ** ** It will automatically be sent to you return email. ** ** PGP Encouraged. ================================================== ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 18:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Last time I checked, the following two things were true: 1. The people of the United States have the right to peaceably assemble. 2. Selling and using {some} drugs is illegal. (Whether or not that should be the case is another argument.) So, if DC cops think somebody is selling/using/in possession of drugs, they should arrest them for that. Otherwise, they should leave them alone. They should not claim the power to arrest people for gathering "for the purpose of" selling/using/possessing drugs. When did cops become sufficiently psychic to know what people's purposes were anyway? bd On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, larry ball wrote: > I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on punks. > What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of the > law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's > > Larry Ball > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) > > From: Black Unicorn > > Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. > > > > > > Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. > > > > These signs began to appear all over yesterday. > > > > WARNING > > THIS AREA HAS BEEN > > DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE > > > > Any person congregating in a group of 2 or more persons on > > public space within the boundaries of this drug free zone for > > the purpose of participating in the use, purchase of sale of > > illegal drugs, and who fails to disperse after being > > instructed to disperse by a uniformed member of the > > Metropolitan Police Department, is subject to arrest. An > > arrest can result in a fine of not more than $300, > > Imprisonment for not more than 180 days or both. > > > > Boundaries _________________________ > > > > Dates and Times _________________________ > > > > Larry D. Soulsby > > Chief of Police > > (Act 11-278, Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Emergency Act of 1996) > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Do 2 + 2 = 4 ? Date: 01 Oct 1996 18:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Our "friends" the Republicans are doing this to us. bd >AP 30-Sep-1996 > >Under pressure from the White House and Senate >Democrats, congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic >violence gun ban, abandoning most of their alternative proposal. > The final language was hammered out over the weekend as part of the huge >spending bill before the Senate. It expands the current ban on gun >ownership or possession by felons to include virtually anyone convicted of >a misdemeanor involving domestic violence. [...] > > In the agreement reached during the weekend, congressional Republicans >dropped Barr's language requiring notification of the gun ban at the time of >arrest. They also agreed to modify Barr's language extending the ban only to >persons convicted af ter a jury trial, or after having waived a jury trial. > Democrats claimed that would have exempted most convicted abusers from the >ban because few such cases carry punishments severe enough to guarantee the >right to a jury trial. [...] > > > *********************************************************************** >On June 24, 1996, ... the Supreme Court quietly voted 7 to 2 to limit >our Sixth Amendment's guarantee to trial by jury. > >In Lewis v. United States, 95-6465, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for >the majority of the Court said: > >"...We conclude that no jury trial right exists where a defendant is >prosecuted for multiple petty offenses. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of >the right to a jury trial does not extend to petty offenses, and its scope >does not change where a defendant faces a potential aggregate prison term in >excess of six months for petty offenses." > [...] >Now the U. S. Supreme Court has made "...the most >serious incursions on the right to jury trial in the Court's history, and it >cannot be squared with our precedents." (Justice Kennedy writing for the >minority of the Court) [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 17:56:43 -0500 (CDT) Certain signs depict trouble and illegal activity just as much as natural forces predict events or activit Scientists make valid observations and conclusions based upon natural force activity, cannot the policy make similar valid observations of impending illegal activity? The right os PEACEFUL assembly is indeed guaranteed. It is guaranteed to the PEOPLE of the United States. Does this include gangbangers and juveniles? I think not. The history of police activity in the United States makes it clear that to break up such "loitering" or "hanging out" activity controls crime and juvenile deliquency. What the Wash. DC police are after is not "political" activity and that especially is what the Constitution protects. You civil libertarians need to keep in mind that the term "civil" pertains to conduct and the GOOD of society. It does not allow for anarchia liberteria. I, personally, think that it is time to bust up the loitering and hanging out. A 10:00pm curfew suits me just fine. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > Last time I checked, the following two things were true: > > 1. The people of the United States have the right to peaceably assemble. > > 2. Selling and using {some} drugs is illegal. > (Whether or not that should be the case is another argument.) > > So, if DC cops think somebody is selling/using/in possession of drugs, > they should arrest them for that. Otherwise, they should leave them > alone. They should not claim the power to arrest people for gathering > "for the purpose of" selling/using/possessing drugs. > > When did cops become sufficiently psychic to know what people's purposes > were anyway? > > bd > > On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, larry ball wrote: > > > I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on punks. > > What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of the > > law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's > > > > Larry Ball > > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) > > > From: Black Unicorn > > > Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. > > > > > > > > > Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. > > > > > > These signs began to appear all over yesterday. > > > > > > WARNING > > > THIS AREA HAS BEEN > > > DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE > > > > > > Any person congregating in a group of 2 or more persons on > > > public space within the boundaries of this drug free zone for > > > the purpose of participating in the use, purchase of sale of > > > illegal drugs, and who fails to disperse after being > > > instructed to disperse by a uniformed member of the > > > Metropolitan Police Department, is subject to arrest. An > > > arrest can result in a fine of not more than $300, > > > Imprisonment for not more than 180 days or both. > > > > > > Boundaries _________________________ > > > > > > Dates and Times _________________________ > > > > > > Larry D. Soulsby > > > Chief of Police > > > (Act 11-278, Anti-Loitering/Drug Free Zone Emergency Act of 1996) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 17:48:16 -0700 While agreeing with those who feel we should roust and arrest these gangbangers, I do not agree with making more laws when we are failing to enforce the laws that already exist. It is already illegal to loiter on the street for the purpose of conducting an illegal activity, simply by the fact that the illegal activity IS. How many more laws can this country stand before the nations capitols sink below the earth surface from the weight of redundant paperwork! This is the same as making it illegal to kill someone with a gun. It is already illegal to kill someone with any device. Just enforce that law and the new one becomes redundant. Our lawmakers are overwhelmed with their own importance, yet our courts are overwhelmed with their own "sensitivity". In order to "Restore our Constitution", we need to replace lawmakers who want to make new laws instead of eliminating bad laws, and we need to replace our justices with those who are just! Are we going to do this by whining about whether the D's, R's, or L's are right, or are we going to do this by choosing grass roots local politicians, who will eventually grow into the federal jobs, who believe in the Constitution? I propose the latter as the answer. Jerry Wootan Who happens to believe that voting for the lesser of evils is not as repugnant as allowing the greater of the evils to prevail. I'll be holding my nose, but I'll be moving to stop the disaster currently in place. THEN, I'll be working on a local grass roots level and looking for a better choice in 2000 starting in November! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 21:29:44 -0500 (CDT) I agree with the idea that we allready have enough law, all we need to do is enforce them. I am not sure that we have the ability to "roust and arrest." Our Judges and criminal advocates in the criminal justice system have pretty well demonized this idea. If new law gives fresh direction to the system, then we need new law. Beginning with the Jimmy Cagny "Father So &So" movies of the thirties we have now gone through three whole generations of civil libertarian bleeding heart liberal that believe that law abiding granny's and others should die just so scuzz bait and juvnile delinquents can have their liberty. Such philosophy is killing our country and by the way taking away our right to keep and bear arms. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > While agreeing with those who feel we should roust and arrest these > gangbangers, I do not agree with making more laws when we are failing to > enforce the laws that already exist. It is already illegal to loiter on the > street for the purpose of conducting an illegal activity, simply by the fact > that the illegal activity IS. How many more laws can this country stand > before the nations capitols sink below the earth surface from the weight of > redundant paperwork! > > This is the same as making it illegal to kill someone with a gun. It is > already illegal to kill someone with any device. Just enforce that law and > the new one becomes redundant. > > Our lawmakers are overwhelmed with their own importance, yet our courts are > overwhelmed with their own "sensitivity". In order to "Restore our > Constitution", we need to replace lawmakers who want to make new laws instead > of eliminating bad laws, and we need to replace our justices with those who > are just! > > Are we going to do this by whining about whether the D's, R's, or L's are > right, or are we going to do this by choosing grass roots local politicians, > who will eventually grow into the federal jobs, who believe in the > Constitution? I propose the latter as the answer. > > Jerry Wootan > > Who happens to believe that voting for the lesser of evils is not as repugnant > as allowing the greater of the evils to prevail. I'll be holding my nose, but > I'll be moving to stop the disaster currently in place. THEN, I'll be working > on a local grass roots level and looking for a better choice in 2000 starting > in November! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 20:48:26 -0600 Larr Ball said: >Beginning with the Jimmy Cagny "Father So &So" movies of the thirties >we have now gone through three whole generations of civil libertarian >bleeding heart liberal that believe that law abiding granny's and >others should die just so scuzz bait and juvnile delinquents can have >their liberty. Such philosophy is killing our country and by the way >taking away our right to keep and bear arms. "civil libertarian" and "bleeding heart liberal" put together in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Just because the news media cannot get it straight doesn't mean that it is the same. And I don't think that anyone including liberals think that grannys and other law abiding folks should die so that scuzz bait can have their liberty. The "conservative" idea that THEIR laws are OK to pass and infringe on people's liberties "for the greater good" fail for the same reason that "bleeding heart liberals" laws passed in the name of "the greater good." That reason is: it is wrong to pass a law for its intended effect and at the same time to ignore the means. The END does NOT justify the means. Whether liberal OR conservative. What was it that Franklin said about trading liberty for a little security and deserving neither? It applies the same to conservative do-gooders as to liberal do-gooders. best regards Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 01 Oct 1996 22:10:34 -0500 At 05:56 PM 10/1/96 -0500, you wrote: >Certain signs depict trouble and illegal activity just as much as >natural forces predict events or activit Scientists make valid >observations and conclusions based upon natural force activity, cannot >the policy make similar valid observations of impending illegal >activity? No Larry, the police cannot be assumned to be psycic. They can move to a state of heightned watchfullness, so as not to miss any likely illegal activity. Until an illegal act is committed. Do do otherwise would amount to the power to arrest anyone for any reason, "I thought he was going to commit crime, judge" > >The right os PEACEFUL assembly is indeed guaranteed. It is guaranteed >to the PEOPLE of the United States. Does this include gangbangers and >juveniles? I think not. You couldn't be more wrong. They are people too, juveniles may be a specail case, they don't have complete rights, although mostly that is with respect to their parents and in some cases teachers. If the gangbangers have *already* committed illegal acts they shouldn't be out on the streets, if nothing else associating with known criminals (each other) has got to be a violation of the terms of their parole. However just belonging to a gang is not a crime. It would be hard to define a gang in such away as to *not* include such organizations as the boy scouts, or for that matter the young republicans or young democrats. > >The history of police activity in the United States makes it clear >that to break up such "loitering" or "hanging out" activity controls >crime and juvenile deliquency. What the Wash. DC police are after is >not "political" activity and that especially is what the Constitution >protects. For some such activity is "political", just not in the partison Politics sense. > >You civil libertarians need to keep in mind that the term "civil" >pertains to conduct and the GOOD of society. It does not allow for >anarchia liberteria. > >I, personally, think that it is time to bust up the loitering and >hanging out. A 10:00pm curfew suits me just fine. If they are legally adults, then it's no ones business how late they are out on the streets. Provided of course they are not disturbing the peace (a vague enough crime) or hassling others who also choose to be out and about. Again juveniles may be a different case. Plenty of reasons to bust the people in question, lets just not sweep up the innocent revelars along with the criminals. Now I *know* they don't roll up the streets that early in Lincoln. As someone has said, freedom means letting other people do things you don't approve of. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 02:00:12 EDT Sign, sign, everywhere a sing. Do this don't do that... So they put up another stupid sign. Is any one going to pay attention? Gary On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 07:02:40 -0400 (EDT) Brad Dolan writes: > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) >From: Black Unicorn >Subject: Signs of Trouble in D.C. > > >Signs of unrest in the nation's capital. > >These signs began to appear all over yesterday. > >WARNING >THIS AREA HAS BEEN >DECLARED A DRUG FREE ZONE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 02:00:12 EDT I totally agree. Maybe we should put one of these signs on all four sides of the white house. GHB On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 18:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Brad Dolan writes: >Last time I checked, the following two things were true: > >1. The people of the United States have the right to peaceably >assemble. > >2. Selling and using {some} drugs is illegal. > (Whether or not that should be the case is another argument.) > >So, if DC cops think somebody is selling/using/in possession of drugs, >they should arrest them for that. Otherwise, they should leave them >alone. They should not claim the power to arrest people for gathering > >"for the purpose of" selling/using/possessing drugs. > >When did cops become sufficiently psychic to know what people's >purposes >were anyway? > >bd > >On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, larry ball wrote: > >> I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on >punks. >> What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of >the >> law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's >> >> Larry Ball >> lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Do 2 + 2 = 4 ? Date: 02 Oct 1996 02:00:12 EDT "Don't worry, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. GHB On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 18:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Brad Dolan writes: >Our "friends" the Republicans are doing this to us. > > >bd > > > >>AP 30-Sep-1996 >> >>Under pressure from the White House and Senate >>Democrats, congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic >>violence gun ban, abandoning most of their alternative proposal. >> The final language was hammered out over the weekend as part of >the huge >>spending bill before the Senate. It expands the current ban on gun >>ownership or possession by felons to include virtually anyone >convicted of >>a misdemeanor involving domestic violence. >[...] >> >> In the agreement reached during the weekend, congressional >Republicans >>dropped Barr's language requiring notification of the gun ban at the >time of >>arrest. They also agreed to modify Barr's language extending the ban >only to >>persons convicted af ter a jury trial, or after having waived a jury >trial. >> Democrats claimed that would have exempted most convicted abusers >from the >>ban because few such cases carry punishments severe enough to >guarantee the >>right to a jury trial. > >[...] >> >> >> > > >*********************************************************************** > >>On June 24, 1996, ... the Supreme Court quietly voted 7 to 2 to >limit >>our Sixth Amendment's guarantee to trial by jury. >> >>In Lewis v. United States, 95-6465, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, >writing for >>the majority of the Court said: >> >>"...We conclude that no jury trial right exists where a defendant is >>prosecuted for multiple petty offenses. The Sixth Amendment's >guarantee of >>the right to a jury trial does not extend to petty offenses, and its >scope >>does not change where a defendant faces a potential aggregate prison >term in >>excess of six months for petty offenses." >> > >[...] > >>Now the U. S. Supreme Court has made "...the most >>serious incursions on the right to jury trial in the Court's history, >and it >>cannot be squared with our precedents." (Justice Kennedy writing for >the >>minority of the Court) > >[...] > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Signs of Trouble in D.C. (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 01:29:31 PST Make 'em "Bill" board size! :-) On Oct 02, GARY H. BURKEPILE wrote: >I totally agree. Maybe we should put one of these signs on all four >sides of the white house. > >GHB > >On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 18:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Brad Dolan >writes: >>Last time I checked, the following two things were true: >> >>1. The people of the United States have the right to peaceably >>assemble. >> >>2. Selling and using {some} drugs is illegal. >> (Whether or not that should be the case is another argument.) >> >>So, if DC cops think somebody is selling/using/in possession of drugs, >>they should arrest them for that. Otherwise, they should leave them >>alone. They should not claim the power to arrest people for gathering >> >>"for the purpose of" selling/using/possessing drugs. >> >>When did cops become sufficiently psychic to know what people's >>purposes >>were anyway? >> >>bd >> >>On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, larry ball wrote: >> >>> I see no problem with such edicts. It is time to get tough on >>punks. >>> What do you want to accomplish, protect the rights and values of >>the >>> law abiding or surrender all to the gangsta's >>> >>> Larry Ball >>> lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Juror Trial Continues to Wed (10/1) Date: 02 Oct 1996 07:16:51 -0400 >Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:38:38 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Juror Trial Continues to Wed (10/1) > >Juror on Trial >Update on 1st day of trial >10-1-96 > > The trial of ex-juror Laura Kriho for contempt of court ended its first >day on Tuesday. The trial will continue tomorrow and will probably >conclude by the late afternoon. > Five other jurors were called by the prosecution to testify >against Laura. The jurors testified to the judge about their >recollections of their deliberation process. They told five very >dis-similar stories about their deliberations. > About 75 people attended the trial. Court TV sent a camera >team, but were denied access to the courtroom by Judge Nieto. > This historic trial will probably conclude on Wed. Please, come >if you can! > >Wed - Oct 2 - 9am >Gilpin County Justice Center >Hwy. 46 (Golden Gate Canyon State Park Road) >One mile east of Hwy. 119 >From Boulder, take 119 through Nederland to Colo. 46. >From Denver, Hwy. 72, Hwy. 46, Hwy. 6, or I-70 all connect to Hwy. 119 > >Call the Gilpin County Clerk Court to confirm that the trial has not been >re-scheduled. (303) 582-5522. > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be removed from this mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen > http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > (303) 841-9649 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Are we under Martial Law? (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 08:39:24 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Below is a document that has very specific meaning to those who can spot exactly what is going on in government, BATF, FBI, "Police organizations", etc... Albeit true to form, the concept has been corrupted to conform to commercial enforcement in this day and age, but the foundations after the overthrow remain. Some still cling to the belief that the de jure Constitution is still in effect, and sometimes I even get caught up in the ravel rousing and flag waiving. However, it only takes remembering a few sentences of that below which makes one realize just where We The People Stand in this country. It can not be disputed, upon reading this document enacted into law in 1868 under executive order no. 100, what the very foundations of our civilizations are today, and how it is absolutely certain that the government can "get away with murder", while we real in agony and disbelief. We are under Martial Law, or at least a form of it called Martial Rule, and the Government has a license to kill, when necesary. Remember, peace was never declared after the civil war. This document is long, you might consider reading it offline. Alan ******************************************************************* INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863. The text below is reprinted from the edition of the United States Government Printing Office of 1898; and reprinted in Schindler & Toman, eds., The Laws of Armed Conflicts. Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General's Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office. TABLE OF CONTENTS Articles Section I Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity - Retaliation. 1-30 Section II. Public and private property of the enemy - Pro- tection of persons, and especially of women, of religion, the arts and sciences - Punishment of crimes against the inhabitants of hostile countries. 31-47 Section III. Deserters - Prisoners of war - Hostages - Booty on the battlefield. 48-80 Section IV. Partisans - Armed enemies not belonging to the hostile army - Scouts- Armed prowlers - War-rebels. 81-85 Section V. Safe-conduct - Spies - War-traitors - Captured messengers - Abuse of the flag of truce. 86-104 Section VI. Exchange of prisoners - Flags of truce - Flags of protection 105-118 Section VII. The Parole 119-134 Section VIII. Armistice - Capitulation 135-147 Section IX. Assassination 148 Section X. Insurrection - Civil War - Rebellion 149-157 * * * SECTION I Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity - Retaliation Article 1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest. The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law. Art. 2. Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same. Art. 3. Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation. The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority. Art. 4. Martial Law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and usages of war. Military oppression is not Martial Law: it is the abuse of the power which that law confers. As Martial Law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity - virtues adorning a soldier even more than other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms against the unarmed. Art. 5. Martial Law should be less stringent in places and countries fully occupied and fairly conquered. Much greater severity may be exercised in places or regions where actual hostilities exist, or are expected and must be prepared for. Its most complete sway is allowed - even in the commander's own country - when face to face with the enemy, because of the absolute necessities of the case, and of the paramount duty to defend the country against invasion. To save the country is paramount to all other considerations. Art. 6. All civil and penal law shall continue to take its usual course in the enemy's places and territories under Martial Law, unless interrupted or stopped by order of the occupying military power; but all the functions of the hostile government - legislative executive, or administrative - whether of a general, provincial, or local character, cease under Martial Law, or continue only with the sanction, or, if deemed necessary, the participation of the occupier or invader. Art. 7. Martial Law extends to property, and to persons, whether they are subjects of the enemy or aliens to that government. Art. 8. Consuls, among American and European nations, are not diplomatic agents. Nevertheless, their offices and persons will be subjected to Martial Law in cases of urgent necessity only: their property and business are not exempted. Any delinquency they commit against the established military rule may be punished as in the case of any other inhabitant, and such punishment furnishes no reasonable ground for international complaint. Art. 9. The functions of Ambassadors, Ministers, or other diplomatic agents accredited by neutral powers to the hostile government, cease, so far as regards the displaced government; but the conquering or occupying power usually recognizes them as temporarily accredited to itself. Art. 10. Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes, whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations. Art. 11. The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith concerning engagements concluded with the enemy during the war, but also the breaking of stipulations solemnly contracted by the belligerents in time of peace, and avowedly intended to remain in force in case of war between the contracting powers. It disclaims all extortions and other transactions for individual gain; all acts of private revenge, or connivance at such acts. Offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers. Art. 12. Whenever feasible, Martial Law is carried out in cases of individual offenders by Military Courts; but sentences of death shall be executed only with the approval of the chief executive, provided the urgency of the case does not require a speedier execution, and then only with the approval of the chief commander. Art. 13. Military jurisdiction is of two kinds: First, that which is conferred and defined by statute; second, that which is derived from the common law of war. Military offenses under the statute law must be tried in the manner therein directed; but military offenses which do not come within the statute must be tried and punished under the common law of war. The character of the courts which exercise these jurisdictions depends upon the local laws of each particular country. In the armies of the United States the first is exercised by courts-martial, while cases which do not come within the "Rules and Articles of War," or the jurisdiction conferred by statute on courts-martial, are tried by military commissions. Art. 14. Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war. Art. 15. Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God. Art. 16. Military necessity does not admit of cruelty - that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult. Art. 17. War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent, armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy. Art. 18. When a commander of a besieged place expels the noncombatants, in order to lessen the number of those who consume his stock of provisions, it is lawful, though an extreme measure, to drive them back, so as to hasten on the surrender. Art. 19. Commanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their intention to bombard a place, so that the noncombatants, and especially the women and children, may be removed before the bombardment commences. But it is no infraction of the common law of war to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a necessity. Art. 20. Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations or governments. It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political, continuous societies, forming organized units, called states or nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy, suffer, advance and retrograde together, in peace and in war. Art. 21. The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of the war. Art. 22. Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit. Art. 23. Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war. Art. 24. The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous armies, that the private individual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection, and every disruption of family ties. Protection was, and still is with uncivilized people, the exception. Art. 25. In modern regular wars of the Europeans, and their descendants in other portions of the globe, protection of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule; privation and disturbance of private relations are the exceptions. Art. 26. Commanding generals may cause the magistrates and civil officers of the hostile country to take the oath of temporary allegiance or an oath of fidelity to their own victorious government or rulers, and they may expel everyone who declines to do so. But whether they do so or not, the people and their civil officers owe strict obedience to them as long as they hold sway over the district or country, at the peril of their lives. Art. 27. The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage Art. 28. Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence, and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution. Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation removes the belligerents farther and farther from the mitigating rules of regular war, and by rapid steps leads them nearer to the internecine wars of savages. Art. 29. Modern times are distinguished from earlier ages by the existence, at one and the same time, of many nations and great governments related to one another in close intercourse. Peace is their normal condition; war is the exception. The ultimate object of all modern war is a renewed state of peace. The more vigorously wars are pursued, the better it is for humanity. Sharp wars are brief. Art. 30. Ever since the formation and coexistence of modern nations, and ever since wars have become great national wars, war has come to be acknowledged not to be its own end, but the means to obtain great ends of state, or to consist in defense against wrong; and no conventional restriction of the modes adopted to injure the enemy is any longer admitted; but the law of war imposes many limitations and restrictions on principles of justice, faith, and honor. SECTION II Public and private property of the enemy - Protection of persons, and especially of women, of religion, the arts and sciences - Punishment of crimes against the inhabitants of hostile countries. Art. 31. A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or of that of its government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete. Art. 32. A victorious army, by the martial power inherent in the same, may suspend, change, or abolish, as far as the martial power extends, the relations which arise from the services due, according to the existing laws of the invaded country, from one citizen, subject, or native of the same to another. The commander of the army must leave it to the ultimate treaty of peace to settle the permanency of this change. Art. 33. It is no longer considered lawful - on the contrary, it is held to be a serious breach of the law of war - to force the subjects of the enemy into the service of the victorious government, except the latter should proclaim, after a fair and complete conquest of the hostile country or district, that it is resolved to keep the country, district, or place permanently as its own and make it a portion of its own country. Art. 34. As a general rule, the property belonging to churches, to hospitals, or other establishments of an exclusively charitable character, to establishments of education, or foundations for the promotion of knowledge, whether public schools, universities, academies of learning or observatories, museums of the fine arts, or of a scientific character such property is not to be considered public property in the sense of paragraph 31; but it may be taxed or used when the public service may require it. Art. 35. Classical works of art, libraries, scientific collections, or precious instruments, such as astronomical telescopes, as well as hospitals, must be secured against all avoidable injury, even when they are contained in fortified places whilst besieged or bombarded. Art. 36. If such works of art, libraries, collections, or instruments belonging to a hostile nation or government, can be removed without injury, the ruler of the conquering state or nation may order them to be seized and removed for the benefit of the said nation. The ultimate ownership is to be settled by the ensuing treaty of peace. In no case shall they be sold or given away, if captured by the armies of the United States, nor shall they ever be privately appropriated, or wantonly destroyed or injured. Art. 37. The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them, religion and morality; strictly private property; the persons of the inhabitants, especially those of women: and the sacredness of domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary shall be rigorously punished. This rule does not interfere with the right of the victorious invader to tax the people or their property, to levy forced loans, to billet soldiers, or to appropriate property, especially houses, lands, boats or ships, and churches, for temporary and military uses Art. 38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity. Art. 39. The salaries of civil officers of the hostile government who remain in the invaded territory, and continue the work of their office, and can continue it according to the circumstances arising out of the war - such as judges, administrative or police officers, officers of city or communal governments - are paid from the public revenue of the invaded territory, until the military government has reason wholly or partially to discontinue it. Salaries or incomes connected with purely honorary titles are always stopped. Art. 40. There exists no law or body of authoritative rules of action between hostile armies, except that branch of the law of nature and nations which is called the law and usages of war on land. Art. 41. All municipal law of the ground on which the armies stand, or of the countries to which they belong, is silent and of no effect between armies in the field. Art. 42. Slavery, complicating and confounding the ideas of property, (that is of a thing,) and of personality, (that is of humanity,) exists according to municipal or local law only. The law of nature and nations has never acknowledged it. The digest of the Roman law enacts the early dictum of the pagan jurist, that "so far as the law of nature is concerned, all men are equal." Fugitives escaping from a country in which they were slaves, villains, or serfs, into another country, have, for centuries past, been held free and acknowledged free by judicial decisions of European countries, even though the municipal law of the country in which the slave had taken refuge acknowledged slavery within its own dominions. Art. 43. Therefore, in a war between the United States and a belligerent which admits of slavery, if a person held in bondage by that belligerent be captured by or come as a fugitive under the protection of the military forces of the United States, such person is immediately entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman To return such person into slavery would amount to enslaving a free person, and neither the United States nor any officer under their authority can enslave any human being. Moreover, a person so made free by the law of war is under the shield of the law of nations, and the former owner or State can have, by the law of postliminy, no belligerent lien or claim of service. Art. 44. All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense. A soldier, officer or private, in the act of committing such violence, and disobeying a superior ordering him to abstain from it, may be lawfully killed on the spot by such superior. Art. 45. All captures and booty belong, according to the modern law of war, primarily to the government of the captor. Prize money, whether on sea or land, can now only be claimed under local law. Art. 46. Neither officers nor soldiers are allowed to make use of their position or power in the hostile country for private gain, not even for commercial transactions otherwise legitimate. Offenses to the contrary committed by commissioned officers will be punished with cashiering or such other punishment as the nature of the offense may require; if by soldiers, they shall be punished according to the nature of the offense. Art. 47. Crimes punishable by all penal codes, such as arson, murder, maiming, assaults, highway robbery, theft, burglary, fraud, forgery, and rape, if committed by an American soldier in a hostile country against its inhabitants, are not only punishable as at home, but in all cases in which death is not inflicted, the severer punishment shall be preferred. SECTION III Deserters - Prisoners of war - Hostages - Booty on the battle-field. Art. 48. Deserters from the American Army, having entered the service of the enemy, suffer death if they fall again into the hands of the United States, whether by capture, or being delivered up to the American Army; and if a deserter from the enemy, having taken service in the Army of the United States, is captured by the enemy, and punished by them with death or otherwise, it is not a breach against the law and usages of war, requiring redress or retaliation. Art. 49. A prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army for active aid, who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either fighting or wounded, on the field or in the hospital, by individual surrender or by capitulation. All soldiers, of whatever species of arms; all men who belong to the rising en masse of the hostile country; all those who are attached to the army for its efficiency and promote directly the object of the war, except such as are hereinafter provided for; all disabled men or officers on the field or elsewhere, if captured; all enemies who have thrown away their arms and ask for quarter, are prisoners of war, and as such exposed to the inconveniences as well as entitled to the privileges of a prisoner of war. Art. 50. Moreover, citizens who accompany an army for whatever purpose, such as sutlers, editors, or reporters of journals, or contractors, if captured, may be made prisoners of war, and be detained as such. The monarch and members of the hostile reigning family, male or female, the chief, and chief officers of the hostile government, its diplomatic agents, and all persons who are of particular and singular use and benefit to the hostile army or its government, are, if captured on belligerent ground, and if unprovided with a safe conduct granted by the captor's government, prisoners of war. Art. 51. If the people of that portion of an invaded country which is not yet occupied by the enemy, or of the whole country, at the approach of a hostile army, rise, under a duly authorized levy en masse to resist the invader, they are now treated as public enemies, and, if captured, are prisoners of war. Art. 52. No belligerent has the right to declare that he will treat every captured man in arms of a levy en masse as a brigand or bandit. If, however, the people of a country, or any portion of the same, already occupied by an army, rise against it, they are violators of the laws of war, and are not entitled to their protection. Art. 53. The enemy's chaplains, officers of the medical staff, apothecaries, hospital nurses and servants, if they fall into the hands of the American Army, are not prisoners of war, unless the commander has reasons to retain them. In this latter case; or if, at their own desire, they are allowed to remain with their captured companions, they are treated as prisoners of war, and may be exchanged if the commander sees fit. Art. 54. A hostage is a person accepted as a pledge for the fulfillment of an agreement concluded between belligerents during the war, or in consequence of a war. Hostages are rare in the present age. Art. 55. If a hostage is accepted, he is treated like a prisoner of war, according to rank and condition, as circumstances may admit. Art. 56. A prisoner of war is subject to no punishment for being a public enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the intentional infliction of any suffering, or disgrace, by cruel imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, or any other barbarity. Art. 57. So soon as a man is armed by a sovereign government and takes the soldier's oath of fidelity, he is a belligerent; his killing, wounding, or other warlike acts are not individual crimes or offenses. No belligerent has a right to declare that enemies of a certain class, color, or condition, when properly organized as soldiers, will not be treated by him as public enemies. Art. 58. The law of nations knows of no distinction of color, and if an enemy of the United States should enslave and sell any captured persons of their army, it would be a case for the severest retaliation, if not redressed upon complaint. The United States cannot retaliate by enslavement; therefore death must be the retaliation for this crime against the law of nations. Art. 59. A prisoner of war remains answerable for his crimes committed against the captor's army or people, committed before he was captured, and for which he has not been punished by his own authorities. All prisoners of war are liable to the infliction of retaliatory measures. Art. 60. It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter; but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quarter, in great straits, when his own salvation makes it impossible to cumber himself with prisoners. Art. 61. Troops that give no quarter have no right to kill enemies already disabled on the ground, or prisoners captured by other troops. Art. 62. All troops of the enemy known or discovered to give no quarter in general, or to any portion of the army, receive none. Art. 63. Troops who fight in the uniform of their enemies, without any plain, striking, and uniform mark of distinction of their own, can expect no quarter. Art. 64. If American troops capture a train containing uniforms of the enemy, and the commander considers it advisable to distribute them for use among his men, some striking mark or sign must be adopted to distinguish the American soldier from the enemy. Art. 65. The use of the enemy's national standard, flag, or other emblem of nationality, for the purpose of deceiving the enemy in battle, is an act of perfidy by which they lose all claim to the protection of the laws of war. Art. 66. Quarter having been given to an enemy by American troops, under a misapprehension of his true character, he may, nevertheless, be ordered to suffer death if, within three days after the battle, it be discovered that he belongs to a corps which gives no quarter. Art. 67. The law of nations allows every sovereign government to make war upon another sovereign state, and, therefore, admits of no rules or laws different from those of regular warfare, regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, although they may belong to the army of a government which the captor may consider as a wanton and unjust assailant. Art. 68. Modern wars are not internecine wars, in which the killing of the enemy is the object. The destruction of the enemy in modern war, and, indeed, modern war itself, are means to obtain that object of the belligerent which lies beyond the war. Unnecessary or revengeful destruction of life is not lawful. Art. 69. Outposts, sentinels, or pickets are not to be fired upon, except to drive them in, or when a positive order, special or general, has been issued to that effect. Art. 70. The use of poison in any manner, be it to poison wells, or food, or arms, is wholly excluded from modern warfare. He that uses it puts himself out of the pale of the law and usages of war. Art.71. Whoever intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy already wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy, or who orders or encourages soldiers to do so, shall suffer death, if duly convicted, whether he belongs to the Army of the United States, or is an enemy captured after having committed his misdeed. Art. 72. Money and other valuables on the person of a prisoner, such as watches or jewelry, as well as extra clothing, are regarded by the American Army as the private property of the prisoner, and the appropriation of such valuables or money is considered dishonorable, and is prohibited. Nevertheless, if large sums are found upon the persons of prisoners, or in their possession, they shall be taken from them, and the surplus, after providing for their own support, appropriated for the use of the army, under the direction of the commander, unless otherwise ordered by the government. Nor can prisoners claim, as private property, large sums found and captured in their train, although they have been placed in the private luggage of the prisoners. Art. 73. All officers, when captured, must surrender their side arms to the captor. They may be restored to the prisoner in marked cases, by the commander, to signalize admiration of his distinguished bravery or approbation of his humane treatment of prisoners before his capture. The captured officer to whom they may be restored can not wear them during captivity. Art. 74. A prisoner of war, being a public enemy, is the prisoner of the government, and not of the captor. No ransom can be paid by a prisoner of war to his individual captor or to any officer in command. The government alone releases captives, according to rules prescribed by itself. Art. 75. Prisoners of war are subject to confinement or imprisonment such as may be deemed necessary on account of safety, but they are to be subjected to no other intentional suffering or indignity. The confinement and mode of treating a prisoner may be varied during his captivity according to the demands of safety. Art. 76. Prisoners of war shall be fed upon plain and wholesome food, whenever practicable, and treated with humanity. They may be required to work for the benefit of the captor's government, according to their rank and condition. Art. 77. A prisoner of war who escapes may be shot or otherwise killed in his flight; but neither death nor any other punishment shall be inflicted unsuccessful attempt at escape.  When responding to me directly, set the priority button to "Highest" and be sure to type "Comments to you" in the subject line! This will asssure that your message is read first. LEARN ABOUT THE WAR EMERGENCY POWERS ACTS ON MY WEBPAGE: http://www.jetlink.net/~mystery/ In HIS service, Alan Russell, suae potestate esse, an Private Christian Acting Chairman, Ojai Jural Society c/o General Delivery, Oakview Post Office Oakview, California Republic - "We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison - 1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and the doctrines of devils. - The Christian way of life, and the Christian philosophy is the best religion I have ever seen! Its a pity that the only ones who don't believe in it are the Christians! -- Gandi - "1935 will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future!" --Adolf Hitler - How ironic, that we must become slaves to the vigilance of protecting freedom in order to be free. -- Me - "We're going to push through health care reform regardless of the views of the American people." -- $enator Jay Rockefeller, 1994 - "Ross Perot should be excluded from this fall's debates between President Clinton and Bob Dole because he does not have a realistic chance of winning the election, the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates decided Tuesday." -- WASHINGTON (AP) A note to those who are still UNITED STATES federal citizens: ((((( Buchannan is out of it, Klinton is evil, Dole is his flunky, ))))) ((((( Harry Browne (libertarian or not) is the only step in the ))))) ((((( right direction left!.... Put him in first, restore the ))))) ((((( Constitution, then deal with the other issues afterward...))))) Kill the Federal "Injustice" system, then the States "Municipal Courts", Disarm the FBI/Highway Patrol, RE-ARM the Lawfull Citizens, Put the Sherrif's back in control under Constitutional Laws, Restore Common Law Jury's (Per Article 7, Bill of Rights (American Constitution)) and the True magistrates (Justices of the peace, Article III, de jure American Constitution), constables (Not "Police State" officers), Institute THE SPOTLIGHT, MEDIA BYPASS, and THE AMERICAN'S BULLETIN as the National Newpapers, Investigate the Bad Apples in the CIA and prosecute them for Treason! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Constitution Party Subject: VICTIM OF GOV'E ABUSE TO SPEAK Date: 02 Oct 1996 15:58:25 -0400 Fellow Americans: If you are in the Philadelphia area Thursday evening, October 3, 1996 at 7:00pm, come on down to Denny's on City Line Avenue (& I-76 (Schkuyll Expressway) near the Adams Mark Hotel. Attendence is free but if you eat, of course you pay your own meals. Steven Ames, latest victim of government abuse will be telling his story. Basically, Ames' children were taken from him for "reading the Bible without proper supervision and teaching his children that the Constitution is still relevant!" Steven has his court documents that state that the State can take your children for political and religeous reasons. Ha also has a tape recording of a government official that will surprise you. Steven Ames is looking into homeschooling but this aura of fear set up by government has him temporarily stymied, at least until he gets his children back. Steven has sought every avenue of assistance in fighting these charges, including a visit to US Senator Arlen Sp[ecter's office where he was told by an aid that "whatever the big money guys want, they get" and that if he did not stop publicizing his story, he would "spend the rest of his life in jail." If you are concerned about an ever-encroaching government, a home-schooling advocate, one who is concerned at the direction this country is taking, then come down and hear Steven Ames. Now is the time to wake up. Sponsored by: The Constitution Party Philadelphia Libertarian Party Delaware County Libertarian Party The Pennsylvania Research Guild Mike Innerarity -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 4.0 Business Edition mQCNAjGsl20AAAEEALoYUvqtbkPkCY/SD8LqBy5k7tUwd3+tljGs/wx2bh/aRtmD 2VvQRhpbgC2vemGYmgtDTInFk55/Z88ITzhlOAPtowtM7xc19Lm3ENjsDDqXmxK5 yuW21g3LhXDJXh1BYW9Eb3XRF3XL8f83MKcsIQuocbYe9ZUrBSXAj+gItmUBAAUR tCRNaWtlIElubmVyYXJpdHkgPHBhdHJpb3RAbmV0YXhzLmNvbT4= =+sS/ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Strange request - coffee mugs Date: 02 Oct 1996 16:10:54 -0400 Gentlefolk, Do any of you have a pointer to anyone selling Militia coffee mugs? I have a handful of interested buyers who desire coffee mugs from a militia group, any militia group. The Michigan Militia, or some other high-profile group would be great. Thanks, Jack Curtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Gee, I hate to spread rumors, but.... (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 16:16:29 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Washington Times October 1, 1996 >From the "Inside the Beltway" section by John McCaslin Perot-Clinton deal? George Carpozi Jr., longtime New York newspaper journalist and controversial author who's spent the past four years sifting through Bill Clinton's past, now claims Mr. Clinton and Ross Perot struck a deal in 1991 that initiated the billionaire's candidacy as a third-party spoiler. "In turn, Clinton agreed that his first act as occupant of the Oval Office would be to reform the nation's health-care system with massive changes," Mr. Carpozi writes in a four-page paper being distributed on Capitol Hill. "Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that Perot played a large hand in first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's efforts to craft the ill-fated health reform bill, which turned Clinton's first year in office into a debacle," Mr. Carpozi claims. "Even more significantly -- if not alarmingly -- not one but two of Perot's companies were earmarked in Mrs. Clinton's 'working papers' to play mammoth roles in the health-care industry," he writes. **************************************************** TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS **************************************************** "As a rule, it is the poor and the weak and the friendless who furnish the victims of the law." -- Clarence Darrow in a debate with Judge Alfred J. Talley, Oct. 27, 1924 **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: kiss_1.html (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 17:10:09 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media [ Yahoo | Write Us | Search | Info ] [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: Republicans Challenge Truthfulness on Bosnia Next Story: Ailing Yeltsin Plans Regular Radio Addresses _________________________________________________________________ Wednesday October 2 5:05 PM EDT Suspension Lifted for Kissing 7-Year-Old NEW YORK (Reuter) - Just 10 days after a 6-year-old North Carolina boy was suspended from school for kissing a girl on the cheek, a 7-year-old New York boy suffered a similar fate but had his suspension lifted Wednesday. Education officials said De'Andre Dearinge, who was suspended for five days this week on a charge of sexual harassment after he kissed a classmate and pulled a button off her skirt at a public school, would be able to return to school Thursday. "The principal made the decision based on the facts that she had at the moment and possibly the use with a 7-year-old of the term 'sexual harassment' was inappropriate but certainly the behavior dictated a closer look at what the child did," the school's deputy superintendant Kenneth Grover told reporters. The New York Daily News reported that the boy admitted to his mother he had kissed the girl "because I like her" and had taken the button because his favorite book is "Corduroy" about a bear with a button missing from his coveralls. The school district follows board guidelines that define sexual harassment as sexually suggestive comments, innuendos or propositions or inappropriate physical contact of a sexual nature, such as touching, patting or pinching. In Lexington, N.C., 6-year-old Jonathan Prevette was suspended for a day from school last month after he kissed a girl on the cheek. The child subsequently appeared on several television and radio talk shows. _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Re: Gun Ban Endorsed By GOP (fwd) Date: 02 Oct 1996 21:06:37 -0400 >Associated Press Writer > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Under pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats, >congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic violence gun ban, >abandoning most of their alternative proposal. -snip- With friends like these, who the hell needs enemies? V. Lum Tsuma@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave_l@Mainstream.net Subject: Re: Drugs Date: 02 Oct 1996 23:28:39 +0000 > Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" is so > simple, everyone's missing it. > > 1. Educate the kids to be against it. > 2. Re-Legalize it. > 3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time they > want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self solving). > > This solution costs much less in time, money, and loss of Freedom, than > anything anyone else has come up with. But that's what the Libertarians keep asking for. After all, we don't want dead druggies cluttering up the streets, do we? They are much better robbing and burglarizing the public, aren't they? Dave 8{) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: (Fwd) Drug trial turns glare of wrongdoing on U.S. border agents (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 02:02:59 -0400 (EDT) One of many things wrong about the War On Drugs. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- AP HARLINGEN, Texas (Oct 2, 1996 7:18 p.m. EDT) -- In portraying Juan Garcia Abrego as a powerful drug lord, the government's own witnesses at Abrego's trial have also turned the spotlight on possible wrongdoing by U.S. law enforcement authorities. A prosecution witness has claimed that Border Patrol agents at one South Texas checkpoint took bribes to keep drugs flowing, prompting a Justice Department investigation. And other witnesses have renewed allegations that U.S. immigration agents and National Guardsmen took part in the drug trade. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: America's New Internal Secuity Forces - SOF 10-96 (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:15:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reprinted from SOLDIER OF FORTUNE OCTOBER 96; Subscriptions: $28/yr, PO Box 693, Mt. Morris, IL 61054; 1-800-877-5207 We Have Met The Enemy -- And He Is Us America's New Internal Security Forces by James L. Pate Drowsy residents are rattled by the rata-tat-tat and BOOM! BOOM! as 50 Army commandos fast-rope down into four separate parts of Pittsburgh from nine unlit, unmarked Black Hawk helicopters. The sudden raid "turned parts of the city into war zones, complete with the sounds of explosions and gunfire that frightened residents and sent one pregnant women into labor..." Frantic radio talk show callers swear to seeing the dreaded black helicopter. No, it isn't a script synopsis for the opening scene of a new John Milius film. It's a real-life story, one that began at 2200 hours Monday, 3 June, and continued into the early morning of Tuesday. The quotes are from a front-page story in The Washington Times on 6 June 1996. Local lawmen claimed not to know much about the decidedly military exer- cise. Small comfort to the more than 100 frightened citizens who phoned the Pittsburgh Police Department during the first 30 minutes. The eventual explanation came from far away, from Lieutenant Colonel Ken McGraw of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Green Beret units must "be able to deploy in any place in the world at a moment's notice," McGraw said. "The only way you can train for urban deployment is to train in that environment.... We canceled Tuesday's operation to... not cause further disruption." McGraw said similar training had been conducted in other cities, rattling off Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami and Detroit. No mishaps have occurred, he assured curious reporters. The official explanation was intriguing enough: Green Beret commandos routinely simulating attacks on civilian property in America's streets. The real explanation is even more mysterious. Citing their concern for the military's expanding role with civilian law enforcement, several military and civilian sources with intelligence and security backgrounds, including a member of the United States Special Operations Command, dispute the official version of the Pittsburgh incident. Public safety also prompted them to step briefly from the shadows. Two of the sources contacted Soldier Of Fortune directly in response to a recent article about the close, routine and expanding relationship between the Federal Bureau of Investigation Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) and the U.S. Army's highly classified Delta regiment (see "Black Suits, Badges and Bradleys," SOF, August '96). The Pittsburgh incident, two similar ones in separate Chicago suburbs on two consecutive nights in June 1995, and other nocturnal operations in other U.S. cities are not urban warfare training exercises for generic Green Beret units, said these sources, who all demanded anonymity. These incidents, which are growing in number, are actually internal security training missions staged by the Army's Delta Force. And the operations routinely include some members of local law enforcement Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. "They do a city each quarter," one Army source said. "The Pittsburgh operation was 'A' Squadron, the current CT [counterterrorism] squadron." Citing public safety concerns, he disputed McGraw's assertion that participants in these exercises only use blank ammunition, and that there had been "no mishaps." "The deal with helicopters flying in and playing soundtracks of gunfire?" the Army source posed. "That was to cover the real gunfire." In downtown Miami, in an assault on an abandoned building at about 0200 hours "one day" last year, a sniper bullet penetrated a window, hit the bullet trap, ricocheted and penetrated an interior wall. On the other side, customers in an all night business were startled as the bullet whizzed harmlessly through and exited through another window. No one was hurt. This was confirmed by a civilian law enforcement source familiar with the incident who also requested anonymity. The same source described a similar mishap involving Delta and an excessively large explosive charge in an industrial area near New Orleans. After a takedown exercise at an abandoned petroleum cracking plant near New Orleans, Delta had to pay the facility's corporate owner an additional $95,000 to repair a three-front section of wall damaged in an explosion. Extra-Legal Law Enforcement? More troubling is that these internal security exercises by Delta, which double as liaison and training missions to local law enforcement, are not bound by restrictions against involvement in civilian law enforcement that apply to most military units. As reported in the referenced article in the August issue of SOF, Delta is exempted from the Posse Comitatus Act by a classified portion of Presidential Decision Directive No. 25 (PDD-25) signed by President Clinton early in his administration. Most disturbing, though, is the allegation that Delta, the Navy's SEAL Team Six and the Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR 160) have been used occasionally to augment--in one alleged incident even replace--civilian lawmen involved in federal-prison barricade situations. These claims were made by four separate sources, three in two branches of the military, and the fourth in civilian law enforcement. Among other allegations, they say PDD-25's classified exemption for the Comitatus Act covers not just Delta, but its higher command, the Joint Special Operations Command. JSOC is headquartered at Fort Bragg and accountable only to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president. McGraw denied that the Pittsburgh operation was anything except what was reported, and routinely declined to speak about Delta. Secreted behind berms and two rows of 10-foot security fences ringing its six-mile perimeter, Delta's $75 million headquarters building is located on the old Range 19 complex at Fort Bragg. "The Pentagon still refuses to publicly acknowledge that Delta Force even exists," veteran Pentagon journalist Douglas C. Waller wrote in his book, The Commandos: The Inside Story of America 's Secret Soldiers. "It's a somewhat silly subterfuge," Waller wrote. "A visitor can walk into offices at the U.S. Special Operations Command at Tampa and find coffee mugs sporting the secret Delta Force logo: a kelly green triangle inlaid with a white dagger and another gold triangle." The anonymous assertions that the Pittsburgh incident, and others, were Delta training missions are lent further credence by Waller's chapter on the unit, in which he recounts "one exercise [in which] Delta commandos... use[d] an abandoned Los Angeles jail...." Abandoned hospitals and office buildings have also been used, said SOF's sources. "Ken McGraw's response to the incident in Pittsburgh was a total cover," said the USSOC source. "Nothing was canceled. They routinely use the Green Beret ruse to mask Delta. But it's not Army Special Forces. A lot of the guys in Delta now have never been in Special Forces." Waller describes in his book how, "twice a year, Delta's administrative staff makes a secret visit to St. Louis, Missouri, to pour over military records at the Army's main personnel center." While Delta recruiters closely evaluate Green Berets and Rangers, they also, "depending on what special skills are needed...at the moment... review the files of soldiers from other branches...." The urban training missions take a lot of time. And a lot of money. "They send an ADVON (advance team) down about a month before," one source said. "The ADVON gets with the local SWAT teams. It's very close-hold until it starts to go down, and then they issue a discreet heads-up." In the Pittsburgh case, McGraw told The Washington Times, the Army notified the police and civilians in the "immediate vicinity," but didn't "put out any broad, sweeping statement that covers everybody. We don't want to unnecessarily alarm people.... And we don't want ... a lot of people wanting to observe the training...." The sources said site selection and timing are crucial. Ryder Trucks Full Of Explosives "The ADVON will link with the SWAT team, drive around the city and conduct site selection for abandoned buildings whose owners agree to rent them out as temporary training facilities," one said. "Typically, it's an abandoned or sparsely populated industrial area." Once a site selection is made, Delta sends up rental trucks packed with ordnance, weapons and other gear, all driven by teams of Delta operatives. Once they arrive, the building is set up for whatever training scenario has been selected, preparation that includes bullet traps in windows, hallways and behind doors. "They try to pick a time when it'll be quiet," he said. "Early in the week is good. The other Delta guys will infiltrate by private vehicle, commercial air. They're filtered in. Stay at hotels, in safe-houses, whatever the ADVON has set up. And they link up with the local SWAT guys... This is where you get some of the black helicopter tales... They only do it once. There is no rehearsal on the actual target site.... They're doing live-fire exercises." There have been "some foul-ups," he said, citing the Miami incident. "One of the key elements deployed with the ADVON and the assault team is the counterintelligence (CI) unit. They have badges and plenty of cash for contingency problems." "If anything untoward happens, they flip the badges and suggest that it would be helpful to God and country to keep your mouth shut. They'll blanket a small area. And, if necessary, they might bribe or threaten someone to keep them quiet. There's accountability for the money, pre- sumably, but it's very secret internal accountability, and no outside oversight." Counter-intelligence? In the Miami incident, "the CI people were there almost immediately" after the errant bullet plunged through the wall of the all-night business and pinged through a street-front window. "They flipped their badges, pleaded national security, made some vague threats and passed around some loot. It's the old force-and-fraud thing. Shut up, and here's some cash for your trouble." Then there are the allegations of JSOC assets, such as Delta, SEAL Team 6 and SOAR 160, being "loaned" to the Department of Justice in isolated incidents to defuse hostage-barricade situations in federal prison. A military source at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, described in some detail a federal prison riot in Talledega, Alabama, in 1988. He said SOAR 160, then known as Task Force 160, provided the tactical insertion for the takedown team. That team, he said, was a Navy SEAL team, probably SEAL Team 6. "HRT was standing aside. There was controversy about Posse Comitatus within the unit, especially among our pilots," the Army aviation source said. "There was a lot of question about whether they should do that or not." That's not the only time military intervention has been considered to quell a disturbance at the federal prison in Talledega, said another military source, this one at Quantico, Virginia, familiar with the close knit relationship between the FBI's HRT and elite military commando teams. Although very good at what they do, and mission-oriented, some within the new internal security establishment have misgivings about their mission since the federal fiascoes at Waco et al. These impromptu leaflets were dropped over Florida by a SOAR 160 pilot, but went unnoticed. The other Talledega incident occurred while the HRT was tied down in the 51 day Waco siege. Use of a SEAL team instead of HRT for a takedown operation "was discussed," said the Quantico source. As it turned out, HRT resolved it peacefully, without military assistance. In a separate, but not as recent, incident at the federal prison in Atlanta, Delta was called in to take down a prisoner-barricade situation, said the USSOC source. Like the second Talledega takedown in 1993, the crisis was resolved without violence. In Atlanta, "there was no resistance. I believe they [inmates] knew these were more than federal agents coming in. Delta did the take-down. HRT took the credit." Debate continues in the ranks, the sources agree. "At first, no one really questioned it," said the Kentucky source. "We were thinking about Islamic terrorists. We'd always thought of the civilian agents as the good guys. After Waco ... it took on a more sin- ister light." So much so that a disgruntled SOAR 160 pilot printed up propaganda leaflets condemning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for thuggish conduct. He dropped thousands over Florida, but was disappointed that there was no public notice. Now, the public is noticing. But officials, civilian and military, say very little. When hundreds of sleeping residents in Des Plaines, Illinois, near Chicago, were awakened by gunfire, explosions and swooping helicopters in June 1995, local police "said they never heard of it," the Chicago Sun-Times reported. An Illinois State Police spokesman finally admitted it was "some sort of SWAT thing; multijurisdictional. We can't talk about it." Call Department of Defense, he said. "Routine exercise," said Mike Sienda, a Pentagon spokesman. "Military police." Next night, in another Chicago suburb, Lemont, an abandoned seminary was "invaded." One neighbor thought a nearby refinery had exploded. "Routine training," Sienda repeated the next day. This time it was "a navigational exercise." Navigational training? With gunfire and explosions? "There was some of that, too," Sienda told reporter Zay N. Smith. No one was notified in advance because "we didn't want to attract attention." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) French Intelligence on TWA 800 (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:30:08 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message: > >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 22:53:23 -0400 (EDT) >From: Brad Dolan >To: snetnews@alterzone.com >Subject: (fwd) French Intelligence on TWA 800 (fwd) >Sender: snetnews-approval@alterzone.com >Reply-To: snetnews@alterzone.com > > >-> SearchNet's snetnews Mailing List > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >INTELLIGENCE ISSN 1245-2122 >N. 44 New Series, 23 September 1996 >Publishing since 1980 > >FRONT PAGE: > >U.S.A. >FRENCH INTELLIGENCE EXPLANATION FOR TWA 800 > >The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the FBI, >which usually comes up quickly with coherent explanations for >aircraft accidents or terrorist attacks against aviation, still >do not have a single credible explanation for the inflight 17 >July explosion that destroyed the TWA Flight 800 Boeing 747 off >Long Island, New York. This lack of explanation has left the >door open to an increasingly wide variety of theories that will >continue to grow, according to one specialist, "until the U.S. >presidential elections are over". Other specialists are >waiting for the "first serious intelligence leak" that may help >eliminate some theories and concentrate attention on one of the >three "major" explanations: a terrorist bomb on board Flight >800; a "missile hit"; a catastrophic malfunction of the >Boeing 747. Currently, the least credible of the three is the >last, but, as we mentioned in our previous issue: "U.S. >authorities continue to downplay suggestions that mechanical >failure might have caused the plane to drop rapidly from 4,800 >meters to 3,000 meters before exploding and falling into the >sea off Long Island, despite the fact that a similar incident >occurred in May 1976 when an Iranian Air Force 747 -- the same >model as TWA Flight 800 -- exploded in mid-air near Madrid >airport, killing 17 crew members. After widespread speculation >that a bomb on board had caused the crash, an inquiry later >concluded that a fuel leak in one of the wings was responsible" >(see "Firing Missiles at Civilian Airliners"; INT, N. 43/9). >The possibility of a terrorist bomb destroying Flight 800 seems >to be the "most reasonable" theory and has been thoroughly >covered by the major media, but it still lacks the "official >seal" of the FBI and the NTSB which, as we mentioned, are >usually quite capable technically of asserting this on rather >short notice. > >Let's turn our attention to the "unacceptable" explanation that >the TWA Boeing was hit by a missile. The strange sighting on >29 August, by an American Airlines pilot, of "a missile off the >right wing" of his aircraft, mentioned in our previous issue, >was confirmed on 11 September by U.S. NASA to have been a >secret rocket-launched experiment by the Pentagon. Although >the five-meter rocket fired from Wallops Island, Virginia, >passed only five kilometers off the wing of American Airlines >Flight 1170, NASA spokesman, Keith Koehler, publicly maintained >that proper safety procedures had been followed and the rocket >posed no threat to the airliner. Nonetheless, his declaration >had the effect of silencing all those who said a "missile hit" >against TWA 800 was "unthinkable". > >One established fact is that a heat-seeking missile did not hit >Flight 800. A 747's four, large engines -- the infrared "hot >spots" that such missiles "chase", often going right up the >exhaust nozzle -- showed no damage from a nearby explosion. >This would tend to exclude theories based on the firing of a >shoulder-launched, head-seeking Stinger missile by terrorists >in a boat off Long Island. But, as a press report stated, >quoting French Defense Ministry sources, larger missiles would >involve heavy infrastructure and therefore directly implicate >U.S. armed forces, which alone have such capabilities in the >area. This has generated the "U.S. Military Goof" theory which >has since been reinforced by an anonymous Internet report, >supposedly by a 747 pilot, stating that "Flight 800 was shot >down by a U.S. Navy Aegis missile fired from a guided missile >ship which was in area W-105 about 30 miles from where the TWA >Flight 800 exploded." To correct the terminology, this means >that an Aegis class guided-missile destroyer fired a Standard >Missile SM-1 or SM-2 (either "medium range" or "extended range" >version). According to the report, a P-3 missile tracking >aircraft was in place for a test firing and flying above TWA >800 when a US Air flight, cleared to descend toward Providence, >Rhode Island, appeared. This supposedly resulted in air >traffic controllers demanding that TWA 800 stop gaining >altitude, leveling off at 4,800 meters and flying perilously >close, or into, area W-105 with its radio transponers emitting >signals. > >According to "Intelligence" sources, an alternate "U.S. >Military Goof" theory, which greatly diminishes U.S. armed >forces' responsibility, is circulating among French >intelligence services. According to our sources, an >unidentified and unmarked aircraft flying south from Canada, >and suspected of being a clandestine drug delivery flight, was >picked up and "painted" by coastal radar. After repeated >summons by radio and no response, the aircraft was "painted" by >missile radar and given a final warning. When no reply >followed, a missile was launched in the direction of the >unidentified aircraft which then "ducked" into the radar shadow >of TWA Flight 800 and the large Boeing 747 "caught the >missile". Intelligence experts already have one such scenario >on their hands; the destruction of an Italian airlines DC-9 in >1980 over the island of Ustica on its flight from Rome to >Sicily (see pages 237-240 of our book, "Intelligences >Secretes", 1988, Hachette, Paris). But one has to be careful, >since this similarity can be used to draw attention away from a >different explanation of the Flight 800 explosion. > >Nonetheless, in the Ustica case, it seems that a Libyan MiG >pilot attempted to defect to Italy and was chased north over >the Mediterranean by at least two other Libyan MiGs, intent on >shooting him down. At the same time, French and American >fighters were in the area, probably "scrambling" to head off >the Libyans. What exactly happened is still the center of a >heated controversy. Supposedly, as with Flight 800, all radar >track recordings have been lost or seized and disappeared. The >most "reasonable" explanation is that one of the fighters fired >at the Libyan defector who flew his MiG into the radar shadow >of the DC-9 which "took the hit". That this case still hasn't >been resolved tends to indicate that the deadly missile wasn't >Libyan. Otherwise someone would probably have leaked >information long ago implicating the Libyan "bogeyman". It >should also be noted that, in this case, French and U.S. >military intelligence certainly know what happened, just like >with TWA 800. One specialist mentioned the possibility that >perhaps Washington has Paris "by the nose" over Ustica, and >that Paris has Washington "by the nose" over Flight 800. Since >Ustica was never "solved", Flight 800 may never be "solved". > >Nonetheless, French intelligence has leaked enough information >to point a finger at the U.S. military. According to French >intelligence, U.S. Navy divers recovered the serial number of >the missile which destroyed Flight 800, but the Pentagon >immediately had the number erased from its inventory. All >radar track recordings have supposedly be seized and the NTSB >has allegedly not been given access to some 3,000 eyewitness >interviews by the FBI. According to one U.S. expert, a >Standard Missile leaves a large plume of smoke that should have >been visible from Long Island. And since the "political >fallout" from such a disaster is extremely volatile and >unpredictable, the Clinton administration apparently has >forbidden the release of any information that would implicate >the U.S. military ... at least until the presidential elections >are over. > * > > >Editor >Olivier Schmidt >email oschmidt@francenet.fr >web http://www.blythe.org/Intelligence/ >tel/fax 33 1 40 51 85 19 >post ADI, 16 rue des Ecoles >75005 Paris, France > > * > > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@alterzone.com >-> Posted by: Brad Dolan > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: budget passage HR 4278--good grief--what next? (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:32:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ================================================== MY NOTE: The writer below is president of a large second amendment organization in Eastern Missouri state. I find his writings to be pertinent and on target in most--if not all cases. His research appears well on this piece of legislation in this writing. ================================================== Subj: Passage of HR 4278 - (recently passed by Congress) Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 "No Senator, and I dare say no staff person, has had the time to carefully review the thousands of programs funded in this resolution, or to read and comprehend the many nonappropriations, legislative matters contained in this resolution" "This is the 2,000-plus pages that have been put together and assembled since last Friday. I would suggest there is not one Member of this body who has read this. But we go through that quite often and quite often we vote on things that we have not read in their entirety." These are two of the quotes contained in the Congressional Record covering the final debates prior to passage of HR4278. This is another monster bill with many provisions that Americans would question and/or be upset about if only someone would tell them the truth of the content. I suggest everyone take a look at it. Amongst the many things you will find Clinton's anti-gun-owner agenda is still of the move. On page 11933 on the Senate Journal you will discover that this bill includes Bill Clinton's mandate that congress find "some way around the Constitution" to restore this "law" that was struck down in US v. Lopez. Sen Kohl explained to the body of the Senate that revising the language to say that the government would only have to prove the the gun in question had "moved in or" ... This added clause according to our Senate gives them the jurisdiction under the "commerce clause" to regulate and ban the possession of any firearm -- just as long as it at some time had "moved in" interstate commerce. For those of you following this issue, this indeed was the expected response. However, the long term ramifications of this, if upheld by the courts, are not good. If upheld, this means that congress claims the right to ban any and all firearms -- because we all know, most if not all firearms possessed in this country have at one time moved in "interstate commerce". In addition, I have also read some months ago that the intention is to extend this to component parts and materials as well. On other issues, this bill provides funding for the UN -- because we "owe" it to the other 185 member nations (only in the bill they are called states). How do you like that, for 1 vote out of 185, we pay 30 to 50% of the operating costs --don't sound like a good deal to me. National ID pilot programs and research. This bill is also contains the next step in the national ID card movement. I am still researching it because the whole bill hasn't been assembled yet -- you have to piece it together from all the other bills they were considered -- but if you want to know what this is about, do a net search of HR2202 and read the Senate version -- last before the conference report. This is another bad bill and I thought you would like to know some of the "other stuff" in the bill. Spread the word on Gun Free School Zones. G. Jeffery ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Review: Unlimited Access Part V (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:36:02 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Conservative Consensus Events * Analysis * Commentary * Forecasts * Readers' Opinions http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html BOOK REVIEW * W1X1002 * 10.02.1996 * ISSN 1074-245X (c)1996 by Conservative Consensus. Copying information below. Serialized Book Review (Part V) Reviewed by Craige McMillan ------------------------------------------------------- Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House, by Gary Aldrich. Hardcover, $24.96, 220 pages, Bibliography, Index, 1996. Regnery Publishing, Wash. DC. ------------------------------------------------------- Rose Law North For a President pushing "law and order," author Gary Adrich demonstrates there was little of either in the personal lives of the new Clinton staffers: Clinton staffers would show up at checkpoints without any identification, or with friends who didn't have any ID, or even, on more than one occasion, with friends who were wanted by the law and would become outraged when the Secret Service denied them access.... One Clinton "volunteer" from Texas was caught trying to bring in a pistol. He wasn't intent on harming anyone; he just wanted to protect himself in Washington DC. The character insights into senior Clinton staffers throughout Unlimited Access are worth many times the price of the book. Of particular interest are Mr. Aldrich's initial impressions of Vincent Foster: I sipped my coffee and reviewed the standard forms that Foster had filled out about his life and background. As part of his responsibilities, Foster would need to see many of the nation's most secret secrets. But as yet, he had no basis for a security clearance. Foster had never been investigated by any agency responsible for national security. With Foster, agent Aldrich was certain that he had finally found someone in the new administration who would begin to implement proper security procedures. The other key players -- many now gone -- are also discussed at length: Bernard Nussbaum (I had the distinct impression that he was considering whether he should squash me like a bug), William Held Kennedy III (In hindsight, if anyone appeared to me to be depressed, it was Kennedy, not Foster), and a host of smaller, behind-the-scenes players. But as Mr. Aldrich points out, it wasn't only the people he saw, it was the people he didn't see that worried him. While security procedures were designed to protect the president, separate procedures were intended to protect classified material. It took the Bush administration hundreds of employees with security clearances to handle the same volume of [classified] paperwork. But according to a GAO report made public in October 1995, from 20 January 1993 to March 1994 there were only twenty-four employees in the entire Clinton administration who had been cleared to handle the thousands and thousands of classified documents. There was no way they could have handled the workload. I believe that classified material passed through the hands of Clinton employees without security clearances... Handling classified material without a clearance -- or allowing classified material to pass through uncleared personnel -- is a violation of federal law. Mr. Aldrich consoled himself with the thought that in Vincent Foster, he had found someone who finally appreciated the problems the FBI was having with the new Clinton staff. Next time: The Unraveling of Vince Foster ========================= COPYING: (c)1996 by Conservative Consensus. All rights reserved. Permission granted for PRIVATE, NON-COMMERCIAL USE, provided nothing is changed and our headers and trailers remain intact. FREE SUBSCRIPTION: Get the full story, not just the media spin! Send us an email with SUBSCRIBE as the subject. In the first line of your message, put the words SUBSCRIBE CONSENSUS-L Your Name. Email to: CONSENSUS-L-REQUEST@eskimo.com YOU WILL receive 8-12 news releases monthly (no mail from other subscribers). Our unique analysis gives you the story behind the headlines. We cover events affecting: *** The US Constitution * US & World Security * Political Corruption Individual Liberty * World Financial Markets * Religious Freedom *** VISIT OUR WEBSITE: Get free, downloadable news releases that you can copy and pass on to friends. Frequent updates, back issues, books and videos. All text! Visit us with any browser. http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html __________________________________________________________________ Advertising rates, news tips, syndication and other questions Conservative Consensus * ccnrs@eskimo.com * jinks@u.washington.edu __________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: The Great Explosion by L. Neil Smith (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:39:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Subject: The Great Explosion by L. Neil Smith > The Great Explosion* > > by L. Neil Smith > > In spite of millions of man-hours and billions of dollars > spent every year to keep the American productive class voiceless, > deprived of an effective franchise, the era of its exploitation by > corrupt politicians and even more corrupt mass media is coming to > an end. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) that they > stagger under taxes five times greater than those endured by a > medieval European serf. What they do understand is that the harder > they work the less they have left -- and the less they > have to look forward to. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) why their > grandparents enjoyed spacious, comfortable homes and they don't. > What they do understand is that, increasingly, they're forced to > live in tiny suburban cardboard boxes or wheeled tin cans so that > their senator or congressman can have his mistress -- and a limousine. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) why every year > a red-tape noose pulls tighter around their necks. What they do > understand is that life seems bleaker every day -- and > offers fewer options. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) what the media > gain from their collusive partnership with government. What they do > understand is that there's never really any good news, that the > newspapers and TV tell them they're incompetent and their neighbors > are criminally insane -- and that somehow life never seems to get any better. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) how their > rights have been systematically gnawed away by politicians elected > to protect them. What they do understand is that more and more > their rights are treated as trivial -- and everything seems to be against the > law. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) how the > Federal Election Commission and a phantom national reporting > service rig elections as effectively as any banana republic. What > they do understand is that their ballot never seems to count -- and > that if voting could really change things, it, too, would be illegal. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) the ancient > evil inherent in the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. What they do > understand is that the government always wins -- and > that they're always in the wrong. > > Few productive class Americans understand (yet) how the Bill > of Rights has wound up being a one-sided bargain interpreted and > enforced by a single entity pretending to be divided powers. What > they do understand is that their country is overrun by > lawyers -- and that somehow their rights > never turn out to be quite what they thought they were. > > ***** > Some productive class Americans blame it all on poor minorities, > forgetting that we're a nation of minorities, most of whom arrived > here without a penny. Sooner or later they'll learn not to blame > the welfare mother with her pitiable child support check, but the > $60,000-a-year official whose non-productive ways keep everybody > destitute. > > Some productive class Americans blame it all on immigrants, > forgetting that we're a nation of immigrants -- and > immigrants' children -- many of whom fled > the same tyranny and corruption we face today. Sooner or later they'll > learn not to blame people with funny names, funny clothes, or funny customs, > but to look upon their own "representatives" as the foreign despots they've > really become. > > Some productive class Americans blame it all on labor unions, > forgetting that for every gangster lounging at the top, a million > workers only want an honest day's wages for an honest day's labor. > Sooner or later they'll learn not to blame the worker, but the > crooked leaders and tangled regulations which make productive labor > all but impossible in America today -- and almost always unrewarding. > > Some productive class Americans blame it all on the rich, > forgetting the vital difference between making money and stealing > it, and how the system always lets a few individuals get ahead for > exactly the same reason Las Vegas allows the occasional big winner. > Sooner or later they'll learn not to blame individual achievement, > but a system which more consistently rewards failure and punishes > success -- and loves to rub their noses in what they can never hope to have. > > Some productive class Americans blame it all on the lunatic > fringe, forgetting that the mass media told them everything they > think they know about such people and that everybody is somebody > else's lunatic. Sooner or later they'll learn not to blame the > unconventional individual, but TV's well-groomed talking > heads -- and the officials they themselves elected. > > ***** > A Great Explosion is coming. Productive class Americans are sick of > being menaced by laws their parents naively thought were being > created to protect them. They're sick of being looted by officials > with five and six-digit salaries. Sick of being decimated by one > senseless war after another, arranged, conveniently, for almost > every generation. Sick of being wooed and cast aside in two- and > four- and six-year cycles by public figures they wouldn't trust > alone with their children. Doubtless the American productive class > have made foolish choices in the past. Doubtless they'll make them > again in the future. But in the end, the American productive class > will triumph, precisely because they ARE productive, while their > enemies are not. > > A Great Explosion is coming -- and as usual, the politicians > aren't listening. But by this time in the 21st century, with the > welfare/warfare state all but forgotten, history will want to know > what kind of idiots in the major parties tried to sell out the > American productive class at the very moment they began coming into > their own. > > Then again, history may not care. > > * Title borrowed from the novel by Eric Frank Russell > > L. NEIL SMITH > http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/lneil.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Dissenting Juror Tried for Contempt (UPI) (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:46:18 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- CENTRAL CITY, Colo., Oct. 1 (UPI) -- A woman who failed to reveal her criminal past before serving on a jury hearing a drug case and then argued with fellow jurors over her vote to acquit went on trial Tuesday on contempt charges for ignoring a judge's instructions. Laura Kriho of Nederland, Colo. was cited by a judge in July for ignoring instructions not to discuss possible sentences during jury deliberations in the case of a 19-year-old woman charged with felony possession of amphetamines. Deliberations in the May trial became hostile after Kriho voted to acquit and the 11 other jurors voted to convict. The jury had already convicted the defendant of criminal impersonation and acquitted her on one drug paraphernalia count before becoming deadlocked on a felony drug possession charge. One juror sent Judge Kenneth Barnhill a note saying Kriho had disobeyed his instructions and told other jurors what sentences the defendant would face if found guilty of drug possession. Barnhill declared a mistrial in the drug possession case and eventually cited Kriho for contempt, which could land her in jail for six months if convicted. Barnhill recused himself from the contempt case. Kriho was also cited for not disclosing she was convicted of felony drug charges in 1984. She claims she was not asked specifically about her criminal record and said she believed the deferred sentence she received would wipe her record clean in 1986. The contempt citation has drawn the attention of several groups, including the Constitutional Law Foundation in Denver. ``This is the first time in 300 years this has happened,'' said foundation member Bill Orr. ``The last time was when William Penn was tried for illegal assembly under the Crown. Now we have a jury who got upset with a juror, and they asked the court to prosecute.'' The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) To be removed from this mailing list, send email. Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 pkgrant@ix.netcom.com (303) 841-9649 **************************************************** TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS **************************************************** OLD VERSION OF "NEWSPEAK" "It is true you are not allowed to go out of here, but inside the Bastille you are as free as any man in the world." -- Governor of the Bastille speaking to Jean Francois Marmontel, French author **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Column, Oct. 5 (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:49:25 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 5, 1996 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz c/o "Kangaroo Court, Colorado Highway 46, Gilpin County" The judges and prosecutors of Gilpin County, Colorado, hell-bent on making an example of Laura Kriho, the juror who dared think for herself in the jury room of a recent drug possession case, faced a problem: How were they going to explain to the jurors at Ms. Kriho's trial (without inviting an indignant rebuff) their contention that jurors should be (start ital)jailed(end ital) if they allow themselves to be empaneled on a jury even though they have doubts about the constitutionality of the law or the reasonableness of the decision to prosecute? How were they going to ask those citizen-jurors to confer on them the heretofore undreamed-of power to jail fellow-jurors who -- once in the jury room -- dare to think for themselves, saying things like "I'm not going to send this girl away for years on some minor possession charge," after His Holiness has "instructed" them "not to think about or discuss" such matters as the sentence he might impose? That's right, as this column is written on Oct. 1, 1996, Laura Kriho of Nederland, Colo. has just endured the first day of what is almost certainly America's first two-day (start ital)trial(end ital) of a juror who refused to convict. Needless to say, the judge and prosecutor found a way out of their quandary. First Judicial District Chief Judge Henry Nieto assigned himself to the case. He immediately ruled Ms. Kriho's attorney, Paul Grant, can't bring in any evidence -- or expert witnesses -- dealing with the traditional right of jurors to deliberate without intervention from the government-salaried judge. Then, he ruled Grant and Kriho could not have any additional time to prepare for this first-of-its-kind case, and that prosecutor Jim Stanley -- who blew his original drug case thanks to Kriho -- could go ahead and prosecute Ms. Kriho as well. (No potential for vindictiveness there, surely.) Finally -- get this -- although the prosecution had originally granted Laura Kriho's request for a jury trial at her Aug. 16 arraignment, Judge Nieto allowed prosecutor Stanley to promise that, in the event of the wayward juror being convicted, he would seek jail time of less than six months. Although the Constitution specifically states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury, ..." today's courtesan courts have ruled that the Sixth Amendment doesn't really mean that, at all. What it really means is the government need grant you the "privilege" of a trial by jury only if you face a sentence of more than six months. Laura Kriho doesn't get a jury. The little brotherhood known as the Judges of Gilpin County, determined to asphyxiate our traditional jury rights and replace our citizen juries with government lackeys, sworn in advance (under penalty of imprisonment) to convict as instructed, will now judge and sentence poor Laura Kriho, themselves. (Another of the handful of Gilpin County judges, Frederic Rodgers, wrote an article for the summer issue of the local "Judge's Journal," misrepresenting the facts of the Kriho case and explaining to his fellow Philistines how to prosecute "obstructionist" jurors.) "To deny me a jury trial leaves little doubt about the outcome of the trial," Ms. Kriho told Joe Vigorito of the group Colorado Legal Eagles in late September. "I can't imagine how I can ever get a fair hearing in front of any judge in this district when they have all probably read Judge Rodgers' article. It looks like they intend to make my case a demonstration case, ... so that they will be free to prosecute other jurors who want to acquit based on reasonable doubts." This little coven of black-robed incubi think they're clever. What they fail to realize is that the guarantee of a trial by a randomly -selected panel of our fellow citizens -- not a jury stacked only with those who have sworn in advance, on penalty of imprisonment, to convict if so instructed -- serves the same function in our society as that little weight that jiggles on top of a pressure cooker. It may seem noisy and untidy, but tie it down and soon the whole operation will blow up. To date, the vast majority of citizens who have a problem with the government have been willing to surrender peacefully to the process of justice, confident they'd eventually have a chance to "tell it to the jury," to convince their neighbors they'd been wronged, no matter what the ever-expanding "letter of the law." If the Gilpin County judges -- and others like them all across America -- finally succeed in tying down that safety valve, why wouldn't more and more victims of government taxation and oppression, urged to "surrender and you'll get a fair trial," figure "No chance in that rigged game; I might as well take as many G-men with me as I can"? If the courts continue down this road, it becomes increasingly likely -- however strongly we may advise against the wisdom of such a course -- that bodies will eventually hang, kicking, from the light posts in front of every government building in America. And that some will wear black robes. Attorney Grant says that, in the event of a conviction, there will be an appeal. Donations are welcome at: Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund, c/o Paul Grant, Box 1272, Parker, Colo. 80134, tel. 303-841-9649; e-mail pkgrant@ix.netcom.com. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@intermind.net. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz vin@intermind.net "Next year in Galt's Gulch!" **************************************************** TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS **************************************************** OLD VERSION OF "NEWSPEAK" "It is true you are not allowed to go out of here, but inside the Bastille you are as free as any man in the world." -- Governor of the Bastille speaking to Jean Francois Marmontel, French author **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dick_Stephan@krinfo.com (Dick Stephan) Subject: Re[2]: Gun Ban Endorsed By GOP (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 08:24:27 -0700 On the other hand, with such lukewarm support (if indeed it is support at all) from the electorate, it is not at all certain that even friends such as these will be returned to the next congress. The Liberal/Media tag-team has jerked our side off balance & they are stumbling. Can you say "Speaker Gephardt"? Heard the names "Bonior" or "Schummer" or "Waxman"? Cheers ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Author: roc@xmission.com at Internet >Associated Press Writer > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Under pressure from the White House and Senate Democrats, >congressional Republicans agreed to a sweeping domestic violence gun ban, >abandoning most of their alternative proposal. -snip- With friends like these, who the hell needs enemies? V. Lum Tsuma@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: From Ancient Rome to OKC - Ruthless and Corrupt Politicians (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 15:40:31 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: C-NEWS All ACTION AND REACTION ------------------------ >From Ancient Rome to OKC ------------------------ >From antiquity to modern times, history is replete with examples of ruthless and corrupt politicians who have shamelessly exploited and manipulated tragic events and the criminal acts of a few to advance their own lust for power. In cases too numerous to mention, tyrants and aspiring despots have gone even further, engaging agents provocateurs to carry out assassinations, foment riots and rebellion, precipitate financial panics, attempt palace coups, feign foreign invasion, initiate acts of terrorism, and perform other infamous acts - all for the purpose of establishing a mass psychology of fear, a sense of "crisis," of imminent danger requiring the government to suspend normal liberties and seize vast new powers to deal with the "emergency." History records that far too often these "temporary" assumptions of power have given way to permanent brutal oppression, and to terror and mass murder by the saviors who promised deliverance from the "crisis." Yes, as all would-be dictators know, the action is in the reaction. And as James Madison observed, "the people never give up their freedom except under some delusion." Considering the current gadarene stampede into dictatorship by the American public as a result of the demagogic exploitation of the recent wave of terrorist acts, we would do well to reflect on a few relevant historical precedents. A calm consideration of our present situation in the context of previous human experience may help us avoid delusional flights into bondage and the pessimistic predictions that we "are doomed to repeat" the tragic mistakes of the past. Enemies of Mankind On July 19, AD 64, a terrible fire began near Rome's Circus Maximus, and when the fierce conflagration ended days later, most of the great city lay in ashes. Whether or not the fire was actually started by the Emperor Nero, as many have maintained over the centuries, there is no question that the Christians were unjustly blamed for the disaster. Although holding all members of the new sect responsible for the blaze would have too greatly stretched credulity, the megalomaniacal potentate nonetheless found a pretext for condemning them en masse by claiming that the followers of Christ were "enemies of mankind." Tacitus records that the Christians "were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of hating the human race." Tacitus also records the incredibly cruel tortures and deaths to which these innocent scapegoats were subjected. In England, controversy has raged over the infamous Gunpowder Plot for nearly 400 years. When Guy Fawkes was arrested on November 5, 1605 with barrels of gunpowder in a tunnel under the House of Lords, it seemed apparent that a conspiracy of Catholics against the government had been thwarted. Some historians, however, have argued (some more, some less persuasively) that the evidence points instead to a plot by Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury, against the Catholics. The hand of Salisbury, the most powerful political figure in England under Elizabeth I and James I, is seen also, say some scholars, in the Babington Plot and Squire's Plot, which preceded the Gunpowder Plot and fed the growing anti-Catholic fervor. The recent publication of books by two historians arguing opposite sides of this controversy will not settle this aspect of the dispute, but there is a consensus among many scholars of the period that Salisbury's forces, at the very least, ruthlessly exploited and exaggerated the plots to launch a new wave of brutal persecution and to provide a pretext for confiscation of monastic lands. Staged Provocations Hitler's rise and reign in Germany provide many examples both of the use of agents provocateurs and the opportunistic exploitation of events to further evil objectives. Of these, the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933 is easily the most famous example. Although it has never been definitively settled whether the fire was set by a communist saboteur or by a Nazi agent provocateur, it is beyond debate that the Nazis capitalized on the event with a vengeance. Insisting that the Reichstag fire prefigured a communist onslaught against the German state, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to sign an emergency decree "for the Protection of the People and the State," suspending constitutional liberties and allowing the state to exercise extraordinary powers in the name of "public safety." The death sentence was expanded to cover a number of crimes. Sound familiar? As a remedy for the supposed "crisis" facing Germany, Hitler proposed a program of Gleichschaltung (coordination) through which the central government would absorb the power and political functions of the German states. On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag, succumbing to the Nazis' conspiratorial maneuvers, passed the "Enabling Act," which made the central government responsible for all law enforcement and conferred on Hitler's cabinet exclusive legislative powers for four years. This one act provided the legal basis for the transformation of Hitler from chancellor to dictator. It did not take long to prove how empty and completely disingenuous were Hitler's promises that "the government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures." Following close on the heels of the Reichstag fire came the "Night of the Long Knives" of June 30, 1934, an assassination blitzkrieg in which Hitler wiped out his old friend Ernst Roehm and the top leadership of the brownshirted SA. Roehm and his Storm Troopers had become troublesome competitors and had to be eliminated, but a plausible pretext for the purge was needed. No problem: A coup "plot" by Roehm was fabricated which served the additional purpose of providing further justification for legalized government terror. Hitler's one-paragraph law read: "The measures taken on June 30 and July 1 and 2 to strike down the treasonous attacks are justifiable acts of self-defense by the state." Many more equally fraudulent "justifiable acts of self-defense" would follow. On November 7, 1938, a Jewish refugee from Germany, Herschel Grynszpan, shot and killed a German diplomat in Paris. This was exactly the incident the Nazi regime needed to fully unleash its attack on the Jews. On the night of November 9, 1938, Nazi- orchestrated mobs "spontaneously" rioted in retaliation, destroying Jewish shops and synagogues, beating and killing Jewish residents. It is remembered as the "Night of Shattered Glass," or Krystallnacht, and thereafter all opponents of the Nazis would be demonized as Jewish sympathizers and related "criminal elements." Stalin's Purge Stalin, who had studied closely Hitler's purge of Roehm, had his own "night of the long knives" - with a twist. His onetime friend and trusted aide, Sergei Kirov, had become a potential rival for Communist Party leadership and had to be eliminated. Stalin, the ultimate "conspirator from above," arranged for Kirov's assassination, with the murder to be blamed on the Zinoviev faction. Under Stalin's direction, following the assassination, writes Robert Tucker in Stalin in Power, "the floodgates of official adulation for Kirov opened wide. He was the 'Soviet people's favorite' and 'our Kirov.'" Tucker records that "the instant Kirov cult was blended into the Stalin cult, which took on added lustre. Kirov became 'Comrade Stalin's best comrade-in-arms and friend.' Stalin was shown in the honor guard, with Kirov in old photos, and as the first mourner at the Red Square funeral." But Kirov's murder in December 1934 served a design much larger than the mere elimination of a single competitor. Tucker writes: "For the conspirator from above, the prime purpose of Kirov's murder was to make possible an official finding that Soviet Russia was beset by a conspiracy that had done away with Kirov as part of a larger plan of terrorist action against the regime." Thus Stalin had his excuse to begin the Great Purge, which, ultimately, would claim millions of victims. Stalin had already arranged to have issued, a month before the murder, a statute empowering the newly created Special Board (headed by Stalin) to pass administrative sentence on "persons deemed socially dangerous." No definition of "socially dangerous" was given, allowing for the widest possible "discretion" in the exercise of this formidable power. Plot Against the Pope When Pope John Paul II was shot and very nearly killed in St. Peter's Square on May 13, 1981, it was instantly hailed worldwide as the work of a lone fanatic, even though Italian authorities revealed iron-clad evidence of a larger conspiracy. When U.S. mediameisters and officials were finally forced to concede the obvious, they insisted that, yes, Mehmet Ali Agca was indeed part of a conspiracy - a right-wing, Turkish, Islamic fundamentalist conspiracy! Even after terrorism expert Claire Sterling's masterfully detailed expose, The Time of the Assassins, unequivocally demonstrated (and was later backed up by the Italian judiciary investigators) that Agca was a paid Soviet assassin, the U.S. State Department, the White House, the CIA, and the Western press largely ignored the indisputable evidence. That evidence showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Soviet KGB, operating through the secret police of its communist proxy regime in Bulgaria and the Turkish Mafia (which was headquartered in Bulgaria), had sprung Agca from a Turkish jail, trained him, provided him with weapons and false travel documents, and fabricated a false "right- wing" identity for him before the assassination attempt. Although the plot to kill the Pope failed, the secondary objective, to provoke a widespread public reaction against "right-wing terrorism" and religious "fundamentalism," worked marvelously - worked because the Soviet agents, dupes, and sympathizers in the West could count on the ruling elites in our government and the media to cover up the Kremlin's role in this heinous act. Throughout the 1950s, '60s, '70s, and '80s, Germany was plagued by recurring rashes of anti-Jewish vandalism and neo-Nazi activities: desecrated Jewish cemeteries, swastikas painted on synagogues, and threatening calls and letters to Jewish leaders. In a number of important cases, when the perpetrators were caught they turned out not to be neo-Nazis after all, but Soviet agents provocateurs. Soviet defectors, likewise, have repeatedly confirmed the importance that the Soviet strategists place on provocations of this sort aimed at manipulating public emotions and eliciting hatred not only for the neo-Nazis, but primarily for the conservatives, Christians, and anti-communists whom they falsely lump together with the Hitlerites under the expedient "right-wing" label. Rabin Assassination The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on November 4, 1995 provided another glorious opportunity for global "right-wing" demonizing. The alleged gunman, Yigal Amir, was said to be a "fanatic Jewish fundamentalist." What's more, we were told repeatedly, he was part of a conspiracy of "religious extremists" - a conspiracy so nefarious and immense, mind you, that it had achieved meteorological significance, creating a "climate of hate" and an "atmosphere of violence." According to Time magazine, Rabin's opponents had created climatologically "the equivalent of the right-wing milieu that led to the Oklahoma City bombing." In fact, said Time, even if Amir had acted alone, "he had many ideational conspirators." (Emphasis added.) Yes, the Insider opinion cartel was only too willing to howl "conspiracy" when it served their transparent purposes. But when it came out that Amir was actually an agent of Israel's General Security Service (also known as Shin Bet), and that he had inexplicably been allowed through the security perimeter, Amir began to look more like a classic agent provacateur. That perception only deepened when a suspected accomplice, the notorious "right-wing" leader, Avishai Raviv, also turned out to be a Shin Bet operative. (For an in-depth look at the Rabin assassination, see "The Price of 'Peace'" in the February 5, 1996 issue of THE NEW AMERICAN.) As Shimon Peres and the Labor government rushed to cover up these and other untidy facts, the evidence pointed more and more toward the likelihood that Rabin had been assassinated by those in his own government (who controlled Shin Bet) in a desperate effort to save the phony CFR-made "Mideast Peace Plan." Oklahoma City Bombing In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, the American people have been subjected to a sustained propaganda barrage that may come as close to approximating the kind of vicious and thoroughly dishonest campaign of lies and distortion worthy of Nero, Hitler, and Stalin as this country has ever witnessed. The Clinton Administration and its political allies, fully aided and abetted by the establishment media cartel, have relentlessly sought to ascribe blame for the deadly Oklahoma bombing to the entire "American right wing." At the same time, the Clinton Justice Department and the FBI have gone to fantastic lengths to obstruct justice by covering up and destroying extremely important evidence in the case. (See the May 13, 1996 special issue of THE NEW AMERICAN, "OKC: The Case for a Cover-up.") In the week following the bombing, President Clinton cleverly structured his attack on "purveyors of hatred and division, the promoters of paranoia," so as to broadly include virtually all of his conservative opponents in the condemnation. "They spread hate," he said. "They leave the impression by their very words, that violence is acceptable." In a subsequent speech he denounced the bombing as an act by "the forces of organized evil" who, he insinuated, are linked to mainstream conservative and constitutionalist forces. This is so, he averred, because "they do practice and they do preach violence against those who are of a different color, a different background, or who worship a different God. They do feed on fear and uncertainty. They do promote paranoia...." Even worse, charged the President, "these people attack our government and the citizens who work for it who actually guarantee the freedoms they abuse.... They can certainly snuff out innocent lives and sow fear in our hearts. They are indifferent to the slaughter of children. They threaten our freedoms and our way of life, and we must stop them." It was an insidious attack clearly calculated to smear principled opponents of socialist government by falsely associating them with the perpetrators of vile terrorist acts. And it was the same base tactic to which he returned on May 1, 1995 in another disgraceful attempt to identify his critics with those responsible for the deadly bombing: " we must also stand up against those who say that somehow this is alright, this is somehow a political act - people who say, I love my country but I hate my government." Mr. Clinton's harangues were so transparently deceitful that even liberal columnist Charles Krauthammer (CFR) was moved to remark that the President had "repeatedly charged dark and unseen forces, a shadowy unnamed 'they,' with spreading paranoia - a classic of the very paranoid style of politics Clinton is ostensibly decrying." Unfortunately, Krauthammer's cogent observation was drowned out by the CFR-dominated media echo chamber which amplified and intensified the Clinton defamation campaign, and, borrowing a page from Nero's handbook, virtually branded all their opposition as guilty of "hating the human race." - WILLIAM F. JASPER The New American * Sept.16, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996, American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated - P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or the above address. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Phyllis Schlafly Column 9/26/96 -- Poll Shows Schools Are Our #1 Worry (fwd) Date: 03 Oct 1996 15:52:05 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Poll Shows Schools Are Our #1 Worry by Phyllis Schlafly September 26, 1996 The Washington Post just conducted a public opinion poll to find out what are the top "worries" of Americans. The results are informative and useful to policymakers, officeholders, candidates, and the media. The results are also surprising when we realize that most public opinion polls are very skewed by media coverage. For example, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole each got a bounce from the favorable news coverage they received at their own party's national convention. Topping the list of worries in the Washington Post survey, identified by a whopping 62 percent of respondents, was this: "The American educational system will get worse instead of better." Although this worry outranked crime, drugs, taxes, health care and welfare, it is seldom if ever addressed by our national political leadership or media elite. Ask yourself how many times you have ever seen this subject featured on the nightly television news programs of the NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or PBS. Many subjects on which television news programs lavish most of their high- priced minutes, such as Saddam Hussein's latest outrage, didn't even rate a mention in the survey as a worry. The American people recognize what the federal government, the education establishment and the media have failed to notice: that public schools are a disaster area and that so-called "reforms" and the influx of more and more taxpayers' money aren't doing any good. If the pollsters would question people further, here are some of the specifics they would find that Americans are worried about. Violent crime against students and teachers inside the public schools has caused an unprecedented level of fear and intimidation. A U.S.A. Today survey found that 43 percent of public school students avoid the school restrooms because of fear. School administrators are afraid to take any disciplinary action against criminal or gun-toting students. Governor George Allen of Virginia reported that the U.S. Department of Education threatened to withhold $50 million in special ed funds if Virginia continues to discipline criminal students. The chief reasons why the educational system is so inferior and is getting worse is the refusal to teach basic skills and knowledge in the elementary grades and the dumbing down of the textbooks and courses of study by about three years below what it was a generation ago. The goal of the schools now is to inculcate self-esteem in schoolchildren instead of to give them the skills necessary for individual achievement. The schools have been pumping up kids with inflated notions of their self-worth and importance, eliminating the discipline of competition, insulating them from failure, and shielding them from the knowledge that poor performance can be remedied by hard work and perseverance. The schools have reduced the time spent on academic subjects to about one- fourth of the school day. The majority of the day is spent on psychological courses, counseling, social services, and other non- academic activities. Even worse, these non-academic courses use a methodology that used to be called values clarification and is now known by its generic name of non-directive. That means that schoolchildren are presented with dilemmas, situations, and various problems of modern living, but given no direction as to the correct or expected behavior. Schools have abandoned their responsibility to correct students' mistakes, all the way from encouraging "inventive spelling" in the elementary grades to "make your own choices about sex and drugs" in high school. A call to respect "family values" is meaningless to a generation that has been systematically taught that everyone can choose his own values, and that one person's values are as good as the next person's. While the American people have accurately identified the problem that public schools aren't doing their job and are getting worse, they haven't figured out whom to blame. It's a fraud when presidential or congressional candidates promise to remedy the problem, because education is a state and local (not a federal) problem and only six percent of public school funding comes from the federal government. The only action that federal officeholders should take is to stop imposing national mandates that override local authorities and parents' rights. Yet, most proposed and pending congressional legislation is still moving toward more federal, rather than local, control. President Clinton's offer to spend $2.75 billion to send volunteers into the schools to teach illiterate third graders how to read is a four-dimensional sham. Teaching kids to read is not a federal responsibility, the teachers union won't allow volunteers into the classroom, the children ought to be taught how to read in the first (not third) grade, and the schools are still refusing to use the only proven method of producing good readers: intensive, systematic phonics. The Washington Post survey is an important contribution to public discussion and policy development. It should be used by politicians and the media to address the American people's number-one worry. EAGLE FORUM -- eagle@eagleforum.org PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 Are you on our E-mail list? Tell a friend about us! http://www.eagleforum.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: They're coming for your gasoline and kitchenware. Date: 03 Oct 1996 23:51:43 -0500 This from AP via Nando Times Re: yet another "Drug /Crime Bill" Courtsy of the Willie and the Republicans. %%%%%%%%%%%%% The methamphetamine legislation lets authorities seize chemicals used to make the drug. It also increases penalties for trafficking in the chemicals and for possessing equipment needed to make the drug. Methamphetamine -- also known as "meth," "crank," "speed" and "ice" -- is a mixture of pseudoephedrine, an over-the-counter cold and sinus remedy, and other chemicals found in gasoline, rubbing alcohol, pool-cleaning supplies or drain cleaners. %%%%%%%%%%% Let's see criminal penalties for possesion of sinus medicine and rubbing alchohol. I'll bet it's a felony that will result in loss of your RKBA. Then there's the new restriction on children's chemistry sets, especially replacment glassware. I understand that in some states, Texas for one, this stuff, chemistry type glassware is already next to impossible to obtain unless you're a chemistry teacher or can order on company purchase orders. Hobbiests need not apply. Good thing they didn't think this way back during that other prohibition. They'd be busting radiator shops and grain silos. Sheesh! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Special GOA Alert (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 08:03:04 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Second Amendment Takes Another Hit -- Domestic confiscation bill, road-block gun ban passes Congress Special GOA Alert (703)321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org (Wednesday, October 2) -- The Congress sent President Clinton several gun control provisions as part of the omnibus spending bill. The President signed the bill late Monday night after both houses had overwhelming passed the bill (House: 370-37; Senate: 84-15). The anti-gunners in Congress succeeded in passing several amendments in the name of defending women and children. Despite the rhetoric, the provisions will not accomplish what was claimed and blow even more holes in our Second Amendment freedoms. Here's the "cliff notes" you will need to hold your legislators accountable. What follows is a brief summary of what passed, the practical problems with those provisions, and a listing of who voted right: Road-block Gun Ban (Sec. 657 of the Treasury-Postal portion of H.R. 3610): a. Sets up thousands of gun ban zones across roads statewide where local police or the BATF can arrest unsuspecting drivers who have a firearm in the car. Victims will face 5 years in prison. b. Also known as the Kohl amendment, this provision reenacts the School Zone Gun Ban law ruled unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court last year (U.S. v. Lopez, 1995). The provision creates gun ban zones nearly one-half mile in diameter around every school in the country. c. Anyone without a pistol carry license driving through a zone with an unloaded firearm, that is not in a locked container or rack, faces 5 years in prison. (This would apply even to off-duty police officers, despite ineptly crafted exceptions in the Kohl language.) Many who were previously able to drive freely with guns, either in plain view or in the glove compartment, can now be victimized by anti-gun local police and/or BATF agents. d. And finally, just a couple of other quirks that result from the law: a) Because of the way "school" is defined in the Title 18 of the U.S. Code, the school zone gun ban could outlaw the possession of firearms by parents who home school their kids; and b) For a person who lives within 1,000 feet of a school, any hunting trip would constitute a legal labyrinth. He or she could not carry the gun to a car parked on the street unless he determined that such action was approved by school officials. Domestic Confiscation (Sec. 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of H.R. 3610 ): a. Frank Lautenberg, who has an "F-" rating from GOA, originally cosponsored the so-called domestic confiscation provision with anti-gun Senators Dianne Feinstein and Edward Kennedy as S. 1632. The largest wholesale firearms confiscation effort in decades, this provision bans thousands upon thousands of Americans from owning firearms for life, and orders their guns seized. For now this gun ban only applies to domestic dispute misdemeanors, but it sets a very bad precedent, since previously only felons have been stripped of their rights. (Note: This provision could strip many law-enforcement officers, previously convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, of their ability to carry firearms.) b. Rep. Bob Barr introduced an NRA-supported amendment as a compromise. But even Barr's language was altered after protests from Clinton and Senate Democrats. The Barr provision -- perhaps best termed as the "Lautenberg Lite" provision -- would have reduced some of the problems with the original version, but it still extended the gun ban into the area of misdemeanors (a bad precedent). c. The Lautenberg-Barr provision which passed the Congress threatens to disarm the very women that it is supposed to help. The provision would impose a lifetime gun ban on anyone who has been convicted of "us[ing] or attempt[ing to] use ... physical force" in a domestic situation. Of course, this "use of force" language can cover anyone (both men and women) who gets involved in a little spat between spouses, roommates, lovers, etc. d. The "use or attempted use of force" language will not only affect women who might throw a lamp at their spouse (like the First Lady), it will also endanger parents who spank their children. (Parents convicted of a domestic misdemeanor for spanking will now have to forfeit their guns or else become felons -- for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.) This provision federalizes a state issue and is clearly unconstitutional (under the 2nd and 10th Amendments for starters). e. What is the answer? If an act of domestic violence is serious enough to lose your civil right to own guns, then it should be a felony, which persons already were prohibited from owning firearms. If it is not serious, it should be treated as a misdemeanor -- a penalty which historically has not forced one to forfeit his or her rights. GOA opposed the Lautenberg-Barr "compromise." Gun Owners of America lobbied against every version of the Lautenberg provision that surfaced. Each time, GOA reminded Congressmen that a vote for expanding a gun ban is a vote for gun control. But rather than take a "no compromise" position, most Congressmen opted to just "limit the damage." It would be like a victim telling a mugger who wants $100 that "if you only take $50 we'll just call it even." Whether it's $50 or $100, the victim has still been robbed. Likewise, gun owners got robbed this past weekend. We were forced to give up ground without getting anything in return. Gun owners should not excuse those Congressmen who voted for this so-called compromise. In reality, there was no compromise since our firearms rights were not advanced in any way. We neither got a revocation of the semi-auto ban, nor did we get a repeal -- or even some exceptions to -- the Brady registration law. (Rather, more people will now be rejected after Brady checks.) We got nothing. So don't let your Congressmen tell you he voted for a compromise. When two people compromise, each side gets something. Ask him what we got in return. If he can't tell you, suggest to him that what he did was abdicate his duty to defend the Bill of Rights. More than 300 Representatives join Schumer in trimming the Second Amendment. Once again, many of the freshmen Republicans led the way in opposing the assault on our liberties. The vote in the House was 370-37; the following Reps. VOTED PRO-GUN by voting AGAINST H.R. 3610: Barcia (MI), Barton (TX), Becerra (CA), Beilenson (CA), Burr (NC), Chabot (OH), Chenoweth (ID), Coble (NC), Coburn (OK), Coleman (TX), Cooley (OR), Cox (CA), DeFazio (OR), Duncan (TN), Hall (TX), Hefley (CO), Hoekstra (MI), Hyde (IL), Istook (OK), Jacobs (IN), Kanjorski (PA), Kaptur (OH), Klink (PA), Klug (WI), Largent (OK), Nadler (NY), Neumann (WI), Rohrabacher (CA), Roybal-Allard (CA ), Salmon (AZ), Sanford (SC), Scarborough (FL), Schroeder (CO), Sensenbrenner (WI), Stearns (FL), Stockman (TX), and Tiahrt (KS). Thank the above Reps. and hold the others accountable. (NOTE: the following is a list of the 26 Reps. that missed the vote: Baker (LA), Berman (CA), Blumenauer (OR), Boucher (VA), Cardin (MD), Collins (MI), Conyers (MI), Dellums (CA), Dornan (CA), Durbin (IL), Filner (CA), Flake (NY ), Fowler (FL), Frank (MA), Green (TX), Hancock (MO), Hayes (LA), Heineman (NC), LaFalce (NY), Lincoln (AR), Lipinski (IL), Menendez (NJ), Myers (IN), Quillen (TN), Taylor (NC), Waters (CA), and Waxman (CA). If your Rep. is not listed in either of the groups above, then he voted for the bill!) Everything, including the kitchen sink, put into H.R. 3610: a. Besides the two gun bans mentioned above, legislators also threw in the study on placing taggants in black and smokeless powders -- a provision which had previously stalled in the Congress. (Source: Sec. 113(2) of the general provisions of the Justice Department Title in H.R. 3610.) b. The bill gives the BATF a PAY INCREASE of almost $100 million dollars for next year --$16 million in the regular budget plus an additional $66 million for anti-terrorism efforts. (Source: Titles I and VII of the Treasury-Postal provisions.) c. H.R. 3610 continues the language included in the previous year's budget prohibiting the BATF from "investigat[ing] or act[ing] upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities." This means that non-violent offenders who lose their gun rights won't be getting them restored any time soon. (Source: Title I of the Treasury-Postal provisions.) d. The so-called digital telephony provision will threaten the privacy of gun owners (Source: Sec. 110 of Commerce-State- Justice provisions). The funding in this provision will be used to force telephone companies to retrofit existing telephone equipment in order to facilitate the ability of government officials to wiretap citizens. This would be similar to requiring home builders to put microphones in walls of every home so that the FBI could more easily eavesdrop on conversations. (Before spending the $60 million for these technological "improvements," the FBI must first submit an "implementation plan.") e. The "best" part of the bill was a provision in the Labor-HHS section containing a prohibition on the CDC's ability to spend any funds "to advocate or promote gun control." Despite this apparent victory, there are still two problems with this and other language in the CDC budget. First, the department which conducts the anti-gun studies did not receive a pay cut. Second, the so-called prohibition in this provision only prevents the CDC from actually lobbying in favor of gun control. As long as the CDC does not call for any gun bans, waiting periods, etc., the "prohibition" will not prevent them from placing the same anti-gun studies in medical journals -- the very same studies which are always used by the media and HCI to impugn our firearms rights. (Source: Title II of the Labor-HHS provisions.) Conclusion: Use this special alert to confront the legislators who voted wrong. Hold them accountable! If they never hear a peep from you, they'll think they can get away with these kinds of votes in the future. Remember: "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Please distribute this alert! ---------------- 1 The Washington Post (11/19/92) reported how a school teacher was arrested in class after a pedestrian reported seeing her handgun sitting in open view on the seat of her car in the parking lot. This lady had no record and was -- except for a school zone gun ban -- complying with Virginia law which allows citizens to carry a firearm in their car without a permit, as long as the gun is left in plain view. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: CIA Coke Affidavit (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 08:13:08 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Today's bombshell, and the first significant confirmation of the original allegations.... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Welcome to Mercury Center Postscript Dark Alliance Frames: [ Enable | Disable ] AFFIDAVIT: COPS KNEW OF DRUG RING Document sheds light on Contra-cocaine link Published: Oct. 3, 1996 BY GARY WEBB AND PAMELA KRAMER Mercury News Staff Writer LOS ANGELES -- During the early 1980s, federal and local narcotics agents knew that a massive drug ring operated by Nicaraguan Contra rebels was selling large amounts of cocaine ''mainly to blacks living in the South-Central Los Angeles area,'' according to a search-warrant affidavit obtained by the Mercury News. The Oct. 23, 1986, affidavit identifies former Nicaraguan government official Danilo Blandon as ''the highest-ranking member of this organization'' and describes a sprawling drug operation involving more than 100 Nicaraguan Contra sympathizers. The affidavit of Thomas Gordon, a former Los Angeles County sheriff's narcotics detective, is the first independent corroboration that the Contra army -- the Nicaraguan Democratic Force -- was dealing cocaine to gangs in Los Angeles' black neighborhoods. Known by its Spanish initials, the FDN was an anti-communist commando group formed and run by the CIA during the 1980s. Gordon's sworn statement says that both the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI had informants inside the Blandon drug ring for several years before sheriff's deputies raided it Oct. 27, 1986. Gordon's affidavit is based on police interviews with those informants and one of the DEA agents who was investigating Blandon. Twice during the past year, Ron Spear, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department spokesman, told the Mercury News that his department had no records of the 1986 raids and specifically denied having a copy of Gordon's search-warrant affidavit -- even after two pages of it surfaced during the March 1996 cocaine trafficking trial of legendary Los Angeles ''crack'' cocaine dealer ''Freeway'' Rick Ross. The Mercury News obtained the entire search warrant affidavit this week. Wednesday, Sheriff Sherman Block's office did not respond to written questions about the raid, the warrant, records of what was found and what happened to those records and evidence. A recent Mercury News series revealed how Blandon's operation, which sold thousands of kilos of cocaine to black Los Angeles drug dealers such as Ross, created the first mass market for cocaine in the United States during the early 1980s and helped fuel a crack explosion that is still reverberating through black communities. Several investigations into U.S. government knowledge of, and possible involvement with, the Nicaraguan drug ring are under way. Both the CIA and the Justice Department have denied government involvement. Call to CIA headquarters Other stories Black leaders call for class-action lawsuit Published: Sept. 30, 1996 Previously published postscript stories Last updated: Oct. 3, 1996 Gary Webb radio and TV appearances Last updated: Oct. 2, 1996 The original series Published: Aug 18-20, 1996 document link Warrant and affidavit to search businesses and residences of Oscar Danilo Blandon Photo link Photo of the search warrant But according to a legal motion filed in a 1990 case involving a deputy who helped execute the search warrants, one of the suspects in the raid identified himself as a CIA agent and asked police to call CIA headquarters in Virginia to confirm his identity. The motion, filed by Los Angeles defense attorney Harland W. Braun on behalf of Deputy Daniel Garner, said the narcotics detectives allowed the man to make the call but then carted away numerous documents purportedly linking the U.S. government to cocaine trafficking and money-laundering efforts on behalf of the Contras. The motion said CIA agents appeared at the sheriff's department within 48 hours of the raid and removed the seized files from the evidence room. But Braun said detectives secretly copied 10 pages before the documents were spirited away. Braun attempted to introduce them in the 1990 criminal trial to force the federal government to back off the case. Braun was hit with a gag order, the documents were put under seal and Garner was convicted of corruption charges. Internal sheriff's department records of the raid ''mysteriously disappeared'' around the same time the seized files were taken, Braun's motion said. That claim was buttressed in an interview this week by an officer involved in the raid, and earlier by an attorney for one of the defendants. Ex-cop fingered The officer, who would not allow himself to be identified, said the alleged CIA agent was Ronald J. Lister, a former Laguna Beach police detective who worked with Blandon in the drug ring. The 1986 search-warrant affidavit identifies Lister's home in Laguna Beach as one of the places searched. It says Lister was involved in transporting drug money to Miami and was Blandon's partner in a security company. The company, according to a former employee, was doing work at a Salvadoran military air base in the early 1980s. Lister pleaded guilty to cocaine trafficking in 1991. document link Motion regarding government's request for restraining order document link Government's motion to exclude evidence relating to the CIA and Contras A 1986 FBI report obtained from the National Archives last year said Lister claimed his security business was ''CIA approved.'' Since at least 1983, Gordon's affidavit said, both Blandon and Lister were under DEA investigation. Other court records say Blandon turned up in DEA investigative files as early as 1981. Blandon now works for the DEA as an undercover informant. At Ross' trial in March, Blandon -- the Nicaraguan government's director of wholesale markets under the U.S.-supported dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza -- testified that he was one of the founders of the Los Angeles branch of the FDN, and that he sold cocaine to raise funds for that army. Detective Gordon's 1986 search-warrant affidavit, which was approved by Los Angeles Municipal Court Judge Glenette Blackwell, mirrors much of Blandon's sworn testimony last March. document link FBI Teletype regarding conversation with Roland Lister's real estate agent ''Informant #2 stated to your affiant that Blandon is a 'Contra' sympathizer and a founder of the ... (FDN), an organization that assists the Contra movement with arms and money,'' Gordon's affidavit states. ''The money and arms generated by the organization come through sales of cocaine. Informant #2 provided some 100 names of persons involved with the distribution of cocaine. All of these persons are either Nicaraguan and/or sympathizers to the Contra movement.'' The affidavit names Lister; Blandon's father, Julio; his wife, Chepita; banker Orlando Murillo; and another man as ''being directly involved with cocaine distribution.'' 'Up to 20 kilos a week' The affidavit also said Blandon was delivering ''up to 20 kilos a week'' to a Nicaraguan cocaine dealer named Ivan Arguellas ''who in turn sells mainly to blacks living in the South-Central Los Angeles area.'' It said Blandon ''uses a beer bar at Central Avenue and Adams Street in Los Angeles to distribute as much as 10 kilos of cocaine per week.'' Arguellas was described as being ''confined to a wheelchair as the result of being shot (in) a drug-related incident.'' During an interview with the Mercury News last year, former Los Angeles crack king Ross said one of his first cocaine sources was ''a guy named Ivan, who was in a wheelchair.'' Gordon, like six of the seven other narcotics detectives who staged the Blandon raids, was later indicted on federal corruption charges in the early 1990s. After two trials, including one in which he defended himself, Gordon was convicted of one count of tax evasion. He could not be reached for comment. _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Davidian being Tortured in Prison (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 08:23:57 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Carol Moore, author of The Davidian Massacre, just shared with me a letter she received from one of the nine surviving Branch Davidians being held unjustly [*] in prison, Livingstone Fagan. Of particular distress to me is the fact that Livingstone reports that he is being physically abused and beaten routinely by prison officials. Recently he was beaten nearly to death and he fears for his life. Just a few hours ago Carol Moore allowed me to transcribe the following crucial details excerpted from Livingston's letter dated 09/28/96: .... the scars and bruises from threats and physical assaults sustained since my arrival June 20th '96, all of which I received at the hands of prison officers. Last Thursday was the worst yet. After continuously slamming my head against a concrete, then metal structure, followed by my body against a concrete floor (the stated purpose being to get me to fear him), this 300 lb officer then verbalized his intent to kill me for my not cowering to his will. Ordinarily the above would be considered attempted murder. In here it seems to be the norm -- The inquisition continues. I had tended not to report these incidents, not wanting to appear as though I'm whining. I am not. This is only for informational purposes. It is not uncommon for people to be killed in these institutions and it be reported as self- inflicted. In the event of my premature death, I think it prudent that there be someone independent who is aware of the preceding.....thus averting such fabrication. There is no question that the letter is form Livingston Fagan, who has been in correspondence with Carol Moore. I am not sure, however, how the contents of this letter slipped past prison oversight. The first part contained nothing about abuse, nor did the final portion. A viewing of the letter, without careful reading, would reveal nothing out of the ordinary, no obvious plea for help. The handwriting was consistent and orderly, so I can only assume that prison official in charge of letter oversight just gave it a quick once over and that was that -- if indeed they even bother with that much oversight. Carol herself will soon be writing about this with important add- itional info. My effort here is to get this info out immediately. If you think the Davidians should be in prison, your living in a fantasy land severed entirely from fact, fabricated by the FBI and relayed to us without question by the mass media. But even if the Davidians should be in prison, no civil society can tolerate such abuse of prisoners reported by Livingstone Fagan. He should have independent medical oversight immediately, and then continuously. ____________________________________________ [*] http://www.erols.com/igoddard/appeal.htm ************************************************************************ IAN GODDARD Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y visit Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 13:47:19 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by jhoward@onramp.net (Jerry W. Howard) >Posted to texas-gun-owners by jwaldron@halcyon.com >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >On 30 September, the President signed into law the following two >sections of the omnibus appropriation bill. There has been a lot of >ranting and screaming, and very little hard information presented, >along with a lot of conjecture. While all legislation is subject to >interpretation (AND to Supreme Court review), the basic text follows >(extracted from the Congressional Record, 28 September 1996). The >next step will be to watch for the BATF's regulatory interpretation of >these sections. \ snip Folks, there is a pattern here. Slick has no agenda that he holds higher than his anti-gun adgenda. Three weeks after he took office the BATF began scanning 4473s into portable GRID computers with optical scanners in direct defiance of federal law. The last week in April the same year (1993 in Wash. Times I think the 25th or 26th) he appointed 4 representatives to the U.N. committee to develop the plans, proposed laws, and proceedures for global disarm- ament of civilians. This is the effort being "credited" to Japan and Canada three years later. The administration was a big player in the "Year of the Gun" during which all media outlets were to (and pretty much did) feature a major anti-gun article as the lead every day. (if no news they were to "editorialize") The cabinet as a group besides looking like the standby cast for the "Space Cafe" scene from Star Wars, was and is the most rabid collection of anti-gun zealots ever assembled in the country. The first four years have been more devoted to anti-gun efforts than any other identifiable goal. The dog-and-pony show at the Dem Convention is a sure signal that if Slick is re-elected he will claim a mandate to "put these gun nuts where they belong." If that thought doesn't make you paranoid...... Despite a relatively successful effort to subvert federal law enforcement and at least the money-for-junk-study addicted political leadership of state and local law enforcement, Slick is stimied by the fact that the bulk of the real cops are also still Americans, and want to stay that way. Even after fair success in replacing leadership of various special forces groups with what in any honest description would be termed "political officers" most of the troops still would be reluctant to murder their fellow americans for the glory of the politicians. [scary as the 30% or "yes" answers to the Twenty Nine Palms/Question 46 seem to us, the 70% "not only no, but HELL NO" must have upset the administration even more. The "tobacco is a drug" proposal of Clinton is likely aimed more at BATF Form 4473, Question 8.d. than at any health issue. The "Spanker Gun Ban" provision tacked onto the Budget bill last week is likely the camel's nose to move toward making any misdemeanor grounds for prohibiting gun ownership for life. If lifetime deprivation of freedom for a misdemeanor is not "cruel and unusual" punishment then what is? But the real nightmare is the following scenario: 1. Slick is re-elected with a Dem Congress. 2. The 105th Congress outlaws all guns except for the elite. 3. We get what the Aussies are getting now. (In other words, after 220 years we get to return to the status of "subject" rather than "free citizen.) 4. Most law enforcement realizes that their families and they themselves are Americans and if they enforce the confiscation their grandchildren will despise their memory. 5. The military does like it did in Russia the last time and sticks flowers in the muzzle and refuses to shoot their fellow country- men. 6. With nowhere else to turn the Liberal Triad - Clinton, (his) Congress and (his court-with another appointment or two) turn to the great hope of the world, the U.N., to bail him out. 7. So the American public decides to ___ ___________________________ . (fill in the blank to see whether we wake up and smell the coffee or if the nightmare last 1000 years) Jerry W. Howard ********************************************************************** "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to to allow the subject races to possess arms.", Adolph Hitler. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.", Thomas Jefferson. ********************************************************************* -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Off topic but useful, Tired of Telemarketers? (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 14:06:08 PST On Oct 4, Reg Pendergraph wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Here's some helpful info from today's Wall Street Journal: "I could write a book about the lengths to which people go to turn away telemarketers! The most practical suggestion: Send your name and number to ... Telephone Preference Service Direct Marketing Association Postal Box 9014 Farmingdale, NY 11735-9014 ... which notifies subscribing companies to screen out your number. (The service is only for households, but you might request the removal of your home-office number, too.)" If you're as tired of telemarketing calls as I am, maybe the above info will help you. Regards, Reg [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 17:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Don't be too certain about #5. See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). -> "Professional military men should not have their heads buried in the sand where threats to the Constitution may be involved." "The capabilities of the U.S. military to actually conduct a war on drugs and terrorism hardly have been tapped. The military has been allowed to stand back under the guise of protecting readiness and abiding by U.S. civil law and provide only only token assistance to law enforcement agencies. To date, U.S. law enforcement agencies have been able to deal with the threat within our borders. But will they continue to be able to in the future?" "[What if] gangs initiate a campaign of urban warfare against both our law enforcement agencies and judicial system? [...] Similar scenarios could be developed for certain religious groups and paramilitary organizations." "[T]here remains a relatively small nucleus of militant [Muslims] that would impose their will through violence ... The same can be said for radical paramilitary and militia groups ..." "[M]ost of us don't see this ... as a call for military force - because of posse comitatus. But, maybe we should. If our Nation is threatened, don't we in the military have a responsibility? As military officers, we take an oath `to defend the Constitution of the United States agains all enemies, foreign _and domestic_.'" "When called upon to act in a national emergency, we must be prepared to do so. That means we must have developed the doctrine, the organization, the tactics, and the equipment to be able to deal with this unconventional threat within the framework of civil law enforcement." "Americans must see these preparations for what they are - in extremis capabilities for military response when law enforcement measures are inadequate - and not as a threat to our freedom and democratic principles." "Within the Marine Corps, we can begin by accomplishing the following: Conduct a throrough and objective assessment of both existing and desirable U.S. military capabilities to assist law enforcement in responding to future domestic threats. [...] Expand professional military education to include greater emphasis on instructing our officers on civil disturbance response and specifically the tactics and unique issues of urban combat. [...] The likely fallout of such an approach will be a military that will have ... an expanded capability to support law enforcement against domestic threats." etc. On Fri, 4 Oct 1996 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:57:31 -0500 (CDT) > From: Jerry W. Howard > To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net > Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION > > Posted to texas-gun-owners by jhoward@onramp.net (Jerry W. Howard) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Posted to texas-gun-owners by jwaldron@halcyon.com > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > But the real nightmare is the following scenario: > > 1. Slick is re-elected with a Dem Congress. > 2. The 105th Congress outlaws all guns except > for the elite. > 3. We get what the Aussies are getting now. > (In other words, after 220 years we get to > return to the status of "subject" rather than > "free citizen.) > 4. Most law enforcement realizes that their > families and they themselves are Americans > and if they enforce the confiscation their > grandchildren will despise their memory. > 5. The military does like it did in Russia the > last time and sticks flowers in the muzzle > and refuses to shoot their fellow country- > men. > 6. With nowhere else to turn the Liberal > Triad - Clinton, (his) Congress and (his > court-with another appointment or two) > turn to the great hope of the world, the > U.N., to bail him out. > 7. So the American public decides to ___ > ___________________________ . > (fill in the blank to see whether we > wake up and smell the coffee or if > the nightmare last 1000 years) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 17:17:37 -0500 (CDT) On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > Don't be too certain about #5. > > See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats > Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). > > -> > > "Professional military men should not have their heads buried in the sand > where threats to the Constitution may be involved." > This is exactly why I have been trying to explain to the "Patriot movement" that all this worry about UN invasions of foreign troops is just a waste of time. We are the UN and our troops are the UN police force and they will be the ones kicking in our doors if things keep going the same way. The whole Militia movement has become just another "witch hunt" for the masses to attack just like the Witches of Salem or Jews of NAZI Germany. We have got to stop the current "public" Militia and start the "committees of correspondence" and "committees of safety" to petition and change our local governments county by county and state by state into pro-Constitution supporters. I would suggest that in public we never use the Militia word. By all means keep training and arming just in case in private. We need not give the professional military government welfare whores another object to replace the "redscare" as a reason to justify their budgets, offices, power and employment. It is time to think about doing away with the peace time army and replacing it with a national guard and reserves, all modern words for a peace time citizens militia. Just one Trident Sub can be enough to stop another country. The only reason we need the current Army is to Stay in Japan, Europe, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and coming soon to a neighborhood near you confiscation of American citizens arms. Keep the Navy and Airforce but reduce the army to bare bones or we will become the next "Killing Field"... This is not a knock against any of our patriotic Army vets or current troops but when the "Brass" starts talking like this guy it is time to re read those Federalist papers about no standing army! Regards, Paul Watson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 04 Oct 1996 16:41:51 PDT roc@xmission.com wrote : > >On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > >> Don't be too certain about #5. >> >> See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats >> Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). >> >> -> >> >> "Professional military men should not have their heads buried in the sand >> where threats to the Constitution may be involved." >> > >This is exactly why I have been trying to explain to the "Patriot >movement" that all this worry about UN invasions of foreign troops is >just a waste of time. We are the UN and our troops are the UN police >force and they will be the ones kicking in our doors if things keep going >the same way. There is that of course. On the other hand Russia is facing invasion in Central Asia from Afghanistan and no troops will be forthcoming there France and Germany are about to suffer unparalled labor unrest and strikes and no troops will be available there Bosnia is just waiting for troops to go away to explode again so one expects it is going to consume lots of troops Israel / Palestine / Syria are apt to have a major set do that is going to consume lots and lots of troops. If / When the US becomes occupied in Syria Iran is apt to cause trouble and absorb more troops If things degenerate in Syria one expects that Lybia and Egypt will have problems. Morocco and Algeria are facing major revolt. China has major problems in its largest Moslem provence which also contains most of China's oil reserves .....assuming that this area actually is part of China and deciding that point is why there is so much trouble. At any rate one expects that very quickly for every five available troops ten will be needed and who will knock on doors is not clear .....but at least those knocking on doors in central cities highly inflamed over CIA caused genocide had best be very well armed This business about gun control is very humorous in Israel. As part of the the Oslo agreements the great Gun Controller: WJC arranged for the PLO police to have 22,500 guns ....mostly hand guns. However, as it turns out instead of having Gun Control Israel ended up with a highly armed *viper in its bosom* in that according to SNS the Palestians have at least 90,000 assault rifles. And where did all this extra fire power come from. SNS said from Israeli criminals. Is not life humorous. I must confess I have no idea how this will work. I do suspect that collecting 90,000 assault rifles in an area the size of the west bank when their owners are all ready to revolt could prove *interesting* .....and will not lead to peace The whole Militia movement has become just another "witch >hunt" for the masses to attack just like the Witches of Salem or Jews of >NAZI Germany. We have got to stop the current "public" Militia and start the >"committees of correspondence" and "committees of safety" to petition and >change our local governments county by county and state by state into >pro-Constitution supporters. I would suggest that in public we never >use the Militia word. By all means keep training and arming just in case >in private. We need not give the professional military government >welfare whores another object to replace the "redscare" as a reason to >justify their budgets, offices, power and employment. It may be time but in the Real World the present peacetime army is going to be stretched beyond belief and enlistments to defend elsewhere instead of US interests are going to be negligible. Much better perhaps to make it plain to all members of Congress that the price of a DRAFT is repeal of all gun control rules. As things degenerate in the Mid-East unless all TV converage one suspects that millions more will see the advantages of GUNS to protect one's home It is time to think >about doing away with the peace time army and replacing it with a >national guard and reserves, all modern words for a peace time citizens >militia. Just one Trident Sub can be enough to stop another country. The >only reason we need the current Army is to Stay in Japan, Europe, Haiti, >Somalia, Bosnia, and coming soon to a neighborhood near you confiscation >of American citizens arms. Keep the Navy and Airforce but reduce the army >to bare bones or we will become the next "Killing Field"... >This is not a knock against any of our patriotic Army vets or current >troops but when the "Brass" starts talking like this guy it is time to >re read those Federalist papers about no standing army! >Regards, >Paul Watson > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Mt. Ear Articles - Juror Rights Trial - (10/4/96) Date: 05 Oct 1996 10:49:40 -0400 >Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 01:14:57 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Mt. Ear Articles - Juror Rights Trial - (10/4/96) > > JUDGE HEARS EVIDENCE IN GILPIN 'JUROR RIGHTS' TRIAL > By Jeffrey V. Smith > >The Mountain-Ear >Friday, October 4, 1996 > >P.O. Box 99 >Nederland, CO 80466 >Phone: (303) 258-7075 >Fax: (303) 258-3547 >Email: mtn-ear@indra.com > >Gilpin County > > After two days of proceedings and several motions to >dismiss the case were denied, the contempt of court trial against >Gilpin County resident Laura Kriho for her actions while on a >jury in the same court last May concluded Wednesday afternoon. > The judge will not render an opinion about the case until >after attorneys on both sides file briefs, he has a chance to >review them, and an agreed upon time is set to reconvene. Both >attorneys have until Oct. 9 to file the briefs. Briefs are >documents that explain to the court each side's view of the facts >of a case and the applicable law. > Kriho sat as a juror on a trial in May charging a young >woman with possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug >paraphernalia and criminal impersonation. No verdict was reached >in that trial, because a mistrial was declared by presiding >District Court Judge Kenneth Barnhill after he decided the jury >had been tainted by Kriho's actions. > During opening statements Tuesday, prosecuting attorney >James Stanley, who also prosecuted the case in which Kriho was a >juror, explained that Kriho was on trial for "three basic >reasons." She was accused by Stanley of lying during the jury >selection process by not disclosing her views about drug laws, >her unwillingness to follow the law, and her involvement in a >prior felony drug conviction. > She also was accused of violating a court order not to >discuss or research the case outside the evidence presented in >the court room. Overnight during the trial in which she served as >a juror, Kriho looked up possible penalties for the drug >possession charge and revealed them to the other jurors against >instructions issued by Judge Barnhill. > The third "reason" for putting Kriho on trial, as >explained by Stanley, was for obstruction of the trial process. >He said that Kriho had an agenda to become a juror on the trial >to challenge drug laws. > Defense attorney Paul Grant said that the evidence would >show Kriho is being punished for simply thinking for herself and >holding her ground when bullied by other jurors. > Stanley began building his case Tuesday by calling >several other jurors from the drug possession trial to the stand. >By asking all of them similar questions, Stanley showed that all >jurors were told several times about the importance of following >the law, to disregard any possible punishment while deciding >guilt, and to speak up about any personal problems or past >experience with the law. They all said that they felt in some way >or another Kriho had been less than honest during the jury >selection process. > Also, the five jurors called to testify for the >prosecution, Russell Carlson, Betty Jane Hammock, Dan Cooper, >James Davis and Ronald Ramsey, explained that Kriho's actions in >the jury room concerned them. The jurors said Kriho's opinion >that drug cases should be decided outside the court system, her >actions in looking up drug penalties on the Internet and a >discussion by Kriho about jury rights issues bothered them and >made them upset. > During cross examination of the jurors by Grant, it was >established that over 350 questions had been asked of potential >jurors prior to Kriho being called as a replacement juror. As >replacement jurors were brought into the jury box, they were >asked simply if they had heard the questions asked and if they >would answer them differently. Everyone except Kriho, who >volunteered information about a previous court experience, said >no. > It was also pointed out through witness testimony that >several jurors, not just Kriho, changed their minds about guilt >at various times throughout deliberations and that although other >jurors were skeptical, Kriho did attempt to show why she had >reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. > During the trial it was shown that an unsigned note >written by a juror asking hypothetical questions concerning juror >conduct caused Judge Barnhill to declare a mistrial. The note, >which asked if a juror could be dismissed for various reasons, >was not investigated by the judge prior to declaring a mistrial. >According to Kriho, some information on the note was false and it >was written by one juror who was upset with her at the time. > Testimony from defense witnesses showed that Kriho did >attempt to persuade jurors that reasonable doubt existed as to >whether the defendant knowingly had drugs in her possession. >They also substantiated Kriho's claim she was not specifically >asked questions she is accused of lying about. > Testimony from Kriho showed she had previous knowledge of >sentencing and that Judge Barnhill and the prosecuting attorney >were visibly angry at how the trial was concluded. It also showed >that she did not meet the qualifications to be dismissed as a >juror. Also, according to Kriho, juror rights were never >explained so she had no idea she might be prosecuted for her >actions. "I felt I was a fair and impartial juror," she said. "I >came in good faith." > Kriho said she did not even want to serve as a juror as >she had to hitchhike to the court house. > She explained that if fingerprints of the defendant were >found on the evidence she would have voted to convict, but >otherwise felt the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable >doubt if the girl knew she was in possession of drugs. She also >said that she stood her ground when all 11 other jurors were >pushing for a guilty verdict. > During the trial, it was pointed out that Kriho gave another >juror a pamphlet after thhe mistrial was declared explaining jury >rights and support for jury nullification issues through the >voting of one's conscience. The information upset the juror who >in turn gave it to the judge. > The information led some jurors to believe Kriho had an >agenda from the start to hang the jury. She said she only >consulted the information to learn what her rights as a juror >were and the she had no contact with the organizaion which >printed it. > Despite several implications from the defense to the >contrary, Judge Nieto said that how Kriho voted in the jury room >will not be part of his consideration in determining whether she >is guilty of contempt. > ### > > > JUROR TRIAL IS CALLED 'MOCKERY OF JUSTICE' > By Jeffrey V. Smith > >The Mountain-Ear >Friday, October 4, 1996 > > In what is being called a mockery of justice, vindictive >and outrageous, Gilpin resident Laura Kriho was brought to trial >Tuesday for allegedly committing perjury and contempt of court >while serving on a jury last May. > According to Kriho's attorney, the case appears to be an >"outgrowth" of a movement among judges nationwide to make sure >jurors feel they do not have a right to judge or question the law >and think for themselves. "That is not true." The attorney said >that since Kriho was a single, hold-out juror she is being >punished. Had she said the defendant was guilty, she would not >have been brought to trial, he said. > Kriho's attorney Paul Grant said Kriho is being accused >of obstruction of justice simply by speaking her mind and holding >her ground. "This is an obnoxious process, we're putting the jury >on trial and that's improper. It can only be done to attack a >juror and not a verdict." > Kriho sat as a juror in a drug possession case earlier >this year which was declared a mistrial. The mistrial, declared >by Judge Kenneth Barnhill, resulted from allegations of Kriho's >actions in the jury room, disregarding instructions of the judge >and lying during the jury selection process. According to >testimony in Kriho's trial, Judge Barnhill did not investigate >the allegations before declaring the mistrial. > Other jurors who served with Kriho during the drug >possession trial said that Kriho discussed the right of a jury to >"nullify" laws by voting their conscience. They said she >explained her opinion that families and communities, not the >court room, were the best place to decide drug cases. Also, it >was disclosed after the trial that Kriho had a prior felony drug >conviction which was not reported during jury selection. > Kriho, who is completely surprised and "shocked" to find >herself on trial, claims she was never specifically asked the >questions she has been accused of answering falsely, and that she >was merely voicing her opinion and speaking her mind in the jury >room. She says that any allegations that she had an agenda and >was out to change drug laws is completely false. > "Basically I feel like I'm being punished for voting >not-guilty," Kriho said. "I could have said whatever I wanted in >the jury room, but if I had come back with a guilty verdict I >would not be here today. I'm absolutely being singled out." > Allegations that she disobeyed the judge are being denied >by Kriho in that instructions to a jury are merely used for >guidance during deliberations and not considered orders. > Kriho has explained that she had reasonable doubt as to >the guilt of the defendant and that the other jurors did not >believe her doubts were reasonable. It has been pointed out that >she was verbally "attacked" by other jurors, who appeared to be >in a hurry to leave, during the deliberation process. > The case, which is highly irregular and the first of its >type in over 300 years, is being followed by many people >interested in its national and civil rights implications. Also, >it has been alleged that the proceedings against Kriho have >poisoned the pool of jurors in Gilpin County. > Because the trial calls for jurors from the drug >possession case to testify about what happened in the jury room, >one of the foundations of the American justice system assuring >confidentiality of deliberations is being threatened. > According to many legal experts, the case threatens to >destroy the entire concept of trial by jury. It has been argued >that there would be no point to a jury if they had to do what the >judge wanted or be faced with prosecution themselves. The right >to a trial by jury, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of >the U.S., is meant to prevent abuses of power by judges and >prosecutors. It is thought that if jurors can be prosecuted for >their deliberations, a fair and impartial jury is impossible. > Prior to the start of the trial, First Judicial District >Chief Judge Henry Nieto assigned himself to the case after the >original judge, Barnhill, excused himself. > Nieto ruled, prior to the trial, that he would judge the >case and not a jury when Deputy District Attorney James Stanley >agreed not to seek a jail term of more than six months. > Although it was suggested by Kriho's attorney Paul Grant >that the trial was complex and a motion was filed to delay the >trial to give the defense more time to prepare, Judge Nieto >denied it. This decision was found to be so egregious by Grant >that he appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Cournt >under an emergency provision. > Nieto ruled, prior to the trial, that he would judge the >case and not a jury when Deputy District Attorney James Stanley >agreed not to seek a jail term more than six months. A jury >trial was originally granted at Kriho's arraignment in August, >but Stanley said he changed his mind about punishment. A jury >would have been necessary for a punishment greater than six >months in jail. > It was argued by Grant that since theories from a recently >published article by Gilpin County Judge Frederic Rodgers on how >to prosecute "obstructionist" jurors appeared in the contempt >citation, the defense had a right to know what communication >occurred between Judge Barnhill, other judges and the >prosecution. Judge Nieto denied the request. > A request to appoint a special prosecutor was denied. >Grant said that since Stanley was the prosecutor in the case in >which Kriho was a juror, he should be available as a witness. >Evidence was presented that although Stanley's actions in the >courtroom are part of the record, he did have contact with the >jurors off the record. > Several motions to dismiss the case, due to its frivolous >nature, have been denied throughout the trial. > Due to the nature of the case, a local legal rights group, >the Colorado Legal Eagles, is warning Gilpin county residents of >"a serious threat to the judicial system in their county." The >group wants Gilpin residents to be aware of their legal rights >and to seek court-ordered counsel before answering quesions >during jruy selelction. The group also warns that no one will be >advised that anything they say can and will be used against them >even though it is possible. > Grant also feels the jury pool has been poisoned "to some >exent" in that jurors will feel intimidated to speak their minds >in the jury room. "Who wants to serve on a jury with a threat of >prosecution hanging over your head?" Grant said it is the intent >to publicize this case nationally by the judges so theat jurors >nationally will be intimidated. > The actions of the court are also meant to eliminate hung >juries in Grant's mind. "This sends a message that you better go >along with the majority or you will be criminally prosecuted." > > ### > >The Mountain-Ear >P.O. Box 99 >Nederland, CO 80466 >Phone: (303) 258-7075 >Fax: (303) 258-3547 >Email: mtn-ear@indra.com > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be removed from this mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen > http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > (303) 841-9649 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: [FWIW] An education agenda...(circa 1932) Date: 05 Oct 1996 10:52:30 -0400 >Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 06:43:40 -0500 (CDT) >From: James Fish >X-Sender: jfish@earth >To: fwiw@execpc.com >Subject: [FWIW] An education agenda...(circa 1932) >Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > >FWIW > > "Among the elementary measures the American Soviet > government will adopt to further the cultural > revolution are...[a] National Department of > Education...the studies will be revolutionized, > being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other > features of the bourgeois ideology. The students > will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical > materialism, internationalism and the general > ethics of the new Socialist society." > > - William Z. Foster, > Toward Soviet America, 1932 > National Chairman of the > American Communist Party > (1933-44, 1945-57) > > =================================================================== > The above text comes from The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070 > (long distance callers require manual upgrade, usually within hours) > =================================================================== > To subscribe to FWIW simply send the following: > To: listserv@execpc.com > Subj: (leave blank) > Message: > subscribe fwiw > > That's it! The welcome letter will tell you more! > =================================================================== > To unsubscribe, simply send the above instructed message, > substituting "unsubscribe" where appropriate. > =================================================================== > Home page: http://www.execpc.com/~jfish > > > > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: UPDATE: Health Net/California Wellness Foundation 1/2 (fwd) Date: 05 Oct 1996 16:41:21 PST On Oct 5, EdgarSuter@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] You may also note, as reported in last Friday's Associated Press release, the current investigation of California Wellness Foundation for the illegal funding of election activities regarding Prop. 209 in California, The California Civil Rights Initiative. Strike now while California Wellness is under scrutiny. For those of you insured by Health Net who wish to make your views known: Mr. James Wilk, President Mr. Mike Gallagher, Chairman of the Board Health Net PO Box 9103 Van Nuys CA 91409-9103 Please remember that it is the profit from your health insurance premiums to Health Net that funds the nefarious activities of California Wellness Foundation. To the degree that Health Net funds California Wellness Foundation your health care insurance premiums could be lowered or services to you improved. Our original report follows: Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR) has focused on how public money -- _your_ money -- has been used to subvert your inherent, irrevocable rights through the use of politicized "science." Virtually every level of government uses your tax money to propagandize restrictive gun laws and other fundamental tenets of authoritarian control, of collectivism, of socialism (sometimes eumphemistically "liberalism"). Increasingly it has become apparent to us that consumers' money -- _your_ money -- has also been used to subvert your inherent, irrevocable rights. Your health care dollars, whether being paid directly by you or indirectly by you through your employer or union, are being funneled into health care insurance companies that are increasingly funding "non-profit educational foundations" that propagandize for the end of our constitutional republic. Currently, with resources approaching $1 BILLION, California Wellness Foundation is the deepest of these "pockets," but increasing numbers of health insurance companies are becoming so involved. [We expect to report on the activities of Kaiser Foundation/Permanente Medical Group in the future]. Ms. Sarah Foster conducted an extensive investigation of California Wellness Foundation and has written the following article. If you read this article and are angered or frightened by the activities of California Wellness Foundation, recall that Health Net fathered this bastard child. If you have Health Net insurance coverage, let your views be known -- to your insurance agent, your employer, your union, _and_ the executives of Health Net and California Wellness Foundation. Do not let your money be used against you and your family for generations to come. Let your legislators know that, despite its pleasing sounding name and mission, California Wellness Foundation is an enemy of our rights and of our constitutional republic. Ms. Foster's report refers to issues other than gun bans in which California Wellness Foundation is active. Please distribute her report to people, organizations, and newsgroups with interest in those other issues. Please support Capital Research Center that has made this and other important reports available. Edgar A. Suter MD National Chair, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research ******************************************** Organization Trends New Health Foundation Writes Prescription for Big Government California Group Advances Liberalism in the Name of Wellness The author, Sarah Foster, is a researcher and writer residing in Sacramento, California. Editor Robert V. Pambianco Publisher Terrence Scanlon Copyright 1996 Capital Research Center 727 15th Street NW/Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 (202)393-2600 Permission to distribute granted providing full attribution is given. Liberals no longer call themselves liberals: they prefer to be known as "moderates." Now a recently established California foundation has come Up with a fresh way to market discredited liberal ideas of munificent government. The California Wellness Foundation (CWF) is using the expansive concept of "wellness" to advance a broad-based policy agenda that is hostile to individual liberty and responsibility. Created by the privatization of a major nonprofit Health Maintenance Organization (HMO), the foundation is emerging as a grantmaking behemoth. With a multi-million dollar budget and nearly a billion dollars in assets, it has already become a major player in the nation's largest state CWF has taken on a cornucopia of concerns: gun ownership. smoking, consumption of alcoholic beverages, teenage pregnancy, to name a few. In FY 1994-95 CWF awarded 129 grants totaling nearly $40 million to institutions. organizations and individuals to tackle these and other issues that constitute what CWF has defined as "prevention" and "wellness." Wellness is the latest buzz-phrase among hip grantmakers Sufficiently vague, this all- encompassing term appeals to foundation professionals who believe that specific missions and mandates hinder their creative grantmaking talents. Like the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, wellness provides the imaginative foundation officer with limitless possibilities. CWF's stated goal is "to improve the health of the residents of California" and "foster healthful lifestyles, behaviors, and values.'` To CWF, health or illness is defined not as the absence or presence of disease. "but by a complex web of conditions in [the] physical and social environment," and CWF' has determined its grantmaking must address 'the multiple barriers to healthful living-from personal behavior to social and economic influences such as poverty, unemployment, inadequate schools and racism." In other words, wellness means whatever CWF wants it to mean. Sound familiar? Such a program is simply an updated version of the root-causes rationale used to justify the 1960s War on Poverty. Grants are awarded in five program areas: Community Health: Population Health; Worksite Health Improvement; Violence Prevention: and Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention. Each of these creates a theater of operation for government intervention. CWF's first project, the Violence Prevention Initiative, is fully developed and being expanded. The ominous-sounding Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention Initiative is still in the formative state. Although a grantmaking foundation obligated to foster a public charitable interest, CWF is a recent offspring of a commercial enterprise. CWF's "parent" is Health Net, the second largest health maintenance organization (HMO) in California, with 1.3 million commercial and Medicare HMO members, many of them subscribers with CalPERS (the state Public Employees Retirement System). CWF benefits from the considerable cachet associated with its parent's former status as a nonprofit insurer. In 1990 the previously nonprofit Health Net became a for-profit corporation. Because California law requires nonprofits that privatize to leave their assets in the non- profit sector, Health Net created CWF in 1991, funding it in 1992 to the tune of $300 million ($75 million cash, $225 million in a long term, interest-bearing note), plus 25.7 million shares of Class B nonvoting stock, which convert to Class A voting shares when sold. ILs most recent Annual Report (1995) posts assets of $851.8 million. In January 1994. Health NcL merged with QualMed. a Colorado-based HMO, to form Health Systems International, which has been actively acquiring smaller HMOs. mostly in the Northeast. Health Net-today a subsidiary of HSI-is actively pursuing the Medicare and small-group market, moves that have interesting implications for CWF and its work. As a new foundation, CWF's Board of Directors (then headed by Roger Greaves, founder, president and CEO of Health Net) was free to set priorities "unencumbered by past funding commitments" (as the 1993 annual report put it) or, for that matter, unencumbered by earlier ideological baggage. Unlike such organizations as the Pew Charitable Trusts or the Ford Foundation, which had left-wing agendas thrust upon them, CWF has been "progressive" from the start. Education for Regulation CWF's central organizing concept is "prevention." In today's political lexicon, that means far more than immunization programs for kids, X-ray screening for TB or breast cancer, or providing physical exams and dental work for the poor. The new "prevention" includes these, but also much more: it aims for total elimination of "risk behaviors" and anything "bad" in that "complex web of conditions." A report funded by CWF- for the Washington-based Partnership for Prevention (of which Health Net is a member) puts it this way: "Imagine a new drug that would cure an epidemic... a new surgery that would correct . . . heart disease... a new prenatal therapy that would help over 100,000 low-birth- weight babies survive.... Let's go one step further. Imagine a way to prevent the epidemic; to prevent the heart disease: to prevent the low birth weight" (emphasis in original text). Desirable as that may sound, full realization of such goals would require constant government intervention in people's lives, with every behavior added to the lists of targets for modification. CWF gives few details on how this is to be accomplished. What is clear, however, is that CWF's prevention paradigm is a model for a major expansion of the nanny state. CWF is not a membership organization. and as a nonprofit with an IRS 501(c)(3) status it is not permitted to lobby on specific legislation. But it does engage in "effecting policy change through public education." In practice, this means convincing the public to accept and demand the laws, ordinances, and regulations CWF believes are necessary for public health and "wellness." Like other foundations, CWF is a money machine; it funnels grants to community- based nonprofits and individuals eager to make demands for government action, and sponsors university research to bolster "progressive" policy initiatives. But more importantly, CWF is a modern, high-tech foundation that recognizes the value of getting out the message-especially in California, a big state with expensive media- driven politics and a tradition of creating policy by means of ballot initiative. Thus, CWF recruits experienced consulting firms that develop and implement campaigns even to the point of serious involvement in state ballot measures and national legislation. Examples listed in the 1995 annual report include: * $500,000 to Public Media Center "to support a public education project on health impacts of proposed federal budget cuts on children and families in California." "The campaign joined advocates from a wide range of organizations, bringing a unified voice to the debate." Public Media Center is a nonprofit, public interest advertising firm based in San Francisco, which-as the Wall Street Journal/ puts it "Goes for l the I Jugular to Push Causes." The 20-year-old PMC places more than $1 million in newspaper ads a year in major papers on behalf of clients such as Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club, and Handgun Control Inc., according to the Journal. Last year, it placed fear-inducing ads opposing the Contract With America. The Contract "guarantees drastic losses for children," warned one such hyperbolic ad. which delineated a parade of horribles that would plague the nation if the Republican agenda were enacted, e.g., "neglected and brutalized children will not be protected. ' * $363,000 to the Marin Institute, "to build the capacity of live target California cities to effectively address the role of alcohol marketing and availability in the economic development of these communities." This nonprofit research firm in the North San Francisco Bay Area is hostile to both tobacco and alcohol consumption, and explores ways of "empowering" local communities to restrict access to them through ordinances limiting or banning advertising, sales, and consumption. The Institute grew out of the famous Buck Trust controversy and was established with funds from the Trust. * $4 million to Public Media Center "to develop and implement a campaign to increase [public] awareness about... Proposition 188." This was a 1994 California ballot initiative, sponsored by tobacco companies. that sought to curb the ability of local communities to enact anti-smoking ordinances that were more stringent than slate law. PMC "used print, radio and television ads to inform Californians about the threat to the public's health." CWF reports that surveys at the start showed Californians in support of the proposition. After the emotionally charged propaganda blitz by PMC, voters rejected it ( 1995 annual report). Currying Favor with the State? Organization Trends has previously documented how foundations establish a financial relationship with state and local governments as a shortcut to achieving their policy goals, e.g., a new health care plan or education reform. Often these programs have little public support-hence, lawmakers are unlikely to provide funding-so the foundation gives the state money to run a pilot program. The state legislators are often hardly aware that state agencies are relying on outside grantmakers for policy direction. Yet the program becomes entrenched. Eventually the government takes over the funding -and the public gets stuck with something it never wanted. It's an easy way to avoid the sticky problems associated with democratic self government. Like other large philanthropies. CWF gives money to selected government institutions and agencies, local and state, for start-up costs of scholarships, fellowships? and research projects. Some examples: * $775,000 to UC Berkeley in 1995 to support the Schools Wellness Project, "a...model aimed at transforming 11 K-12 Bay Area schools into centers of community health promotion." * $30,000 to the L.A. Unified School District in 1995 "to create a program to identify, track, and assist pregnant teens." * $15,()()(:) to UC Berkeley, School of Public Health, in 1994 "to conduct research on the politics of prevention in health care reform and to assess the influence of the work supported by [CWF]." Commenting on this connection to government, former CWF president and CEO Howard Kahn wrote: "Recognizing the central role of government in the lives of all Californians, we have not shied away from involvement with government and public policy issues. Instead. we have embraced opportunities to affect public policy and leverage public funds." (Leverage is the key word; the foundation provides $100, and soon the government is spending $10 million on a statewide prevention program.) This means, Kahn explained, "evaluation of government-sponsored social and health service programs," and "partnering" with government "to attempt to influence the shape of new or existing public programs" and to ensure that "prevention assumes a central role . . . in . . . efforts [of health care reform| within California." To those who would raise an eyebrow over a possible conflict of interest between a foundation established by a major HMO that is aggressively pursuing Medicare and other government contracts et the same time that it gives money to government agencies and attempts to "influence . . . public health programs": Be advised that such activity is not only condoned, it's applauded as a fine example of "partnering." The Violence Prevention Initiative Although millions of dollars have been awarded for projects in all five program areas (cited above), CWF's top priority has been the Violence Prevention Initiative (VPI). In just four short years CWF has positioned itself in the vanguard of the gun control crusade. IL has committed $30 million to this project, with other foundations kicking in an additional $10 million. Basically this is a gun-control campaign. It has drawn nationwide public attention and has endeared the fledgling foundation to a sympathetic media. Consistent with its organizing principles, CWF claims to have been the first organization to make gun control a public health issue. "The Initiative breaks with tradition by putting the issue . . . in a public health perspective that centers on prevention." says CWF literature. Yes, prevention. What good is it, asks CWF, for a man to receive a clean bill of health at the local clinic, if he is killed by gunshot on his way home'? The solution)' Get rid of firearms. After all, if a public health department can order the capping of a contaminated water source to stem cholera or order restaurants to stop selling tainted hamburgers, it can surely halt an "epidemic" of gun-related in juries and deaths. Not surprisingly, many challenge this view. Edgar Suter, M.D., of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, a nonprofit organization in San Ramon, Calif., has analyzed such allegations. In a report titled Targeting Deceit, Suter observes that "The chief strategists of the gun ban lobby have attempted to reframe the debate as a 'public health' issue rather than a crime issue precisely because they have recognized . . . that two decades of criminological research has shown the bankruptcy of the claim that gun control reduces crime or violence." By using FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Suter points out that drug dealers and drug users are "overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence....[F]ar from being 'innocent children,' an alarming two-thirds of gun homicides are of teens and young adults in the drug trade." Such facts make little if any impression on the anti-gun advocates, and they are confident of ultimate success. "This is the beginning of a long journey," Dr. Michael Rodriguez, Research Director of the CWF-funded Pacific Center for Violence Prevention, told a Sacramento anti-gun group last June. As reported by the Sacramento Bee Rodriguez warned his audience that they would face "i formidable obstacles, much like the pioneers of the anti-smoking crusade." "Twenty years ago, people were able to light up wherever they wanted," Rodriguez is quoted as saying. Indeed. And CWF is determined that just as the public was eventually conditioned to demand local ordinances and state laws to ban smoking in restaurants, work sites, and government buildings, "education" by CWF will provide the changes in public opinion and policy that will cause citizens to surrender their guns. Here's how some of CWF's grant money is being spent on its anti-gun initiatives. * $650,000 every other year to fund two- year fellowships for ten community activists scattered throughout the state. Also three annual $25,000 "Peace Awards" to selected community leaders. * $400,000 each to 17 community organizations "to implement violence prevention projects." * $200,000 to the Center for Investigative Reporting in San Francisco to produce and distribute a national televised documentary on the firearms industry. * $40,000 to the San Francisco-based Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) for a resource manual, Addressing GUn Violence e through Local Ordinances a how-to book for anti-gun activists and attorneys. It explains how to enact municipal ordinances that outlaw "Saturday night specials" and banish dealers from residential and other "sensitive" areas. It offers advice on how activists can build public support for so-called "rational gun regulation," and how to resist legal challenges to already enacted anti-gun ordinances and regulations. In 1992 a major grant of $1.3 million (part of an eventual total of $7.5 million) was allocated to establish Rodriguez's Pacific Center for Violence Prevention. The money went to the Trauma Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group based in San Francisco's General Hospital. The Trauma Foundation has long assaulted gun ownership going so far as to run full-page ads in major newspapers to promote anti-gun legislation. CWF's 1993 Annual Report detailed the work of the new Center: ''[L]inking several leading activist organizations, the Pacific Center is helping train those involved with the [Violence Prevention] Initiative in order to create a statewide network of advocates who can educate the media, public officials and other leaders on the public health perspective for violence prevention." One such "linking" was with LCAV to produce the resource manual on passing local ordinances. Pacific Center provided staff assistance, while Policy Director David Farrar contributed his expertise. The LCAV project also borrowed anti-smoking activist Mark Pertschuk, son of former FTC Chairman Michael Pertschuk, of the California Preemption Education Project (a joint project of Western Consortium for Public Health and Americans for Nonsmokers Rights), which receives funding from CWF. Playing the Child Card Of all CWF activities, the one generating the most publicity has been the Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence Against Kids. Begun in 1993, it uses TV ads, public service announcements and direct mailings "to mobilize citizen action." CWF shamelessly plays the child card. This tried-and-true tactic originated with Marian Wright Edelman and her Children's Defense Fund. It entails a three- step process: First, define an issue (e.g., health care, gun control, poverty) as a children's problem. Second, propose a government solution. Third, attack those who disagree with the specific policy as anti- children. Thus, "There are too many handguns, too many gun dealers and too many kids losing their lives to this epidemic, and it needs to stop," foundation President Gary Yates told the L.A. Times in April. The TV ads, narrated by veteran Hollywood leftist Ed Asner, told Californians the "number one killer of kids . . . is handguns." A second ad shows guns on an assembly line, with a voice-over: "Business is booming, a handgun is produced every 20 seconds and they're put to use on our kids. Ten kids are killed every day. A kid commits suicide with a handgun every X hours. It's an epidemic." Suter notes that a "kid" includes anyone up to age 18-even young thugs involved in drug trafficking. Viewers could call a toll-free number and receive a Citizen involvement Kit, a brochure containing the names of community organizations to contact (most of them funded by CWF), names and addresses of elected officials, and a list of meaningless 'facts" with which to confront officials, e.g., "There are l 8 times more gun dealers than McDonald's in California." The kit also contained three postcards to send to legislators asking: What are you doing to prevent handgun violence against California kids'? Behind the scenes of this endeavor has been the private political consulting firm of Martin & Glantz. Based in Marin County, it lists among its clients The Nature Conservancy, and the Ford Foundation. Partners Angie Martin and Gina Glantz (no relation to anti- tobacco enthusiast Stanton Glantz) have earned a reputation for the skill with which they manage advocacy campaigns. They received over $2 million through 1994, and in 1995 were awarded an additional $6 million over three years "to continue and expand the multimedia public education campaign." A highlight of this campaign to date was a statewide, 90-minute teleconference titled "First Aid for What's Killing Our Kids: A Prescription for Prevention," which "joined the public and policy makers in Washington, D.C. and 18 conference sites in an unprecedented discussion of specific policy options for reducing violence." The teleconference, held in February 1995. featured pru-recorded appearances by Donna Shalala, secret [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: UPDATE: Health Net/California Wellness Foundation 2/2 (fwd) Date: 05 Oct 1996 16:42:17 PST On Oct 5, EdgarSuter@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The obsession with guns explains CWF's mission completely, and it also says a great deal about modern-day liberalism. CWF and politicians like President Clinton focus on issues like gun control and cigarettes because they do not have the answers to the broader problems afflicting society. Thirty years ago, liberals thought they had the answer: massive government spending and regulation. But that didn't work; as the president said in his State of the Union Address earlier this year, 'the era of trig government is over." Intellectually exhausted and unable to win popular support for big new statist schemes, those seeking to score political points have found that guns and tobacco companies provide easy targets. It is no surprise that the president has tried to make so much of his opponent's assertion that cigarettes are not necessarily addictive for everyone. Likewise, CWF and other foundation have no solutions to the social issues confounding America. So they rail against guns and cigarettes. The Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention Initiative While the lion's share of CWF activity to date has focused on the gun "epidemic," it appears that the foundation has even bigger plans for its teenage pregnancy initiative that is if money allocation is any indication of intent. Until this year the Initiative received comparatively little funding but that has suddenly changed. CWF plans to award .860 million over ten years. Only two grants were listed in the 1995 annual report, though they were sizable: * $570,000 to the California Public Health Foundation to support the organizing and implementation of planning and advisory groups meetings. * $3.5 million to the Public Media Center "to design and implement the first phase of a public education campaign." More recently, the April 18 Chronicle of Philanthropy listed nine newly awarded grants totaling $6.14 million for this Initiative. Of that, $5 million is to be paid over four years to the California Family Planning Council based in Los Angeles, "to implement a clinical-services and prevention model I or pregnant teenagers at family planning organizations in high-risk areas." Also listed in the Chronicle as a spectral grant on Reproductive Health and not as part of the Initiative, is $50,000 to the Washington- based National Advisory Board 011 Ethics in Reproduction for "administrative support and . . . ethical review and analysis of reproductive-policy issues." The VPI is a cover for promoting public acceptance of gun-control. Is the teenage pregnancy initiative just camouflage for pushing abortion as a public health measure'? While the word abortion is never mentioned in CWF literature, the original title-"Teenage Pregnancy and Birth Prevention Initiative"- presents unclear euphemisms that make one wonder what the program envisions. The 1994 annual report admits part of the program will include finding out what has been learned about preventing pregnancies and births among teenagers." Sex education and family planning. we're told, "are not enough" (emphasis in original). CWF seems to be planning programs far beyond condom distribution and birth control pills. The rationale for doing something. anything, about teenage pregnancy is presented in terms sure to appeal to overburdened taxpayers. Most teenage girls who have babies are poor and go on welfare, and they and their children are caught in a descending spiral of poverty and welfare dependence which costs tax dollars. Perhaps it's just an oversight, but CWF does not seem at all concerned about illegitimacy and focuses attention on teenage pregnancy per se- which could include young married couples. That is, as CWF presents the issue, the problem is not so much girls having babies out of wedlock, but girls having babies. One can appreciate concern about welfare and other costs to the taxpayer. But is there another, more pressing consideration? A lull- term birth in a hospital runs anywhere from $2,000 to over $5,000-plus prenatal and post-delivery care. However, an elective abortion costs only a couple of hundred dollars. Health Net, CWF's parent, is in stiff competition with other HMOs for MediCal (California's Medicaid program) contracts. Under capitation, the government pays an HMO so much per member. The more MediCal members are assigned to it, is it more cost efficient to "educate" teenagers and their families to agree to abortion when there's an "unplanned" pregnancy, rather than giving birth, keeping the child or placing it for adoption'? A cynical observation'? Perhaps. But Health Net has the reputation among health care professionals as being the most cost-conscious of all the HMOs. And one of the biggest criticisms of managed care in general is that too much attention is paid to costs at the expense of care. A Tragic Allocation of Funds With its vast resources and connection to a major HMO, CWF could do truly wonderful things in the field of biomedical research. In a January 22 article, Time detailed how HMOs are swelling their coffers through increased memberships, only to renege when IL comes to paying for expected medical care. Time reported several cases of women being denied hone-marrow transplant therapy for breast cancer-a last-ditch, though not extraordinary procedure which might have saved their lives, or at least relieved their suffering. Time explained that Health Net won't cover any treatment it deems experimental or investigative, and considers bone marrow transplants such, yet like other HMOs, "it spends nothing on research to hunt for new treatments for disease.. .[I]t feels bound by law and competition to avoid such research." According to Time, Health Net recently rejected a proposal to allocate money to research ovarian cancer, fearing that under the Americans with Disabilities Act the company would be held liable for discrimination against people with other forms of cancer and other diseases. But if an HMO itself can't or won't pay for research, would it not be a true benefit to humanity for its foundation to do so'' Rather than orchestrating propaganda campaigns against unapproved behaviors and attempting to strip us of our right to self-defense, why doesn't CWF underwrite the research necessary to discover the cause and cure of cancer, AIDS, stroke, and other diseases to which humans are prone? The tendency of foundations such as the California Wellness Foundation to support strategies for social and political control on individual behavior in the name of "prevention" is one of the oddities of contemporary liberalism - Once defenders of individual freedom, they have become prim overseers of personal deportment. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Thank you! UN NGO application donations (fwd) Date: 05 Oct 1996 18:54:34 PST On Oct 5, EdgarSuter@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] We have obtained the money (and one 4-leaf clover) necessary to begin the arduous application process for United Nations Non-Government Organization (NGO) status. The process will take at least one year and perhaps two. I would like to thank each donor personally, but, as many suggested, the time spent writing personal "thank you" letters is better spent working on DIPR's projects - after all, I am not Morris Dees, we are not the Southern Poverty Law Center, and fund-raising is only our occasional necessity, not our raison d'etre. Many of you have offered your misgivings about participating in the United Nations. SInce a pre-teen I have understood how the United Nations was designed to subvert our nation, its values, and our rights and sovereignty. Be sure that I, on behalf of DIPR, will make your voice heard in the den of the New World Order as clearly and as effectively as I can. If we do not participate, it will only be one more forum where we are not heard. Thank you to you all. Best regards, Edgar A. Suter MD National Chair, DIPR [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Rights Date: 05 Oct 1996 22:53:12 -0700 To no one in particular, to everyone specically - Of late, in my searches for and through the most important documents we rely upon in our quest to deny the 'Rights grabbers', I find that the Founders were, almost to a fault, lax in their description of a Right to bear arms. True, they were sufficient enough in 'their' day, and I would think probably concise enough, so as not to evoke an arguement concerning what was meant by what was written, but in our's they are pitifully lacking. We do not speak the same exact language, and inasmuch as we speak somewhat the same tongue, their expressions on Rights are different than ours to the extent that we are made to find exactingly perfect 'fits' for our arguments to be accepted as valid in the Courts of Law. Because of their less than precise language, or perhaps because of our evolving preciseness of language, we are made to work twice a hard - or more, to achieve the same result for the same end. This matter is not helped much when the Judiciary of this land invite the law profession to become ever more 'creative' in their enterprise of seeking to dissemble the real meanings of our enumerated Rights. One would think that as a language evolves, that the meaning of a word (or phrase) would either expand or narrow, but not loose its original meaning entirely. Most certainly, one would not expect the meaning of something so precious as a Right, to contract to the point of being 'meaningless'. Since we have access to most of the major works of the Founders of the Government of this land, and we know precisely what their thoughts were concerning the subject at hand, and because we are held to obeying the laws that were formulated by them for other reasons on other subjects, then it must follow that the Courts of Law must also uphold the meanings imparted by those original documents. All of this is to say that 1 equals 1, and not something else. If the Courts of Law in this land are held to uphold the law on any given subject according to the Constitution's of the States and The Federal, then all laws must be upheld to the same standards - with no deviation, except for cause - on an individual basis, and then only to the extent required to assure maximum liberty. A Right in one sense does not become a privelage in another. A Right is a Right - period. There is no compelling interest to diminish Rights for the population at large, unless those interests are to conflict with the purposes of the Rights. In that regard, only despots and tyrants need be interested. The purpose of a Right is to protect Freedom, and the purpose of freedom is to allow self determination. All three branches of the Federal Government have at times conspired to remove or diminish the various Rights, with no subsequent attempts to restore what was diminished, with the corrupt idea of maintaining the thought that 'the citizens do not know better, and cannot be trusted to exercise a certain Right'. There is no place in the Constitution of the United States, that allows the Congress or the Office of the President, or the Federal Judiciary to diminish or remove a Right on a permanent basis. Just _where_ has Congress found that assertion in the U.S. Constitution, and just _where_ has the U.S. Supreme Court found such an assertion to validate its findings? To assert that such a power exists, should be reason enough for the People to believe that the worst is at hand. Two prominent issues come to mind in regards to the above. The first is 'Pornography', and the second is the object of the Second Article of Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In either case, neither object is in and of itself a harmful thing. In the first case, no matter what the subject of a 'pornographic' article may be, whether it is merely a writing, or visual expression or representation of an act - be it factual or fancifull, however heinous or objectionable it may be to the viewer - it is not in and of itself an act, but merely a possible representation of one only. In that matter it is not subject to control, since it is merely an object of the mind only. Any law to the contrary seeks to control the thoughts of the citizens. To (however emotionally) assert that to view such an object will forever corrupt the mind of the viewer or provoke an act, is without scientific substance or fact. To maintain that an object or subject, of intellectual significance only, could possibly cause or provoke an act that is depicted within or by the object is to assert that we as people cannot contain our thoughts or acts as responsible citizens. In point of fact, any such restrictions on the viewing of any object amounts to nothing less than the theft of the soverign intellectuality of every American citizen. Any thought to the otherwise is morally and intellectually corrupt, for it presumes that some citizens 'know better' than others. To maintain such a position presumes that the Constitution and the Rights protected by it are violable at will and upon whatever inclinations those in office happen to entertain. That being the case, it is a morally bankrupt for _any_ public official to presume to know at any particular time that a certain thing is without merit, and therefore without protection. It presumes to say the certain classes of citizens at certain times can be denied because "I said so". Further, it is the unlawfull assumption or taking of individual responsibility by government. When a government assumes the responsibility of the individual, then the Rights of citizens become mere token privileges that may be denied capriciously. Indeed, when government moves as such, it is to state that we cannot be trusted at all. When government is made to limit the Rights of the citizens based upon the acts of madmen, then we are all made to suffer as madmen. When the lowest intellectual common denominator of a society is used as the measuring stick of citizen responsibility, then there is no responsibility. The Framers of our Federal Constitution knew just that. It validated the States rights to punish those who violated the Rights of others while exercising a Right, thus maintaining freedom for the rest of the citizenry - and not curtailing it. This is the most basic concept of individual responsibility and the relationship to law, which says in part, that punishment must be meted out to only those who have comitted a crime, and not to everyone else. Rights must not be removed because of the irresponsible acts of a few, or even many. We are left to consider the intellectual gymnastics that the 'Freedom Takers' must resort to, in order for them to validate their acts by whatever convoluted means they may, while we seek out a method by which our Rights must be returned to us. In the second case (that of the Right to arms), to presume that citizens will abuse a Right merely by exercising it is the most presumptious of assuptions. Such a thought asserts that only certain people have enough knowledge and intelligence to exercise the Right unhindered. Such people must obviously be god-like, for only that can explain such a presumption. It also presumes that people have become less intelligent than their elders and forebearers. If that is indeed the case, it speaks volumes about those who have participated in the relative demise of our Rights, for only that could explain the absolute idiocy of the decisions used to deny us our birthrights. In both the above instances, the objects are presumed to be 'too dangerous' for citizens to possess. Notice here, the duplicitous acts of government, where only the 'anointed' are allowed to exercise a 'Right' unhindered by law, whilst the rest of us must seek permission to exercise what otherwise is described as a 'Right'. Only in America is a so-called 'Right' heretofore spelled out in the Bill of Rights, exercised with a license. Please note, that a license is permission to do what is otherwise illegal to do. How is it, I ask, that we are forced to ask for our Rights, and made to apply for a license to do just that? It is ludricrous, beyond belief, than any body of elected officials could possibly presume to believe that they have more knowledge, foresight, and a greater wherewithall of competance than the people who elected them to office as representitives to government. To believe, as they do, that the citizen is but a mere digit to be counted and discounted, is the uttermost form of denigration. When a government presumes to 'know better than the citizen' and assumes the mantle of a benefactor rather than as a coordinator of affairs - as was originally intended, then the Rights of citizens will be subverted to the purposes of government and withdrawn from protection against violation, and no amount of citizen involvement will correct the violations of Rights short of actual or threatened full blown revolution. It remains encumbent upon the citizen then, to develope - and maintain, a perspicacity second to none, in order to know where every lie of government will lead. And lastly, the citizens _must_ threaten and _use_ frequently, the power of election recall, to 'bring home' the idea that an oath is the highest form of allegiance to the citizens, and any act pursued by those who have sworn it will be held to the highest standard. The price of liberty, is eternal vigilence. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, means just that. Failure to comply is unsatisfactory, and punishable under law. The value of any threat is only as good as the willingness to back it up with determined actions. Anything less is milquetoast. Ed In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have more laws against freedom than those that protect it. If this country is so damned free, why are there so many things I can't do without breaking some idiotic law? >>>eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com<<< "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus, Roman Senator and historian (a.d. 56-115) >>>A kind thank you to: David Gonzalez <<< The 2nd Amendment IS THE reset button for the United States Constitution. >>>("Doug McKay" ) <<< A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights -- These are the ORIGINAL Contract with America. Beware of Imitations. Accept No Substitutes. Insist on the Genuine Articles. >>>Thanks in part to: John Gear (catalyst@pacifier.com)<<< "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters >>>A hearty thanks to: foolery@bright.net<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Date: 06 Oct 1996 20:19:18 -0700 The Presidential Debate by Monte Cooley, AP (Associated Potatoes) Tonight, in an historic and moving event televised to the nation on virtually every television channel nationwide (except for the movie and entertainment channels, which had better and more interesting things to televise), the current President of the United States of America, William Jefferson "Billy Bob" Bubba Clinton faced his nemesis, the witty and ever-articulate former Senator Bobdole. It was the opportunity, nay, privilege of this humble writer to observe the debate, and then, humbly, to attempt to post to you, the reader, this humble observation, written humbly, by a humble man. The debate was chaired by Jim Lehrer. Mr. Lehrer mentioned at the outset that the format for the debate had largely been chosen by coin toss, much like the fate of our nation at this point. Bill began by stating that, as President, he signed into law the Brady Bill and the Crime Bill with the Assault Weapons Ban, and put 100,000 cops on the street. Bobdole quickly countered by saying (I'm not making this up) that he worries about the quality and safety of our children. Bill quickly countered by mentioning that as President he signed into law the Brady Bill and the Crime Bill with the Assault Weapons Ban, and put 100,000 cops on the street. Bobdole, in a voice that could only be described as Bobdole's voice, assured us that, unlike Bill, he trusts the American people. Bill said he trusts the American people too, really, he does, honest. Bill then went on to state that America is better off today than we were four years ago; we have better wages, more jobs, less poverty, and, as President, he signed into law the Brady Bill and the Crime Bill with the Assault Weapons Ban, and put 100,000 cops on the street. When Bobdole asked Bill if, in fact, he lies - Bill, in an example of the lightning-fast executive thinking he's known for, replied simply, "Absolutely not. Paula made that up, and so did Gennifer. And Arkansas is *not* a small state." Bobdole questioned how Bill's Presidency had allowed drug use to so greatly increase during the last four years. Bill pointed out that he's appointed a four-star general to take over the war on drugs. Not to be outdone, Bobdole stated that when *he's* President, they'll use the National Guard. Bill said "Oh yeah? Well, *we'll* use special forces and biological warfare." Bob growled "Yeah, show me *your* war injury, paleface!" Bill insisted "I DIDN'T INHALE!!!" At this point, although the studio audience demanded a potty break, Jim Lehrer refused to give over control and kept the debate humming like only a Presidential debate in America can hum. But your humble reporter was snoozing there for a few minutes, and missed a bit of the exciting 1996 Presidential Debate. But I'm pretty humble about it, really. In closing, Bill said that "America is stronger than ever. We need to build a bridge to the 21st century, and remember that as President, I signed into law the Brady Bill and the Crime Bill with the Assault Weapons Ban, and put 100,000 cops on the street." Bobdole, whose eyelids at this point broke down mechanically from overuse, had a heartwarming message, in closing, for the youth of America, who took a collective toke, snorted another line, and were heard to exclaim, "Dude - Nirvana rules, dude..." - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: From Charles Duke Date: 06 Oct 1996 21:38:54 -0700 > October 7, 1996 > SENATOR DUKE > (719) 481-9289 > > By Senator Charles R. Duke > Colorado District 9 > > DON'T SAY YOU WEREN'T WARNED > > If you are one of those feel-good Americans that the media >keep talking about, this column isn't going to be very easy to >read. If you care about the principles that founded this >country, it will make you very, very mad, and it should. > On Monday, September 30, 1996, the "President" signed into >law an omnibus spending bill originally flying under the colors >of a defense appropriation bill, H.R. 3610. Along the >legislative way, a huge number of other appropriations were >added in Christmas-tree fashion. Buried in those other >appropriations were measures so heinous that one can actually >now see the end of America coming. > You may remember that in 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled >in U.S. v. Lopez that Congress had no authority, by the Tenth >Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to enact legislation that >declared a gun-free zone of 1000 feet around a school. Thus, >the Court ruled the legislation that was passed was >unconstitutional, and, therefore, was null and void. This >ruling was celebrated by constitutionists everywhere as a rare >upholding of our Constitution. Even though some may support the >general idea of a school zone gun ban, the Court had ruled that >authority belonged in the states, not the federal government. > Oblivious to the Constitution and the Supreme Court, >Congress added amendments to H.R. 3610 to re-enact those zones, >now encompassing nearly one-half mile in diameter around each >school, according to a press release by the Gun Owners of >America (GOA), an organization found very reliable in the past. >If a citizen passes through such a zone with a weapon that is >loaded but not in a locked container or rack, that citizen faces >a felony conviction followed by five years in prison. By the >way "school" is defined in the amendments, even a home school is >included. The only exception is for those with a pistol carry >license, according to GOA. > GOA also reports the bill, as you might expect, goes >further than that. It imposes a life-time ban on possession of >a gun by anyone convicted of "us[ing] or attempt[ing] to >use...physical force" in a domestic situation. The GOA >asserts this even includes misdemeanors and "will not only >affect women who might throw a lamp at their spouse (like the >First lady), it will also endanger parents who spank their >children." Clearly, anyone who gets involved in any domestic >spat could be included. This is just a license to wholesale >harass citizens and seize their weapons. It is a major >escalation of the government's overall program to ultimately >seize all weapons from citizens. > H.R. 3610 contained many other provisions similar in >nature, among which is almost a $100 million increase for BATF, >including $66 million for additional anti-terrorism efforts, and >a measure to force telephone companies to retrofit their >equipment in order to facilitate wiretaps on all citizens. H.R. >3610 was folded into another bill, H.R. 4278, after voting, and >the complete text of H.R. 4278 may be found in the Congressional >Record for September 28, 1996. The GOA press release includes >the exact section number of all reported provisions. You may >obtain your own copy of this analysis by contacting GOA at 703- >321-8585 or by visiting their web page at http://www.gunowners.org. > Ignorance on the part of those in Congress who voted for >this blatant assault on your Bill of Rights is not acceptable. >If your U.S. Representative or your U.S. Senator did not know >what was in the bill, why did they vote for it? If they did >know, but didn't understand, that, too, is bad. If they knew >and did understand, they are, in this writer's opinion, giving >aid and comfort to our nation's enemies and are unfit for >service in Congress or any other elected body. The GOA press >release contains the names of all those in both houses of >Congress who either voted against H.R. 3610 or were absent. All >others voted for the bill. > In Colorado, the "no" votes were cast by Reps. Joel Hefley >and Pat Schroeder and by Senator Hank Brown. Senator Ben >Campbell was not present and voting. All other Colorado >Representatives voted for this bill, as did a majority of both >houses. In the House, H.R. 3610 passed by a vote of 370-37. In >the Senate, the vote was 84-15. > How proud the leaders of Congress and the President were >for passing these appropriations without "shutting down the >government" (their words). Worse yet, they actually believed >they deserved kudos from us. Time was, gridlock in our national >government was our biggest problem. Now, it is our only hope. > It is too late to stop this from going into law, because >Congress has adjourned for the election season. The lapdog >media did their job by stonewalling, again, the information >concerning this confiscation of your guns and your rights. You >can hold every single candidate for U.S. office accountable for >this willful violation of the oath of office. Do it now, while >you still can, and get their answer in writing. Only those who >will make a firm commitment in writing to repeal this bill >should be returned to office. > End > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Write Warden:Davidian Prisoner Beaten (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 07:48:37 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- behold@teleport.com, c-news@world.std.com, campaign@harrybrowne96.org, Cato Institute , comminc@fortnet.org, cybernews-publish-l@cornell.edu, Hippyma , infoaclu@aclu.org, liberty-and-justice@pobox.com, misc-activism-militia@uunet.uu.net, patriot@aol.com, rkba-dems@netcom.com, snetnews@alterzone.com, texas-gun-owners@zilker.net, tm@nra.org, usafeature@gnn.com Thursday I received the following in a letter dated September 28, 1996 from Davidian prisoner Livingstone Fagan who is serving 40 years and is currently in "solitary" confinement at Leavenworth. He spends 24 hours a day in 4x8 cell with another inmate. My salvation remains precarious at best. I still retain the scars and bruises from threats and physical assaults sustained since my arrival June 20th '96. All of which I received at the hands of prison officers. Last Thursday was the worst yet. After continuously slamming my head against a concrete, then metal structure, followed by my body against a concrete floor (the stated purpose being to get me to fear him), this 300 lb officer then verbalized his intent to kill me for my not cowering to his will. Ordinarily the above would be considered attempted murder. In here it seems to be the norm -- the inquisition continues. I had tended not to report these incidents, not wanting to appear as though I'm whining. I'm not. This is only for informational purposes. It is not uncommon for people to be killed in these institutions and it be reported as self- inflicted. In the event of my premature death, I think it prudent that there be someone independent who is aware of the preceding circumstances leading to this event, thus averting such fabrication. Please Help Livingstone Fagan by complaining to the following: Warden Page True Leavenworth F.C.I. 1300 Metropolitan Leavenworth, KS 66048 Feel free to cc: the letter to (and put this in your letter) Kathleen Hawk, Director of Federal Prisons, 320 First Street,NW, Washington, DC 20534. A cc: to Rep. Bill McCullom, Chair, House Judiciary subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, 207 Cannon Bldge, Washington, DC 20515 might remind them Congressional subcommittees do oversee prison activities. The prison would not release the fax number, however, your phone call complaints will also be helpful. The more the better. Call 913-682-8700 and either a) dial in xt. 447, that of Fagan's case manager Russ Perdue and, should he answer, discuss the matter with him or b) since he may be away from the desk, you can ask for the Warden's office and complain to the secretary or c) at least complain to the individual answering the general number, if he will not put you through. The more calls/letters they get, the less likely this will happen agan. Carol Moore, member, Committee for Waco Justice, author, The Davidian Massacre, 202/635-3937. cmoore@capaccess.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: DON'T SAY YOU WEREN'T WARNED (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 09:09:10 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: tab@hollyent.com October 7, 1996 SENATOR DUKE (719) 481-9289 By Senator Charles R. Duke Colorado District 9 DON'T SAY YOU WEREN'T WARNED If you are one of those feel-good Americans that the media keep talking about, this column isn't going to be very easy to read. If you care about the principles that founded this country, it will make you very, very mad, and it should. On Monday, September 30, 1996, the "President" signed into law an omnibus spending bill originally flying under the colors of a defense appropriation bill, H.R. 3610. Along the legislative way, a huge number of other appropriations were added in Christmas-tree fashion. Buried in those other appropriations were measures so heinous that one can actually now see the end of America coming. You may remember that in 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Lopez that Congress had no authority, by the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to enact legislation that declared a gun-free zone of 1000 feet around a school. Thus, the Court ruled the legislation that was passed was unconstitutional, and, therefore, was null and void. This ruling was celebrated by constitutionists everywhere as a rare upholding of our Constitution. Even though some may support the general idea of a school zone gun ban, the Court had ruled that authority belonged in the states, not the federal government. Oblivious to the Constitution and the Supreme Court, Congress added amendments to H.R. 3610 to re-enact those zones, now encompassing nearly one-half mile in diameter around each school, according to a press release by the Gun Owners of America (GOA), an organization found very reliable in the past. If a citizen passes through such a zone with a weapon that is loaded but not in a locked container or rack, that citizen faces a felony conviction followed by five years in prison. By the way "school" is defined in the amendments, even a home school is included. The only exception is for those with a pistol carry license, according to GOA. GOA also reports the bill, as you might expect, goes further than that. It imposes a life-time ban on possession of a gun by anyone convicted of "us[ing] or attempt[ing] to use...physical force" in a domestic situation. The GOA asserts this even includes misdemeanors and "will not only affect women who might throw a lamp at their spouse (like the First lady), it will also endanger parents who spank their children." Clearly, anyone who gets involved in any domestic spat could be included. This is just a license to wholesale harass citizens and seize their weapons. It is a major escalation of the government's overall program to ultimately seize all weapons from citizens. H.R. 3610 contained many other provisions similar in nature, among which is almost a $100 million increase for BATF, including $66 million for additional anti-terrorism efforts, and a measure to force telephone companies to retrofit their equipment in order to facilitate wiretaps on all citizens. H.R. 3610 was folded into another bill, H.R. 4278, after voting, and the complete text of H.R. 4278 may be found in the Congressional Record for September 28, 1996. The GOA press release includes the exact section number of all reported provisions. You may obtain your own copy of this analysis by contacting GOA at 703- 321-8585 or by visiting their web page at http://www.gunowners.org. Ignorance on the part of those in Congress who voted for this blatant assault on your Bill of Rights is not acceptable. If your U.S. Representative or your U.S. Senator did not know what was in the bill, why did they vote for it? If they did know, but didn't understand, that, too, is bad. If they knew and did understand, they are, in this writer's opinion, giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies and are unfit for service in Congress or any other elected body. The GOA press release contains the names of all those in both houses of Congress who either voted against H.R. 3610 or were absent. All others voted for the bill. In Colorado, the "no" votes were cast by Reps. Joel Hefley and Pat Schroeder and by Senator Hank Brown. Senator Ben Campbell was not present and voting. All other Colorado Representatives voted for this bill, as did a majority of both houses. In the House, H.R. 3610 passed by a vote of 370-37. In the Senate, the vote was 84-15. How proud the leaders of Congress and the President were for passing these appropriations without "shutting down the government" (their words). Worse yet, they actually believed they deserved kudos from us. Time was, gridlock in our national government was our biggest problem. Now, it is our only hope. It is too late to stop this from going into law, because Congress has adjourned for the election season. The lapdog media did their job by stonewalling, again, the information concerning this confiscation of your guns and your rights. You can hold every single candidate for U.S. office accountable for this willful violation of the oath of office. Do it now, while you still can, and get their answer in writing. Only those who will make a firm commitment in writing to repeal this bill should be returned to office. End ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Judge Bars FREE SPEECH 4 McVeigh (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 10:01:31 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (free 2 forward)-----------------------------(free 2 copy(*) J U D G E B A R S M E D I A A C C E S S F O R M c V E I G H By Ian Williams Goddard The Associated Press (10/05/96) reports: DENVER (AP) - Oklahoma City bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh ... won't be allowed to meet the press. [ U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch ruled. ] [ McVeigh's attorney ] Jones asked Matsch to grant the interviews, saying McVeigh needed to counter his ``demonization'' and let the public know there are two sides to the case. Prosecutors opposed the request, saying the inter- views..[were]..aimed at influencing the jury pool. To keep the jury pool free from improper influence, only the govt's -- i.e., the prosecution's -- case will be promoted continuously by the major media. Not even once have I heard the defense's case in the major media, which, from what I have gleaned, is that more people were involved, McVeigh is a patsy, and the FBI had foreknowledge of the blast. The only case to be heard in the major media is the pro- secution's case, which is: The only suspects are McVeigh & Nicholes. On many occasions the major media has shown bereaved victims and family members saying, "Boy if I could get my hands on that McVeigh, I'd..." "If you put me in a room with McVeigh alone, why I'd..." It seems as if the major media is not merely promoting only the prosecu- tion's case, they're even warming up the electric chair -- the "let's kill him" lynch mob mentality. This free flow of prejudical hatred backed by calls for killing is an effective diversionary tactic that prevents objective review and inquiries about the facts, such as: INQUIRY: What about ATF / FBI foreknowledge of the bombing ? MAJOR MEDIA: Kill kill kill. INQUIRY: What about the primed bombs found inside the building ? MAJOR MEDIA: Kill kill kill. INQUIRY: What about the reports of many demolition and munitions experts who insist that blast damage patterns dictate that supplemental demolition charges must have been used ? MAJOR MEDIA: Kill kill kill. INQUIRY: What about the seismographic recordings from the University of Oklahoma and Omniplex Science Center both measuring TWO blasts ? MAJOR MEDIA: Kill kill kill. You'll never hear these valid fact-based questions raised in the major media. There are no questions in the major media, only the govt-prosecution line is to be found in the major media augmented with the prejudical revenge / rage of victims hopelessly duped by the govt line. But not all the victims are duped: You'll not be hearing any more from Eyde Smith -- who lost her only two children in the blast -- because she believes and has the evidence that the ATF had foreknowledge, and her family plans to sue the govt. Eyde Smith was told by the govt to "Keep your mouth shut, don't talk about it" when she simply asked why she and her children did not have the same forewarning that the ATF had. After she reported this during a CNN interview -- the last to be heard from her in the major media -- Ms. Smith tells us that she was visited the next day by agents from the ATF and the IRS no less. KJRH-TV then reported that after the ATF's house call she decided that the ATF did not have foreknowledge. Yet she told The Jubilee (May/June 1995) that she NEVER had such an intimidation-induced change of mind. Then her govt compensation checks were cut off and her mail began to arrive already opened with checks sent by caring citizens removed, which she reported on Radio Free America (6/19/95). These are gross examples of govt intimidation, theft and fabrication. Why is the govt going to all this trouble to shut her up if they are in the clear? INQUIRY: Major media, what about the reports and intimidation of Eyde Smith, who lost her only two children in the bombing ? MAJOR MEDIA: Kill kill kill. It seems that these things are just a little to complex for the major media to comprehend. The AP (10/05/96) article continues: Prosecutors also complained that McVeigh was hand-picking interviewers. Good grief! You mean the prosecutors where not to arrange the interviews for him, but he was to be free to speak to people of his choosing? I am aghast! Since suspects are to be considered guilty prior to trail, what would give this guilty man the right to such freedom of speech? The AP: Matsch said he was troubled by Jones' attempt to cast McVeigh in a better light and refused to lift his order restricting what can be discussed outside the courtroom. Wow, right there: Judge troubled by attempt to cast McVeigh in a "better light." That clearly reveals that the only light he is to be cast in is a less than better light -- i.e., a bad light, a "he's guilty" light. Any- thing that threatens this bad light must be barred from public sight. It's obvious to see that the judge is controlling the "lighting" in this trial to cast the best possible light on the govt-prosecution's case. While they will not allow anything but a bad light for McVeigh, an FBI investigator has already come forward to cast a bad light on this bad light: the investigator says that crucial evidence used to cast McVeigh in a bad light was fabricated. The AP (4/10/96) reports (emphasis added): Prosecutors agreed to turn over letters from FBI agent Frederic Whitehurts, who tested Mr. McVeigh's cloths for traces of explosives. Mr. Whitehurst has claimed that investigators FAKED evidence in the bombing case. ^^^^^ Well at least the prosecutors turned over some exculpatory evidence, when its existence was no secret. The honest inquirer is forced to question: what is the govt so afraid of that has required intimidation, fabrication and suppression to be necessary features of the govt's "legal" game plan?? ************************************************************************ IAN GODDARD Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y visit Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________________ (c) 1996 Ian Wiliams Goddard - Free to copy nonprofit with attribute ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: FIJA> Another story about Laura Kriho (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 10:02:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cover Story: Witch Hunt. October 3 - 9, 1996 by Greg Campbell After two days of testimony in the case of ex-juror Laura Kriho, it seems that rather than defending charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, she's actually standing trial for the practice of witchcraft. Despite the modern surroundings of the Gilpin County Justice Center, the proceedings more closely resemble some twisted interpretation of Arthur Miller's The Crucible than a legitimate trial. "This case is bizarre. Jurors haven't been prosecuted for their deliberations in the jury room for hundreds of years. These guys want to reverse that. These guys want to go back to the 17th century," says Kriho's attorney, Paul Grant, referring to the attorneys and judges of the First Judicial District. "They want to put her on trial for her political associations; they want to put her on trial for her beliefs, for her philosophy. None of that is any of the court's business and it's certainly not appropriate for the court to punish someone for what they believe in." Kriho's beliefs got her into trouble in May when she was selected to be a juror in the case of the People of the State of Colorado v. Michelle Brannon. To listen to the other jurors describe the case, it was fairly open and shut. In fact, the jury began deliberations on the drug charges in the case only one day after being selected and it only took about two hours before all but one of them was prepared to convict Brannon on the possession charge. The one hold-out was Kriho, who decided she wasn't going to vote to convict because she didn't believe in drug laws. "I've been on juries before and this is the first time something like this has happened to me," says Betty Hammock, one of Kriho's fellow jurors. "She made me feel that we shouldn't prosecute anyone who takes drugs. With this girl here (Brannon), (Kriho) didn't want to see her get a bad punishment. ... She said you could change the laws in the (jury) room." What Kriho was doing, whether she knew it or not, was nullifying the jury. It's a simple but hotly debated technique of deliberation where a juror votes on a verdict based on personal beliefs and emotions rather than on the letter of the law, a method usually in complete contradiction to the instructions from the court. Nullification is a belief that the jury has the final say over whether or not a law is valid, just or applicable. If a juror doesn't believe in a law, or believes that a certain law is too intrusive, too frivolous or just about anything else, then that juror has not only the ability to vote according to her conscience but has a moral duty to do so. Eventually, the argument goes, laws that continually result in hung juries due to nullification will either cease to be prosecuted or will be changed. Just look at the Salem, Mass., witch trials, Kriho argued during deliberations in the Brannon case. Once the true nature of witch trials became known, brave juries refused to follow orders to convict the defendants of witchcraft and eventually the trials ended. But Kriho may as well have been speaking to an empty room. Not only did she fail to convince any of those on the jury who were itching to convict the defendant and get their jury responsibilities over with, the others sent a note to Judge Kenneth Barnhill in frustration over the deadlock, asking if Kriho could be replaced. No such luck, Barnhill replied - alternate jurors had already been dismissed. Kriho's stubbornness resulted in a hung jury, and Barnhill was forced to declare a mistrial. Juror Hammock even apologized to prosecuting attorney Jim Stanley for the outcome of the case. "Is there anything that can be done about that?" she asked him, referring to Kriho's refusal to cooperate with the others on the guilty verdict. Apparently, the court is determined to set a standard that something certainly can be done. Now, nearly six months after the mistrial, Stanley, most of the members of the jury and Kriho are all back in the same courtroom in the cinder-block Justice Center halfway between Rollinsville and Black Hawk but on far different terms: This time Kriho's in the defendant's seat being prosecuted for contempt of court for nullifying the Brannon jury. "I think they want to paint her more or less as a person who is guilty of all kinds of bad attitudes and that's underlying her conduct in the jury room," says Grant. In other words, it's a witch hunt. Invitation to anarchy Depending on who you talk to, jury nullification is either the last great check and balance of the judicial system, or an invitation to "anarchy," as Stanley, the prosecuting attorney, puts it. Few will deny that jurors have the power to decide any way they like regardless of facts or reasonable doubt, but there has never been a definitive ruling on whether or not jurors have the right to do so; moral, legal or otherwise. As it is, jury nullification has remained a loophole in the judicial system by which a jury can check a power-hungry judge by voting on principle rather than the fine points of the law. As Grant puts it: "No court can show any authority to order a person to violate their conscience. ... That's the purpose of a jury; it's an independent check on the power of a judge and of the prosecutor. That's been its historic role. You've got to have independence of the jury in order to protect defendants against overzealous prosecution." Northern juries, for instance, regularly refused to convict slaves of running away from their masters during the Civil War days. But in recent decades, the knowledge of a jury's power to nullify has fallen by the wayside - until recently. A Montana group called the Fully Informed Jury Association has taken it upon itself to remind people that they can and should vote according to their conscience. According to an article in Judge's Journal by Gilpin County Judge Frederic Rodgers, the movement has attracted "a potent, if unusual, mix of tax protestors, advocates of marijuana legalization, abortion protestors, libertarians, militia members and enemies of big government." And members of all these groups are watching the proceedings in Courtroom B very closely. Regardless of the outcome, the decision will set a precedent for future jury nullification cases - the first one of its kind - and there is little doubt about which way the court is leaning. Last Friday, during a motions hearing in which Judge Henry Nieto denied a request by the defense to dismiss the case, the course for the trial seemed to have been set: In turning down the motion, Nieto declared that the "defendant has the power but not the right to disregard the law. That is not the case here in Colorado." And since the judge himself, not a jury, will be deciding the outcome of the trial, the actual trial would seem to be nothing more than a formality in the wake of this comment. Big implications Prosecuting Kriho for jury nullification would be foolhardy since there isn't a precedent for it, so Stanley's strategy is to show that Kriho intentionally poisoned the jury with her protest of drug laws. Specifically, Kriho is charged with perjury for failing to inform the court during voir dire testimony (in which prospective jurors are interviewed and screened) that she held prejudices against the drug laws that would have made her incapable of delivering a fair verdict. She's further charged with disregarding the judge's instructions not to discuss Brannon's potential punishment if she had been found guilty. By pursuing the case in this manner, the court will be able to make a ruling on jury nullification based on other facts and alleged violations, thereby setting the course for other judges faced with similar situations. If the prosecution is successful, says Grant, "It tells the jurors if you get selected on a jury and you're not convinced of the guilt and everybody else is, you'd better watch out. You hang that jury, they're going to turn around and investigate you and see if they can prove that you had some hidden agenda, see if you believed in something that they believe you should have told them about but didn't." Even a cursory glance at the odds reveals that the deck is woefully stacked against Kriho. The first red flag is that the attorney who expected to win what should have been a slam-dunk possession conviction is now prosecuting the person solely responsible for that case being declared a mistrial. But an attempt by Grant to have the court assign a special prosecutor was denied: Apparently Judge Nieto saw no potential conflict of interest in the situation. Furthermore, Nieto denied Kriho a jury trial, presumably to avoid the same sort of nullification that Kriho advocated for the Brannon case. As it turns out, the judge's suspicion was prudent: a Libertarian Party member in the audience during the first day of trial Tuesday muttered darkly about how things would have been different with a jury hearing the case. "They only have about 2,700 registered voters (from which to choose a jury in Gilpin County)," he said. "We could've flooded them with (nullification advocacy) fliers for about 500 bucks." Worse, Grant is loudly alleging that there was collusion between the district attorney's office and the Gilpin County judges to bring charges against his client. Testimony by former juror Dan Cooper seems to support this theory. After Judge Barnhill declared a mistrial in the Brannon case, Kriho apparently went to her car to retrieve a pamphlet advocating jury nullification to give to another juror. That juror promptly handed the pamphlet over to the judge who was still in the courtroom. And Cooper testified that he overheard the judge tell Stanley to "look into this." According to Grant, this is an indication that the judge wanted Kriho prosecuted for nullifying the jury. "It was pretty apparent that the district attorney and the judge both thought that they had a conviction against the defendant in that case, and they were ticked off that it didn't turn out that way," he says. "No judge should put pressure on a prosecutor. No judge should be involved. They should not even indicate an interest in it. It's improper." But apparently Stanley did indeed look into it - allegedly with the help of another Gilpin County judge who has made advising other judges how to handle the threat of jury nullification something of a hobby. Judge Frederic Rodgers wrote an article about what one should do when faced with a jury pool tainted with notions of nullification. After the Brannon mistrial, he re-wrote it to include details about Kriho (which, long before her trial began, described her as an "obstructionist juror" rather than one who wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt) for Judge's Journal, a national judge's magazine. Grant contends that though Rodgers is unaffiliated with Kriho's case, he provided the prosecutor's office with an earlier copy of his article. "When a judge communicates with the district attorney who is investigating a case and shows him what the judge's opinion of the law is and what ought to be done, the judge is putting pressure on the district attorney's office to bring charges," claims Grant. "The judge is implying that he wants to see this person prosecuted. That's what the article is all about: how to snuff out the jury nullification movement. So if he's communicating with the prosecution, that is an improper involvement of the judge and the prosecutor. Those are supposed to be two separate branches of government. Prosecutors are required by law to make their own decisions about whether or not to bring charges." Rodgers denies he pressured Stanley to bring charges or that they had any contact at all regarding Kriho's case, but he does say it's possible that the article "might have been lying around the lunchroom" and someone from the district attorney's office may have gotten a hold of it. Naturally, Stanley scoffs at the notion that Kriho's walking into a situation that is anything less than fair or that her prosecution is some form of revenge against her for causing the mistrial in May. "Absolutely not the case," he says. "It's not uncommon for a jury to return a verdict that we do not necessarily agree with. That's not the issue. Once the jury makes a decision, it's final and we accept it and that's what our system is based on. "The basis (for the contempt citation) is that she was deceptive and she disregarded the instructions of the judge. Furthermore ... this was brought at the request of the judge. It is the judge who the contempt is perpetrated against, not the prosecutor." Flimsy charges In spite of what seems to many to be an overwhelming advantage enjoyed by the prosecution, it was apparent to several of the 70 or so observers that Stanley's charges against Kriho are actually quite flimsy. As testimony wore on Tuesday, Grant's argument that the prosecution was singling out Kriho for punishment because of her strong anti-drug-law stance began to gain some weight, at least among courtroom observers. According to much of the evidence, many, if not all, of the jurors could have been brought up on the same charges as Kriho. For instance, one of the main points of the prosecution is that Kriho committed perjury during voir dire testimony in order to sneak onto the jury with the intent of hanging it. Two pertinent questions asked of the potential jurors were: Is there anything that would keep you from returning a verdict that is based solely on the law? And have you ever had any experiences, good or bad, with the criminal justice system? Kriho didn't mention her aversion to drug laws, the fact that she pled guilty to possession of LSD in 1984 or the fact that she supports the legalization of hemp through her association with the Boulder Hemp Initiative Project. But Grant says she was never asked these questions. Rather than repeat all of the 300-some questions to all potential jurors, it's common for attorneys to simply ask, "Did you hear and understand all the questions I asked the other candidates?" and "Would you answer differently to any of them?" "It's kind of a nonsense question, isn't it?" Grant asked ex-juror Hammock, after pointing out that some of the questions - about occupation or marital status, for example - required they be answered differently. Yet the vast majority of those responding said "no," they wouldn't answer any of the questions differently. Therefore, everyone who answered this way could technically be charged with perjury. "They wanted her to volunteer telling them about her basic beliefs and philosophies so they could have understood her attitude," says Grant. "Most people typically don't volunteer that kind of stuff (during voir dire)." He also argued that it is highly unlikely that the replacement jurors, who sat in the back of the courtroom for upwards of two hours in some cases, could possibly remember all 350 questions that were asked. The second thrust of the prosecution's argument is that, contrary to the judge's instructions, Kriho researched the potential sentence for the drug charge (on the Internet) and considered it while deciding her vote. And, according to testimony by ex-juror Cooper, she encouraged the rest of the jury to do the same by repeating that she was going to hang the jury "because of the sentencing harshness." To the prosecution, this is a clear and intentional violation of the judge's decree that no thought be given to the potential sentence of the defendant when coming to a decision. But Grant points out that the jurors were given conflicting instructions. In another set of rules, the jury is told that when weighing a witness' credibility, they must take into consideration "the manner in which each witness might be affected by the verdict." Since Brannon, the defendant in the case they were deciding, took the stand as a witness in her own defense, "the consequences must be considered," Grant argued. Additionally, juror Hammock admitted on the stand that she too discussed possible sentencing during deliberation in terms of rehabilitation and probation rather than jail time. Therefore, the charge of disregarding the judge's instructions, if they can be applied to Kriho, can also be applied to Hammock. But it's Kriho who's on trial. She turned me into a newt! In spite of all this, the conventional wisdom among the hippies, Libertarians, potheads and Hare Krishnas gathered to support Kriho is that she's going down the tubes. If any of these gallery observers were on a jury asked to rule in the case, it would probably take all of five minutes to deem her not guilty. But the courts already took care of that possibility: as noted, there is no jury. "The jury is the voice of the community in the enforcement of the laws," says Grant. "A cross section of the community in a jury of your peers doesn't mean that these people have sworn to be in full agreement with every law that's on the books. Our society has a cross section of people in it. ... Some people enthusiastically support drug laws and some people think that they're the vilest things that ever occurred and a lot of people are in between. That's a cross section of the community. "It's a case with very serious consequences if Laura gets convicted." A decision on the case is expected some time before the end of October. Kriho faces a maximum sentence of six months in jail if convicted. copyright 1996 Boulder Weekly, Inc. Boulder Weekly 690 South Lashley Lane Boulder, CO 80303 303-494-5511 303-494-2585 fax http://www.boulderweekly.com bweditor@tesser.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Simple recipe Date: 07 Oct 1996 12:56:01 -0400 Gentlefolk, Can any of you summarize (in 50 words or less) what is the best way to construct a buried PVC pipe to store valuble tools? I know that ~42 inches is good, and it wants to be buried vertically. Is standard 6 or 8 inch PVC pipe with standard fittings adequate? What do I need for adhesive? thanks, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Letter to Denver Post re Juror on Trial Date: 07 Oct 1996 10:45:43 -0700 >7 October 1996 > >Denver Post >1560 Broadway >Denver CO 80202 >letters@denverpost.com > >Dear Sirs: > >I have been following the Laura Kriho contempt of court case on the >Internet with great interest. Her case involves much more than prior >drug charges, not volunteering information during voir dire, the >confidentiality of jury deliberations. Her case involves the >government's efforts to emasculate the American jury system. > >After being the lone juror in another case to have reasonable doubt as >to the guilt of the defendant in that case, Kriho found herself faced >with her own trial--this time a trial by a judge, not a jury. The >prosecutor, Jim Stanley, is the same prosecutor as in the Brannon >case, the one declared a mistrial when Kriho refused to convict. > >Kriho was denied a jury trial because her punishment for "contempt of >court" would only be six months in jail. That's six months in jail for >voting her conscience, which is precisely what jurors are supposed to >do. Petit jurors are not there to blindly follow a judge's orders, nor to >rubber stamp a prosecutor's indictment. They are there to state whether >they find a defendant guilty or not guilty on the evidence. They are there, in >fact--historical fact--to judge both the facts and the law. > >Jury nullification--juror's judging both the facts of the case, and >the law to be applied in the case--is an ancient and honorable >function of our American judicial system, and that of England before >it. A few quotes on the matter might help your readers to understand >the history of the principle of jury nullification: > >John Adams said of the juror: "it is not only his right, but his duty >. . . to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, >judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction >of the court." Alexander Hamilton said that jurors should acquit even >against the judge's instruction " . . . if exercising their judgment >with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the >charge of the court is wrong." John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. >Supreme Court, said "The jury has a right to judge both the law as >well as the fact in controversy." > >The problem seems to be that while our founding fathers, >lawyers though many of them were, recognized this essential principle >of a free people, our current judges and prosecutors do not. Perhaps the >people of Gilpin County might wish to help them reconsider. > >For acting on her conscience, Kriho faces six months in jail. I can >only assume if the judge and the prosecutor in Gilpin County can >punish one juror so severely for her behavior in the jury box, they >could certainly punish others. I hope that the citizens of Gilpin >County, Colorado, and indeed the United States, are aware of the >historical significance of Ms. Kriho's case--not at all a "simple case >of contempt of court" as the judge in charge called it. It is the >first case of its kind since William Penn's, in England, in 1670. > >Sincerely, > >Patricia Neill - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: KRIHO CASE: LETTERS NEEDED Date: 07 Oct 1996 12:53:43 -0700 Anybody up for writing a letter? And emailing it to the folks below? - Monte >>Action Alert: Letters to the Editor Needed >> >>Re: A Juror on Trial >>The State of Colorado vs. Laura Kriho >>Case# 96CR91 >>(Please re-distribute this alert freely!) >> >> Many people are outraged by the prosecution of juror Laura >>Kriho for contempt of court for deliberating "improperly" when >>she served on a jury. Her case is starting an important public >>debate about many issues surrounding juries and jury rights. It >>is important that this debate continue, in an intelligent manner, >>in the local press. >> The Jury Rights Project is requesting that people write >>letters to the editors of these local newspapers about Laura's >>case. A few minutes of your time could have a great impact on >>the outcome of her case by helping to educate the public and call >>attention to her case. >> Here is the list of papers that have email addresses. The long list >>(including those without email) is at the end of this post. >> >>letters@denverpost.com Denver Post, Denver >>letters@denver-rmn.com Rocky Mt. News, Denver >>news@dailycamera.com Daily Camera, Boulder ** >>talbot@bcn.boulder.co.us Colorado Daily, Boulder ** >>bweditor@tesser.com Boulder Weekly, Boulder >>news@boulderplanet.com Boulder Planet, Boulder >>mtn-ear@indra.com Mountain Ear, Nederland >>editorial@westword.com Westword, Denver >> >> >> Letters policy: The letters to the editor policies of most >>newspapers are similar. Editors print short letters (200 to 300 >>words). Editors need an address and phone number for >>verification of the letter (these are not published). If you >>photocopy your letter to send to several papers, editors often >>request that you put an original signature on each letter. >> >> OpEd Articles: Editors may print longer articles (500 to >>800 words) in "Guest Opinion" columns. When submitting these >>longer articles, it is important to follow up with a phone call >>to see what the chances are of the newspaper publishing the >>article and when this would be likely to occur. >> >> It would be helpful to mention Laura's legal defense fund at >>the end of your letter, as she still has a lot of money to raise. >>Since newspaper reporters must try to appear unbiased in their >>stories, letters to the editor are often the only (free) way to >>get information about defense funds into the newspaper. >> For writing tips, check out "How to Write Effective Letters" >>on the Media Awareness Project Web site: >>(http://www.drcnet.org/map/mapinfo.htm) >> If possible, send a copy of any letters you write to the >>Jury Rights Project. We can also help you if you want to write a >>letter, but don't know what to say. >> Thanks in advance for all your help! >> >>Colorado Front Range Newspapers >> >>***** Daily Newpapers ****** >>Denver Post >>1560 Broadway >>Denver, CO 80202 >>Phone: (303) 820-1010 >>Fax: (303) 820-1369 >>Email: letters@denverpost.com >> >>Rocky Mt. News >>400 W. Colfax >>Denver, CO 80204 >>Phone: (303) 892-5000 >>Fax: (303) 892-5499 >>Email: letters@denver-rmn.com >> >>Daily Camera >>P.O. Box 591 >>Boulder, CO 80306 >>Phone: (303) 442-1462 >>Fax: (303) 449-9358 >>Email: news@dailycamera.com >> >>Colorado Daily >>P.O. Box 1719 >>Boulder, CO 80306 >>Clint Talbott, Ed. >>Phone: (303) 443-6272 >>Fax: (303) 443-9357 >>Email: talbot@bcn.boulder.co.us >>Online Edition: http://bcn.boulder.co.us/media/colodaily >> >>Longmont Times-Call >>350 Terry Street >>Longmont, CO 80501 >>Phone: (303) 444-3636 >>Fax: (303) 772-8339 >>Email: none >> >>**** Weekly Newspapers ***** >> >>Boulder Weekly >>690 S. Lashley Lane >>Boulder, CO 80303 >>Phone: (303) 494-5511 >>Fax: (303) 494-2585 >>Email: bweditor@tesser.com >> >>Boulder Planet >>2028 14th Street >>Boulder, CO 80302 >>Phone: (303) 444-5761 >>Fax: (303) 415-1210 >>Email: news@boulderplanet.com >> >>Mt. Ear >>P.O. Box 99 >>Nederland, CO 80466 >>Phone: (303) 258-7075 >>Fax: (303) 258-3547 >>Email: mtn-ear@indra.com >> >>Weekly Register-Call >>Box 609 >>Central City, CO 80427 >>Phone: (303) 582-5333 >>Fax: (303) 582-3932 >>Email: none >> >>Westword >>P.O. Box 5970 >>Denver, CO 80217 >>Phone: (303) 296-7744 >>Fax: (303) 296-5416 >>Email: editorial@westword.com >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) >> To be removed from this mailing list, send email. >> Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen >> http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html >> Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: >> Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund >> c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) >> Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 >> pkgrant@ix.netcom.com >> (303) 841-9649 >> >> **************************************************** >> TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL FREEDOMS >> **************************************************** >> "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. >> It has been found difficult; and left untried." -- G.K. Chesterton >> **************************************************** >> Harvey Wysong >> National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association >> 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. >> hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 >> **************************************************** >> >> > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: KRIHO CASE: WHAT ARE THE CHARGES? Date: 07 Oct 1996 12:55:00 -0700 More info... - Monte >>Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 19:28:53 -0800 >>From: vin@intermind.net (Vin Suprynowicz) >>Subject: Re: Laura Krih >> >>X-Sender: vin@terminus.intermind.net >>Mime-Version: 1.0 >>Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 18:44:19 -0800 >>To: swaxman@ix.netcom.com (sheldon waxman) >>From: vin@intermind.net (Vin Suprynowicz) >>>Subject: Re: Laura Krih >> >>>Vin: What exactly is the charge that is being made against Laura. >>>(Obstruction of Justice???) Please let me know what happened to her. >>> >>>Shelly Waxman >>> >>>LAST CHAPTER UP, Chapter 3,"Personal Stuff," Entire book now online for >>>free. TWENTY SEVEN Chapters posted. "In the Teeth of the Wind--Memoirs of a >>>Libertarian Lawyer" is a blockbuster online book. >>>http://www.libertarian.com/shelly/ >> >> >> >>Hi Shelly -- >> >>Although there was early discussion of charging her with fraud or perjury, >>I believe they decided to wrap all the charges under the rubric of >>"contempt of court," since that gives the judge the greatest leeway to do >>whatever he pleases. >> >>In essence, they contend that, in order to get on the jury, she lied in >>denying that she had a previous drug conviction. >> >>Her attorney responds that she couldn't have lied in answer to such a >>question, because the voir dire transcript shows she was never asked such a >>question. >> >>The court and the prosecutor respond: That doesn't matter. She knew it was >>the kind of thing she should have told us about. So she lied by failing to >>*volunteer* that she had a previous drug conviction. >> >>Her attorney responds: She didn't have a previous drug conviction. She was >>arrested on some minor drug charge when she was 19 (more than 10 years ago, >>I gather) . She was put into a "diversion," program, and told that if she >>stayed out of trouble for two years, her record would be wiped clean, and >>no conviction would ever be entered against her. That is precisely what >>transpired. Her record was wiped clean; she is not a "convicted drug >>felon," or miscreant of any kind. >> >>Besides, defense attorney Paul Grant argues, under Colorado law she could >>*not* have been kept off the jury even if she *had* once sustained a drug >>conviction. And the D.A. had used up all his "peremptory strikes" at the >>time Kriho -- the 12th juror --was seated. So (Grant contends) Kriho would >>have been seated even if she *had* volunteered that she'd once been >>arrested on a drug charge decades ago ... though obviously it expands the >>definition of "perjury" beyond any reasonable bounds to say it's a "lie" to >>simply not volunteer stuff to the government, which you've never even been >>questioned about. >> >>Finally, the court and the prosecution contend Kriho committed "contempt of >>court" by violating the judge's "orders" not to discuss the possible >>sentence in the jury room. Apparently, when Kriho was the one vote to >>acquit on the possession charge, one of the jurors sent an anonymous note >>to the judge, asking whether a *hypothetical* juror could be replaced for >>violating his/her instructions and mentioning what the possible sentence >>might be if they convcicted. >> >>(Needless to say, one of the points in contention is whether the judge's >>"instructions" to the jury are in fact "court orders" which you can be >>jailed for violating, as you might be jailed for violating an order to stay >>at least 100 yards away from your former spouse, etc. Although this court >>contends that's the case, it's news to most of us. Attorney Grant even >>asked his client, on the stand this week, whether Judge Barnhill had issued >>Juror Kriho a Miranda warning before she took her seat, putting her on >>notice that anything she said in the jury room could be used against her, >>to put her in jail.) >> >>Upon receiving the anonymous note, Judge Barnhill (the judge of the >>original drug case) immediately called the jury in and declared a mistrial, >>apparently without asking whether this had *actually* happened, or whether >>the culprit was Kriho, or whether the jurors thought they could still reach >>a verdict if they kept deliberating. In fact, one of the original jurors >>testified in Laura's trial this week that he believes they still *could* >>have talked Laura into joining them in convicting, if they'd been given >>more time to deliberate. >> >>After a two-day trial this week, the new judge, Nieto, announced he'd be >>withholding his verdict for a week, allowing attorneys for both sides to >>file briefs, helping him figure out what law he should apply. >> >>Although Nieto and the prosecutor had both been contending, right up till >>the start of the Kriho trial, that this was "a simple case" requiring no >>testimony about the history of the traditional rights of jurors, etc., it >>appears the fact that Court TV and other national media showed up to cover >>the case, surprised them. It may be that these Gilpin County munchkins are >>just starting to realize into what deep water they've steppped. >> >>Anyway, verdict expected later in October. Laura's atorney, Paul Grant, is >>at pkgrant@ix.netcom.com. Thanks for caring. >> >>-- V.S. >> >> >> >>Vin Suprynowicz vin@intermind.net >> >>"Next year in Galt's Gulch!" >>Vin Suprynowicz vin@intermind.net >>"Next year in Galt's Gulch!" >> >> **************************************************** >> TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL FREEDOMS >> **************************************************** >> "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. >> It has been found difficult; and left untried." -- G.K. Chesterton >> **************************************************** >> Harvey Wysong >> National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association >> 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. >> hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 >> **************************************************** >> >> > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: KRIHO CASE: Good coverage in local paper Date: 07 Oct 1996 12:56:54 -0700 And even some more info...this is important, folks! - Monte >>Subject: Mt. Ear Articles - Juror Rights Trial - (10/4/96) >> >> JUDGE HEARS EVIDENCE IN GILPIN 'JUROR RIGHTS' TRIAL >> By Jeffrey V. Smith >> >>The Mountain-Ear >>Friday, October 4, 1996 >> >>P.O. Box 99 >>Nederland, CO 80466 >>Phone: (303) 258-7075 >>Fax: (303) 258-3547 >>Email: mtn-ear@indra.com >> >>Gilpin County >> >> After two days of proceedings and several motions to >>dismiss the case were denied, the contempt of court trial against >>Gilpin County resident Laura Kriho for her actions while on a >>jury in the same court last May concluded Wednesday afternoon. >> The judge will not render an opinion about the case until >>after attorneys on both sides file briefs, he has a chance to >>review them, and an agreed upon time is set to reconvene. Both >>attorneys have until Oct. 9 to file the briefs. Briefs are >>documents that explain to the court each side's view of the facts >>of a case and the applicable law. >> Kriho sat as a juror on a trial in May charging a young >>woman with possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug >>paraphernalia and criminal impersonation. No verdict was reached >>in that trial, because a mistrial was declared by presiding >>District Court Judge Kenneth Barnhill after he decided the jury >>had been tainted by Kriho's actions. >> During opening statements Tuesday, prosecuting attorney >>James Stanley, who also prosecuted the case in which Kriho was a >>juror, explained that Kriho was on trial for "three basic >>reasons." She was accused by Stanley of lying during the jury >>selection process by not disclosing her views about drug laws, >>her unwillingness to follow the law, and her involvement in a >>prior felony drug conviction. >> She also was accused of violating a court order not to >>discuss or research the case outside the evidence presented in >>the court room. Overnight during the trial in which she served as >>a juror, Kriho looked up possible penalties for the drug >>possession charge and revealed them to the other jurors against >>instructions issued by Judge Barnhill. >> The third "reason" for putting Kriho on trial, as >>explained by Stanley, was for obstruction of the trial process. >>He said that Kriho had an agenda to become a juror on the trial >>to challenge drug laws. >> Defense attorney Paul Grant said that the evidence would >>show Kriho is being punished for simply thinking for herself and >>holding her ground when bullied by other jurors. >> Stanley began building his case Tuesday by calling >>several other jurors from the drug possession trial to the stand. >>By asking all of them similar questions, Stanley showed that all >>jurors were told several times about the importance of following >>the law, to disregard any possible punishment while deciding >>guilt, and to speak up about any personal problems or past >>experience with the law. They all said that they felt in some way >>or another Kriho had been less than honest during the jury >>selection process. >> Also, the five jurors called to testify for the >>prosecution, Russell Carlson, Betty Jane Hammock, Dan Cooper, >>James Davis and Ronald Ramsey, explained that Kriho's actions in >>the jury room concerned them. The jurors said Kriho's opinion >>that drug cases should be decided outside the court system, her >>actions in looking up drug penalties on the Internet and a >>discussion by Kriho about jury rights issues bothered them and >>made them upset. >> During cross examination of the jurors by Grant, it was >>established that over 350 questions had been asked of potential >>jurors prior to Kriho being called as a replacement juror. As >>replacement jurors were brought into the jury box, they were >>asked simply if they had heard the questions asked and if they >>would answer them differently. Everyone except Kriho, who >>volunteered information about a previous court experience, said >>no. >> It was also pointed out through witness testimony that >>several jurors, not just Kriho, changed their minds about guilt >>at various times throughout deliberations and that although other >>jurors were skeptical, Kriho did attempt to show why she had >>reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. >> During the trial it was shown that an unsigned note >>written by a juror asking hypothetical questions concerning juror >>conduct caused Judge Barnhill to declare a mistrial. The note, >>which asked if a juror could be dismissed for various reasons, >>was not investigated by the judge prior to declaring a mistrial. >>According to Kriho, some information on the note was false and it >>was written by one juror who was upset with her at the time. >> Testimony from defense witnesses showed that Kriho did >>attempt to persuade jurors that reasonable doubt existed as to >>whether the defendant knowingly had drugs in her possession. >>They also substantiated Kriho's claim she was not specifically >>asked questions she is accused of lying about. >> Testimony from Kriho showed she had previous knowledge of >>sentencing and that Judge Barnhill and the prosecuting attorney >>were visibly angry at how the trial was concluded. It also showed >>that she did not meet the qualifications to be dismissed as a >>juror. Also, according to Kriho, juror rights were never >>explained so she had no idea she might be prosecuted for her >>actions. "I felt I was a fair and impartial juror," she said. "I >>came in good faith." >> Kriho said she did not even want to serve as a juror as >>she had to hitchhike to the court house. >> She explained that if fingerprints of the defendant were >>found on the evidence she would have voted to convict, but >>otherwise felt the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable >>doubt if the girl knew she was in possession of drugs. She also >>said that she stood her ground when all 11 other jurors were >>pushing for a guilty verdict. >> During the trial, it was pointed out that Kriho gave another >>juror a pamphlet after thhe mistrial was declared explaining jury >>rights and support for jury nullification issues through the >>voting of one's conscience. The information upset the juror who >>in turn gave it to the judge. >> The information led some jurors to believe Kriho had an >>agenda from the start to hang the jury. She said she only >>consulted the information to learn what her rights as a juror >>were and the she had no contact with the organizaion which >>printed it. >> Despite several implications from the defense to the >>contrary, Judge Nieto said that how Kriho voted in the jury room >>will not be part of his consideration in determining whether she >>is guilty of contempt. >> ### >> >> >> JUROR TRIAL IS CALLED 'MOCKERY OF JUSTICE' >> By Jeffrey V. Smith >> >>The Mountain-Ear >>Friday, October 4, 1996 >> >> In what is being called a mockery of justice, vindictive >>and outrageous, Gilpin resident Laura Kriho was brought to trial >>Tuesday for allegedly committing perjury and contempt of court >>while serving on a jury last May. >> According to Kriho's attorney, the case appears to be an >>"outgrowth" of a movement among judges nationwide to make sure >>jurors feel they do not have a right to judge or question the law >>and think for themselves. "That is not true." The attorney said >>that since Kriho was a single, hold-out juror she is being >>punished. Had she said the defendant was guilty, she would not >>have been brought to trial, he said. >> Kriho's attorney Paul Grant said Kriho is being accused >>of obstruction of justice simply by speaking her mind and holding >>her ground. "This is an obnoxious process, we're putting the jury >>on trial and that's improper. It can only be done to attack a >>juror and not a verdict." >> Kriho sat as a juror in a drug possession case earlier >>this year which was declared a mistrial. The mistrial, declared >>by Judge Kenneth Barnhill, resulted from allegations of Kriho's >>actions in the jury room, disregarding instructions of the judge >>and lying during the jury selection process. According to >>testimony in Kriho's trial, Judge Barnhill did not investigate >>the allegations before declaring the mistrial. >> Other jurors who served with Kriho during the drug >>possession trial said that Kriho discussed the right of a jury to >>"nullify" laws by voting their conscience. They said she >>explained her opinion that families and communities, not the >>court room, were the best place to decide drug cases. Also, it >>was disclosed after the trial that Kriho had a prior felony drug >>conviction which was not reported during jury selection. >> Kriho, who is completely surprised and "shocked" to find >>herself on trial, claims she was never specifically asked the >>questions she has been accused of answering falsely, and that she >>was merely voicing her opinion and speaking her mind in the jury >>room. She says that any allegations that she had an agenda and >>was out to change drug laws is completely false. >> "Basically I feel like I'm being punished for voting >>not-guilty," Kriho said. "I could have said whatever I wanted in >>the jury room, but if I had come back with a guilty verdict I >>would not be here today. I'm absolutely being singled out." >> Allegations that she disobeyed the judge are being denied >>by Kriho in that instructions to a jury are merely used for >>guidance during deliberations and not considered orders. >> Kriho has explained that she had reasonable doubt as to >>the guilt of the defendant and that the other jurors did not >>believe her doubts were reasonable. It has been pointed out that >>she was verbally "attacked" by other jurors, who appeared to be >>in a hurry to leave, during the deliberation process. >> The case, which is highly irregular and the first of its >>type in over 300 years, is being followed by many people >>interested in its national and civil rights implications. Also, >>it has been alleged that the proceedings against Kriho have >>poisoned the pool of jurors in Gilpin County. >> Because the trial calls for jurors from the drug >>possession case to testify about what happened in the jury room, >>one of the foundations of the American justice system assuring >>confidentiality of deliberations is being threatened. >> According to many legal experts, the case threatens to >>destroy the entire concept of trial by jury. It has been argued >>that there would be no point to a jury if they had to do what the >>judge wanted or be faced with prosecution themselves. The right >>to a trial by jury, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of >>the U.S., is meant to prevent abuses of power by judges and >>prosecutors. It is thought that if jurors can be prosecuted for >>their deliberations, a fair and impartial jury is impossible. >> Prior to the start of the trial, First Judicial District >>Chief Judge Henry Nieto assigned himself to the case after the >>original judge, Barnhill, excused himself. >> Nieto ruled, prior to the trial, that he would judge the >>case and not a jury when Deputy District Attorney James Stanley >>agreed not to seek a jail term of more than six months. >> Although it was suggested by Kriho's attorney Paul Grant >>that the trial was complex and a motion was filed to delay the >>trial to give the defense more time to prepare, Judge Nieto >>denied it. This decision was found to be so egregious by Grant >>that he appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Cournt >>under an emergency provision. >> Nieto ruled, prior to the trial, that he would judge the >>case and not a jury when Deputy District Attorney James Stanley >>agreed not to seek a jail term more than six months. A jury >>trial was originally granted at Kriho's arraignment in August, >>but Stanley said he changed his mind about punishment. A jury >>would have been necessary for a punishment greater than six >>months in jail. >> It was argued by Grant that since theories from a recently >>published article by Gilpin County Judge Frederic Rodgers on how >>to prosecute "obstructionist" jurors appeared in the contempt >>citation, the defense had a right to know what communication >>occurred between Judge Barnhill, other judges and the >>prosecution. Judge Nieto denied the request. >> A request to appoint a special prosecutor was denied. >>Grant said that since Stanley was the prosecutor in the case in >>which Kriho was a juror, he should be available as a witness. >>Evidence was presented that although Stanley's actions in the >>courtroom are part of the record, he did have contact with the >>jurors off the record. >> Several motions to dismiss the case, due to its frivolous >>nature, have been denied throughout the trial. >> Due to the nature of the case, a local legal rights group, >>the Colorado Legal Eagles, is warning Gilpin county residents of >>"a serious threat to the judicial system in their county." The >>group wants Gilpin residents to be aware of their legal rights >>and to seek court-ordered counsel before answering quesions >>during jruy selelction. The group also warns that no one will be >>advised that anything they say can and will be used against them >>even though it is possible. >> Grant also feels the jury pool has been poisoned "to some >>exent" in that jurors will feel intimidated to speak their minds >>in the jury room. "Who wants to serve on a jury with a threat of >>prosecution hanging over your head?" Grant said it is the intent >>to publicize this case nationally by the judges so theat jurors >>nationally will be intimidated. >> The actions of the court are also meant to eliminate hung >>juries in Grant's mind. "This sends a message that you better go >>along with the majority or you will be criminally prosecuted." >> >> ### >> >>The Mountain-Ear >>P.O. Box 99 >>Nederland, CO 80466 >>Phone: (303) 258-7075 >>Fax: (303) 258-3547 >>Email: mtn-ear@indra.com >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) >> To be removed from this mailing list, send email. >> Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen >> http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html >> Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: >> Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund >> c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) >> Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 >> pkgrant@ix.netcom.com >> (303) 841-9649 >> >> **************************************************** >> TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL FREEDOMS >> **************************************************** >> "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. >> It has been found difficult; and left untried." -- G.K. Chesterton >> **************************************************** >> Harvey Wysong >> National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association >> 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. >> hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 >> **************************************************** >> >> > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 16:45:05 -0700 (PDT) On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > Don't be too certain about #5. > > See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats > Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). > Interesting to be sure, but don't DON'T make the assumption that these two retired USMC Colonels are stating Corps policy. Nobody on earth is more politically naive than career military officers. They have spent their lives being loyal to seniors (military and civilian) who might not deserve their loyalty, but their oath and ethic (not to mention career advancement) dependend on obedience and the appearance of loyal support. Particularly in the USMC the ethic is to obey orders from proper authority without question. Liking the orders, or agreeing them them, is optional. Additionally, the "proper authority" issue often gets murky in peacetime when military missions become more political than combative (the latter are the only thing they're trained for, hence their political naivety). These guys have written an article proposing a new mission (and enhanced budgets) for their favorite institution, the United States Marine Corps. The article has merit, but if they knew more about what we discuss every day, they might be more likely to consider their proposal unthinkable. FWIW, Skip. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Tanya Metaksa on AOL Oct. 9 Date: 07 Oct 1996 18:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Tanya Metaksa, Head of NRA-ILA, will be visiting the Gun Chat Room on AOL this Wednesday, October 9, from 9:30 to 10:00 p.m., ET. Topics: the election, Senate races, and politics! Keyword, EXCHANGE. Then click on INTERESTS & HOBBIES. Then click on CHAT ROOMS. Bring your questions! See you there! PS Gun Chat is a weekly event on AOL, 9 to 10 p.m., every Wednesday. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 07 Oct 1996 21:57:53 -0500 (CDT) If I were doing it, (really, ATF, I never would, really) I would use a 4 inch pipe. I would glue on a dome fitting (end cap) on one end and put a threaded fitting and screw in clean out on the other. These fittings will cost you about $20. per pipe. You will have to get them at a supplier that deals with municipal or rural water systems. With some desicant in the pipe this might be ensough. But you might wish to put the "tools" in a plastic bag, with a heat/vacuum seal. Again put some desicant in the bag. Now, mind you, I have never done this and NEVER WILL. There is absolutely no reason because beeg bro Bill feels my pain Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > Gentlefolk, > > Can any of you summarize (in 50 words or less) what is the > best way to construct a buried PVC pipe to store valuble > tools? > > I know that ~42 inches is good, and it wants to be buried > vertically. Is standard 6 or 8 inch PVC pipe with standard > fittings adequate? What do I need for adhesive? > > thanks, > > jcurtis > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 23:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Agreed that these two Colonels don't set Marine policy or doctrine. However, they contribute to it: "Col Gangle is a senior operational advisor with the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory; Col Lasswell serves in the Plans Division at HQMC." What bothers me about this article is not that I expect to see the suggestions implemented tomorrow but that the Cols weren't embarassed to make them. I'd wager that you will never see an article in the *Marine Corps Gazette* advocating racial segregation. Dumping Posse Comitatus should be equally taboo. bd On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Skip Leuschner wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > > > Don't be too certain about #5. > > > > See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats > > Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). > > > > Interesting to be sure, but don't DON'T make the assumption that these two > retired USMC Colonels are stating Corps policy. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: joesylvester@texoma.net (Joe Sylvester) Subject: "All Loyal Australians" -- A Treatise on Gun Control you should read. (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 23:14:21 CST ----Forwarded---- Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns . . . Organization: my opinions only [ Note: I am not the author of the following. If you read this article then you know just as much as I do about it. -- lk ] A. R. (Tony) Pitt 79 Ferry Street, MARYBOROUGH ... Q. 4650. 7/7/96. Dear Friends, I served in the RAAF for twenty years and retired with the rank of Warrant Officer (Tech.) In 1962 I spent time in Thailand protecting the locals from insurgents. I feel some comment is warranted on the anti-gun issue that has grown from the Port Arthur tragedy. From the mind boggling flow of anti-gun bull dust I can see that most pollies can't grasp the significance of the gun issue. How could one explain to these pollies, who have never been under threat, that private and national defence also warrants consideration. A few hundred miles north, there are a million soldiers who would gang rape a girl, cut off her breasts, and chatter and laugh like monkeys as she ran blindly in terror, pain and shock, past oppressed locals who were too scared to help or even look at her, out of fear that they would suffer similarly if they were to intervene. This is a santisied version of a report on life in West New Guinea, a country subjugated by our most serious potential threat, Indonesia. The writer said that soliders lit a grass skirt under the girl before they released her. Timor and Cambodia are no better. The Iranians marched children and oldies across minefields to clear the way for tanks. What would they do to you? In 1946 the Australian government put into long term storage 500,000 rifles and Brens to be used if we were invaded? Under the ALP/LIB/NATS these were all sold or destroyed (The Australian 31/5/1991). The ALP took 100,000 SLRs (Self Loading Rifle),the L1A1, worth $4,000 each and melted them down at B.H.P. (The Australian 14/12/1994). How can politicians justify the complete destruction of our emergency reserves? This political intervention leaves the military with 37,000 Steyr rifles and 3,100 riflemen. The design of the Steyr uses plastic in heat critical components such as triggers, hammers and sears. A weapons use directive Order No. 7196-94 has been issued to all army and air force units not to fire more than 90 rounds, or more than nine seconds of automatic fire because the plastic components will melt down. We are undefended. The only effective weapons left in Australia to stop the occupation and rape of Australia now lie in private homes. When they are gone we are at the mercy of invaders. What use is there telling pollies that the people who possess these weapons would defend Australia? Howard, Fischer, Beazley, Kernot and the like, are all party to, or supportive of, the betrayal of our defence capability. The Australian Constitution prohibits political control of the armed forces because our forefathers knew the nature of politicians. These people are well aware that a gun register is the greatest asset to any invader. When the Germans went into Poland they did so only after careful preparation. They had their Quislings, under the guise of public safety, register all firearms. When the invasion eventuated a German officer and the Police Chief, with a copy of the "register", visited every home. They asked for the guns by model and serial number. If the guns were not forthcoming, they shot the children first, then the wife. If the guns still did not come out they then shot the man and burnt the house. Howard, Beazley, Fischer, Kernot & Co. know this. We have told them time and time again. Why do they want a register? They would have you believe they want to save lives. This is rubbish. They know full well that any cuckoo, with a 44 gallon drum of petrol can kill more innocents than the Port Arthur clown. A few well meaning gullible people have advocated a Central Gun Repository, where shooters can store their guns and, when they are not upset with the wife and kids, go and draw the gun out for a couple of hours. The Germans pulled this one too. They threw away the key the day before the invasion. The Russians were different. They opened the repositories, took the guns and shot the owners. How would you explain that in the seventies our government replaced key military personnel, who earned their rank and knew by painful experience how to take an enemy occupied hill? They were replaced by academics straight from university armed only with defence diplomas and defence degrees. This is not a game we play. The enemy engages in war. The Japs were smart enough to map and assess Australia's capability to defend itself twenty years before World War II. The Japanese spies reported that, "The people are well armed and know how to use those arms. They would pose a serious threat to any occupying force." They also said that the natives (Aborigines) could not be enlisted or even used to get rid of the Europeans. They said the Aborigines were "...not even fit to be used as salves." Readers should be made aware that the Japs were going to shoot the Aborigines and enslave us. The Japs used 27,000 Korean girls as comfort girls (slave prostitutes) for their troops because they were religious and clean. They weren't clean long. Do readers seriously think the Indonesians are not just as ruthless, and just as territorially ambitions? Why do the Indonesians overfly WA, NT and QLD every day? Why do the Japanese re-arm? Perhaps the hardest nut to chew is the treason of our own government. The Liberals signed an agreement to totally disarm all civilians, police and military in 1981 (I have a copy). The ALP ratified it in 1983. Then they invited the Indonesians in to train at our jungle training centre. They brought Indonesian generals in to umpire our Kangaroo Exercise where the U.S. and N.Z. staged an invasion from the north. We lost the war games. The Indonesians were the real winners because they saw every truck and every tank, and every tactic we used to counter the mock invasion from the north. Back benchers blindly obey ministers who invite a potential enemy in, give them the Bush Tuckerman book and let them travel and spy? This is the truth. These people in government are guilty of treason. If you want to let traitors disarm you then you deserve your fate, but don't take me and my family with you. These are the hard cold facts. Indonesia has close to 1,000,000 men under arms if one counts their regulars, irregulars, police and associate groups. They recently bought 1,000,000 AK56 rifles and 70,000,000 rounds of ammunition. They are not going pig shooting. On Greg Cary's program an Australian soldier in this year's war games reported that an Indonesian Colonel was bragging that they were coming back to take Australia. On their maps Australia is identified as New Irian Jaya or South Irian, WHY? The government, in one hit, gave the Indonesians $150,000,000 in aid. With this Indonesia bought 39 invasion craft from the East German Navy (Media figures, not mine). Now, because of Keating's treaty, the government intends to reduce our armed forces because potential invaders can't use Indonesia as a path to invade. They are the potential invaders and the traitors in government are fully aware of the threat. In the USA, on 4BC, at 5.10 on 10/6/96, to interviewer Connie Lorne, Tim Fischer stated that there would be zero guns in Australia by the year 2000. Why has Tim advertised our vulnerability? In Australia he says it is not the government's intent to totally disarm us. Why two stories? To be the only unarmed nation in Asia is tantamount to suicide. The UN won't save us. They watched genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia and Cambodia. Our elected back benchers have sat and watched these same ALP/LIB/NAT/DEMOCRATS print, issue and create so much currency, from 1966 to 1996, in direct contravention of our Constitution Para. 115 (READ; Commonwealth Year Books, Currency: Notes & Coins), that the value of our dollar was eroded by 97% taking 29/30ths of our savings, life assurance, superannuation etc. These pollies let banks change existing loan contracts (in retrospect and in direct contravention of Contract Law) to push bank interest up to 20% and even 30% knowing the people would be unable to pay. They couldn't. The banks foreclosed. Bank assets went from $87 billion to $382 billion in five years, taking $295 billion ($85,000 per income earning family) from the Australian people. Still the banks cry poor and raise charges. Pollies gave our oilfields worth $250 billion in proven reserves (AUST 7/9/88 AGE 9/9/88) to Indonesia. They were all on our continental shelf and there could have been no claim under international law. That creamed off another $80,000 per income earning family. In the seventies the Liberals took the contents of the Age Pension Trust Account to which my generation paid 7.5% of our income to give us all the Age Pension (and we all still pay it). They now take another 9% to give us "superannuation". They sold at least one super scheme to the French and spent the money. They propose to buy back the farm, pay off the national debt, and still have money to keep us in retirement. The politicians destroyed nearly all Australian industry by removing tariff protection. What was not destroyed was privatised (sold to foreign interests). Our minerals, timber, oil and fishing are foreign owned. They sell our hospitals, roads, bridges, jails, railways, resorts, electricity, public utilities, even some water supplies. Now these same politicians disarm us completely just before they step onto their jet planes to fly off to their villas in Europe, leaving us to the Indonesians. I want to remind readers. This is your country. If the Indonesians come, the girl won't be a dark lass from New Guinea or Korea, she will be your wife, your daughter, your sister, or you. A TV poll showed 97% in favour of the right to kill a dangerous home invader. Do they get a say? Ignore the minority of fools and traitors. On Channel 7 they said the way to get Tasmanian gun laws altered was to have a massacre. Paul Wilson 30/4/96 foreshadowed a copy cat massacre for Queensland. That is a possibility as mentally disturbed people are given mind altering drugs like Prozac and turned loose in society. Disarming sane people won't stop the fruitcakes. My generation carried real guns to keep Australia safe. The pollies leave this generation of soldiers deliberately disadvantaged, armed with toys that melt down after a few rounds are fired. They will be slaughtered leaving us as the front line. I am not afraid to fight an invader but I object to Australian traitors and fools disarming us and leaving us at the mercy of a primitive cruel enemy. We don't have to lose. It takes ten times as many regular soldiers to control and subdue a force of guerrillas. With 600,000 armed Australians we would be safe. No nation can muster 6,000,000 troops. The enemy knows this. That is why they need traitors to disarm us. If we allow these traitorous or well meaning politicians to take the few remaining weapons, that could provide the basis for guerrilla defence, then we deserve our fate. I was fit to own a semi auto for about 50 years. Don't blame me for what some cuckoo did in Tasmania. Blame the Tasmanian bureaucrats and police. They knew he was a dangerous nut and they would not act. Why should any Australian need a semi-auto? Go back to Paragraph One. Read this again. Please pass this letter on to friends to see if they can possibly comprehend the implications. Give it to journalists and badger them until they take action or admit their stupidity. If readers don't react to this information there will be a real massacre to report. The report will be written in Indonesian. Many readers won't be around to read it. A.R. (Tony) Pitt, Warrant Officer/RAAF/Retired. Save Australia. Please photocopy this at least fifty times or reprint it. Post, and fax copies far and wide. Reprinted by THE AUSTRALIANS, a new political party Full Membership $20 Pensioners and Students $10. Authorised by Cec. Clark, State Council Chairman Queensland, PO Box 584, Beenleigh Q. 4207. -- The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 07 Oct 1996 23:19:02 -0500 At 11:03 PM 10/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >Agreed that these two Colonels don't set Marine policy or doctrine. >However, they contribute to it: "Col Gangle is a senior operational >advisor with the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory; Col Lasswell serves >in the Plans Division at HQMC." > >What bothers me about this article is not that I expect to see the >suggestions implemented tomorrow but that the Cols weren't embarassed to >make them. I'd wager that you will never see an article in the >*Marine Corps Gazette* advocating racial segregation. Dumping Posse >Comitatus should be equally taboo. > >bd Posse Comitatus *does not* apply to the Marine Corps, or the Navy, of which the Marines are a part. Congress had their chance to include them when it added the Air Force, some time after it became a separate service in the late 40s, they chose not to,for whatever reason. > > >On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Skip Leuschner wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: >> >> > Don't be too certain about #5. >> > >> > See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats >> > Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). >> > >> >> Interesting to be sure, but don't DON'T make the assumption that these two >> retired USMC Colonels are stating Corps policy. [...] > > > The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 08 Oct 1996 02:02:25 EDT Standard PVC glue works fine. (Purchase at the place where you purchased pipe. Six inch is o.k. Eight inch is better. A little more expensive. Put PVC cap on one end and PVC adapter with threaded plug on other. Hint: Take a child's wadding pool and fill with salt water. High tech radar that penetrates the ground will not penetrate salt water. Hope this helps, G.H. Burkepile On Mon, 7 Oct 1996 12:56:01 -0400 John Curtis writes: > > Gentlefolk, > > Can any of you summarize (in 50 words or less) what is the > best way to construct a buried PVC pipe to store valuble > tools? > > I know that ~42 inches is good, and it wants to be buried > vertically. Is standard 6 or 8 inch PVC pipe with standard > fittings adequate? What do I need for adhesive? > > thanks, > > jcurtis > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 05:28:14 -0700 (PDT) On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Skip Leuschner wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > > > Don't be too certain about #5. > > > > See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats > > Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). > > > > Interesting to be sure, but don't DON'T make the assumption that these two > retired USMC Colonels are stating Corps policy. Nobody on earth is more > politically naive than career military officers. They have spent their > lives being loyal to seniors (military and civilian) who might not deserve > their loyalty, but their oath and ethic (not to mention career > advancement) dependend on obedience and the appearance of loyal support. > Particularly in the USMC the ethic is to obey orders from proper authority > without question. Liking the orders, or agreeing them them, is optional. > Additionally, the "proper authority" issue often gets murky in peacetime > when military missions become more political than combative (the latter > are the only thing they're trained for, hence their political naivety). > > These guys have written an article proposing a new mission (and enhanced > budgets) for their favorite institution, the United States Marine Corps. > The article has merit, but if they knew more about what we discuss every > day, they might be more likely to consider their proposal unthinkable. > > FWIW, Skip. With reference to conversations we had long ago, this clarifies the position you took that a "coup" by the US military was unthinkable. It also shows that we are in agreement about the "blind obedience" threat the ordinary citizen faces if the politicians invoke the might of the US armed forces against its own citizens. Historically, that sort of thing is not a rare event. Since our "Great Experiment" at a republican political system is the first the world has ever seen exactly of its kind, time will tell whether it will also degenerate into the government oppressing its citizens. I sure hope not, but if history, and recent events, are any harbinger of the future, it will happen. These two USMC officers are but the tip of the iceberg, I believe, who would blindlly focus the Corps, and other branches against our own citizenry, not out of malice, but out of ignorance. And if senior officers would advocate this, the hope that the grunt face to face with the citizen with M-16, grenades, and a bayonet would have the moral courage to say, "No, I won't do this," is whistling in the wind. See My Lai, for example. You may hold a differing opinion. I sincerely hope yours is the correct one. However, you seem to be arguing (by implication, re your term limits position) that career military officers could avoid the "power corrupts" syndrome if they were only "shown the light". Why are they more likely than career politicians to recognize the errors of their ways, simply by being disabused of their ignorance? Regards, Harry ----- Harry Barnett "One thinks that an error exposed is dead, but exposure amounts to nothing when people want to believe." --Sir Frederick Pollock in a letter to Oliver Wendell Holmes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 07:32:33 -0400 (EDT) OK. Let me be blunter. Talk of using U.S. military forces against the American people should be taboo. Brad On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Joe Sylvester wrote: > At 11:03 PM 10/7/96 -0400, you wrote: > >Agreed that these two Colonels don't set Marine policy or doctrine. > >However, they contribute to it: "Col Gangle is a senior operational > >advisor with the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory; Col Lasswell serves > >in the Plans Division at HQMC." > > > >What bothers me about this article is not that I expect to see the > >suggestions implemented tomorrow but that the Cols weren't embarassed to > >make them. I'd wager that you will never see an article in the > >*Marine Corps Gazette* advocating racial segregation. Dumping Posse > >Comitatus should be equally taboo. > > > >bd > > Posse Comitatus *does not* apply to the Marine Corps, or the Navy, of which > the Marines are a part. Congress had their chance to include them when it > added the Air Force, some time after it became a separate service in the > late 40s, they chose not to,for whatever reason. > > > > > > > > > > >On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Skip Leuschner wrote: > > > >> > >> On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Brad Dolan wrote: > >> > >> > Don't be too certain about #5. > >> > > >> > See, for example, the September '96 _Marine Corps Gazette_, "New Threats > >> > Require New Orientations," by Cols J. Lasswell and R. Gangle, USMC(Ret). > >> > > >> > >> Interesting to be sure, but don't DON'T make the assumption that these two > >> retired USMC Colonels are stating Corps policy. [...] > > > > > > > > The Second Amendment is the RESET button > of the United States Constitution. > ("Doug McKay" ) > > > Joe Sylvester > Don't Tread On Me ! > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: caps@visigenic.com (Cap Schwartz) Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 07:40:44 -0700 At 05:28 AM 10/8/96 -0700, Harry Barnett wrote: [snippo giganticus] >You may hold a differing opinion. I sincerely hope yours is the >correct one. However, you seem to be arguing (by implication, re your >term limits position) that career military officers could avoid the >"power corrupts" syndrome if they were only "shown the light". Why are >they more likely than career politicians to recognize the errors of >their ways, simply by being disabused of their ignorance? > >Regards, >Harry I really wish you hadn't said that, Harry. It reminds me too much of the Founders who, faced with recent knowledge of certain government abuses, wished to put into place some protection against these very tendencies of human nature. It worked for a while, but every fresh danger requires we respond afresh by reaffirming those protections. cAp_ "... we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly." --John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 11:38:09 EDT Here is a problem then. Do you trust the government? You have to remember that the military is subject to this same government that you don't trust. Plus they pay their checks. Think about it. ghb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 09:54:11 -0700 (PDT) On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Harry Barnett wrote: > You may hold a differing opinion. I sincerely hope yours is the > correct one. However, you seem to be arguing (by implication, re your > term limits position) that career military officers could avoid the > "power corrupts" syndrome if they were only "shown the light". Why are > they more likely than career politicians to recognize the errors of > their ways, simply by being disabused of their ignorance? > > Regards, > Harry > Coming from their squeeky clean (drug wise - supposedly) USMC background, these guys view the drug culture as every bit as threatening an enemy to their country and their corps as the hated commies of yesteryear. Both are monolithic evils, and as long as it stays that clear cut, there would be no hesitation to shoot to kill. But in a real civil disorder situation in an American city, it wouldn't stay that clear cut. Put them in charge of cleaning up drugs in North Dallas or South Central LA, however, or even turning back illegal immigrants at the Tijuana River, these theoretically monolithic evils would suddenly take on a very human form- moms and dads with children in their gunsights, with no way to distinquish them from the hated drug dealers and border "mules." The simplistic monolithic view crumbles at that point and reality sets in, as well as personal judgment, ethics, and memories of oaths to uphold the constitution and who that document was written to protect (not government politicians and bureaucrats). Probably also memories of My Lai and the fate of an overwrought, overchallenged, unthinking Lt Calle. No, I worry a lot more about the civilian forces, US Marshalls, ATF, DEA, etc., than I do about military guys. The civilians have been raised on a bureaucratic ethic (oxymoron?) while military subscribe to a much higher standard, which includes unambiguous accountability for ill advised actions. Regards, Skip. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: At a Loss of Words :( (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 11:59:51 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- And so the pressure is increased another notch. Peaceful redress is further suppressed. "Integrity of the jury system?" What hypocritical crap. > It's a sad day for freedom folks. Next a 300' foot limit because we >won't stop fighting for our rights and freedom. And after that won't work >it will be the compelling interest of the State to just forbid their >subjects from uttering the words or punishable for having the knowledge. >Keep you powder dry folks and talk in whispers to your children of a land >that once was!!! > > > Sadly in Slavery > Bob > > >Associated Press Writer > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- Proponents of "jury nullification" -- the idea that >jurors should disregard the law and even evidence to reach a verdict they >deem just -- lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday in their skirmish with San >Diego courts. > Placing the integrity of the jury system above unfettered free >speech, the justices, without comment, refused to let California members >of the Fully Informed Jury Association distribute jury-nullification >literature within 150 feet of any San Diego County courthouse. A county >court barred such distribution. > The justices also let stand a county court's order that removed all >newsracks from a sidewalk in front of a courthouse. The association had >sought to distribute its literature from such a newsbox. > The group's appeal had argued that both orders violated its >free-speech rights. > The orders were issued in late 1993 and early 1994 after Jim >Harnsberger, Dave Cadway and other jury-nullification proponents had >run-ins with county authorities over their efforts to distribute their >group's leaflets. > At the time, the group was not involved in any litigation and its >literature was not aimed at any specific court case. > Harnsberger, Cadway and their group sued the county in federal court, >seeking a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the two >challenged orders. > A federal trial judge ruled for the county, and the 9th U.S. Circuit >Court of Appeals upheld that ruling last year. > The appeals court called the order creating the 150-foot buffer zone >"necessary to serve the state's compelling interest in protecting the >integrity of the jury system." > The appeals court said the ban on newsracks just outside the San >Diego County Courthouse's front doors "is narrowly tailored to further the >significant state interest in securing the area around the courthouse and >leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of the >information." > The case is Fully Informed Jury Association vs. San Diego County, >95-1896. > > > > Rick Tompkins I would prefer freedom over slavery even if freedom was more dangerous than slavery. It isn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: thanks for your suggestions Date: 08 Oct 1996 13:25:11 -0400 Thanks to Larry Ball, Mr. Burkepile and Greg for your suggestions as to burying tools. My idea is that a location not connected with me, to which I can gain access in relative privacy, is the best option. Then it doesn't really matter how good the detection technology is, as it would have to be applied over most of the countryside. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Rachel Stout and Child Protective Services, who owns your child? Date: 08 Oct 1996 14:16:54 -0500 (CDT) Paul Watson, pwatson@utdallas.edu "The difference between Purchasing Department death and taxes is death The University of Texas at Dallas doesn't get worse every time DISCLAIMER: MY THOUGHTS ONLY!!! Congress meets." Will Rogers 10-8-96 Who really owns your children? A local Texas case shows that the state really does. These parents simply wanted to exhaust all non surgical methods for treatment of their "home schooled" child. The Dallas doctors at Children's Medical Hospital decided their treatment of surgery was best. The doctors called in CPS to force the parents to consent with surgery. The father fled with his child to Canada, the CPS child protective services went to court on behalf of the doctors and the judge in a non-jury civil trial awarded the custody of Rachel to the government. Because of a reciprocal treaty with Canada their version of CPS took Rachel and removed her from the families chosen doctor's care and went back to conventional wisdom MD treatment with steroids and of course her condition worsened. Because of the National media attention and the parents lawyers from the Rutherford institute the CPS have backed off a little and allowed 50% custody with the parents who had to plea with the judge for the governments permission to take their daughter to one last doctor for treatment. Only after saying they would consent to surgery if this hospital wanted to would the judge allow her to be moved. These are not your redneck welfare family living in a trailer house with years of squalor in the yard. Mr. Stout has a PHD and is a Republican precinct chairman. They are a middle class family with no past history of problems with the law except they are Christians and home school. Think this is a isolated case, about 3 years ago Ruby Ellis (214) 358-5578 also a religious Christian home school mother took her son back to Children Medical Hospital because of an infection. The same doctors, CPS and Family Court Judge decided to award custody of her toddler son to the state so they could remove his Crones disease colon. Even after doing extensive research in the University of Texas Medical School of Dallas library that showed no viable difference long term for surgery vs non-surgery the judge ignored Ruby's testimony and put her son up for adoption. He is now adopted even thought they never did the surgery! This is just another clear case of BIG GOVERNMENT taking over the life of private citizens. Do not believe the propaganda of the press releases from the doctors. I have a child with Autism and there are lots of non standard conventional wisdom treatments involving food allergies, auditory sensory training, and tactile integration. Little of this information is known or understood by the majority of Medical Doctors because there has been little scientific investigation or grant money and profit for drug companies and medical schools to become involved. All of this has happened because of the relentless pursuit of Parents who want to help their children with Autism and refused to just consent to the conventional wisdom of putting them in mental institutions for the insane starting back in the 1970's. see http://www.flash.net/~amc2/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Updated: Monday, Oct. 7, 1996 at 22:31 CDT Duke doctor examines Rachel Stout's colon By Chris Vaughn Star-Telegram FORT WORTH -- Rachel Stout underwent an initial exam by a North Carolina physician yesterday, but hospital officials expect it to be later in the week before the doctor recommends a course of treatment for her serious colon condition. "He'll be evaluating her over the next couple of days," said Karen Hinson, a spokeswoman for Duke University Medical Center in Durham, where the 10-year-old Fort Worth girl was flown Sunday. "Right now, she is in good condition, and she's not in intensive care." Rachel's parents, Steven and Patricia Stout, are hoping that Dr. William Treem, chief of pediatric gastroenterology at Duke University, can treat her ulcerative colitis without surgery. The Stouts -- who share custody of Rachel with Texas' Child Protective Services -- have fought with doctors in Fort Worth, Dallas and Toronto who all recommended the removal of Rachel's diseased colon, which they say is endangering her life. After a monthlong custody battle over Rachel, the state and the Stouts reached an agreement Friday that orders the family to abide by whatever recommendation Treem makes, including surgery. Rachel, who is normally a thin girl, appeared swollen when she was briefly seen Sunday as she was leaving Children's Medical Center in Dallas for the flight to North Carolina. The condition is caused by ]steroid therapy ]and by her colitis. Child Protective Services also issued a statement yesterday, commending Children's Medical Center of Dallas and two of Rachel's former doctors, Robert Squires and Jeffrey Zwiener, for their care and sensitivity. "Their commitment to this child and to getting her well was evident in all of their work with her," said Rose Benham, lead program director of Child Protective Services. "We are so grateful for all they did for Rachel." The Dallas hospital donated the $20,500 cost of Sunday's medical transport to Durham, a spokesman said. The state paid the $21,600 bill for Rachel's medical transport from Toronto to Dallas early last week, he said. THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit, legal and educational organization that specializes in the defense of religious liberty and human rights. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT I founded The Rutherford Institute in 1982 to respond to the widespread discrimination and persecution I witnessed against religious persons. Although we have fought thousands of cases and responded to hundreds of thousands of calls for help and information for more than a decade, the need for The Rutherford Institute is even greater today. We are living in an age of religious apartheid--religion has been systematically removed from American public life, and we no longer enjoy true religious freedom. The Rutherford Institute, however, remains committed to fighting for the rights of religious persons in both the United States and abroad. I hope that you too will sense the need to protect religious freedom and choose to support The Rutherford Institute today. John W. Whitehead _______________________________________________________________ Important Notice: The Rutherford Institute is a NON-PROFIT organization. We rely solely on the generous financial gifts of individuals like you. Our Internet Homepage, and information is provided to you, for free. Please take a moment and view our "How can I help" section. To continue our work, we do need your financial support. _________________________________________________________________ the RUTHERFORD magazine..now by SUBSCRIPTION Talk to Mr. Whitehead Major Religious Liberty Study Goes Public Over 345 pages detailing historical, legal, and case studies on religious liberty around the world... _________________________________________________________________ The Rutherford Institute, P.O. Box 7482, Charlottesville, VA 22906 Telephone: (804) 978-3888 Fax: (804) 978-1789 rutherford@fni.com _________________________________________________________________ We would especially like to thank Michael Brennen of FishNet for his help, training, and patience with us in getting this homepage constructed and on-line. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: NEW FEDERAL LEGISLATION (fwd) Date: 08 Oct 1996 13:43:59 -0700 (PDT) On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Skip Leuschner wrote: > The simplistic monolithic view crumbles at that point and reality sets in, > as well as personal judgment, ethics, and memories of oaths to uphold the > constitution and who that document was written to protect (not government > politicians and bureaucrats). Probably also memories of My Lai and the > fate of an overwrought, overchallenged, unthinking Lt Calle. I hope you're right. The U.S. Army has been involved in a number of situations in our history where that did NOT happen: the Sand Creek Massacre, the Ludlow massacre, MacArthur at Anacostia Flats, Sherman's March to the Sea, then up to burn Columbia, South Carolina, and other incidents too numerous to count, on both sides, in the American Civil War. ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SLFCX@cc.usu.edu Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 08 Oct 1996 17:09:02 -0600 (MDT) I just wanted to say that if you follow this recipe, your tools will be out of reach and therefore useless. I like to have my tools where they can be used at a moments notice. If you don't use your tools, you may misplace or loose them!!! Vincent Jefferies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 08 Oct 1996 17:23:09 -0600 >I just wanted to say that if you follow this recipe, your tools will >be out of reach and therefore useless. > >I like to have my tools where they can be used at a moments notice. If you >don't use your tools, you may misplace or loose them!!! > >Vincent Jefferies I always thought one should have spare tools around. I can never find a wrench when I need it and a spare one makes sense... Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave_l@Mainstream.net Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 08 Oct 1996 22:04:06 +0000 > Can any of you summarize (in 50 words or less) what is the > best way to construct a buried PVC pipe to store valuble > tools? 1). Any good plumbing supply house can provide watertight fittings, primer and solvent welding adhesive. 2). Silica Gel Dessicant and/or dry nitrogen or CO2 should be used to limit corrosion. 3). Digging up lots of rebar reinforced concrete is such a good way to keep searchers employed . When a structure is demolished, using it for landfill is ecologically sound! 4). Septic tanks are less likely to receive careful searches. Leach fields with old iron pipe are also unlikely to be heavily searched. Dave 8{) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: thanks for your suggestions Date: 08 Oct 1996 22:10:14 -0500 (CDT) I too have considered a site not connected with me. But what are you going to do when your site is sold for a real estate subdivision and your tools are dug up in the initial grading, or when you need them there they are in someones newly landscaped front yard? Or, worse yet, what happens if the land you bury your tools on is owned by another suspected tool buryer? Will he be convicted for possession of the tools that you bury? Dificult Yes? And, for that matter, why are you going to bury them? You intend to use them when the right moment arises? What is that moment? Is it when your speech becomes a hate crime? Is it when the right to keep and bear arms is INFRINGED? Hmmm. Are you waiting for the NFA act of 1934 to pass? It seems to me that most (99.9%) of all of us have no intention to use our tools for what they are protected for. It is a defacto reality that are tools are for sport, collecting and hunting. There is no other purpose for them. We have lost our way. And our way is not the libertarian ideal. It is the republican/federalist ideal of our forefathers. But evolution being what it is, they had back bone, nature has shown us that such a structure is dangerous to our health and we have become non vertebrates. Well bury your tools and as you are bent over slipping the PVC into the hole, I know you won't feel the enemies of the American way slip it to you. We ain't minded so far and we won't mind tomorrow neither. Newp, nope, no we won't. We just as well continue our limp wristed ways and receive a little pipe ourselves. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > Thanks to Larry Ball, Mr. Burkepile and Greg for your > suggestions as to burying tools. > > My idea is that a location not connected with me, to which I > can gain access in relative privacy, is the best option. Then it > doesn't really matter how good the detection technology is, as it > would have to be applied over most of the countryside. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Blighting Bozo Bill Date: 09 Oct 1996 07:30:45 -0500 (CDT) Is it possible that all of us Internet Freaks might actually go out into the streets and byways of America and do something constructive about getting Bozo Bill out of office? I have a suggestion--- On one of my discussion groups (maybe this one) someone posted a possible bumper sticker -- NIETHER CLINTON OR O.J. HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING!!!! How about it if we all made up a flyer using large fonts and distributed same to football crowds, in donut and bagel shops, in the alternate news boxes of STop and Rob Stores, in employee cafeteria's, banks, senior centers, recreation centers, libraries, gun shows and flea markets, October fests etc. If we promoted the idea through out the internet how many volunteers do you believe we could motivate? 200? 300? 500? You could put two such messages on an 8/11.5 inch piece of paper, copy 1,000 cut them in half and wind up with 2,000 to distribute. All for about $25.00 at an Office Warehouse Store. Perhaps your office might even contribute the copies. If we had 500 volunteers doing 2,000 apiece that is 1,000,000 copies. This could have an impact. Some of you won't like the message, okay, use your own. Let's not get hung up on discussions about a better message, let's just do something. Let's recruit, motivate, and DO, DO, DO. We need a little "DO DO" that sticks to Teflon Bill. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Macon Court Update, August 8, 1996 (fwd) Date: 09 Oct 1996 08:22:14 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- MEMO DATE: October 8, 1996 TO: All Subscribers to Macon Update FROM: Nancy Lord Liberty Defense League ____________________________________ Macon Telegraph, October 8, 1996 ____________________________________ Militia trial set to start in a week by Eric Velasco ____________________________________ After weeks of hearings that have been often tedious and some- times humorous and the unusual pretrial replacement of a defense attorney, the trial of three militia men in a pipe-bombs conspiracy case is scheduled to being next week. On Monday, U.s. District Judge Duross Fitzpatrick officially set the start of jury selection for Oct. 15 in the case of United States of America vs. Bob Starr, James McCranie Jr. and Troy Spain. All three defendants are charged with conspiring to use a pipe bomb in a crime of violence and actually possessing one. Starr and McCranie are charged with threatening a law-enforcement officer, and Starr alone is charged with illegally possessing an assault rifle. The prosecution contends the Georgia Militia was arming for war with the government. The defendants have claimed there were a political group that fell victim to government snitches who lured them to allegedly violate federal law. According to audio tapes secretly made by a government informant, Militia members were nervously eyeing the standoff between federal agents and the Freemen in Montana during the spring. If the government moved against the Freemen, the Georgia Militia would take it as a sign of a federal war on all militia and patriot groups. Federal agents found pipe bomb materials on property owned by Starr. Materials allegedly found on McCranie's property by Nancy Lord, who was Starr's attorney at the time, contained similar explosive residue. ________________________________________ The prosecution contends the Georgia Militia was arming for war with the government. The defendants have claimed there were a political group that fell victim to government snitches. ________________________________________ The bottom-line question for the jury is expected to be: Who is responsible for those alleged explosives? The defendants claim two government informants, Danny and Kevin Barker, led them down the path-- planting the idea for making illegal pipe bombs and suggesting other prosecutable activities. In fact, two of the people who buried the alleged pipe-bomb material on Starr's property were the Barker brothers. The third was a co-defendant. The government, however, contends the informants merely primed the Militia's pump. The Georgia Militia already was planning special operations to challenge and battle government authority, prosecutors have contended. The informants merely recorded their intentions. Odd legal twists At times, the hearing have reflected paranoia on both sides. Before she was excused, Lord contended her cellular telephone had been bugged by federal ________________________________________ Trial for militiamen set to begin in a week. 2B Continued from Page 1B ________________________________________ agents. Her reasoning centered on the fact that an FBI agent telephoned her, even though she hadn't given her private number to him. The agent got if from a deputy marshal with whom Lord had left her number that morning. Based on pre-trial motions and other allegations, Starr's defense was expected to focus more on politics that the law-- which left Starr's co-defendants scrambling for separate trials. Now that Lord has been replaced by Macon lawyer Althea Buafo, the defense is expected to be less political and more focused on how the law applies to the charges against Starr. Lord was replaced because she handled key evidence before federal authorities actually had seized it, making her a potential witness. She was excused as counsel, a rare occurrence. But even the new lawyer line-up hasn't eliminated the trial's oddities. One of McCranie's lawyers, Brian Randall moved Monday for exclusion of a Freddie Krueger-like device called "the copper claw." Based on the weapon in the comic book, "The Wolverine," the sinister- looking weapon fits over the wrist and hand and has two long sharp prongs for hand-to-had fighting. Built by one of the defendants, it allegedly was to be used to threaten a federal agent. After trying it on, Fitzpatrick, said he was inclined to let the jury see and hear about "the copper claw." The trial is expected to take about three weeks, including Saturday sessions. The anonymous jury will be sequestered. Once the trial begins, it is expected to be quite a legal rollercoaster ride. In addition to testimony about pipe bombs, the government is expected to present evidence about a planned armed encounter with a rural state agency over custody of one defendant's children. Fitzpatrick has set limits on the ability of the defense to discuss fatal government-citizen encounters at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho -- which serve as rallying points for the militia movement. The government will have similar limits on discussing the Oklahoma City bombing last year. But the fatal bombing in Centennial Park during the Olympics is expected to come up, according to discussions during Monday's hearing. Despite the potential tangents, the real issue will be simple. Either the Georgia Militia broke federal law by arming itself with pipe bombs for whatever reason, or the defendants are victims of government entrapment. At stake will be potential 20-year prison sentences without parole. ________________________________________ A word from the attorney, fallen from grace: This article is a perfect example of why the patriot movement needs good spokespeople. Eric Velasco is an excellent reporter, who is doing his best (unlike most of his ilk) to give comprehensive and unbiased coverage. But obviously, there was nobody to talk to him at the hearing, so there are a few things that need to be clarified: 1) The "assault rifle". We recently learned that this is the only case in the country where the assault weapons ban has been prosecuted. It was mentioned on the two-party presidential debates (Clinton- Dole, don't they sound like running mates?) We may be getting some help on this from an experienced second amendment attorney. Stay tuned. 2) The snitches. Mr. Starr's defense has never been that he was entrapped, or lured to violate the law. He never violated any law. The snitches placed the "explosives" onto his property without his knowledge or permission, and the BATF Special Agent Gillis admitted this in open court, on May 6, 1996. 3) The phone tap. It was a little weirder than what is described. Yes, I was called on the cell and had given the number to the Marshalls about 15 minutes before. But the FBI guy said he got the number from, not the Marshalls, but the U.S. Attorney's office. I got a letter from them the next day, dated that day (7/30) that stated they could not reach me by phone. At the hearing, the secretary, who trained under Rosemary Woods of Watergate, said that she gave an 800 number to the FBI, then the Marshalls called and mentioned that they had spoken with me. Without knowing that the FBI had not reached me, she heroicly obtained the number, and called the FBI back to give it to them. This all happened between 9:00 am and 9:07 am. Paranoia? Hey, it might have happened that way, but it was sure a coincidence. 4) The defense. I thought that the fact that the Militia was taking steps to defend themselves and their communities did focus on how the law applies to the charges. This isn't why we wanted a severance. You ask for (but rarely get) a severance when the cases against the different people are different and one will prejudice the others. 5) The "copper claw". I hear the whole room was rolling on this one and I'm sure the jury will too. This piece of artwork is supposed to be the device used to "threaten" the "law enforcement officer", Bart McIntyre -- only he was not there at the time. Seriously. Somebody talked about mailing him a picture of it, and a BATF jacket. That is the threat. Anybody scared yet? 6) Centennial Park. While I was on the case, the government filed a motion in limine to preclude any mention of this tragedy. See earlier Macon Update. Now they've withdrawn it. I wonder why. Could it be that they think nobody is here to remind the public of certain individuals connected with this investigation, not Bob Starr and his co- accused or any other militia members, who like pipe-bombs and were still at large on July 27? Isn't it funny that, with all those cameras, witnesses and composites, we still don't have a suspect? Isn't it funny that the FBI never took us up on our offer to listen to the 911 tapes and compare it to the evidence tapes in this case? For further info, see the forwarded message from Gen. Don Beauregard. ____________________________________ Please call Don about coming up for the trial. All our welcome. Nancy Lord Liberty Defense League defense@mindspring.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Blighting Bozo Bill Date: 09 Oct 1996 08:54:37 -0600 larry ball wrote: > > How about it if we all made up a flyer using large fonts and > distributed same to football crowds, in donut and bagel shops, in the > alternate news boxes of STop and Rob Stores, in employee cafeteria's, > banks, senior centers, recreation centers, libraries, gun shows and > flea markets, October fests etc. I've been thinking about a bumper sticker that has pictures of Boorda, forster, Brown and Colby and a slogan that says "WARNING! Associations with the Clinton Administration may be hazardous to your health." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 09 Oct 1996 09:59:46 -0400 >I just wanted to say that if you follow this recipe, your tools will >be out of reach and therefore useless. Its just an insurance bet. Color me paranoid. I think that if Dan Rather were to go on the airwaves and color the broadcast of door-to-door "weapons verifications" as being just another step towards "a safer America", then the American Public would roll over and go back to sleep. Anyone resisting would be a dangerous nutcase. Please note that this is being broadcast "en clair". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Blighting Bozo Bill Date: 09 Oct 1996 09:22:22 -0500 (CDT) Okay Do Do, Do Do on Bill!! Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > larry ball wrote: > > > > How about it if we all made up a flyer using large fonts and > > distributed same to football crowds, in donut and bagel shops, in the > > alternate news boxes of STop and Rob Stores, in employee cafeteria's, > > banks, senior centers, recreation centers, libraries, gun shows and > > flea markets, October fests etc. > > I've been thinking about a bumper sticker that has pictures of Boorda, > forster, Brown and Colby and a slogan that says > > "WARNING! Associations with the Clinton Administration may be hazardous > to your health." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: more on tools Date: 09 Oct 1996 10:33:13 -0400 Larry Ball writes: >Dificult Yes? And, for that matter, why are you going to bury them? >You intend to use them when the right moment arises? What is that >moment? Is it when your speech becomes a hate crime? Is it when the >right to keep and bear arms is INFRINGED? Hmmm. Are you waiting for >the NFA act of 1934 to pass? > >It seems to me that most (99.9%) of all of us have no intention to use >our tools for what they are protected for. It is a defacto reality >that are tools are for sport, collecting and hunting. There is no >other purpose for them. We have lost our way. > >And our way is not the libertarian ideal. It is the >republican/federalist ideal of our forefathers. But evolution being >what it is, they had back bone, nature has shown us that such a >structure is dangerous to our health and we have become non >vertebrates. > >Well bury your tools and as you are bent over slipping the PVC into >the hole, I know you won't feel the enemies of the American way slip >it to you. We ain't minded so far and we won't mind tomorrow neither. >Newp, nope, no we won't. We just as well continue our limp wristed >ways and receive a little pipe ourselves. > > This is the frog in hot water problem and it is very real. I agree with you. You almost make me ashamed to bring the whole PVC thing up, as it is a canard. I think that the problems are as follows: 1. Media creates reality for the vast majority of people. 90% of the reporters are Democrats and think that Bob Dole and Newt are "too radical". 2. The T.L.A.'s and the media can take any political group that is outside the mainstream and paint them as dangerous and kooky. The court system can deny them the ability to expose their views, and effectively deny a jury trial. 3. The internet is open media, and as far as the T.L.A.'s are concerned, we might as well be publishing in the Sunday paper. 4. Access to tools is not the problem. Access to effective political action is. The tools are easy enough to make. Affecting the political process to reverse current trends is difficult. 5. Face it, some of the "gun nuts" are in fact "nuts", there are skinheads in Idaho, mad bombers sprinkled around, etc. This just increases the number of ways to spin stories in an anti-militia, anti-constitutionalist fashion. The Feds burned women and children at Waco on national T.V., the Congress exposed them to any thinking person as mindless assasins at Ruby Ridge (even D. Feinstein was obviously appalled) and nothing has happened. (except a civil suit settlement). 6. As we are all frogs, being slowly simmered, we won't jump until we are in a full blown police state, with no effective civil rights, except for politically correct groups. The assaults are numerous and real: a. the judges and prosecuters want to limit jury nullification and effectively dictate the result of every trial b. the use of cryptography is sharply limited c. the W.O.D. is used to limit safeguards against use of the military against domestic people, along with search and seizure, and "unjust takings". (note the recent seizure by fiat of 1.7 million acres in Utah by billy). d. the media is waging a harsh war against: gun-owners, Christians, home-schoolers, anyone expousing a view to the right of Bill Clinton anyone expousing a view of original intent of the founders anyone expousing a view that the Feds should: a. tax us less b. not discriminate based on race c. stay out of our homes and our families. e. there are major efforts to hobble the Net and bring it under commercial (i.e. politically pliable) control. 7. none of the above are addressable with a "tool", all require shifting mainstream domestic opinion. 8. Even this whole exercise is just preaching to the choir, and, hence, nearly useless. 9. Pro-Constitutionalists are: easily infiltrated, easily monitored, and easily propagandazied against. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Blighting Bozo Bill Date: 09 Oct 1996 10:42:11 -0400 Larry, Do it. I'm doing a couple of things: volunteering for Bob Smith, candidate for senator here in NH (U.S. Senate, not state), making small donations to a couple of candidates here. Smith is decidedly pro-gun rights, his oponent Dick Swett is funded by big California money and a traitor by virtue of his lying about his vote on the AW ban bill. My kids are going to the polls on Election Day to carry their hand crafted signs say: "Bill Clinton - Liar, Liar, Pants of Fire!" Maybe that will swing a couple of votes. this is what I have the time and money for right now. I'm concentrating on local stuff because we have three close races in which tax-raising, gun-banning Democrats are running slightly ahead of R's with proven pro-gun, anti-tax *records*, not rhetoric. This is in New Hampshire, for God's sake! jcurtis P.S. why don't you list all the Clinton associates who have been convicted of Federal felonies? We don't hear much about that, do we? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 09 Oct 1996 08:48:42 -0600 >Larry Ball writes: >>And our way is not the libertarian ideal. It is the >>republican/federalist ideal of our forefathers. Or maybe Larry Ball's concept of the forefathers? Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 09 Oct 1996 10:11:57 -0500 (CDT) John: You got it right. I have to leave town for two days will comment in length when I return Please see my post RE: Blighting Bozo Bill Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > Larry Ball writes: > >Dificult Yes? And, for that matter, why are you going to bury them? > >You intend to use them when the right moment arises? What is that > >moment? Is it when your speech becomes a hate crime? Is it when the > >right to keep and bear arms is INFRINGED? Hmmm. Are you waiting for > >the NFA act of 1934 to pass? > > > >It seems to me that most (99.9%) of all of us have no intention to use > >our tools for what they are protected for. It is a defacto reality > >that are tools are for sport, collecting and hunting. There is no > >other purpose for them. We have lost our way. > > > >And our way is not the libertarian ideal. It is the > >republican/federalist ideal of our forefathers. But evolution being > >what it is, they had back bone, nature has shown us that such a > >structure is dangerous to our health and we have become non > >vertebrates. > > > >Well bury your tools and as you are bent over slipping the PVC into > >the hole, I know you won't feel the enemies of the American way slip > >it to you. We ain't minded so far and we won't mind tomorrow neither. > >Newp, nope, no we won't. We just as well continue our limp wristed > >ways and receive a little pipe ourselves. > > > > > This is the frog in hot water problem and it is very real. I > agree with you. You almost make me ashamed to bring the whole PVC thing > up, as it is a canard. > > I think that the problems are as follows: > > 1. Media creates reality for the vast majority of people. 90% of > the reporters are Democrats and think that Bob Dole and Newt are > "too radical". > > 2. The T.L.A.'s and the media can take any political group that is > outside the mainstream and paint them as dangerous and kooky. The > court system can deny them the ability to expose their views, and > effectively deny a jury trial. > > 3. The internet is open media, and as far as the T.L.A.'s are concerned, > we might as well be publishing in the Sunday paper. > > 4. Access to tools is not the problem. Access to effective political > action is. The tools are easy enough to make. Affecting the political > process to reverse current trends is difficult. > > 5. Face it, some of the "gun nuts" are in fact "nuts", there are > skinheads in Idaho, mad bombers sprinkled around, etc. This just > increases the number of ways to spin stories in an anti-militia, > anti-constitutionalist fashion. The Feds burned women and children > at Waco on national T.V., the Congress exposed them to any thinking > person as mindless assasins at Ruby Ridge (even D. Feinstein was obviously > appalled) and nothing has happened. (except a civil suit settlement). > > 6. As we are all frogs, being slowly simmered, we won't jump until > we are in a full blown police state, with no effective civil rights, > except for politically correct groups. The assaults are numerous and > real: > > a. the judges and prosecuters want to limit jury nullification > and effectively dictate the result of every trial > > b. the use of cryptography is sharply limited > > c. the W.O.D. is used to limit safeguards against > use of the military against domestic people, along with > search and seizure, and "unjust takings". (note the > recent seizure by fiat of 1.7 million acres in Utah by > billy). > > d. the media is waging a harsh war against: > gun-owners, > Christians, > home-schoolers, > anyone expousing a view to the right > of Bill Clinton > anyone expousing a view of original intent > of the founders > anyone expousing a view that the Feds should: > a. tax us less > b. not discriminate based on race > c. stay out of our homes and our > families. > > e. there are major efforts to hobble the Net and > bring it under commercial (i.e. politically > pliable) control. > > > 7. none of the above are addressable with a "tool", all require > shifting mainstream domestic opinion. > > 8. Even this whole exercise is just preaching to the choir, and, hence, > nearly useless. > > 9. Pro-Constitutionalists are: easily infiltrated, easily monitored, > and easily propagandazied against. > > > jcurtis > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 09 Oct 1996 10:23:00 -0500 (CDT) Chad I figured you would zap on that. Now I am waiting for the other shoe, (Silberger ;-). The Federalist/REpublican Ideal is animosity to Libertarianism Citizen Chad. Democracy (Jeffersonian Democracy) is like wise. The French Libertarians of the French revolution taught our early political theorists and politicians the danger of libertarianism. The federalist/republican ideal was for a "civil" people working in concert to protect each others legitimate values. The essential values were expressed in our Dec of Independence. This same document gave the United States Government to the People not to any particular Individual. I see in the libertarian ideal the elevation of the individual above all. This is not possible in any society, culture, or nation. (By the way these three words all have the same root meaning." A society, culture, or nation is a group of individuals united arround a certain body of belief and in concert they agree to protect one another from all comers, foreign or domestic. Our essential liberty is being violated. This includes equality, life, political liberty and the right to make our way in the world. It does no include pot smoking, binge drinking, rolled roast sucking, or baby killing. This is Larry Ball's understanding in a nutshell. :-I Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > >Larry Ball writes: > >>And our way is not the libertarian ideal. It is the > >>republican/federalist ideal of our forefathers. > > Or maybe Larry Ball's concept of the forefathers? > > Chad > > ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- > Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! > Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) > http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com > http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface > Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and > Activism Info > --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SLFCX@cc.usu.edu Subject: Re: thanks for your suggestions Date: 09 Oct 1996 12:20:00 -0600 (MDT) What is the NFA act of 1934? Vincent Jefferies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: SLFCX@cc.usu.edu Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 09 Oct 1996 12:26:30 -0600 (MDT) I'd rather be a dangerous nut case than one who would roll over. Vincent Jefferies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Simple recipe Date: 09 Oct 1996 16:47:03 -0700 >>I just wanted to say that if you follow this recipe, your tools will >>be out of reach and therefore useless. >> >>I like to have my tools where they can be used at a moments notice. If you >>don't use your tools, you may misplace or loose them!!! >> >>Vincent Jefferies >I always thought one should have spare tools around. I can never find a >wrench when I need it and a spare one makes sense... > >Chad Now *this* is the only valid reason I know of for keeping some tools elsewhere. If you have some spare ones, it doesn't hurt to have them somewhere else in case you lose your main ones. A duplicate set is a great idea; but if you ain't got duplicates I'd keep what you have handy. - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Column, Oct. 16 (fwd) Date: 10 Oct 1996 07:43:28 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS Dear M R, Do us all a favor. Take a copy of this to your local, very small-town newspaper and tell them you like this guy's writing. They're always looking for writers who can elevate them above the competition and help distinguish them from the Pablum Press. Show them Vin's columns. -- Harvey =================================== FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 16, 1996 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz What Supreme Court ruling? Article I Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states. ..." Part of America's economic success is certainly attributable to the historic interstate "free trade zone" thus created. But in this century, Congress has taken to pretending these few words grant it the power to circumvent virtually any restriction on its power. One of the most onerous examples was the enactment by the 1990 Democratic congress of so-called federal "gun-free school zones," outlawing by federal statute the possession of firearms by otherwise law-abiding Americans within a fixed distance of a schoolhouse or school property. In one of its finest decision of recent years, the United States Supreme Court, ruling in the 1995 case (start ital)U.S. vs. Lopez(end ital), said that is nonsense. The "commerce clause" does not permit Washington to regulate anything that's bought or sold, anywhere in the land, if the main thrust of their action does nothing to promote peaceful, duty-free interstate commerce. Furious at this minor rebuff to his now-almost-limitless power, and demonstrating the scorn in which he holds his own oath to protect and defend the Constitution, President Clinton immediately ordered Attorney General Janet Reno to "find a way around" the Lopez ruling. Now they think they have. Wedged into omnibus spending bill HR 3610, signed into law by the president late on the night of Sept. 30, is a page called Treasury-Postal Section 657. Once again, we read that "Before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce," blah blah blah. Once again, citing the powers of the "interstate commerce clause," this section -- also known as the Kohl amendment -- declares "It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in interstate commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." Exemptions are granted if the owner has a government license for the gun, if the gun is not loaded and is in a locked container or locked rack, or if the owner is "traversing school premises" for the purpose of going hunting, providing the hunter has the prior permission of school authorities. Gun rights groups like Virginia's Gun Owners of America quickly mobilized, warning in an Oct. 3 press release that -- given that authorities in the past have extended "school zones" 1000 feet from school property -- this bill "sets up thousands of gun ban zones across roads statewide where local police or the BATF can arrest unsuspecting drivers who have a firearm in the car. ... Anyone without a pistol carry license driving through a zone with an unloaded firearm, that is not in a locked container or rack, faces five years in prison. ..." Those who defend the bill told me this week that the old bill did indeed establish 1,000-foot "zones" around schools, but that this new "try" bans guns only on school property, not neighboring private property. However, the language of the law as reported in the Sept. 28 Congressional Record still uses the term "zones," without any limiting definition. And even Capitol Hill supporters admit "It isn't clear" whether the law would allow random stops and gun searches of cars driving on city streets (start ital)near(end ital) a school. Anyway, the point of the 1995 Supreme Court (start ital)Lopez(end ital) ruling was that this is not a federal concern. The separate states are perfectly capable of outlawing guns on schools grounds if they want to. Many already have. So, why such a poisonous Halloween present, from a Republican Congress? "All of these things were Clinton administration wants and desires, and I think you had a Clinton administration that was willing to shut down the government and blame us again," explained a high-level Republican congressional staffer who would only speak off the record. "So we just had to swallow hard and accept a lot more spending than we wanted," the staffer told me. "We've just lost the PR battle over these shutdowns." One proposed "fix" is to make the budget resolution -- now non-binding -- into a binding outline which the president would have to sign in April or May, making it harder to shovel so much unexamined manure into spending bills at the last minute. Congressman Chris Cox has proposed such a measure. But in the short run, all that can probably be done is to retain congressfolk who voted against HR 3610 -- representatives like Barton, Coleman, Hall and Stockman of Texas, Barcia of Michigan, Chabot and Kaptur of Ohio, and Burr and Coble of North Carolina. That and, of course, to defeat gun-grabbers who sneak in such "stealth" assaults on the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a loaded firearm for self-defense in the first place -- characters like Schumer, Feinstein, Kohl, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Clinton. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@intermind.net. *** Vin Suprynowicz vin@intermind.net "Next year in Galt's Gulch!" **************************************************** TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL RIGHTS **************************************************** "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -- David Hume **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: : C-NEWS: Interesting Items 10/9 (fwd) Date: 10 Oct 1996 07:52:16 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Wednesday, Oct 9, 1996 Interesting Items 10/9 - Howdy all, a few Interesting Items for your information. Enjoy - 1. Parental Rights. An initiative to amend the Colorado state constitution with language to reaffirm the unalienable right of parents to direct the education of their kids, instruct them in values and religion, and to raise them as the parents see fit is being fought by all the usual suspects - the ACLU, National PTA, Teacher's Unions. They are afraid that this amendment will make it easier for parents to overturn idiotic school board decisions, insert parental control into the teacher hiring and firing and give parents control over lessons and materials. Sounds like the educrats are correct this time. Hope it passes. Limbaugh, Tues. 2. Parental Rights II. A federal judge in Texas has given us the following quote: "Parents give up their rights when they drop their children off at school." This brilliant observation about the rights of The Village to raise our children was made in a case where parents sued a public school when they forced their son to strip in front of a female Child Protection Services officer so she could inspect him for paddling. The parents were neither informed nor asked for permission for this "inspection." Limbaugh, Tues. 3. Immigration. While hearings on the fast track naturalization of illegals were being held in the Senate this week, Matalin reported Tuesday that democrat party activists were registering new, non English speaking citizens to vote democrat this year. They are being told that if they don't vote for democrats, they will not get their welfare checks. Other than Congressional hearings, the actions by Republican activists to counter this are going unreported and are unknown. 4. Supreme Court. The court this week has made two decisions of interest. - First, it has let stand a lower court ruling that federal judges do not have to pay Social Security or Income taxes under a provision of the Constitution that requires their compensation to not be diminished while in office. 7 of the 9 justices excused themselves from reviewing this case. Sounds like the lawyers on the federal bench have finally found a way to tax everyone except themselves. It really IS an Imperial Judiciary. - Second, it has upheld a court challenge to a local school district graduation requirement for 40 hours of community service. While I don't like this decision a lot, this issue is ultimately a local one and ought to be fought at the local level. 5. Polling. Zogby / Reuters released a poll yesterday that showed the race at a 5.3% lead for Bubba. Dole hit 40% for the first time ever in his polling. Up until last Sunday, Dole's problem was his Republican base - getting only 48 - 52% support from them. On Sunday, that support shot up to 75% and appears to be climbing steadily from there. The democrats do not want Dole to consolidate his base, as it means their defeat in the election. The arousal gap in stay at home women is closing. The 18% lead last week Bubba had was due to a great 3 day period. That lead has disappeared. Limbaugh, Tues. 6. Rich Bond. The column that reported St Hilly's promise to a group of democrat big money supporters last Spring that Bill would turn her and algore loose to do what they really wanted to do now has some verification. Apparently there is videotape of the speech now making the rounds in Republican circles. Limbaugh read from a transcript of it Tuesday. Expect to see this film on a campaign ad close to you in the next few weeks or so. 7. Ketchikan Pulp. The greenies in the Cliton administration have managed to shut down another small town in Southeast Alaska. Ketchikan Pulp has been under attack from the greenies for a number of years, yet provides nearly 2,000 high paying jobs in this community of 14,000. The Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 was supposed to ensure enough logs be made available to the mill to operate indefinitely. The US Forest Service, now fully infiltrated at all levels by Sierra Club activists, found a thousand reasons not to make that lumber available. Eventually, the business strangled to death. This is the third major mill closed in Southeast Alaska during the Cliton administration as a payoff to their environmentalist supporters. This is the third town of that size that will have its economy wrecked by the Gaiaists. The War on the West continues. 8. FBI. FBI Agent Dennis Scholenbrini estimates that 25% of the incoming Clinton White House staff had a history of drug use or a problem with drugs. If you use over 50 times, it is defined as a problem by the FBI. No wonder tobacco is now an issue. Limbaugh, Fri. 9. Union Spending. The unions have upped the ante in their attempt to buy this election. The promised $35 million to defeat the 70 targeted freshmen Republicans is now up to $65 - 70. A Wall Street Journal article last Thursday shows exactly why this election is so important to the unions. In 1960, only 6% of union members were public employees. Today that number is over 42%. The largest union is the NEA. Essentially, we have the government employees and their unions fighting the taxpayers for more government. They are fighting for their very lives - which explains their vehemence. Limbaugh, Thurs. 10. Kudlow. Lawrence Kudlow was interviewed on Matalin last Thursday. He said that Clinton's polls seem to track very closely to economic data - when the economy is up, they do well. Over the last 6-7 weeks, however, the consumer numbers have really flattened and turned strongly negative on the consumer side. This will be a problem for Bubba in the very near future. He also reminded the listeners that the nation sustained a growth rate of 5% in the 1960s, over 4% in the 1980s, yet has only done just over 2% in the 1990s. 11. Bonior. Michigan democrat Rep David Bonior is finally in a close race for Congress. His Republican challenger, Suzy Heinz is only down by 8-9%. Bonior ducked out of a debate when the challenger refused to agree to not limit her questions to only education, environment or Medicare cuts. Bonior also has his wife on his Congressional payroll, proving that nepotism is still alive and well in the democrat party. He didn't want to answer questions about her either. Matalin, Thurs. 12. HIV/AIDS. An NY Immigration judge granted asylum to a 30 year old computer engineer from Togo last week, overturning a 1993 law that bars immigration of people carrying communicable diseases. In a year, this gentleman will be eligible for citizenship and eventually health care at taxpayer expense. Apparently the AIDS numbers are not rising fast enough for the Clintonoids, so they are having to import sick people from the rest of the world. Limbaugh, Fri. 13. Data Base. Big Brother, the $1.7 million political database constructed in the White House by our Dynamic Duo, keeps track of (depending who you believe) between 200,000 to nearly 500,000 'contributors' for them. The use of White House money for these political purposes is another example of an illegal diversion of your hard earned tax dollars for their political use. Wow, I feel just like a union guy now. 14. Concert. Greenie rock stars Bonnie Rait and Jackson Browne are scheduled to give a concert in Jackson (Hole) sometime soon. A caller to Limbaugh Monday promised to give them a warm welcome during their concert with a massed chorus of local chainsaw musicians. The Rait concert is supposed to be held out of doors in an open air location. Apparently the town knows about the planned protest and is threatening to stop cars and keep the chainsaws from coming in. However, there is a lot of private land near the concert site that should be available for this musical extravaganza. More later - - AG Note: Interesting Items can be found at Julie Kelleher's K-Group home page - http://world.std.com/~julikell/ ------- To unsubscribe from c-news, send the message UNSUBSCRIBE c-news to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact owner-c-news@world.std.com with questions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Scholary Debate, More Federal Law Enforcement, Unions vote (fwd) Date: 10 Oct 1996 09:35:52 -0500 (CDT) Reuters New Media Thursday October 10 6:24 AM EDT Gore, Kemp Conduct Scholarly Debate ST PETERSBURG, Fla (Reuter) - Spitting out facts and figures like two computers, Vice President Al Gore and Republican Jack Kemp sparred Wednesday over race, abortion, foreign affairs, economic theory, morals and even baseball in the only vice presidential debate of the 1996 campaign. Clubbing each other, and a national television audience, over the head with bundles of statistics, Gore and Kemp produced an intellectually demanding but often dry confrontation, packed with details but spiced with only the occasional flashes of rhetorical excitement. After promising a civilized, respectful debate, Kemp went to the offensive, accusing Clinton and Gore of trying to impose a quasi-socialist, anti-capitalist economic system on the nation. _________________________________________________________________ Earlier Related Stories * Gore, Kemp Waltz in Scholarly Campaign Debate - Wed Oct 9 11:34 pm * Gore, Kemp Foresee Civil Debate in Only Clash - Wed Oct 9 5:50 pm * Gore, Kemp Expect Civilized Debate of Issues - Wed Oct 9 2:31 pm _________________________________________________________________ Thursday October 10 6:25 AM EDT Clinton Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill into Law WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Surrounded by people who have lost loved ones in airline crashes, several of them crying, President Clinton on Wednesday signed into law a bill that tightens airport security against terrorism. It also calls for hiring dozens of new Federal Bureau of Investigation agents to fight terrorism and seeks to improve assistance to the families of victims after air disasters. "Because of these improvements, Americans will not only feel safer, they will be safer," Clinton said at a signing ceremony held in the Old Executive Office Building next door to the White House. "We are ... stepping up our law enforcement efforts with more agents and prosecutors and we're sending a message to terrorists that they will pay the full price for their deeds," Clinton added. (end) 9. Union Spending. The unions have upped the ante in their attempt to buy this election. The promised $35 million to defeat the 70 targeted freshmen Republicans is now up to $65 - 70. A Wall Street Journal article last Thursday shows exactly why this election is so important to the unions. In 1960, only 6% of union members were public employees. Today that number is over 42%. The largest union is the NEA. Essentially, we have the government employees and their unions fighting the taxpayers for more government. They are fighting for their very lives - which explains their vehemence. Limbaugh, Thurs. Comments: While America is on the edge of a Police state with gun confiscation and possible civil war the Republicans Waltz. I heard a great line last night before the debates: If the Democrats decided to burn all the books in the Library of Congress the Republicans would argue about phasing it in over 3 years. The Democrats have now done it with the support of the Media they have defined any criticism of them as "Harsh Words", "Mean Spirited". So our Republicans leaders have a "Scholarly, Civil debate" about empowerment zones and Clinton gets new Federal money for the BATF and FBI and Justice Department to conduct a national witch hunt for all right wing opposition to the new Socialist Agenda. Complete with crying women. I have never seen a more masterful propaganda in my life. The vote will be all the school, local, state, and federal employees and all the groups getting government money against all of us concerned citizens. They are up to 50% or more of the population. While the media tells all the Republicans the race is over do not bother to vote the Democrats are giving citizenship to 10,000 foreigners in Texas Stadium. We are now just like the Jews in NAZI Germany who were blamed for every thing wrong in life. You can not win a civil, scholarly debate with an opponent willing to use every thing in the Government, Media and Union arsenal to win. Gore told more lies last night than Joseph Goebbels and got away with it. Paul Watson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Date: 10 Oct 1996 08:24:01 -0700 (MST) [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] Dear Friends, I am home near the telephone for most of today, Thursday, Oct. 10. I have a few errands to do, like get my mail (and a haircut). If you would like to talk about the Supreme Law Seminar in Tucson this weekend, keep trying until I answer. Later this evening will be best. /s/ Paul Mitchell (520) 320-1514 or Bernie, Executive Secretary (520) 795-3994 voice (520) 795-5895 fax For Immediate Release August 25, 1996 Supreme Law Seminars Announces A Weekend Series on Freedom Law and Internet Technology: The Full Faith and Credit Clause Saturday, October 12, 1996 (full day) Sunday, October 13, 1996 (full day) Friday October 11, 1996 (dress rehearsal) Payson, Arizona. Supreme Law Seminars today announced their plans to conduct a two-day weekend seminar at the magnificent Holiday Inn Palo Verde in Tucson, Arizona Republic. The focus of the seminar will be the constitutional law of freedom, and available Internet technologies for teaching and learning this law, and making freedom a reality. Founder Paul Mitchell, an advanced systems development consultant for over 25 years, has spent the past seven years doing a detailed investigation of the United States Constitution, federal statute laws, and the important court cases. Writing under several pen names, Mitchell's work has reached all the way into the U.S. Supreme Court, which adopted "the federal zone" as a household word in their sweeping 1995 decision in U.S. v. Lopez. His massive book entitled The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue was first published in 1992, and became an instant underground success for its lucid language and indisputable legal authority. Mitchell has litigated important cases in state and federal courts, including the case of People v. Boxer, which established that the so-called Sixteenth Amendment was a massive fraud upon the American People. U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of Mitchell's pleadings in that case. He has recently worked as Counsel to an Arizona Trust in a major confrontation with the federal government over tax administration policy, and as Counsel to a trespass and piracy victim whose legal strategy is now attracting nationwide attention on the Internet. Richard McDonald of Canoga Park, California Republic, will be the featured guest speaker at this meeting of the Supreme Law Seminars focus on Freedom Law and Internet Technology: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. McDonald has, almost single-handedly, launched a nationwide movement of State Citizens who have divorced themselves from all attachments to the United States federal government. Many People are motivated to become State Citizens because they are now convinced that the federal government has become a criminal enterprise, and they have the evidence to prove it. McDonald was recently featured in a photo essay by Worth magazine, September 1996 edition, page 110. Supreme Law Seminars will demonstrate multimedia computer technology at their Tucson seminar, in order to explain the immense power and ease of use which are now available for modest prices. A local, veritable genius in personal computer workstations will present the latest developments in retail technology sales, service, and support, with a demonstration of the Hewlett Packard Pavilion series and IOmega ZIP and JAZ drive removable storage media. A high-power screen projection system will be available to demonstrate the massive personal potential of Internet email, Web page access, and free program resources. The Holiday Inn Tucson/Palo Verde, one of the John Q. Hammons Hotels, is a magnificent, recently remodeled atrium hotel and convention center, located within 4 miles of Tucson International Airport. Frequent free shuttles run to and from the airport. The hotel's interior courtyard is a spacious Spanish-style masterpiece with a large irrigating waterfall under colored skylights and two large restaurants. The exterior plaza features a swimming pool, sauna, and hot tub. This Supreme Law Seminar will be held in the Marabella Executive Conference Theater, with tiered, cushioned seating in a theater-style room with 150 seats. Reservations are expected to fill up quickly, and fire codes prohibit standing room only. Advanced tickets are available by sending $100 in cash or blank U.S. Postal Money order to Paul Andrew Mitchell, Supreme Law Seminars, c/o 2509 North Campbell, Apartment 1776, Tucson, Arizona Republic. Space permitting, tickets will be sold at the door for $125. Attendees are asked to bring one ream of laser printer paper, and the technology experts at the Supreme Law Seminar will orchestrate electrons and ink into compelling printed communications. Meals and accommodations will be the responsibility of seminar attendees. Special room rates will be available to those who mention the "Full Faith and Credit Conference" when they call for reservations. The seminar is scheduled to run all day Saturday and Sunday, October 12 and 13, 1996, ending at approximately 5:00 p.m on Sunday evening. A dress rehearsal of Internet access and large- screen SVGA color graphics projections will begin at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 11, 1996, when the computer specialists will begin to assemble and test the electronic components for this multimedia extravaganza. The real show begins at 8:00 o'clock sharp on Saturday morning, October 12. Please be punctual. The Holiday Inn Tucson/Palo Verde can be reached 24-hours per day by telephone at (520) 746-1161 and fax at (520) 741-1170. The hotel is located at 4550 South Palo Verde Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona state, Postal Zone 85714. For help with hotel facilities and services, contact Curt Moroney, Sales Manager. The Supreme Law Seminars will look forward to meeting you and seeing you attend their weekend special focus on Freedom Law and Internet Technology: the Full Faith and Credit Clause. # # # =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ChuckS@bangate.compaq.com Subject: NFA 34, was Re: thanks for your suggestions Date: 10 Oct 1996 14:42:01 CDT SLFCX@cc.usu.edu, on 10/9/96 12:20 PM wrote: >What is the NFA act of 1934? And I responded but it didn't make it to the list because my email address had changed: NFA '34 is the National Firearms Act of 1934. It made the transfer of a machine gun, short rifle or shotgun, silencer (suppressors), or a destructive device (explosive, grenade) subject to a federal tax. If you owned such a thing at that time then you were legally obligated to register it and pay the tax. The Miller case, oft cited here and elsewhere, was the first case heard by the Supremes as a result of NFA '34. The interesting thing here was that the tax not paid by Mr. Miller was $200. On a shotgun maybe worth $25 at the time. And NFA '34 was written/approved as a revenue enhancement regulation. This act represented the first step taken by the Feds to control and regulate firearms. It also serves as the legal(?) foundation for the Gun Control Act of '68, the 'forgot what it's called act' of 86, and the 94 crime bill/brady bill. It's NFA '34 that got the Feds into the gun control business. If we could get NFA '34 dumped (fat chance but I'm working towards that goal) we could probably put BATF (and a lot of Class 2/3 guys) out of business. Understand that BATF are basically 'revenuers' - aka tax collectors. I'm sure someone will correct any errors, but I believe the preceding to be generally correct. Chuck Scanland Spring, TX ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Book of the Month -- October 1996 Education Reporter (fwd) Date: 10 Oct 1996 17:01:41 -0500 (CDT) ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From eagle@eagleforum.org Thu Oct 10 12:35:14 1996 X-Sender: eagle@accessus.net BOOK OF THE MONTH . . . Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why American Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can't Read, Write, or Add by Charles J. Sykes, 1995, St. Martin's Press, 326 pps., $23.95 cloth, $14.95 paperback. Despite good intentions and wishful thinking, the reality of the failure of schools is easily and readily documented. Charles J. Sykes, author of Dumbing Down Our Kids, looks beyond the usual favorite scapegoats of the education establishment-parents, society, and money-to reveal how the schools themselves can no longer evade blame for America's educational decline. The education reforms of the 1990s are not new. Such ideas, the latest being Outcome-Based Education, "have been tested and retested for decades in thousands of schools. And they have failed." Even 40 years ago, progressive educational philosophy revealed its fundamental denial of absolutes, objective standards, a priori knowledge, and eternal truths. The present, according to educationists, is the only reality worth knowing. A natural outgrowth of this Postmodern philosophy is the dominant assumption among educationists that children are "frail and easily damaged psychological growths" that need to be liberated from "oppressive" influences such as family, traditional morality, and even conventional spelling and grammar. Literature and history are no longer important guideposts; moral courage, arduous choices, and virtue are useless. Feelings, say the educationists of today, are the only necessary compass. This emphasis on feelings inevitably means that schools often infringe on the privacy of families, such as courses encouraging children to report on family problems. "America's schools," charges Sykes, "have become backwaters of amateur psychologizing." The school becomes a "village," where children are taught they should turn to the schools' "experts," instead of parents. Ironically, Americans routinely dismiss mounting evidence, insisting that their own children and local schools are immune to the so-called crisis. All Americans should set aside their doubts and read this penetrating and comprehensive critique of the nation's schools. The education of America's children involves issues that affect every American. "I am convinced," says Sykes, "that the defining cultural and political debates of the decade will center around the so-called school wars, which will be fought out in the elementary, middle, junior high, and high schools." An excellent way to find out how well any child or adult can read is to take the First Reading Test. You can order the First Reading Test by e-mailing us with your name and mailing address. The First Reading Test is FREE ! EAGLE FORUM -- eagle@eagleforum.org PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 http://www.eagleforum.org ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 10 Oct 1996 13:45:56 -0700 Larry >>>>>>> Our essential liberty is being violated. This includes equality, life, political liberty and the right to make our way in the world. It does no include pot smoking, binge drinking, rolled roast sucking, or baby killing. <<<<<<< With reference to the "pot smoking, binge drinking, rolled roast sucking", I can see that you subscribe to the idea that you can regulate behavior which affects you not, merely because you find it repugnant. I hasten to to remind you that some of this century's worst nightmares for government (and America is rapidly becoming one of them) advocated the same thoughts as you. According to the Amercan Heritage Dictionary (V4.0), Libertarian is defined as: One who believes in freedom of action and thought. 2. One who believes in free will. [ From liberty ] From that, then, you obviously have a problem with letting others exercise their Rights without sticking your nose in their affairs - no offense intended, that is just how it sounds. >>>>>>> Democracy (Jeffersonian Democracy) is like wise. <<<<<<< Better catch up on your history, Larry. Jefferson absolutely *despised* your so-called 'democracy'. Why do you think it is that, our Constitution guarantees us - in each of the States, a "Republican form of government". I cannot recall seeing the word 'Democracy' anywhere in the Constitution, can you? And by the way, there is no such thing as "Jeffersonian Democracy". There is such a thing as being a 'Jeffersonian Liberal', and the deffinition for that fits Libertarian to a 'tee'. Ed In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have more laws against freedom than those that protect it. If this country is so damned free, why are there so many things I can't do without breaking some idiotic law? >>>eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com<<< "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus, Roman Senator and historian (a.d. 56-115) >>>A kind thank you to: David Gonzalez <<< The 2nd Amendment IS THE reset button for the United States Constitution. >>>("Doug McKay" ) <<< A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights -- These are the ORIGINAL Contract with America. Beware of Imitations. Accept No Substitutes. Insist on the Genuine Articles. >>>Thanks in part to: John Gear (catalyst@pacifier.com)<<< "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters >>>A hearty thanks to: foolery@bright.net<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: From another list (fwd) Date: 10 Oct 1996 15:59:39 PST On Oct 10, Robert Kershaw wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Bill of No Rights by Lewis W. Napper We, the sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional, and other liberal, commie, pinko bedwetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights. You do not have the right to a new car, big-screen color TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything. You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be. You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all of your relatives independently wealthy. You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care. You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you. You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure. You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat. You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those around you who were confused by the Bill of Rights. Copyright #169; Lewis W. Napper. All Rights Reserved. http://oscar.teclink.net/~napper napper@felix.TECLink.Net [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 10 Oct 1996 17:22:49 -0700 > >>>>>>> > Democracy (Jeffersonian Democracy) is like wise. > <<<<<<< > > Better catch up on your history, Larry. > Jefferson absolutely *despised* your so-called 'democracy'. > Why do you think it is that, our Constitution guarantees us - in >each of the States, a "Republican form of government". > I cannot recall seeing the word 'Democracy' anywhere in the >Constitution, can you? > And by the way, there is no such thing as "Jeffersonian Democracy". > There is such a thing as being a 'Jeffersonian Liberal', and the >deffinition for that fits Libertarian to a 'tee'. > >Ed Prezactly; well put, Ed. I hate the "D" word more every day, and I'm sick to death of seeing and hearing it endlessly on the television night after night. I'm also appreciating more and more the bumperstickers that say "Kill Your Television." - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 10 Oct 1996 21:05:38 -0500 (CDT) Ed, I think that I understand history rather well. Jefferson was a Democrat and an anti federalist. He had great stress with the likes of James Madison. Madison, by the way, was won to Jefferson's side in later years. My objections were not to his form of democracy, but to the libertarian/libertine spin some of you folks like to put on it. I am, though willing to return to the Republican form that Madison/Hamilton/Jay and others extolled. I am willing to return the Constitution to all of its original form, except its justification of slavery. With that said, I will remind you that Jefferson and most of the others understood that there was a law higher than that of man to which all society's and men are accountable to. No, I do not believe that these men were Born Again Christians. Most were rationalists, but as rationalists that believed that there was a God ordained Natural Social Law. This Natural Social Law functions just like Natural Physical law. One of the fundamental tenets of this law is that the God derived values, equality of man, life for all, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be maintained by a society (government) or that society would crumble under the weight of its depravity. Jefferson attempted to institute the practical efficacy of these values for all Americans by attempting to write into the Dec of Ind the abolition of slavery. South Carolina and Georgia would have none of it. Jefferson sold out this ideal for political unity of the States in their rebellion against King George. Later (about 1797-87) Jefferson lamented that God would surely visit judgment upon American for her condoning of slavery. He was right, God did. We had a civil War in which this issue was at the heart of. Oh, I know, others will say that the cause was economic, or some other reason. But you read the writings from about 1815 on about the Slave issue and you must conclude that these other reasons just do not wash. America deviated from protecting the inalienable values of all men and paid the price of a blood atonement. The most bloody war in all of our history. But what has this to do with the Republican/Federal/Libertarian agrument? Libertarianism is in its essence anarchy. It concentrates upon the rights of self and not society Our Constitution, in its preamble, stresses the fact that its purpose is to form a society that will protect and provide the blessings of liberty for all, those of the time and all of their progeny. It was a promise to those then breathing air and those yet to be born, regardless of whether they were then sustained in their mothers womb or yet to be a gleem in some fathers eye. The blessings were to be guaranteed to all and the ALL were to look out for each other and make sure that this happened. Our emphasis, today, should not be on our individual rights, but on insuring justice for all. We are not doing this and we are suffering for it. We are not doing this because we are lazy, confused, and just a little crooked. We have to be be cause if we weren't there is no way we would allow such a digression in society away from the things that are producing depraved condition and depraved politicians. Libertarianism/Libertinism in France produced a Robespierre and to correct this France was led to knuckle under to Bonaparte. Is this what you want? Not me, not now, not ever. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > >>>>>>> > > Democracy (Jeffersonian Democracy) is like wise. > > <<<<<<< > > > > Better catch up on your history, Larry. > > Jefferson absolutely *despised* your so-called 'democracy'. > > Why do you think it is that, our Constitution guarantees us - in > >each of the States, a "Republican form of government". > > I cannot recall seeing the word 'Democracy' anywhere in the > >Constitution, can you? > > And by the way, there is no such thing as "Jeffersonian Democracy". > > There is such a thing as being a 'Jeffersonian Liberal', and the > >deffinition for that fits Libertarian to a 'tee'. > > > >Ed > > Prezactly; well put, Ed. > > I hate the "D" word more every day, and I'm sick to death of seeing and > hearing it endlessly on the television night after night. > > I'm also appreciating more and more the bumperstickers that say "Kill Your > Television." > > > - Monte > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * Psalm 33 * > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude > greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. > We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand > that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity > forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > O- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: [Fwd: The Perot/Clinton Connection] (fwd) Date: 11 Oct 1996 07:51:35 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Clinton and Perot struck deal to oust Bush in '92 by George Carpozi Jr. posted 10/4/96 ------------------------------------------------------------ President Bill Clinton and Ross Perot struck a deal in 1991that initiated the billionaire industrialist's candidacy as a third party spoiler to help the then-Arkansas governor unseat incumbent President George Bush. In turn, Clinton agreed that his first act as occupant of the Oval Office would be to reform the nation's health care system with massive changes to provide health insurance for all Americans furnished by government controlled "health alliances." That quid pro quo was orchestrated by Clinton and Perot to open the floodgates to a multi-billion-dollar bonanza payoff for the third party candidate's already lucrative Dallas-based International Health Delivery System. Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that Perot played a large hand in First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's efforts to craft the ill-fated health reform bill, which turned Clinton's first year in office into a debacle. Perot's name appears prominently on the advisory board for Hillary's now defunct task force, according to a group of doctors who procured the papers through the FOIA. Even more significantly - if not alarmingly - not one but two of Perot's companies were earmarked in Mrs. Clinton's "working papers" to play mammoth roles in the health-care industry. Besides his International Health Delivery System, a second firm, Electronic Data System, operating under the umbrella of the parent company, The Perot Group, also stood to make out like a bandit with a lion's share of the nationwide computerized medical billing-data business. The doctors who obtained Mrs. Clinton's records shaped a large body of dissidents in the medical field protesting the secrecy Mrs. Clinton imposed on her task force of 500 anonymous persons, while they went about drafting health-care reform behind closed doors for nearly all of 1993. In the unearthing that caused Perot's name to pop up in the first lady's papers, curiosity was aroused as to why the Texas billionaire would serve in an advisory capacity for a president whom he opposed at the polls. Neither Perot nor Clinton ever publicly acknowledged that they knew each other, or had ever spoken prior to their joint appearances on the stages of the debates with President George Bush during the '92 campaign. The link establishing Perot's connection to the president's wife led this reporter to Little Rock for an encounter with Larry Nichols, a former marketing manager of the Arkansas Development Finance Authority. Nichols was fired by Clinton in 1989, after the aide wondered aloud about what was happening to a slush fund set up with $200 million of taxpayer dollars that the governor controlled. Nichols claimed Clinton was glomming money to finance his sexual escapades. A gadfly to Clinton long before he occupied the Oval Office, Nichols, 47, established the president's connection with Perot by citing conversations he had with Larry G. Patterson, a former Arkansas State Police trooper who served as Clinton's personal bodyguard when Clinton was governor. "Until I had just recently spoken with Patterson," Nichols said, "I only suspected that Clinton and Perot were cozy with each other. I had heard some talk about a relationship they had, but there was nothing I could prove. "Patterson put everything in perspective and it made great sense to me. He told me that Clinton and Perot met or talked to each other on the phone or face to face at least 50 times from late September of '91 until just before the November election the following year. "Clinton met Perot in Dallas, in Little Rock, and other locales. Their get-togethers were clandestine. So far as Patterson could say, they were in each other's company by themselves, so that's why he believed the story never got out." Patterson, according to Nichols, said that Clinton dropped by to see Perot "whenever he went to Dallas for some love-making with Gennifer Flowers," his longtime paramour. "Patterson can also vouch for the fact that most times Clinton spoke on the phone from his office in the governor's mansion to Perot in Dallas," Nichols continued, "But after the '92 Democratic convention in New York, which made Clinton the party's nominee, they met and spoke much more frequently. "Even after Perot dropped out of the race, Clinton continued to talk to him just about as often as before. But when he returned to the race, Clinton was talking to him three and four times a day, right up until the election." Nichols said Patterson believes that all communication between Clinton and Perot apparently ceased after the election. Patterson's duties as Clinton's bodyguard diminished appreciably after the election. At that time the Secret Service took full charge of protecting the president-elect, although he continued to occupy the governor's mansion in Little Rock until the inaugural. How much of Perot's ear Clinton has today is open to speculation, following the recommendation by the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates to exclude Perot from the talkfests because he has no chance of winning the election. While Republican candidate Bob Dole applauded the commission's verdict, Clinton expressed regret, saying, "I enjoyed having him in there in 1992." Three other sources, all former activists in '92's United We Stand Party (now the Reform Party) said essentially what Patterson was quoted as having told Nichols - that should Perot succeed in his "spoiler's" role, Clinton would make health-reform his top priority, and put the first lady in charge of shaping the plan. Mrs. Carol Baker, of Hot Springs, Ark.; Lawrence Way, of Middletown, Md.; and Mrs. Pat Owens of E. Troy, Wis.; said they were aware of Perot's doings with Clinton. Way and Mrs. Owens have suits pending against Perot in their respective states for "wrongs" and violation of their privacy they say he and his aides committed. It is a familiar plaint - that Perot "spied" on them while they worked in his '92 campaign, and pried into their finances and credit reports. Patterson did not respond to this reporter's request for an interview. He is reportedly keeping a low public profile -- some say he fears for his life - since going public in January 1994 with details of Clinton's sexual encounters with at least a half-dozen identified women while he was governor. NYPOST-------------------------------------------------------------------- George Carpozi Jr. is an award-winning journalist who has written for The New York Post, The Los Angeles Times Syndicate, King Features Syndicate, The London Sun, among many others. He has written over 2000 magazine features, and is the author of Clinton Confidential. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Perforated septum Date: 11 Oct 1996 10:44:38 -0400 ROC: Just heard this morning on Imus, a parody in which Clinton's health records show repair of a perforated septum in the early 80's. This was in the context of a parody, so I don't know the story. Has someone broken the Clinton health record story? Is Nasalgate upon us? thanks, Jack Curtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: Perforated septum Date: 11 Oct 1996 09:38:57 -0700 (MST) At 10:44 AM 10/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > > ROC: Just heard this morning on Imus, a parody in which > Clinton's health records show repair of a perforated septum in > the early 80's. > > This was in the context of a parody, so I don't know the story. > > Has someone broken the Clinton health record story? Is Nasalgate > upon us? In re: Left Nostril v. Nostril, ______ S.Ct._______ (1997). You can fill in the blanks. > > thanks, > > Jack Curtis > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: more on tools Date: 11 Oct 1996 08:47:09 -0700 Larry, You make a few comments that I must answer. In the first, >>>>>>> Our Constitution, in its preamble, stresses the fact that its purpose is to form a society that will protect and provide the blessings of liberty for all, those of the time and all of their progeny. [...] <<<<<<< Then followed by, >>>>>>> Our emphasis, today, should not be on our individual rights, but on insuring justice for all. We are not doing this and we are suffering for it. [...] <<<<<<< And lastly, >>>>>>> Libertarianism/Libertinism in France produced a Robespierre and to correct this France was led to knuckle under to Bonaparte. Is this what you want? Not me, not now, not ever. <<<<<<< First and foremost, this is a land of 'individuals', who have come together in the common cause of liberty. Obviously, we could not exist as a free people (which I seriously doubt we are currently) if we did not assemble to form a government that had as its core principle the 'sovereignty of the individual' protected by the non-subjugation clauses on individual Rights (Articles of Amendment) and liberties, or in other words: The common interests. For what other reason would a Constitution guarantee the Rights of the individual (versus say, the collective) if the founding of the country were not _for and by_ the individual? The very reason for this was to protect the Right of the individual to either participate in group acts or not to, as pleased or demured the individual was to the act or acts. Additionally, it most certainly protects the individual to allow a singular course of action, otherwise known as: self determination. Individual Rights are the core of the Constitution, and any statement to the contrary seeks to move towards collectivism - our current situation. The "Common welfare" spoken of in the preamble, most certainly does _not_ mean 'welfare' in the current sense. If it had, then Social Security would have been at the fore front of the first acts conducted by the =46ounders. Since it was not, and since 'democracy' was to be avoided like the plague, one can safely presume that 'socialism' or its analog of the times was understood as not being a desirable thing. The term 'common welfare' as applied to the time was then, that which served the community as a whole and no one in particular. Examples are, roadways, water systems, navigation systems, and the like which 'facilitated' commerce, trade, and benefited everyone. Justice is facilitated when the laws of the land are upheld in an honest fashion, and applied equally across all segments of society. Justice is facilitated, when laws are just and not demeaning, favor no one, are removed when no longer needed, suit the _absolute need_ of society, and are not made to satisfy a spurious desire of any group over another. Justice is served, when the Rights of the individual are upheld over any 'perceived Rights' of a group, because groups as a rule do not have Rights - only individuals do. If this were not the case, then every one of our Rights would be null and void when groups acted against any individual for whatever cause. In reality then, we are suffering because our individual Rights are under attack. In conclusion here, I must say that you appear to have a very skewed vision of Libertarians, because according to the American Heritage Dictionary (V4.0): Robespierre - Maximilien Fran=E7ois Marie Isidore de. 1758-1794 1. =46rench revolutionary. Leader of the Jacobins and architect of the Reign of Terror, he was known as an austere and incorruptible man. His laws permitting the confiscation of property and arrest of suspected traitors, many of whom were guillotined, led to his own arrest and execution without trial. Jacobins - 1. A radical or extreme leftist. 2. A radical republican during the French Revolution. 3. A Dominican friar. [ French after the Jacobin friars, in whose convent the Jacobins first met] After reading the above, I cannot remember hearing _any_ Libertarian _ever_ espousing such a policy. If there is one, that person obviously does not even come close to representing a mainstream Libertarian. But then, there are extremists in every group. Ed In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have more laws against freedom than those that protect it. If this country is so damned free, why are there so many things I can't do without breaking some idiotic law? >>>eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com<<< "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus, Roman Senator and historian (a.d. 56-115) >>>A kind thank you to: David Gonzalez <<< The 2nd Amendment IS THE reset button for the United States Constitution. >>>("Doug McKay" ) <<< A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights -- These are the ORIGINAL Contract with America. Beware of Imitations. Accept No Substitutes. Insist on the Genuine Articles. >>>Thanks in part to: John Gear (catalyst@pacifier.com)<<< "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters >>>A hearty thanks to: foolery@bright.net<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: letter to FBI re: judicial misconduct Date: 11 Oct 1996 10:28:03 -0700 (MST) Dear America, Considering the response I recently received from the FBI in Phoenix, Arizona, I have decided to go public with my letter to them. Their answer will be posted later. /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell all rights reserved without prejudice [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA REPUBLIC September 13, 1996 Mr. Thomas H. Basham Supervisory Senior Resident Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice 201 East Indianola Phoenix, Arizona 85012/tdc United States District Court, Tucson Dear Mr. Basham: Thank you very much for your letter to Me, dated September 9, 1996, concerning alleged criminal misconduct by a Federal District Court Judge in Tucson, Arizona. In your letter, you stated that My letter to the FBI does not contain sufficient detail to determine whether a criminal investigation is warranted. You also requested that I submit, to the Tucson office of the FBI, further documentation of the alleged misconduct, to include names, dates, and any other facts that may be pertinent. To this end, enclosed please find all the pertinent materials currently in My possession and control. The thread of evidence you should follow concerns the events which occurred immediately after a federal grand jury subpoena was first served on New Life Health Center Company in Tucson, Arizona state ("New Life"). Pay particular attention to the fate of all the U.S. Mail which We transmitted directly to the grand jury Foreperson in response to their subpoena. I was retained by New Life at that time to answer the subpoena (see enclosed PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, dated March 20, 1996) and to assist New Life with their civil defense. This PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION was mailed to the Grand Jury Foreperson via Registered U.S. Mail, return receipt and restricted delivery both requested. The enclosed evidence will show that this PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION was illegally intercepted by John M. Roll, who handed it to Robert L. Miskell in the office of the United States Attorney in Tucson. After investigating on Our own, and with the able assistance of the Postmaster, We decided to prepare and mail a FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to the same federal grand jury. This request was mailed to the Foreperson on April 28, 1996 (see enclosed). This FORMAL REQUEST was also intercepted by John M. Roll, who also handed it to Robert L. Miskell. We have reason to believe that the federal grand jury never saw this FORMAL REQUEST either. At a subsequent hearing on the matter, John M. Roll admitted, on the official court record, that he had intercepted this FORMAL REQUEST. He also said that he had not opened it, but that he had given it to Robert L. Miskell. At that same hearing, Robert L. Miskell admitted, on record, that he had received this FORMAL REQUEST from John M. Roll, and that the mail in question simply contained a formal request that the federal grand jury investigate possible violations of federal law by Robert L. Miskell. We inferred from Miskell's comments that he had, indeed, opened this mail, because he was correct about its contents. At this point, We felt it was necessary to place the Foreperson of the federal grand jury on the Proof of Service list for all subsequent pleadings which We planned to file in that case. All together, some twenty-five (25) different pleadings were then filed under My signature, or under signatures of Mine and Dr. Eugene A. Burns. Some of these pleadings are affidavits. All pleadings currently in My possession and control are enclosed, for your review. Counting all 25 pleadings, the PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION (26), and the FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION (27), none of which were ever delivered to the federal grand jury Foreperson to whom they were mailed, We count 27 counts of mail fraud, 27 counts of jury tampering, 27 counts of obstruction of justice, and 27 counts of conspiracy to commit all of the above, committed by a conspiracy of persons including, but not limited to, John M. Roll, Janet Napolitano, Robert L. Miskell, and Evangelina Cardenas. Other likely accessories to these crimes include Robert A. Johnson, Robert H. Weare, and William M. McCool. At another hearing on the matter, John M. Roll complained that he had some 14 inches of pleadings to read in this case. But then, he immediately called a recess, and huddled for quite some time with his staff, both inside and outside the courtroom. When he came back into session, John M. Roll qualified his earlier statement by saying that he really had only 6 or 7 inches of pleadings in this case, but that he guaranteed, if We had filed them, he had read them. This statement was witnessed by Me and by My assistant Counsel, Neil Thomas Nordbrock, who is also a federal witness to perjury of oath by Robert L. Miskell in another case. Neil Nordbrock and I took his qualification to mean that John M. Roll had, in fact, intercepted all 25 pleadings which We had mailed to the grand jury Foreperson. You can measure their thickness yourself. I hope this response to your letter is satisfactory. If you should need any additional information, permit Me to recommend that you first contact Dr. Eugene A. Burns, Managing Director of New Life Health Center Company, 4500 East Speedway, Suite 27, Tucson, Arizona state. As of the moment I vacated the premises at New Life, Dr. Burns was in possession and control of all the documentary exhibits which were attached to the enclosed pleadings. These documentary exhibits include, for example, the Postmaster's response to our FOIA request for a certified copy of the Standing Delivery Order (USPS Form 3801) signed by the federal grand jury Foreperson in the New Life case. This response stated that there was no such document in existence, proving that the Foreperson had never authorized anyone else to accept or sign for U.S. Mail addressed to him/her. Thank you very much for your consideration. VERIFICATION I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States," that the above statements of fact are true, correct, complete, and not misleading, to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). Further Affiant sayeth naught. Respectfully submitted, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness attachments: to FBI, Tucson copy: Bruce J. Gebhardt Special Agent in Charge copy: Thomas H. Basham Supervisory Senior Resident Agent c/o Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 South Church Avenue, Suite 600 Tucson, Arizona state 85701/tdc copy: Postmaster U.S. Post Office Downtown Station Tucson, Arizona # # # =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: A Shoe Drops Date: 11 Oct 1996 14:28:39 -0600 FBI arrests seven in alleged bomb plot Copyright © 1996 Nando.net Copyright © 1996 The Associated Press CLARKSBURG, W.Va. (Oct 11, 1996 3:01 p.m. EDT) -- The FBI arrested seven people with connections to a West Virginia militia group on charges they plotted to blow up the FBI's national fingerprint records complex. The seven were arrested on various charges, including conspiring to make bombs, transporting explosives across state lines and plotting to place explosives near the fingerprint center in Clarksburg. Most of the seven, who were in FBI custody in Huntington and Clarksburg, were members of the West Virginia Mountaineer Militia, authorities said. One is a member of the Clarksburg Fire Department, who is charged with providing photos of construction blueprints of the center the FBI has used for more than a year to house fingerprint records gathered from police departments nationwide for criminal identification. The FBI said those arrested were Floyd Raymond Looker, 56, of Stonewood, commander of the Mountain Militia; Jack Arland Phillips, 57, of Fairmont; Edward F. Moore, 52, of Lavalette; and fire Lt. James Rogers, 40, of Jane Lew. Also, James M. Johnson, 48, of Maple Heights, Ohio; Terrell P. Coon, 46, of Waynesburg, Pa.; and Imam A. Lewis, 26, of Cleveland. The government said the arrests were part of a 16-month investigation. An undercover agent posing as a broker for terrorists gave Looker $50,000 today in exchange for a package including the blueprints, said John P. O'Connor, FBI special agent in charge. "There was a plot. It was ended before it could be consummated," O'Connor said. All seven suspects were arrested today without incident but Looker and Coon had guns, he said. Looker, a real estate developer, has claimed his group has members in all of West Virginia's 55 counties, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Looker never said how many are in the group, which bars outside observers from its drills. "You don't divulge your strength or weakness to the enemy. Currently, it's Bill Clinton and the press," Looker has been quoted as saying. Looker and Coon are charged with transporting explosive materials across state lines. Looker last year denounced the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City and alleged it was done by federal agents to create an excuse for cracking down on the militia movement. An unsuccessful candidate for the state legislature in 1994, Looker contends the federal government is trying to take guns away from the American people. In a pamphlet Looker wrote and distributes, he also asserts that 1 million troops of the United Nations are stationed at U.S. military bases and that the government has set up 130 concentration camps at abandoned military bases to house "law-abiding citizens." Located 120 miles south of Pittsburgh, the $200 million Criminal Justice Information Services Division complex eventually will employ 2,600 people. It also will house the National Criminal Information Center and the Uniform Crime Reporting Center, FBI units now located in Washington. The fingerprint identification facility will use computer programs to enable fingerprints to be converted into electronic images. This will enable the FBI to perform fingerprint identification in a matter of hours instead of weeks or months. Automated criminal record-keeping will also be available for background checks whether it is a person seeking a job at a day-care center or someone trying to buy a handgun. Surrounding hills naturally hide the facility from public view and federal officers stop all cars at two main entrances. The National Crime Information Center receives more than a million inquiries, and the fingerprint center receives 50,000 pieces of mail. Most of the workers at the center are West Virginians. Most employees in Washington decided against transferring to the facility. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., was instrumental in attaching language to legislation that forced the FBI to move the facility to his home state. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: New Poll Date: 11 Oct 1996 16:12:25 -0600 A Fields Poll released, today, shows Clinton leads Dole by ten points in California. Last night, one of the few high-caste R's who will still speak to me said that a study will be released shortly showing that since 1952 Republican candidates average polling 9 points higher than the media polls indicate. If that's true, Dole/Clinton are a toss-up in California. This race is "pick-em" and momentum is with Dole. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: Perforated septum Date: 11 Oct 1996 09:38:57 -0700 (MST) At 10:44 AM 10/11/96 -0400, you wrote: > > ROC: Just heard this morning on Imus, a parody in which > Clinton's health records show repair of a perforated septum in > the early 80's. > > This was in the context of a parody, so I don't know the story. > > Has someone broken the Clinton health record story? Is Nasalgate > upon us? In re: Left Nostril v. Nostril, ______ S.Ct._______ (1997). You can fill in the blanks. > > thanks, > > Jack Curtis > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Jury Nullification Talk (10/21) - Boulder Date: 12 Oct 1996 11:33:32 -0400 >Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 21:29:45 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Jury Nullification Talk (10/21) - Boulder > > >Please re-distribute. > > "The History of Jury Nullification: > From William Penn to Laura Kriho" > > Monday, October 21, 1996 > 7:00 pm > Chemistry Building Room 142 > CU Campus, Boulder > >Speakers: >- Larry Dodge, co-founder of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) >- Paul Grant, defense attorney for Laura Kriho > > Larry Dodge will discuss jury nullification, the historical >power of juries to veto laws which go against their conscience. >In 1989, Larry Dodge co-founded FIJA, a national organization >formed to educate the public about the veto power of juries. > Paul Grant will discuss the case of his client, Laura Kriho, >who was charged with contempt of court for deliberating "improperly" >on a jury. > > This talk is free and open to the public. > > Directions: The Chemistry Building is located next to the >University Memorial Center (UMC), southeast of the Dalton Trumbo >Memorial Fountain. The UMC is at the corner of Broadway and >Euclid. Closest parking is the Euclid Parking Garage on Euclid >Avenue just east of Broadway. > >Sponsored by the: >Boulder Hemp Initiative Project >P.O. Box 729 >Nederland, CO 80466 >Hotline: (303) 784-5632 >Email: bhip@welcomehome.org >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be added to or removed from this mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen > http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > (303) 841-9649 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Rocky Mt. News Column (10/9/96) Date: 12 Oct 1996 11:33:34 -0400 >Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 21:54:39 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Rocky Mt. News Column (10/9/96) > > >Rocky Mountain News >Wednesday, October 9, 1996 >Commentary Section (p. 43A) > > Hold-out jurors face court's wrath > by Peter Blake > [Columnist, Colorado politics] > > A group of 30 Colorado judges, lawyers, clerks and former >jurors are about to issue a report on how the court system can >treat jurors better and waste less of their time. > But all their good work could be undone by an ongoing >contempt-of-court trial in Gilpin County. Juror Laura Kriho of >Nederland faces up to six months in prison for, at bottom, >holding out and producing a mistrial in a drug-possession case > If hold-out jurors are to be prosecuted, no amount of minor >reforms to speed up the process are going to help the system. > Holding out, of course, isn't the technical charge against >Kriho. Specifically, she's accused of failing to disclose a 12- >year-old drug prosecution (she had pleaded guilty to possession >and was given a deferred judgment) when she was called as juror >last May in another drug possession case. > But had Kriho gone along with the other 11 jurors and voted >to convict, the contempt proceeding would never have been brought >- no matter what she might have failed to say. The judge >wouldn't have cared. > "The court is trying to intimidate anybody with an >independent mind" complains Paul Grant, Kriho's defense attorney. > The prosecution of Kriho "sends a message to all jurors that >their deliberations are not secret, that they are not entitled to >vote their conscience," wrote Grant in his brief. "Any juror who >holds out can be brought before the judge and criminally >prosecuted for disobeying instructions." > Kriho is not, it is important to note, being charged with >perjury. That's a felony and would have entitled her to a jury >trial of her own, which the prosecution wanted to avoid. >Contempt is more certain, since it's a trial before a judge only, >with maximum punishment of six months in jail. > There's little doubt that Kriho also violated a warning from >the prosecutor that "it is outside the jury's dominion to >question the law." > It is? Doesn't it depend on the law? Thank goodness jurors >ignored that dictum during the first half of the 19th century >when faced with trials brought under the infamous Fugitive Slave >Acts. And in 1670, some courageous London jurors refused to >convict William Penn of inciting to riot, thereby getting jail >time from an angry trial judge. The reversal of their >convictions on appeal established the now endangered principle of >jury independence. > According to Grant, there's plenty of case law noting that a >judge's instructions are guidelines, not gospel, and violating >them isn't prosecutable. > There's evidence - thanks to the dubious interrogation of >her fellow jurors - that Kriho wasn't a silent holdout. She told >them they had the right to nullify laws they didn't like and even >looked up (again, contrary to instructions) the possible >penalties in the case. Jurors are supposed to remain virginally >innocent of such knowledge, no matter how much they may worry >about the consequences of their decision. > By the way, the problem might have been avoided if the trial >judge and prosecutors had done more careful voir dire, or if the >hair-triggered hadn't been so quick to declare a mistrial. > Good luck to Kriho. She'll need it. No one would confuse >her with William Penn, and the court system prefers jurors who >don't challenge authority. At least we know that if she loses, >her case will go as high as the appeals courts will take it. > Meanwhile, if you're a hold-out juror in Gilpin County, try >hard to bring at least a few other jurors with you or you'll hang >alone. > ### > >Rocky Mountain News >400 W. Colfax >Denver, CO 80204 >Phone: (303) 892-5000 >Fax: (303) 892-5499 >Email: letters@denver-rmn.com >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be removed from this mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen > http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > (303) 841-9649 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Honest Media!!! :-) Date: 12 Oct 1996 02:01:55 PST In this weeks TV Guide is an article, (p. 20), titled "Does The Evening News Still Matter?". In it at the bottom of the first column, top of the second, we find this unprecedented bit of Media honesty. "We're trying to figure out how we can be relevant," says Bob Schieffer, CBS's Chief Washington Correspondent. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: The Perestroika Deception (fwd) (fwd) Date: 12 Oct 1996 16:49:26 PST This one seems to explain a whole lot of things..... On Oct 11, Gene Gross -- Personal Account wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Below is a great article someone forwarded to me. I strongly recommend getting your hands on and reading any of the books written by Anatoliy Golitsyn. -J. Communism Alive and Menacing, KGB Defector Claims The Perestroika Deception by Anatoliy Golitsyn Commentary by Cornelia R. Ferreira Diehard fans of the theory that Communism is dead will not like this book, whose stated goal is to help such people recover from their blindness . The Perestroika Deception describes with unmerciful clarity the confusion and errors that have been engendered in the world and in the Church by the deceitful Communist strategy of perestroika, under whose reformist guise rebellions and wars have been promoted, and the Church persecuted, in order that the Communist goal of world domination is finally achieved. In other words, what it unintentionally depicts are the very events prophesied by Our Lady of Fatima if the Collegial Consecration of Russia is not done. Anatoliy Golitsyn s 1984 book, New Lies for Old, forecast, with 94% accuracy, all the recent changes in the Communist Bloc, including the economic and political reforms, the rise of Solidarity, the removal of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany and the collapseof the Soviet Union. The Perestroika Deception, with extensive documentation, reinforces his contention in New Lies for Old that all the changes were meticulously planned years in advance. It explains how they fit into the devious Leninist strategy for achieving with Western cooperation a one-world Communist government orNew World Social Order , run by the Russians and Chinese, by 2000 A.D. It also analyzes current events up to the Chechnya struggle and forecasts and developments. Golitsyn was a high-ranking KGB official involved in espionage and counter-espionage who defected to the Unites States in 1961. Convinced that Western interpretations of developments in the Communist Bloc were seriously flawed, he combined his study of Soviet long-range strategy with his inside knowledge of KGB and Leninist thinking in New Lies of Old. For over thirty years he has submitted memoranda to the CIA, in which he has provided very accurate analyses and forecasts of Bloc developments. The Perestroika Deception is a collection of dated memoranda covering the years 1984 to 1995. The Great Deception This book vindicates those politically incorrect Catholics who have been insisting that Russia has not converted because the Consecration has not been properly done. Its urgent message is that the West s failure to recognize that perestroika is atreacherousploy threatens the very continuation of Western civilizationas perestroika is intended to bring about the political and physical demise of Western democracies. Golitsyn provides irrefutable proof that perestroika orrestructuringis not a 1985 Gorbachev invention, but the final phase of a plan formulated during 1958-1960. Perestroika refers to the restructuring, not just of the Soviet system, but of the entire free world. It is the Soviet strategy for a Second October Revolution , a temporary, non-violent World Revolution involving controlled fake democratization and strategic disinformation. Communist leaders envisaged the convergence of Communist/socialist systems with restructured capitalist systems into the One-World Communist Government. They realized that convergence could only be achieved by transforming Stalinism into a more attractive formofCommunist democracy . The KGB was reorganized to play a key role in implementing the strategy . Thirty years of rehearsal in countries such as Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania prepared the ground for the final phase perestroika and the controlled false democratizationof the USSR itself. That it is false is confirmed by Eduard Shevardnadze, Georgian president and a long-time Western friend . As late as 1993, he admitted that elections do not equal democracy. Perestroika is a game of mind-control based on the principles of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), who devised a new, improved model of Marxist-Leninism. Gorbachev was chosen to launch it. Perestroika is psychological warfare, involving the use of cooperation-blackmail . A theatrical display of democratism¢is| designed to convince the West that a decisive break with the past has taken place. This encourages Western governments to collaborate with the former Communists. At the same time, there is a threat of a return to the Cold War or worse if the West does not cooperate. Golitsyn demonstrates that every crisis , from Tienamen Square to the fake August91 coup attempt to Chechnya, has been deliberately designed according to the cooperation-blackmail equation. The new forces of democracy are shown locked in mortal combat with the conservative hard-liners and the West is told that only its cooperation and large infusions of aid will help the fledgling democracies to survive. The Communist price for peace is thus the restructuring of Western thinking and policies. Soviet control of the Western mind is achieved through manipulation of the media, deceptive use of language, and the destabilization of society through corruption. According to the Gramscian formula, the Christian religion has to be secularized, and culture and morals corrupted, for the Revolution to succeed peaceably. With Western society deconstructed , the Western mind will be more receptive to collaboration with the enemy. Part of the Long-term Plan Golitsyn demonstrates that the present strategy is a continuation by the Russians and Chinese, with Gramsci's improvements , of the New Economic Policy (NEP) devised by Lenin in the 1920s Lenin had said "the lie is sacred and deception will be our principal weapon." The NEP was hailed by the West as a retreat from Communism, but it was a major deception. Pope Pius XI, in his 1937 encyclical On Atheistic Communism, warned that Communism was not converting, but he was ignored. The NEP won for the Soviets aid from the West and helped to strengthen Russian Communism. Stalin continued the subterfuge to the point of showing some religious tolerance and dissolving the Communist International; however, his later repressions discredited Communism and impeded its global expansion. His condemnation by modern Communist leaders does not represent their break with Communism, but their anger that he hurt their cause . Khruschev and Mao decided to abolish Stalinism and restore Leninism. A scientific study of the NEP was undertaken in 1957. In 1960, the Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada was set up in Moscow to help Soviets research these target societies. At the end of 1960, the long-range strategy based on the NEP was adopted by thirteen Communist Bloc states, including China. Perestroika, the final phase of the strategy is meant to conquer the West from within by KGB-controlled dissidents and opposition movements and disinformation about the alleged existence of liberals and conservatives, reformers vs .hardliners . Glasnost or openness would combine accurate information with disinformation. The KGB was to create and control Communist Bloc officials of all political stripes. Leaders since 1960, including Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Rutskoi, Shevardnadze, Zhirinovsky and Primakov, have all been collaborators in carrying out the plan. Their power struggles are fictional. The Infiltration of the Upper Echelons KGB agents of influence have infiltrated Western elite circles, cultivating politicians, businessmen, scientists, religious leaders, journalists, movie directors, environmentalists, and so forth. Agents have included dissident like Andrei Sakharov and diplomats such as the Soviet Ambassador to Washington Anatoliy Dobrynin. Educational, scientific and cultural exchanges, as well as thousands of joint projects in all fields, aid Russian research, influence and recruitment. Whilst forging bonds with Western liberals, these techniques also identify and neutralize active anti-Communists. They are ridiculed as enemies of peace or removed from office. Assassination is always a possibility, and Golitsyn suspects that was the case with Pope John Paul I; but he explains why the evidence does not support the common belief that the KGB was involved in the shooting of Pope John Paul II. (Interestingly, in 1994, a claim that high-level Vatican officials were responsible was quickly quashed.) Liberalization of Eastern Europe was meant to promote disarmament, the dissolution of NATO, the American withdrawal from Europe, and a neutral, socialist Europe, a Common European Home from the Atlantic to the Urals , as Gorbachev and Shevardnadze have described it. If NATO is not dissolved, then its effectiveness is to be reduced by penetration (note Partnership for Peace and East-West joint projects like Bosnia, which also help convergence), by reduction of its purely military role of defending its members (it is now peacekeeping in a non-member state), and by the acceptance of former European adversaries as members. Moscow s opposition to the latter is a dialectical tactic as such membership would actually increase penetration. One goal of the Chechnyan barbarity is to scare Russia s neighbors and strengthen the argument for their protection through NATO membership. A major penetration success is Gorbachev s American bureau, which allows him to personally mobilize liberals in the cause of disarmament. Four months before the August 91coup attempt (showing that his job change from President to private citizen was anticipated in light of the coming planned collapse of the USSR), Gorbachev established, on American soil, the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union known to us as the Gorbachev Foundation/USA. It operates out of a disused military base in San Francisco. Poland has played a large part in the disarmament campaign. Solidarity was planned during 1958-1960 by the Bloc, and Golitsyn correctly predicted each stage in its evolution. There is clear evidence that the Polish Communist Party formed the original core and leadership of Solidarity, whilst Lech Walesa cooperated all along. He has also helped broaden the Communist base in trade unions across the world, enabling them to be manipulated against Western interests. In order to increase Communist representation and influence in the UN, the European Union and international financial organizations, the Soviet Union was deliberately converted into independent republics. However, by 1994, all the republics, including the Baltic States, were controlled by Communists, but now within the fiefdom of Russia. This strategy mirrors the successful policy of Lenin, who gave a temporary independence to some republics in order to promote trade with the West. The collapse of the Soviet Union serves several other purposes. One is gaining control of Middle East oil. The new democratic image of the Muslim republics of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is being exploited to develop alliances with fundamentalists in Arab countries so that pro-Western rulers can be replaced with Russian-controlled fundamentalists. Radical changes in Israel s position are part of the strategy. Nuclear weaponry is being channeled through the republics to Iran, whilst Russia, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, looks innocent. Turkey, a NATO member, is already a major partner of Russia , purchasing Russian military equipment and cooperating with it (thus weakening NATO). The United States has been unable to detect the long-range Communist strategy largely because of disinformation provided by KGB and Chinese spies who have penetrated the CIA since 1958. Perestroika and glasnost so confused American intelligence that it became dependent upon Russian sources. The Ames case, as reported by Time (November 13, 1995), confirms Golitsyn s contention about the confusion in U.S. intelligence services, which have accepted KGB plants as genuine sources. Aldrich Ames spied for Russia from the start of perestroika (1985) to 1994, helping to send ten valuable CIA agents to their death. This betrayal of American trust in perestroika prompts Golitsyn' s comment: The Ames case shows how blind and bankrupt is the American policy of aid to the new rôgime in Russia. Communism's Manipulation of the Church Perestroika strategists did not overlook the use of clergy as agents, nor the use of religious relaxation to further disarmament. In 1985, Golitsyn reported that Russian Orthodox priests are controlled and directed by the KGB in order to promote cooperation between Soviet churches and Western Catholics and Protestants to help establish a united front for disarmament (peace and justice movements?) and convergence. (Note that the Russian Orthodox Church joined the World Council of Churches in 1961.) Unfortunately, in order to have Russian Orthodox observers at Vatican II, the Holy See promised not to attack Communism. This 1962 Vatican-Moscow Agreement, which still seems to be in force, is a form of persecution. It has silenced the Church and allowed the errors of Communism especially perestroika to invade both it and society unchallenged. Golitsyn notes the observation made by the outspoken anti-Communist Russian General Volkogonov that perestroika would not have been possible without a secret understanding between Gorbachev, Jaruzelski ¢Communist President of Poland until Walesa took over in 1990| and the Pope . In the absence of any elaboration, one can only speculate that the secret understanding is the continuation of the Agreement with the added twist of cooperation-blackmail: Vatican silence about Marxism would guarantee religious and civil liberalization, starting with Poland. In 1990, Golitsyn warned of another aspect of religious relaxation: "The Vatican should reverse its mistaken support for the renewal of the Communist rôgimes ... It fails to understand that greater apparent official tolerance of religion ... is accompanied by a secret drive to increase Party and KGB penetration of the Catholic and other churches and to use agents therein for political and strategic purposes ... As part of the programme to destroy religion from within, the KGB, in the late 1950s ¢other former Communists say 1930s|, started sending dedicated young Communists to ecclesiastical academies and seminaries to train them as future church leaders. These young Communists joined the Church ... at the call of the Communist Party ... to implement its general line ¢unchanged policy| in the struggle against religion." "In the present phase, secret agents in the Catholic and other churches are being used to implement Communist strategy. "The extent of the deception can be gauged by Gorbachev s comment to his Communist cadres in 1987, after he had launched perestroika and religious relaxations: There must be no let-up in the war against religion because as long as religion exists Communism cannot prevail. We must intensify the obliteration of all religions." Golitsyn condemns the participation of Communist leaders at Summits and their visits to the Vatican (which started in 1967) because these meetings give them credibility and the opportunity for manipulation. Remarkably, in 1991, he quoted one of our popes in order to remind the Catholic Church of her duty: "The statement by ... Pope Pius XII (he must mean Pius XI) concerning the incompatibility and irreconcilability of Communism and religion is as correct as ever. The Vatican should reaffirm this dictum and should use its influence and divisions ¢Stalin s sarcastic term for loyal Catholic groups| to defend Western values from the new, deadly but hidden Communist assault (Golitsyn's emphasis). Unfortunately, because of her silence, Gramsci s strategy of perverting the Catholic Church is in full swing. The religion of God is being replaced with the religion of Man (and Heaven with an earthly, decadent utopia), facilitating Communist control of de-Christianized minds. Golitsyn assesses the consequences of dôtente for the Church: Never in its history since Nero has Christianity faced such a threat of possible destruction." Free-Marketeers, Beware He has a similar warning for industrialists and financiers involved in joint ventures with the Communists. They are expediting the revival of their adversaries ; while they may make some profits from joint ventures, in the long run they will be eliminated as a class through taxes and other means. The grounds for rejecting perestroika are simple: (The moral grounds are that) a system which has killed 20 million of its people (50 million if ... China (is) included), ... and brought ... misery to the peoples of the Soviet empire, does not deserve to be renewed. The American people are under no moral obligation to help with the reconstruction of such a plainly evil system. The pragmatic ground ... is the need to protect ... the American system from restructuring and convergence with the Soviet system and to save the American people from the blood baths and reeducation camps which such convergence will ultimately bring. Thus, there should be no summit meetings, no credit and no western technology for ... Communist countries ... Communist rôgime¢s| should be left ... to solve their problems without Western help since they claim that their system is the best model for the whole world ...Communists should be told:... don t ask us for ... help: we are not going to finance our own funeral . The whole point of Golitsyn's writings has been to warn Western leaders not to be fooled by perestroika. He notes, however, that they have been fooled and wonders why they have ignored his warnings, even though his analyses have a 94% accuracy rating and Britain and the United States have honored him for his contribution to Western security . One is forced to ask has it ever occurred to Golitsyn that perhaps many of these leaders are not fooled, but are following orders? Is he aware of the role of Freemasonry in world affairs? That it is Masonry that desires the One-World Socialist Government? That Communism is merely its chief tool? That Masonry, financed by Western interests, built up Russian Communism and has kept it going in its various metamorphic forms for over seventy years? A Power Elite? In the last two pages of his book, in a memorandum dated October 1, 1993, Golitsyn does hint at a secret controlling force behind Russian Communism, but he lacks the facilities to study how it might be operating . He believes it may be functioning under cover of some front organization, such as the National Security Council. He advises the West to watch for signs of this group but he gives no indication that he thinks there might be parallel secret groups in the West. (Are even KGB officials kept in the dark about Freemasonry?) Not merely is Russia the tool of Freemasonry, but it is also the instrument chosen by God to punish a sinful world, as Our Lady of Fatima warned. Anatoliy Golitsyn s painstaking research shows we are close to the fulfillment of Our Lady s prediction. As he soberly notes, the sword of Damocles is hanging over Western democracies, yet they are oblivious to it. Because The Perestroika Deception is a collection of memoranda, there is much repetition. This can be tedious, but it greatly helps one to see the deception unfolding day by day. Since the memoranda were directed to CIA officials, Golitsyn probably assumed they would be familiar with the names and events mentioned; thus, titles, dates or historical details are generally lacking. This can cause difficulties for the layman . The tight" print of the book, especially in the footnotes, also makes for difficult reading. However, these footnotes, added before publication, contain vital up-to-date information substantiating Golitsyn s claims. The comprehensive, annotated Index helps make the book an invaluable geopolitical resource. It should be required reading of the entire Catholic hierarchy. Reprinted courtesy of Catholic Family News, March 1996 issue. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: FBI 'Report' Date: 13 Oct 1996 05:42:16 -0400 Found this on AOL.. FBI: Firearms Behind Crime Surge " An FBI report released Sunday concludes that the surge in violent crime in the United States during the past decade has corresponded with a significant rise in the use of firearms by criminals. The 387-page report by the federal law enforcement agency found that firearm-related offenses chiefly were responsible for the overall 42 percent jump in murders, robberies and aggravated assaults from 1985 through 1994. ``The 1990s have become the decade most prone to firearm use in history'' for violent offenses, the FBI said in its annual report detailing crime in the U.S. While crimes committed with firearms went up for the decade, the private Center to Prevent Handgun Violence says crimes with guns dropped after the 1994 implementation of the Brady law -- which set a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases. " What a crock of SHIT! No mention of Criminals doing the crimes, only that they used firearms. And how amazing.. crime dropped after the brady bill, but no mention that crime in general was ON THE DECLINE ANYWAY! Anyone else feel like a bowling pin getting racked? V. Lum Tsuma@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: FBI 'Report' Date: 13 Oct 1996 03:10:43 PST On Oct 13, Tsuma@aol.com wrote: >Found this on AOL.. > > FBI: Firearms Behind Crime Surge > > " An FBI report released Sunday concludes that the surge in violent crime >in the United States during the past decade has corresponded with a >significant rise in the use of firearms by criminals. The 387-page report by >the federal law enforcement agency found that firearm-related offenses >chiefly were responsible for the overall 42 percent jump in murders, >robberies and aggravated assaults from 1985 through 1994. ``The 1990s have >become the decade most prone to firearm use in history'' for violent >offenses, the FBI said in its annual report detailing crime in the U.S. While >crimes committed with firearms went up for the decade, the private Center to >Prevent Handgun Violence says crimes with guns dropped after the 1994 >implementation of the Brady law -- which set a five-day waiting period for >handgun purchases. " > >What a crock of SHIT! No mention of Criminals doing the crimes, only that >they used firearms. And how amazing.. crime dropped after the brady bill, but >no mention that crime in general was ON THE DECLINE ANYWAY! >Anyone else feel like a bowling pin getting racked? Actually I'd rather get a rack of bowling pins and start hucking them at appropriate targets. :-) -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: anonymous oddsman (fwd) Date: 13 Oct 1996 11:18:49 -0400 (EDT) British bookies think Clinton is a shoo-in! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: amnesia+reply@chardos.connix.com Apologies for repeats, & please repost where appropriate. Well, now Ladbroke House is not even selling Clinton, and he has gone up from 1:8 to 1:10 at William Hill, while Dole fell a bit more, and just *look* at the William Hill Perot odds, doubling from last time! Whee! Wide disparity there, as Ladbroke's is still holding steady at 50:1 on the little guy, now that they're offering him again. Still no odds yet from Coral, and the nym's giving troubles, and still no offer -- or official explanation for the lack of odds -- on Harry Browne. I suppose folks can keep speculating, still seems like easy money for the house to the oddsman. Prices @ 09:20 BST Sat. 11th Oct 96 +---------+----------------+----------------+ | | Ladbroke's | William Hill | +---------+----------------+----------------+ | Clinton | No bets | 1:10 | | Dole | 7:1 | 11:2 | | Perot | 50:1 | 500:1 | | Browne | Still not currently offered. | +---------+----------------+----------------+ | | | | | Phone | +44-800-524524 | +44-800-444040 | | Numbers:| | | +---------+----------------+----------------+ Our roving reporter had the following to say: "Looks like you're getting trouser-brain back ! :-)" I suppose so, we get the government we deserve. The oddsman wishes to thank all involved, and he is still looking for a Moscow correspondent for possible UK arbitrage opportunities. :> Thanks also to all who are "in the know" for not revealing my identity. 'Till next time. anonymous oddsman "Demeaning the integrity of the U.S. Presidential election process for you on a regular basis, at no charge." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Republican resurgence in CA Date: 13 Oct 1996 11:46:14 -0400 (EDT) I don't believe it. I think that George Bush, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and some others have fatally damaged the Republican Party. The Republican Party in its better days was a strange amaglamation of business interests and a diverse group of people who didn't like specific things about the Democrat party (gun owners/Christians/etc.) For many years, the Republican Party attained and held power by catering to both groups before elections and serving the former group afterward. Three things have happened that have ended this strategy's effectiveness: 1. Over time, the diverse group noticed that they were receiving words, not deeds. 2. All hype notwithstanding, the economic circumstances of middle and lower-middle class Americans have been deteriorating. Right or wrong (I think they are more right than wrong), many "Reagan Democrats" no longer believe that their interests coincide with the business branch of the Republican Party. 3. The Republican Party has been afflicted with terminal stupidity. How else can you explain its functionaries working against their own constituent groups (like gun owners)? The Republicans are going to get hosed next month. Clinton is going to be reelected. As I've predicted since the GATT vote in late '94, the Republicans may even lose the House. They deserve it. I don't think that the Republicans will ever reassemble their coalition. Say bye-bye to the elephant. bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Republican resurgence in CA Date: 13 Oct 1996 11:43:32 -0600 Brad Dolan wrote: > > I don't believe it. > > I think that George Bush, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and some others have > fatally damaged the Republican Party. I think your objectivity is being compromised by your own dislikes. As far as the electorate goes, a lot of people are starting to face reality. Reality says Dole may be no savior but Clinton will put us up against an adobe wall. There is no "another day" if Clinton is reelected. People are starting to realize this and acting accordingly. The other thing is that right of moderate crowd is on the verge of taking over the republican party. The elites know it and it's giving them a case of loose bowels. The elephant ain't dying, it's shedding it's skin. Yeah, you're going to see a hellova lot of elephant skin on the trail, elephants have a lot of skin to shed. But you'll see a shiney new elephant emerge from the process. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Republican resurgence in CA Date: 13 Oct 1996 15:09:58 -0400 (EDT) On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Howlin' Blue wrote: > Brad Dolan wrote: > > > > I don't believe it. > > > > I think that George Bush, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and some others have > > fatally damaged the Republican Party. > > I think your objectivity is being compromised by your own dislikes. I don't think so. If I'm guilty of subjectivity, it's in weighting local data too heavily. As I mentioned here before, Knox County, TN, is (still) polling strongly for the Democrats. Last time Knox County went Democrat was in 1940. Prior good showing by the Democrats here was in 1852. No kidding. There's a fundamental transition taking place. Right now, (IMHO of course) Clinton is showing more smarts about that transition. He's also experiencing a nice bit of luck. Unless the Republicans suddenly get much smarter and luckier, I think they are in trouble - much more serious trouble than they realize. Perot didn't lose the '92 election for George Bush, George Bush lost it. Dole is going to lose the '96 election. The Republican coalition is down to about 40% of the electorate. It's hard to win with that. > > As far as the electorate goes, a lot of people are starting to face > reality. Reality says Dole may be no savior but Clinton will put us up > against an adobe wall. There is no "another day" if Clinton is > reelected. People are starting to realize this and acting accordingly. > > The other thing is that right of moderate crowd is on the verge of > taking over the republican party. The elites know it and it's giving > them a case of loose bowels. > > The elephant ain't dying, it's shedding it's skin. Yeah, you're going > to see a hellova lot of elephant skin on the trail, elephants have a lot > of skin to shed. But you'll see a shiney new elephant emerge from the > process. > > This is a possibility, but I can't convince myself that the "moderate" crowd will let it happen. I think they'd rather take the whole ship down. bd p.s. We'll know soon enough. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Republican resurgence in CA Date: 13 Oct 1996 14:32:20 -0600 Brad Dolan wrote: > > Perot didn't lose the '92 election for George Bush, George Bush lost it. > Dole is going to lose the '96 election. The Republican coalition is down > to about 40% of the electorate. It's hard to win with that. The point is you're reading mainstream media polls and accepting them as gospel. I think they're cooking the numbers. Like you said, we'll know soon enough. > This is a possibility, but I can't convince myself that the "moderate" > crowd will let it happen. I think they'd rather take the whole ship down. I agree they'd rather take the ship down. They took it down in '64. You get back to a basic point that one side has 40 percent, so does the other side. The fight is for the 20% that are unaffiliated. My read says that 20% is moving to the right. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: FBI 'Report' Date: 13 Oct 1996 12:35:48 -0700 V. Lum (Tsuma@aol.com) wrote (in part): >>>>>>> Anyone else feel like a bowling pin getting racked? <<<<<<< In reply, let me state, that I know where I'd _like to 'rack'_ some bowling pins! The statists will live to swallow their own pablum. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Republican resurgence in CA Date: 13 Oct 1996 19:07:48 -0400 (EDT) On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Howlin' Blue wrote: > > The point is you're reading mainstream media polls and accepting them as > gospel. > > I think they're cooking the numbers. Like you said, we'll know soon > enough. The local polls were done by the *Republican Party*. I wouldn't put it past them to cook the numbers, but I can't figure out why they would cook them that way (showing a big Demo lead for the first time since 1940). bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: HR 3610 *Found* on Thomas Date: 13 Oct 1996 21:51:05 -0500 Here's why so many have had trouble finding the text of this turkey. They hid it, or at least put it where many wouldn't look. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% NOTE to THOMAS Users: The corrected final version of the text of Public Law 104-208, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations for FY97 (H.R. 3610), does not appear as an enrolled bill in THOMAS Bill Text files, but in House Report 104-863. Select this link to view the law text (the version of H.R. 3610 as enacted ). %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% The link they refer to is: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/z?cp104:hr863.104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Outnumbered??? (fwd) Date: 13 Oct 1996 23:02:24 PST On Oct 14, Michael E. Wuest wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] "If each Jew would have killed one Nazi when they came for them, then there would have been no holucast". (Author - I don't remember, probably JFPO). There were less than 60,000 gestapo during the Reich. At the point when they came for them, the Jews had nothing to lose. Perhaps they didn't know this in the beginning. Communications are better now. Counting all the gun-toting Federal gestapo with 3 letters on their back; FBI, ATF, DEA, and even the park police, there are no more than 100,000. If memory serves, there are only about 300,000 *TOTAL* police, counting Sheriffs and everything. Throw in the *available* military (a *very DUBIOUS* assumption, to say the least...) and you have 1 million more. There are 60+ MILLION gun owners. So who is outnumbered?? "IF *EVERY* gun owner would kill one gestapo when they come for their guns, there will be no gun control in America. (Me) Maybe, just maybe, this is why there is the "big scare" about all foriegn troops on *OUR* soil! Mike Wuest (aka) coyote@mail.bright.net or CMDRBOB@mail.bright.net [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: BATF cassette case Date: 14 Oct 1996 05:35:36 -0700 (MST) Notice to BATF Agent Who Attended Supreme Law Seminar: You left the case for your cassette tape in the Marabella Conference Theater. Did you want us to return it to you? It says: "Department of the Treasury" "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms" "Standard Cassette" "Professional Mastering" "Leaderless" "C-90 45 minutes per side" "For Official Use Only" The insignia to the left of this text reads: "The Department of the Treasury" "U S Special Agent" /s/ Paul Mitchell =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum Date: 14 Oct 1996 09:52:32 -0500 (CDT) [IMAGE] at Public Action a news and news analysis service presents WACO HOLOCAUST ELECTRONIC MUSEUM Version 1.1 (October 4, 1996) see Library for details Warning: Some of the material at this web site is graphic, brutal, and shocking. Persons who do not wish to see or read such material should go no further. The Museum is seeking echo sites throughout the world. See copyright notice in the Library. The entire collection can be housed in less than 20 Megabytes of disk space. Download of the entire Museum to local platform is recommended for two reasons: First, some of the exhibits are large and will be more accessible on a local platform. But more important, attempts may be made to suppress this web site. Download by individuals, organizations, and echo sites will help to ensure the survival of this information and the continuance of the Museum project. Please see the Library for downloading. _________________________________________________________________ 1. Brief History 2. Why the Waco Holocaust Matters 3. How to Tour the Museum 4. Sources of Information 5. Fair Use Policy 6. History of the Museum 7. Library _________________________________________________________________ The Galleries: [IMAGE] WAR [IMAGE] FIRE [IMAGE] DEATH Warning: graphic and shocking. [IMAGE] BURIAL _________________________________________________________________ Key Words: Waco, Holocaust, FBI, Justice Department, Hostage Rescue Team, HRT, ATF, Special Ops, Special Forces, Pentagon, Military, Terrorism, Cult, Koresh, Militia, Texas Ranger, Oklahoma City Bombing, Smithsonian, Autopsy, Forensic, Guns, Gun Control _________________________________________________________________ http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum or http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum SkyWriter@Public-Action.com Postal Address: Carol A. Valentine, Public Action, Inc., PO Box 10933, Burke, VA 22009 Copyright 1996 by Carol A. Valentine, on loan to Public Action, Inc. All commercial rights are reserved. Full statement of terms and conditions for copying and redistribution is available in the library. "Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum," "SkyWriter," and the skywriting logo are trademarks of Public Action Inc. This page last updated: April 19, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: More on http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum Date: 14 Oct 1996 09:55:28 -0500 (CDT) BRIEF HISTORY Between the days of February 28, 1993 and April 19th, 1993, approximately 80 men, women, and children living peacefully in their home near Waco, Texas, were killed by the combined efforts of the US Defense Department and other government paramilitary units: the US Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The incident also claimed the lives of four AFT agents. The civilians lived in a religious community called the Mt. Carmel Center. They were called Branch Davidians. The incident began with a military-style raid on February 28, complete with helicopter gunships firing down upon the women's and children's quarters. Then followed a long siege. On April 19, the US government sent tanks to GAS the building where the people lived. The government said they decided to gas the Davidians because they were concerned about the sanitary conditions in the house, because they were afraid one of the Davidians, David Koresh, was spanking babies, and because the FBI agents were getting tired. [IMAGE] The tanks tore big holes in the walls, drove into the house, and knocked down whole sections of the building. The government said they were only making make holes in the building so they could get the gas in, and let the people out. But no Davidians came out. To some, it seemed the tanks were demolishing the Branch Davidians' home while the people were still inside. A fire broke out as the tanks were driving about. The fire became an inferno, lasted 40 minutes and burned the house to the ground. As they watched the inferno on TV, many wondered why they could not see Davidians escaping the burning building. Seventy-five people are said to have perished in the flames. Much public concern was focused on the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the 33 women, children, and babies whose remains were found in a concrete room which served as a pantry and food storage area off the kitchen in the Mt. Carmel Center. Circumstantial and physical evidence suggested to some Americans that the Branch Davidians were deliberately killed by the US government. A video was made which contained TV footage that showed what seemed to be a flame throwing tank backing out of the smashed building, flame coming out of its muzzle. Other footage showed uniformed US military personnel at the scene, and tanks fitted with plowblades pushing debris into the flaming rubble. The video was circulated nation-wide and caused people to become outraged. The US government repeated that the tanks made holes in the building so that the Branch Davidians could come out, but that the Davidians refused to do so, and then committed suicide by setting themselves on fire. Others said that the TV footage of the flame throwing tank was misleading. They said the fire started when the tanks accidentally tipped over some lanterns, and was fed by hay and household fuels that happened to be in the building. A public outcry for full Congressional hearings ensued. Two years to the day after the April 19 fire, the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, where many federal offices were housed, was bombed. The US news services immediately inferred the building was bombed by those who objected to the Waco Holocaust. Waco Holocaust protesters said that the bombing of the Murrah building was most likely the work of the US government, seeking an excuse to extinguish Constitutional liberties, as evidenced by events in Waco. Finally, more than two years after the April 19, 1993 inferno in Waco, Congress held lengthy hearings. The hearings were held with the stated purpose of finding the truth, wherever it lay. It was promised that the hearings would put the Waco controversy to rest. Any serious investigation looks at physical evidence. And it examines that evidence directly. When serious investigators must rely on interpretations, they do not seek out interested parties to give those interpretations. However, Congress ignored most of the available physical evidence. When they did look at evidence, Congress was highly selective. When interpretations were sought, most came from interested parties. And finally, when penetrating questions were asked, government employees were permitted to avoid answering. The Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum will now make available to the public some of evidence that was suppressed by Congress. Next: Why the Waco Holocaust Matters Home: Museum Entrance _________________________________________________________________ http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum or http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum SkyWriter@Public-Action.com Postal Address: Carol A. Valentine, Public Action, Inc., PO Box 10933, Burke, VA 22009 Copyright 1996 by Carol A. Valentine, on loan to Public Action, Inc. All commercial rights are reserved. Full statement of terms and conditions for copying and redistribution is available in the library. "Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum," "SkyWriter," and the skywriting logo are trademarks of Public Action Inc. This page last updated: April 19, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Roadblocks (fwd) Date: 14 Oct 1996 12:41:55 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Joe Horn <6mysmesa@1eagle1.com> Speaking of roadblocks, Saturday, the New Mexico State Police had one set up on NM#404, (14 officers and one Sgt.) stopping all traffic both ways on a desert mountain pass between El Paso and White Sands. When I was stopped, a courteous automaton approached, hand on pistol and asked for my DL and insurance card, and did a visual search of my car. Immediately angered and resentful of this State intrusion and violation of my rights, I handed him the requested documents, and having checked my paperwork, he looks through the window at the back seat area and asks me "what's under the blanket?" I told him his search was going to have to be limited to what he could see as I was not granting a consent search beyond what he could see through the windows of my vehicle after illegally stopping me at this roadblock. Illegal? Pull over there and talk to the nice officers, says he. Yes I said, stopping people for searches in the pretext of seeing their paperwork. Says he: the court said it's ok (in limited Roadbloacks )as long as we stop everyone. Says I, the court is wrong and it's still unconstitutional, you do not have a warrant and I have broken no law. To me, the fact they did NOT ask for vehicle registration indicated they were fishing. The robot calls his Sgt over, who takes over and warns me that this can become very unpleasant, and at this point, I show him my retired badge and ID, asking how unpleasant is that? He then says, why didn't you say something, you coulda been gone by now? I told him that I am a plain citizen and suggest he knows what he's doing is wrong and that it's a pure fishing expedition. He angrily said:(and he really surprised me) "Hey, I'm just doing what I'm told, now get outta here before I decide to ruin your day". They cut me loose and drove off, keeping my Ithaca 37 which was under the blanket and 1911A1 under the center console. My point is that this is out of control, and folks are going to start getting hurt in these little European-like (vere are your papers?) roadblocks, fishing for whatever they can find. If I didn't have masterbadge and I.D., I would have been illegally and unconstitutionally searched against my will. Very few people have a badge to get them out of something like this, and deferring to intimidation by armed authority, most will have their rights violated. My sense of the roadblock personnel was that excepting the Sgt., they didn't know they were wrong or didn't care. The average age of the officers was late 20's early 30's. Now that they're going to start these around schools, and I assure you that it will be in as high handed a manner as they can manage. Many people don't see or don't want to see what's happening to the Constitution or our human rights recognized by that Constitution, or the Police State being assembled right around the Constitution, in the name of the "drug war" or the "chirrun". It's here and it's here now and if you don't strenuously object to these searches and roadblocks whether for DUI, Drivers License/Insurance/ guns/drugs, and drive your political reps nuts about it, sooner or later you will get the anal probe of an illegal search in the name of the "drug war" or for guns near schools. Of course those that like and feel safer with more unenforceable, useless law and more intrusion (with no effect on criminals, just the violation of honest citizens rights) may you be hoisted on your own petard, and soon. As I waited in line to be searched in this desolate and remote desert location, I reflected on my extensive police and military training and experience and thought that these roadblocks are really quite vulnerable out there in the desert so far from backup. Quite vulnerable......It's going to get ugly one day when folks decide they've had enough. And if statists don't think it can happen here, just visualize a larger scale resentment of the "man" beyond Watts. Like the black minority, the white minority within the white majority has it's limits in absorbing the abuses and effects of the ever intrusive Police State. What really bothered me, (inspite of my training and familiarity with police operations) was my own barely repressible reaction of fear, being trapped, resentment, mistrust, disrespect and intense dislike and the powerful urge to immediately, actively and physically resist this infringement of my right of unrestricted and peaceful travel. Fortunately, I didn't have to act because unlike most of my fellow citizens, I had a retired peace officer's badge. What about those that feel like that and do not have a getoutta jail/roadblock exit badge? I guess we'll soon find out when some get stopped and fight rather than have their rights violated. It's no longer a matter of if this is going to happen, just when. regards Joe Horn List retired cop and no longer proud of it. -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Because that's the way we have always done it. (fwd) Date: 14 Oct 1996 13:51:50 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hi Paul: Interesting stuff from a prof at UTexas at Austin. -- Pat > How Specs Live Forever > > The US Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 > feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that > gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, > and the US railroads were built by English expatriates. > Why did the English people build them like that? Because the > first rail lines were built by the same people who built the > pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used. > > Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because the people who built the > tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for > building wagons, which used that wheel spacing. > Okay! Why did the wagons use that odd wheel spacing? Well, if > they tried to use any other spacing the wagons would break on > some of the old, long distance roads, because that's the spacing of > the old wheel ruts. > > So who built these old rutted roads? The first long distance > roads in Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of > their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the > ruts? The initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear > of destroying their wagons, were first made by Roman war > chariots. Since the chariots were made for or by Imperial Rome > they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. > > Thus, we have the answer to the original questions. The United > State standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the > original specification for an Imperial Roman > army war chariot. Specs and Bureaucracies live forever. > So, the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what > horse's ass came up with it, you may be exactly right. Because > the Imperial Roman chariots were made to be just wide enough to > accommodate the back-ends of two war horses. > > > Professor Tom O'Hare Germanic Lanuages (512) 471-4123 > University of Texas at Austin tohare@mail.utexas.edu > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: Clinton's Counsel Answers FOIA -Reply Date: 14 Oct 1996 19:04:01 -0700 Bill, Now, now, what on earth would ever give you such an outlandish idea as that? :-) /s/ Paul Mitchell At 06:40 PM 10/14/96 -0700, you wrote: >Paul, >Am I to understand that the document entitled United States Constitution >which you received from Robert W. Schroeder III, Special Assistant to >the Counsel to the President, in response to your FOIA, may somehow >not be the same as my copy of the Constitution? billvm > >>>> Paul Andrew Mitchell 10/14/96 05:59pm >>> >Dear America, > >How shall we disseminate the version of the "United States Constitution" >which we just received from the White House? I would like to >encourage a nationwide debate on this topic, so please give some of >your best thinking to this earnest request. > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: essay contest winner (fwd) Date: 14 Oct 1996 22:14:15 -0400 (EDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > This posting announces the conclusion of the first annual > essay contest sponsored by the G. M. Harding Institute for Civic > Responsibility. This year's topic: Good Government. And the win- > ning entry was: > > Good government. Good government. Sit. Stay. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Filegate, And Why Dole and Kemp Won't Attack Clinton Date: 14 Oct 1996 20:31:56 -0700 >Filegate, And Why Dole and Kemp Won't Attack Clinton >by Patricia Neill >pnpj@db1.cc.rochester.edu > >This is idle speculation, but perhaps it is not as idle as all that. > >We know that certain aides in the White House have had access to FBI files >of their political enemies since 1993 or so. We know that Mareca and >Livingstone were gathering these files at a furious rate, the last number of >files I heard was 900 or so. That's a lot of files, and a potential mountain >of political dirt to collect on one's political enemies, and their aides, >colleagues, and families. And although we didn't hear about this scandal >until 1996, the White House had those files for 3 years. We don't know who >all read those files, at least not yet. But I'd be willing to tender a guess >or two. > >We know that the Republicans could attack Clinton on many many grounds. Not >just on his "character," a strange word to use in the same sentence as >"Clinton" but on other issues significant and solid, such as Filegate >itself. There is the as yet unexplained death of Vincent Foster, the strange >and as yet unexplained downing of Ron Brown's plane. There is a major >Clinton aide who allowed a prostitute to listen to his phone calls with the >President. There are about 40 rather odd deaths surrounding the President. >There is the issue of White House aides NOT undergoing a security check at >the same time they are accessing FBI files on others with present and former >White House access. Another issue is the drug use by White House aides. >There is Whitewater itself, and Hillary's missing billing files that >"disappeared" and then "showed up," Espy had to resign, as did Bernie >Nussbaum, and Webster Hubbell is in prison. Other Arkansas bigtimers, such >as the governor, for pete's sake, were convicted by an Arkansas jury. > >Why in the world did Bob Dole refuse to use the "character" question handed >him by Jim Lehrer during the debates? Why did Bob Dole schmooze with Clinton >during the debate? "We're good friends," said Dole. "I like him as a man." >Now, that is a hell of a debating technique. Rarely has a politician been >sooooo polite! Why did Kemp not attack? I mean, you'd think it would be a >breeze, this election, only going the other way, with the Republicans >looking for a big win. Instead, this corrupt administration looks like it >will win again--and no one, not one of the Republicans are attacking in the >way they could, and should, taking on the Clinton's on any one of the above >scandals and utterly destroying their credibility. To anyone paying >attention the past 4 years, this administration has been proven--proven--to >be an administration of lies, thievery, corruption and perhaps even murder, >if anyone had the guts to truly investigate. > >Perhaps the reason the Republicans won't attack is that they cannot. Or >rather, they cannot without facing their own corruption or scandals small or >large coming to the light, via the files of Filegate. Have some of Dole's >aides been homosexuals? Or drug users? Or stolen tax payer money (well, we >know they all do that). How about Kemp--he was head of HUD, which was >immersed in it's own awful scandal not so long ago. Or Newt or any of the >other Republicans? Do the Clinton's have some dirt on the Republicans, and >on other Democrats, for that matter, courtesy of the FBI? Could that be why >the Republicans are using only the politiest of murmurs when discussing >Whitewater, or the documented lies of Clinton and his wife? > >Perhaps this speculation is more idle than I think, because I am not sure >precisely what is contained in any FBI file, let alone the 900 + given over >to the White House by the FBI. And perhaps it not idle, and it *is* part of >the reason for the incredibly weak and ineffective Republican campaign for >the Presidency. > >I don't know. But I truly do not understand why the Dole/Kemp team are not >attacking with a good deal more vigor and steadfastness, not to mention with >righteous indignation and fury! Did those boys get themselves castrated by >blackmail somewhere along the way? > >Inquiring minds would like to know, but this inquiring mind figures it won't >ever really know for sure. Corruption and bedlam have always been standard >in the Belly of the Beast, just not usually in such immense proportion! > >Patricia Neill > > > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: AOL hasseling ISPs over email content! Date: 14 Oct 1996 23:15:02 -0500 At 12:08 PM 10/14/96 -0400, pmd4@aol.net wrote: >It is my understanding that this was alledely a spam... unsolicited e-mail >that was >sent to a huge mailing list. I got multiple reports from the Internet and >from AOL members. I am in no way commenting on the content, I could care >less what it says... all I am aware of is that it was allegedly sent to some >folks who seem to be on a mailing list they don't care to be on. That's all. > >If I have incorrectly identified your service *or* if it's really not a spam, >*or* if it is a spam and for some reason, spamming is permitted on your >service, please feel free to delete this. Please accept this as a public >apology if indeed this was not a spam. Please feel free to Apology accepted! >share my response with your friends who have also written to me. I see that >a few folks have written regarding this issue. I would rather not spam them >all with this response, so you may pass it along if you wish. > >I am not in the business of censorship... I thought it was a spam, that's >all. I get hundreded of reports of alleged abuse each day, ocassionally >mistakes are made. > >What I do is respond to complaints from the Internet. This came through my >box, so I forwarded it on to the domain from which it seemed to originate. >This is standard procedure.. If I receive a report of alleged abuse from a >member of another Internet Service Provider, I forward it along to that >postmaster, and let them deal with it, if indeed there is anything to deal >with. If I sent it in err, I do apologize. > >I am a friendly postmaster.. I mean no harm or disrespect.. > >Aimee Palmer >Assistant Postmaster >pmd4@aol.com > OK folks, she's said she's sorry, I've accepted the apology (in a private email), let's let that be *it* el fin, fini, the end, that's all folks... you get the picture, OK? The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: AOL hasseling ISPs over email content! (THE END, I hope) Date: 14 Oct 1996 23:39:37 -0500 (resend to you Larry, also sent originally to: noban@Mainstream.net,roc@xmission.com,Texas-gun-owners@zilker.net,pmd4@aol.net) Sorry that some folks got on *your* case over this, when the problem was at AOL for not explaining themselves(herself) in the first place. At 12:08 PM 10/14/96 -0400, pmd4@aol.net wrote: >It is my understanding that this was alledely a spam... unsolicited e-mail >that was >sent to a huge mailing list. I got multiple reports from the Internet and >from AOL members. I am in no way commenting on the content, I could care >less what it says... all I am aware of is that it was allegedly sent to some >folks who seem to be on a mailing list they don't care to be on. That's all. > >If I have incorrectly identified your service *or* if it's really not a spam, >*or* if it is a spam and for some reason, spamming is permitted on your >service, please feel free to delete this. Please accept this as a public >apology if indeed this was not a spam. Please feel free to Apology accepted! >share my response with your friends who have also written to me. I see that >a few folks have written regarding this issue. I would rather not spam them >all with this response, so you may pass it along if you wish. > >I am not in the business of censorship... I thought it was a spam, that's >all. I get hundreded of reports of alleged abuse each day, ocassionally >mistakes are made. > >What I do is respond to complaints from the Internet. This came through my >box, so I forwarded it on to the domain from which it seemed to originate. >This is standard procedure.. If I receive a report of alleged abuse from a >member of another Internet Service Provider, I forward it along to that >postmaster, and let them deal with it, if indeed there is anything to deal >with. If I sent it in err, I do apologize. > >I am a friendly postmaster.. I mean no harm or disrespect.. > >Aimee Palmer >Assistant Postmaster >pmd4@aol.com > OK folks, she's said she's sorry, I've accepted the apology (in a private email), let's let that be *it* el fin, fini, the end, that's all folks... you get the picture, OK? The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: essay contest winner (fwd) Date: 14 Oct 1996 21:44:01 -0700 (MST) At 10:14 PM 10/14/96 -0400, you wrote: > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> This posting announces the conclusion of the first annual >> essay contest sponsored by the G. M. Harding Institute for Civic >> Responsibility. This year's topic: Good Government. And the win- >> ning entry was: >> >> Good government. Good government. Sit. Stay. ... stay away from the fire hydrant, and those luggage racks over there. =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RevCOAL Subject: Re: essay contest winner (fwd) Date: 15 Oct 1996 07:47:55 -0400 (EDT) On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >> This posting announces the conclusion of the first annual > >> essay contest sponsored by the G. M. Harding Institute for Civic > >> Responsibility. This year's topic: Good Government. And the win- > >> ning entry was: > >> > >> Good government. Good government. Sit. Stay. > > > ... stay away from the fire hydrant, > and those luggage racks over there. Yeah, did the essay explain how to housebreak Government, and get it to stop jumping up on me and humping my leg? Rapping it on the nose with a newspaper doesn't work anymore... Donna ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: essay contest winner (fwd) Date: 15 Oct 1996 05:26:03 -0700 (MST) At 07:47 AM 10/15/96 -0400, you wrote: >On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> This posting announces the conclusion of the first annual >> >> essay contest sponsored by the G. M. Harding Institute for Civic >> >> Responsibility. This year's topic: Good Government. And the win- >> >> ning entry was: >> >> >> >> Good government. Good government. Sit. Stay. >> >> >> ... stay away from the fire hydrant, >> and those luggage racks over there. > >Yeah, did the essay explain how to housebreak Government, and get it to >stop jumping up on me and humping my leg? Rapping it on the nose with a >newspaper doesn't work anymore... > >Donna ;-) dog gone =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: New Poll Date: 15 Oct 1996 09:51:31 -0400 "This race is "pick-em" and momentum is with Dole." Much as this will pain some members of the list: I just dinged my Master Card with another donation to the Dole campaign. Couldn't live with myself in '97 if I don't do everything I can in '96 to defeat Clinton. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Clinton's lies... (fwd) Date: 15 Oct 1996 09:45:37 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Whoever put this together (Gene?) did a fine job! >Return-path: >Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 23:33:04 -0400 (EDT) >From: Gene Gross -- Personal Account >Subject: L&J: Clinton's lies... >Sender: owner-liberty-and-justice@majordomo.pobox.COM >To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.COM (Liberty or) >Reply-to: liberty-and-justice@pobox.COM > >IN HIS OWN WORDS > Broken Promises From the President > > 1. MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT: > > "I believe you deserve more than 30-second ads or vague > promises. That's why I've offered a comprehensive plan to get > our economy moving again. It starts with a tax cut for the > middle class and asks the rich to pay their fair share again." > Clinton's first campaign ad, January 1992. > > > "We will lower the tax burden on middle class Americans by > asking the very wealthy to pay their fair share. Middle class > taxpayers will have a choice between a children's tax credit > or a significant reduction in their income tax rate." > Putting People First, September 1992. > > > "I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these > programs. If the money does not come in there to pay for > these programs, we will cut other government spending or we > will slow down the phase-in of these programs. I am not gonna > raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs." > October 19, 1992. > > > "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely > mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in > the race was the middle class tax cut. I never did meet any > voter who thought that." > January 14, 1993. > > > "To middle class Americans who have paid a great deal for the > last 12 years and from whom I ask a contribution tonight..." > February 17, 1993. > > > > 2. TAX BURDEN: > > "You know what my plan is, to raise taxes on people whose > incomes are above $200,000..." > July 13, 1992. > > > The new 36 percent Clinton tax rate takes effect on couples > earning more than $140,000 and individuals making more than > $115,000. > P.L. 103-66, Clinton's Tax and Spend Plan. > > > > 3. ELIMINATING THE DEFICIT: > > "I would present a five-year plan to balance the budget." > June 4, 1992. > > > "This budget plan, by contrast, will by 1997 cut $140 billion > in that year alone from the deficit." > February 17, 1993. > > > 4. CUTTING THE DEFICIT IN HALF: > > "The plan not only pays for every penny in new investment with > new savings but -- even with modest growth estimates -- will > cut the deficit in half by 1996." > Putting People First, September 1992. > > > Deficit, assuming baseline economics, FY 1997: $214 billion. > Deficit, assuming Administration economics, FY 1997: $181 >billion. > Budget of the United States Government, > Fiscal Year 1994, p. 2. > > > 5. SIZE OF THE DEFICIT: > > "I can't [avoid raising taxes on the middle class] because the > deficit has increased so much, beyond my earlier estimates..." > February 17, 1993. > > > "[S]enior Administration officials, including Bentsen and > Panetta, concede that the professed shock at higher deficit > estimates issued after the election was largely feigned. > Moreover, the new Clinton team issued initial budget > projections soon after taking office that put absolutely the > worst face possible on the deficit outlook, manipulating data > to reinforce the impression that Bush had left Clinton with a > fiscal nightmare." > Los Angeles Times, April 24, 1994, p. D1. > > > 6. GAS TAX: > > "Oppose federal excise gas tax increases. Instead of a > backbreaking federal gas tax, we should try conservation, > increased use of natural gas, and increased use of alternative > fuels." > Putting People First, September 1992. > > "I think -- you know, raising taxes on Social Security > recipients or middle class people, the fifty-cent [Perot] gas > tax and all these tax increases when the economy is not > growing is an error." > October 23, 1992. > > > After President Clinton realized he could not gain enough > support for his proposed Btu tax (which would have, among > other things, imposed a tax of about 7.5 cents per gallon for > gasoline and 8.3 cents per gallon for diesel), he had to > accept a smaller tax that was agreed to in the Senate and > passed by Congress: a 4.3-cents-per-gallon motor fuels tax. > The law also extends a 2.5-cent gas tax set to expire in 1995. > P.L. 103-66, Clinton's Tax and Spend Plan. > > > 7. CORPORATE TAX RATES: > > "I don't think we should raise corporate tax rates, [but I > think we should give corporations more incentives to invest in > this country]." > July 13, 1992. > > President Clinton's original plan would have raised the top > marginal rate for corporate income taxes to 36 percent, but > Congress would only agree to raise it to 35 percent (the > current rate is 34 percent). > P.L. 103-66, Clinton's Tax and Spend Plan. > > > 8. WELFARE REFORM: > > "[W]e need real welfare reform.... I recommend, number one, > that you require people to take jobs." > May 6, 1992. > > > "And I have a plan to do even better, to end welfare as we > know it . . ." > August 12, 1992. > > > "The Clinton plan gives welfare recipients two years of > benefits before any work requirement is imposed, and imposes > time limits and work requirements on only about 20% of > recipients. Under the Clinton plan, after two years of > welfare checks, recipients could be indefinitely supported by > a government-subsidized paycheck." > Bob Dole News Release, June 14, 1994. > > > 9. CHINA MFN: > > "We will condition favorable trade terms with repressive > regimes--such as China's Communist regime--on respect for > human rights, political liberalization, and responsible > international conduct." > Putting People First, September 1992. > > "We will link China's trading privileges to its human rights > record and its conduct on trade and weapon sales." > August 13, 1992. > > "I am moving, therefore, to delink human rights from the > annual extension of most-favored nation trading status for > China." > May 26, 1994. > > > 10. HAITIAN REFUGEES: > > "I am appalled by the decision of the Bush administration to > pick up fleeing Haitians on the high seas and forcibly return > them to Haiti before considering their claim to political > asylum.... If I were President, I would -- in the absence of > clear and compelling evidence that they weren't political > refugees -- give them temporary asylum until we restored the > elected government of Haiti." > > May 27, 1992. > > "For Haitians who do seek to leave Haiti, boat departure is a > terrible and dangerous choice.... For this reason, the > practice of returning those who fled Haiti by boat will > continue, for the time being, after I become President. Those > who do leave Haiti...by boat will be stopped and directly > returned by the United States Coast Guard." > > January 14, 1993. > > > 11. MILITARY ACTION IN HAITI: > > "I have no intention of asking our young people in > uniform...to go in there to do anything other than implement a > peace agreement..." > October 13, 1993. > > "...I think that we cannot afford to discount the prospect of > a military option [in Haiti]." > May 3, 1994. > > 12. BOSNIA: > > "We will make the U.S. the catalyst for a collective stand > against aggression, the action I have urged in response to > Serbian aggression in Bosnia . . ." > August 13, 1992. > > "I think we should act. We should lead. The United States > should lead." > April 23, 1993. > > "I cannot unilaterally lift the arms embargo [on Bosnia].... > Our allies decided that they weren't prepared to go that far > this time." > June 15, 1993. > > "The United Nations controls what happens in Bosnia." > June 15, 1993. > > > 13. MISSION IN SOMALIA: > > "The ultimate goal is to make sure that the United Nations can > fulfill its mission there and continue to work with the > Somalis toward nation building." > June 16, 1993. > > "The U.S. military mission is not now nor was it ever one of > `nation building.'" > October 13, 1993. > > > 14. SOCIAL SECURITY: > > "...we're also overtaxing it [Social Security] today by about > $65 billion to $70 billion to make our deficit look smaller. > So I think the last thing we want to do is to divide the > American people against one another again by carving up Social > Security." > > December 22, 1991. > > "I think -- you know, raising taxes on Social Security > recipients or middle class people, the fifty-cent [Perot] gas > tax and all these tax increases when the economy is not > growing is an error." > October 23, 1992. > > Clinton's original plan taxed 85 percent (rather than the > current 50 percent) of Social Security benefits for couples > earning more than $32,000 and individuals earning more than > $25,000. However, that was too much even for Congress to > handle, so during conference the threshold was raised to > $44,000 for couples and $34,000 for individuals. > P.L. 103-66, Clinton's Tax and Spend Plan. > > 15. MINDLESS SPENDING: > > "This country doesn't need a new program for every problem, > and we won't get change simply by spending more on programs > already on the books." > April 16, 1992. > > "In spending, the stimulus program provides additional budget > authority equal to $16.3 billion." > A Vision of Change for America, > February 17, 1993. > > > 16. GOVERNMENT REFORM: > > "It's long past time to clean up Washington. The last twelve > years were nothing less than an extended hunting season for > high-priced lobbyists and Washington influence peddlers. On > streets where statesmen once strolled, a never-ending stream > of money now changes hands -- tying the hands of those elected > to lead." > Putting People First, September 1992. > > "Inside Schmoozers Line Up...Three of Clinton's top > appointments were lobbyists: Commerce Secretary Ron > Brown...U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor...and > Veterans' Affairs Director Jesse Brown." > Cleveland Plain-Dealer, > February 8, 1993, p. 1A. > > "But in a recognition of the fact that lobbyists constitute a > fertile source of fund-raising, Clinton will accept > contributions [to his legal defense fund] of up to $1,000 > annually from the Washington lobbyists whose activities he > decried during the campaign and since taking office." > > Washington Post, June 29, 1994, p. A1. > > > 17. 50 PERCENT QUOTA FOR CABINET WOMEN: > > "I wouldn't restrict myself to having just half the Cabinet be > women. I might want more." > February 29, 1992. > > Currently, 3 out of 14 Cabinet members are women, or 21 > percent. If the EPA becomes a cabinet department, the number > will increase to 4 of 15, or 26 percent. If the UN Ambassador > is counted, then just 31 percent of the Cabinet is female (5 > out of 16). > Information as of November 19, 1993. > > > 18. 25 PERCENT WHITE HOUSE STAFF CUTS: > > "We will reduce the White House staff by 25 percent..." > Putting People First, September 1992. > > "What the cuts [to White House staff] have become, instead, is > a struggle to make the numbers come out right, a study in > creative definitions of what constitutes the White House > staff, and a flurry of pink slips sent to career > workers...Figures provided by the White House...show increases > in spending on the White House office staff, the vice > president's staff, the Office of Administration, the Domestic > policy office and the National Security Council...The Office > of Management and Budget and the office of the U.S. Trade > Representative, show slight increases as well. Where the > major saving occurs is in the Office of National Drug Control > Policy, where $76 million in its `forfeiture fund' has been > reduced to $28 million, and staff--all career workers in the > anti-drug field--has been reduced from 112 to 25 for a total > savings of nearly $60 million." > Washington Post, September 30, 1993, p. A1. > > > 19. LINE ITEM VETO: > > "To eliminate pork-barrel projects and cut government waste, > we will ask Congress to give the President the line item > veto." > Putting People First, September 1992. > > To date, the administration has sent no line-item veto > proposal to Congress. > July 1, 1994. > > > > 20. DRUG WAR: > > "[President Bush] hasn't fought a real war on crime and drugs. > I will." > July 16, 1992. > > "I never thought I'd miss Nancy Reagan. There can't be a > rating [on the Clinton drug policy] when there hasn't been a > performance." > > Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), April 24, 1993. > > Clinton reduced funding for the Office of National Drug > Control Policy (drug czar) to $5.8 million (FY 1993 funding > level was $103 million). > > Budget of the United States Government > for FY 1994, p. A-222. > > > 21. PRIVACY ACT VIOLATIONS: > > "If I catch anybody using the State Department like that > [searching files] when I'm president, you won't have to wait > till after the election to see them gone...I just want you to > know that the State Department of this country is not going to > be fooling with Bill Clinton's politics, and if I catch > anybody doing it I will fire them the next day; you won't have > to have an inquiry or rigmarole or anything else..." > November 12, 1992. > > "The State Department's inspector general has been asked to > investigate whether the Privacy Act may have been violated > when information from personnel files of former Bush > administration political appointees at the department was > examined and disseminated...personnel folders of two former > Bush officials, Jennifer Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Tamposi, had > been reviewed." > Washington Post, September 3, 1993, p. A1. > > Secretary of State Warren Christopher "fired two lower-level > State department political employees for their involvement in > the retrieval and disclosure in September of information from > Bush administration personnel files...." Friday, November 10, > 69 days after their actions were first reported. > Washington Post, November 11, p. A10. > > > 22. TOUGH ON CRIME: > > "We need to put...more criminals behind bars." > Putting People First, September 1992. > > "Reduce prison construction. Cut $580 million from FY > 1994-98." > A Vision of Change for America, > February 17, 1993, p. 123. > > "New [prison] Construction: FY 1993 estimate: $771.8 million; > FY 1994 estimate: $501.7 million." > Budget of the United States Government, > Fiscal Year 1994, Appendix-777. > > > 23. 100,000 NEW POLICE OFFICERS: > > "Fight crime by putting 100,000 new police officers on the > streets." > Putting People First, September 1992. > > "Clinton Crime Plan Falls Far Short on Cops: Bill Clinton > campaigned for president promising to put 100,000 more police > on the nation's streets by 1996, but the crime package he sent > to Congress calls for only half that number. What's more, > Clinton's package authorizes $3.4 billion for more cops over a > six-year period, or $650 million per year beginning next year. > That's enough to pay the salaries of only 13,000 police at the > average national cost in salary and benefits of $50,000 per > year, and even less in big cities where costs are higher--and > crime is at its worst." > Roll Call, October 7, 1993, p. 11. > > 24. RADIO FREE EUROPE: > > "We should build on the success of Radio Free Europe/Radio > Liberty and expand our successful surrogate broadcasting." > October 1, 1992. > > "The Budget reflects the President's decision to consolidate > U.S. international broadcasting and achieve significant > savings by eliminating administrative overlap and > duplication...In the past, this account provided funds for the > construction of a new radio relay station in Israel. The > Administration has decided to cancel this project in 1993." > Budget of the United States Government, > Fiscal Year 1994, Appendix-1042. > > > 25. BUYING MORE NATIONAL PARK LAND: > > "Expand our efforts to acquire new parklands and recreational > sites with funds already available." > Putting People First, September 1992. > > "Clinton Backs Off Campaign Promise to Purchase More Park > Land...Clinton's proposed 1994 budget released today seeks > $208 million for land acquisition, down from the $366 million > President Bush sought last year." > Associated Press, April 8, 1993. > > > 26. 100 DAYS: > > "I intend to have a legislative program ready on the desk of > Congress on the day after I'm inaugurated. I intend to have > an explosive 100-day action period." > June 23, 1992. > > "People of the press are expecting [us] to have some 100-day > program. We never ever had one." > Dee Dee Myers, January 12, 1993. > > > 27. GOVERNMENT MANDATES: > > " I am going to stop handing down mandates to you and > regulating you to death." > June 22, 1992. > > Instead of following through on promises of fewer federal > mandates and regulations, President Clinton on January 22 > abolished the Competitiveness Council, whose regulatory reform > efforts promised to yield more than $20 billion in annual > savings and save or create an estimated 200,000 jobs. > > President Clinton signed into law the Family Medical Leave Act > and the Motor Voter bill, both which impose huge mandates, the > first on small businesses, the second on state governments. > > The Clinton health care proposal would impose sweeping new > mandates. > > - U.S. Senate Republican Policy Commitee > press release dated 7/1/94. > > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Unsub info - send to liberty-and-justice-request@pobox.com with "unsubscribe" >in body (not subject) of the msg. List-Owner - Mike Goldman > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: essay contest winner (fwd) Date: 15 Oct 1996 09:18:59 -0700 >> >> Good government. Good government. Sit. Stay. >> >> >> ... stay away from the fire hydrant, >> and those luggage racks over there. > >Yeah, did the essay explain how to housebreak Government, and get it to >stop jumping up on me and humping my leg? Rapping it on the nose with a >newspaper doesn't work anymore... > >Donna ;-) Use a rolled up copy of the Constitution. - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: SELECT COMMITTEE FINDINGS ON CLINTON'S POLICY REGARDING IRANIAN ARMS TRANSFERS TO BOSNIA (fwd) Date: 15 Oct 1996 16:40:15 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ------- One Hundred Fourth Congress CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES House of Representatives Committee on International Relations Select Subcommittee on the United States Role in Iranian Arms Transfers to Croatia and Bosnia For Immediate Release, Oct. 10, 1996 SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE RELEASES FINDINGS ON CLINTON'S POLICY REGARDING IRANIAN ARMS TRANSFERS TO BOSNIA WASHINGTON, DC (October 10, 1996) -- The House International Relations' Select Subcommittee on the United States Role in Iranian Arms Transfers to Croatia and Bosnia today issued an unclassified version of its findings regarding the Clinton Administration's role in facilitating the transfer of Iranian arms to the Bosnian Muslims. Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) noted that the Subcommittee's findings were the result of its comprehensive review of the Administration's ill-conceived policy giving Iran a "green light" in April 1994 to ship arms to the Balkans and thus develop an extensive and uniquely valuable set of political, military, intelligence, and economic relationships in this troubled part of Europe, Among the conclusions of the Select Subcommittee: * The Clinton Administration's Iranian green light policy gave Iran an unprecedented foothold in Europe and has recklessly endangered American lives and US strategic interests. * Several Clinton Administration officials gave false testimony to Congress on the development and implementation of the Iranian green light policy. The Select Subcommittee is referring this matter to the Department of Justice for further criminal investigation. * There is evidence that Peter Galbraith, U.S. Ambassador to Croatia, may have engaged in activities that could be characterized as unauthorized covert actions. The evidence is sufficient to warrant referral to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for further investigation and action within its jurisdiction. * The Clinton Administration repeatedly deceived the American people about its Iranian green light policy and deliberately hid the truth from Congress. *The American people were poorly served by Clinton Administration officials who rushed the green light decision without due deliberation, full information, and an adequate consideration of the consequences. *The Clinton Administration's efforts to keep even senior U.S. officials from seeing its "fingerprints" on the green light policy led to confusion and disarray within the government. * The Clinton Administration's duplicity has seriously damaged U.S. credibility with its allies. * The Central Intelligence Agency exercised sound judgment in its refusal to participate in activities that might have otherwise led to an inadvertent and illegal covert action. * The Clinton Administration is hiding its embarrassment behind the veil of classified information. Hyde said that the conclusion released today by the Select Subcommittee are merely a small part of a more than 200-page report. The bulk of the report -- which provides the evidence for the conclusions reached -- is classified, however, and must undergo a declassification process controlled by the Clinton Administration before it can be shared with the public. "Due to the difficulty the Select Subcommittee has had with the Clinton Administration's attempts to keep embarrassing information hidden under the guise of "classification" -- and there is great deal here that is highly embarrassing to the Administration -- we are skeptical this process can be completed successfully in a satisfactory expeditious manner," Hyde said. "For this reason, the Select Subcommittee decided to issue these conclusions immediately in declassified form. The evidence and documentation will be released when it has been declassified." In presenting the Clinton Administration with a complete copy of the classified report, Hyde challenged the President to inform the American public as to the content of the report as soon as possible. "The American people are entitled to the truth," Hyde said. "They should be allowed to read for themselves the facts so that they may understand fully the causes and the costs of this ill-conceived and profoundly dangerous policy decision." CHAPTER 15 CONCLUSIONS Much of this report is classified and must undergo a declassification process before it can be shared with the public. That process is, by law, in the hands of the executive branch. Due to difficulties the Select Subcommittee has had with the Clinton Administration's hiding behind classification statutes so as to avoid declassifying embarrassing information -- and there is a great deal here highly embarrassing to the Administration -- we are not hopeful that this process can be completed successfully, particularly in the near future. The Subcommittee feels, however, the need to share with the American people, as best it can, the results of the investigation. For this reason we have crafted the following conclusions in a way that they do not reference properly or improperly "classified" information. They are, therefore, less precise and comprehensive -- and less pointed -- than they would otherwise be, but they may, at least, be shared publicly. It is our hope that the Administration will relent in its efforts to conceal the history of this foreign policy fiasco so that the American public will eventually see a reasonably complete version of the full report which fully documents the conclusions summarized below -- and much, much more. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Administration's Iranian green light policy gave Iran an unprecedented foothold in Europe and has recklessly endangered American lives and US strategic Interests. The Clinton Administration, unable to convince the United Nations to follow its lead in lifting the Bosnian arms embargo and unwilling to abandon its foreign policy philosophy of assertive multilateralism (which denied the US the authority to act unilaterally), found itself in 1994 without a vehicle it found acceptable to implement a change in foreign policy it believed to be in the national interest -- the lifting of the Bosnian arms embargo. Accordingly, the Administration was receptive when its ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith -- a man noted by his colleagues for his passionate pursuit of causes, free-wheeling style, and an open attitude towards Iran -- pressed policy-makers to consider a scheme whereby Iran would be allowed to act as the US surrogate in providing militarily assistance the Bosnians. The President's decision to give Iran a green light in the Balkans allowed Iran to expand its economic and diplomatic relations, as well as establish a military, security, and intelligence presence so expansive as to constitute the largest concentration of official Iranians outside the Persian Gulf. The consequences have been far-reaching and pernicious. They persist to this day. In Croatia, a government that had before the green light been a consistent ally in the US's fight against Iranian-sponsored terrorism, was coopted by he weapons it received in exchange for being a staging point for the shipment of Iranian arms into Bosnia. As a result, after the green light, there was a serious deterioration of cooperation with the US in countering very real and imminent Iranian-linked terrorist threats. The US even now must cope with the consequences of Croatia's developing what has been referred to as an "all-but-out-of-control" relationship with Iran in the wake of the green light. The consequences of the green light policy have been much, much worse in Bosnian After the Administration gave the green light, Iran virtually overnight became the unrivaled foreign benefactor of the Iranian government, As a result, the Bosnian government became less secular and democratic and more open io its embrace of a radical Islamic political agenda acceptable to Iran but inimicable to US national security interests and democratic values. The Iranian presence and influence jumped radically in the months following the green light. Iranian elements infiltrated the Bosnian government and established close ties with the current leadership in Bosnia and the next generation of leaders. Iranian Revolutionary Guards accompanied Iranian weapons into Bosnia and soon were integrated in the Bosnian military structure from top to bottom as well as operating in independent units throughout Bosnia. The Iranian intelligence service ran will through the area developing intelligence networks, setting up terrorist support systems, recruiting terrorist "sleeper" agents and agents of influence, and insinuating itself with the Bosnian political leadership to a remarkable degree. The Iranians effectively annexed large portions of the Bosnian security apparatus ta act as their intelligence and terrorist surrogates. This extended to the point of jointly planning terrorist activities. The Iranian embassy became the largest in Bosnia and its officers were given unparalleled privileges and access at every level of the Bosnian government. These disturbing yet clearly foreseeable developments leave no room for doubt that the Administration's green light to Iran -- of all countries -- may have doomed he only real hope for Bosnia: the development of social and political institutions founded on respect for human rights and democratic principles. Somehow the Administration failed to see the short-term expediency of its Iranian green light was a long-term curse on the Bosnian people. Even now, the Administration is having to cope with the fallout from its policy, Iran's pernicious influence and the Bosnian political leadership's private thralldom to ran are giving the Clinton Administration its most intractable, behind-the-scenes problems in Bosnia. Despite the Administration's public assurances to the American people and Congress to the contrary, Iranian influence in the highest Bosnian ruling circles remains pervasive and Iranian terrorist and intelligence capabilities in Bosnia remain great cause for US concern. The Iranians are biding their time, and the radicalized Bosnian Muslim political leadership (in contrast to a largely secular population), may yet succeed in turning Bosnia into a radical and authoritarian state. There appears to be little hope that the situation will improve since the Bosnian government is fighting tooth-and-nail US efforts to cut its ties to Iran. The probability that the green light will end up costing American lives is all too great given Iran's track record. What is even more disturbing to the Subcommittee than the disastrous consequences of this ill-conceived policy is that even after its folly became apparent, the Administration rejected other specific and readily available options that could have lessened, if not reversed, the damage that has been done. Instead, it took actions that exacerbated the problem and further enhanced Iran's grip on Bosnia. 2, The President and the American people were poorly served by the Administration officials who rushed the green light decision without due deliberation, full information and an adequate consideration of the consequences. The Administration's decision to issue the green light was reached hurriedly and without a full knowledge of the relevant facts. Traditional consultative mechanisms were circumvented. The decision ad deliberative processes were intentionally undocumented. Key information was not passed up to the President's advisors, and even less information was made available to the President himself. Moreover,senior NSC and Department of State officials allowed themselves to be forced to rush the decision-making process to meet an artificially short deadline that discouraged their consideration of other less dangerous policy options. As a result, the decision was made without full consideration of the strategic consequences of giving Iran -- the rogue state most hostile to the US -- an effective exclusive franchise to buy influence and peddle terrorism in a volatile part of Europe highly vulnerable to fundamentalist agitation. Had the President and his senior advisors inquired deeper, it is possible that the hazards of the Iranian green tight policy would have been appreciated and, perhaps, avoided. 3. The Iranian green light policy was inconsistent with -- indeed antithetical to - the established policy to isolate and contain Iran. The Clinton Administration has shown an admirable consistency in advocating and enforcing the long-held and bipartisan-supported policy of isolating and containing Iran, politically, militarily, and economically. When presented with the question in the spring of 1994 about Iran's proposal to come into the Balkans and Europe in a big way, the policy was clear and the answer should have been obvious: "Just say 'no.'" That is exactly what the Bush Administration did two years earlier when presented with almost the identical situation. It is baffling, therefore, that the Administration decided instead to ,give the Iranians a green light and help open the door to Europe for them. The Administration, in an amazing lapse of judgment, scuttled its own policy of isolating Iran and instead helped it develop an extensive and uniquely valuable set of political, military, and economic relationships in Europe. It is impossible to reconcile the Administration's much-ballyhooed public policy of isolating Iran with its secret efforts to help Iran expand and normalize its foreign relations. 4. The Administration's efforts to keep even senior US officials from seeing its "fingerprints" on the green light policy led to confusion and disarray within the government. From the beginning, the Administration realized the green light policy was "dynamite" and so worked to implement it "without fingerprints." Within the Administration, this meant that only a handful of senior officials were officially aware of it -- basically, the President and a few individuals in the National Security Council and Department of State. The Central Intelligence Agency, which was responsible for collecting intelligence on embargo busting and Iran, as well as for working to support the policy of isolating Iran and the Department of Defense, which was responsible for enforcing the arms embargo, were not advised even at the most senior levels. Moreover, important State Department officials working with key allies, the UN, and in relevant policy areas continued to work with the understanding that it remained US policy to appose violations of the arms embargo. In effect, while the CIA, Defense Department and most State Department officials were working to counter the green light policy, a few senior policy makers were secretly working to implement it. This, complete lack of coordination between relevant US agencies on matters of important national policy was such that, were the consequences not so serious, it would be worthy fodder for a Shakespearean -- if not the Marx Brothers -- comedy. 5. The Administration's duplicity has seriously damaged US credibility with its allies. It is ironic that this Administration -- one that has placed such an emphasis on multilateralism -- has in its duplicitous, if not outright deceptive, Iranian green light policy, given other countries serious reason to doubt the US's good faith in any of its assurances and commitments. On numerous occasions, senior Administration officials, including the President, defended their unwillingness to arm the Bosnian Muslims unless the UN arms embargo was lifted. Two reason were emphasized. First, the Administration professed an unbreakable fidelity to the better and spirit of UN Security Council resolutions, even when inconvenient for the US, because a strong UN represented the very best possibility of creating a stable, more just and responsible world order. Second, the Administration repeatedly counseled Congress and other countries that we must keep faith with our allies in the Contact Group. Any move by the US to break the embargo, they argued, would endanger allied soldiers on the ground in Bosnia as part of UNPROFOR and, therefore, lead to the evacuation of European troops. At the same time the Administration was making these high-minded arguments, about the need to respect the UN and US allies, it was working assiduously behind the scenes to undermine them. The messages this sends is clear: 1) so long as you publicly support international law, you may privately do virtually anything you want, and 2) it would be a foolish ally, indeed, that trusted this administration to act in concert and in accordance with its agreements. It is no wonder that our allies have bee less willing to follow the US lead during the past months in any number of international arenas. In the Iranian green light matter the Administration has squandered our allies' good will and trust in us. Moreover, it did so in pursuit of a short-sighted and eventually self-destructive policy. 6. The Administration repeatedly deceived the American people about its Iranian green light policy. Rather than follow the traditional practice of deflecting questions and refusing to comment on allegations of particularly sensitive foreign activities of the US government, Clinton Administration officials, including the President, directly and through press spokesmen and press statements, repeatedly deceived the American people in an effort to coverup its secret policy of giving Iran a green light to expand its presence and influence in the Balkans. These are just a few of many examples: "The United States is not, underline not, covertly supplying arms or supporting the supply of arms to the Bosnian government." (Secretary of State Christopher)(1) "The US did not cooperate, coordinate or consult with any other government regarding he provision of arms to the Bosnians.... We have always made clear that we were abiding by the arms embargo and that we expected other countries to do so as well." (National Security Council)(2) "We are certainly not contributing to it, and we certainly are not turning a blind eye." (Department of State, in response to a question about the US role in getting Iranian arms to Bosnia.)(3) ------------------------ (1) Bill Gertz, Perry Threatens 'Massive Air', Christopher Denies Report of. Covert Arms Shipments, The Washington Times, July 28, 1995. (2) National Security Council, Daily Guidance Update, February 2, 1996. (3) Department of State Cable, State 092370, April 14, 1995. ------------------------ "No," (President Clinton in response to a question if the US was involved in "orchestrating the transfer of arms to the Bosnian Muslims")(4) 7. The Administration deliberately concealed the truth from Congress regarding the President's Iranian green light decision. Despite protests to the contrary in the early months of this investigation, Deputy Secretary Strobe Talbott recently admitted to the Subcommittee that the Administration had intentionally not told Congress of the green light it gave Iran in the Balkans. The Administration's deliberate efforts to keep Congress in the dark was inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation in the formation and execution of US foreign policy that variouslegislative mandates and executive orders have been designed to foster. It is Congress' constitutional right to insist that the Executive Branch's activities stay within the bounds lawfully mandated by Congress and that Congress be consulted of important foreign policy matters. Consultation with Congress is especially important when the President has adopted policies that directly impinge on matters about which Congress has expressed strong views. Two such matters are clearly the Bosnian arms embargo and the US policy to isolate Iran. In taking measures that circumvented the embargo and frustrated the bipartisan Congressional policy of isolating Iran, it is highly disturbing that the Administration not only did not take any steps to consult with or even inform Congress, but said things that, in retrospect, can only be viewed as intentionally misleading. 8. Several Administration officials gave false testimony to Congress on the development and implementation of the Iranian green light policy. The Select Subcommittee, in addition to reviewing reams of documents in its investigation, took sworn depositions from 27 individuals who were in key positions of particular importance for understanding the events under examination. The Subcommittee interviewed another 50 or more people less central to the investigation or who were directed by the White House not to provide sworn testimony on the basis of executive privilege. Comparing the statements of several individuals, it is apparent that there are serious material discrepancies over several matte central to the Subcommittee's investigations. The Select Subcommittee is truly disturbed that it received testimony and statements from the National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, Deputy National Security Advisor Samuel ("Sandy") Berger, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, and Ambassador Jenonne Walker that directly contradicts Ambassador Peter Galbraith's sworn testimony with respect to material issues before the Subcommittee and -------------------- (4) The Late Edition: US Denies Funneling Arms to Bosnian Muslims (CNN television broadcast, July 28, 1995) (Transcript on file with the select Subcommittee on the Iranian Arms Transfers to Bosnia). -------------------- Congress. Moreover, the Select Subcommittee is further dismayed that sworn testimony provided by Ambassadors Galbraith and Charles Redman, both before the House International Relations Committee and the Subcommittee is not supported by evidence uncovered through this investigation. Accordingly, the Subcommittee is referring this matter to the Department of Justice for further criminal investigation. 9. There is evidence that Ambassador Peter Galbralth may have engaged in activities that could be characterized as unlawful covert action. The evidence is sufficient to warrant referral to the House Permanent Select Committee on intelligence for further investigation and action within its jurisdiction. There is evidence that Ambassador Galbraith played a significant supervisory role with respect to at least one Iranian weapons transshipments through Croatia. Galbraith's goal in facilitating this transshipment was to affect political and military conditions in Bosnia. There is also evidence that he had input into or advance knowledge of the planning and operation of the Iranian weapons pipeline that Iran used to ship arms and gain influence in the embattled Balkans. There is incontroverted evidence that he was privy to operational details concerning the pipeline that would ordinarily be known only by active participants in the planning or operation of the pipeline. To the extent he actively participated in the formation and execution of the Iranian arms pipeline, there is a high probability that he overstepped the bounds of traditional diplomatic activities and engaged in an unlawful covert action undertaken in the absence of a Presidential finding and without timely notification of Congress. In light of these conclusions we are recommending to the House International Relations Committee that this Report and the results of this investigation be referred to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for further investigation end action within that Committee's jurisdiction. 10. The Central Intelligence Agency exercised sound Judgment in its refusal to participate in activities that might have otherwise led to an inadvertent and illegal covert action. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) did not participate in the development of the green light policy. CIA officers at several levels correctly refused to participate in its implementation without assurances that it was being conducted within the parameters of legal support to diplomatic activities or a presidential finding. Because CIA officials rightly insisted on proper legal authorization for the change in US policy to the green light policy (and, if required, a notification of Congress)t the Administration side-stepped the CIA and did not keep it adequately informed. It is also our finding that CIA officers acted appropriately in monitoring and reporting to their superiors what were, to them, apparently rogue activities by senior US State Department officials. Moreover, senior CIA officials properly reported this information to the appropriate authorities in the Department of State and the National Security Council for their action, CIA was put in this awkward situation solely becauseof the unnecessary and unjustifiable secrecy within the Administration concerning its green light policy. 11. The Administration is hiding its embarrassment behind the veil of classified Information. Despite the President's assurance to Congress that his Administration could "cooperate fully" in its examination of the Iranian green light policy, the Administration has repeatedly placed serious, unnecessary obstacles in the Select Subcommittee's way, including the withholding of documents and the refusal to allow some officials to sit for sworn depositions. In addition to its efforts to hamper the investigation, the Administration is also abusing its authority to classify information so as to avoid letting the Subcommittee share with the American public what it has learned. In July the Subcommittee tested the Administration's commitment to cooperate by asking the Department of State to review three documents for declassification that are essential to telling the story of how the green light policy was mutually implemented, as opposed to how it has been publicly portrayed by the Administration. After over onemonth of deliberation and several missed deadlines, the Department finally responded by refusing to declassify any part of two of the documents and declassifying only approximately a half of the third document. This was despite the fact that a substantial portion of these documents pertained to events that have been testified about publicly (with "spin") by several Administration officials. What most clearly demonstrated the Administration's efforts to hide its actions behind the shroud of classification is that several sentences and phrases were redacted from the third document that were clearly unclassified but which would have embarrassed the Administration. This includes, for example, a senior State Department official's negative characterization of the policy-making community in Washington. Follow-up discussions with the State Department did not result in a reconsideration of their obviously improper action. Accordingly, at the request of Chairman Hyde, the Information Security Oversight Office has launched an investigation of the Department's behavior in this case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RevCOAL Subject: Re: essay contest winner (fwd) Date: 15 Oct 1996 21:18:01 -0400 (EDT) On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, Liberty or Death wrote: > >> >> Good government. Good government. Sit. Stay. > >> > >> ... stay away from the fire hydrant, > >> and those luggage racks over there. > > > >Yeah, did the essay explain how to housebreak Government, and get it to > >stop jumping up on me and humping my leg? Rapping it on the nose with a > >newspaper doesn't work anymore... > > Use a rolled up copy of the Constitution. Unfortunately, Government's been using the Constitution as a toilet (remember, Government isn't housebroken.....) Donna ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: essay contest winner (fwd) Date: 15 Oct 1996 21:26:41 -0500 At 09:18 AM 10/15/96 -0700, Liberty or Death wrote: > >>> >> Good government. Good government. Sit. Stay. >>Yeah, did the essay explain how to housebreak Government, and get it to >>stop jumping up on me and humping my leg? Rapping it on the nose with a >>newspaper doesn't work anymore... >Use a rolled up copy of the Constitution. Writen on the finest stainless steel cylindrical stock available, one would hope. Hint: hit it right between the eyes to get its attention first. Apply liberally to other parts of the anatomy of the beast as required. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Re: essay contest winner (fwd) Date: 16 Oct 1996 00:28:46 -0400 Next time you roll up the constitution, put a 1/2" length of re-bar in it. Works every time.;-p (them government dogs are tough) V. Lum Tsuma@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Early warning? Date: 16 Oct 1996 09:21:34 -0400 (EDT) First warning I had (which I didn't immediately catch) of the approach of the Brady and Feinstein-Schumer bills was an increase in TV entertainment and news focus on "the gun problem." I've seen three TV movies lately where Beautiful Yuppie Lives have been shattered by Gun Violence. My subjective impression is that another campaign may be starting. FWIW. bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Early warning? Date: 16 Oct 1996 08:42:21 -0600 Brad Dolan wrote: > > First warning I had (which I didn't immediately catch) of the > approach of the Brady and Feinstein-Schumer bills was an increase in TV > entertainment and news focus on "the gun problem." > > I've seen three TV movies lately where Beautiful Yuppie Lives have been > shattered by Gun Violence. > > My subjective impression is that another campaign may be starting. > > FWIW. I've noticed the same thing. If the D's get the house back you can go to the bank on it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Early warning? Date: 16 Oct 1996 06:46:46 -0700 (MST) Feinstein and Boxer: what a pair! Can we change the Subject line to read: "late warning"? /s/ Paul Mitchell At 09:21 AM 10/16/96 -0400, you wrote: >First warning I had (which I didn't immediately catch) of the >approach of the Brady and Feinstein-Schumer bills was an increase in TV >entertainment and news focus on "the gun problem." > >I've seen three TV movies lately where Beautiful Yuppie Lives have been >shattered by Gun Violence. > >My subjective impression is that another campaign may be starting. > >FWIW. > >bd > > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Early warning? Date: 16 Oct 1996 08:11:58 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Howlin' Blue wrote: > Brad Dolan wrote: > > > > First warning I had (which I didn't immediately catch) of the > > approach of the Brady and Feinstein-Schumer bills was an increase in TV > > entertainment and news focus on "the gun problem." > > > > I've seen three TV movies lately where Beautiful Yuppie Lives have been > > shattered by Gun Violence. > > > > My subjective impression is that another campaign may be starting. > > > > FWIW. > > I've noticed the same thing. If the D's get the house back you can go > to the bank on it. Point noted. However, it raises another point. If you guys have time to watch "yuppie" TV shows, you have too much time. Back on your heads. :-) ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Too good to miss Date: 16 Oct 1996 08:38:36 -0700 Forwarded from elsewhere... >> Flash! Flash! Flash! >> >> >From the Arkansas Democratic Gazzette, July 25, 1996 >> >> Two Local Men Injured in Freak Truck Accident Cotton Patch, Ark. >> >> Two local men were seriously injured when their pick-up truck left the >> road and struck a tree near Cotton Patch on State Highway 38 early Monday >> morning. Woodruff County deputy Dovey Snyder reported the accident shortly >> after midnight Monday. >> >> Thurston Poole, 33, of Des Arc and Billy Wallis , 38, of Little Rock are >> listed in serious condition at Baptist Medical Center. >> >> The accident occurred as the two men were returning to Des Arc after a >> frog gigging trip. On an overcast Sunday night, Poole's pick-up truck >> headlights malfunctioned. The two men concluded that the headlight fuse >> on the older model truck had burned out. As a replacement fuse was not >> available, Wallis noticed that the 22 caliber bullet from his pistol fit >> perfectly into the fuse box next to the steering wheel column. Upon >> inserting the bullet, the headlights again began to operate properly and >> the two men proceeded on east- bound toward the White River bridge. >> >> After traveling approximately twenty miles and just before crossing the >> river, the bullet apparently overheated, discharged and struck Poole in >> the >> right testicle. The vehicle swerved sharply to the right exiting the >> pavement and striking a tree. Poole suffered only minor cuts and >> abrasions >> from the accident, but will require surgery to repair the other wound. >> Wallis sustained a broken clavicle and was treated and released. >> >> "Thank God we weren't on that bridge when Thurston shot his nuts off or we >> might both be dead" stated Wallis. "I've been a trooper for ten years in >> this part of the world, but this is a first for me. I can't believe that >> those two would admit how this accident happened", said Snyder. >> >> Upon being notified of the wreck, Lavinia, Poole's wife asked how many >> frogs the boys had caught and did anyone get them from the truck. >> >> ********************************************** >> >> Warning labels on fuses and registration of same could have prevented this >> tragedy! Don't be the next victim of shade-tree mechanical malfeasance! >> Act now! Join: >> >> People for the Ethical Treatment of Reproductive Organs (PETRO) and Fuse >> Control, Inc. (F.C.I.). >> >> Do it today, so you can still "do it" tomorrow! >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Sarah - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Early warning? Date: 16 Oct 1996 12:13:08 -0400 (EDT) On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Harry Barnett wrote: > On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Howlin' Blue wrote: > > > Brad Dolan wrote: > > Point noted. However, it raises another point. > > If you guys have time to watch "yuppie" TV shows, you have too much time. > I make time to sample what my kids are watching. Usually while doing something else as well. bd > Back on your heads. :-) > > ----- > Harry Barnett > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: They come in the night. Date: 16 Oct 1996 14:05:28 -0400 >From: StarkMIL@aol.com >Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 08:59:20 -0400 >To: fedup@en.com, eplurib@megalinx.net, pandar@megalinx.net, Pandar@aol.com, > Eplurib@aol.com, Thplummer@aol.com, rhuffman@freenet.columbus.oh.us, > DavidRMil@aol.com, stubi@bright.net, KS4HE@aol.com, pennpals@en.com, > foolery@bright.net, wayneh@valunet.com, militia@megalinx.net >Subject: They come in the night. > >I have heard that several jack-booted thugs (agency unknown) came to Al >Kroger's (Cuyahoga County) residence and carted him and his 2nd. ammendment >neccessities away without a warrant. His wife was told a warrant would be >created after his booking. I assume he can be found in the Cuyahoga County >Justice (sic) Center. He has refused jurisdiction and is possibly booked as >John Doe. Is this true? Can anyone provide more info? > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: They come in the night. Date: 16 Oct 1996 11:49:15 -0700 (MST) >>I have heard that several jack-booted thugs (agency unknown) came to Al >>Kroger's (Cuyahoga County) residence and carted him and his 2nd. amendment >>neccessities away without a warrant. His wife was told a warrant would be >>created after his booking. Objection! I assume he can be found in the Cuyahoga County >>Justice (sic) Center. Call the Governor's office immediately, if you suspect that he is being held in a State institution. He has refused jurisdiction and is possibly booked as >>John Doe. Is this true? Can anyone provide more info? Even if the feds are operating in admiralty, the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims require a verified complaint, and a warrant signed either by a judge or clerk of federal court, before such a search/seizure/arrest can be perfected. Lacking this warrant, the search, seizure and/or arrest are all unlawful. See the Bill of Rights. If the feds are not operating in admiralty, you only need to cite the Fourth Amendment for authority that a warrant is required. You might consider a Habeas Corpus action in the appropriate court, probably state Superior Court. See also 18 U.S.C. 242: deprivation of fundamental Rights under color of law is a federal felony. /s/ Paul Mitchell =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: polls Date: 16 Oct 1996 16:04:09 -0600 Latest CNN/Gallop shows clinton with a nine point lead, 48/39. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo Subject: Re: essay contest winner (fwd) Date: 16 Oct 1996 14:02:15 -0700 (PDT) At 09:44 PM 10/14/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 10:14 PM 10/14/96 -0400, you wrote: >> >> >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>> This posting announces the conclusion of the first annual >>> essay contest sponsored by the G. M. Harding Institute for Civic >>> Responsibility. This year's topic: Good Government. And the win- >>> ning entry was: >>> >>> Good government. Good government. Sit. Stay. > > >... stay away from the fire hydrant, >and those luggage racks over there. > > Add: Keep a clean nose, and watch the plainclothes; You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. (Thanx to R. Zimmerman) :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: polls Date: 16 Oct 1996 14:29:05 PDT roc@xmission.com wrote : >Latest CNN/Gallop shows clinton with a nine point lead, 48/39. > > > One of the posts in the last day had CNN (Clinton News Network) Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave_l@Mainstream.net Subject: Re: polls Date: 16 Oct 1996 20:18:42 +0000 > Latest CNN/Gallop shows clinton with a nine point lead, 48/39. Wasn't it a 10 point lead a few days ago? Dave 8{) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Joint Forces Blueprint (FWD) Date: 16 Oct 1996 23:55:49 -0500 The following has serious implications for proposed U.S. military involvement in domestic drug interdiction. A list member recently stated that the Posse Comitatus Act pertained only to a particular service, but not to the others. The next question that must be asked, then, is whether it imposes limits on a Defense entity consisting of all branches of military service. BTW, Dole's proposal to escalate the War on Drugs gives new meaning to the term "Joint Forces." <;^) Yours in the Struggle, Bob _______________________________________________________________ | Robert S. Linzell linzellr@datastar.net | | Disclaimer: The content of the preceding message reflects | | my opinion only, unless otherwise indicated. | | "Live" from South Mississippi State Motto: Virtute et Armis | |_______________________________________________________________| > >CHAIRMAN UNVEILS BLUEPRINT FOR JOINT FORCES IN 2010 >by Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service >WASHINGTON - American military planners now have a joint forces road map to >follow. > Spokesmen for Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint >Chiefs of Staff, unveiled Joint Vision 2010 at the Pentagon in August. The >chairman's vision will serve as the template for the services in building >jointness in the military. > Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, vice chairman, called the vision >statement a capstone document. "This is where the joint world wants to be >in 2010," he said. "This is the yardstick by which the services will be >measured." > Ralston said the chairman and other military leaders will look to >the vision when making decisions at the Joint Requirements Oversight >Council and when preparing joint warfighting capability assessments. >Officials will use the vision when preparing the Chairman's Program >Assessment. > At the heart of the vision is military dominance through new >operational concepts married with technological innovations, officials >said. The vision centers around four operational concepts: dominant >maneuver, precision engagement, full-dimensional protection and focused >logistics. > Dominant maneuver means the ability to position and coordinate >widely dispersed land, air, sea and space forces. "We won't have to mass >forces in one place like we have in the past," said Air Force Maj. Gen. >Joseph Redden, commander of the Joint Warfighting Center at Fort Monroe, >Va. > Redden said U.S. forces must be able to outmaneuver and outpace any >potential adversary. "Getting a clear picture of the battlefield is >crucial to this," he said. "For those of us old enough to remember Vietnam >we probably could discern 35 to 40 percent of the battlefield. In the >Persian Gulf, the number went up to about 65 to 70 percent. We foresee >this rising to 90 to 95 percent by 2010." > Precision engagement is intelligence, communications, attack and >assessment capabilities rolled into one system. Precision engagement will >allow U.S. forces to acquire targets, communicate their locations in >near-real time, assess what weapon systems would be the best to use and >then allow planners to assess the results. > Full-dimension protection means protecting American service members >from the same technologies the United States wishes to employ. The concept >will result in protection from the individual through the theater. U.S. >planners will look to take away ballistic missile capabilities from >potential adversaries, and again, information superiority is key to the >success of this concept. > Finally, focused logistics will allow U.S. military forces to be >more mobile and versatile. U.S. forces are primarily stateside now, said >Pentagon officials. Delivering U.S. forces to distant battlefields and >keeping them supplied will require a fusion of information, logistics and >transportation technologies. Planners should be able to tailor logistics >packages for specific levels of operations, officials said. Focused >logistics will mean smaller, more capable deployed forces and less >logistics presence than in the past. > All of these will require leadership schooled in joint doctrine. >"I don't think this will be a problem in 2010," Redden said. "When we were >writing this report, officers at the O-4 and O-5 level said by 2010 those in >charge will be used to thinking jointly. Those officers were introduced to >joint thinking earlier in their careers than my generation was. They have >some knowledge of the capabilities and characteristics of the other services >almost from the time they come in. This generation is prepared for >something like Joint Vision 2010." `[1;31;43mNet-Tamer V 1.06X - Registered ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Early warning? Date: 17 Oct 1996 00:51:16 -0500 At 08:42 AM 10/16/96 -0600, El Lobo azul wrote: > > >I've noticed the same thing. If the D's get the house back you can go >to the bank on it. > Speaking of which, what are the modern day sooth-sayers (pollesters) saying about the future makeup of the house and Senate. Any good sources on the net for this kind of info? All one every sees is the Presidential race, and that rarely broken down to show how it's going for the electoral college, or perhaps the odd race in one's own state or local election. If the race is realy close, as oposed to the 9++ % that recent polls show, regional splits could count for a lot. After all if C is winning NY by 99.99%, it can be completely over come if D is winning California and Texas by 50.00001% even though such a scenario would show C ahead in the popular vote. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Black Birds In Our Skies (fwd) Date: 16 Oct 1996 22:38:00 PST >From another list. On Oct 16, Gene Gross -- Personal Account wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi All, The following article comes from the most recent issue of American Survival Guide (December 1996). I first reported this information about a year ago now on other lists. No one seemed to be concerned about it then, but folks better get concerned now!! Ciao, Gene ========================================= Black Birds In Our Skies Details on the new BATF Air Force by Jim Shults Last year we learned from the press that the BATF purchased 22 OV-10 Bronco aircraft from military surplus. The first thing that flashed through many people's minds is that the planes might be armed and used as attack aircraft against U.S. citizens. For example, if another Waco were to occur, the ATF could then attack with its own "air assault" firepower. Could this really happen? Yup, you bet. In the late 1950s the Marines were after some type of aircraft which could carry out reconnaissance and also double as support for ground troops. The Army was also looking for just such an aircraft, and when the Army looks, budgets get bent; the Marines could ride this coat tail big time. In short time the Air Force would join this band wagon. In 1965 the first prototypes of the OV-10 were in the air, obviously this is not a new aircraft. However, its capabilities are far beyond what any law enforcement arm in this country has. This aircraft is a very advanced platform. Sure, on the modern battlefield it is now obsolete. The type of firepower available from machine guns, missile systems and other much faster planes and even attack choppers and improved reconnaissance systems eliminates the need for this type of aircraft in our military inventory. But for police use, wow, it is state of the art! For military use this aircraft was cheap on a cost per unit basis, easy to maintain, easy to fly, carries significant armament and could operate off of forward runways which could not support jets, besides, jets could not perform the type of duties the OV-10 could. Let's talk about capabilities of this twin turbo prop two passenger aricraft. First it has a ceiling of 30,000 feet with a level (not dive) flying speed of 290 miles per hour. It can fly 1,400 miles with standard fuel tanks. Weighing in at 6,9000 pounds empty, it has a 44-foot wing span and a 44-foot length with a height of 15 feet. It ain't no Piper Cub! It can carry nearly 8,000 pounds of fuel, weapons and gear. In its military configuration the centerline of the aircraft can carry an external 250 gallon fuel tank or up to 1,000 pounds of bombs. Hard points on the wings can carry up to 500 pounds of bombs or other ordnance. Additionally it regularly can carry four 7.62mm (.308 cal.) M-60 machineguns and has been tested with 20mm cannons. The OV-10 can carry several 2.75-inch rocket pods (seven rockets per pod), and pods which hold four 5-inch diameter Zuni rockets (these have the impact power of a 5-inch round fired from a Navy destroyer). It even can carry air-to-air Sidewinder guided missiles. It can drop ground movement sensors and parachute high illumination flares. The machine guns are built into two sponsons on each side of the fuselage and these may be carried regardless of other ordnance. Each gun has 500 rounds. Essentially, this aircraft can carry any ordnance the U.S. military has up to 1,000 pounds. Under the nose of the Bronco hangs a ball which houses a forward looking infrared laser [FLIL] (invisible to unaided eyes). Defensive gear includes chaff/flare dispensers in the tail booms, an ALQ 144 infrared multi-mirror strobe unit to confuse ground-to-air infrared missiles, engine exhaust stacks to spread and cool exhaust heat to defeat infrared missile lock on. For law enforcement use we could expect the addition of armored aluminum ceramic and kevlar reinforced seats and floor pads to protect from small caliber (under 20mm) ground fire. Both seats for the crew are fitted with ejection seats. One unique capability of this neat aircraft is that the rear of it opens up exposing a 110-cubic-foot cargo area in the fuselage behind the copilot. This cargo area can carry up to 3,500 pounds of "stuff." Cargo could be anything that fits and weighs within the limits to include, special armaments packages and special communication gear. The rear end can carry two litter patients and a doctor, five paratroopers, or six infantry soldiers. It may be rigged to carry mini-guns (up to 20mm caliber) on a turret, tested but never employed. People or organizations who think that burying rifles and gear in the woods or remote areas should quickly realize that these types of items stick out like blood on snow to a properly equipped aircraft. If people think that burial of a stash of stuff 10 feet deep will protect them from detection, they should realize that the magnetic field is detectable for 100 or more feet deep depending on the detection gear. I see initial use being night flights of the flat black painted BATF aircraft taking place over areas which are rated as potential high priority targets based upon information gathered through normal intelligence circles. Therefore, it is a perfectly logical extension to expect that a "law enforcement attack" by the BATF on a fortified location inside the borders of the United States with OV-10s is highly probable. The ordnance they might use would be the four m-60 machineguns coupled with the potential of 2.75-inch rockets (I doubt the use of the 5-inch rockets and iron bombs). They certainly could use parachute flares, air dropped surveillance devices and the dropping of large "industrial strength" CS and CN gas canisters plus other high technological non-fatal "control" ordnance (most classified at this time). The use of the planes to bring in "troops" would be slim. This is not a major battlefield, there would be plenty of ground "troops" ringing the target as a safe distance. I belong to no groups, nor am I up to any "mischief." But I worry about this more from a constitutional basis. I worry about the power of government and its employees 5, 10 and 20 years down the road. I worry about how law enforcement is getting access to military training and military gear. I worry about the blurring of the line between the military and law enforcement, at the encouragement of some people in our government. I worry because once it starts, there is almost no stopping it, and it started in earnest several years ago. This progression of created and manipulated implied "threat" to the "government," subsequent laws and resulting enforcement activities is exactly what has happened in converting other countries to totalitarian states in the past. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Early warning? Date: 17 Oct 1996 03:48:15 -0600 Joe Sylvester wrote: > > At 08:42 AM 10/16/96 -0600, El Lobo azul wrote: > > > > > >I've noticed the same thing. If the D's get the house back you can go > >to the bank on it. > > > Speaking of which, what are the modern day sooth-sayers (pollesters) saying > about the future makeup of the house and Senate. Any good sources on the net > for this kind of info? www.politicsnow.com is the best one. Soothies are saying house is a tossup and R's keep the senate. No one seems to expect Clinton to have much in the way of coattails. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: UK Banns Private Handgun Ownership (fwd) Date: 17 Oct 1996 07:21:57 -0500 (CDT) This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBBC02.90156BA0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I didn't see any discussion of this on the list but it's being heavily covered on our local news. The English Home Secretary has announced that private ownership of centre fire handgun will be banned. The remaining .22 rimfire handguns must be kept at a gun club under stringent security. There will be no handguns allowed in private homes! This is a result of the inquiry into the Dunblane, Scotland school killings. It should be noted that the recommendations of the inquiry were only for the central repository storage conditions - it DID NOT recommend the total banning of centrefire handguns. I can imagine what our Australian politicians are going to do with this move. Our handguns will be the next to go. I was expecting such a move after the Sydney Olympics but it may now come sooner. I thought the list membership should be aware of this move. Discussion at our local pistol club meeting last night revolved around our new gun laws (Australia wide). We appear to have no recourse whatsoever. The frightening thing is that the government and media have managed to successfully isolate gun owners from the general population so there is no support for us. I add this point as a warning. From what I read on the list, the signs of it happening in the US are there. There can be no democracy if the voting public do NOT know the facts about an issue. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBBC02.90156BA0 Content-Type: APPLICATION/MS-TNEF Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: eJ8+Ii8WAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQmAAQAhAAAAQ0JBODI4QjY3NDIyRDAxMTg0QUQwMEEwMjRDRjQ4 NUEAGAcBBYADAA4AAADMBwoAEQAIAAkAKgAEAC0BASCAAwAOAAAAzAcKABEACAAJACoABAAtAQEE kAYAcAEAAAEAAAANAAAAAwAAMAAAAAALAA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAVwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1u AN0BD1QCAAAAACd0ZXhhcy1ndW4tb3duZXJzQHppbGtlci5uZXQnAFNNVFAAdGV4YXMtZ3VuLW93 bmVyc0B6aWxrZXIubmV0AAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAHAAAAHRleGFzLWd1 bi1vd25lcnNAemlsa2VyLm5ldAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAwAVDAEAAAACAQswAQAAACEAAABT TVRQOlRFWEFTLUdVTi1PV05FUlNAWklMS0VSLk5FVAAAAAAeAAEwAQAAAB4AAAAndGV4YXMtZ3Vu LW93bmVyc0B6aWxrZXIubmV0JwAAAB4AIDoBAAAAHgAAACd0ZXhhcy1ndW4tb3duZXJzQHppbGtl ci5uZXQnAAAACwBAOgEAIGwDAP4PBgAAAAMAADkAAAAA9k4BDYAEAAIAAAACAAIAAQSAAQAjAAAA VUsgQmFubnMgUHJpdmF0ZSBIYW5kZ3VuIE93bmVyc2hpcABxDAEDkAYATAcAABoAAAALACMAAAAA AAsAKQABAAAAAwAmAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAAMALgAAAAAAAwAGEBTUSJUDAAcQSQQAAB4ACBABAAAA ZQAAAElESUROVFNFRUFOWURJU0NVU1NJT05PRlRISVNPTlRIRUxJU1RCVVRJVFNCRUlOR0hFQVZJ TFlDT1ZFUkVET05PVVJMT0NBTE5FV1NUSEVFTkdMSVNISE9NRVNFQ1JFVEFSWUgAAAAAAwAQEAAA AAADABEQAQAAAAIBCRABAAAAeQQAAHUEAACFBgAATFpGdSxn6Pb/AAoBDwIVAqQD5AXrAoMAUBMD VAIAY2gKwHNldO4yBgAGwwKDMgPGBxMCgxIzEw9mNBEncHJxdxIgB20CgH0KgAjPCdk78RgvMjU1 AoAKgQ2xC2DgbmcxMDMUIAsKFVE7C/AVUGMAQAMwAZEgScAgZGlkbicFQBHwtGUgAHB5HXEE8HUE EAJpAiAgb2YgdGjfBAAfEAOgH1AeEGwEAAVARGJ1BUBpdCcEIGKSZQuAZyAf4GF2AxD7HlAFoHYE kAmAH5IIYSAAJG9jB0AgbgfQcy42IBYwH+FFGzAgEWgg/kgDcB4QBmAFABIACsAeUJcRwAQgAHBu CGBuYyIhzR9QYQVAFfBpdiZAHhDcb3cjIBHgH2BwHxIl4GMCMBgwIGZpKAERwG7UZGclwCAD8GwD ICDw/yBQJYEJgCNlGDAAwAuAIRJsLjISIAUQbSg6BCBtZx6wIEEeEGtlBTEmQWH6ICjCYwpAHUAl wASBHeA/J/AhESfRHeEeoAUQdHl/I2QoASkGJaArqAdAF8B3lyIhC4AmZ2gkYXMhI3KPH3EfcS1A GDBzdWwFQOcfIx4QC4BxdShAHlALgHZ0MJAf0kQlwAJgAHBl9iwGAAWgdBsRIjAE8DJw3wbwLLAp ESERI1FJHdEycP8zwCIwMFMmwCYFH9IYMAWg/m0HgCigJkAe4R+BNBwxgP8oAQIgIaECEAXAH9In wyLx+RgwcG8AkDUQJREgMAWwvmEuoCHBKKAgoDozLSCRyTVwSUQHsE9UOXgfw381EAGQKTElgSES J5cray7/CoYdJCLgA6AHcD4AC4Av4fsmMiKCQSxRPNEHMDHRBvCdPoFjRZElYSgBZ28hEv01EWQw kAPwH1AfRARgIfB9I2FPIpErtykGH9IjIHjfOSEwkEbQI2EdYHclUUpA/nAFkDogISEzsBGwLTFI Mr8eIAGALiEf0gawHaBlHlDyTyGgbXBGICDRIHMsML5hHlAloAfgOaEeEHM24M8nEUrTH1AIYGdo OSQgE+8HgAbQJyU3+GFLIDuSHzX9SDVEHohEtSLEThA9wQMg/y2jB4ASACESC2AgMQMAUJL9GDB2 BvAh8CIwCsAlsSIxnyKRIyEtUwtgI0AgKEUnqyjxDbApI2FXHhFwS4D/CsE1ERHATJEwgTmCCHAR 8P9Eg0+gV4BP4yOSA1BXIgnwf0bzH2AhIR9xOPdG0CHxbv850SzxNoEHgB2ALUBbgwOBvz4BJgEw kEwBJeAEEGYzwP8hoQQABvAmsijCJvRdkQNwz180CfAEkFVSb3AzwDoT/0+RH8IoAR9xMIEzsFrw F9HnPAMesErTYWQmAh9xPTC/NPEeIDNSUsEqoiNhRmPi/0STHWAYMGewH5o2AB/SAJD+ZzpUPxER wFrxKqMxwR/S/lUF8EaSZcMvd0PSMFQNsP8EYAUAANA00TQUV5BLs2UAbwJgRiBHUj+Ca08SH9Jm /wDQXMAeIAbgIHFD4gQQClAXQuZzvBdRAHVAAAAAHgBwAAEAAAAjAAAAVUsgQmFubnMgUHJpdmF0 ZSBIYW5kZ3VuIE93bmVyc2hpcAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbu7rrl2Ersi0CfxEdCElADAT9bvtgAA QAA5ADYvK7uuu7sBAwDxPwkEAAAeAB4MAQAAAAMAAABFWAAAHgAfDAEAAAA5AAAAL089QVVTVFJB TElBTiBBUkNISVZFUy9PVT1BUkNISVZFUy9DTj1SRUNJUElFTlRTL0NOPUJPQkIAAAAAAgH5PwEA AABVAAAAAAAAANynQMjAQhAatLkIACsv4YIBAAAAAAAAAC9PPUFVU1RSQUxJQU4gQVJDSElWRVMv T1U9QVJDSElWRVMvQ049UkVDSVBJRU5UUy9DTj1CT0JCAAAAAB4A+D8BAAAADAAAAEJvYiBCcmF0 dG9uAAIB+z8BAAAAVQAAAAAAAADcp0DIwEIQGrS5CAArL+GCAQAAAAAAAAAvTz1BVVNUUkFMSUFO IEFSQ0hJVkVTL09VPUFSQ0hJVkVTL0NOPVJFQ0lQSUVOVFMvQ049Qk9CQgAAAAAeAPo/AQAAAAwA AABCb2IgQnJhdHRvbgBAAAcwNi8ru667uwFAAAgwrN87u667uwEDAA00/T8AAAIBFDQBAAAAEAAA AFSUocApfxAbpYcIACsqJRceAD0AAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAPRE= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBBC02.90156BA0-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) Supreme Court allows Warrantless RoadBlocks!!! Date: 17 Oct 1996 08:35:06 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FYI, clipped from Reuters and making the rounds. Actually, this is an area where the interests of fed, state and local LE converge. They all have occasions where they see they need this sort of focused control. But the bottom line is always the bottom line. This capacity to stop, search and seize, combined with the forfeiture rules in place, combined with the difficulties ordinary citizens have in fighting LE charges in court, all come together to result in the practice described below being little more than modern highway robbery where ever it is practiced. This practice is being sold to LE at all levels as a source of revenue that communities can be proud of. Furthermore, it is well funded at the federal level under the "click it or ticket" program that gets the traveling public used to the idea as if it were like a highway roadside clean up effort or a Interstate wildflower beautification extravaganza. Fran ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court Monday (10-7-96) let stand a precedent-setting ruling that states may establish roadblocks for the chief purpose of intercepting illegal drugs. [...] The case arose out of roadblocks Florida law enforcement officials set up on four state highways near the Georgia border in January 1984. [...] About 2,100 vehicles passed through the roadblocks, of which approximately 1,300 were stopped. In all, one person was arrested for the possession of illegal drugs while 61 traffic-related citations were also issued. [...] A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit and a U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta agreed. It said the chief purpose of the operation was to intercept drugs, but ruled the state does have the power to conduct roadblocks to check drivers' licenses and vehicle registrations. [...] The attorneys for the motorists urged the Supreme Court to hear the case, saying law enforcement officials around the country were likely to adopt similar temporary, unannounced roadblocks for drugs. But the high court sided with the state of Florida, denying the appeal without any comment or dissent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: (fwd) Supreme Court allows Warrantless RoadBlocks!!! Date: 17 Oct 1996 10:34:00 -0400 Excellent post. "Papers, Citizen." The Feds are also very much in favor of a National Identity Card. Only form I've ever filled out in my life asking my race was either an ATF form, a Census questionaire, or a private corp. form (voluntary) for Federal compliance. All Fed related. Its creeping, its here. The rate of change is pretty astounding. In 20 years time, we'll be indistinquishable from the "soft" Communist regimes of Eastern Europe. Cradle-to-grave socialism, no free press, no civil rights, no private ownership of weapons. Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Yugoslavia weren't so bad, were they? Hunters who joined the right clubs and kept very limited amounts of ammo for approved and carefully liscenced rifles got to keep their sport, right? The quality of the non-political journalism was pretty high, wasn't it? Nobody really missed the political stuff anyway. Not so many people were tortured and imprisoned, were they? Hey, those guys didn't have computers to speak of, we'd do a much better, less obtrusive job of tracking the citizens, wouldn't we? The Czechs and the Slavs still got to vote, didn't they? Our academics pretty much tow the party line already, don't they? You don't figure that the IRS is above the law or has anything in common with Commiepest bureauocracies, do you? Hey, how about those Hungarians standing up to those tanks, huh? Pretty heroic. I hear that they were euphoric for a couple of days there. Oh, you don't remember Hungary? Well, never mind. It Can't Happen Here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) L.D. Brown, Clinton, the CIA and cocaine (fwd) Date: 17 Oct 1996 13:03:52 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Excerpt from: PARTNERS IN POWER by Roger Morris pg. 404-411 Early in 1984, a twenty-nine-year-old Arkansas trooper named Larry Douglass Brown was eagerly applying for work with the Central Intelligence Agency. As he told the story with impressive substantiation from other accounts a decade afterward, Brown had been privy to some of the Clintons' most personal liaisons, their biting relationship with each other, their behind-the-doors bigotry toward "redneck" Arkansas, and other intimacies; he and a stoic Hillary had even talked earnestly about problems in their respective marriages. At one point in the early 1980s, Brown had come in contact with Vice President Bush during an official gathering. Th e"rather conservative' young officer, as one friend described him, had been impressed by Bush. Afterward Clinton has twitted him about his Republican "hero," though the two remained close. Regarded as among the better state police officers, Brown received some of the most sophisticated training that national law enforcement agencies offer regional police officers, including advanced courses provided by the DEA and Customs in intelligence gathering, drug importation, and conspiracy cases. Because of Brown's extensive training, Clinton handpicked him to serve of a state committee studying the drug epidemic to help develop educational programs in Arkansas, and Brown wrote several of the panel's position papers later cited as evidence of the state government's fight against narcotics. By Brown's repeated accounts, including hundreds of pages of testimony under oath and supporting documentation, the sum of the story was stark: The governor had clearly been aware of the crimes of Mena as early as 1984. He knew the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible, knew that there was major arms and drug running out of western Arkansas, believed the smuggling involved not only Barry Seal but also a cocaine dealer who was one of Clinton's most prominent backers, and seemed to know that approval of the Mena flights reached as high as Vice President Bush. Brown remembered how Bill Clinton had encouraged him to join in the operation -- "Clinton got me into this, the governor did," he would testify -- and how Clinton had then dismissed his repugnance at the evidence that Seal was trafficking cocaine under CIA auspices. The state policeman watched in "despair," his brother recalled, while the governor did nothing about the drug smuggling. Brown would still think a decade later that Bill Clinton "was surprised only in that I had found out about it." Clinton had urged him to answer a newspaper ad for CIA employment that ran in the NEW YORK TIMES on April Fool's Day, 1984. "L.D., I've always told you you'd make a good spy," Clinton remarked to him when Brown showed him the paper and asked "if this is for real?" "Well, you know that's not his name," Clinton said of a personnel officer listed in the ad, "but you need to write him a letter." Brown did just that two days later. "Governor Clinton has been an inspiration for me to further my career in government service," he wrote, " and in particular to explore the possibilities of employment with your agency." Clinton proceeded to show an avid interest in Brown's application. He urged Brown to study Russian for an intelligence career, and Brown characteristically took the advice to heart, practicing the foreign script in a copybook and artlessly, proudly informing the CIA of his "understanding the Cyrillic alphabet." He and Clinton talked, too, of the role of an operations officer, with Clinton explaining the CIA's diplomatic cover abroad and the recruitment of informers. "It was strange, you know. He was into the fiction aspect of it and intrigue," Brown remembered. At one point Clinton told him he would personally call the CIA on his behalf. "He, obviously, from all our conversations, knew somebody," Brown recounted in a sworn deposition. "I don't know who he called, but he said he would. He said he did. I made a note one day that he made a phone call for me." But in a private conversation Brown would go even further with the story of the call. Clinton, he said, had not bothered to go through any officeholder's liaison or other formal CIA channel in Washington but had simply telephoned someone directly at the agency, someone whom he knew on a first-name basis and with whom he talked for some time. As usual, Brown was impressed with his boss's knowledge and contacts. Early in the process the governor had begun to greet him whenever they met with a grinning question they both understood to refer to Brown's relationship with the CIA. "You having any fun yet?" Clinton would ask. By the end of the summer of 1984 -- four months after taking and passing a CIA entrance examination -- Brown had met with a CIA recruiter in Dallas, someone named Magruder, an "Ivy League looking guy" who spoke "admiringly of Clinton," and whom Brown would later recognize in photographs and identify to congressional investigators in 1996 as a onetime member of Vice President Bush's staff. This was the man who asked him if he would be interested in "paramilitary" or "narcotics" work as well as "security." Brown said he wanted to be considered for such assignment and, in the course of the interview, duly signed a secrecy agreement. Somebody, he was told, would be giving him a call. On September 5 he received formal notification of his nomination for employment. Scarcely a month later the expected CIA call came to his unlisted number at home. As Brown testified, the caller "talked to me about everything I had been through in the meeting in Dallas, ... made me very aware that he knew everything there was to know." He asked Brown to meet him at Cajun's Wharf in Little Rock, a popular restaurant and bar off Cantrell Road in the Arkansas River bottoms just below the white heights. His name, he said, was Barry Seal. At their meeting, the corpulent Seal was memorable for the athletic young state trooper. "Big guy. He had one of those shirts that comes down ... outside your pants, big-guy kind of thing." Seal was cryptic but again seemed clearly to know details Brown had provided on his CIA application. "He knew about the essay and everything I had done, so absolutely there was no question in my mind," Brown testified. Seal also spoke vaguely about working for the CIA: "He'd been flying for the agency, that's all I knew." In comnversations over the next few weeks, Seal referred casually to Clinton as "the guv" and "acted like he knew the governor," Brown recalled. He invited Brown to join him in an "operation" planned to begin at Mena Intermountain Regional just before sunrise on Tuesday, October 23, 1984. Arranging his shifts at the mansion to make time for the flight, Brown met Seal at the Mena airport in the predawn darkness and was surprised to find them boarding not a small private craft but a "huge military plane" painted a dark charcoal with only minimum tail markings, its engines roaring with a "thunderous noise," he remembered. "Scared the shit out of me just taking off." Seal ordered him matter-of-factly to leave behind all personal identification, including his billfold, keys and jewelry. Along with Seal at the controls sat a copilot whose name Brown never learned, and in the back of the aircraft sat two men, "beaners" or "kickers" the trooper called them. Though he did not know it, Brown was aboard the FAT LADY, and his later account marked the flight as on of Mena's routine gun-and-drug runs. After a refueling stop in New Orleans and the flight to Central America, the C-123K dived below radar, then climbed and dipped again for the "kickers" to roll out on casters large tarp-covered palettes, which were swiftly parachuted over what Brown could see out the open cargo door was a tropical, mountainous terrain. Later Sal told Brown the loads were M-16s for the Contras. On the return they landed in Honduras, where Seal and the "kickers" picked up four dark green canvas duffel bags with shoulder straps, which Brown did not see again. Back at Mena Seal handed Brown a manilla envelope with $2,500 in small bills, presumably as payment for his time -- "used money just like you went out and spent," Brown recalled -- and said he would call him again about another "operation." As the ambitious young trooper testified later, he was diffident about this apparent audition with his CIA employers, reluctant to ask questions, even about the cash. "This guy (Seal) obviously knew what he was doing and had the blessing and was working for the agency and knew everything about me, so I wasn't going to be too inquisitive." At the mansion on Brown's next shift following the run to Central America, Clinton greeted him with the usual "You having any fun yet?" though now with a pat on the back. With a "big smile" Brown answered, "Yeah, but this is scary stuff," describing "a big airplane" which he thought "kind of crazy." But Bill Clinton seemed unsurprised and unquestioning, casual as always about what Brown told him about the CIA, Seal and Mena. "Oh, you can handle it," he said again. "Don't sweat it." Brown was startled at the governor's obvious prior knowledge of the flight. "He knew before I said anything. He knew," Brown testified. Asked later under oath if he believed the Seal flight had been sanctioned by the governor, Brown would be unequivocal. "Well, he knew what I was doing. He was the one that furthered me along and shepherded me through this thing." Did he have any doubt that Clinton approved of the flight from Mena to Central America:? "No," he testified. Did he believe the Seal run "a sanctioned and approved mission on behalf of the United States?" "Absolutely. I mean, there is no doubt." Not long afterward, in the later fall of 1984, Seal called the trooper as promised, again inquiring about Clinton: "he always asked me first thing, how is the guv?" They talked about the first flight and Seal, ruminating on his service for the CIA, confirmed that they had dropped a load of contraband M-16s for the Contras. "That's all he talked about was flying and (the) CIA and how much work he had done for them, and that's all he did. That's all we would talk about," Brown recalled. They met again, this time at a Chinese restaurant near the Capitol, and arranged for Brown to go on another trip in late December. On Christmas Eve, 1984, once more with the governor's encouragement, Brown again flew with Seal to Central America on what he still understood to be some kind of orientation mission for his CIA employment. Seal picked up two duffel bags on the return through Honduras, and just as before, back at Mean he offered Brown $2,500 in small bills. Yet this time Seal also brought one of the duffels to Brown's Datsun hatchback in the Intermountain Regional parking lot and proceeded to take out of it what the former narcotics investigator instantly recognize as a kilo of cocaine, a "waxene-wrapped package," as he called it, "a brick." Alarmed and incensed, brown quickly told Seal he "wanted no part of what was happening" and left, speeding back to Little Rock in mounting agitation, not least over the role of the state's chief executive. "I'm just going nuts in my mind with all the possibilities," he would say. "I'm thinking, well , this is, this is an official operation. Clinton got me into this, the governor did. It can't be as sinister as I think it is ... He knew about the airplane flights. He knew about it and initiated the conversation about it the first time I came back." Returning to the guardhouse, Brown first called his "best friend," his brother Dwayne in Pine Bluff, who remembered his being "terribly upset" and later went to the mansion to see him when the Clintons were away. According to the two men, Brown told his brother part of what he had encountered, though without mentioning the CIA involvement. "Who's pushing this. Who is behind it?" his brother asked at one point. In reply, as each recalled clearly, Brown "nodded over towards the governor's mansion." Brown decided to approach Clinton directly about what he has seen. When they were together soon after the second flight, a smiling Clinton seemed about to ask the usual question. But Brown was angry. He asked Clinton if he knew Barry Seal was smuggling narcotics. "Do you know what they're bringing back on that airplane?" He said to Clinton in fury. "Wait, whoa, whoa, what's going on?" the governor responded, and Brown answered, "well, essentially they're bringing back coke." More than a decade later, Brown would testify to his dismay at Clinton's response" "and it wasn't like it was a surprise to him. It wasn't like -- he didn't try to say, what? ... He was surprised that I was mad because he though we were going to have a cordial conversation, but he didn't try to deny it. He didn't try to deny it wasn't coming back, that I wasn't telling the truth or that he didn't know anything about it." In waving off Brown's questions about Mena, Clinton had made another remark as well, added as what seemed both justification and warning. "And your hero Bush knows about it," he told Brown. "And your buddy Bush knows about it." Brown was chilled. "I'm not going to have anything else to do with it ... I'm out of it," he told Clinton. "Stick a fork in me, I'm done," he added, an adolescent phrase from their shared Arkansas boyhood. The governor had tried to calm him: "Settle down. That's no problem." But Brown turned away, hurried to his car, and drove off, leaving behind his once-promising career. "I got out of there, and from then it was, you know, not good." The trooper immediately called the CIA to withdraw his application, albeit discreetly. "Just changed my mind," he recalled telling them. But he saw no recourse, no appeal to some higher level of government in a crimes in which both the governor of the state and Washington were knowledgeable and thus complicit. "I mean if the governor knows about it ... and I work for the governor," he remembered thinking, "exactly who would I have gone to and told? I mean, the federal government knows that this guy is doing this ... I don't know what authority I would have gone to." More than a year later, as they were having drinks in Jonesboro, Brown would tell the commandant of the state police, Colonel Tommy Goodwin, but even then he acted out of a desire to confess his unwitting involvement rather than out of any expectation that Arkansas would move on the crimes. All the while, he was bothered by the role of his onetime hero at the mansion. "Number one," he would testify later of Bill Clinton, "he didn't deny it. I wanted him to tell me, OH, GOOD GOSH, THAT'S TERRIBLE. WE'VE GOT TO REPORT THIS. And I wanted him to deny knowing anything about it or explain it away to me ... THEY'VE GOT A BIG STING PLANNED, AND THEY'RE TRYING, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE A CASE ON SUCH AND SUCH, but no. It was no surprise to him. He was surprised, I think -- this is what I think -- that Seal showed it to me. That's what I think to this day." But perhaps what most disturbed L.D. Brown was a direct reference by Clinton to a member of the governor's own inner circle. Clinton "throws up his hands" when Brown mentions the cocaine, as if a crucial, somehow rationalizing distinction should be made between the gunrunning and the drug trafficking. "Oh, no," Clinton said, denying that the cocaine was related to the CIA Brown was hoping to join. "That's Lasater's deal." Larry $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ The CIA cocaine smuggling on behalf of the Contras through Mena, Arkansas corrupted the Presidencies of Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. For details, see: ftp://pencil.cs.missouri.edu/pub/mena/ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Supreme Court allows Warrantless RoadBlocks!!! Date: 17 Oct 1996 09:22:11 -0700 (MST) Dear America, If you are in "commerce," the State can regulate traffic in commerce, just as you see here. See the Commerce Clause. Your application for a "license" to operate in commerce is your tacit admission that you are binding yourself to the letter of every statute, rule, regulation, form, and procedure attached to that license. Simple, really. So, let's stop whining, and start learning the difference between commerce among the several States (a privilege which I will defend) and the fundamental Right to travel (a Right which I will also defend). Moreover, as activists, let's start learning the difference between law and politics, admittedly not a simple task. /s/ Paul Mitchell P.S. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate commerce among the several States, not among the inhabitants of the several States; the Framers knew the difference. When you license your "driving," you enter commerce among the several States, like it or not, because you create the conclusive presumption that you expect to transport the property of others, including their Persons. The State SHOULD take an interest in making sure that you do not abuse that privilege. Got it? At 10:34 AM 10/17/96 -0400, you wrote: > > Excellent post. > > "Papers, Citizen." Just say NO, thank you. > > The Feds are also very much in favor of a National Identity > Card. > > Only form I've ever filled out in my life asking my race was > either an ATF form, a Census questionaire, or a private corp. form > (voluntary) for Federal compliance. All Fed related. > > Its creeping, its here. The rate of change is pretty astounding. > In 20 years time, we'll be indistinquishable from the "soft" Communist > regimes of Eastern Europe. Cradle-to-grave socialism, no free press, > no civil rights, no private ownership of weapons. > > Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Yugoslavia weren't so bad, were they? > > Hunters who joined the right clubs and kept very limited amounts of ammo > for approved and carefully liscenced rifles got to keep their sport, > right? > > The quality of the non-political journalism was pretty high, wasn't it? > Nobody really missed the political stuff anyway. > > Not so many people were tortured and imprisoned, were they? > > Hey, those guys didn't have computers to speak of, we'd do a much better, > less obtrusive job of tracking the citizens, wouldn't we? > > The Czechs and the Slavs still got to vote, didn't they? > > Our academics pretty much tow the party line already, don't they? > > You don't figure that the IRS is above the law or has anything in > common with Commiepest bureauocracies, do you? > > Hey, how about those Hungarians standing up to those tanks, huh? > Pretty heroic. I hear that they were euphoric for a couple of > days there. > > Oh, you don't remember Hungary? Well, never mind. > > It Can't Happen Here. > > > > > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: essay contest winner (fwd) Date: 17 Oct 1996 10:19:35 -0700 >>>> This posting announces the conclusion of the first annual >>>> essay contest sponsored by the G. M. Harding Institute for Civic >>>> Responsibility. This year's topic: Good Government. And the win- >>>> ning entry was: >>>> >>>> Good government. Good government. Sit. Stay. >> >> >>... stay away from the fire hydrant, >>and those luggage racks over there. >> >> >Add: > >Keep a clean nose, and watch the plainclothes; >You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. > >(Thanx to R. Zimmerman) To which you may further add: And if you've detected The one's we've elected To do a good job, But by them we've been robbed, Then all that we ask, Is you take them to task! Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: 13 Techniques for Truth Suppression (fwd) Date: 17 Oct 1996 17:12:47 PST Sound familier? On Oct 17, Gene Gross -- Personal Account wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] From - http://www.clark.net/pub/tburkett/pacc/Martin.html Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party. 1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen. 2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit. 3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors". If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors". 4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike. 5. Call the skeptics and victims names like "conspiracy theorist", "nut", "ranter", "kook", "crackpot", and, of course, "rumor monger". You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. 6. Impugn motives. Suggest strongly that the critics, including families of the victims, are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a political agenda or are out to make money. 7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful. 8. Dismiss the charges as "old news". 9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route". This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes". This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. 10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable. 11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. 12. Require the skeptics and victims to solve the crime completely. 13. Change the subject. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: TWA-800..Mechanical Malfunction .. Reuter Date: 18 Oct 1996 00:36:14 -0500 For this we get yet another "anti-terrorism" law. ??? TWA wreckage reportedly points to malfunction Copyright =A9 1996 Nando.net Copyright =A9 1996 Reuter Information Service=20 WASHINGTON (Oct 18, 1996 01:13 a.m. EDT) - Extensive metallurgical tests conducted on wreckage of TWA Flight 800 suggest that the Boeing 747 crashed as a result of a mechanical malfunction and not because of an explosive device, The Washington Post reported Friday. Quoting senior air safety and law enforcement investigators in the case, the newspaper said detailed analysis of debris from the plane's center fuel tank showed damage patterns indicating a slower, less energetic explosion than that produced by a bomb or a missile. Investigators said the way in which much of the metal from the tank was bent, rather than shattered or pulverized, was consistent with a "low order" explosion or one that has less velocity and force than a bomb or missile detonation, the Post reported. In addition, tests had shown that parts of the center fuel tank were blown in an outward direction, indicating the blast occurred somewhere inside it, investigators were quoted as saying. "From a scientific standpoint, the fingerprints that we have here are more consistent with a low order than a high order explosion," said one unidentified senior law enforcement official. "Clearly the burned and twisted metal is not indicative of C-4 (a type of plastic explosive) or other high explosives." The TWA jumbo jet exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off Long Island, New York, July 17 killing all 230 people aboard. The Second Amendment is the RESET button=20 of the United States Constitution. =20 ---Doug McKay" =20 Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fun Stuff Date: 18 Oct 1996 00:33:11 PST I only caught a bit of the interview, but Art Bell was talking with Luba Brezhnev(sp?), and from what she said, there is real danger that the cold war will break out again. It's being down played as a (Russian) internal matter in order to help Clinton stay in office, as no one wants to see Clinton's version of brinksmanship. Turn your backs, get on your knees, and drop your drawers boys, it's the only thing that'll hold 'em back! Yeah, right. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Thomas Jefferson - Atlantic Monthly's revisionism (fwd) Date: 18 Oct 1996 09:21:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Sixth Mesa Risk Assessment <6mysmesa@1eagle1.com> October 17, 1996 Mr. William Whitworth Editor The Atlantic Monthly 77 N. Washington Street Boston MA 02114 ["We don't give out our FAX number," says the secretary] Re: O'Brien CC. "Thomas Jefferson: Radical and Racist." October 1996 Dear Mr. Whitworth, Judging from the apparent willingness of so many Americans to cast aside Liberty and individual responsibility for a velvet-manacled place at the trough, it hardly seems necessary for self-professed revisionists to disparage freedom-loving "radicals" like Thomas Jefferson to advance America's contemporary romance with the leviathan state. By turning icons into clay do they hope to assuage their consciences or destroy America's troublesome collective memory of Freedom? How convenient it would be if we would forget that, at the time of their revolt, the Colonists had much more Freedom and far lower taxes than we have today. Warrantless search and seizure, asset forfeiture without trial, censorship on the Internet that confines adults to fare suitable for children, secret trials, anonymous witnesses, random wiretaps, the "first strike" use of tanks, helicopter gunships, poison gas, and the illegal use of military SpecOps troops against 90 innocent men, women, and children, vanquished property rights, ballot fraud and managed political speech that makes elections increasingly irrelevant, Oklahoma City's Reichstag Fire, Presidential Directives that rule by decree, the incremental disarmament of our conquered people to advance the other abominations of Caesar's latest campaign because certainly Caesar and his Praetorian Guard must be made safe from his plebian subjects -- these are not radical actions; these are the standard fare of rulers throughout history. Over a third of a billion people have died at the hands of government in this century, 65 million of them murdered by their own governments after first being disarmed. Yes, indeed, Jefferson's love of Liberty and his insistence on a constitutional republic with a limited federal government was - and is today - a radical dream. For over 50 years the Lamp of Liberty that He and the Framers lighted has been flickering and is now nearly extinguished, replaced by the flickering in vacant eyes of Monday Night Football on cable TV. May we wake from this nightmare into Jefferson's dream, but it sadly appears that wishing will not be sufficient. Unfortunately, our rapacious, capricious, and relentless rulers seem bent on ensuring that the Tree of Liberty is soon fertilized. If so, then so be it -- for Liberty has a price worth paying. Sincerely, Edgar A. Suter MD National Chair Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research Inc. -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Hold the Phone! Date: 18 Oct 1996 14:20:06 -0700 forwarded from elsewhere... >Here is a humorous tidbit from today's Wall Street Journal: > >"HOLD THE PHONE: Callers to an AFL-CIO 800 number, listed in TV ads >attacking Republicans, temporarily got this message after a hacker got >into the system: 'Highly paid union administrators and rich union bosses >want you to know that we have Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party in >our back pocket.' " > >It may not have had any effect, but I think it's funny! :) > >Regards, >Reg > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: reply from David Pandori Date: 18 Oct 1996 19:43:41 -0400 Well folks, this is the reply I recieved from councilman Pandori in response to my letter asking that he respond to his opinion that gun owners don't know their rights- Subj: 2nd amendment X-From: DPANDORI@ci.sj.ca.us (Pandori, David) Mr. Lum: Here's the law in brief. The Second Amendment is only a limitation on the federal government, not state and local government, like cities. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876). Further, the Second Amendment only limits federal infringements on state sponsored militias; private individuals, outside of government sponsored militias, do not enjoy protection from federal regulation. Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 (1980); Hickman v. Block, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3934 (9th Cir. 1996). If the law was to the contrary, the assault weapon ban enacted by the State of California would already have been struck down. David Pandori Council Member I'm no lawyer, and I don't know the cases he's referring to, but its clear that he believes we have no individual rights to own firearms. (and I guess that we can't read, or don't really understand what we are reading.) If anyone wants to contact Mr. Pandori, his email address is 'DPANDORI@ci.sj.ca.us' , but don't count on changing his mind. This is our local government at work, and why we are in the trouble we are in. Vanze Lum Tsuma@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Hold the Phone! Date: 19 Oct 1996 01:27:56 -0400 (EDT) I enjoyed this, it was a clever stunt. However, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that if I hear the phrase "union bosses" one more time, I think I'll throw up. Seriously, I think it's (yet another) stupid mistake for Newt & Co. to demonize unions and union members. Working stiffs aka union members have been known to vote Republican, you know. "Reagan Democrats" and all that. bd On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Liberty or Death wrote: > forwarded from elsewhere... > > >Here is a humorous tidbit from today's Wall Street Journal: > > > >"HOLD THE PHONE: Callers to an AFL-CIO 800 number, listed in TV ads > >attacking Republicans, temporarily got this message after a hacker got > >into the system: 'Highly paid union administrators and rich union bosses > >want you to know that we have Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party in > >our back pocket.' " > > > >It may not have had any effect, but I think it's funny! :) > > > >Regards, > >Reg > > > > > - Monte > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * Psalm 33 * > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude > greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. > We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand > that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity > forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > O- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: More on the Ames case... (fwd) Date: 18 Oct 1996 23:14:16 PST On Oct 18, Gene Gross -- Personal Account wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi All, The following was written in answer to the question from someone else about this case. Since this is additional information that adds to what was posted some time back, I thought that it would be good to post it here in case some of you have not gotten the whole story. This will raise your blood pressure. And all of you who have children need to take this to heart and be aware of what the government really thinks about our children and our rights as parents as regards our children. Please don't think that this is limited to Pennsylvania -- like the business with fingerprinting citizens who get drivers licenses, you may be surprised at what your own state has to say about your children!! I just found out that NC is experimenting with fingerprinting, but taking it one step further -- they are putting a magnetic strip on the license that contains a lot of information encoded on the strip!! Folks, the screws are being tightened and most Americans are asleep!! Ciao, Gene ======================================== > Jackie... We've met and talk regularly with Steven Ames. > We've seen many of the documents (court, Children & > Youth Services, etc.) The little girl is the child of > his wife - not theirs together, although the wife has had > custody since she and the little girl's father separated. > The little girl, eight years old, received a letter from the > Agency charging that she was a delinquent and was > ordered to come before the Agency for a hearing and she > was also ordered to "bring a guardian". I have a copy of the > letter - ADDRESSED TO AN 8-YEARS OLD CHILD! The > letter also charged that she was without sustenance, or > something like that. > > I've also heard the taped conversation between Steven and the > guy from Children - Youth Agency. I think he was the attorney for > the Agency but I'm not sure. When Steven asked him how they > could charge an 8 years old child, who had NEVER BEEN IN ANY > TROUBLE - EVER - with DELINQUENCY, the guy said, well.... umm.... > well... it's a computer generated letter and the letter doesn't > differentiate ages. > > When Steven asked him how they could charge that she had no > food and clothing, the guy said "that isn't what the letter says", and > Steven said, "It says she is without sustenance. Isn't that food and > clothing?" The guy admitted that he guessed it did, but you see, this > is a "standard form letter that is computer generated and they all > state that". > > The gist of the situation is... The natural father of the child, out of > spite (we're told) filed a petition in the court for custody, claiming that > they were unfit to parent the children, claiming that they were reading > the Bible to the children without religious training, and teaching them > the Constitution. A hearing was held without either Steven or his wife > being notified - (we have a copy of the court documents), and without > ANY INVESTIGATION - and within approximately one hour, the court > had ordered the little girl to be turned over to the natural father. > > Backing up a bit. When they received the letter from the Agency they > immediately called the school to find out if the school knew anything > about it. The school denied any knowledge. The mother said that if > anyone should come to the school to get the child that they were NOT > to turn the child over. The school said they WOULD GIVE THE CHILD > OVER IF THERE WAS A COURT ORDER. The mother then said the > child would not be in school again until they could get to the bottom of > the matter. > > They then called the natural father and told him they were > worried because they didn't know what was going on, but they asked > the father if he would get the little girl and keep her with him for safe- > keeping until they could unravel the mystery. The father then admitted > that it was HE who had filed the charges, and that he was going to > get custody. They then took the little girl to the wife's mother and > instructed her to not let anyone in if they came for the child. Their > little boy was taken to Steven's parents for safety. > > After the judge declared guardianship to the father, the father went > with some guy from the Agency to the grandmother's house with their > court order. The grandmother was afraid because a judge had ordered > the custody grant to the father, so she let the little girl go without > resistance. > > There was a court hearing that followed at which Steven's father appeared > (we have several pages of that transcript also) to ask for custody of the > little boy until the matter could be cleared up. The attorney for the > Agency > asked what his "political views" were, and if his political views were > aligned > with his son's. Mr. Ames said that up until some years ago, he didn't > agree > with his son, but he now does (this is paraphrasing). The court decided to > let the little boy stay with the grandfather and the Agency attorney got > upset > and said something to the effect... "You already gave him to us!" > > Have you seen the documents on "PARENS PATRIAE"? It's from > 43 C.J.S. (Corpus Juris Secundum) Sec. 11: B. "CUSTODY > GENERALLY". It says... "THE PRIMARY CONTROL AND CUSTODY > OF INFANTS IS WITH THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATE IN ITS > CAPACITY OF P A R E N S P A T R I AE, as stated supra Sec. 5, > may assume direction, control, and custody of his person, and delegate > such authority to whom it may see fit. > > Under "General Considerations" . . . . . > "CUSTODY INVOLVES IMMEDIATE CARE AND CONTROL > while "guardianship" indicates not only those responsibilities > but those of a parent, loco parenia, as well." > > It also states.... "TtHE STATE MAY ASSUME DIRECTION, CONTROL, > AND CUSTODY OF THE PERSON OF AN INFANT, AND MAY DELEGATE > SUCH AUTHORITY TO WHOM IT MAY SEE FIT." > "Research Note : Adjudication of custody of DELINQUENT, DEPENDENT, > or NEGLECTED children is considered infra Sec. 31 et seq. Entitlement of > parents to custody and proceedings affecting their rights are discussed in > CJS Parent and Child Sec. 5 et seq." (don't know what ALL of that means) > > HOWEVER .... It makes sense that they... well.... it wasn't really > them, it was > THE COMPUTER which charged the child as a DELINQUENT, claimed > she was without sustenance - NEGLECTED - and WHAT CHILD IS NOT > *DEPENDENT*? > > Sounds crazy and its true. I've since talked with a legislative secretary > and > one of our reps here in Pennsylvania. He said this stuff goes on all the > time. > The secretary said that whenever this happens and a rep tries to help the > family they're informed by the Agency... " We have the authority to do > this > and there's nothing you can do about it." Well.... How do you suppose > this > is happening within our states? Well.... Our state legislators passed > laws > years ago, creating this STATE AGENCY, EMPOWERING THE IDIOT > BUREAUCRATS WHO ARE DRUNK WITH THEIR POWER. > > Is this really any different than the situation in New Jersey where the > STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RAIDED > A CITIZEN OF NEW JERSEY WITH GUNS, JACK BOOTS AND FLACK > JACKETS BECAUSE THE MAN WAS RAISING AN ENDANGERED > SPECIES OF TURTLE? > > NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. ! ! ! THE STATE LEGISLATORS DID IT TO > US, DEAR, WHILE WE WERE ALL (I include myself in this) CHASING OUR > TAILS, trying to stop federal legislation that doesn't apply to us - anyway > > MOST of it doesn't - worrying about the presidential race, etc. > > REGIONALISM IS KILLING US... AND THESE AGENCIES BEING CREATED > WHICH TAKES POWER FROM THE LEGISLATORS AND PLACES IT IN THE > HANDS OF BUREAUCRATS IS PART OF REGIONALISM... And our legislators > have been dumbed down and are under the control of the Governors and > legislative leaders so they do their bidding almost without questions. > It's > a horrifying fact to finally realize and I realized it only a short while > ago. > > Since then I've been reading, reading, reading, documents, reports, > legislation, etc., in an attempt to REALLY understand the nuts and > bolts of it. There is one thing I know, Jackie, in my heart... that if > we > have a chance to turn this around, it won't be by electing the "right" > president. This plan of Regionalism is a cancer that has been eating > away at our state governmental structure since back in the early 30's > and NO PRESIDENT IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT. The only way - > I believe - that we will TURN THE TIDE, is for all people within their > respective states to, build, build, build a network within the state. > > An all out effort of education to state legislators. The support those > legislators need who are willing to begin the reversal of the process, > and I believe this support will give them courage. We've discovered > here in Pennsylvania that those who are trying are so out-numbered > that they can't get anything done. I'm not saying it's going to work, and > I am saying that I don't know anything else to try. We'll see. I believe > in miracles: we've all experienced miracles; and because we have, > I EXPECT MIRACLES. Maybe I'm a Pollyanna (sp?) and if I am, so > be it. > > Hope the info on Steven Ames' situation clears up some of your > questions. I doubt the DOJ will do anything but laugh and laugh > and laugh if we try getting something done at that level. Our > federal government (THEY call it a "national" government) has > quite been lost to us it appears. The FBI is not chartered by the > Congress but was created by the DOJ (I think) back in 1906 or > somewhere close to that date. When it was presented to the > Congress they refused to "charter" the agency. It also has "offices" > in 20 or more countries now. The FBI is an INTERNATIONAL > agency. They all dance on the strings of the puppeteers, don't > they? The WORLD POLICYMAKERS STRINGS. Pawns and > Puppets is what they are. . . including KLINTON, DOLE and the > whole kaboodle of them. > > Love - Jackie Patru > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Unsub info - send to liberty-and-justice-request@pobox.com with "unsubscribe" > in body (not subject) of the msg. List-Owner - Mike Goldman [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Hold the Phone! Date: 19 Oct 1996 04:54:25 -0700 >I enjoyed this, it was a clever stunt. However, I'd like to take this >opportunity to say that if I hear the phrase "union bosses" one more time, >I think I'll throw up. > >Seriously, I think it's (yet another) stupid mistake for Newt & Co. to >demonize unions and union members. Working stiffs aka union members have >been known to vote Republican, you know. "Reagan Democrats" and all that. > >bd Problem is, the unions have spent tens of millions of dollars nationwide on TV campaigns to remove the freshman class from office. Typically the ads they're playing contain blatant lies, and nasty ones at that. We're seeing them without end here in Idaho, as they attempt to get rid of Helen Chenoweth. It's disgusting. - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: TWA-800..Mechanical Malfunction .. Reuter Date: 18 Oct 1996 10:08:41 -0700 Joe, >>>>>>> In addition, tests had shown that parts of the center fuel tank were blown in an outward direction, indicating the blast occurred somewhere inside it, investigators were quoted as saying. <<<<<<< Yup, and we completely ignore the fact of trained observers seeing an object intersect the course of the 747 and witness first a small explosion followed immediatly by a larger one. It continually amazes me how the free (to lie) press expects us to swallow this bunk, hook, line and sinker. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: TWA-800..Mechanical Malfunction .. Reuter Date: 19 Oct 1996 11:00:40 EDT On Fri, 18 Oct 1996 10:08:41 -0700 "E. J. Totty" writes: > Joe, > > >>>>>>> > In addition, tests had shown that parts of the center fuel >tank >were blown >in an outward direction, indicating the blast occurred somewhere >inside it, >investigators were quoted as saying. > <<<<<<< > > Yup, and we completely ignore the fact of trained observers >seeing >an object intersect the course of the 747 and witness first a small >explosion followed immediatly by a larger one. > > It continually amazes me how the free (to lie) press expects >us to >swallow this bunk, hook, line and sinker. > >Ed Right, Pay no attention to what you see, only to what the press tell you. Believe none of what hear and only half of what you see. ghb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: TWA-800..Mechanical Malfunction .. Reuter Date: 19 Oct 1996 09:13:28 -0700 (MST) At 11:00 AM 10/19/96 EDT, you wrote: > >On Fri, 18 Oct 1996 10:08:41 -0700 "E. J. Totty" > writes: >> Joe, >> >> >>>>>>> >> In addition, tests had shown that parts of the center fuel >>tank >>were blown >>in an outward direction, indicating the blast occurred somewhere >>inside it, >>investigators were quoted as saying. >> <<<<<<< >> >> Yup, and we completely ignore the fact of trained observers >>seeing >>an object intersect the course of the 747 and witness first a small >>explosion followed immediatly by a larger one. >> >> It continually amazes me how the free (to lie) press expects >>us to >>swallow this bunk, hook, line and sinker. >> >>Ed > >Right, Pay no attention to what you see, only to what the press tell you. > Believe none of what hear and only half of what you see. > >ghb Let's modify that a little bit: believe none of what you see; half of what you hear; and 100% of what the press feeds you; and you will be a barrel full of monkeys, all of you. /s/ Paul Mitchell =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Hold the Phone! Date: 19 Oct 1996 09:14:26 -0700 Monte, >>>>>>> Typically the ads they're playing contain blatant lies, and nasty ones at that. We're seeing them without end here in Idaho, as they attempt to get rid of Helen Chenoweth. It's disgusting. <<<<<<< If that is true, then will Helen sue for damages in civil court, when the election is over? Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Another shoe drops Date: 19 Oct 1996 12:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Just heard Clinton propose requiring teens to take a drug test before he grants them the "privilege" of a drivers license. How many years would it take to expand this to include adults? Reckon they might sample that urine for other things, too? Nicotine? (Gotta catch those soon-to-be-illegal smokers!) Lead styphenate (From primers - gotta catch those soon-to-be-illegal gunowners!) Etc. bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: amusing thought Date: 19 Oct 1996 12:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Hypothesizing that Dole will lose badly and Clinton will win (I recognize that some dispute this), I have the following advice for Bob Dole: Tell the truth. The whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Bob, your 40-year career in government is drawing to a close. What you do in the next two weeks can determine whether you're remembered in footnotes in poly-sci texts, under "How to lose an election," or whether you carve out a place for yourself in history. Bob, you've been in government since before they killed Kennedy. Begin by telling us what you know - *EVERYTHING that you know* about Kennedy's death. Keep talking for the next two weeks, and don't stop talking until you're done with Mena, Salinas, Hussein, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and Riady. You would be doing your country a great service, and you just might get yourself elected. Brad Dolan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: TWA-800..Mechanical Malfunction .. Reuter Date: 19 Oct 1996 10:01:00 -0700 Gary, >>>>>>> Right, Pay no attention to what you see, only to what the press tell you. Believe none of what hear and only half of what you see. <<<<<<< The really strange part here, is the fact that the powers that be are going out on a very tenuous limb, to drag attention away from the 'missile' hit, if indeed that was what was witnessed as the object that hit the 'Flight 800' aircraft. I will say that I am more certain than I have ever been, due to the information I have access to, that there was _no possible way_ for an internal heat source (ie., electrical current/voltage of sufficient potential energy) to have initiated an explosion in the center wing tank, to say nothing of which about the fact that such a source is not available due to the design of the Fuel Quantity Indicating System used on that 747 series. In fact, none of them have. To those who don't know, the most dangerous aspect of working on an airplane that has had fuel in its tanks, is when the tanks have been drained and the doors are opened. This is because the fuel-to-air ratio will become more conducive to an explosion as a result of fuel fumes falling out and air moving in, than when the tank is integral (sealed). Forced venting of the tanks is mandatory for a specified time period, after which an air sampler is used to measure the explosive limits, and permissable exposure level of the tank atmosphere. In consideration of the fuel-to-air ratio that would have existed at the time due to having the quantity as stated (100 gallons), the evaporation of which would have displaced more than enough air with fuel fumes, that an ignition with even a high enough energy yield in Joules (measurment of power), would not have caused an explosion. At worst, it would have merely cause smoke in the tank. Jet 'A', is a highly refined kerosene, read: Diesel. You can put a burning match or cigarette - or cigar if you want, into diesel and extinguish any of them. You can do so with Jet 'A'. The kerosene family of fuels requires heat or atomization to be effectively ignited. and of course - adequate oxygen. That could mean only one thing: It _was_ a missile of sorts that hit the plane. The next question is: Who's? Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Hold the Phone! Date: 19 Oct 1996 12:11:38 -0500 At 04:54 AM 10/19/96 -0700, you wrote: > >>I enjoyed this, it was a clever stunt. However, I'd like to take this >>opportunity to say that if I hear the phrase "union bosses" one more time, >>I think I'll throw up. >> >Problem is, the unions have spent tens of millions of dollars nationwide on >TV campaigns to remove the freshman class from office. Typically the ads >they're playing contain blatant lies, and nasty ones at that. We're seeing >them without end here in Idaho, as they attempt to get rid of Helen Chenoweth. >It's disgusting. > You have to remember that union leaders are just another form of politician, much like managers in any large company. The difference is that managers have to actually accomplish something that is make a profit, or the stockholders or higher managers will toss them out on their tush, albeit often with a 'golden' handshake. Union leaders, like most other politicians, only have to make it look like they are doing something, or at least trying. The union leaders seem to like, as Harry Browne put it , the left wing branch of the statist party, while the managers usually prefer the right right wing branch. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Hold the Phone! Date: 19 Oct 1996 14:05:21 -0700 > Monte, > > >>>>>>> > Typically the ads they're playing contain blatant lies, and nasty >ones at that. We're seeing >them without end here in Idaho, as they attempt to get rid of Helen >Chenoweth. It's disgusting. > <<<<<<< > > > If that is true, then will Helen sue for damages in civil court, >when the election is over? > >Ed I don't know - I'll tell her local campaign manager you asked, though :) - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Poll Date: 19 Oct 1996 16:10:45 -0600 >From Drudge: 10/19/96 REUTERS/ZOGBY Poll Clinton 43.6 Dole 36.8 Perot 5.3 Undecided 11.7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Re: Another shoe drops Date: 19 Oct 1996 19:31:58 -0400 bd said- >Just heard Clinton propose requiring teens to take a drug test >before he grants them the "privilege" of a drivers license. >How many years would it take to expand this to include >adults? -snip- Its already being done for commercial drivers. Get teens in the program, and its only logical that they add all adults. And of course they will be some 'small' cost that we drivers will have to absorb. Pretty nifty scheme... damn politicians anyway! V. Lum Tsuma@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: (fwd) Sean Gabb on Guns - Yet Again (fwd) Date: 19 Oct 1996 22:12:46 -0400 (EDT) Good rant. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Fourth Open Letter to the Gunowners of the United Kingdom By Sean Gabb Wednesday, 16 October 1996, 10:11pm Well, here it is - the British Government's gun law proposal. I was wrong in believing that the Government would only tighten the existing laws, not go for any outright bans. But I was writing before Anne Pearston got on her hind legs at the Labour Party Conference last fortnight. That put an end to any compromise. On all else, though, I was right. Moderation got you nowhere. Some of you refused to debate until after the Cullen Report had come out. That has meant no debate at all, as the Cullen Report is now waste paper; and the politicians are in no mood to debate anything with you. Some of you spent vast amounts of money on a lobbying company. I have no idea what benefits were bought with this. I hear that most MPs refused even to meet these lobbyists. I saw no full page advertisements in the newspapers, arguing against more gun control. I saw no evidence that any of this money was diverted to a front organisation, able to say things that you could not. Whatever the reason, you all failed to put the real case for guns - that their possession for defence is a moral right and duty. In consequence, you have been hammered. The gungrabbers often call you pathetic creeps who need a hadnful of gunmetal to to convince you of your manhood. There may be some truth in this - but certainly, bearing in mind your collective performance these past few months, it does not work. However, there is no point in recriminations at the moment. Miracles aside, the correlation of forces in this debate is heavily against you. It looks as if everything Michael Howard promised this afternoon will go through without much delay, and with no softening whatever. If this happens, we are looking at the dissolution of the gun interest in the United Kingdom. Who will want a firearms certificate, and all the official harassment this brings, if the only handgun on offer is a virtual toy that has to be stored away from home? If many handgun owners just give up their certificates, that will mean the closing of most clubs up and down the country. Even without the loss of custom, most gun dealers will be driven out of business. I do not know what will happen to the gun magazines, but I expect most of the present shooting associations will at least shrink. Sitting here in front of my computer - and the BBC has just cancelled a showing of Terminator! - the news could hardly be worse. Now, you need to think about where to go from here. For me, the answer is simple. The Howard proposals have no personal significance. As I never tire of pointing out, I do not have any guns for the Government to steal, nor have I ever had any. All I have is a burning ideological conviction about the evil of gun control in any form. I have been campaigning against gun control on an off since 1988, and I will continue my campaign in the future. But how about you, the gunowners of this country? Supposing the Howard proposals do become law, how will you behave? Will you do your "civic duty" and give up your forbidden weapons in the manner prescribed by law? That is what you did after Hungerford. Or will you rather obey the Fundamental Laws of this Realm, which cannot be abolished by any mere enactment of Parliament? The cause of law is not always best served by obedience to any particular law. I could fill whole books with relevant quotations, but let me give just one that might explain my meaning. It is from St Thomas Aquinas (c1225-74), the leading philosopher of the Roman Catholic Church and a figure of unimpeachable respectability: Laws are [often] unjust.... [T]hey may be contrary to the good of mankind... either with regard to their end - as when a ruler imposes laws which are burdensome and are not designed for the common good, but proceed from his own rapacity or vanity; or with regard to their maker - if, for example, a ruler should go beyond his proper powers; or with regard to their form - if, though intended for the common good, their burdens should be inequitably distributed. Such laws come closer to violence than to true law.... They do not, therefore, oblige in conscience, except perhaps for the avoidance of scandal or disorder. (Summa Theologiae, I-II, 96, 4, my translation) Whether and how you understand this are things for you to decide. -- Sean Gabb Editor Free Life (The Journal of the Libertarian Alliance) c/o 25 Chapter Chambers Esterbrooke Street London SW1P 4NN Tel: 0181 858 0841 E-mail: main@sufo.demon.co.uk Web Page: http://www.gold.ac.uk/~cea01sig/ _______________________________________ | | | Over himself, over his own mind and | | body, the individual is sovereign. | | (J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859) | |_____________________________________| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: (fwd) Release: TWA Flight 800 - Clinton owes apology (fwd) Date: 19 Oct 1996 22:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Another good rant. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- NEWS FROM THE BROWNE FOR PRESIDENT CAMPAIGN FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 18, 1996 Clinton owes apology for using "terrorist" demagoguery about TWA Flight 800 to attack Bill of Rights, says Browne WASHINGTON, DC -- Investigators have found "no evidence" that a terrorist bomb or missile destroyed TWA Flight 800 -- so President Clinton owes the American public an apology for having demagogued that tragic incident into an excuse to curtail civil liberties, says his Libertarian presidential challenger. "President Clinton should admit that he was wrong, and should seek the immediate repeal of the unconstitutional laws he demanded to fight the fictitious terrorists he claimed destroyed Flight 800," said Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. "Clinton should also return to the taxpayers the $1 billion Congress appropriated to fight this kind of non-terrorist incident. And he should apologize to the families of the people who died on Flight 800 -- and beg their forgiveness for using the innocent victims of a mechanical malfunction as human props in his effort to terrorize the Bill of Rights," said Browne. After TWA Flight 800 exploded in a fireball off Long Island on June 17, Clinton suggested that terrorists were to blame and proposed new laws to fight what he called "the modern equivalent of the Soviet threat during the Cold War." He also demanded $1.1 billion in new spending to battle the fictitious terrorists, including $10 million to build a computer system to monitor airline passengers with "suspicious" travel patterns. Congress responded to some of his demands, passing legislation giving the government the power to conduct secret hearings to deport foreigners, to arbitrarily designate groups as "terrorist," and to study expanded wiretapping technologies. Congress also appropriated $1 billion to "fight terrorism." However, air safety investigators yesterday said the evidence that terrorists destroyed the plane is "very, very small," and the tragedy was almost certainly caused by a mechanical malfunction and an explosion in the fuel tank. "Despite all Clinton's demagoguery, this incident wasn't the work of terrorists -- the modern hobgoblins that politicians use to scare us into giving up our precious liberties. Instead, it was a tragic fluke accident," said Browne. "But Bill Clinton's irresponsible actions have turned Flight 800 from a personal tragedy into a political tragedy for America. "The aftermath of any personal tragedy is that we mourn for our lost friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. But the aftermath of a politically exploited tragedy is that we must mourn for our lost liberties, and mourn the Bill of Rights, which has become a punching bag for power-hungry politicians," he said. "Bill Clinton shouldn't be allowed to get away with it this time. He was wrong -- wrong about the terrorists blowing up Flight 800, wrong about the civil liberties he repealed, and wrong about the tax dollars he's wasting. He owes America an apology," said Browne. Browne was the only presidential candidate to consistently oppose every so-called "anti-terrorist" proposal from the White House and Congressional Republicans -- including roving wiretaps, no-warrant wiretaps, extending RICO laws to terrorists, Internet censorship, government- mandated taggants, and efforts to weaken computer privacy. -- Harry Browne for President To receive campaign announcements, send http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/ to "announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org" 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 with "subscribe" in the subject line. Washington, DC 20037 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dave_l@Mainstream.net Subject: Re: TWA-800..Mechanical Malfunction .. Reuter Date: 19 Oct 1996 23:15:59 +0000 > > It continually amazes me how the free (to lie) press expects > >us to > >swallow this bunk, hook, line and sinker. > > > >Ed > > Right, Pay no attention to what you see, only to what the press tell you. > Believe none of what hear and only half of what you see. Don't look at the man behind the curtain... Dave 8{) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: TWA-800..Mechanical Malfunction .. Reuter Date: 19 Oct 1996 23:24:48 -0500 At 10:01 AM 10/19/96 -0700, you wrote: > > Jet 'A', is a highly refined kerosene, read: Diesel. > You can put a burning match or cigarette - or cigar if you want, >into diesel and extinguish any of them. You can do so with Jet 'A'. > The kerosene family of fuels requires heat or atomization to be >effectively ignited. and of course - adequate oxygen. > That could mean only one thing: It _was_ a missile of sorts that >hit the plane. > The next question is: Who's? Or some other event that effectively vented the tank and let air in to replace most of the fumes. This could be a missile or an on board explosion, i.e a bomb. A near miss by a missle which punctured the tank could, I would think, vent the tank. This would account for the subtantial delay between the first small flash seen and large fireball. Although one would think the crew would have noticed something between the two and that this would be indicated on the CVR. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: anonymous oddsman (fwd) Date: 20 Oct 1996 10:58:48 -0400 (EDT) British bookies still say Dole is Doomed ---------- Forwarded message ---------- A quickie post-debate-update from the oddsman. Looks like Ladbroke House is still heavy on Clinton, with prices the same as last time, William Hill and Ladbroke's have now agreed on a {bearish} number for Dole, but the strange disparity in Perot odds remains. The oddsman still seeks a Moscow correspondent for UK arbitrage opportunities. Prices @ 09:10 BST Sat 18th Oct 96 +---------+----------------+----------------+ | | Ladbroke's | William Hill | +---------+----------------+----------------+ | Clinton | No bets taken | 1:16 | | Dole | 7:1 | 7:1 | | Perot | 50:1 | 500:1 | | Browne | Not currently offered by either | +---------+----------------+----------------+ | Phone | +44-800-524524 | +44-800-444040 | | Numbers:| | | +---------+----------------+----------------+ The oddsman's roving reporter can't get any reply on the phone from Coral, so they may be out of the running on this year's horse race. I'll keep you posted -- 'till next post-time. anonymous oddsman "Demeaning the integrity of the U.S. Presidential election process for you on a regular basis, at no charge." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Hold the Phone! Date: 20 Oct 1996 07:02:44 -0700 Monte, >>>>>>> I don't know - I'll tell her local campaign manager you asked, though :) <<<<<<< In that case, please advise also that I am willing to contribute to her efforts in that regard, to defray costs. No lie should ever be allowed to go unchallenged. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: TWA-800..Mechanical Malfunction .. Reuter Date: 20 Oct 1996 08:39:52 -0700 Joe, >>>>>>> Or some other event that effectively vented the tank and let air in to replace most of the fumes. This could be a missile or an on board explosion, i.e a bomb. A near miss by a missle which punctured the tank could, I would think, vent the tank. This would account for the subtantial delay between the first small flash seen and large fireball. Although one would think the crew would have noticed something between the two and that this would be indicated on the CVR. <<<<<<< Taking this by the numbers: > Discount the 'bomb' theory, because of the eye-witness accounts of the streaking object. > An object that impacts at near or past Mach speed, will not give anyone enough time to utter anything. According the ANG Major who witnessed the event from a higher altitude, the smaller explosion was immediately followed by the larger explosion. This explains the rather abrupt 'noise spike' on the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) as the last item recorded. As a corollary to this, consider that the speed of sound at 13000 Ft is 295.1 Ft/Sec. If the object were traveling at Mach . . .? Try holding an intellectual conversation sometime while you're target shooting at the range. That is to say, try to get a word in _edgewise_ between the time the bullet leaves the barrel and when it hits the target. I think I mentioned the following once before, but it's worth repeating. Flight 800, being at 13000 Ft, was in essense a pressurized vessel, at somewhere around 4 to 5 PSI (pounds per square inch), at that alititude. Now, that may not sound like much, but multiply 4 times 144 (144 inches per sq. Ft.), and each square foot of pressurized fuselage (the tube) has an effective pressure pushing outwards to the tune of 576 pounds. Take a missile and poke the metal. The initial result upon impact, is that the pressurized atmosphere within the airplane will very violently escape. That initial burst was the loose innards of the airplane escaping into the surrounding atmosphere with the air. The secondary explosion could well have been caused by anything. If the centerwing tank was immediately breached, the remaining fuel would have been swirled into the cabin with the escaping air. With that much air escaping, it would have generated electrostatic charges on all nonconductive surfaces, which _could_ have been one of the initiators. If the object that hit the airplane had enough heat, it could have ignited everything else in the process of breach. Without adequate and unbiased research into the real cause, everything else is conjecture. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Sierra Club: go hike to hell Date: 20 Oct 1996 11:40:20 -0600 Got this, today. Lets us know some of our opposition is out and at it. >SIERRA CLUB >Defending the Environmental Agenda #292 >October 16, 1996 > >"There's not even enough Democrats to have a good potluck." > >-- former Democratic Governor Cecil >Andrus laments the Republican- >dominated Idaho legislature > >---------------------------------------------------------------- - >Sierra Club Legislative Hotline - 202-675-2394 >Sierra Club National Headquarters - 415-977-5500 >Sierra Club World Wide Web - http://www.sierraclub.org > >White House Comment Line - 202-456-1111 >White House Fax Line - 202-456-2461 >Clinton's e-mail - president@whitehouse.gov >Gore's e-mail - vice.president@whitehouse.gov >White House Address - 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC 20500 > >US Capitol Switchboard - 202-224-3121 >----------------------------------------------------------------- >Contents: > >IN THE MAIN RING: Twenty Days And Counting-Get Involved!! > >ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL: In Michigan, Minnesota, and The West > > Clubbers Rally in Fort Mill, SC > > Greens Turn Brown for the Day > >IN THE FIELD: Putting the "Member" Back in "Membership" > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >IN THE MAIN RING: > >Twenty Days And Counting-Get Involved!! > >With twenty days left to go before the November election, time is >running out for you to get involved in ensuring that the 105th >Congress will have a dramatically different face than the 104th >Congress. So if you're not yet engaged in the battle--get >motivated. There are many ways to get involved. Below is one way >for you to formally get involved--join us on one of our voter >education projects. > >This fall, the Sierra Club is undertaking the largest voter >education and voter mobilization campaign in our history. The >environment is playing a key role in congressional races across >the country, and hundreds of volunteers in dozens of cities are >expected to help us educate voters about the environmental >positions of Congressional candidates. In more than 40 >locations around the country the Sierra Club will be informing >voters through the wide distribution of either Sierra >Club-produced side-by-side voter guides OR candidate-literature >produced in coordination with Sierra Club Political Committee >endorsed candidates. (The voter guides will compare and contrast >Congressional candidates' positions on environmental issues.) >Our goal is to drop 20,000 pieces of literature in each targeted >Congressional District. > >Listed below are several of the Sierra Club voter education >events. If you have questions regarding this effort, feel free >to contact Roni Lieberman at (202)675-7903. Other states, >including Nevada and Connecticut, will also be holding events, >but plans are not yet finalized. > >WICHITA, KS >Date: October 19th >What: Candidate Lit Drop in KS 04 >Local Contact: Gary Wright, 316-687-9307 > >PORTLAND, OR >Dates: October 19 & 20 - A series of events rolling out over the >weekend. >What: Voter Ed Lit Drop in OR 1, OR 5 & OR Senate Local >Contact: Jonathan Poisner, 503-238-6395 > >CALIFORNIA 22 >Dates: October 19th & 26th >What: Sierra Club Independent Expenditure Campaign in CA 22 >Local Contact: Randy Levine, 1-800-467-9585 (Pager #) > >MICHIGAN 08 >Date: October 26th >What: Sierra Club Independent Expenditure Campaign in MI 8 Local >Contact: Mary Matthews, 517-267-0015 > >NORMAN, OK >Date: October 26th >What: Voter Ed Lit Drop in OK 4 >Local Contact: Sandra Rose, 405-321-7639 > >SEATTLE, WA >Date: October 26th - Distributed from several staging areas in >the Seattle area. >What: Voter Ed Lit Drops in WA1, WA2, WA9 Local Contact: Bill >Arthur, 206-621-1696 > >WALNUT CREEK (EAST BAY), CA >Date: October 26th >What: Candidate Lit Drop in CA 10 >Local Contact: Jackie McCort, 510-654-7847 > >PORTLAND, YORK & CAMDEN, ME >Date: October 26th >What: Voter Ed Lit Drop in ME 1 >Local Contact: John Demos, 207-761-5616 > >SIOUX FALLS, SD >Date: October 26th >What: Voter Ed Lit Drop in SD Senate Race Local Contact: Karen >Fogas, 605-335-1430 > >DENVER/BOULDER, CO >Date: October 26th >What: Voter Ed Lit Drop in CO1, CO2 & CO Senate Local Contact: >Tina Arapkiles, 303-449-5596 > >BURLINGTON, VT >Date: November 2nd >What: Candidate Lit Drop in VT-AL >Local Contact: Rani Corey, 802-223-2328 > > >ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL: > > >In Michigan - More Bird-Dogging > >Sierra Club volunteers made their presence known in MI 8 again! >Sandwichboards and information on the congressional race between >incumbent Dick Chrysler(R) and Sierra Club-endorsed Debbie >Stabenow (D) were highly visible to everyone going to a candidate >debate at Michigan State University. Stabenow shook hands with >the SC volunteers on her way in and thanked them for all their >help. > > >Minnesota Senate: Wellstone still leading > >Sen. Paul Wellstone (D) is maintaining a lead over ex-Sen. Rudy >Boschwitz (R) in the closely contested senate race. The latest >Minneapolis Star Tribune/WCCO-TV poll has Wellstone up 47% to >Boschwitz's 38%. The Sierra Club has endorsed Sen. Wellstone >who's League of Conservation Voters score is 93%. > > >Below the Mason-Dixon-Clubbers Rally in Fort Mill, SC > >Last week, 130 Sierra Club members gathered in Fort Mill, South >Carolina to show their support for stronger environmental >protections. Most of North and South Carolina's chapter leaders >and supporters attended. Throughout the evening, a number of >candidates for state and federal office also stopped by, >including Elliot Close, who is challenging Strom Thurmond (R-SC) >for his Senate seat. Chuck McGrady, Chair of the Sierra Club >Political Committee, introduced Sierra Club endorsed candidates >to the crowd. > >Dave Foreman, Sierra Club Director, gave a rousing keynote speech >on the importance of protecting whole ecosystems. Because of the >interconnectedness of all forms of life, he argues, an ecosystem >can only be as healthy as it's largest carnivores, which regulate >the populations of other species in the ecosystem. In order to >save America's wildlife and wildlands, we must protect both large >parcels of wilderness and the "wildlife corridors" that >connect them. > > >On the Left Coast-Greens Turn Brown for the Day > >On Saturday, October 12, the San Gorgonio Chapter (in San >Bernardino, California) held its fall benchmark walk for >environmental hero, Congressman George Brown. > >It was a real success compared to the April doorhanger event held >in the same area - we had 15 people that day. On Saturday, there >were 40 people that showed up to walk precincts, about 25-30 were >Sierra Club volunteers. > >The Congressman gave a rousing speech to our members and was >overwhelmed by the turnout. This area is not typically >environmentally active, but our members turned out in force to >show how important it is to keep Brown in Congress. > >One of the most satisfying aspects of all of this, was the fact >that most of them showed up because of all the phone calling that >we did. The Chapter had done a couple of mailings to members. >However, we really hit the phones during the last week and all >the long hours of phone banking paid off. > > >IN THE FIELD: > >Putting the "Member" back in "Membership" > >Bonnie Sharpe reports in from Los Angeles that Member of Congress >Steve Horn (R-CA) has become one of the Club's newest members. >Apparently, the Congressman from the 39th district of California >attended the monthly meeting of his regional group--the Long >Beach Group of Angeles Chapter. Better yet, he stayed for the >entire meeting and took home a "Take a Hike" t-shirt. The visit >was a pleasant surprise in this busy campaigning season since the >chapter had long ago endorsed Rep. Horn for re-election. The >visit also underscores the candidate's belief in the need to >get-out-the-vote this November. What's next, a chapter outing? > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: TWA-800..Mechanical Malfunction .. Reuter Date: 20 Oct 1996 11:49:03 -0500 At 08:39 AM 10/20/96 -0700,"E. J. Totty" wrote: > Joe, > > > A near miss by a missle which punctured the tank could, I would xxxxxxxxxx >think, vent >the tank. This would account for the subtantial delay between the first >small flash seen and large fireball. Although one would think the crew would >have noticed something between the two and that this would be indicated on >the CVR. > <<<<<<< > > Taking this by the numbers: > > > Discount the 'bomb' theory, because of the eye-witness accounts >of the streaking object. > > > An object that impacts at near or past Mach speed, will not give >anyone enough time to utter anything. According the ANG Major who witnessed >the event from a higher altitude, the smaller explosion was immediately >followed by the larger explosion. This explains the rather abrupt 'noise >spike' on the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) as the last item recorded. > As a corollary to this, consider that the speed of sound at 13000 >Ft is 295.1 Ft/Sec. Are you sure about this number? Seems awfully low, considering at sea level its around 1100 fps? Could that be a meters/second number > Flight 800, being at 13000 Ft, was in essense a pressurized vessel, >at somewhere around 4 to 5 PSI (pounds per square inch), at that alititude. Are the fuel tanks pressurized or only the cabin and the cargo bay? . . . > > Take a missile and poke the metal. The initial result upon impact, >is that the pressurized atmosphere within the airplane will very violently >escape. That initial burst was the loose innards of the airplane escaping >into the surrounding atmosphere with the air. I was thinking of a small fragment from a near miss. All missiles, AFAIK, have proximity fuses. It's not that easy to actually hit the targets they are designed for, and the smaller missiles would have been at the limits of their range, thus not having much energy left for manueverability. I am postulating a miss of the engine that the missile was targeted on and a proximity fused explosion. > Without adequate and unbiased research into the real cause, >everything else is conjecture. IOW, *we* will likely never know. I'm just trying to come up with a scenario that fits the reported observations of the tank area. By a substantial delay, I meant one long enough to tell that there were two explosions, rather than so short that they would be perchieved as one The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Silberger Subject: Harry Browne on Flight 800 Date: 20 Oct 1996 12:58:21 EDT ========================================================================= Return-Path: Received: from UICVM (NJE origin SMTP2@UICVM) by UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2740; Sat, 19 Oct 1996 07:00:12 -0500 Received: from hustle.rahul.net by UICVM.UIC.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Sat, 19 Oct 96 06:59:40 CDT Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA24998 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for SILBERGD@SNYNEWVM.bitnet); Sat, 19 Oct 1996 04:44:33 -0700 Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 18 Oct 96 23:59:25 PDT Message-Id: <71066.32687C4D.ann@HarryBrowne96.org> Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.6a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HARRY BROWNE, LIBERTARIAN FOR PRESIDENT 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For additional information: Bill Winter, Director of Communications Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 226 Internet: 73163.3063@CompuServe.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CAMPAIGN NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 18, 1996 Clinton owes apology for using "terrorist" demagoguery about TWA Flight 800 to attack Bill of Rights, says Browne WASHINGTON, DC -- Investigators have found "no evidence" that a terrorist bomb or missile destroyed TWA Flight 800 -- so President Clinton owes the American public an apology for having demagogued that tragic incident into an excuse to curtail civil liberties, says his Libertarian presidential challenger. "President Clinton should admit that he was wrong, and should seek the immediate repeal of the unconstitutional laws he demanded to fight the fictitious terrorists he claimed destroyed Flight 800," said Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. "Clinton should also return to the taxpayers the $1 billion Congress appropriated to fight this kind of non-terrorist incident. And he should apologize to the families of the people who died on Flight 800 -- and beg their forgiveness for using the innocent victims of a mechanical malfunction as human props in his effort to terrorize the Bill of Rights," said Browne. After TWA Flight 800 exploded in a fireball off Long Island on June 17, Clinton suggested that terrorists were to blame and proposed new laws to fight what he called "the modern equivalent of the Soviet threat during the Cold War." He also demanded $1.1 billion in new spending to battle the fictitious terrorists, including $10 million to build a computer system to monitor airline passengers with "suspicious" travel patterns. Congress responded to some of his demands, passing legislation giving the government the power to conduct secret hearings to deport foreigners, to arbitrarily designate groups as "terrorist," and to study expanded wiretapping technologies. Congress also appropriated $1 billion to "fight terrorism." However, air safety investigators yesterday said the evidence that terrorists destroyed the plane is "very, very small," and the tragedy was almost certainly caused by a mechanical malfunction and an explosion in the fuel tank. "Despite all Clinton's demagoguery, this incident wasn't the work of terrorists -- the modern hobgoblins that politicians use to scare us into giving up our precious liberties. Instead, it was a tragic fluke accident," said Browne. "But Bill Clinton's irresponsible actions have turned Flight 800 from a personal tragedy into a political tragedy for America. "The aftermath of any personal tragedy is that we mourn for our lost friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. But the aftermath of a politically exploited tragedy is that we must mourn for our lost liberties, and mourn the Bill of Rights, which has become a punching bag for power-hungry politicians," he said. "Bill Clinton shouldn't be allowed to get away with it this time. He was wrong -- wrong about the terrorists blowing up Flight 800, wrong about the civil liberties he repealed, and wrong about the tax dollars he's wasting. He owes America an apology," said Browne. Browne was the only presidential candidate to consistently oppose every so-called "anti-terrorist" proposal from the White House and Congressional Republicans -- including roving wiretaps, no-warrant wiretaps, extending RICO laws to terrorists, Internet censorship, government- mandated taggants, and efforts to weaken computer privacy. -- Harry Browne for President Campaign@HarryBrowne96.org http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/ voice: 202-333-0008 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: from the Detroit News Date: 20 Oct 1996 16:25:42 -0600 Here's an example of what I'm talking about in the rural areas. This is from Michigan and the conversations sound exactly the same as the ones in TX, GA, FL, N&SC, TN, KY, and WV in the rural areas. This is the point the polls are missing. They're, as usual, polling urban areas. If clinton wins urban America by twelve points Dole wins the election because he's going to carry rural america by 20 points. [Image] Next Story Return to the section index Return to The Detroit News Home Page October 20, 1996 [News ] Voters voices from Main Street: Michigan town shares president's name, not vision By Tom Greenwood / The Detroit News Clinton's not too crazy about Clinton. Tiny, contained and conservative, the village of Clinton -- population 2,475 -- sits in the rolling hills of Lenawee County, surrounded by regimented rows of corn now as dry and lifeless as President Clinton's chances of a landslide here. State election officials said candidate Clinton carried the village in 1992: He received 665 votes (40 percent); President George Bush got 569 (34 percent); and Ross Perot got 166 (26 percent). But nowadays it's tough finding Clinton folks who admit to voting for Clinton four years ago. Town dentist Dr. Jan Rizzo thinks Clinton will be re-elected. But probably not with his help. "I guess I'm kind of undecided at this point," Rizzo said. "I just wish the Republicans had nominated someone else. I'd be more excited if it was Colin Powell. But still, I consider myself a Republican." On Main Street, Kathy Sposite was cheesed off at what she saw was a presidential snub of Clinton, which the town's founders named after New York Gov. DeWitt Clinton back in 1829. "A few weeks ago, Clinton was on his whistle-stop train tour and he stopped in Tecumseh, just a few miles away," said Sposite, a mother of five. "We're named Clinton, and he never came here! "Dole seems older and more respected. I watched all the debates and saw how they acted nasty to Dole and tried to get him upset, but he didn't fall for it. I'm not going to vote for President Clinton, and I didn't vote for him the last time, either." At the Wild Swan Gift Shoppe, store manager Mary Prong is leaning toward Dole. "Who did I vote for in the 1992 election? Well, it wasn't Clinton," said Prong, who disagrees with the president's veto of a ban on partial-birth abortions. "I'm not too sure who I'm voting for this time. I guess I'm sort of sitting in limbo on this one, although I've been thinking I'll vote for Dole." At K.J.'s Hardware store, Kevin Nighswander's vote is still up for grabs. "I'm not sure who I'll vote for yet," Nighswander said. "I probably won't really know until I reach for the voting handle. I didn't watch the debates because it's all mostly mud slinging. "I will say this: I voted for Clinton in 1992 and I'm sorry that I did. I just don't think he's that great a president. Hey, there's always Pat Paulsen." At the Wooden Box Antique store, John Bailey has old campaign buttons among his collectibles. "I have to admit that as a 20-year-old, I'm not too happy with Dole being 73," Bailey said. "Actually, I'm kind of fed up to here with all of them. But I do know this: Like most people in town, I'm leaning away from Clinton." By the way, at the antique store, "Nixon Now" buttons sell for $2.50; "LBJ-HHH" buttons run $5 and "Wallace For President/Step Up For America" buttons top out at $10. Village Family Restaurant owner Evie Southwell didn't vote for Clinton in 1992 and won't this time either. "We're just good old folks here in Clinton -- typically conservative and Republican," Southwell said. "My husband has worked at Ford for 30 years, and I must admit we working people owe a lot to Democratic presidents, but I won't be voting the Democratic ticket. "I think we'd have a better chance if we had someone else on the Republican ticket. Clinton is leading in the polls and will probably win. He's charming and a good speaker, but we should elect someone because they'll put the country first, not on popularity." This will be waitress Kim Ludwig's first presidential election. "I'm definitely planning on voting," said Ludwig, 18. "I'm not a Democrat, and I don't really care for Clinton. I'm a Republican, but I feel like Dole is just too old. So I'm not going to vote for either of them. "I'll probably vote for Perot or another party. Perot's good with money, and he can pay off the national debt." Copyright 1996, The Detroit News ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Constitution Party Subject: NO FED POLICE FORCE IN PA! Date: 20 Oct 1996 23:11:36 -0400 Friends in Liberty: Pennsylvania once again has become the battleground for the preservation of its state constitution. Before it was the Conference of the States and now its the creation of a federal police force. The Legislature, acting under the guidance of the ACIR, has proposed that the Feds be given local police powers. This comes in the form of Pa. State HR 2775 (old SB75). Needless to say that we all know that the Feds have no jurisdiction in a state. There is a clear separation. If this proposal came from the ACIR, then be sure that it has already come or is about to come to your state. Please examine the following documents and if you are from Pennsylvania, then use the format to contact your own state representative and senator and let them know that this is a definite no. Unbelievable as it sounds, even the Pennsylvania State Troopers Association is against this latest power play to destroy the state constitutions and give rise to a national police force. Mike Innerarity =85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85. Mr. Stetler Member, House of Representatives Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dear Sir: I do hereby give you Legal Notice that I believe the intent of HR2775 to be a clear violation to both the Pennsylvania Constitution and the US= Constitution. As such, I demand opportunity to testify before any committee considering HR 2775 and I charge you as my State Representative with the duty to arrange= same. Further, I charge you as my Representative to both vote against HR2775 and to take all available lawful steps to assure non-passage of HR 2775. No amount of federal appropriations or state WAM monies are an acceptable trade for GFOd given and Constitutionally secure freedoms and your oath does not give you authority to so trade. Should you not respond within 10 days of the receipt, by your office, of this notice, it will be considered as your agreement with the same. /s/ Rev. Gary L Hahn =85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85.. Letter from the Pennsylvania State Troopers Association Hon. William Adolph, Jr House of Representatives House Box 202020 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120-2020 Dear Rep Adolph It has come to our attention that the General Assembly is once again considering legislation that would grant police powers to federal officers. As representative of the Pennsylvania State Police, and being citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we question the wisdom of passing this type of legislation. If the federal agencies would do their assigned responsibilities, our work would be made much easier and more efficient. We also question who would be in control of enforcement with the added powers. Theoretically, federal agents could work inside the commonwealth and do covert action without regard to state and local police agencies. If this is priority or if there is a need, we question why not give the State Police these federal powers, as we suggested in previous proposed legislation. It is our opinion that we do not need a federal police force. We would ask for hearings on this issue before any type of legislative action is taken on legislation granting police powers to federal agencies. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our concern. Sincerely /s/ Paul T McCommons President =85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85. Note: (In a phone conversation, Mr McCommons also stated emphatically that the people in this state and in this country had better wake up fast because we don=92t need a national police force in America. Thank God there is still intelligent life in prominent positions. - CDR) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: IP: Conspiracy Fact vs Govt Fabrication Date: 20 Oct 1996 21:53:00 -0700 >(free 2 forward)-------------------------------(free 2 copy(*) > > > C O N S P I R A C Y F A C T > > v s > > G O V T F A B R I C A T I O N > > >by Ian Williams Goddard=20 > >The question was recently put to me in the course of an internet >dialog regarding conspiracy theories, "Ian, can you give examples=20 >of conspiracy theories which have been proven true?" Toward the=20 >satisfaction of this question I offered the following: > > IAN: If we define "proven true" as "that which is accepted=20 > by the GovtMedia," and thus by the majority of people, I'd=20 > be hard-pressed to point to a conspiracy "proven true." =20 > > If we define "proven true" as "consistent with facts," then=20 > there are many conspiracy theories proven true, such as: > > > CONSPIRACY THEORY 1: Attica prison guards killed all the > prisoners and hostages during the 1971 Attica prison riot.=20 > > FACT: The GovtMedia reported that the prisoners cut the hostage's=20 > throats. Headlines even read "I Saw The Slit Thoughts." Recently, 25=20 > years later, the man who did the autopsies, Dr. Baden, said on the HBO=20 > series "Autopsy" that the guards shot everyone and the stories to the=20 > contrary were a Big Lie. Yet the media line is still the govt line. It=20 > becomes clear after a little research that the media serves the State. > > > CONSPIRACY THEORY 2: Many people who died during the=20 > final assault on the Branch Davidian community in > Waco, TX, were killed by the FBI, not at the hands=20 > of Davidian members as reported. The GovtMedia con- > spires to cover-up and censor facts proving this. > > FACT 1: In November of '93, pathologist Dr. Rodney Crowe, who did=20 > autopsies on surviving bodies from the Waco fire, said on the Murry=20 > Povich Show that the children who died of blunt-force trauma were in=20 > fact * crushed to death after a tank collapsed a concrete wall on them. * > The children and their mothers -- over 40 women and children -- were=20 > this concrete room ( which the govt called "the bunker" ) trying to=20 > survive, not to kill themselves as the GovtMedia would have us think. > They were all killed. The GovtMedia told us that these children were=20 > "beaten to death by their parent in the final moments." Dr. Crowe=20 > was irate about this gross example of GovtMedia disinformation.=20 > > FACT 2: Medical examiner Nizaam Peerwani testified at the Davidian's=20 > trial that three women and six children in that concrete room died of=20 > suffocation *before* the fire. He suspects it was due to CS gas (Trial=20 > transcripts: 5979, 6029). Did you hear about that on the news? Nope. Ms. > Reno said she does not think CS can be lethal to children, yet the label= =20 > on all CS canisters says that CS used indoors can be fatal to children. = =20 > Before the fire, a tank shot several * exploding * CS rounds point- > blank into that small room filled with women and children. Mt Carmel=20 > was heavily bugged, so they had to know where the women and children=20 > were. Notice how these *facts* are censored from all news coverage.=20 > That is itself proof of conspiracy to cover-up mass murder. More: > > FACT 3: According to former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, infra-red= =20 > (FLIR) video taken from the FBI's own helicopter proves that the FBI fired > heavily with full-auto-machine-guns into the Mt Carmel center just as the= =20 > fire started, which was when people would most likely try to exit. The= FLIR=20 > video also proves that Davidians did NOT fire out at the tanks on that day= =20 > as reported by the GovtMedia. That bit of disinformation was a key pretext= =20 > to speeding up the demolition of the building. Ramsey Clark will be using= =20 > this FLIR video in upcoming wrongful death suits against the so-called > "Department of Justice." Ramsey Clark spoke about this FLIR video=20 > footage at the April 19, 1996 memorial gathering in Waco, TX. > > FACT 4: Toxicologist Dr. William Marcus, testified at the Congressional > Hearings on Waco that the CS molecule contains a "cyanide radical" that > could have been transdermally absorbed by the children due to their thin= =20 > skin. CS also converts to hydrogen cyanide upon heating. In fact,= surviving > bodies where found to contain very high levels of cyanide. Dr. Marcus also > observed that CS is a heavy particle that is suspended in the air like a= =20 > gas only for a brief period when carried by the flammable and toxic agent= =20 > methyl chloride, thus CS particles fall quickly to the ground. The FBI > calculated that if spread evenly over the known sq. feet of indoor space,= =20 > the tons of CS pumped in should not have exceeded safe levels. But this=20 > is a deception because, as CS quickly falls, very high concentrations=20 > would be found toward the floor along with the children and fallen=20 > adults, in fact, 10 to 100x higher than if uniformly distributed. > > I believe that these facts prove the conspiracy theory that the govt=20 > killed many or most of the people who died on April 19, 1993 at Waco,=20 > Waco, TX. The facts also strongly suggest, to as the least, that the=20 > govt killed with intent. They also prove that the media censors all=20 > those facts that indicate govt culpability in favor of false claims=20 > that demonize the victims of govt abuse, thereby rendering the media=20 > a willing accessory to mass murder and to the obstruction of justice. > > > CONSPIRACY THEORY 3: The FBI facilitated and allowed the World=20 > Trade Center bombing to happen when they could have stopped it. > > FACTS: As reported by The New York Times (10/28/93) and CNN, Mr.=20 > Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used by the=20 > FBI to infiltrate the terrorists later charged in the Trade Center=20 > bombing. The original plan told to Mr. Salem was that his job was=20 > to see to it that fake explosives were used, then the bombers would=20 > be busted for planting what they thought was a real bomb with no=20 > possibility of anybody getting hurt. A good plan. Mr. Salem=20 > secretly tape-recorded hundreds of hours of his telephonic=20 > communications with authorities without their knowledge. > > The recordings reveal that the FBI changed the original plan and=20 > told Mr. Salem NOT to use the fake explosives but to use REAL =20 > explosives. The FBI agent who told him to use real explosives was=20 > adamant about this. I saw and heard this on CNN in '93 and could not=20 > believe my eyes and ears, I thought, "We'll never hear the end of=20 > this." Boy was I wrong, it totally disappeared. Alas, there is=20 > an excerpt of some of this that was printed in The New York=20 > Times (10/28/93) available at: =20 > > http://www.netwrk2000.com/okbomnws.html > > While these recordings were played in preliminary court hearings,=20 > they were barred from the actual trial because Mr. Salem made them > without the permission of the FBI agents. The govt can bug you without=20 > your permission, but the opposite is not also true -- that's tyranny.=20 > The tapes exist, and they prove that the FBI de facto orchestrated the=20 > bombing of the World Trade Center, an act that would result in massive=20 > new police powers for the FBI. However, because the tapes were barred=20 > from court, the media simply pretends they don't exist and the truth=20 > is forever nullified from the official GovtMedia story, exiled to=20 > the dark allies of seedy conspiracy theory.=20 > > They say that tens of thousands would have died if the truck-bomb=20 > had been able to park in the spot the bombers had reserved, right=20 > next to a key column, but when they got there a car had taken their=20 > spot. I'd like to think someone knew about this and parked the car=20 > there to saves the lives of thousands of people.=20 > > > CONSPIRACY THEORY 4: The FBI fabricated=20 > evidence in the Oklahoma bombing investigation. > > FACT: Associated Press 04/10/96 reports that (emphasis added): > > Prosecutors agreed to turn over letters from FBI=20 > agent Frederic Whitehurts, who tested Mr. McVeigh's=20 > cloths for traces of explosives. Mr. Whitehurst has=20 > claimed that investigators FAKED evidence in the=20 > bombing case. ^^^^^=20 > > > CONSPIRACY THEORY 5: The Govt was both involved in the April 19, > 1993 Oklahoma City bombing and had foreknowledge of it, and both > the govt and the media are covering this up. > > FACT 1: Former Grand Juror Hoppy Heidelberg, in charge of evidence in the > Oklahoma City bombing case, told the press that, "No one who saw McVeigh= =20 > with other suspects [ such as John Doe #2 ], was ever allowed to testify= =20 > before the Federal Grand Jury." Mr. Heidelberg was eventually thrown off= =20 > the jury after he refused to stop asking questions about John Doe 2.=20 > His review of the best available evidence lead him to conclude,=20 > as was reported in both the USA Today (10/19/95) and the AP:=20 > > "I think they [the govt] know who John Doe 2 is,=20 > and they are protecting him. This is because John=20 > Doe 2 was either a government agent or a government > informant. Either way they [the govt] had... prior=20 > knowledge to the bombing and that's what they=20 > can't afford to come out." > > After this single report in the media, Mr. Heidelburg's story is for all= =20 > intents and purposes gone with the wind -- no long part of the picture. > > FACT 2: The Portland newspaper the OREGONIAN (4/20/95), states that=20 > Judge Wayne Alley, whose office sits across from the Murrah building,=20 > was warned several days prior to the blast by "security specialists" > to take "special precautions." This story never resurfaced.=20 > > FACT 3: The USA Today (4/20/95) reported that Harvy Weathers, of the=20 > Oklahoma City Fire Department, said that the fire dept. had received=20 > a call from the FBI prior to the bombing stating that there would be=20 > "some people entering the city over the weekend." Weathers did not=20 > explain what this meant, but obviously an army of FBI were to enter=20 > the city after the bombing later the next week. "Over the weekend"=20 > would have been a few days before the bombing. Then consider that: > > FACT 4: Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key says that he knows=20 > of two witnesses who overheard ATF employees state that they were warned= =20 > not to come to work that day, indeed, even as the ATF was the supposed > target of the bombing, no ATF agents were killed, and few if any showed= =20 > up for work that day. Representative Key also points out that bomb squad > employees were seen in front of the building at 7:15 am, about two hours= =20 > prior to the blast. Rep. Key has conducted his own investigation and=20 > was so shocked with the evidence he uncovered, he compiled it into a=20 > video presentation, to be found at a site also promoting the bible:=20 > > http://teaminfinity.com/ookkcc.html > > FACT 5: As reported by the Associated Press, the McVeigh defense=20 > team is in possession of a tape of a call made by the FBI to Oklahoma=20 > City officials warning of a possible terrorist event in the next few=20 > days made several days prior to the blast.=20 > > FACT 6: As reported widely on CNN and TV stations across the nation,=20 > up to four primed bombs were found and defused inside what remained of=20 > the Murrah Center Federal Building on April 19, 1995. I have much of=20 > this on tape. How could bombs have been placed inside a large govt > building without inside govt connections ?=20 > > FACT 7: According to CNN, the bombs were found by bomb sniffing dogs. > The ATF later said they were dummy bombs used for bomb training in the > busy downtown office building. If true, then, containing no explosives, > explosives detecting dogs would not had tracked them down as they did,=20 > nor would munitions technicians have spent so much time defusing them=20 > as they did, for, training bombs are always clearly labeled as such. > The ATF's "dummy bomb" story, is at odds with the facts.=20 > > FACT 8: KFOR-TV in Oklahoma City reported on the 19th that two or more=20 > of the bombs found inside were "far larger in magnitude than the fist=20 > that went off INSIDE the building" (seismic recorders at two locations > both recorded TWO blasts). A terrorist expert, Dr. Randall Heather, on=20 > KFOR-TV said, "We have both of the bombs that were defused at the site=20 > and they are being taken apart." The news coverage went on to say that=20 > another bomb was found strapped to a column next to the day-care center.= =20 > Up to four unexploded bombs where found inside by the end of the day. > > FACT 9: Brigadier General Partin (USAF, Air Force Armament Technology > Laboratory, ret.), one of the top munitions experts in the world, says=20 > that blast damage patterns are NOT consistent with an ANFO truck bomb.=20 > He says that demolition charges had to be placed on the columns, and=20 > sure enough, one was found attached to a column that failed to go off.=20 > Important excerpts of Partin's report along with many photographs > may be found at (very large page, select no graphics for speed): > > http://www.tncnet.com/~rsears/oak/explode.html > > FACT 10: According to the publication Veritas (5/9/95), bomb technicians= =20 > inside the building on the 19th who were finding the unexploded bombs=20 > inside the building were heard to say over police radio:=20 > > First voice: Boy your not going to believe this! > Second voice: Believe what? > First voice: I can't believe it... this is a military bomb! > > At http://www.erols.com/igoddard/okbook.htm you can find an order form= =20 > for a book written by Michele Marie Moore, an investigator in Oklahoma= City=20 > who recorded hundreds of hours of local TV, Police, Fire and EMT= broadcasts=20 > that reveal the shocking untold truth about what really happened in OK= City. > The result of the bombing was that the police forces of the federal govt > were given massive new powers granted by the "Anti-terrorist Bill" signed > at a large White House ceremony exactly one year after the OK bombing. > > You can also purchase the book "OKBOMB, Conspiracy and Cover-up," from=20 > A-albionic Research, P.O. Box 20273, Ferndale, MI 48220, for $18.80.=20 > > Recommended Waco fact reference: "The Davidian Massacre." $9.00 book rate,= =20 > or $11.00 first class. Mail to: Carol Moore, Box 65518, Washington, D.C.= =20 > 20035. Disclaimer: I'm not making any money off the sale of these books. > > The above listing of facts is but a drop in the bucket of all facts=20 > that support and/or prove conspiracy on the part of the govt in only=20 > the few cases cited above. Needless to say there are many other cases=20 > with significant evidence to suggest govt conspiracy, such as the=20 > assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and civil rights leader=20 > Martin Luther King, the Jonestown atrocity, the running of drugs,... =20 > All largely or entirely censored by the major media, except as the > stories are breaking, prior to an organized effort to suppress. > > A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who > refuse to believe that their govt and their media will routinely lie to > them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society > that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it's going to get.= =20 > >************************************************************************ > IAN GODDARD Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard=20 >________________________________________________________________________ > >=A9 1996 Ian Goddard -- (*) Free to copy nonprofit w/ attribute > > >-- >Peter J. Celano celano@ic.net >http://ic.net/~celano member SPECLUSA < >< >------------- >Ready to DO something? Try http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ >Always remember - LIPS SINK SHIPS!!! > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- >To subscribe, email majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com >with the message "subscribe ignition-point". >http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< =20 * Psalm 33 * =20 "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- =20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: from the Detroit News Date: 21 Oct 1996 01:07:20 -0400 (EDT) On Sun, 20 Oct 1996, Howlin' Blue wrote: > Here's an example of what I'm talking about in the rural areas. This is > from Michigan and the conversations sound exactly the same as the ones > in TX, GA, FL, N&SC, TN, KY, and WV in the rural areas. > > This is the point the polls are missing. They're, as usual, polling > urban areas. If clinton wins urban America by twelve points Dole wins > the election because he's going to carry rural america by 20 points. First, let me mention that I don't have a dog in this fight, because I'm unenthused about Clinton and Dole. If I paid for a nationwide representative sample poll and I found out that the polling firm only sampled urban areas I would be really angry and I would demand my money back. Seriously. It could happen, of course, but it would be professional misfeasance. I can't comment on what's up in TX, GA, FL, N/SC, KY or WV, but I have some contradictory information about TN. Today's _Knoxville News-Sentinel_ (KNS) reports: * That Dole is lagging in TN. Various statewide non-party-affiliated polls report that Clinton is ahead by 11-15 points. The KNS' polling firm, Directions Data Research of Knoxville, says the margin is 11 points. The TN Republican Party says it shows Dole down by 5 points. Presumably the TN Republican Party would try not to skew results in an unfavorable direction. Cynics might accuse it of skewing results in a favorable direction, of course. On the other hand, the KNS also reports that Sen. Fred "Captain Raimus" Thompson is leading his opponent by about 15 points. So it may not be a complete rout of brand-R. bd > > > > [Image] Next Story > Return to the section index > Return to The Detroit News Home Page > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > October 20, 1996 > [News ] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Voters voices from Main Street: Michigan town shares president's name, > not > vision > > By Tom Greenwood / The Detroit News > Clinton's not too crazy about Clinton. > > Tiny, contained and conservative, the village of Clinton -- population > 2,475 > -- sits in the rolling hills of Lenawee County, surrounded by regimented > rows of corn now as dry and lifeless as President Clinton's chances of a > landslide here. > > State election officials said candidate Clinton carried the village in > 1992: > He received 665 votes (40 percent); President George Bush got 569 (34 > percent); and Ross Perot got 166 (26 percent). But nowadays it's tough > finding Clinton folks who admit to voting for Clinton four years ago. > > Town dentist Dr. Jan Rizzo thinks Clinton will be re-elected. But > probably > not with his help. > > "I guess I'm kind of undecided at this point," Rizzo said. > > "I just wish the Republicans had nominated someone else. I'd be more > excited > if it was Colin Powell. But still, I consider myself a Republican." > > On Main Street, Kathy Sposite was cheesed off at what she saw was a > presidential snub of Clinton, which the town's founders named after New > York > Gov. DeWitt Clinton back in 1829. > > "A few weeks ago, Clinton was on his whistle-stop train tour and he > stopped > in Tecumseh, just a few miles away," said Sposite, a mother of five. > "We're > named Clinton, and he never came here! > > "Dole seems older and more respected. I watched all the debates and saw > how > they acted nasty to Dole and tried to get him upset, but he didn't fall > for > it. I'm not going to vote for President Clinton, and I didn't vote for > him > the last time, either." > > At the Wild Swan Gift Shoppe, store manager Mary Prong is leaning toward > Dole. > > "Who did I vote for in the 1992 election? Well, it wasn't Clinton," said > Prong, who disagrees with the president's veto of a ban on partial-birth > abortions. > > "I'm not too sure who I'm voting for this time. I guess I'm sort of > sitting > in limbo on this one, although I've been thinking I'll vote for Dole." > > At K.J.'s Hardware store, Kevin Nighswander's vote is still up for > grabs. > > "I'm not sure who I'll vote for yet," Nighswander said. "I probably > won't > really know until I reach for the voting handle. I didn't watch the > debates > because it's all mostly mud slinging. > > "I will say this: I voted for Clinton in 1992 and I'm sorry that I did. > I > just don't think he's that great a president. Hey, there's always Pat > Paulsen." > > At the Wooden Box Antique store, John Bailey has old campaign buttons > among > his collectibles. > > "I have to admit that as a 20-year-old, I'm not too happy with Dole > being > 73," Bailey said. "Actually, I'm kind of fed up to here with all of > them. > But I do know this: Like most people in town, I'm leaning away from > Clinton." > > By the way, at the antique store, "Nixon Now" buttons sell for $2.50; > "LBJ-HHH" buttons run $5 and "Wallace For President/Step Up For America" > buttons top out at $10. > > Village Family Restaurant owner Evie Southwell didn't vote for Clinton > in > 1992 and won't this time either. > > "We're just good old folks here in Clinton -- typically conservative and > Republican," Southwell said. "My husband has worked at Ford for 30 > years, > and I must admit we working people owe a lot to Democratic presidents, > but I > won't be voting the Democratic ticket. > > "I think we'd have a better chance if we had someone else on the > Republican > ticket. Clinton is leading in the polls and will probably win. He's > charming > and a good speaker, but we should elect someone because they'll put the > country first, not on popularity." > > This will be waitress Kim Ludwig's first presidential election. > > "I'm definitely planning on voting," said Ludwig, 18. "I'm not a > Democrat, > and I don't really care for Clinton. I'm a Republican, but I feel like > Dole > is just too old. So I'm not going to vote for either of them. > > "I'll probably vote for Perot or another party. Perot's good with money, > and > he can pay off the national debt." > > Copyright 1996, The Detroit News > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Ca. my reply to David Pandori Date: 21 Oct 1996 03:44:54 -0400 Well, folks, such as it is, here is what I wrote back to Mr. Pandori. Mr. Pandori, I respectfully have to disagree with your assessment of our rights to bear arms. I am no lawyer, and I'm not particularly sharp when it comes to the law. But I can read, and it seems to me the meaning of the second amendment is very clear. I believe that we have indeed moved away from the original intent of the founding fathers, which is why laws such as the assault weapons ban can exist. This doesn't mean that its constitutional, I don't think that its been challenged. Even if it were, we have many laws today that are unconstitutional and still on the books. I have no illusions about being able to change your mind. As you are an elected official, I merely wanted you to know that there are a great many people who disagree with you. Only time will tell who is right, and the outcome will be decided at the ballot box. I have included a article from Peter Hauer that states our position much better than I could. Thank you for your reply to my email. And please take the time to listen to both sides of the second amendment issue. Respectfully, Vanze Lum Tsuma@aol.com I also included a article on the second amendment by Peter Hauer that can be viewed at his web page at -http://www.Priss.com/hauer. I'll let you know if I hear back from Mr. Pandori. Vanze Lum Tsuma@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Reuters/Zogby Date: 21 Oct 1996 07:34:49 -0600 Clinton lead is 8 points in Reuter poll Copyright © 1996 Reuter Information Service * The Nando Election '96 server * More on the 1996 debates WASHINGTON (Oct 20, 1996 5:19 p.m. EDT) - Three days of gains by Republican Bob Dole against President Bill Clinton following the Wednesday presidential debate ended on Sunday, according to the daily Reuters tracking poll. Clinton led Dole 8.3 percent, getting 44.9 percent to Dole's 36.6 percent, in the poll of 900 likely voters by the John Zogby Group International. It was conducted Thursday through Saturday and has a 3.3 percent margin of error. Dole trailed Clinton 12.8 percent before Wednesday night's debate but closed the gap to 11.9 percent on Thursday, 9 percent on Friday and 7.8 percent on Saturday. Zogby said Dole also made gains after the first presidential debate but later lost them. He said Dole would have to get 40 percent to move within reach of overtaking Clinton in the Nov. 5 election but said "He has failed to reach that number in our poll or anyone's." Support for Independent candidate Ross Peret fell to 5 percent in the poll released on Sunday from 6.3 percent on Thursday. For the Senate, the new poll showed likely voters favoured Republican control 43.4 percent to 38.1 percent for Democratic control. It showed they favored Republican control of the House 41.8 percent to 38.7 percent for Democratic control. Table 1 If the election for president were held today, for whom would you vote, Clinton, Dole, or Perot? Reuters Tracking Oc20 Oc19 Oc18 Oc17 Oc16 Oc15 Oc14 Oc13 Oc12 Clinton 44.9 44.6 43.6 45.0 45.8 47.4 47.7 45.5 44.5 Dole 36.6 36.8 34.6 33.1 33.0 32.3 32.9 32.9 34.3 Perot 5.0 5.1 5.8 6.3 5.1 5.3 4.6 7.0 8.3 Other 1.8 1.8 2.8 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.1 1.3 Undecid 11.8 11.7 13.3 13.1 13.1 12.4 12.1 12.6 11.6 Note: Columns may not add to 100 % due to rounding Congress Table Which party is your preference to win a majority in the Senate and the House, respectively? Reuters Tracking Oc20 Oc19 Oc18 Oc17 Oc16 Oc15 Oc14 Oc13 Oc12 Democrats 38.1 37.4 37.9 40.5 40.4 41.2 40.9 41.1 40.6 in Senate Repub's 43.4 42.7 41.1 38.9 40.0 39.3 41.2 40.1 41.4 in Senate Democrats 38.7 37.5 38.7 41.0 40.8 42.0 41.5 41.3 40.6 in House Rebub's 41.8 41.5 39.5 37.6 37.5 37.3 39.3 39.6 40.4 in House Which party's candidate do you intend to vote for in your congressional district? Democrat 37.9 37.1 39.0 39.1 38.5 38.3 39.4 38.6 38.6 Rebublic 34.9 35.5 33.7 32.7 33.0 32.5 33.5 33.8 35.1 JOHN ZOGBY: Why the Reuters poll shows presidential gap closer than other polls Copyright © 1996 Nando.net Copyright © 1996 Reuter Information Service * The Nando Election '96 server * More on the 1996 debates NEW HARTFORD, N.Y. (Oct 20, 1996 5:02 p.m. EDT) - For much of the election campaign our opinion polls for Reuters have shown a narrower lead than others for President Bill Clinton over Republican challenger Bob Dole. We are consistently showing a single digit or low double digit race as most other polls show double digits, some over 20 percentage points. Even though most polls are clearly showing a tightening of the race, our margin remains the smallest. The Reuters/Zogby tracking poll showed an 8.3 percentage point Clinton lead on Sunday. Why is this? Here are some possible explanations. -- The issue of "likely" voters. Some polls sample "adults" and "registered voters." Neither will suffice in an election poll. In the United States, which has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the world, we must look at the actual electorate -- those people who go to the polls on election day. Only a sample of "likely voters" will do. Polls of adults or registered voters include more people who tend to the Democrats but often do not turn out to vote on election day. Thus, the results may be skewed toward the Democrats. While we are never absolutely sure from telephone sampling that a a person surveyed will actually vote, Reuters/Zogby asks respondents if they are registered to vote, and if they are likely to cast a ballot. If the answer to either question is "no," the interview is ended. Polling those not likely to vote really does not tell us what we need to know. -- The issue of "undecideds." Reuters/Zogby does not push voters who say they are undecided until the final days of the campaign. Most other pollsters do what is known as a "hard push." That is, they prod undecided voters to make a candidate choice. This is why the level of undecided voters in the Reuters/ Zogby tracking poll has stayed at between 11 and 13 percent of the sample for the last few weeks. Many voters still have not focused on the campaign. Those unsure who they will vote for tend to be genuinely uncommitted. Pushing them to make a choice well ahead of the election does not tell us anything useful and may lead to inaccuracies. -- The issue of "weighting" for party identification. All telephone samples are adjusted at the end of the interviewing to ensure a proper representation for age, gender, race, and other demographic characteristics. This is called weighting. The Reuters/Zogby poll has generated some controversy because we also weight to reflect party identification. We do this because we believe that party identification is a very important indicator of how people filter their news and make their choices of candidates. It is as important as age, gender, race, and others indicators. For example, we know from the National Election Study surveys that of people who vote in two successive presidential elections, about 80 percent vote for the same party. The percentage of voters who stay with their party's nominee is even higher for Congressional and state or local races. Some other pollsters do not believe party identification is as important to the results and do not adjust the raw samples for party. We adjust our raw sample to reflect a fair representation of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. We do this by taking a close look at exit polls, party registration figures, and a compilation of polls to get a sense of the proportion of Democrats, Republicans, and independents in the national electorate. We also look for factors that may increase or dampen turnout for one party. This is not an exact science. But what we do is to adjust our sample to reflect about 34 percent each for the two parties (with a slight edge of a few tenths of a percentage point for the Democrats) and 32 percent independents. We think this is a fair representation of the actual electorate. ------------------ (John Zogby is president of Zogby Group International. He explains the methodology behind the daily Reuters/Zogby tracking poll of the U.S. presidential election.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] Communist Party agrees with conservatives re: TWA 800 (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1996 08:14:34 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ------------------------- Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the Oct. 24, 1996 issue of Workers World newspaper ------------------------- EDITORIAL: NO ONE TO BLAME BUT TWA? In case anyone missed the news, on Oct. 13 the Associated Press reported that Dr. Bernard Loeb, director of aviation safety for the National Transportation Safety Board, said that officials in the agency believe TWA Flight 800 exploded because of mechanical failure, not a missile or a bomb. The statement is an act of defiance because it means standing up to the pressure of the FBI and the Clinton White House, which have both virtually declared it to be a bombing. The FBI went so far in its propaganda blitz blaming so- called terrorists that it even engaged in an elaborate coverup. The New York Times, a willing collaborator with the FBI, printed a front-page story declaring that proof of a bomb had been found. There could be no doubt, this police- inspired propaganda piece declared. Using the authority of the New York Times, the big business-controlled media across the U.S. screamed out the story of the bombing and called for measures to curb terrorism. Of course, it turned out that the claim was an FBI scam. Traces of an explosive chemical were found on one piece of the plane. What the FBI failed to mention was that the plane had recently been used for bomb-detection exercises. The traces probably came from the testing. But the scam served its purposes. The Clinton administration used the media-induced call for anti- terrorist measures to push through some Draconian police- state measures. The laws have been passed even though it is now clear that no bomb or terrorist had anything to do with the devastating crash. The measures include: * a return to pre-Watergate rules on wire-taps and secret police break-ins; * authority for the U.S. government to prosecute anyone posting material to the Internet that might be used for criminal purposes; * authority for the FBI to begin computerized tracking of every U.S. citizen who flies. There was even the threat that the Clinton administration was going to use the crash as an excuse to bomb Iran. Officials were quoted in the media suggesting that if they could show that it was a bomb, then they would carry out an attack right away. The New York Times, the willing conspirator, even suggested that Iran was the center of world terrorism and was a good target. In the end, the Clinton administration chose to bomb Iraq instead. What's to be learned from this? Maybe the old saying about lies should be modified. It used to be said there are three kinds of lies--lies, damned lies and statistics. We might add a fourth kind: FBI statements. As has been shown far too many times, when the ruling class wants an incident to fit its political agenda, no lie is too outrageous. The more famous lies like the sinking of the Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin incident were used to launch wars. TWA Flight 800 is just a lesser one of these lies. - END - (Copyright Workers World Service: Permission to reprint granted if source is cited. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Part 1, Clinton's Chopper Crew Fried and Crashed (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1996 08:23:05 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: act@efn.org, lindat@iquest.net, rich@pencil.math.missouri.edu, pauls@cic.net, bigred@shout.net, blazing@crl.com, pnpj@db1.cc.rochester.edu, jwhitley@Inforamp.net, tfs@adc.com, eplurib@megalinx.net, clarkm@cnct.com, patrick@silcom.com, dothb@aol.com, hpbiii@aol.com ____ ____ --____ ____---- ----____ ____---- ----____ ____-- ---- ---- ---- T H E P E O P L E'S S P E L L B R E A K E R ____ ____ ____ __---- ----____ ____---- ----____ ____---- ----__ ---- ---- News They Never Told You .... News They'll Never Tell You DATE: _________ __, ____ PRICE: __ CENTS THE NEWSPAPER FOR THE PEOPLE OF MONTANA * * * * * MORNING EDITION * * * * * EDITOR: John DiNardo From the free airwaves of the People's radio station in Nashville, Tennessee, WWCR, 5.065 (or 5.070) megahertz Shortwave: PROTECTING YOUR WEALTH, broadcast weekdays at 9 PM, EST: Part 1, 8/29/95, Clinton's Chopper Crew Fried and Crashed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MIKE CALLAHAN: We're going to get into this in anticipation of Mr. Owens getting in touch with us. I'm going to give you a brief synopsis of what happened. Then I'm going to bring on Mr. Craig Cooley. This goes back to 1993. On May 19th, Frank Owens -- the gentleman whom we're going to have on here in a moment -- was doing some archaelogical work in southern Maryland, just outside of Quantico, Virginia. He was on-site around 11 o'clock and had been working for a couple of hours, when he witnessed a helicopter flying towards him. It was a Sikorsky V-860, the kind that they use as Marine One [the president's helicopters]; that is, helicopters of this type. He had seen the helicopter flying overhead at a very low altitude, circle around, then disappear behind the tree line, come back, and then disappear again. On his way home, down a back road, he noticed and came upon the wreckage of this helicopter. Being the first one on the scene, he immediately went up to the helicopter, walked inside, checked it out, and saw, unfortunately, four dead U.S. servicemen. The lead officer on this [investigation] was a gentleman by the name of Colonel Barkley. At the time, he was Major Barkley, and had since been promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel. Some very strange situations took place thereafter. Now I'm going to bring on Mr. Craig Cooley. Craig is going to help me explain this to you. Craig, are you with us? CRAIG COOLEY: Yes, Mike. How are you this evening? MIKE CALLAHAN: Good. We're waiting for Frank to get back in touch with us. >From where we're standing right now, bring our listeners up to speed with this information. I've kind of opened the door a little bit. Now, I'll let you go ahead and bring it forth. CRAIG COOLEY: Well, Frank Owens was just a standby witness. He walked upon the crash, and really was hoping to help when he found all four crew members deceased. This was very troubling, in and of itself, especially when he noticed a number of very large lacerations on the dead crew members. And these lacerations were not bleeding. There was very little blood at the crash site, even though the injuries were quite severe. This really got his curiosity up. But he kind of let it subside. He watched the crash on the news, and he called the families and told them that everything was fine, and that their men had died peacefully. About a week later, he was asked to check with the property owner to find out if they could put a memorial at the site of the crash: four crosses -- one for each of the dead servicemen. So he thought he'd go and look over the crash site before the families got there. He then noticed a large number of aircraft fragments at the crash site. This was something that he knew -- based on his own experience -- was quite unusual. Normally, in a crash investigation, they pick up all the pieces. So, this really made him think that something was wrong. At this point, he managed to get permission from the families to pursue it -- to get permission to obtain the autopsies, the official investigations, the J.A.G. reports. Of course, the official mishap report was classified, so he couldn't get ahold of that. But he started looking into this. And one of the things that really struck him was the autopsy photographs. Even though there was no damage to the clothing of the dead men, their skin was severely burned. And with no penetration of their clothing, it rules out explosives. You know, the clothing wasn't burned, and there was no fire in the aircraft. And so he began to get really concerned about how these men could have been burned. He took out several advertisements in the Washington, D.C. area newspapers, and the responses to the ads were quite varied. It was in this process that he came across a facility and some gentlemen who worked at a facility nearby, within about five miles of the crash site. This facility has been rumored to work on a lot of "Star Wars" weaponry, and has been involved with some high-energy radio frequency tests. He wondered if this facility could have been involved in bringing down the helicopter, as well as killing the crewmen. In looking at this facility and in doing research on the U-860 (the U-860 is a fly-by-wire helicopter). It has a long history ... As a matter of fact, in the U.S. Military, it's called the "long dart" and the "crash hawk" because of its long history of problems with the fly-by-wire system. One of the problems that surfaced during the 1980s is that any time the helicopter would fly near a high-powered radio transmitter or a microwave tower, it could interfere with the fly-by-wire electronics, and a crash would result. Extensive testing of it was done by the Army down at Fort Rucker, and it really uncovered this problem. As a matter of fact, it was really covered up quite heavily by the Army up until the early 1990s. I became involved with this investigation after I heard him on a December 1994 interview on the G. Gordon Liddy Show. And I heard him get into the subject of this electromagnetic energy. With my experiences in this area (having worked in the defense industry now for twelve years, and in high-technology for a total of fifteen years), I knew that what he was talking about was possible, and I wanted to find out more. I was very skeptical, and I asked him some very pointed questions (I called into the show and left my phone number). And the more I did research on this, the more I found that he was most probably correct. Again, it was these burns. When you find burns on human skin and on bodies, without damage to the surrounding clothing, you know that whatever burned them penetrated the clothing without damage. And I began to do research on weaponry that was developed as part of the "Star Wars" project, and I found that one of the weapons that was worked on is a microwave beam weapon. It is specififally very, very effective against personnel. It's not very effective against missiles because it doesn't penetrate the skin. In fact, if you fired it at an aircraft or at a helicopter, it will not damage the aircraft or helicopter in any way. It will penetrate the windows, and blind the crewmen and burn them, and maybe interfere with their electronics. But if you were to examine the wreckage, you really wouldn't find anything wrong with it. ~~ TO BE CONTINUED ~~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To receive an episode of these many series in your e-mail box each weekday, just send an e-mail message with the word "SUBSCRIBE" in the "Subject" line, to jad@locust.cic.net . I urge you to post the episodes of this ongoing series to other newsgroups, networks, computer bulletin boards and mailing lists. It is also important to post hardcopies on the bulletin boards in campus halls, churches, supermarkets, laundromats, etc. -- any place where concerned citizens can read this vital information. Our people's need for Paul Reveres and Ben Franklins is as urgent today as it was 220 years ago. John DiNardo jad@locust.cic.net ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// | If we seriously listen to this God within us [conscience, if you will], | | we usually find ourselves being urged to take the more difficult path, | | the path of more effort rather than less. | | .... Each and every one of us, more or less frequently, will hold | | back from this work .... Like every one of our ancestors before us, | | we are all lazy. So original sin does exist; it is our laziness. | | | | M. Scott Peck | | THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED | ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Part 1, Clinton's Chopper Crew Fried and Crashed (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1996 08:28:04 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: act@efn.org, lindat@iquest.net, rich@pencil.math.missouri.edu, pauls@cic.net, bigred@shout.net, blazing@crl.com, pnpj@db1.cc.rochester.edu, jwhitley@Inforamp.net, tfs@adc.com, eplurib@megalinx.net, clarkm@cnct.com, patrick@silcom.com, dothb@aol.com, hpbiii@aol.com ____ ____ --____ ____---- ----____ ____---- ----____ ____-- ---- ---- ---- T H E P E O P L E'S S P E L L B R E A K E R ____ ____ ____ __---- ----____ ____---- ----____ ____---- ----__ ---- ---- News They Never Told You .... News They'll Never Tell You DATE: _________ __, ____ PRICE: __ CENTS THE NEWSPAPER FOR THE PEOPLE OF MONTANA * * * * * MORNING EDITION * * * * * EDITOR: John DiNardo From the free airwaves of the People's radio station in Nashville, Tennessee, WWCR, 5.065 (or 5.070) megahertz Shortwave: PROTECTING YOUR WEALTH, broadcast weekdays at 9 PM, EST: Part 1, 8/29/95, Clinton's Chopper Crew Fried and Crashed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MIKE CALLAHAN: We're going to get into this in anticipation of Mr. Owens getting in touch with us. I'm going to give you a brief synopsis of what happened. Then I'm going to bring on Mr. Craig Cooley. This goes back to 1993. On May 19th, Frank Owens -- the gentleman whom we're going to have on here in a moment -- was doing some archaelogical work in southern Maryland, just outside of Quantico, Virginia. He was on-site around 11 o'clock and had been working for a couple of hours, when he witnessed a helicopter flying towards him. It was a Sikorsky V-860, the kind that they use as Marine One [the president's helicopters]; that is, helicopters of this type. He had seen the helicopter flying overhead at a very low altitude, circle around, then disappear behind the tree line, come back, and then disappear again. On his way home, down a back road, he noticed and came upon the wreckage of this helicopter. Being the first one on the scene, he immediately went up to the helicopter, walked inside, checked it out, and saw, unfortunately, four dead U.S. servicemen. The lead officer on this [investigation] was a gentleman by the name of Colonel Barkley. At the time, he was Major Barkley, and had since been promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel. Some very strange situations took place thereafter. Now I'm going to bring on Mr. Craig Cooley. Craig is going to help me explain this to you. Craig, are you with us? CRAIG COOLEY: Yes, Mike. How are you this evening? MIKE CALLAHAN: Good. We're waiting for Frank to get back in touch with us. >From where we're standing right now, bring our listeners up to speed with this information. I've kind of opened the door a little bit. Now, I'll let you go ahead and bring it forth. CRAIG COOLEY: Well, Frank Owens was just a standby witness. He walked upon the crash, and really was hoping to help when he found all four crew members deceased. This was very troubling, in and of itself, especially when he noticed a number of very large lacerations on the dead crew members. And these lacerations were not bleeding. There was very little blood at the crash site, even though the injuries were quite severe. This really got his curiosity up. But he kind of let it subside. He watched the crash on the news, and he called the families and told them that everything was fine, and that their men had died peacefully. About a week later, he was asked to check with the property owner to find out if they could put a memorial at the site of the crash: four crosses -- one for each of the dead servicemen. So he thought he'd go and look over the crash site before the families got there. He then noticed a large number of aircraft fragments at the crash site. This was something that he knew -- based on his own experience -- was quite unusual. Normally, in a crash investigation, they pick up all the pieces. So, this really made him think that something was wrong. At this point, he managed to get permission from the families to pursue it -- to get permission to obtain the autopsies, the official investigations, the J.A.G. reports. Of course, the official mishap report was classified, so he couldn't get ahold of that. But he started looking into this. And one of the things that really struck him was the autopsy photographs. Even though there was no damage to the clothing of the dead men, their skin was severely burned. And with no penetration of their clothing, it rules out explosives. You know, the clothing wasn't burned, and there was no fire in the aircraft. And so he began to get really concerned about how these men could have been burned. He took out several advertisements in the Washington, D.C. area newspapers, and the responses to the ads were quite varied. It was in this process that he came across a facility and some gentlemen who worked at a facility nearby, within about five miles of the crash site. This facility has been rumored to work on a lot of "Star Wars" weaponry, and has been involved with some high-energy radio frequency tests. He wondered if this facility could have been involved in bringing down the helicopter, as well as killing the crewmen. In looking at this facility and in doing research on the U-860 (the U-860 is a fly-by-wire helicopter). It has a long history ... As a matter of fact, in the U.S. Military, it's called the "long dart" and the "crash hawk" because of its long history of problems with the fly-by-wire system. One of the problems that surfaced during the 1980s is that any time the helicopter would fly near a high-powered radio transmitter or a microwave tower, it could interfere with the fly-by-wire electronics, and a crash would result. Extensive testing of it was done by the Army down at Fort Rucker, and it really uncovered this problem. As a matter of fact, it was really covered up quite heavily by the Army up until the early 1990s. I became involved with this investigation after I heard him on a December 1994 interview on the G. Gordon Liddy Show. And I heard him get into the subject of this electromagnetic energy. With my experiences in this area (having worked in the defense industry now for twelve years, and in high-technology for a total of fifteen years), I knew that what he was talking about was possible, and I wanted to find out more. I was very skeptical, and I asked him some very pointed questions (I called into the show and left my phone number). And the more I did research on this, the more I found that he was most probably correct. Again, it was these burns. When you find burns on human skin and on bodies, without damage to the surrounding clothing, you know that whatever burned them penetrated the clothing without damage. And I began to do research on weaponry that was developed as part of the "Star Wars" project, and I found that one of the weapons that was worked on is a microwave beam weapon. It is specififally very, very effective against personnel. It's not very effective against missiles because it doesn't penetrate the skin. In fact, if you fired it at an aircraft or at a helicopter, it will not damage the aircraft or helicopter in any way. It will penetrate the windows, and blind the crewmen and burn them, and maybe interfere with their electronics. But if you were to examine the wreckage, you really wouldn't find anything wrong with it. ~~ TO BE CONTINUED ~~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To receive an episode of these many series in your e-mail box each weekday, just send an e-mail message with the word "SUBSCRIBE" in the "Subject" line, to jad@locust.cic.net . I urge you to post the episodes of this ongoing series to other newsgroups, networks, computer bulletin boards and mailing lists. It is also important to post hardcopies on the bulletin boards in campus halls, churches, supermarkets, laundromats, etc. -- any place where concerned citizens can read this vital information. Our people's need for Paul Reveres and Ben Franklins is as urgent today as it was 220 years ago. John DiNardo jad@locust.cic.net ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// | If we seriously listen to this God within us [conscience, if you will], | | we usually find ourselves being urged to take the more difficult path, | | the path of more effort rather than less. | | .... Each and every one of us, more or less frequently, will hold | | back from this work .... Like every one of our ancestors before us, | | we are all lazy. So original sin does exist; it is our laziness. | | | | M. Scott Peck | | THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED | ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] First Week (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1996 09:00:56 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- MACON UPDATE: October 20, 1996 by Nancy Lord Jury selection for the trial of U.S. v. Starr, McCranie and Spain lasted from October 15, 1996. until October 17. Five different panels of jurors were questioned by the federals and the accuseds. The jury is a gift from God. There are eight black women, one black man, and three white men. The government was so busy striking white guys that they forgot about the Moms and Grand-moms who know how the federals lie. Government prosecutor Sharon Ratley asked questions about the patriot movement, "Do you ever listen to short wave? Do you read the Spotlight? Do you know anybody in a militia?" Greg Spicer, Mr. Spain's attorney, asked whether they could decide a case according to their own conscience and could hold that decision even if all eleven others disagreed. The government's case got off to a roaring start when several attendees, including the Judge, dozed off during its opening statement. Sam Wilson's statement made much of the Declaration signed at Knob Hill last April, the Montana Freemen, and other disconnected matters. But everyone, including the guy in the robe, came to rapt attention when Bob Starr's attorney, Althea Buafo, gave her opening. She stated that the case was about paranoia, imagination and power -- of the government. Ms. Buafo then went on to describe the role of the infamous BATF employees, confidential informants Danny and Kevin Barker, in making this happen. Most of the witnesses testified about evidence bearing little, if any, on innocence or guilt: the plumbing pipes that the Barkers buried with so- called explosive chemicals that they had purchased; a brief-case found in Mr. Starr's car with phone bills, a picture of me, and various patriot first amendment materials. Several times, one defense attorney or another chose not to cross-examine, "No reason to question this witness, your Honor." The "star witness" of the week was H.L. Duke Faglier, an investigator working with an attorney, who was representing a militia member while he was infiltrating the group. Yes, this is unusual. Faglier claimed that at a meeting on January 6, 1996, Mr. Starr stated that Bart McEntyre was at the top of his hit list. There was also some testimony about mailing the BATF a picture of a BATF jacket ripped by the copper claw with rabbit blood. This comic book "threat" was taken so seriously that Mr. McEntyre moved his family. No picture was mailed. Several government witnesses were caught in blatant falsehoods. Ms. Buafo had an internal letter stating that a 1994 investigation of Mr. Starr was closed because there were no BATF violations. The case agent had testified otherwise. The arresting Deputy, Sam Smith testified that Mr. Starr had "struggled," but his testimony at a suppression hearing contradicted this. McEntyre himself testified earlier that he felt threatened during a meeting with Mr. Starr and Mr. McCranie on December 18, 1996. Fortunately, this meeting was taped by Starr and McCranie. That tape has a lot of cursing by the BATF agents, a statement by them that they would shoot anyone who came to harm their families, and that sometimes when you go after "the bad guys" you have to put your morals aside. He also stated that the constitution was written in the 1800's (public education, I suppose), and we couldn't live under it today. There was nearly a mistrial when Faglier blurted out that one of the defendants had felony conviction. The court not only did not grant a mistrial, but left a man on the jury who admitted that he could not put this out of his mind. I sat around all day on Saturday with the woman whose the affidavit got me disqualified, Tina McCranie, waiting to be called. We had a nice chat and a few laughs. I was to take the Fifth, or refuse to testify and go to jail rather than have my own over-zealous investigation twisted around against me client. My overnight bag was obvious and I was without purse or jewelry, and just a few documents, ready for jail. I told a reporter where to put the camera for a shot of myself being taken to jail. It never happened. I was "released" from subpoena at about 3:00 pm. Later I learned that Ms. Buafo made very strong arguments against my being called. The government won, but the Judge made clear that that was as far as he would go. I had the right to take the Fifth or a privilege. (Had I been forced to take the Fifth in front of the jury, I would do so after reading and explaining the entire Bill of Rights). The government was convinced that they would get nothing from me, nor get me locked up, and even if they got a contempt citation against me it would only be bad press. What a relief. Please keep Robert Starr, Jimmy McCranie, and Troy Spain in your prayers the next few weeks. While it looks good, federal acquittals are as rare as silver quarters and it isn't over 'til the fat lady sings. Nancy Lord Attorney at Law P.O. Box 7223 Macon, Ga 31209-7223 (912) 788-6272 (912) 785-1809 Fax defense@mindspring.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: TWA-800..Mechanical Malfunction .. Reuter Date: 21 Oct 1996 07:26:15 -0700 Joe, >>>>>>> Are you sure about this number? Seems awfully low, considering at sea level its around 1100 fps? Could that be a meters/second number. <<<<<<< Meters per second. Did I say feet? I didn't say feet, did I say feet??? Must have had my head some where while I was typing that! :-) Not only that, I screwed that feet figure royaly! Those measurements were in meters. In feet: 13000 feet and 1064.9 FPS. Sorry 'bout that. It was the computer's fault, I don't make mistakes like that, I really don't. Am I in denial, or what? >>>>>>> Are the fuel tanks pressurized or only the cabin and the cargo bay? <<<<<<< The entire 'tube' is pressurized. The only places not are wheel wells, wings, and the 48 section (vert and horiz stab and APU). With regards to the wings, there is a ram air duct (the correct name for which presently escapes me) that looks vaguely like a funnel cut in half and embedded into the lower wing surface of each wing. (In flight, a wing generates a high pressure under, and a low pressure over its surfaces - thereby causing lift.) The resultant air pressure generated is just sufficient to slightly presurize the tanks to assist proper fuel flow (gotta replace that air some how when you suck the fuel out!) This however, does not count as pressurization in the sense of providing an artificial atmosphere. >>>>>>> I was thinking of a small fragment from a near miss. <<<<<<< Well, lets look at that. Had the object been a missile, and had only a 'piece' of it hit the plane, then the scenario of observation would have been spoken of differently. Most likely, the aircraft would have survived a partial hit by a 'piece' of anything large enough to breach the skin, but small _and_ inert enough to not cause explosive damage, and certainly not having substantial mass to further penetrate additional structure. There are a number of considerations here that lead to more conjecture than I want to engage in. Remember, the 747 is a very large structure, and quite well built. Consider: The ANG Major saw an arc of light, followed by a small explosion. The report didn't specify how bright, merely a small explosion. Had that been the case of a missile, then the corresponding collateral damage to the airframe would have exhibited significant evidence of shrapnel damage. Modern guided missiles (at least more than one type) are not merely shrapnel devices in the sense of an iron bomb or hand grenade. The design is such that a very high efficiency charge is used to deploy a rapidly expanding series of ribbons of steel, that act as a saw, which effectively cut through the airframe. The larger explosion was said to have followed _immediately_ after the smaller. The larger was more intense, and the one that was reported by ground observers. The larger explosion, by description, happened inside the airplane. I have not personally witnessed a live explosion of a missile. But from the observations of others more knowledge than myself, they all pretty much state that it is a rather brilliant event, even at a distance. Now, remember that this explosion took place at twilight. So, the brightness would have been enhanced by the diminshing day light. The ground observers reported only one initial explosion - in the reports that I saw. Now, consistant with the above, my original conjecture was that the plane had been hit by a piece of space junk or meteroid, considering that the ANG Major stated that trajectory of the item followed that of a 'shooting star', his words not mine. Shooting stars come from above, not below. So, untill his statements are completely clarified, and the trajectory is ascertained, I will maintain my opinion. Untill we get cogent, corroborated, testimony from ALL of the witnesses, this matter is another 'unsolved mystery'. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) from Charles Duke Date: 21 Oct 1996 07:34:54 -0700 > October 21, 1996 > SENATOR DUKE > (719) 481-9289 > > By Senator Charles R. Duke > Colorado District 9 > > CAUTION! FREEDOM SPOKEN HERE > > This column does frequently feature issues needing a major >correction at the federal level that would have an impact on >states' rights and state policy. With the current state of >politics in America today, it is rare that a bill can be found >which would restore our constitutional rights. With a little >digging, however, one or two outstanding state bills can be >found. > Just such a bill is AB-3086, introduced in, of all places, >California, by Assemblyman Keith Olberg. The bill has passed >both houses of the Legislature and is awaiting Governor Pete >Wilson's signature. California is a state where just about the >only thing you can count on is change. Onward and upward >through the ever-expanding universe of moonbeam ideology is how >more normal Americans have come to view this state and its >people. This bill, however, is a siren call from our history >that, when it becomes law, will cause a serious turn to the >right for any state which also adopts it. > It is an unwritten law of the world that the best of all >our ideas must be simple. Stated differently, if a law isn't >written so that mere mortals can understand it on first reading, >you can well bet there's pork in the middle of it for somebody. > The bill states, in part, "As a part of the course in >American government and civics required for high school >graduation...all pupils shall read and be taught all of the >following: a) The Declaration of Independence; b) The United >States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights; c) The >Federalist Papers; d) The Emancipation Proclamation; e) The >Gettysburg Address; and f) George Washington's Farewell >Address." > Now, the only issue that is the least bit strange about >this is that you probably thought this was being done all along. >A little query of that teenager you know should quickly dispel >that false knowledge. > Each of these important historical documents contains a >wealth of ideas and principles upon which our government should >be based, but isn't. One idea might be related to such >antiquated concepts as a limited federal government, for >example. Our federal government and most state governments >believe today there is no limit to its ability to grow. > It is regrettable today that the American people have come >to accept the intrusion of government in every aspect of our >lives with hardly even so much as a whimper. This is compounded >by the fact that many believe we actually are free in a world >consumed by tyranny. We are not even close to being free, of >course, but we are being conditioned to feel good about that >mistaken belief. > The truth is that there are few among us who actually know >the meaning of freedom and liberty. Unless you have >deliberately chosen to self-study these ideas, all around you >seems very normal. > Settle down, though, and really read, slowly to absorb >every thought, the Declaration of Independence. Imagine, while >you are reading, that you are a British subject, as all of the >colonists actually were when that document was written. As you >read the part about rights being unalienable because rights are >granted by our Creator, think about our government today, which >behaves as though it is the source of all rights. > The Declaration of Independence is only about a page long >and can be read in a couple of minutes if one would choose to do >so. One could also imagine, though, that the better part of a >semester could be consumed in trying to understand its meaning. > Therein may lie this bill's only weakness. It is one thing >to legislate that these documents shall all be taught in their >entirety. It is entirely another to assure that the ideas are >presented correctly. If our heroic patriot Forefathers are >portrayed as right-wing extremists, as they certainly would be >with the left-wing bent of modern education, the instruction >would be worse than learning nothing at all. > Propaganda notwithstanding, this bill, or similar ones to >it, deserves to be passed in every state in the Union while >these documents still mean something. Come to think about it, >when was the last time you spent five minutes a day studying >about freedom? > End > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Bob Starr Trial First Week Date: 21 Oct 1996 07:41:27 -0700 >>Return-path: >>Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 20:41:58 -0400 >>From: Nancy Lord >>Subject: First Week >>X-Sender: defense@pop.macon.mindspring.com >>To: Macon.Court.List@mindspring.COM >> >>MACON UPDATE: October 20, 1996 >>by Nancy Lord >> >>Jury selection for the trial of U.S. v. Starr, >>McCranie and Spain lasted from October 15, 1996. >>until October 17. Five different panels of jurors >>were questioned by the federals and the accuseds. >>The jury is a gift from God. There are eight black women, >>one black man, and three white men. The government >>was so busy striking white guys that they forgot about >>the Moms and Grand-moms who know how the federals lie. >> >>Government prosecutor Sharon Ratley asked questions >>about the patriot movement, "Do you ever listen to >>short wave? Do you read the Spotlight? Do you know >>anybody in a militia?" Greg Spicer, Mr. Spain's >>attorney, asked whether they could decide a case >>according to their own conscience and could hold >>that decision even if all eleven others disagreed. >> >>The government's case got off to a roaring start >>when several attendees, including the Judge, dozed >>off during its opening statement. Sam Wilson's >>statement made much of the Declaration signed at >>Knob Hill last April, the Montana Freemen, and other >>disconnected matters. But everyone, including the >>guy in the robe, came to rapt attention when Bob >>Starr's attorney, Althea Buafo, gave her opening. >>She stated that the case was about paranoia, >>imagination and power -- of the government. Ms. >>Buafo then went on to describe the role of the >>infamous BATF employees, confidential informants >>Danny and Kevin Barker, in making this happen. >> >>Most of the witnesses testified about evidence >>bearing little, if any, on innocence or guilt: the >>plumbing pipes that the Barkers buried with so- >>called explosive chemicals that they had purchased; >>a brief-case found in Mr. Starr's car with phone >>bills, a picture of me, and various patriot first >>amendment materials. Several times, one defense >>attorney or another chose not to cross-examine, "No >>reason to question this witness, your Honor." >> >>The "star witness" of the week was H.L. Duke >>Faglier, an investigator working with an attorney, >>who was representing a militia member while he was >>infiltrating the group. Yes, this is unusual. >>Faglier claimed that at a meeting on January 6, >>1996, Mr. Starr stated that Bart McEntyre was at the >>top of his hit list. There was also some testimony >>about mailing the BATF a picture of a BATF jacket >>ripped by the copper claw with rabbit blood. This >>comic book "threat" was taken so seriously that Mr. >>McEntyre moved his family. No picture was mailed. >> >>Several government witnesses were caught in blatant >>falsehoods. Ms. Buafo had an internal letter >>stating that a 1994 investigation of Mr. Starr was >>closed because there were no BATF violations. The >>case agent had testified otherwise. The arresting >>Deputy, Sam Smith testified that Mr. Starr had >>"struggled," but his testimony at a suppression >>hearing contradicted this. >> >>McEntyre himself testified earlier that he felt >>threatened during a meeting with Mr. Starr and Mr. >>McCranie on December 18, 1996. Fortunately, this >>meeting was taped by Starr and McCranie. That tape >>has a lot of cursing by the BATF agents, a statement >>by them that they would shoot anyone who came to >>harm their families, and that sometimes when you go >>after "the bad guys" you have to put your morals >>aside. He also stated that the constitution was >>written in the 1800's (public education, I suppose), >>and we couldn't live under it today. >> >>There was nearly a mistrial when Faglier blurted out >>that one of the defendants had felony conviction. >>The court not only did not grant a mistrial, but >>left a man on the jury who admitted that he could >>not put this out of his mind. >> >>I sat around all day on Saturday with the woman >>whose the affidavit got me disqualified, Tina >>McCranie, waiting to be called. We had a nice chat >>and a few laughs. I was to take the Fifth, or >>refuse to testify and go to jail rather than have >>my own over-zealous investigation twisted around >>against me client. My overnight bag was obvious and >>I was without purse or jewelry, and just a few >>documents, ready for jail. I told a reporter where >>to put the camera for a shot of myself being taken >>to jail. It never happened. I was "released" from >>subpoena at about 3:00 pm. >> >>Later I learned that Ms. Buafo made very strong >>arguments against my being called. The government >>won, but the Judge made clear that that was as far >>as he would go. I had the right to take the Fifth >>or a privilege. (Had I been forced to take the >>Fifth in front of the jury, I would do so after >>reading and explaining the entire Bill of Rights). >> >>The government was convinced that they would get >>nothing from me, nor get me locked up, and even if >>they got a contempt citation against me it would >>only be bad press. What a relief. >> >>Please keep Robert Starr, Jimmy McCranie, and >>Troy Spain in your prayers the next few weeks. While >>it looks good, federal acquittals are as rare as silver >>quarters and it isn't over 'til the fat lady sings. >>Nancy Lord >>Attorney at Law >>P.O. Box 7223 >>Macon, Ga 31209-7223 >>(912) 788-6272 >>(912) 785-1809 Fax >>defense@mindspring.com >> >> > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Media Bypass: BATF testing of ANFO explosives Date: 21 Oct 1996 11:02:14 -0400 Most recent "Media Bypass" magazine had an interesting article on a BATF series of tests of vehicle bombs that was done post Clinton election, pre- OK city bombing. The tests were done under a National Security Council order, using high speed photography and video taping to measure the effects of bombs constructed in a four-door American sedan and in a mini-passanger van. C4 and ANFO were used. Purpose was to establish an objective set of measurements of bomb craters, and trajetories of blast debris (pieces of the vehicles). Very interesting that BATF was developing this expertise, this matches reports that there were knowledgable experts on the scene at OK city, who reported that the explosion was an ANFO car bomb within minutes. The article pointed out that the lastest vehicle bomb investigated prior to this sets of tests was in 1970. What went on at OK city? Pretty damn quiet trial. Wouldn't want a knowledgable expert to start questioning the blast pressure story, now, would we? BTW. The Media Bypass article had still photographs of the explosions and the aftermaths. The interesting thing was that in the Chevy Caprice test with ANFO, the two rear quarters were about half demolished and were still attached to the intact bumper. What I want to know is: How did the OK City truck bomb have enough blast pressure to detroy the near columns in that building, when the building across the street just had its windows broken? Physics. Pretty amazing how hard it is to argue with. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: GOP and Unions Date: 21 Oct 1996 10:01:09 -0400 Gentlefolk: Went to Nashua, NH to see Bob Dole and assorted reps and Senators (Rudman (former Senator), Smith, Bass, ...) at a GOP rally. Dole mentioned campaign reform and union money going into the Democratic coffers. His point was that (paraphrasing) "many union members are conservatives and vote for Republicans, but their dues are taken without their say and sent to the Democrats". Dole proposed to limit campaign contributions to U.S. citizens. If you can't vote, you can't contribute to campaigns. (Interesting reform, if taken literally then PAC's, business and union contributions are all gone). Dole mentioned the $50,000 given by the Buddhist monks and nuns at a rally at a Buddhist temple near L.A. "and they all swore a vow of poverty". He's also hitting the Lippo Group, Indonesian connection, where a naturalized citizen who works as a landscaper is apparently being used as a conduit for >$100k of foreign contributions to the Clinton campaign. Word I heard is that Dole hadn't intended to return to NH, but did as the race had turned tight there, and he wanted to support the local candidates in tight races. ciao, Jack Curtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: BATF testing of ANFO explosives Date: 21 Oct 1996 09:42:06 -0700 (MST) One active hypothesis I would explore is the high probability that special charges were drilled into the bearing columns, down at basement level, while employees were not likely to be using the parking garage. Properly wired, these explosives could be detonated in unison. Their total failure proves the charges were drilled at ground level, or lower. Drilled higher up in altitude, these same columns would not have failed from collapsing debris, since their structural integrity would still be intact at ground level, rendering them "needle-nosed" spikes piercing the falling debris. Just a few thoughts. I am not an expert in structural demolition, however. /s/ Paul Mitchell /s/ Paul Mitchell At 11:02 AM 10/21/96 -0400, you wrote: > > Most recent "Media Bypass" magazine had an interesting article > on a BATF series of tests of vehicle bombs that was done post > Clinton election, pre- OK city bombing. > > The tests were done under a National Security Council order, using > high speed photography and video taping to measure the effects of > bombs constructed in a four-door American sedan and in a mini-passanger > van. C4 and ANFO were used. Purpose was to establish an objective > set of measurements of bomb craters, and trajetories of blast debris > (pieces of the vehicles). > > Very interesting that BATF was developing this expertise, this matches > reports that there were knowledgable experts on the scene at OK city, > who reported that the explosion was an ANFO car bomb within minutes. > > The article pointed out that the lastest vehicle bomb investigated prior > to this sets of tests was in 1970. > > What went on at OK city? Pretty damn quiet trial. Wouldn't want > a knowledgable expert to start questioning the blast pressure story, > now, would we? > > BTW. The Media Bypass article had still photographs of the explosions > and the aftermaths. The interesting thing was that in the > Chevy Caprice test with ANFO, the two rear quarters were about half > demolished and were still attached to the intact bumper. > > What I want to know is: How did the OK City truck bomb have enough > blast pressure to detroy the near columns in that building, when the > building across the street just had its windows broken? > > Physics. Pretty amazing how hard it is to argue with. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Re: More on Oklahoma Bomb (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1996 12:18:41 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear Paul: Thank you so much for forwarding the article. I received copies of it from several folks and was very pleased with the contents. Here is the response sent to Ian. Have a great day! -- Michele Moore ========================================================================== Dear Ian: I appreciated very much your article, "Conspiracy Fact vs. Gov't Fabrication," which was forwarded to me at least three times by different folks who knew I would be interested. I was! In addition to all that you wrote in the article, be advised that we are now taking statements from local law enforcement officers who are stating that as they ran toward the building very shortly after the explosions, they observed FBI agents running AWAY from the building. In addition, many of those who left the scene, changed their attire and returned to the scene, claiming that they had just arrived. The locals know this is not the case as they observed the feds leaving earlier. Local law enforcement officials have been told that the deception, the falsification of federal reports, and the falsification of reports locals made to other locals is all necessary and "for the good of the citizens." This, of course, does not sit too well with many of them and they are quietly and privately coming forward, most in fear of reprisals. It is generally believed that it was this unresolved conflict of conscience that led to the death of Sgt. Terrance Yeakey, an Oklahoma City Police Officer who was found dead two days before he was to receive a medal of commendation for bravery during the rescue operation. Although his death was instantly ruled a suicide, few in the department believe that it was. Yeakey left letters behind, none of which indicated a suicidal state of mind. Rather, he stated he felt his days as an officer were numbered because of the questions he was asking and because of the information he knew. With regard to the Yeakey incident, we are conducting interviews with a woman who was in Yeakey's company three hours prior to his death. At this moment, there is nothing in the written or testimonial record to indicate that the man was suicidal. But there is an overwhelming abundance of information to indicate that the man might very well have been murdered to silence his questions and public statements. I will, of course, keep you apprised of this phase of the investigation. If documentable proof surfaces -- regardless of what it substantiates, either murder or suicide -- it will be accurately and completely reported. We are not out here trying to prove an already pre-determined outcome. We are just following the leads wherever they go and letting the proof fall where it may. The complete records of the continuing investigation will be published by Harvest Trust in Volumes 2 and 3 of the Oklahoma Series. I thank you kindly for mentioning my book in your post. Sales are brisk and supplies are limited, so I encourage anyone interested in this 640-page report to get their copy while copies are available. Over half of the book is documentation because the goal was to enable any reader to be able to duplicate the research if they wanted to do so. I hope that many will make that decision. The FBI purchased three copies of the book, so it will be interesting to see what kind of disclaimers they will fabricate to cover their own miserable fannies. And just remember: when anyone says they saw McVeigh somewhere or doing something, you must always ask WHICH McVeigh. We can now prove the existence of three (3) McVeighs involved in this, so tread cautiously on that issue. There is certainly more to this matter than meets the eye, and documentation of federal complicity at the highest levels is solid. Again, thank you kindly for the favorable mention. Books are $35 postpaid and can be obtained from: Harvest, P.O. Box 1970, Eagar, Arizona 85925. Have a wonderful day! Michele Moore Author, "Oklahoma City: Day One" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: SAFAN NO. 105. EPA'S LATEST POWER GRAB (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1996 12:25:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW! S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 105, October 21, 1996 EPA'S LATEST POWER GRAB by James Bovard President Clinton is proposing to allow the Environmental Protection=20 Agency to confiscate the assets of suspected polluters. Complying with environmental laws already costs individuals, businesses and state=20 and local governments more than $168 billion a year, according to the=20 Small Business Administration. Yet the administration is apparently=20 not satisfied with financially bleeding corporations and individuals to=20 death: It wants to come in and seize the bodies, too. The kind of asset-forfeiture law Mr. Clinton is proposing allows=20 confiscation via accusation: A federal agent need only accuse a=20 person of an illegal act for that person's house, land or car effectively= =20 to become the property of the federal government. In most forfeiture=20 proceedings, the person accused must prove that his house, car or the=20 cash in his wallet was not involved in a crime or other violation--the=20 government has no obligation to prove that the property is "guilty." Government agencies routinely rely on hearsay evidence to justify=20 such seizures; a rumor that a corporation may have broken some=20 obscure regulation could alone lead to a plundering of its assets. Mr. Clinton made his proposal to expand forfeiture power in an=20 August speech in Kalamazoo, Mich. An "Environmental Crimes and=20 Enforcement Act" his administration submitted to Congress last=20 month would allow the Justice Department to freeze a corporation's assets prior to trial. His approach flies in the face of bipartisan=20 efforts--led by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde-- to rein in federal forfeiture powers, already contained in more=20 than 100 statutes. A federal appeals court complained in 1992 that it was "troubled=20 by the government's view that any property, whether it be a=20 hobo's hovel or the Empire State Building, can be seized by the=20 government because the owner, regardless of his or her past=20 criminal record, engages in a single drug transaction." It is precisely the equation of corporations with drug dealers that=20 the EPA is already using to build support for its latest power grab.=20 On Aug. 28 EPA Administrator, Carol Browner declared on CNN=20 that corporate polluters should be treated just like drug dealers:=20 "If you're polluting the public's air and water, then the benefits=20 you derive, the assets you have, can be taken. This is what the=20 president is proposing." If anyone has any doubts about how the EPA would use the new=20 forfeiture power, look at the Superfund--a program that often is=20 simply robbery with an environmental badge. Though the EPA=20 does not have forfeiture powers under Superfund, it does have the power to impose liability on almost anyone it chooses. And=20 because the EPA relies on the legal doctrine of "joint and several=20 liability," anyone who sent anything to a dump that later became a=20 Superfund site can be held personally liable for the entire cleanup=20 cost of that dump. Under the law, the EPA has effectively no burden to prove that a=20 company sent waste to a Superfund site; instead, the company=20 must prove itself innocent of ever having sent anything to a site.=20 At the Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard site in Cortland, N.Y., the EPA selected its lawsuit targets largely based on scrap yard=20 employees' memories of what had happened 20 years earlier.=20 Similarly, the EPA notified Formal Ware Rental Services of Tulsa,=20 Okla., that it would be held responsible for the cleanup of a local=20 Superfund site; the only evidence linking the clothing rental=20 company to the site was the fact that it had paid someone $14 in 1972 to haul trash there. The EPA has also fingered a Boy Scout=20 troop as a "potentially responsible party" to finance the clean up=20 of a Superfund-designated scrap yard in Minneapolis. The EPA would likely use its new forfeiture power in the same=20 way that the Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service uses=20 its forfeiture power under the Endangered Species Act.=20 For example: On March 10, 1992, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service=20 and state agents drove 15 miles onto Richard Smith's Texas ranch, accused him of poisoning eagles, and seized his pick-up truck.=20 The agents later tracked down Mr. Smith's 75-year-old father,=20 W.B. Smith, and seized his pickup truck--threatening to strand=20 him 10 miles from town. The agents produced no evidence to=20 support their accusation and returned the trucks nine months later without filing charges. The elder Mr. Smith complained:=20 "The Fish and Wildlife Service is out of control, and the=20 Endangered Species Act has given them the tools to destroy=20 the ranching industry."=20 =20 Some environmental activists are already seeking to abuse=20 forfeiture laws in environmental disputes. On Sept. 27, former=20 California Gov. Jerry Brown told protesters fighting to block any=20 logging of a redwood forest: "You plant a hundred marijuana=20 plants in the Headwaters, and you know what the federal government would do--confiscate the forest. So you know what=20 to do." If the EPA gets the proposed forfeiture power,=20 environmental activists may be able to compel federal control=20 of an area simply by pouring a few quarts of used motor oil on=20 a driveway or yard. If the EPA gets into the property-forfeiture business, it will become=20 vulnerable to the same corrupting incentives affecting other federal=20 agencies that share confiscated property with state and local=20 agencies. The Justice Department announced in January, for instance, that for the first time, local and state law enforcement=20 agencies would be allowed to use the proceeds from joint local- state-federal forfeitures to pay police salaries. That decision was=20 harshly criticized by some law-enforcement officials who feared=20 that it would lead to "bounty hunting"--policemen devoting their=20 time to seizing property rather than fighting crimes.=20 Pay raises, anyone? Mr. Clinton's plan to expand government's forfeiture power is=20 only his administration's latest attempt to cure every problem=20 with federal power. Yet neither he nor the EPA has done anything=20 to show that the federal government can be trusted with such=20 immense powers.=20 Mr. Bovard is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Copyright =A9 1996 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D SAFAN %Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com) PH/FAX (423) 577-7011 ***************************************************************************= *** ***************** "Son, they just don't want your gun,=20 they want your pickup truck, too". Dot B ??????But what can I do, Mama? You can print this message out and mail it to your Congress members (both House and Senate) and write in big letters at the top "THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE" and be=20 sure they know how to send a letter back to you. But just don't hold=20 your breath waiting for a reply. ***************************************************************************= *** ********************* ED. NOTE: Thanks to the Superfund (refund), the privately-owned Service Stations have gone by the wayside - since they started=20 charging over $10,000 apiece for digging up the "old and obsolete" gas tanks of the past. You must now have a "new, gas tank" which cost more $$$. Now the only ones who can operate gas stations are the big boys. Doesn't that make you feel good, too? ***************************************************************************= *** ********************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: SAFAN NO. 104. A New Form of Government (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1996 12:26:14 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW! S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 104, October 21, 1996 A NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT by Archibald Roberts (Committee to Restore the Constitution) Reply to: comminc@fortnet.org "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as the Congress". UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Art. IV, section 3, paragraph 1 ----- Transformation of the United States Republic to a dictatorship of the 'financial elite', the New World Order fashioned for Americans by the Council on Foreign Relations, reached political reality in 1972 under the administration of President Richard M. Nixon. Although given little publicity, the White House, on 27 March 1969, pronounced that the United States had been divided into ten Metro regions. (1) In doing so, President Nixon and his controllers set in motion a series of pre-planned events which would, by 12 February 1972, place virtually every facet of the lives of U.S. citizens under the domination of socialist planners. Flouting the prohibitions of Article IV, United States Constitution, Mr. Nixon, in his statement of 1969,"Restructuring of Government Service Systems", purported to 'streamline' the Dept of Labor, the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, the Dept of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Small Business Administration by establishing "uniform bounderies and regional office locations". Significantly, regional bounderies and the bounderies of major United Nations programs, and Federal Reserve System areas, in the United States were made coterminus. Few realized then, or comprehend now, that regional governance is a new form of government which has been covertly engineered to replace the city, county, state and school district system. Boundary lines of these familiar political subdivisions are to be dropped and a new set of geo-political lines followed. (2) Under regional government there are now ten U.S. provinces, or regions. Each province has a designated 'capitol' to handle all matters within that particular province. Offices of HUD, OEO, SBA and Labor were moved into the new capitols of each province, with more agencies added later. The objective is to establish the mechanics for controlling the lives and ambitions of the people from a central authority in Washington, and to direct their efforts into channels ordered by a Bureaucratic Civil Service. An examination of the type of government proposed under regional government shows that it is a government by appointed rather than elected officials. Under regional government dis-franchised U.S. citizens are to be held in bondage, in perpetuity, as producers and servers for a self-appointed Oligarchy. The ten new political subdivisions to which the fifty States have been allocated by this unconstitutional decree are: REGION I - Capitol: Boston Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont REGION II - Capitol: New York City New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands REGION III - Capitol: Philadelphia Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, District of Columbia REGION IV - Capitol: Atlanta Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee REGION V - Capitol: Chicago Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin REGION VI - Capitol: Dallas-Fort Worth Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas REGION VII - Capitol: Kansas City Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska REGION VIII - Capitol: Denver Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming REGION IX - Capitol: San Francisco Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada REGION X - Capitol: Seattle Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho One of the federal money bills designed to finance Metro governance in the nation was H.R.2519, introduced by Congressman Reuss, January l969. This bill was to provide bloc grants if regional 'modernization' conditions were met by the States. To qualify for the promised grants the States were required to enact legislation enabling, or mandating in some instances, the collectivizing of counties into sub-regions which would fit neatly into the federal ten-region governance formed by Presidential proclamation. Following the White House pronouncement of 27 March 1969, the same measure was renumbered H.R.11764 and reintroduced on May 28 by the same Congressman. Sections were added to give control over twenty-two and a half billion tax dollars for Metro funding to one man, President Nixon. On 12 February 1972, Mr. Nixon dropped the other shoe. By Executive Order 11647, Federal Regional Councils (Federal Register No.30) the President authorized staffing of the ten regional capitols and effected appointment of a chairman, or commissar for each province.(3) "Three years ago", said Mr. Nixon in his order, "I directed the senior regional officials of certain of the grant-making agencies to convene themselves in regional councils to better coordinate their services to Governors, Mayors and the Public. "Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States it is hereby ordered as follows: "SECTION 1. Federal Regional Councils (a) There is hereby established a Federal Regional Council for each of the ten standard Federal regions. Each Council shall be composed of the directors of the regional offices of the Department of Labor, Health, Education and Welfare, and Housing and Urban Development, the Secretarial Representative of the Department of Transportation, and the directors of the regional offices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The President shall designate one member of each such Council as Chairman of that Council and such Chairman shall serve at the pleasure of the President. Representatives of the Office of Management and Budget may participate in any deliberations of each Council". It is intended, of course, that regional council members will assume all real authority over State governments and the people they represent. The people and the States will be reduced to political impotency. The image of a police state becomes chillingly real under the provisions of Executive Order 11490, "Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to Federal Departments" (Federal Register, 30 October 1969). By this order regional council members, under color of law, can control all food supply, money and credit, transportation, communications, public utilities and other facets of the lives of every citizen.(4,5,6,7) Seizure of private property (homes, businesses, and farms) via the ploy of reassessment under United Nations tax guidelines is a concurrent objective of the madmen who now direct national policy. Robert C. Weaver, former Chief, Department of Housing and Urban Development, said of Metro governance: "Regional government means absolute Federal control over all property and its development regardless of location, anywhere in the United States, to be administered on the Federal official's determination. It (regional government) would supersede state and local laws .... Through this authority we seek to recapture control of the use of land, most of which the government has already given to the people". World government planners hope to achieve federalization of all land, resources, and production facilities under regional government authority without serious public challenge. Self-rule and self-determination are to be phased out of the society, the Constitution overthrown, and the citizen made an economic serf in the country that once was his. President Nixon, in his plea for cooperation in 'revenue sharing' (another technique for financing Metro governance) admitted that we are experiencing a "New American Revolution". Proof that the "New American Revolution" is an actual revolution is borne out by evidence from "Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Urban Affairs of the Joint Economic Committee", United States Congress, 19-26 May 1971. "Local government is changing itself in an effort to better meet the needs of the people. Across the nation, cities, counties, towns, and school districts that serve a common area are joining together in a regional effort to solve mutual problems. In a quiet way, regionalism is a revolution in the structure of our Federal system." The impact of Metro governance on the freedoms of person and property formerly guaranteed to the people by the Constitution is obvious. Interlocking subversion in government departments can, however, be successfully challenged by an informed electorate motivated to act within the authority of the U. S. Constitution. The law involved is the fundamental law of agency. Actions of an agent are not binding on the principal if those actions are not authorized by the principal. Constitutionally, States are Principals and federal departments are Agents of the State. To escape the 'New World Order' being prepared for us by the Council on Foreign Relations and the aristocracy of finance (8) Americans must demand that their State lawmakers investigate the illegal actions of federal agents who attempt to abridge the U. S. Constitution in violation of their oath of office. -- References: (1) Statement by the President on Restructuring of Government Service Systems. The White House, 27 March 1969. (2) Press Conference of Daniel P. Moynihan, Asst. to the President for Urban Affairs; Philip S. Hughes, Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget; and Ron Ziegler, Press Secretary to the President, Office of the White House Press Secretary, 17 March 1969. (3) Executive Order ORDER 11647, "Federal Regional Councils", The President, Federal Register No. 30, 12 February 1972. (4) State of National Emergency and Executive Orders, Hon. John R. Rarick, The Congressional Record, 27 September 1972. (5) Executive Order 11615, "Providing for the stabilization of prices, rents, wages, and salaries", (From the Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 159, 17 August 1971) Hon. John R. Rarick, The Congressional Record, 27 September 1971. (6) Executive Order 11490, "Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to Federal Departments and Agencies", (From the Federal Register, Vol. 34, No. 209, 30 October 1969) Hon John R. Rarick, The Congressional Record, 27 September 1971. (7) State of National Emergency Legalizes the Executive Orders, by Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret (from the Borger (Texas) News Herald, 19 September 1971) Entered in The Congressional Record, 27 September 1971, by the Hon. John R. Rarick. (8) CITIZEN REMEDY to seditious conspiracy of Federal Regionalism is offered by Committee to Restore the Constitution. Tactical operations embrace facts behind regional governance, corrective procedures leading to adoption of county resolution mandating State investigation of Federal Regional Government. Objective is passage of State statute, "To Provide for Enforcement of the United States Constitution with Regard to Federal Regionalism", including criminal sanctions for violators of constitutional prohibitions. ============================================================================ For e-mail copies "County Resolution Rejecting Regional Government" and "Bill to Provide for Enforcement of the Constitution with Regard to Federal Regionalism", post request to Committee to Restore the Constitution: comminc@fortnet.org For example of successful State campaign resulting in 'outlawing' Federal Regional operations, send self-addressed, stamped #10 (business) envelope. Ask for "Indiana Testimony: Regionalism - The New Feudalism". For immediate resource on Regional Governance see Committee to Restore the Constitution electronic magazine "The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A Solution", eleven-part series. Committee web site: http://www.fortnet.org/~comminc Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret, Director COMMITTEE TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION, Inc. Post Office Box 986 Fort Collins, Colorado USA 80522 ****************************************************************************** *********************** SAFAN %Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com) PH/FAX (423) 577-7011 ****************************************************************************** *********************** VOTE 'NO' ON KNOX COUNTY (TN) TO UNIFY. This will not only unify City and County Governments - it will place the County under a Charter government bringing it in line with Regional Government by the NWO ****************************************************************************** ************ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Who Stole the Dream? Bartlett and Steele (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1996 12:46:13 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Return-path: >Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 08:09:16 -0400 >From: Furryturkl@aol.COM >Subject: Who Stole the Dream? >Sender: snetnews-approval@alterzone.COM >To: snetnews@alterzone.COM >Reply-to: snetnews@alterzone.COM > > >-> SearchNet's snetnews Mailing List > > >'Who Stole the Dream?' > >How United States policies enrich multinational corporations at the expense >of American workers > by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele > Knight-Ridder Newspapers > The Philadelphia Inquirer > > Ask a president of the United States how to create good jobs for American >workers. He will say: exports. > That's what Bill Clinton says, and what every president before him, >Republican and Democrat, has said for 30 years and more. > "Every time we sell $1 billion of American products and services overseas, >we create about 20,000 jobs" at home. That's Clinton in 1993. > "Each additional billion dollars in exports creates nearly 20,000 new jobs >here in the United States." That's George Bush, in 1991. > "Every billion dollars by which we increase exports, 100,000 new jobs will >be created." That's Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1964, when a billion dollars went a >little further. > It has become an enduring article of faith in Washington: If U.S. >manufacturers can sell more goods through unrestricted global trade, the >American factory worker will have a bright and secure future. > Just one problem: It doesn't work. > For the last 30 years, Washington has marched steadily in the direction of >"free trade" - and the American worker has just as steadily lost ground. > Blue-collar wages have eroded; good-paying manufacturing jobs, once the >mainstay of the middle class, have dwindled. America is moving toward a >two-class society of have-mores and have-lesses. > The problem with Washington's free-trade-equals-jobs formula is that it >ignores the other half of the equation - the negative impact of imports. > For if $1 billion in exports creates 20,000 jobs, then $1 billion in >imports eliminates a like number. > That's the minus of free trade. > And under Washington's open-door policy, imports have far out-paced U.S. >exports. America is creating jobs, all right - in Malaysia, Taiwan, Honduras, >Japan and China. > In all the presidents' statements extolling global trade, you'd be >hard-pressed to find the number of American jobs lost because of imports. And >no wonder. > Since 1979, 2.6 million manufacturing jobs have been eliminated. > That's equal to the entire work force of the state of Maryland. > In the last two decades, Washington policymakers have thrown open the >doors of the world's most lucrative consumer market to foreign products >without adequate regard for the consequences - either for American workers or >for the long-term health of American industry. > While the dropping of most U.S. tariffs on imports has meant big profits >for big companies, it has been a disaster for American workers, their >families and many small businesses. > Not that exports didn't account for new jobs. They did. From 1980 to 1995, >the value of exports more than doubled. They went from $224 billion a year in >1980 to $576 billion in 1995, creating millions of jobs. But they were >swamped by imports, which tripled, to $749 billion in 1995, wiping out >millions more jobs. > In the global economy, U.S. corporations with operations around the world >find it far more profitable to manufacture in low-wage countries than at >home. Instead of exporting products made by U.S. workers, they increasingly >employ workers in other countries to make products for foreign markets. > Today, many U.S.-based multinational companies, with operations abroad, >have barely a nodding acquaintance with the word "export." > General Motors Corp., the world's largest automaker, says it shipped >95,000 cars and trucks abroad from the United States in 1995 - or just 2 >percent of the 4.3 million vehicles GM made here. The rest of its worldwide >sales were of vehicles made overseas. > Indeed, a vast number of familiar "American" brand names now are produced >elsewhere and imported into this country. > Take Colgate-Palmolive Co., the giant household products company. > The cover of its 1994 annual report to stockholders sums up Colgate's >goals: "GLOBAL BRANDS; GLOBAL INVESTMENT; GLOBAL GROWTH." > From modest beginnings, peddling candles on Wall Street in 1806, the New >York-based company now sells toothpaste, soap, shampoo and other products in >nearly 200 countries. More than 70 percent of Colgate's $8 billion in annual >sales comes from outside the United States. > That should mean plenty of exports and thousands of export-generated >Americn jobs, right? > Wrong. > Lynne and Ed Tevis can tell you why: > > One day in 1985, Colgate-Palmolive announced plans to close the factory in >Jersey City, N.J., where they worked. The Tevises could consider themselves >fortunate, though, because Colgate was going to keep them on. > True, they would have to move halfway across the country to Kansas City, >Kan., where a small part of the Jersey City operation was to be transferred >as part of a "restructuring." Unlike most corporate executives who relocate, >they would have to pay for the move out of their own pockets - $5,000 to >$10,000. > But the Tevises each had been with Colgate for 12 years. And while 1,200 >others at the Jersey City plant were laid off, the Tevises were among the 80 >or so families who had made the cut. So they sold their home, uprooted their >family, and left relatives and friends behind to move 1,200 miles west. > At Colgate, they had accumulated pension credits and other benefits. All >they would lose, they were told, was their seniority. > Job security: that's what the Tevises prized most. Ed, then 50, has 12 >years to go until retirement, so his wife had asked a midlevel manager in >Kansas City how safe their jobs would be there. > "He reassured us about moving," she said. "He told us, 'Your husband will >definitely retire from here.' He was less certain about me because I was >younger." > Less than two years later, the Tevises were thrown out of work. > The reason? Another Colgate "restructuring." From 800 employees in 1988, >the Kansas City work force would be reduced to about 200. > The first group laid off included many new arrivals from Jersey City who >had relinquished their seniority. > Meanwhile, as the company was thinning out its American work force, it was >hiring by the thousands overseas, where it could pay far lower wages. > Look at the people who make Colgate products today - and remember the >Tevises and their futile trek to Kansas City. > > From 1980 to 1996, a total of 15,390 Colgate workers in the United States >lost their jobs. The company cut its domestic work force from 21,800 to >6,400. > During that time, Colgate added 4.490 workers overseas, bringing employment >in foreign countries to 30,890. > In short, the number of workers on Colgate's U.S. payroll plunged 71 >percent while the number on its foreign payroll went up 17 percent. > Looked at another way, U.S. workers accounted for 45 percent of Colgate's >total work force in 1980. By 1996, U.S. workers accounted for just 17 >percent. > If Colgate's American employees are farring none too well, the company is >doing quite nicely, thank you. In the last decade, while Colgate was cutting >its U.S. work force: > -- Dividends paid to holders of common stock went up 137 percent, from 65 >cents to $1.54 a share. > -- The stock price shot up 287 percent, from $16,38 a share to $63.38. > -- And profits soared 374 percent, from $122.5 million to $580.2 million. > While it may seem strange to regard Colgate as a predominantly foreign >manufacturer, consider this Customs Service list of products and materials >the company "imported' over the last six months to sell in the United States: > Toothbrushes from Colombia and South Africa. Cashmere Bouquet soap from >India and Guatemala. Dental cream from Panama. Cleaning products from Mexico. >Household products from Barbados and Costa Rica. Dental floss from the United >Kingdom. Perfumes from Guyana. Powder puffs and pads from China. Packaging >material from El Salvador. > As is increasingly the case with foreign trade by U.S. multinationals, the >flow of Colgate goods is largely in one direction. The company manufactures >products abroad and ships them into this country, but it makes little here >for sale overseas. > Indeed, that applies even for Colgate products sold in neighboring Mexico. >As the company put it with great pride in its 1994 annual report: "Virtually >all the products we sell in Mexico are made there and do not have to be >imported from the U.S.A." > That so many of the imports that kill American jobs are made by U.S. >multinationals such as Colgate, which once manufactured most of their >products here, is a grim irony. It was particularly grim for the small band >of Colgate workers from Jersey City who demonstrated faith in their employer >and trooped out to Kansas City, there to be fired. > "A lot of families were destroyed by what happened," said Terry Darago, >who relocated with her husband, Stanley, a Colgate worker. "People split up. >People got divorced. Some people had to sell their houses. Others had their >cars repossessed. People struggled. They didn't have the income anymore." > Stanley Darago was out of work five years before he found another steady >job. The family squeaked by only because Terry was employed. She was a >Midwest manager of General Binding Corp., a global manufacturer and marketer >of business machines and related supplies. > A year after Stanley Darago found work again, though, his wife's cmpany >also restructured and eliminated her job. She could have accepted a position >elsewhere with General Binding, but she, her husband and 15-year-old son >would have had to move yet again. > "So I decided to go back to school," she said. "I'm studying to be a >nurse. Three months I'm back in school and I wonder, am I doing the right >thing? I've got so long to go before I become a nurse and build up the tenure >and experience to bring me back to the level of income I ws making." > She chose nursing because she felt the future was uncertain with most >large corporations. > "I wondered, what are the odds of me going to work for another company in >corporate America and once I'm in my early 50s, winding up in the same boat >I'm in now," Terry Darago said. > "Then where do I head after I've dedicated another 10 years to another >company?" > As for her husband, he has suffered the kind of economic setback that is >typical of blue-collar workers whose jobs are abolished. > Stanley Darago made about $15 an hour at Colgate, not including overtime, >which was often plentiful. Today, working the production line for a >food-processing company, he earns $11.60 an hour, about 25 percent less than >he made eight years ago. > The story of lower earnings is much the same for other former Colgate >employees in Kansas City. Ed Tevis has had three jobs since Colgate - the >first for a glass-cutting company, which later closed; the second for a >pharmaceutical maker, where he was laid off. He now is a production worker >for a bottle maker. > Lynne Tevis went back to school and learned secretarial and bookkeeping >skills. She briefly kept the books for a health-care company until the firm >closed the office. She has not worked since, and in the spiring of 1996, >Lynne, 40, gave birth to her third child, a girl. > The more the company sells abroad, the less it makes at home; the more >money it spends overseas, the less it invests in the United States; the more >money that goes to shareholders, the less that goes to employees; and the >more plants it closes, the fewer jobs there are to be had. > In that, Colgate is representative of what is happening across much of >corporate America. >Nafta shifts trade >The U.S. went from surplusses >1993 - The U.S. has a $1 billion trade surplus. >1994 - The U.S. has a $688 million surplus. The North American Free Trade >Agreement, eliminating trade barriers between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, >takes effect. >1995 - The U.S. has a $16.2 billion trade deficit > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@alterzone.com >-> Posted by: Furryturkl@aol.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: RE: Who Stole the Dream? Bartlett and Steele (fwd) Date: 21 Oct 1996 14:04:24 -0600 >>'Who Stole the Dream?' >> >>How United States policies enrich multinational corporations at the expense >>of American workers >> by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele >> Knight-Ridder Newspapers >> The Philadelphia Inquirer >> >> Ask a president of the United States how to create good jobs for American >>workers. He will say: exports. >> That's what Bill Clinton says, and what every president before him, >>Republican and Democrat, has said for 30 years and more. >> "Every time we sell $1 billion of American products and services overseas, >>we create about 20,000 jobs" at home. That's Clinton in 1993. >> "Each additional billion dollars in exports creates nearly 20,000 new jobs >>here in the United States." That's George Bush, in 1991. >> "Every billion dollars by which we increase exports, 100,000 new jobs will >>be created." That's Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1964, when a billion dollars went a >>little further. >> It has become an enduring article of faith in Washington: If U.S. >>manufacturers can sell more goods through unrestricted global trade, the >>American factory worker will have a bright and secure future. >> Just one problem: It doesn't work. >> For the last 30 years, Washington has marched steadily in the direction of >>"free trade" - and the American worker has just as steadily lost ground. >> Blue-collar wages have eroded; good-paying manufacturing jobs, once the >>mainstay of the middle class, have dwindled. America is moving toward a >>two-class society of have-mores and have-lesses. >> The problem with Washington's free-trade-equals-jobs formula is that it >>ignores the other half of the equation - the negative impact of imports. It does work. We just haven't practiced it. We don't have "free trade" and we haven't been marching towards it. We have managed trade. And anti-business and anti-competetive tax laws so that US companies cannot compete. If the US would eliminate most of its anti business laws and heavy duty taxes then we could compete and free tarde would be a boon. Removing imports makes certain products more expensive so that people cannot afford them. Who cares if every blue or white collar worker has a job if the stuff they buy costs twice as much? All of these anti free trade arguments ignore the biggest piece of the equation -- the US Government's intrusion into business with over regulation and over taxation that makes it a lot more expenise to manufacture here. They conveniently ignore this biggest piece to try and show that protectionism and non free trade is better for the people. The "conservatives" have their Spin Doctors as well! Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: [Fwd: yellow journalism] Date: 21 Oct 1996 15:53:45 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------692B676D3AEB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The following from Brian Brunner in Rodchester, NY. --------------692B676D3AEB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from alpha.xerox.com by ICSI.Net (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA06750; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 15:44:34 -0500 Received: from gemini.sdsp.mc.xerox.com ([13.231.132.20]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <16075(6)>; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 13:42:01 PDT Received: from monkey.mc.xerox.com (monkey.sdsp.mc.xerox.com [13.231.133.221]) by gemini.sdsp.mc.xerox.com (8.7.6/8.7.5) with SMTP id QAA20906; Mon, 21 Oct 1996 16:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199610212040.QAA20906@gemini.sdsp.mc.xerox.com> Content-Type: text Awhile ago Ole Blue posted about Pravda et.al. slanting the polling and reporting in a serious way, more than the usual stuff, to make Dole look look he's 123 points behind. Today I say an article headlined: Poll: Clinton ahead of Dole on Ethics. (Democrat & Chronicle, Rochester N.Y.) I just have to wonder what planet they came from. P.S. My polling of people I meet now reads 6 Clinton 12 Dole 4 undecided or won't talk about politics at work. Get involved. Brian. --------------692B676D3AEB-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: CA Date: 21 Oct 1996 15:57:00 -0600 [02] Dole draws blood in sunshine state By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Los Angeles ET WITH JUST two weeks to go before the presidential election, Bill Clinton's lead in California is shrinking ominously. If the haemorrhage of white working-class voters continues for much longer, the president's over-confident campaign could find itself facing a disastrous upset. It could lose California's block of 54 electoral college votes - a fifth of the total needed to win - throwing open the whole race. Hubris has crept into the campaign. On Thursday, a cocksure Clinton swept into the Republican bastion of Orange County, an area in the grip of an anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican backlash. Blind to local sensitivities, his aides allowed the event to turn into an Hispanic political rally. Clinton was introduced by the local Democratic candidate for Congress in Spanish, and then delivered his speech beneath a sign that read "Presidente Clinton en El Condado de Orange". It is the surest way to galvanise the Republican grass-roots activists who, until now, have been sitting on their hands. A cultural war is under way in Southern California, where two civilisations meet along an unstable border that is pushing further north each year. About 100,000 beleaguered whites migrated annually from California to other states in the early 1990s, many of them seeking tribal solidarity in places such as Utah and Colorado. Dole is no longer trying to serenade the 'soccer moms', the suburban women said to be the swing vote in 1996 "We're talking about a struggle for the American south-west," said Glenn Spencer, head of an organisation called Voice of Citizens Together. "These politicians in Washington just don't get it." But Bob Dole is finally beginning to get it. "If you are in this country illegally, you can stay in public housing, collect welfare, get free medical care, and even invite family members abroad to come and join you," he told an audience in the smog-ridden, urban sprawl of Riverside. "Why are thousands of Californians the victims of violent crimes committed by people who should have been stopped at the border before they so much as stepped foot in this country?" Dole is no longer trying to serenade the "soccer moms", the suburban women said to be the swing vote in 1996. For months, his campaign has been a mish-mash of touchy-feely themes designed to reassure women that Bob Dole is not a heartless extremist. Every phrase had to be screened in advance by focus groups, equipped with electronic buzzers, to test the emotional reaction. Each speech was calculated for its appeal to the feminised centre, a political zone that had already been conquered by Bill Clinton. It was a flight from ideology, and it satisfied nobody. The questions of race and immigration have become the premier issues of state politics Now Dole has realised that there are more votes to be gleaned by tending to the grass roots of the Republican Party, a party controlling most of America's governing machinery at the local level. In California, it means reaching out to the "angry white male" who proved so potent in the Republican landslide of 1994 - and to the angry white female who cannot afford to live in the soccer belt. The Republicans' tracking polls showed that Dole was only five points behind Clinton in California, well within striking distance, at the end of last week. The sudden improvement was the result of heavy spending on television advertisements by Republican congressional candidates, holding their fire until the enemy was close enough to see the whites of their eyes. The swing is so dramatic that Dole is finally willing to go for broke in California. His campaign is hitching its wagon to two powerful movements in California: the anti-immigrant coalition and the anti-quota coalition that is certain to pass Proposition 209 this year making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race or sex in government employment. Proposition 209, a "colour-blind" law known as the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), is the spearhead of the white male backlash, but is also backed by many of California's Japanese, Chinese and Korean people, who have become the unintended victims of racial quotas intended to favour blacks and Hispanics. California has become the multi-cultural laboratory for the United States. Almost a third of the state's 32 million people are Hispanic, a tenth are Asian, a twelfth are black. The questions of race and immigration have become the premier issues of state politics. Far from offending Americans, Dole's unexpected display of spunk seems to have given him traction at last "The vote is very volatile in California," said Pat Reddy, head of Golden State Research in Los Angeles. "Dole has a shot if he gets on the coat-tails of CCRI." But Reddy points to the state's fiendishly complicated ethnic politics. Anglos turn out to vote at a rate of three times their Latino counterparts. Filipinos are Democrat but the Vietnamese are Republican. And so forth. If there is a pattern, it is that fresh immigrants are overwhelmingly Democrat, which may explain why the Clinton administration has accelerated the pace of naturalisation from the normal 400,000 a year to 1.3 million in the past 12 months, all entitled to vote. For Bob Dole, the battle has finally begun. Last week he tore into Bill Clinton for selling US foreign policy to a shady group of financiers with ties to the Indonesian government. He echoed allegations by William Safire, the columnist, that the White House had turned a blind eye to Indonesian genocide in East Timor in exchange for campaign money that was almost certainly illegal. Far from offending Americans, Dole's unexpected display of spunk seems to have given him traction at last. California is the one state that can change the dynamic of the entire election. A competitive challenge here can send a surge through the rest of the country. The odds against Dole are still long, but not impossible - so long as he can lay off focus groups wired to electronic buzzers between now and November 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: berg stephen erik Subject: Re: CA Date: 21 Oct 1996 19:03:56 -0500 (CDT) Gee, maybe Beltway Bob should make the Second Amendment a priority too. Might give those of us who won't vote for him now,(since he stabbed us in the back so many times before), an excuse to consider maybe, possibly, voting for him. It might be a good idea for him to pull the copy of the Tenth Amendment out of his pocket, read it, and make that a priority too. I have long suspected that it stays in his pocket for safe keeping. Otherwise it might escape and get put back into effect once again. That would threaten the leviathan state that he has worked so hard and for so long to inflict upon us. I'm not holding my breath. Steve z931086@corn.cso.niu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: We're the IRS, we're here to help you. (fwd) Date: 22 Oct 1996 14:28:39 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by yarnell@se28.dseg.ti.com (Lyle Yarnell) It keeps getting better every day. I can hardly wait for the day when the feds announce that they will be wiping our butts after we, well you know. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WOULD YOU LET THE IRS DO YOUR TAXES?: The General Accounting Office, Congress' watchdog agency, has asked the IRS to study a plan to eliminate tax returns for millions of taxpayers. There's just one catch: the tax returns would be prepared by the IRS. Under the GAO plan, the IRS would use information employers and banks report to the government to compute an individual's taxes. The IRS would mail the completed returns, along with a refund or tax bill, to taxpayers. Taxpayers would be required to write back, verifying or correcting the returns. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ken L. Holder" Date: 22 Oct 1996 14:44:35 -0700 Tuesday October 22 4:38 PM EDT FBI Agent Charged with Hiding Ruby Ridge Paper WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Prosecutors Tuesday charged an FBI official obstructed justice by destroying a document that was needed in the murder trial of white separatist Randy Weaver over the 1992 shootout in Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Justice Department sources said E. Michael Kahoe, chief of the FBI's violent crimes section during the incident, has agreed to plead guilty to the charges and cooperate in the long-running probe into possible wrongdoing by FBI officials. U.S. Attorney Michael Stiles, who has been in charge of the investigation, said Kahoe allegedly participated in the concealment and destruction of an FBI headquarters document sought by prosecutors in preparing for Weaver's trial. The sources declined to say who Kahoe may have implicated or how soon any other charges might be brought. The charges against him were the first arising from the investigation that began in August of last year. Obstruction of justice carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Kahoe, formerly the special agent in charge of the FBI's office in Jacksonville, Florida, has been placed on administrative leave. Weaver and his friend Kevin Harris were charged with the murder of Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan, who was shot and killed in a confrontation Aug. 21, 1992. Weaver's son was also killed in the firefight. After the shootout, the FBI's hostage rescue team went to Ruby Ridge, and on Aug. 22 an FBI sniper fired two shots at the cabin, wounding Weaver and killing his wife. The standoff ended nine days later when Weaver surrendered. Weaver and Harris were acquitted during their 1993 federal criminal trial of the murder charges. According to the new charges, Kahoe was ordered by his superiors to prepare an "after action critique" of the FBI's conduct. He ordered that a written document be prepared and took part in editing it. Meanwhile prosecutors in Idaho in January 1993 sent a letter to the FBI emphasizing they needed any documents about the incident. Kahoe allegedly received a copy of the letter. The charges alleged that Kahoe and certain unnamed superiors at FBI headquarters resisted the request for documents. The Justice Department finally had to order that all of the FBI documents be given to the prosecutors. Kahoe supervised the production of the documents. To ensure the critique would not be available he allegedly withheld it from the documents to be delivered, destroyed all his copies and ordered a subordinate to destroy all copies and make it appear as if it never existed, prosecutors said. Kahoe was one of six FBI officials who have come under investigation for engaging in a possible cover-up. Only one agent has been cleared. Of the four others, the most senior official was Larry Potts, who left his post as deputy FBI director because of the controversy. Copyright © 1996 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of Reuters Limited http://www.yahoo.com/headlines/news/summary.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: joesylvester@texoma.net (Joe Sylvester) Subject: Re: British gun-shy of govt??? (fwd) Date: 23 Oct 1996 01:29:25 CST Sad, what a once pround and free people have come to, isn't it. Motivation, if any is required to: Fight on troops! ----Forwarded---- Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns >bn287@yfn.ysu.edu (Galia C. Berry) wrote: [...] >"Handgun ownership here is nothing like in the USA, and I just don't want to >go making enquiries which may raise eyebrows. > >"The phone number you give is obviously incorrect, but there is no easy >way to check it out without doing a manual request to BT (British Telephone) >and as I said I am not keen to do that! > >"I know that the above might sound paranoid to you in the USA, with your >Constitution etc., but your environment is very different to that which >pertains here! Hope you understand." > Your mate is over-reacting. A call to directory enquiries isn`t going to hurt. I have to admit I don`t walk down the high street with my copy of Guns & Gizmos, Handgunner and the like, on prominent display and I would go a mile out of my way not to come to the attention of the police on any matter, but unless they have already tapped your phone, discussing firearms is unlikely to do you any harm. In the light of the current rabid, lynch-mob mentality of media, politicians and portion of the populace on this subject I have stopped discussing or mentioning firearms with with anyone who isn`t on-side. The media have been running 'exposes' [doesn't work without the accent, does it ?] of gun owners who how shall I put it, 'act in ways likely to bring the sport into disrepute': Not observing safety rules, brandishing firearms at trespassers, firing in places likely to alarm persons nearby, etc, and they even dug up another couple of convicted paedophiles who are handgun owners, one of whom was in illegal possession of explosives. It doesn`t take much to cement a connection in the febrile mind of the public-at-large and and the next thing we know mothers will rush in to the street and gather up their children as suspected handgun owners come down the street. Today's headlines contain the story of a gun user who has been found not-guilty of shooting and killing a car thief who threatened him with a monkey wrench. The gun user has leaving his gun club and challenged the thief, as far as I could make out. This, of course, has come at the worst possible time, and the press are feasting on it and pointing out how this destroys the gun lobbys contention that 'gun ownership is safe' and a gun owner is no more likely to be involved in crime [incidents involving crime] than anyone else. Dark days indeed. A. N. Onymous, who may have a friend who lives in the UK who thinks he may have an interest in firearms but isn`t sure. Handgunner: Distribution: V: +44 181 677 8111 F: +44 181 677 0136 -- The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Paranoia Date: 23 Oct 1996 09:56:55 PDT This is a test for the following three reasons Brad feels he posted to ROC yesterday and it was neither returned nor distributed to the list Another list seems to have vanished when its MX pointers disappeared from the DNS servers for reasons yet to be determined It is awfully quiet Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: stockman vs afl/cio Date: 23 Oct 1996 12:02:20 -0600 9:29 PM 10/22/1996 Stockman gets nod in TV ad fight Judge weighs own impartiality on issue By ALAN BERNSTEIN Copyright 1996 Houston Chronicle Political Writer Republican U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman returned to court Tuesday to block labor union advertisements about him -- and got a favorable hearing from a Republican judge also running for Congress. "I have a problem with coming down to Texas and spewing lies," state District Judge John Devine said about the controversial AFL-CIO television commercials. "Folks are making their minds up based on the untruths." But Devine delayed a decision on Stockman's request until today, partly so he could sort out questions about whether his own candidacy makes him unable to rule impartially. Devine, of Cypress in northwest Harris County, is seeking the 25th District seat held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Ken Bentsen of Houston. The 25th District, in southern Harris County, borders Stockman's 9th District, which runs from southeast Harris County and Galveston to Beaumont. Stockman is suing the AFL-CIO for libel in state court after failing to convince a federal judge to block the ads on grounds that they violate federal election law. The congressman's request for a temporary order to block the commercials, pending a full trial, landed in Devine's court because he is handling such emergency requests in all Harris County civil courts this week. Stockman lawyer Jared Woodfill denied that the lawsuit was timed for consideration by Devine, whose own ads say he is the "true conservative" candidate. Devine at first explained to a Chronicle reporter Tuesday that there was no conflict of interest because he is not running for Stockman's seat. About an hour later, the judge acknowledged to lawyers for the AFL-CIO that he may have to remove himself from the case because the union organization might run ads about his own congressional candidacy one day. The conflict issue didn't prevent Devine from denouncing the commercials, which say that Stockman voted to cut college loans and Medicare payments, and that his Democratic opponent, Nick Lampson, won't if elected. When local lawyers for the AFL-CIO told Devine that no political advertisement in the United States had ever been blocked by a judge until a full trial on their accuracy, Devine said: "Maybe it's about time we do. Truth counts and truth matters." Devine said he thinks Stockman "has a very good case." The congressman's lawyers said a judge has the authority to block the ads as libelous. They said the Medicare and college loan bills increased funding for those programs. Democrats and the AFL-CIO say the budget votes were still cuts because they would have reduced the amount by which the programs grow. AFL-CIO lawyers Bruce Fickman and Eric Nelson also said that any order blocking the commercials would amount to unlawful "prior restraint" of speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Nelson said the issues raised by the ads are a legitimate part of political debate and were raised by President Clinton in his debates against Republican challenger Bob Dole. After viewing a videotape of the commercials, Devine stated that their use of a quote from House Speaker Newt Gingrich "was taken out of context." Stockman's lawsuit also targeted Channel 6 in Beaumont, which was running the commercials. But the TV station stopped showing them on Oct. 15 to make room for other advertisers, according to the station's lawyers. Channel 6 quickly agreed to Stockman's demands Tuesday that it not run the commercials again. The commercials have caused political clashes across the country. The AFL-CIO bills them as "issue" ads rather than political ads designed to favor one candidate against another. But while the ads about Stockman do not directly urge a vote for Lampson, Republicans say they are examples of how the AFL-CIO has crossed the line into unauthorized political advertising. Last week, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt of Houston dismissed Stockman's first lawsuit on the issue, saying Congress had given the Federal Election Commission sole authority over election law -- even if it means the bipartisan commission won't act until after the Nov. 5 election. He said Stockman was free to file a libel case in state court. That is exactly what the first-term congressman did on Tuesday. Stockman also contends that the union organization and the Lampson campaign are in collusion on their ads because they used the same Denver-based marketing firm to purchase time on Beaumont TV stations. Lampson said he was unaware the AFL-CIO was using the same firm, proving that the ads campaigns are indeed separate from each other. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: Paranoia Date: 23 Oct 1996 11:11:58 -0600 >This is a test for the following three reasons > >Brad feels he posted to ROC yesterday and it was neither returned nor >distributed to the list > >Another list seems to have vanished when its MX pointers disappeared from >the DNS servers for reasons yet to be determined > >It is awfully quiet > >Jack > Hi Xmission had a sysadmin error (I'm not ths sysadmin :-) that screwed up some mailing lists a bit. I think I had Brad's post come through to me however... Though I cannot find it now. Can you forward this to him??? Some people's subscriptions got lost as well... Maybe he needs to resubscribe? Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Attack on Free Speech -- HR 2580 (fwd) Date: 23 Oct 1996 14:38:35 PST On Oct 23, Gene Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Republican Form of Government Guarantee Act (Introduced in the House) HR 2580 IH 104th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2580 To guarantee a republican form of government to the States by preventing paramilitary violence. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES November 2, 1995 Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To guarantee a republican form of government to the States by preventing paramilitary violence. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Republican Form of Government Guarantee Act'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds that-- (1) section 4 of article IV of the Constitution provides that the United States shall guarantee a republican form of government to the States; (2) organized criminal actions are an increasing threat to the republican form of government in some States; (3) people who are responsible for upholding the laws of the United States and the several States, or people who assist them, have been threatened, harassed, and assaulted because of these activities; (4) this violence is having a chilling effect on the democratic process because Americans are afraid to participate in town hall meetings, express their views publicly, or take part in the political process; (5) most victims are targeted solely because of their views or activism on controversial political issues such as gun control, abortion, environmental matters, or the role of government in society; (6) this violence is causing a breakdown of law and order in many parts of the United States; (7) this violence has increased in part because of unfounded exaggerations about the impact of recent firearms laws such as the Brady Law and the ban on assault weapons, as well as baseless conspiracy theories regarding the government; and (8) the climate of violence created by these criminals threatens to undermine republican government in some States. SEC. 3. PROTECTION AGAINST ASSAULT. Section 111(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting `who is an officer or employee of any State or local government, is assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of official duty, or is' after `any person'; and (2) in paragraph (2), by striking `designated in section 1114' and inserting `described in paragraph (1)'. SEC. 4. INCREASED PENALTIES. (a) ASSAULT- Section 111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended (1) in subsection (a), by striking `shall, where' and all that follows through the end of the subsection and inserting `shall be punished as is provided in subsection (b)'; and (2) so that subsection (b) reads as follows: `(b) PENALTIES- Whoever is convicted of an offense under this section shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 2 nor more than 3 years, except that-- `(1) in the case of a second or subsequent offense the maximum term or imprisonment shall be not more than 5 years; and `(2) in the case of an offense committed with a deadly weapon, the offender shall be imprisoned not less than 8 nor more than 10 years.'. (b) EXTORTION AND THREATS- (1) INTERSTATE COMMUNICATIONS- Section 875 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in subsection (c), by striking `not more than five years, or both' and inserting `not less than 2 nor more than 5 years'. (2) MAILING THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS- Section 876 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the third undesignated paragraph, by striking `not more than five years, or both' and inserting `not less than 2 nor more than 5 years'. SEC. 5. RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT; ENFORCEMENT. (a) REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHT- Each person not otherwise disqualified, barred, or disabled by State or Federal law shall have the right to participate in a republican form of State government free from interference from unlawful violence and the reasonably perceived threat of unlawful violence. (b) RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE DEFINED- As used in subsection (a), the term `right to participate in a republican form of State government' means the right to-- (1) carry out the duties of a State, county, or local office to which the person has been duly elected or appointed; (2) lawfully assist any duly elected or appointed person described in paragraph (1) in carrying out such duties; (3) run for elective office, campaign for such office on one's own behalf, or campaign on behalf of another's candidacy, in accordance with applicable State and local laws; (4) initiate and campaign for any initiative, referendum, petition, or similar political exercise, in accordance with applicable State and local laws; (5) assemble peaceably to petition the Federal, State, or local government, or to attend any public forum concerning such Federal, State, or local government; and (6) exercise the rights guaranteed under article IV of the Constitution of the United States, and the 1st and 14th amendments thereto. (c) ENFORCEMENT- (1) IN GENERAL- A person whose right under subsection (a) is violated by any person or organization may bring an action in any United States district court against such other person or organization for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate. (2) GOVERNMENT REMEDY- The chief executive officer of any State may bring an action in any United States district court located within that State for damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court deems appropriate against any organization wherever located which unlawfully violates or which conspires, attempts, aids, or abets another person or organization to unlawfully violate the right under subsection (a) of any resident of that State. (3) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE- In an action brought under paragraph (1) or (2), the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. (4) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action may not be brought under paragraph (1) or (2) after the 5-year period that begins with the date that the violation described in paragraph (1) is discovered. SEC. 6. LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretaries of Treasury, Agriculture, and the Interior, shall develop and implement a training program for Federal law enforcement personnel to enable such personnel to deal more effectively with politically motivated violence. SEC. 7. FEDERAL PAYMENTS WITHHELD. (a) COMPLAINT- If an agency determines that in any county any of that agency's employees or agents is being unlawfully physically prevented or impeded, by employees or agents of a State, county, or local government, from carrying out lawful duties, the agency may file a complaint with the Attorney General. (b) ESCROW- The Attorney General shall investigate the complaint, and if the Attorney General finds the complaint is meritorious, the Attorney General may place in escrow any payments that otherwise would be made to that county under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), until such time as the Attorney General is satisfied that such interference has ceased. (c) RULES- The Attorney General shall make rules governing the procedures used to carry out this section. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Attack on Free Speech (fwd) Date: 23 Oct 1996 14:36:45 PST On Oct 23, Gene Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Free Speech at Risk In Liberals' New Bill Beware: Radicals in Congress want to throw your rights out the window By Mike Blair Left-wing radicals in Congress introduced H.R. 2580, deceitfully titled, the Republican Form of Government Guarantee Act. Introduced by Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chief mover in the House of the Counter -Terrorism Act, and Rep. Jonn Conyers (D-Mich.), on November 2, the act is a direct assault on America's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and press. Starting out by citing that "Section 4 of Article IV of the Constitution provides the United States shall guarantee a republican form of government to the states," the act then goes on to note that organized criminal actions [unspecified] are an increasing threat to the republican form of government in some states." Then, it states that these unspecified "criminal actions" are "having a chilling effect on the democratic process because Americans are afraid to participate in town hall meetings, express their views publicly, or take part in the political process." Then, finally, it gets to the point. The act indicates that "this violence has increased in part because of unfounded exaggerations about the impact of recent firearms laws such as the Brady Law [establishing a national waiting period period to purchase a handgun anywhere in America] and the ban on assault weapons [part of the Omnibus Anti-Crime Act of 1994}, as well as a baseless conspiracy theories regarding the government; and...the climate of violence created by these criminals threatens to undermine government in some states..." AMBIGUOUS The proposal, by its ambiguous wording, lumps together those who would commit violent acts with those who are critical of government actions in their speech and writings. Actually, the act is so loose in its wording that if the act were already law, the government could determine that this newspaper article would be a violation of the law for spreading :baseless conspiracy theories..." There can be no doubt Schumer, in particular, considering his past history of pushing for radical anti-gun laws or anti- Second Amendment legislation, is aiming this new act at stifling criticism of anti-gun laws. WHO'S AFFECTED As an example, under the proposal if someone claims certain members of a Congress are conspiring to take away the guns of American citizens that could be determined - and such determinations are apparently left to the U.S. Attorney General (now Janet Reno)--to be a "baseless conspiracy" theory. Or, as another example, those writing or speaking about the efforts of the president and his followers to merge the United States in to a so-called New World Order under the UN could likewise be accused of spreading "baseless conspiracy theories," if so determined by Attorney General Reno. Schumer's bill is apparently modeled after Germany's notorious "Law for the Protection of German Youth," which cynically outlaws speech that in America is protected by the First Amendment. At least two Americans, Hans Schmidt and Gary Lauck, are now in German jails facing heavy sentences for openly disagreeing with the official history of World War II. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: CA. reply from D. Pandori(san jose) Date: 24 Oct 1996 00:23:38 -0400 Hi folks, here is the latest reply from Councilman Pandori(san jose city council) and my reply back to him. I guess I'm just bouncing rocks off a brick wall, but oh well, beats just sitting here and steaming.. Regards, V. Lum Tsuma@aol.com >To: TSUMA@AOL.COM >Thank you for your reply, but I must respectfully reiterate >that this is not >a matter of personal opinion. The interpretation of the >Second Amendment is >a legal issue, determined by the courts and not elected >officials. >----------------------- Headers >-------------------------------- >From DPANDORI@ci.sj.ca.us Wed Oct 23 12:45:14 1996 >Councilman Pandori, > Thank you for your reply to my letter. I would like to >believe that personal opinion doesn't enter into the >interpretation of the law, but you and I know that its just not >true. Any political body can interpret the law as they see fit, >pass laws that may or may not be constitutional, and get >away with it if no one challenges the law, they are slick >enough to word thier law properly, or just ignore the fact >that the law is not just or legal. Our president has told his >justice department to find ways 'around' laws he didn't like. >Do you call that not bringing your personal opinions into legal >issues?? Its no different on the local level, when politicians >pass laws that may or may not be constitutional.(i.e. >Hollywood gun ban) If they go unchallenged, or are worded >just so, they will remain on the books. And that is when we >the people must speak up and tell our elected officials that >what they are doing is NOT right. That we don't need a new >interpretation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. And >that we will not tolerate more intrusions on our basic >freedoms. Its really all about doing what works, councilman, >and your gun bans and other smoke and mirror laws simply do >not work. Criminal control works. Enforce the laws on the >books, put the criminals behind bars and keep them there, put >more police officers on the streets. Thats what works. We >need MORE freedom for law-abiding citizens, not less. And in >case you haven't noticed, the criminals do not obey the laws. >Thank you for taking the time to respond to my emails, I >appreciate your honesty on this issue. >Respectfully, >Vanze Lum >Tsuma@aol.com By the way, if this material is not appropriate for NOBAN or ROC, please let me know , I'll stop posting there.... Thanks, V. Lum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pquixote@ix.netcom.com (Patricia Fosness) Subject: Re: Paranoia Date: 23 Oct 1996 22:20:01 -0700 >This is a test for the following three reasons > >Brad feels he posted to ROC yesterday and it was neither returned nor >distributed to the list > >Another list seems to have vanished when its MX pointers disappeared from >the DNS servers for reasons yet to be determined > >It is awfully quiet > >Jack Interesting - I'm having serious problems accessing my email on two different ISPs, from two different computers (same phone line, tho). In addition, my boyfriend and I have received nothing from noban for days. And, lastly, a list I run on pobox has had a bunch of trouble, as have all thier other lists due to some changes they're making in their system. The 'net seems to have a case of the flu. Pat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Murray Subject: Re: Paranoia Date: 24 Oct 1996 06:14:51 -0400 (EDT) On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Chad Leigh wrote: > > > >Another list seems to have vanished when its MX pointers disappeared from > >the DNS servers for reasons yet to be determined > > > >It is awfully quiet > >Jack > > Hi > > Xmission had a sysadmin error (I'm not ths sysadmin :-) that screwed up > some mailing lists a bit. I think I had Brad's post come through to me > however... Though I cannot find it now. Can you forward this to him??? > > Some people's subscriptions got lost as well... Maybe he needs to resubscribe? > > Chad I would guess that they restored an old subscribers list from backup. I unsubed from roc about 6 weeks ago and am now back on it. Any one who joined in the last month or so would need to do it again. Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: [Fwd: DRUDGE REPORT FINAL 10/24/96] Date: 24 Oct 1996 06:34:59 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------7FEA3E0A2EF1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit read the first section, about the beevis and butthead movie. you're gonna love it. --------------7FEA3E0A2EF1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from nic.cerf.net by ICSI.Net (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA29224; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 05:59:52 -0500 Received: from lainet1.lainet.com (lainet1.lainet.com [199.107.22.1]) by nic.cerf.net (2.1.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id CAA02039; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 02:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mattdrud (a1p2r.lainet.com [199.107.22.52]) by lainet1.lainet.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA06831; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 09:43:42 GMT Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961024095446.006ddee8@lainet.com> X-Sender: drudge@lainet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" DRUDGE REPORT FINAL October 24, 1996 Filed by Matt Drudge BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD SCREW AMERICA HOLLYWOOD -- A key scene in the upcoming PARAMOUNT/MTV film, BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD DO AMERICA, has one of the dynamic duo wiping his buttocks on the Constitution of the United States. The shocking scene that is bound to cause a firestorm is said to be very close to making the final cut of the film, which is planned for release Christmas week. The story follows the metalheads as they hit the highway trying to recover their stolen TV set, and, surprise, the boys don't a do very good job in the manners department as they tour the nation. A bit that is floating around the PARAMOUNT lot has series creator Mike Judge -- who's directing, co-scripting, doing the voices and performing the theme music for the film -- putting in a rating-bargaining tilt. In one scene a cranky neighbor blurts: "You little co**suckers get off my lawn"; to which they greasy ones reply: "Heh-heh, heh-heh!" It is not clear at this point if PARAMOUNT wants a PG13 or R rating, or if VIACOM head, Sumner Redstone, is aware of the controversial nature of the picture. First we had actor Woody Harrelson wearing the American flag as a diaper, standing as if crucified in front of a bikini-bearing HUSTLER chick, promoting the new SONY film LARRY FLINT VS. THE PEOPLE; now, I can exclusively report, VIACOM has just done it one better. 'Using the Constitution as toilet paper is offensive,' an executive for the studio, who was unaware of the actual contents of the film, told me on Wednesday. 'Things are getting out of control.' It has been widely known that producers of BEAVIS have been struggling to find the magic rude that would get the toon's television audience to buy a movie ticket. What could they do to keep the pair fresh and edgy? As readers of this report know, initial plans had animation nudity an option; masturbation, sex scenes and spicy language not allowed on MTV were also thought to be a draw. 'I can't imagine that PARAMOUNT would do anything too lewd,' worried a manager at a local Los Angeles cable company, which is currently running a promotional tie-in campaign with the film. ("Heh-heh, heh-heh, heh-heh.") * * * * Rupert Murdoch's prerogative: FOX'S World Series telecasts are showing reaction shots of George Steinbrenner but not of Ted Turner. * * * * INTERNET GOES SATELLITE LOS ANGELES -- First there was the Internet. Then there were Intranets, which quickly blurred into Extranets. But the latest and greatest flow has just been created: "Saternets." HUGHES, the company that is behind the miracle utility DIRECTV, is prepping to nationally launch a service that will deliver the consumer onto the Internet via satellite bounce. Goodbye dial-up. DIRECPC incorporates new technology that promises to deliver Internet data to users at a 400kps clip, 14 times faster than current phone technology. A mini-satellite dish will hook to the PC in what could be the marriage of the century. (One will still need a yesteryear modem and a standard phone line to 'send' data. This baby only shoots in one direction.) The product will ship with a $699 price, not including a monthly access fee will. COMPUSA stores in California have already begun to sell DIRECPC. Sales are reportedly good. But the new way may not be totally without inconvenience; instead of busy signals, the future will feature the dreaded rain fade (annoying interruptions that occur with the DSS system during heavy precipitation, or heavy smog, as I experienced recently.) * * * * I will be guesting on CNNfn's MEDIA SHOW today (10/24) at 7:30 PM EDT/4:30 PDT. * * * * SCOTT REED TO TAKE BRUNT OF CAMPAIGN'S FAILURE Dole/Kemp campaign manager Scott Reed will soon get the full wrath from Republicans who are sensing the doom in the distance. Reed will be blamed by many of the top brass in the GOP for running a completely disastrous campaign. Arkansas pundits have always said that races against Clinton boil down to: the 40% who love him, the 40% who hate him, and the 20% who swing him. To lock Perot out of the debate, then a few weeks later, to run down to Dallas asking him to quit and throw an endorsement is complete incompetence and poison to those caught in the great Clinton divide. (And to think that Perot dealings were thought to be one of Reed's strong suits.) "We will now be very competitive in all 50 states," promised Reed after Kemp was picked. Well? "We don't want to pique too soon," that after Hartford. Ah-huh. The calm reassuring tones Reed has been using since August have been a creepy and suspicious. His confidence was misplaced; the laid back approach was wrong for the times. This should have been a completely aggressive battle from the get-go. Reed decided to build momentum; 'Like a snowball,' e-mailed a mid-level worker in the campaign on Wednesday. The Scott Reed notion that simple fate and destiny was going to carry the campaign proved to be fateful. Here's to the losers. (((((DRUDGE POLL RESULTS))))) December Surprise? Is Hale right? Will Hillary Clinton be indicted after the election? YES 306 NO 812 Thanks to all who voted. * * * * WARNER BROS will ensure that SEAL will soon be looking at #1 again on the charts. The new cut FLY LIKE AN EAGLE (a remake of the AOR classic by the STEVE MILLER BAND) has been product-placed in the film SPACE JAM. SPACE JAM, two years and $125 million later -- still not done. Industry reports have extra animators and CGIers being rushed in during the past few weeks; the race is on, on, on to meet a mid-November date at the mallplex. There's a problem: the thing is simply months behind deadline. JAM FOOTNOTE: The huge MCDONALDS/SPACE JAM cross-promotion is set to launch. Don't slip on a Big Mac! It promises to be the biggest grease/plastic grab mankind has ever seen. 10/24/96 07:38 UTC Information contained in this report is believed to be truthful and is moved for private recreational use only. All comments: drudge@lainet.com http://www.lainet.com/~drudge P.O. BOX 1171, Hollywood, CA 90028 (c)DRUDGE REPORT 1996 not for reproduction without permission of the author --------------7FEA3E0A2EF1-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: CA. reply from D. Pandori(san jose) Date: 24 Oct 1996 06:54:12 -0500 (CDT) The position held by Councilman Pandori should not surprise anyone, although I will bet that it does. This is the defacto opinion held by a large majority of people both in and out of government. In our Plainsmen meetings witht he ATF and theFBI last year we would challenge them to uphold their oath to protect and support the Constitution of the United States before enforing any "law." They would reply that they were upholding their oaths, that their activities were guided by the courts renderings of the Constitution. They, in effect, proclaimed that the courts are the constitution of this once great country. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > Hi folks, here is the latest reply from Councilman Pandori(san jose city > council) and my reply back to him. I guess I'm just bouncing rocks off a > brick wall, but oh well, beats just sitting here and steaming.. > Regards, > V. Lum > Tsuma@aol.com > > > > > > > > >To: TSUMA@AOL.COM > > >Thank you for your reply, but I must respectfully reiterate >that this is > not > >a matter of personal opinion. The interpretation of the >Second Amendment > is > >a legal issue, determined by the courts and not elected >officials. > > > >----------------------- Headers >-------------------------------- > >From DPANDORI@ci.sj.ca.us Wed Oct 23 12:45:14 1996 > > > > > > > >Councilman Pandori, > > Thank you for your reply to my letter. I would like to >believe that > personal opinion doesn't enter into the >interpretation of the law, but you > and I know that its just not >true. Any political body can interpret the law > as they see fit, >pass laws that may or may not be constitutional, and get > >away with it if no one challenges the law, they are slick >enough to word > thier law properly, or just ignore the fact >that the law is not just or > legal. Our president has told his >justice department to find ways 'around' > laws he didn't like. >Do you call that not bringing your personal opinions > into legal >issues?? Its no different on the local level, when politicians > >pass laws that may or may not be constitutional.(i.e. >Hollywood gun ban) > If they go unchallenged, or are worded >just so, they will remain on the > books. And that is when we >the people must speak up and tell our elected > officials that >what they are doing is NOT right. That we don't need a new > >interpretation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. And >that we will > not tolerate more intrusions on our basic >freedoms. Its really all about > doing what works, councilman, >and your gun bans and other smoke and mirror > laws simply do >not work. Criminal control works. Enforce the laws on the > >books, put the criminals behind bars and keep them there, put >more police > officers on the streets. Thats what works. We >need MORE freedom for > law-abiding citizens, not less. And in >case you haven't noticed, the > criminals do not obey the laws. > >Thank you for taking the time to respond to my emails, I >appreciate your > honesty on this issue. > > >Respectfully, > > >Vanze Lum > >Tsuma@aol.com > > By the way, if this material is not appropriate for NOBAN or ROC, please let > me know , I'll stop posting there.... > Thanks, > V. Lum > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] Fwd: Audit Faults INS On Aliens (fwd) Date: 24 Oct 1996 08:51:47 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --------------------- Forwarded message: .c The Associated Press By LAURA MECKLER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal immigration officials have made no effort to find or deport aliens who buy false IDs, and they do nothing to stop them from using the bogus documents to sign up for welfare and other government benefits, according to auditors. Even when the Immigration and Naturalization Service knows about fraud, it does not mark the offender's file to warn officials should they encounter the same person again, the Justice Department inspector general said in a report Wednesday. Investigators examined 36 case files and more than 2,400 aliens who benefited from fraudulent document schemes. ``We found no evidence that INS had attempted to pursue any of the aliens who benefited from the document fraud,'' the report said. It said the INS gives higher priority to border control, prosecuting employers who hire illegal aliens, deporting aliens who commit crimes here and those who operate criminal fraud schemes. People who buy or bribe INS officials for false documents are near the bottom of the priority list. ``They are not usually prosecuted, and INS spends only a minimal effort on them,'' the report said. INS officials said they lack the staff to pursue these offenders and don't have enough space to hold them during deportation proceedings. They said the deportation process is laden with legal reviews, with a slim chance of actual deportation. ``From the INS managers' perspective, given the lack of actual deportations, they find it hard to justify the effort and resources necessary to put the aliens who participated as customers into deportation proceedings,'' the report said. Additionally, INS managers told investigators there is pressure to process benefit applications quickly, and they were reluctant to slow things down to initiate deportation proceedings for aliens with false documents. ``We can understand the pessimism of INS employees,'' the inspector general's report said. ``The reasons INS officers gave for not pursuing aliens may have some merit, but do not justify INS' lack of action against most aliens who pay a bribe or knowingly buy false or stolen documents.'' Aliens can obtain false documents by buying counterfeit papers on the open market. Or they can bribe an INS official to sell a legitimate document, to change their status in the INS computer or to act favorably on an application for a benefit or document. In Newark, N.J., for example, a former immigration agent who admitted taking a $4,000 bribe was sentenced Wednesday to 16 months in prison and fined $15,000. DeAndre Rudolph pled guilty to taking the bribe in exchange for a metal template used by INS to produce green cards. INS offers a variety of benefits to aliens who can prove they are here legally, including the right to live in the United States as a permanent resident, to leave and enter the country, to work, eventual citizenship and to bring in relatives as legal, permanent residents. Most federal welfare benefits are denied to illegal aliens. But having their status changed in the INS database could theoretically qualify them for Supplemental Security Income, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food stamps, unemployment benefits, public housing assistance, aid for college and employment training. That adds up to $1,193 to $2,566 a month, depending on the state, for a family of four, the report said. But just how much illegal aliens cost the government through such schemes is not know, the report said. A lot, says the chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, immediately seizing on the report. ``The American taxpayer is being ripped off for millions and millions of dollars as a result of the INS' failure to even look for illegal aliens who have fraudulently obtained documents,'' said Rep. William F. Clinger Jr., R-Pa. AP-NY-10-23-96 1949EDT Copyright 1996 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press. To edit your profile, go to keyword NewsProfiles. For all of today's news, go to keyword News. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: An Exegesis Update From Washington (fwd) Date: 24 Oct 1996 12:12:53 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Exegesis Update A Forum Encouraging Moral Excellence >Friday, October 25, 1996 Published Worldwide from Washington >________________________________________________________________ > > All Tricks And No Treats At The Titanic Caf=E9 > > The world didn't end this week. We came pretty darned close >though. James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh from 1625 to 1656, predicted >the world would end on October 23, 1996 at 6:00 pm, terribly disappointing >if you had planned a soir=E9e with friends. The Daily Telegraph says he >calculated time began on October 23 in the Julian year of 710 (4004 BC). >Jewish tradition decrees the world ends 6,000 years later. That was 6:00 >pm last Wednesday. It was not the world, but the last shreds of democracy >whose end was announced that evening by CNN's Larry King who declared "The >networks are going to call this election early - by 8:00 pm". Translation: >Bill Clinton is slipping in California, so we have to rig the election. > >Your editor immediately called a senior Dole campaign official to recommend >they obtain a court order to stop them. Isn't it time CNN and the networks >were taken off the air for subverting democracy? > > With the advent of the Gregorian calendar in 1852, the Archbishop's >calculations mean the world will now end on November 4. Armagh Professor >Mark Bailey claims the Archbishop forgot the year zero, so the 6,000 years >won't end until October 1997. That'll teach you to rely on predictions. >If we don't survive November 4, Exegesis will let you know. If we do, the >media will throw the election. They don't bet on predictions unless they >control the outcome. The Archbishop would have looked egg-faced if he'd >had to explain himself on The NewsHour. Likewise, we can only pray that >our liberal media friends will find themselves with a similar amount of >Oeuf =E1 la Coq on their countenances on November 5. > > Mr. Clinton has been busy brushing egg off his two smirking >faces. He returned $20,000 from a convicted drug dealer but kept $140,000 >illegally raised in a Buddhist Temple, as polls show him ahead in Jakarta. >His two faces drive his supporters schizophrenic by favoring and opposing >late-term abortions, gay rights, a balanced budget, tax increases, tax cuts >and much else. And he had the audacity to proclaim last week 'National >Character Counts Week'. He knows his Machiavelli: "Men will see what you >seem to be; only a few will know what you are." Is this why his campaign >promises are known as Coq and Bull? > > Republican voters also seem to be in two minds. They loyally pay >lip-service to Mr. Dole, yet also believe he deserves to be defeated, even >as they vaguely hope for his victory. It is said Mr. Clinton will go >anywhere and say anything and Mr. Dole goes nowhere and says nothing, >though he did try to talk Ross Perot out of the race. In the second >debate, when a doctor asked about health care, Mr. Clinton listed four >clear deceits with phrases like "protect more families", "include more >children", and "protect the integrity of Medicare". Mr. Dole's reply was: >"There are things we can do like the Kassebaum bill, retains many >provisions that I authored, cover preexisting, existing, portability. And >there are other things we can do. We still need to cover about 20 million >people and a lot of children." So now you know. Er, whatever. > > For many voters, this election resembles eating an awful meal on >the Titanic. They've run out of every dish except one, which they are >desperately trying to present as if it were two separate dishes, but it >doesn't really matter because we're heading for the iceberg anyway. Were >it not so tragic that Americans are being so deceived, it would resemble a >comedy. "Good evening sir, tonight's special is 'Corruption a la Bimbo' >served with a side order of socialism and double-dealing, or perhaps you'd >prefer our renowned Filet of Socialism served with garden-fresh corporate >subsidies and sliced double-dealing but guaranteed bimbo-free". The poor >diners, starving for honest leadership, have lost their appetites for Coq >and Bull. It's all tricks and no treats at the Titanic Caf=E9, and it's= the >only restaurant on board. It sounds like the menu we feared in December >1995: "two equally unappetizing bowls of cold, stale oatmeal (three if you >count both versions of Bill Clinton)." If Mr. Clinton is reelected and the >world doesn't end on schedule, we can expect a large dish of national >trauma. Better stock up on Alka-Seltzer. > >Steve Myers - Editor >___________________________________________________________________________= _ > >=A9 Exegesis 1996 * >Subscriptions USA: $32.95, Overseas Airmail: $44.95 * Students $19.95 >Internet: www.vais.net/~exegesis >PO Box 789 , McLean VA 22101, USA >Telephone: (703) 734 5656 * Fax: (703) 734 0606 > > > > >=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D= -=3D >Unsub info - send to liberty-and-justice-request@pobox.com with= "unsubscribe" >in body (not subject) of the msg. List-Owner - Mike Goldman= > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 54 (fwd) Date: 24 Oct 1996 12:15:50 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following is brought to you thanks, in part, to the kind assistance of CyberNews and the fine folks at Cornell University. Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 54 ====================================== ("Quid coniuratio est?") A CROOKED FEDERAL JUDGE AND THE OIL RACKETS =========================================== By Sherman H. Skolnick ---------------------- Here is the scene. It was October, 1990. A half million U.S. troops were gathering in the Persian Gulf. Joined by a few thousand troops of our so-called "Allies." One of the great secrets was how, in the 1980s, U.S., England, France, and Germany supplied weapons to both Iraq and Iran, to kill each other -- hundreds of thousands died -- in a war that went on for some eight years, 1980 to 1988. The Western Powers used the Iraq-Iran war to control the oil from the Gulf. Who in 1990 (or even now) knew or remembered that President George Bush and his cronies were the ones who were kingpins in making Kuwait a major oil producer? All the way back to 1960, when Kuwait was a British colony. Kuwait petroleum interests were big depositors and transacters through the Rockefeller banks, New York and Chicago. In the U.S., particularly in the south, Kuwait Petroleum was becoming a big competitor, such as the chain of retail gas stations, once owned by Gulf Oil, and then called under the name "Q-8" Gas Stations. Kuwait was becoming, world-wide, too big a competitor to the Rockefeller oil cartel, and the companies making up the monopoly with them. There was a danger that oil prices, by over-production, would go down, severely damaging the oil trust, called The Seven Sisters. A really big secret, in 1990, and even now, was that George Bush was a private joint venture business partner of Iraqi strongman, Saddam Hussein. Since Bush had been Director of Central Intelligence, 1975, the CIA created Saddam, by arranging the political murders of his opponents, including some of his power-grabbing relatives. Saddam was the bully boy of the Persian Gulf, where all the other oil producers secretly agreed to pay him and his cronies 25 percent of all the oil shipped to the West, for the decade 1980 to 1990. That was one trillion dollars worth. The kick-backs to Saddam and his circle had been 25 billion dollars per year (average), a total of 250 billion dollars for the decade. Saddam shared the oil loot with his partner, George Herbert Walker Bush, and their circle of thieves and extortionists. The oil kick-backs were funneled through the Chicago branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro [BNL], owned in part by the Vatican. According to Congressional documents, BNL was the twin and interlocked with Bank of Credit and Commerce International [BCCI]. BCCI has been a worldwide crime, political murder, and espionage operation that became, supposedly, defunct in 1991. Actually, BCCI has continued on through its successor and alter ego, Pinnacle Banc Group, whose flag-ship is First National Bank of Cicero (Chicago mafia enclave suburb). And the Cicero bank has long been dominated by Bishop Paul Marcinkus, once heading a church there and up until 1991 head of the Vatican Bank. (According to an espionage-gangster scandal in Italy, the Vatican Bank was the center of CIA/mafia gun and dope money laundering as well as the secret sale of nuclear device parts to terrorists. The Roger D'Onofrio Affair, a long-time American CIA official, dual resident in U.S. and near Naples, Italy. Reuters, Naples, 12/2/95. Associated Press, Naples, 12/2/95. See also my story called "Clandestine Projects.") Starting in the early 1980s, BNL and BCCI set up branches in major cities in the U.S., including Chicago. This was arranged by partners in the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock and through their client, Stephens & Co., largest bond brokers worldwide, outside of Wall Street. Forming the branches required greasing the palms of state and federal bank regulators and others, around the country. Facilitating this corruption were two of the Rose Law Firm partners, Hillary Rodham Clinton and her law partner/lover, Vincent W. Foster, Jr. >From the early 1980s, Vince Foster was the equivalent of a military general in the super-secret National Security Agency [NSA]. With the help of Hillary, he headed up the NSA's bank computer services spying operation, keeping tabs on bank and other money laundering worldwide -- both friend and foe. Hillary Clinton's father, originally from the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge, was reportedly a middle-level gangster, setting up money washing through banks and insurance companies, U.S. and overseas. Hillary being married to William Jefferson Clinton was a marriage of convenience. From an early age, both had been separately groomed by CIA through George Bush and others; such as the CIA London station chief for Bill. To use espionage jargon, Bill and Hillary were a "CIA couple." The CIA promoted Bill Clinton from state Attorney General (which he got from his gangster uncle, Ray Clinton), to be Governor of a sizeable state with a small population -- Arkansas -- known as owned by the Rockefellers. Savvy folks contend Bill is the illegitimate great grandson of old John D. Rockefeller, founder of the infamous Standard Oil Trust. Arkansas has been one of the most backward places in the nation, if not in the world -- where anything goes. In the Iran-Contra period, Governor Clinton kept his state police from interfering with the CIA's guns & dope operation through the small airport in western Arkansas, at Mena. In secluded facilities nearby, in violation of federal aviation regulations, small shops were set up and operating to re-fit airplanes secretly with special doors and long-range fuel tanks, to be used in faraway jungles, like Central America, good for dropping secret loads of weapons and picking up dope for return trips to various sites in Arkansas and across the South. Bill Clinton's mother was the link through Hot Springs, Arkansas, to the underworld's gambling, extortion, and prostitution apparatus, which on occasion overlapped CIA. An outpost for Chicago mobsters was Hot Springs, and they had done favors for the CIA, such as aiding in the CIA's murder of President Kennedy in Dallas. So, in its most simplistic terms, the marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton was the joining of two crime families, Chicago and Hot Springs. A merger authorized for a CIA couple by the spy agency. A few related examples: Operating through Chicago to reportedly wash funds for the CIA, the Vatican Bank, and others, reportedly has been Coral Re-Insurance, having an unlisted headquarters in the Barbados. They reportedly money laundered 50 million dollars of federal funds, part of 58.4 million dollars parked with Household International and their units Household Bank. Household, in part dominated by the Vatican, is the successor to the Nugan Hand Bank, like Household, a CIA proprietary washing espionage, political murder, and other covert funds. Former CIA Director William Colby, who mysteriously disappeared and supposedly whose body was later found, had been general counsel of Nugan Hand Bank which supposedly became defunct following the murder of one of its founders. Colby had a similar role for the Nugan Hand Bank alter ego, Household. As to Nugan Hand Bank, see the book by Jonathan Kwitny, "The Crimes of Patriots." I have written extensively of a complex group of state and federal litigation in Chicago, called the Joseph Andreuccetti Affair, involving the mysterious 50 million dollar transfer by Household to Little Rock and from there, to the Grand Caymans with the aid of Coral Re-Insurance and Fuji Bank. The mysterious transfer of the 50 million dollars was to cover up the apparent embezzlement of funds from a federally-insured outlet, Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan -- some 47 million dollars for which Bill and Hillary Clinton can be the targets of federal criminal prosecution. Congressman Dan Burton (R., Ind.) refers to the strange 50 million dollars transferred by Bill Clinton to a known dope-money laundering center. (Congressional Record, 5/29/96, pages H5627-28.) Some quote the congressman as stating he vows to help put Bill and Hillary Clinton in prison. A key player in all this was Brian Barnett Duff. In the 1980s, Duff sat as a judge in the state court in Chicago, the Circuit Court of Cook County. Later, the Reagan/Bush team installed Duff as a federal district judge in Chicago. Some knew Duff to be corrupt, but he escaped while all other local judges were sent to federal prison in "Operation Greylord" (touched off by our work.) One thing is for sure: Duff was subject to blackmail, a key reason someone is selected for high office (an unfortunate American reality.) At any moment, Duff could be whisked away to the funny farm. On the bench, he had outbursts where he wanted to jail the more-independent lawyers for no particular reason. In routine cases, lawyers knew they had to grovel before him or he would suddenly go nuts and start threatening one or more lawyers and others. Some just imagined Duff as some psychiatric ward inmate who somehow escaped to high federal office. Duff acted the part and was there to be used and blackmailed. A case that should have been labeled a blackmailer's dream-come-true was on U.S. District Judge Duff's docket in October, 1990. (You are wrong if you really believe cases get on a particular judge's docket by so-called "random selection." To make a long story short, court corruption requires a corrupt Court Clerk's office. A top federal Court Clerk's Office official ended up in jail because of our work, in 1969, U.S. vs. Robert P. Steine.) All of the foregoing almost unraveled, worldwide, but was hushed up -- a series of events in October, 1990. A Texas Democrat, in some ways seeming to be a populist, was Henry B. Gonzalez. As a very long-time congressman, he headed up the House Banking Committee. As part of an investigation of the twin banks, BNL and BCCI, Cong. Gonzalez sought the records of the Chicago branch of BNL. A custodian of copies of some of those records was the Federal Reserve Board who began giving them to the congressman's committee. Alarmed when they found out, the Bush/Saddam Hussein gang instigated the Illinois State Banking Commissioner, which regulated the BNL Chicago branch, to start an injunction suit in federal district court in Chicago which by corrupt means was assigned to Judge Duff, a crony of Bush. People of the State of Illinois ex rel. William C. Harris, Bank Commissioner vs. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Case No. 90 C 6863. Because they were the focus of the litigation, becoming an intervening party was the House Banking Committee. In one of his rulings, Judge Duff sought to bar Gonzalez's House Banking Committee lawyer from Judge Duff's courtroom. In one of his psychiatric outbursts, apparently brought on by blackmail pressure against him, Judge Duff referred to the lawyer as an 800 pound gorilla showing no deference to Judge Duff. In other plain words, get the hell out of my courtroom and out of this courthouse: this matter is already "fixed," by Bush and others, and why are you here? (A key development: while the case was pending, the Illinois Attorney General, representing the Banking Commissioner in federal court, changed from GOP to Democrat. They half-heartedly proceeded to push the case.) Unless Congressman Gonzalez was prepared to sign -- and he wasn't -- a national security oath of some sort that he would not reveal the BNL Chicago records, any records he had were to be returned and he could not get any more of the bank's records. One of the exhibits already in the court record is a letter on behalf of CIA, that the bank's records should not be divulged. The court record also shows high-level negotiations between top Italian officials, in Rome, with officials in the U.S. of the Federal Reserve, regarding that the BNL records should not be disclosed. Bush's blackmailable crony, Judge Duff, enjoined the release of the records of BNL. The mass media, themselves interlocked with crooked banks, dared not send any reporter to cover the case. In May, 1991, an appeal of the case was heard by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, in Chicago. Most of the judges on the 7th Circuit court (covering Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana) are interlocked with banks. For example, chief judge of that court for many years was Judge Walter J. Cummings, Jr.: his father for years and years was board chairman of the Continental Bank of Chicago. The Cummings family have been major owners of that bank, along with the Vatican, the Rothschilds, and the Queen of England (who always had a representative of the British royal family on the Continental board). That bank, tied to the commodity markets, has all the years been a center of corrupt secret nominee accounts for judges, to corruptly influence many federal judges such as in Chicago. Continental Bank has been the head office for several thousand correspondent banks. (Formed before the American Civil War, like the Chicago Board of Trade, Continental was apparently the transfer point for Rothschild banking empire funds implicated in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.) The only reporter at the May, 1991, federal appeals court hearing was myself accompanied by friends. *Where* *was* *the* *mainstream* *press* *in* *a* *world-shaking* *story* *like* *this*? After the hearing, in the back of the courtroom, I interviewed two participants. Question: I heard that the secret BNL Chicago records involved here relate to private, joint business ventures between George Herbert Walker Bush and his business partner Saddam Hussein. Answer: (From a lawyer of the Illinois Attorney General representing the State Banking Commissioners) Yes, that is correct. (To be careful and sure, I asked the same question three times. Same answer each time.) Question: Why do the state and federal bank regulators want these records suppressed? Answer: Release of the records would undermine the authority of bank regulators and because of what is involved here, would cause a worldwide run on banks. Question: Are you confirming it is that serious, the possible release of BNL Chicago's records? Answer: Yes, release of the records would create an international incident, detrimental to the banks, the United States, and our international relations. The bank's records, among other things, show Bush and Saddam Hussein getting, for the decade of the 1980s, 250 billion dollars in oil kick-backs from all the Persian Gulf oil producers, or 25 billion dollars per year for a decade -- for the ten years leading up to the Persian Gulf War. I then stated: It seems the appeal record is suppressed or someone wants to suppress it. Whereupon, the lawyer reached into a leather suitcase and dragged out most of the records and gave them to me. I then interviewed the lawyer for the Illinois Banking Commissioner, that regulates the Chicago branch of BNL. I asked him the same question as well, three times to be sure, and each time he answered similar to the first lawyer. He then also volunteered: Those records also relate to "non bank" records. He explained there are records of BNL Chicago that are not exactly bank records but show George Herbert Walker Bush as the private joint business venture partner of Saddam Hussein. The three-judge panel was headed by Judge Richard A. Posner, later made Chief Judge of the 7th Circuit. Posner, once a law school teacher at the University of Chicago (founded and operated by the Rockefeller oil cartel) reportedly represents the one billion dollar (and more) stock portfolio of the University of Chicago. (Like the other judges on the federal appeals court in Chicago -- and other banker-judges around the nation -- Judge Posner does NOT disqualify himself when his financial interests are involved. Guess who wins?) Before becoming a judge on the federal appeals court in Chicago, Posner ran a court litigation service company described by reliable sources as reportedly specializing in bribing or blackmailing federal judges on behalf of major corporations. After an appeals court hearing, most usually their ruling is made months later. In the meantime, in this case, after the hearing, the Bush Justice Department began circulating stories -- but the press fakers were afraid to go into it and follow it up -- that Judge Posner had reportedly received bribes in eight other cases. Funny thing, our group already knew about those eight other cases, not news to us. Responding to the bribery blackmail, Judge Posner, in the summer of 1991, made a strange and rare ruling: that the BNL Chicago case should not be in this courthouse and should be entirely removed. Only a right-wing, conservative newspaper dared publish the details of all this. ("Spotlight," 8/19/91) Saddam Hussein's half-brother, in Geneva, Switzerland, has told European reporters that if Saddam is assassinated by the American CIA, that records will be released compelling the American government to prosecute George Bush for treason. In March, 1996, I did a program on my popular public access cable TV program in Chicago, called "Broadsides," that Judge Brian Barnett Duff was observed by me and an associate of mine during a three-hour hearing in a case involving Chicago City Hall patronage jobs. A former city employee contended that thousands of city workers have been defrauded out of amounts that total into the hundreds of millions. That this was because of a fraud upon the federal district court in Chicago. Implicit in the hearing was that Judge Duff was in some way himself a part of the fraud upon his court. Duff implied that the situation is so serious, as to the amounts involved, that it could cause city government of Chicago to declare bankruptcy. During the lengthy hearing, described on my cable TV show, Judge Duff raved and ranted like he had just escaped from a nut house. For a lengthy period he condemned one of the lawyers that had filed papers about the fraud upon Duff's court in the city patronage cases. Just as Duff looked at the lawyer Duff was berating, Judge Duff said: "If you say anything more I am going to do something to you." Such as jailing him for contempt. Funny thing, the lawyer had not said hardly a word. After the taping of my show, before it was even cablecast, Judge Duff had heard about my show about him. Judge Duff saw me in the lobby of the federal courthouse and came up behind me and in a very sarcastic tone said to me, "Thanks for the compliment, Skolnick." After the show was cablecast, because of the large viewership, it became widely known and understood that Judge Duff is certifiably insane, and has a psychiatric disability. To once and for all hush up the whole business about Judge Duff and the rulings about BNL and Chicago and such, Chief Judge Posner issued a series of rare and strange rulings, called mandamus cases, brought by lawyers complaining that Judge Duff is erratic (if not actually crazy.) Suddenly the mainstream press began condemning Judge Duff as erratic. Was there a danger that Judge Duff was going to start blabbing about the big fix involving himself in the BNL Chicago case? Judge Posner's much publicized rulings against Duff on the mandamus petitions discredited Duff. Thereafter, who would believe anything Judge Duff said in or out of court? Then stories began circulating that the Justice Department, because of a crazy ruling by Judge Duff, in a secret complaint to Congress, wanted Judge Duff impeached. The one-million circulation Chicago Tribune, in a front page story headlined "Beleagured Judge Steps Down From U.S. Bench -- Duff was known for erratic actions." The Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court in Chicago is quoted as saying Duff "has a legitimate physical disability." What he really meant is that Judge Duff has long been known, and subject to blackmail, because of his mental disability. The Justice Department complaint against Judge Duff was so secret that the U.S. Attorney in Chicago warned his entire office that if anyone there talked about it, they would be fired. The funny thing was that the federal appeals court in Chicago, populated with banker-judges, removed Duff from a lawsuit contesting the state's treatment of the mentally ill. Duff had demanded in court that the Illinois Governor come personally and privately to meet Judge Duff about the mental hospital case; otherwise, Judge Duff threatened to torpedo numerous other state lawsuits pending on his docket, to cost the state many millions. Lawyers complained that Judge Duff was so nuts, that motions and briefs filed without inclusion of his middle name were rejected out of hand. A local group called "The Chicago Council of Lawyers," in a 1991 evaluation (blackmailing Duff during the BNL Chicago case?) said, "Some lawyers report that the only way to avoid Judge Duff's ire is to grovel and constantly flatter him." See the lengthy front-page story, Chicago Tribune, 10/11/96. Some contend the BNL Chicago case, covered up by Judge Duff and then nailed shut by appeals Judge Posner, involves a lot more than just the treason of Bush being in business with Saddam Hussein; at the same time Bush sent a half a million U.S. troops in harm's way to the Persian Gulf. Although the press said the Gulf War casualties were just a few hundred -- how about the 80,000 ex-GIs suffering from Gulf War diseases? Medical sources claim several thousand of those ex-soldiers have since died of the strange illnesses. One source claims 15,000 of those suffering from Persian Gulf War Syndrome have perished. Some contend the BNL Chicago record cover-up involves among other things: ** the money that paid for the political assassination of Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden, who started to complain about the Swedish arms merchant Bofors committing high crimes in secret weapons shipments to Iraq and Iran. ** the American CIA as well as foreign intelligence agencies washing political assassination funding through BNL Chicago. ** the bribery, by BCCI, to try to spread out more in the U.S., of 25 percent of the House of Representatives and 28 U.S. Senators. (Some have forgotten about my exclusive story in Spotlight in October, 1991, about the BCCI-Congress bribery mess.) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + [CN: The following paragraph was conveyed to me by phone by Mr. Skolnick subsequent to his having written the above article. He wished it to be included with this story. Thanks to a CN reader for pointing out to myself and Skolnick the apparent Henry Hyde connection to Judge Duff.] Judge Duff apparently helped cover up things in the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) case against Congressman Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois). The case is still pending. It is alleged that Hyde, as a director of Clyde Savings & Loan, through wrongful conduct, caused the downfall of Clyde S&L. A CIA lawyer came in and, in chambers, asked that records be impounded. Subsequently such an order by Judge Duff ordering that principal records be impounded was issued. Duff also apparently arranged to delay the trial so as to help Hyde. Hyde is reportedly in charge of the CIA's "black budget" and has more actual authority than the Director of Central Intelligence (DCIA). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Since 1963, Mr. Skolnick has been founder/chairman of the Citizens' Committee to Clean Up the Courts, a public-interest group researching and investigating judicial corruption and political murders. Updates of their work are on a regular phone call, a recorded phone message, 5 minutes: (773) 731-1100. He is now the moderator of a public access cable TV program, "Broadsides," in Chicago, available to some 400,000 households. Using a good browser, you can find many thousands of citations to his stories and reports on Internet. Office: 8 a.m. to midnight, 7 days, (773) 375-5741. 9800 South Oglesby Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60617-4870. Call before sending Fax. (The area code changed from 312 to 773 on 10/12/96.) Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief. I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation." If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1") For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom See also: http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html See also: ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ken L. Holder" Subject: Re: CA. reply from D. Pandori(san jose) Date: 24 Oct 1996 10:33:46 -0700 At 06:54 AM 10/24/96 -0500, Larry Ball wrote: >In our Plainsmen meetings witht he ATF and theFBI last year we would >challenge them to uphold their oath to protect and support the >Constitution of the United States before enforing any "law." They >would reply that they were upholding their oaths, that their >activities were guided by the courts renderings of the Constitution. > >They, in effect, proclaimed that the courts are the constitution of >this once great country. > >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu And I gather nobody was able to convince them otherwise? Anybody try and give 'em lessons in reading plain English? Anybody try and explain to them the fatal error they were committing, the seriousness of the whole thing? Did any of them show any understanding at all of the consequences of them continuing to play this game? Probably not. Well, thanks for trying. -- Ken kholder@liberty.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Gulf War Illness (fwd) Date: 24 Oct 1996 12:37:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ====================================================================== Hi ABFs, This is a repost of the information I posted last July about Gulf War Illness. Regards to all, Sarah in San Francisco ___________________________________________________________________________ Part I Hi ABF's, Last night, on Channel 31, the community access channel, Joyce Riley's video tape on Gulf War Illness was shown. I was SHOCKED by what I learned. Maybe everyone else besides me already knows this. Anyway, I spent the afternoon transcribing from the voice on the video and came up with these ROUGH notes: SHORT VERSION ...from memory Gulf war veterans are not barred from donating blood. People who receive transfusions can catch the disease. The disease causes birth defects. 10,000 to 12,000 veterans have already died from GWS. One half of gulf war vets, 489 thousand, are no longer in the military. The nurse, Joyce Riley, thinks this is because they are too weak to perform physically. In many cases, people's IQs drop to the idiot level. Veterans who have only served in the gulf for 3 months on a rotating shift are now getting GWS. A female soldier who buried dead Iraqis caught it. One wonders why. The other 16 people in her unit have already died. A house bill authorized one million dollars to develop biological agents in the US. President Bush gave this and other chemical and biological weapons to Saddam prior to the war. The US can never admit to shipping these agents to Iraq because this action violates international treaties signed by the US. The main infectious agent is Mycoplasmas Incongnitas. About 25% of the AIDS virus genes have been spiced into it. These agents are man made, and for that reason, no humans or animals have immunity to them. This disease was made to be incurable. The Iraqi scuds did have these biological agents on them. Many other biological agents were mixed in so that the resulting condition could not be diagnosed. There is a lot of evidence of veterans suffering chemical burns. The burns look as if they were created by mustard gas, a chemical agent. Saddam used these agents, bacteria and viruses we developed, on the veterans. Knowing that the effects manifested slowly, he used these agents not to win a short war but to infect the United States. Solders, potentially carrying a contagious pathogen, move around a lot and get divorced and remarried. LONGER VERSION: ...from transcript Source: Video tape narrated by Joyce Riley First generation copies are available for $20.00. They are not copyrighted and are available form: Pretty Good Video PO Box 339 Adrian MI 49221 Joyce Riley was a lung, liver and kidney transport nurse. She leads off with: "I'm going to tell you about the destruction of our military." Joyce had volunteered as a trained flight nurse and was stationed at Kelly Air Force Base. She flew on a C 130 transport aircraft for 6 months, but was never stationed in the gulf. Joyce became very ill and received no help from the military. She decided to investigate on her own and did so for a year. She found that she had contracted the illness because of her contact with vets returning home and her contact with contaminated tents, duffel bags, etc. She found that biological agents were manufactured in the United States, in Houston, Texas and Boca Ratan, Florida. These agents passed through the CDC and companies like ATCC in Maryland. They were sold to Saddam as late as l989, shortly before the Gulf war. The military denies that biological (germ warfare) weapons were used in the Gulf War. This discovery led her to the realization that GERM WARFARE HAS BEEN PERPETRATED ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. She said, "Our troops did not know what to expect, nor were they protected. Biological alarms were non existent and chemical alarms were grossly inadequate." Joyce presented evidence such as letters from vets, newspaper and magazine articles, ads in newspapers recruiting non military citizens to test agents without their knowledge, before or after the testing, and military and senate documents. She found that the our government had been experimenting on civilians. Joyce said that this goes back as far back as 1953 with MK Ultra, a CIA LSD testing program. In this program 44 colleges, 15 research foundations, 12 hospitals and 3 prisons administered these tests. She discovered House bill #15090 which authorized 10 million dollars in 1970. It's purpose was to create a synthetic biological agent which does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could be acquired, since it had never existed in human or animal populations. The purpose of the funding was to create a micro organism damaging to the immune system. Protests against such a program to create agents of mass extinction were referenced right in the bill. Joyce hypothesizes that this program could have been used to create the HIV virus which causes AIDS. She noted that 1975 was the year when the first recorded death from AIDS appeared. The government maintained that no gas, chemical, or biological warfare agents were used during the Gulf War. The Pentagon denies that there is a Gulf War Disease, even after the deaths of many military personnel after they had returned from the gulf. The Persian Gulf Veterans Coordinating Board admits that 489 thousand veterans separated from the military after the war. Joyce believes the reason is that they were too sick to perform their physical duties, or they were forced out. The Persian Gulf Veterans. Coordinating Board admits that 489,400 veterans obtained medical care at the VA. That is one out of every two. The Department of Veterans Affairs admits that 5,729 veterans have died since the gulf war. Joyce says that the real number is 10,000 to 11,000. One million soldiers went to the gulf and one million have the potential of getting GWS. This is because the main agent hangs around in the body until the immune system is stressed. Then it makes it's host sick. The VA does not treat GWS. It only monitors the victims' blood to see how the agents work. Joyce gives an example of Candy, a 21 year old nursing student, who enlisted in order to go to the gulf. She was part of the Graves Registration Unit. They wore neither gloves nor masks. It was her duty to bury Iraqi men, women and children. "You have to wonder how Candy got it from burying Iraqi's" she said. All of the other 16 soldiers in Candy's unit died. Candy now has the IQ of a 12 year old. She can't walk, is in a wheel chair, and is paralyzed. She could not care for her son and had to give up her rights to do so. While investigating, Joyce met Doctors Garth and Nancy Nichols whose daughter was a gulf war veteran. The family cat and both parents and caught GWS from the daughter. The cat died. All had tested positive for MYCOPLASMA INCOGNITAS, which is the chief biological agent responsible for a lot of the illnesses of the Gulf War vets. Garth Nichols is on three medical school faculties and used his Ph.D. in biological cell research. MYCOPLASMA INCOGNITAS is between the size of a virus and a bacterium. It travels among the population and waits for a weakness in an immune system. When this happens, it causes sickness. The developers of this agent inserted into it 40% of the HIV envelope gene of the HIV virus. The agent does not give people AIDS. It gives them the symptoms of AIDS. It is the first biological agent (FIRST GERM WARFARE AGENT) that has been identified. Doxycycline, a tetracycline type of antibiotic, can be used to treat it. The US military won't allow vets to have it. When a vet tries to fill a prescription from Dr. Nicholson, his military ID is taken away. ====================================================================== Continued: It is a world wide problem because 28 countries served in the Gulf War. They report that many of their military are sick. Law suits have been filed against the US manufacturers of this agent. Symptoms can include memory loss so severe that people in their 20's can only remember for a day or less. Our government says there is no gulf war illness, so doctors think there is none and, therefore, veterans can not get treated. Sixty seven per cent of babies born to affected gulf war vets are born with birth defects. They are very severely deformed. A common condition is Golden Hare Syndrome. It is characterized by no arms, legs and no ear canal on one side. Joyce said, "WHAT HAVE WE DONE TO THE DNA OF OUR FUTURE GENERATION?" Evidence of biological and chemical use during the gulf war was presented on the floor of the Senate by now retired Senator Riegle. On February 9, l994 he presented evidence of biological warfare agents having been exported to Iraq prior to the Gulf War. He also presented evidence of transmission to spouses and children. He called for an assessment of risk to the public because there is NO BLOOD SCREENING WHEN VETS DONATE BLOOD. No screening has yet been instituted. He called for a ban on the donating of blood by veterans. No ban has yet been instituted. All senators who were in the house in l994 knew of this evidence that was obtained from the CDC and the US Department of Commerce. Senator Riegle sent a letter to William Perry, Secretary of Defense, informing him that our government had exported these agents through the American Type Culture Collection. In the letter he appealed for treatment for the veterans. Another agent that was shipped to Iraq's Minister of Trade was anthrax. Joyce says that most ministers don't want to let her speak in their churches. Joyce spoke on the Chuck Harder radio show together with Dr. Nichols. She also spoke on a radio show in California. Joyce said that only about 1% of the country knows about these things and that most ministers do not want to let her speak in their churches. Government documents show which germ warfare agents were shipped to the Iraqi Minister of Trade through the American Type Culture Collection. Starting on September 29, 1988 some of the agents shipped were Anthrax, Coxiella (Q Fever) , Clostridium botulinum, and Brucellosis (Brucella arbortus). All were genetically engineered to produce symptoms unlike those of any other known diseases. Records from the war, namely the Nuclear, Chemical and Biological log of General Norman Schwartzkopf as well as conversations with other nurses and autopsy personnel, show evidence of the use of mustard gas, and other chemical and biological agents. Pills given to soldiers, pyridostigmine bromine, a pre-treatment for infection by a nerve agent, create a lot of health problems for those who ingest them. Russia created a variation of the anthrax agent which was genetically engineered to make it resistant to treatment with antibiotics. An amount that could fit on a pin head could kill one half million people, if put into the water supply. Saddam had a thousand pounds of this agent. Product Ingredients Technology in Boca Ratan, Florida manufactured a type of cyanide that was used to make Prussian Blue. This substance was shipped to Iraq. It destroys the gas mask filters and was used on our troops rendering their protection ineffective. The plant claimed to be manufacturing cherry flavoring. An attorney was sent to prison for destroying the veterans' medical records. Proof that the veterans had been vaccinated was destroyed. Joyce said that military personnel were given 10 immunizations, but they were not told what the purpose of these immunizations was. Troops were forced to receive anthrax and botulism vaccinations under threat of firepower and court marshal. The worst vehicle of transmission to the veterans was the scud B missiles and the frog missiles used by Saddam. This was known by our military one month prior to the war. The missiles had biological and chemical agents. When the patriot missiles intercepted them at 200 feet in the air, these agents rained down on our troops. Eighteen to twenty different agents were mixed together to confuse diagnosis and treatment. These agents work slowly. Saddam could have killed our troops en masse with biological and chemical agents. His mission, however, was to infect the American population through it's veterans who move around and get married and divorced. Twenty per cent of all of the people around the war theater are sick. We do not have statistics on Syria. There is evidence that GWS can be transmitted via sex and kissing. The Mycoplasmas shows up in the dental floss test. With one half million veterans effected, so many people are now sick that our government will be forced to deal with the situation. A doctor even contracted it from a patient. Cover stories are now being spun. Articles are appearing about the dangers from new viral plagues. There are articles about hemorrhagic fever, dengue fever in South America, Hunta virus in New Mexico, Ebola and the flesh eating virus. These conditions and chronic fatigue have appeared or grown larger since the Gulf War. We are told that these viruses are coming out of the rain forests because of too many trees are being cut. The US defense department increased it's budget to bury Gulf War veterans. Now the U. S. Defense department is pushing inoculations, especially among our soldiers who are going to Bosnia. Joyce said people should ask why. There is evidence of chemical and biological agents being used there as well. Our troops in the gulf are on three month rotating shifts. The biological agents are bound to the sand in the silica. Soldiers who come back after being stationed there have GWS. So this is not something that has occurred only in the past. It is going on right now. Michael New, the soldier who refused to wear the UN uniform, contacted Judy. He was a medic in Bosnia and he saw that other soldiers were getting sick. He was forbidden to treat those troops or to say any thing about it. The journalist, Sarah McClendon, wrote an article for Media Bypass in which she examined the concept of trading with the enemy (and using US. taxpayer dollars to do it) as a treasonous act. The cover up continues because Bush made sure, before he left, that 70% of his people remained in the Department of Justice after he departed office. On a radio show with Dave Rydell, Joyce explained that doxycycline has been shown effective in treating GWS. The next day a newspaper article appeared which said that GWS is psychological. Our veterans are being given psychotropic drugs which just happen to have the side effect of keeping them from getting angry, thus suppressing dissent. President Bush was served with a War Powers Act subpoena by one angry activist. All of the evidence he had was confiscated and is being held under national security. The suit was against President Bush and 100 federal agents. Joyce points out that none of us have heard this in the news. Our federal government and Iraq were signatories to the Geneva Convention Regulations of l972 in which we agreed not to experiment with or use germ warfare. Our government cannot admit it's involvement because of the tremendous political and legal implications. The report by Senator Riegle of Michigan was originally withheld from the American public. It can be found on the internet at : http://www.gulfwar.org/report/riegle1.html Joyce urged people to write to their senators and congressmen asking them to confirm or deny the story and to send copies of the responses to her. She also urged people to write to newspapers. Joyce can be reached at: Joyce Riley c/o Gulf War Victims 3506 Hwy. 6 So. #117 Sugarland, Texas 77478-4401 At the filmed lecture given on January 15, l996 she said she had 70 unreturned phone calls on her machine. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` What follows are some notes I copied from a Gulf War veteran discussion group on the internet: And the P.I.T.'s role was to develop what is called "Prussian blue." Prussian blue is what broke down the gas mask filters. It didn't matter how fast you could change the filter because the Prussian blue would break down the gas mask filter anyway. In other words, these things [chemical agents] would penetrate both their [special] clothing and their gas mask filters. And that is why you have this widespread communicable disease. Mycoplasmas and the anthrax [an infectious, usually fatal, disease caused by bacillus anthracis] packed in the HIV. In other words, they used the HIV I viral shell as an envelope or housing to infect many of our troops. botulinum [a bacteria that secretes botulin, a nerve toxin], ...Because, in the breaking down of the body's immune system, each person is a carrier, to begin with . One in three sick Persian Gulf War veterans they have examined share at least one physical trait: an inflamed ring on the outer edge of the tongue. -------------------------------------------------------- Please feel free to PASS THIS INFORMATION ON to any of your friends who might be interested. Regards to all, Sarah in San Francisco Additional internet sites about GWS: Another transcript of the same lecture: http://www.cco.net/~trufax/reports/riley.html Another transcript of the same lecture: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6506/gws.html Secret vaccine information: http://www.new-atlantean.com/global/secret.html Treatment for GWS http://www.gulfwar.org/GWVA/mhonarc/msg00031.html The National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc. (with search feature) http://www.gulfwar.org/Resource_Center/ Experimental Vaccines and Gulf War Syndrome http://www.new-atlantean.com/global/ith_gulf.html Gulf War Veteran Blood Ban Sought http://www.gulfwar.org/blood.html#ban ====================================================================== Hi ABFs, Here is the report by Senator Riegle that Joyce Riley referred to on the air tonight. http://www.gulfwar.org/report/riegle1.html Regards to all, Sarah in San Francisco ====================================================================== TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THE LIST, send a message to: majordomo@primenet.com with the one line message of: unsubscribe art-bell-fans ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RevCOAL Subject: Re: Paranoia Date: 24 Oct 1996 13:36:23 -0400 (EDT) On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Patricia Fosness wrote: > Interesting - I'm having serious problems accessing my email on two > different ISPs, from two different computers (same phone line, tho). > In addition, my boyfriend and I have received nothing from noban for > days. And, lastly, a list I run on pobox has had a bunch of trouble, > as have all thier other lists due to some changes they're making in > their system. The 'net seems to have a case of the flu. Pobox had been 'making changes' for months now...it seems to be their standard reply when any of their lists go south... But in this case, it's not just Pobox....the whole 'net's gone particularly funky since late last week.... Donna ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: NRA CONTRIBUTES TO HCI!!! Date: 25 Oct 1996 07:19:07 -0500 (CDT) Leroy, David McGuire asked you if it was true that NRA contributes to HCI. The question was put to you from the headline of my post without, as I can see, the body of the post that explained my statement. Your answer was NO, and while you are wrong, I understand your position having been given no supporting information. Here it is. NRA CONTRIBUTE TO HCI because it is supporting ANTI-GUN candidates. I have heard compliants about anti gun candidate support in North Carolina, New York, my own state Nebraska, and this morning about two congressional districts in southern Illinois. I cannot personally testify as to the veracity of any except Nebraska. Nebraska's governor, Ben Nelson, publically supported Brady and the AW ban. Further his people hosted a visit by Sarah Brady to Lincoln in either 1993 or 1994. Further, in 1993, he supported further restrictions on handguns and, in fact, guns of all sorts at a Governor's Youth Violence Conference in Omaha. He shared the dias with Senator Bob Kerrey and for three days I listened to diatribe after diatribe about the evil of guns. The keynote speaker here was AG Janet Reno. The NRA has endorsed this enemy of RKBA over the Republican Senatorial Candidate Chuck Hagel. I think that Hagel is weak kneed but at least he would have the conservative Republican Grass Roots to belt him when he got out of line. Nelson has no such restraint. Nelson also lead our state, as a pioneering example, into a "partnership" with the feds to fight crime. He wanted more federal dollars and allowed more intrusion into our state police function by federal authorities, even giving them arrest powers for infractions of state statute. In this way I say that the NRA contributes to HCI. They are supporting HCI's candidates, they are supporting HCI's agenda. I say NRA headquarters needs to be purged. Where is Dr. Gillotin when we need him? Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: CCCS@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU Subject: Re: CA. reply from D. Pandori(san jose) Date: 25 Oct 1996 09:07:41 EDT On Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:33:46 -0700 Ken L. Holder said: >At 06:54 AM 10/24/96 -0500, Larry Ball wrote: > >>In our Plainsmen meetings witht he ATF and theFBI last year we would >>challenge them to uphold their oath to protect and support the >>Constitution of the United States before enforing any "law." They >>would reply that they were upholding their oaths, that their >>activities were guided by the courts renderings of the Constitution. >> It is my understanding the Federal agents take no such oath. There is a difference between the Federal Government and the US Government. US Government officials (Congressmen, Senators, US Marshals) swear an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution. Federal officials (IRS, DEA, FBI, etc.) take no such oath. They are responsible only to their superiors, not the public which they alegedly serve. It might be nice if we could get all Federal officials to take such and oath, although it may not make any difference in practice. toddddddddddd - __ __________ - Todd Pukanecz ----- ---- CCCS@VTVM1 ---- -- \ \ / ___ ___/ -- CALS AGNIS ---- "Giving money and power to --- \ \ / / / / --- 303 Hutcheson --- government is like giving ---- \ \/ / / / ---- Virginia Tech -- whiskey and car keys to ----- \__/ /_/ ----- Blacksburg VA - teenage boys." - O'ROURKE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: OKC theory (fwd) Date: 25 Oct 1996 08:49:43 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From the "Daily Oklahoman," Thurs., 10/24/96 Fed 'Sting' Among McVeigh Bomb Theories 10/24/1996 By Nolan Clay, Staff Writer Attorneys for Timothy McVeigh disclosed Wednesday they continue to pursue a defense theory that the Oklahoma City bombing actually was a government ''sting'' operation that backfired. The attorneys on Wednesday continued cutting back their requests for information from prosecutors, but U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch was left with more than 100 disputes over evidence to resolve. The judge has scheduled a hearing on the disputes for Nov. 13-15 in Denver. The judge had instructed defense attorneys to be more specific in their requests. In their revised requests Wednesday, attorneys made clear they were not backing away from defense theories that the attack could have been a botched ''sting'' operation or the work of foreign terrorists. Only two defendants, McVeigh, 28, and a friend, Terry Nichols, 41, are charged in the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The explosion April 19, 1995, resulted in 168 deaths. Prosecutors contend the men targeted a federal building to avenge the deaths of Branch Davidian members two years before. Dozens of members of the religious cult, along with their children, were killed in a fire after a 51-day standoff with the FBI near Waco, Texas. That standoff began when agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms attempted to arrest cult leader David Koresh. McVeigh's attorneys have for months insisted prosecutors reveal the whereabouts of all Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) agents at the time of the explosion. In their legal filings Wednesday, they labeled that request as among those crucial to the defense. ''The defense has investigated numerous reports of a 'sting' operation and prior knowledge by government officials,'' attorneys told the judge. ''Even the government's own investigation ... indicates that some witnesses purport that the BATF had prior knowledge. ''Because the government alleges the Oklahoma City bombing is a by-product of the siege at Waco and because the BATF office in Oklahoma City was housed in the Alfred P. Murrah Building ... the fact that no BATF agents were present in the ... building at the time of the explosion seems curious at the least,'' they wrote. ''Moreover, the presence of BATF agents from other field offices in Oklahoma City before the bombing, purportedly for training, seems rather curious,'' the filing said. Prosecutors have disputed that any federal agency knew beforehand about the bombing. And officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms contend agents were in the building at the time of the explosion. ''Our employees had absolutely no previous warning of the impending blast,'' special agent Lester Martz said last year. ''Rumors and innuendo to the contrary are totally ridiculous. Five of our employees were in the building at the time of the blast. The other employees ... were either in court or outside of the office conducting investigations as they would on any normal workday.'' Since the bombing, conspiracy theorists have claimed that federal agents knew about the attack and planned to stop it but somehow failed, so they are covering up their mistake. McVeigh's defense attorneys have been criticized repeatedly in the media and by prosecutors for pursuing such theories. But defense attorneys claim there is evidence supporting those theories. On Wednesday, for instance, attorneys claimed a Justice Department employee was called 24 minutes before the bombing and told, ''I'm nobody special. The federal building in Oklahoma City has just been bombed. I'm standing across the street from it, and I can see it from where I'm standing.'' Special correspondent Robert E. Boczkiewicz in Denver contributed to this report. =========== Michele Moore NOTE: I hope you don't mind, but I am going to post your question and my response to it to the caji list because I feel the material is that important. -- Michele Moore ====================== Regarding: >I am puzzled by all the reports from many investigators and even McVeigh's >Defense Atty. that the OKC bombing was a sting operation gone wrong. The >seismograph recordings showing multiple blasts, the finding of explosives inside >the building, as well as Gen. Partin's excellent analysis, all point to an >inside job or a setup to destroy the building using an ineffective external bomb >blast as a cover. >Seems to me that the defense, focusing on a sting operation, may be making an >elaborate case yet predesigned to lose. What do you feel? >Bob Staaf ====================== There are four levels of "story telling" involved in the OKC bombing, all of which are true in part in that certain players were present and certain things occurred. Etc. However, there is the much larger "over-all" planning and execution of the OKC event which no prosecutor or defense attorney will touch. From all appearances, McV and Nichols are going to be sacrificed without adequate defense... and it ISN'T because their attorneys don't know. Let me try to explain this. Level I is the "official story" told by most mainstream media and comprises the thrust of the prosecution case: disgruntled white supremacist neo-Nazi militia dude and friends, angry over Waco Massacre, plan and pull off the bombing to get back at the government. Total baloney, but reported and believed by majority of American people just the same. Level II: Yes, we definitely did have a "sting gone wrong." That is the version planned, observed, screwed-up, and reported by lower to mid-level federal agents -- and the version which they are told must be "covered up" for the "good of the country." There is deliberately TOO much evidence of this situation to deny that it did happen. It definitely did, and law enforcement guys who don't play the game on this one are turning up dead. In fact, there is SOOOO much evidence of this matter that it causes one to consider why it is being allowed to be known by "outsiders." And that is another story entirely. This Level II version states that feds stole McV's license plate so he could be arrested, JD#2 was "allowed" to disappear, and is supposed to be hiding with the militias and worshipped by them at hero-status, and the JD#2 (who is allegedly also federal informant) is going to rat on the militias when they plan their next baby-killing bombing, thereby saving us all from terrorism. Total crap, but completely in keeping with the way we know that federal agents view the militia mentality. They just don't have a clue and are totally divorced from reality on this one. The "screw up" of the "sting" was that the lower level feds who had the building under surveillance most of the night believed that the bomb was not supposed to go off. It was supposed to be a high publicity photo op of how the feds saved the day at the last minute. This is the level where the militia take-down has its first manifestations, but no one at that federal level understands that the agenda is total disarmanent of the American people for the purpose of ultimate enslavement. They don't see it. This is the version of the story propounded behind the scenes and in secret conferences by the FBI, some BATF, and many local law enforcement officers, all of whom either participated in or witnessed the surveillance operation gone wrong. Level III: Yes, we did have Middle Eastern players involved, too numerous to mention and whose names I still cannot spell correctly. Several of them are "left-overs" from the FBI's World Trade Center bombing fiasco, in which the FBI was clearly implicated as the planners, decision-makers, and directors. The difference in the OKC matter is that this operation has CIA fingerprints all over it -- not the least of which are reports from Tel Aviv two months before and two weeks before the bombing alerting officials that plans were in the works. This is all also "provable" but the sources may be compromised and thus I am hesitant yet to "run with it." There is a LOT of disinformation to be sifted in this aspect, but it can be sifted and the work is in progress. Still checking cautiously. Knowing the "bad blood" that exists between the CIA and the FBI, this part of the operation (since it was well known all over the place well in advance of the event) may have been designed to take down the FBI. We have Mossad agents still in OKC working the propaganda end of this story, and they are intimately associated, both in business and social life, with prominent CIA personnel. So, there is a different agenda associated with Level III than that associated with Level II. The Level II and III stories are never going to mix, jive, or connect UNTIL you get to Level IV. Level IV: Here we find ourselves at the National Security Counsel level of things, and all of the internationalists who believe like they do, and the globalists who pull all strings...the Secret Society boys in high places. In covert operations the building was internally wired with explosives. We have witnesses who observed this going on (or at the very least the placing of fuses or detonators) at about 2:30 a.m. on Wed. morning/Tues. night. The Level II players were betrayed within the upper levels of their own organization so that the milita angle could be played out. Disarmament is absolutely necessary to the overall goal. The Level III boys were betrayed within their own ranks and are finding their Middle Eastern associates suddenly at risk of discovery ... well, it's already happened as we have positively identified a half-dozen of them on the scene and have the photographs to prove it. The Middle Eastern connection provides the "scary factor" to all of this, as they are generally perceived to be more dangerous and uncontrollable than simple American patriots. Nevertheless, the CIA has been intimately involved in Middle Eastern terrorism for a long time, and that too can be documented. CIA complicity is in danger of exposure in this regard and there is much scrambling to cover tracks and point fingers back at the Level II operations...which accounts for the "sting" articles recently released to the press. The trick, of course, is to trace back all of the connecting threads to the highest levels of power where this incident could be planned in such great detail, with all cover-up stories in place, etc...AND to be able to prove it. This is, as you undoubtedly can understand, an extremely dangerous place to be in the investigation. But that is where it is leading. My suggestion is that everyone read everything they can about the philosophy and beliefs of Anthony Lake and his associates in the National Security Council. It will shed very useful light. There is also evidence that the bombing was actually planned in the late 1980s, and Gov. Keating (who was a Washington big shot at the time) is heavily implicated. Work on this matter continues. I guess you can see why folks are so puzzled. The whole thing only makes sense when you understand the four levels of the planning and cover-up and the agenda that it furthers. But at the Level IV stage, it ALL fits. As Janet Reno always says: "We will pursue every available lead." The only difference here is that we WILL!!!!! In fact, , we are. Have a great day! Michele > ************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: CA. reply from D. Pandori(san jose) Date: 25 Oct 1996 11:16:07 -0500 (CDT) Your understanding is incorrect. They thake the same oath of office that I took when I entered the US Navy in 1954. Your theory or facts are totally incorrect. Under our form of government, the people are the title holders. They are responsible to us. We have given them their authority in our Constitution. They must conform to it. The proble lies for them and all of us in how we understand that document. They are relying upon Court decisions to guide them. It does seem like that is a responsible thing to do. What happens, though, when the court skews things so bad that it guts the meaning and intent of the Constitution? It would seem like we then must look to change the system under which our judges are chosen or that we will for sure experience civil war or increase terrorism and more and more of our legitmate authorty as citizens of this great country is taken away. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > On Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:33:46 -0700 Ken L. Holder said: > >At 06:54 AM 10/24/96 -0500, Larry Ball wrote: > > > >>In our Plainsmen meetings witht he ATF and theFBI last year we would > >>challenge them to uphold their oath to protect and support the > >>Constitution of the United States before enforing any "law." They > >>would reply that they were upholding their oaths, that their > >>activities were guided by the courts renderings of the Constitution. > >> > It is my understanding the Federal agents take no such oath. > > There is a difference between the Federal Government and the US > Government. US Government officials (Congressmen, Senators, US > Marshals) swear an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution. > Federal officials (IRS, DEA, FBI, etc.) take no such oath. They > are responsible only to their superiors, not the public which > they alegedly serve. > > It might be nice if we could get all Federal officials to take > such and oath, although it may not make any difference in practice. > toddddddddddd > > - __ __________ - Todd Pukanecz ----- ---- CCCS@VTVM1 ---- > -- \ \ / ___ ___/ -- CALS AGNIS ---- "Giving money and power to > --- \ \ / / / / --- 303 Hutcheson --- government is like giving > ---- \ \/ / / / ---- Virginia Tech -- whiskey and car keys to > ----- \__/ /_/ ----- Blacksburg VA - teenage boys." - O'ROURKE > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: OKC theory (fwd) Date: 25 Oct 1996 10:27:25 -0700 At 08:49 AM 10/25/96 -0500, you wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >From: damoore@xxxxxxx (David Moore) >Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 12:07:17 -0500 >Subject: OKC - Sting Denials > >>From the "Daily Oklahoman," Thurs., 10/24/96 > >Fed 'Sting' Among McVeigh Bomb Theories >10/24/1996 >By Nolan Clay, Staff Writer > >Attorneys for Timothy McVeigh disclosed Wednesday they continue to pursue a >defense theory that the Oklahoma City bombing actually was a government >''sting'' operation that backfired. bad choice of words here. > >The attorneys on Wednesday continued cutting back their requests for >information from prosecutors, but U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch was >left with more than 100 disputes over evidence to resolve. > >The judge has scheduled a hearing on the disputes for Nov. 13-15 in Denver. >The judge had instructed defense attorneys to be more specific in their >requests. > >In their revised requests Wednesday, attorneys made clear they were not >backing away from defense theories that the attack could have been a botched >''sting'' operation or the work of foreign terrorists. > >Only two defendants, McVeigh, 28, and a friend, Terry Nichols, 41, are >charged in the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma >City. The explosion April 19, 1995, resulted in 168 deaths. > >Prosecutors contend the men targeted a federal building to avenge the deaths >of Branch Davidian members two years before. > >Dozens of members of the religious cult, along with their children, were >killed in a fire after a 51-day standoff with the FBI near Waco, Texas. > >That standoff began when agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco >and Firearms attempted to arrest cult leader David Koresh. > >McVeigh's attorneys have for months insisted prosecutors reveal the >whereabouts of all Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) agents at >the time of the explosion. In their legal filings Wednesday, they labeled >that request as among those crucial to the defense. > >''The defense has investigated numerous reports of a 'sting' operation and >prior knowledge by government officials,'' attorneys told the judge. ''Even >the government's own investigation ... indicates that some witnesses purport >that the BATF had prior knowledge. > >''Because the government alleges the Oklahoma City bombing is a by-product >of the siege at Waco and because the BATF office in Oklahoma City was housed >in the Alfred P. Murrah Building ... the fact that no BATF agents were >present in the ... building at the time of the explosion seems curious at >the least,'' they wrote. > >''Moreover, the presence of BATF agents from other field offices in Oklahoma >City before the bombing, purportedly for training, seems rather curious,'' >the filing said. > >Prosecutors have disputed that any federal agency knew beforehand about the >bombing. And officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms >contend agents were in the building at the time of the explosion. > >''Our employees had absolutely no previous warning of the impending blast,'' >special agent Lester Martz said last year. ''Rumors and innuendo to the >contrary are totally ridiculous. Five of our employees were in the building >at the time of the blast. The other employees ... were either in court or >outside of the office conducting investigations as they would on any normal >workday.'' > >Since the bombing, conspiracy theorists have claimed that federal agents >knew about the attack and planned to stop it but somehow failed, so they are >covering up their mistake. > >McVeigh's defense attorneys have been criticized repeatedly in the media and >by prosecutors for pursuing such theories. > >But defense attorneys claim there is evidence supporting those theories. On >Wednesday, for instance, attorneys claimed a Justice Department employee was >called 24 minutes before the bombing and told, ''I'm nobody special. The >federal building in Oklahoma City has just been bombed. I'm standing across >the street from it, and I can see it from where I'm standing.'' > >Special correspondent Robert E. Boczkiewicz in Denver contributed to this >report. > >=========== > >Michele Moore > >------------------------------ > >From: damoore@xxxxxxxx (David Moore) >Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:12:49 -0500 > >NOTE: I hope you don't mind, but I am going to post your question and my >response to it to the caji list because I feel the material is that >important. -- Michele Moore > >====================== >Regarding: >>I am puzzled by all the reports from many investigators and even McVeigh's >>Defense Atty. that the OKC bombing was a sting operation gone wrong. The >>seismograph recordings showing multiple blasts, the finding of explosives inside >>the building, as well as Gen. Partin's excellent analysis, all point to an >>inside job or a setup to destroy the building using an ineffective external bomb >>blast as a cover. >>Seems to me that the defense, focusing on a sting operation, may be making an >>elaborate case yet predesigned to lose. What do you feel? >>Bob Staaf >====================== > >There are four levels of "story telling" involved in the OKC bombing, all of >which are true in part in that certain players were present and certain >things occurred. Etc. However, there is the much larger "over-all" >planning and execution of the OKC event which no prosecutor or defense >attorney will touch. From all appearances, McV and Nichols are going to be >sacrificed without adequate defense... and it ISN'T because their attorneys >don't know. Let me try to explain this. > >Level I is the "official story" told by most mainstream media and comprises >the thrust of the prosecution case: disgruntled white supremacist neo-Nazi >militia dude and friends, angry over Waco Massacre, plan and pull off the >bombing to get back at the government. Total baloney, but reported and >believed by majority of American people just the same. > >Level II: Yes, we definitely did have a "sting gone wrong." That is the >version planned, observed, screwed-up, and reported by lower to mid-level >federal agents -- and the version which they are told must be "covered up" >for the "good of the country." There is deliberately TOO much evidence of >this situation to deny that it did happen. It definitely did, and law >enforcement guys who don't play the game on this one are turning up dead. >In fact, there is SOOOO much evidence of this matter that it causes one to >consider why it is being allowed to be known by "outsiders." And that is >another story entirely. This Level II version states that feds stole McV's >license plate so he could be arrested, JD#2 was "allowed" to disappear, and >is supposed to be hiding with the militias and worshipped by them at >hero-status, and the JD#2 (who is allegedly also federal informant) is going >to rat on the militias when they plan their next baby-killing bombing, >thereby saving us all from terrorism. Total crap, but completely in keeping >with the way we know that federal agents view the militia mentality. They >just don't have a clue and are totally divorced from reality on this one. >The "screw up" of the "sting" was that the lower level feds who had the >building under surveillance most of the night believed that the bomb was not >supposed to go off. It was supposed to be a high publicity photo op of how >the feds saved the day at the last minute. This is the level where the >militia take-down has its first manifestations, but no one at that federal >level understands that the agenda is total disarmanent of the American >people for the purpose of ultimate enslavement. They don't see it. This is >the version of the story propounded behind the scenes and in secret >conferences by the FBI, some BATF, and many local law enforcement officers, >all of whom either participated in or witnessed the surveillance operation >gone wrong. > >Level III: Yes, we did have Middle Eastern players involved, too numerous >to mention and whose names I still cannot spell correctly. Several of them >are "left-overs" from the FBI's World Trade Center bombing fiasco, in which >the FBI was clearly implicated as the planners, decision-makers, and >directors. The difference in the OKC matter is that this operation has CIA >fingerprints all over it -- not the least of which are reports from Tel Aviv >two months before and two weeks before the bombing alerting officials that >plans were in the works. This is all also "provable" but the sources may be >compromised and thus I am hesitant yet to "run with it." There is a LOT of >disinformation to be sifted in this aspect, but it can be sifted and the >work is in progress. Still checking cautiously. Knowing the "bad blood" >that exists between the CIA and the FBI, this part of the operation (since >it was well known all over the place well in advance of the event) may have >been designed to take down the FBI. We have Mossad agents still in OKC >working the propaganda end of this story, and they are intimately >associated, both in business and social life, with prominent CIA personnel. >So, there is a different agenda associated with Level III than that >associated with Level II. The Level II and III stories are never going to >mix, jive, or connect UNTIL you get to Level IV. > >Level IV: Here we find ourselves at the National Security Counsel level of >things, and all of the internationalists who believe like they do, and the >globalists who pull all strings...the Secret Society boys in high places. >In covert operations the building was internally wired with explosives. We >have witnesses who observed this going on (or at the very least the placing >of fuses or detonators) at about 2:30 a.m. on Wed. morning/Tues. night. The >Level II players were betrayed within the upper levels of their own >organization so that the milita angle could be played out. Disarmament is >absolutely necessary to the overall goal. The Level III boys were betrayed >within their own ranks and are finding their Middle Eastern associates >suddenly at risk of discovery ... well, it's already happened as we have >positively identified a half-dozen of them on the scene and have the >photographs to prove it. The Middle Eastern connection provides the "scary >factor" to all of this, as they are generally perceived to be more dangerous >and uncontrollable than simple American patriots. Nevertheless, the CIA has >been intimately involved in Middle Eastern terrorism for a long time, and >that too can be documented. CIA complicity is in danger of exposure in this >regard and there is much scrambling to cover tracks and point fingers back >at the Level II operations...which accounts for the "sting" articles >recently released to the press. The trick, of course, is to trace back all >of the connecting threads to the highest levels of power where this incident >could be planned in such great detail, with all cover-up stories in place, >etc...AND to be able to prove it. This is, as you undoubtedly can >understand, an extremely dangerous place to be in the investigation. But >that is where it is leading. > >My suggestion is that everyone read everything they can about the philosophy >and beliefs of Anthony Lake and his associates in the National Security >Council. It will shed very useful light. > >There is also evidence that the bombing was actually planned in the late >1980s, and Gov. Keating (who was a Washington big shot at the time) is >heavily implicated. Work on this matter continues. > >I guess you can see why folks are so puzzled. The whole thing only makes >sense when you understand the four levels of the planning and cover-up and >the agenda that it furthers. But at the Level IV stage, it ALL fits. As >Janet Reno always says: "We will pursue every available lead." The only >difference here is that we WILL!!!!! In fact, , we are. > >Have a great day! > >Michele > > >> > > >************************************************ > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: NRA CONTRIBUTES TO HCI!!! Date: 25 Oct 1996 10:35:16 -0700 (PDT) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This is absurd. "Contribute" in a political context means "-hand-cash-". When the Dole campaign asks you what you can "contribute" they're not asking you to flog up some old dead horse in email. Larry has a good understanding of the language, IMHO he knows he's abusing it here, and when my time could be better spent working to elect pro gun candidates I resent this kind of effluent landing in my mailbox. I don't even know how it was inflicted on me since I thought I had unsubscribed from all of these lists =: | I'm going to find out which list I got this from and squish my name out of it's server like a pumpkin seed gets squished outta the fingers of a cranky ten year old. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv All of you should be -way- to busy working for candidates to re read this old stuff. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The horse is dead, stick a fork in it etc. Boyd Kneeland -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMnCWyLShsEZeYU9pAQEP/QP/QUxStW4ekSVTo9Wvvmlt6dTHWnH4w4tX nNhdBsOr3V2LUHLD4YUns5lAqTV0OcJe6t22aqDK9kVMCu/k4r5vCuDiTP/bO7m7 /W/Cbx4PvkcU+WsWaEd80/fG0zs/Dw8qf0Jj+FjOjOoFoW4SSXlOACnG5DI8mtyG lWlAz1ttSA8= =x2NB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Ca. David Pandori smail address Date: 25 Oct 1996 17:10:28 -0400 If anyone is interested in contacting San Jose Councilman David Pandori, Here is his smail address- David Pandori 801 N 1st. Street Suite 600 San Jose, Ca. 95110 Regards, Vanze Lum Tsuma@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: CA. reply from D. Pandori(san jose) Date: 25 Oct 1996 17:29:21 -0700 At 09:07 AM 10/25/96 EDT, CCCS@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU wrote: >On Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:33:46 -0700 Ken L. Holder said: >>At 06:54 AM 10/24/96 -0500, Larry Ball wrote: >> >>>In our Plainsmen meetings witht he ATF and theFBI last year we would >>>challenge them to uphold their oath to protect and support the >>>Constitution of the United States before enforing any "law." They >>>would reply that they were upholding their oaths, that their >>>activities were guided by the courts renderings of the Constitution. >>> >It is my understanding the Federal agents take no such oath. > >There is a difference between the Federal Government and the US >Government. US Government officials (Congressmen, Senators, US >Marshals) swear an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution. >Federal officials (IRS, DEA, FBI, etc.) take no such oath. They >are responsible only to their superiors, not the public which >they alegedly serve. > >It might be nice if we could get all Federal officials to take >such and oath, although it may not make any difference in practice. The Constitution _REQUIRES_ that all officials, of the federal government AND of the states, take the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Any "officer" who has not done so is _not_ a public official. I would be astonished beyond words if FBI, ATF and whatever alphabet-soup agencies didn't require their "officers" to take the oath. Every member of the military does. Article VI, Para; 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Here in California, that's one of the ways that some people get out of traffic or parking tickets; if the ticket-writing officer's oath isn't on file, it's apparently not a valid ticket. Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. 8037 Stone Canyon |counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing Citrus Heights, CA|citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent 95610 |crimes and it appears to produce no increase in kmitchel@gvn.net |accidental deaths. If those states which did not 916-449-9152 (vm) |have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had 916-729-0966 (fax)|adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; |4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults |would have been avoided yearly." Crime, |Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns |John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago -------------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm---------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Yankees Win Date: 26 Oct 1996 22:39:21 -0600 I always wondered what it would take to get me to pull for a team called the "Yankees". It took a team by that playing the Atlanta Fondas in a World Series. It was funny. The Fondas won the first two games by a gazillion to nothing and were loudly proclaimed in the media to be the greatest team with the greatest pitching staff in history. The end of the series was a foregone conclusion, hardly any reason to bother to play the last five games. There wouldn't be five, of course. Only two more, as it's a four of seven series. The repeat championship was a foregone conclusion. I wonder if the fact they're owned by the Media/Mogul/Genius/Reigning-Lying-Egomaniac/Wannabe-Philosopher-King-of-all-He-Surveys had anything to do with that? A funny thing happened to the Fondas on the way to immortality. All that media blathering woke up those guys from the city we love to hate. Next thing you know, they won four games in a row. Jane who? Atlanta what? There is an interesting stat relative to this. Every time the yankees lose a world series during a presidential election year, the former democrats, now socialists win. When they win during an election year, republicans win. I have people from all over this country calling and emailing me telling me how genuinely angry they are at the way the media is trying to hand the election to Clinton. They are telling me they're using Hitler's "Big Lie" theory, repeating an obvious untruth so often it becomes reality. Telling the world it's not necessary to go out and vote, Clinton's re-corination is a foregone conclusion. Today I heard that if early exit polls show a substantial lead the networks will proclaim Clinton re-elected as early at ten o'clock on the morning of election day. Folks, there is only one reason for them doing this. They not only want to defeat Dole, they want to insure the socialists take back Congress. They're cooking the polls and they're trying their best to cook the election. I don't know why but it's obvious to any objective observer that every time the socialists in this country get gas the mainstream media burps for them. They have a surprise coming. Their "Big Lie" tactic has backfired because it's awakened and angered a lot of folks who have tried their best to ignore the presidential election because they can't stand dole. Yr Obt Scrblr is included in that number. If this election and control of government is so important to them they will use tactics straight out of a Gulag and back a candidate so obviously inadequate and flawed, we'd best not let them have it. Don't waste time reading the mainstream media or watching the socialist news casts. Just keep on keeping on. Just go out and take care of business. Do that and on election evening the Establishment Elite-Socialists will be sitting on the barstool next to the Atlanta Fondas listening to crying/lying/dying music and sheding tears into cheap beer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Yankees Win Date: 26 Oct 1996 21:09:37 PDT roc@xmission.com wrote : >I always wondered what it would take to get me to pull for a team called >the "Yankees". > >It took a team by that playing the Atlanta Fondas in a World Series. > >It was funny. The Fondas won the first two games by a gazillion to >nothing and were loudly proclaimed in the media to be the greatest team >with the greatest pitching staff in history. The end of the series was >a foregone conclusion, hardly any reason to bother to play the last five >games. There wouldn't be five, of course. Only two more, as it's a >four of seven series. The repeat championship was a foregone >conclusion. I wonder if the fact they're owned by the >Media/Mogul/Genius/Reigning-Lying-Egomaniac/Wannabe-Philosopher-King-of-all-He-Surveys >had anything to do with that? > >A funny thing happened to the Fondas on the way to immortality. All >that media blathering woke up those guys from the city we love to hate. >Next thing you know, they won four games in a row. > >Jane who? Atlanta what? > >There is an interesting stat relative to this. Every time the yankees >lose a world series during a presidential election year, the former >democrats, now socialists win. When they win during an election year, >republicans win. > >I have people from all over this country calling and emailing me telling >me how genuinely angry they are at the way the media is trying to hand >the election to Clinton. They are telling me they're using Hitler's >"Big Lie" theory, repeating an obvious untruth so often it becomes >reality. Telling the world it's not necessary to go out and vote, >Clinton's re-corination is a foregone conclusion. > >Today I heard that if early exit polls show a substantial lead the >networks will proclaim Clinton re-elected as early at ten o'clock on the >morning of election day. > >Folks, there is only one reason for them doing this. They not only want >to defeat Dole, they want to insure the socialists take back Congress. >They're cooking the polls and they're trying their best to cook the >election. I don't know why but it's obvious to any objective observer >that every time the socialists in this country get gas the mainstream >media burps for them. > >They have a surprise coming. Their "Big Lie" tactic has backfired >because it's awakened and angered a lot of folks who have tried their >best to ignore the presidential election because they can't stand dole. >Yr Obt Scrblr is included in that number. > >If this election and control of government is so important to them they >will use tactics straight out of a Gulag and back a candidate so >obviously inadequate and flawed, we'd best not let them have it. > >Don't waste time reading the mainstream media or watching the socialist >news casts. Just keep on keeping on. Just go out and take care of >business. > >Do that and on election evening the Establishment Elite-Socialists will >be sitting on the barstool next to the Atlanta Fondas listening to >crying/lying/dying music and sheding tears into cheap beer. > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: (FWD) The Case for Character Date: 28 Oct 1996 07:05:52 -0600 ----- Begin Included Text ----- This was originally posted to the Town Hall Forum (#3474) TO: MY DEMOCRAT FRIENDS FROM: MARK F. (THOR) HEARNE, II DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1996 RE: THE CASE FOR CHARACTER "Bill Clinton would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground to tell the truth." So said an Arkansas official familiar with Clinton on CNN during the 1992 presidential campaign. Democratic Senator Bob Kerry has said, "Clinton is an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?" Senator Kerry did not make this observation during the heat of a primary battle but this past January in Esquire Magazine. Kerry is not only a Democratic Senator, but is also a leader of his party and Chairman of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee. Senator Kerry knows whereof he speaks. Forget what this says about Clinton - what does it say about us. We are told that Clinton is leading by a significant margin in his campaign to be our next president. (51% to Dole's 38% according to last week's Wall Street Journal/ABC poll.) We are told that "character" does not count. We are told that a candidate's "personal life" has no relevance to the office of President and has no "traction" as a political issue. Indeed, we are even made to feel ashamed for raising the issue. (On July 15th Clinton said, "I think character is a legitimate issue and I look forward to having that discussion." But, whenever the issue of character is mentioned Clinton dodges the discussion by claiming any question about his character is a viscous, Republican-motivated "personal attack.") Consider the current best seller list. A list which includes an astounding number of books about the corruption of the Clinton administration. Boy Clinton, Unlimited Access and Blood Sport are only a few. But let's concede Clinton the benefit of his denials and explanations. Taking only those facts Clinton has acknowledged, and even granting him his spin on these facts, Clinton is far and away the most dishonest president or presidential candidate in the history of our nation. Let us assume that only 10% of what is reported about Bill Clinton is true. Assume that only 10% of the reports of drug use, rampant promiscuity, financial fraud, and blatant violations of state and federal law are accurate. Assume only 10% of the Wall Street Journal's four year, two volume documentation of Whitewater, Travelgate and FBI Filegate is not innuendo and conjecture. Assume that Clinton's unlikely explanation of Whitewater is correct. (It wasn't a crooked deal to funnel taxpayer guaranteed funds from a Savings and Loan into his political campaign. Rather, we are told, Bill and Hillary, naive in matters of money -- notwithstanding Hillary's wildly successful commodities speculation -- were duped by the crafty McDougalls into a foolish real estate investment scheme funded by kited checks and illegal loans. Frankly, even if valid, I fail to find any comfort in this explanation. Do we want a sharp crook or a financially unsophisticated waif in charge of our national economy?) Granted even these assumptions, impeachment should be likely, reelection unthinkable. Consider the following: Richard Nixon's administration collapsed, Nixon resigned the presidency and Chuck Colson was jailed over misuse of only one FBI file and the related cover-up. By contrast, Clinton and Craig Livingstone spirited away the FBI files of their political opponents by the hundreds, and the cover-up and stone-walling continues. Spiro Agnew resigned the Vice-Presidency over charges of tax evasion stemming from $16,000 he accepted from contractors when he was Governor of Maryland. By contrast, Clinton has conceded that he filed misleading tax returns that did not properly disclose illegal loans made by a now-defunct S&L, the proceeds of which were used in his campaign for Governor. The reason he was not charged with tax evasion was that he released the tax returns after the statute of limitations had expired. Equally well established is the fact that Hillary enjoyed more than $100,000 in "profits" from commodities trading orchestrated by Tyson Foods in exchange for favorable treatment accorded Tyson Foods by her husband, then the Governor. Gary Hart bowed out of the 1988 presidential race because of one wild weekend in the Bahamas and a sleep-over in Washington DC. By contrast, Clinton is being sued in federal court for enticing a young woman - against her wishes -- into his hotel room, dropping his trousers and suggesting she engage in a lurid sex act. Clinton's known sex-partners could form a single-file line longer than the inaugural parade route. (At least JFK was honest about his philandering. During a 1961 meeting in Bermuda with British Prime Minister Harold McMillian Kennedy said, "I wonder how it is with you, Harold? If I don't have a woman for three days, I get terrible headaches.") Ginsburg is not a member of the US Supreme Court because he used marijuana during college. By contrast, during Clinton's term national drug use has doubled due to Clinton's eviscerating drug enforcement. Remember also Jocelyn Elders, Clinton's selection for Surgeon General. In addition to her crusade to distribute condoms (for which she earned the moniker "the Rubber Maid") and to have mast. taught in public schools, she campaigned for the legalization of drugs. During her term as Clinton's Surgeon General, Elders son was convicted of felony cocaine and crack distribution. (If she couldn't keep her own son from pushing crack, how could she be expected to reduce national drug use?) It is simply beyond belief that, with someone of Elder's views as his pick for the nation's chief medical officer, Clinton expects us to believe he truly wants to battle illegal drugs. On a personal level Clinton acknowledges that he used marijuana but claims he "didn't inhale". Yet in an MTV interview with high school students Clinton states that if he had it do over again he, "probably should have inhaled." Roger Clinton described his brother's appetite for cocaine by stating, "He (Bill Clinton) has a nose like a Hoover." (Referring to the vacuum cleaner not the president who preceded Roosevelt.) But, we can discount this allegation because Roger Clinton, along with Friend Of Bill Dan Lasater, have been convicted of felony drug charges for the distribution of cocaine. (As an entry for the "How'd They Do That" file consider this: Roger Clinton served only two years for his cocaine distribution charges and Dan Lasater served only six months. Roger cut a deal with the prosecutor to testify against Lasater. Lasater was convicted but pardoned by Governor Clinton. (Clinton says the pardon was so Lasater could qualify for a hunting license.) However, even as Lasater was being investigated for drug dealing Clinton's Arkansas Finance Authority awarded Lasater authority to underwrite a $30 million bond issue. An undertaking for which Lasater pocketed $750,000. The purpose of this bond issue for which the state of Arkansas awarded $750,000 to a drug dealer? An Arkansas state police communication facility. Clinton's pardon of Lasater raises an interesting point. Why won't Clinton promise to not pardon Susan McDougal (who is currently in jail because she refuses to testify about Clnton's role in the Whitewater scandal) and other Whitewater defendants? Clinton has already indicated a willingness to put the power of a presidential pardon to a personal purpose. Clinton has pardoned Jack Pakis a Hot Springs, Arkansas bookie and close friend of the Clinton family. Given this, why is Clinton the favored candidate for president? Have our standards for the office of president fallen this far this fast? What does it say about us and our esteem for our nation that we would trust Bill Clinton with the United State of America. A question should be asked of each vice-presidential candidate in the upcoming debate. "Would you want your daughter to marry a man with the personal character of your running mate?" Recall the question to Mike Dukakis about how he would view the death penalty if his wife Kitty was raped. Well, why not a similar question to Hillary. How would she feel if Chelsea brought home a boyfriend with the same character and integrity as Bill Clinton? (Some may be upset with me for bringing Hillary into the discussion. After all, they may retort, she is not running for office. Would it have been fair they ask to deny Lincoln the presidency because Mary Todd was a lunatic? To which I reply, Yes, if Lincoln had threatened to put Mary Todd in charge of the Union Army as Clinton tried to do with Hillary and health care.) Two responses, and only two responses, are possible. One, all the charges against Clinton are false and Clinton is, in truth, a noble and honest - though much maligned - man. (This is the official White House position.) Two, the charges are, in whole or part, true but it just doesn't matter. Clinton's character is irrelevant to his fitness to serve as president. If you opt for option number one, "Clinton is a wrongly- maligned honest man", than you probably also thought O.J. Simpson was framed. Haley Barber's line, "Clinton may not believe anything, but his friends have convictions - for bank fraud, embezzlement, conspiracy..." resonates because it is true. Two-thirds of the Rose law firm, the source of Clinton's closest colleagues including his wife, are either dead under suspicious circumstances (Vince Foster), in jail after serving in the Clinton administration (Webster Hubble) or under indictment or investigation by a special prosecutor (William Kennedy). A similar fate has befallen many of Clinton's other top advisors. Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros and Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy are currently subject to an independent counsel investigation; former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was a subject of an independent counsel investigation prior to his death; Clinton understudy and friend Arkansas Governor Guy Tucker and Clinton business partners Jim and Susan McDougal have been jailed for 24 count conviction for bank fraud and conspiracy. Clinton testified on behalf of the McDougals and Governor Tucker. After the trial, jurors told reporters that they did not believe Clinton's testimony and several jurors stated that, based upon the evidence they considered, Clinton was definitely involved in the wrongdoing. It is simply not possible to consider the incredible number of Friends Of Bill who are under indictment, under investigation by independent counsel, in jail or awaiting sentencing and conclude that all the charges against Clinton are false. Clinton apologists reply that it is unfair to paint Clinton with the same brush as his jailed colleagues. Democrat Senator Chris Dodd claims that to view Clinton in light of his friends is to engage in "guilt by association". These defenders argue that Clinton has just suffered the misfortune of being surrounded by dishonest people and is not, himself, dishonest. This explanation, even if credible, is of little comfort. Do we want as president a man so lacking in judgment that he has a profoundly uncanny ability to choose as his closest advisors a collection of crooks and felons. Bluntly put, Bill Clinton is an unmitigated, dissembling liar. What Clinton says is meant to deceive not to inform. During an interview on September 23rd with PBS's Jim Lehrer Clinton said, "There is not a single solitary shred of evidence of anything dishonest that I have done in my public life." Most of us hearing this proclamation would understand it to be a blanket denial of any wrongdoing. Clinton clearly intended to communicate this understanding. However, reread Clinton's statement. "There is not a single solitary shred of evidence...." Clinton does not deny dishonestly, rather he denies that there is any evidence of his dishonesty. Quite a different proposition. Continuing with a further qualification Clinton said, "...that I have done in my public life." The injection of "public life" presumes a distinction with Clinton's private life. Given the mountainous evidence of Clinton's dishonestly, we can only conclude that Clinton believes using drugs, funding his Arkansas gubernatorial campaigns, funding his presidential campaign, managing the White House travel office and FBI files and formulating national policy are all part of his private life. Option Two, "Clinton is dishonest but character doesn't count when choosing the President", is equally untenable. Consider the purpose of the election. For starters, this November we will decide who will take the constitutionally prescribed oath next January. A candidate for president does not become president by winning the election. The candidate must also take the oath of office and does not become president until he does so. (Recall the photograph of Lyndon Johnson taking the oath of office in Air Force One on the tarmac in Dallas standing next to a blood- splattered Jackie Kennedy.) We do not make much of oaths now days. Yet, the men who crafted our form of government, founded our nation and authored the Constitution placed great significance on oaths and, correspondingly, the integrity of the individual taking the oath. A man's honesty and integrity were vitally important to our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrat party, wrote, "We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Of what value is Bill Clinton's "sacred honor" and to what cause would he pledge it? (Obviously not his wife, nor his country when called to military service.) More importantly, would you believe him if he did? This is a more troubling question for my principled liberal friends. (Especially for those who make so much of Republican scandals whether it be Watergate, Iran- Contra or the Teapot Dome.) The most outrageous Republican is a piker compared to the mythomaniacs, miscreants and poltroons which populate the Clinton administration. (Will someone please tell me George Stephanopoulos's job description and how whatever it is he does furthers the legitimate business of the presidency.) Those Democrats who support Clinton (and their allies in the media who overlook the Clinton scandals) have lost the right to ever again mention Watergate, Iran-Contra or any other allegation of Republican corruption. Most liberals acknowledge Clinton's fundamental dishonesty. However, they appear willing to tolerate or overlook his moral failings because they believe Clinton will advance a liberal ideology and Bob Dole will oppose the liberal's agenda. But, in choosing Clinton as their standard bearer, what are liberals saying about their own integrity and the validity of their ideology? How can the noble ideals proffered by the liberal be reconciled with the tawdry and untrustworthy reputation of their candidate? What does is say about the validity of liberalism that the adherents chosen advocate is a consummate fraud? In choosing Clinton as their candidate (a candidate who liberals support because they believe he will govern with a liberal bent even though he publicly campaigns as a conservative) aren't liberals saying that their agenda is best advanced by disguising and concealing their ideology and, by implication, recognizing that if American voters truly appreciated the liberal agenda they will reject the ideology? If I believed I had a worthy policy to advance I would not choose an unworthy spokesman to advance the policy lest the message be sullied by the messenger. If I was trying to sell a drug to cure cancer I wouldn't choose Jack Kevorkian to be my spokesman. Indeed, Clinton's failure to keep the faith even with political bed-mates is why two high-ranking administration officials resigned when Clinton signed the Republican welfare reform bill that he had previously promised to veto. Abandoning Clinton is the only rational response available to honest liberals who truly believe in the merits of their ideology. Others don't defend Clinton but disparage us. They argue: "So what if Clinton lies, uses drugs and cheats on his spouse, most American's behave this way and it is hypocritical to hold a leader to a standard higher than the standard by which we measure our own behavior." While I don't agree that Clinton's behavior is characteristic of the typical American, I will grant this point for the sake of argument. Granted even that assertion, I dispute the central premise. Americans aspire to greatness and have always been an optimistic people. Our leaders should be the best from among us not the worst. The political results of a second Clinton term are certainly to be feared. However, an even sadder result of a Clinton reelection would be that a majority of Americans would seem to believe that a man of Clinton's integrity is representative of the character of our nation. It has been said that hypocrisy is vice's tribute to virtue. Well, if so, Clinton should be Master of Ceremonies for a Telethon for Virtue. Within hours of being elected president Clinton proclaimed that his administration would be the most ethical ever. This promise was made in the context of Clinton's campaign attacks upon the Bush administration that it claimed was unethical. Clinton called attention to a State Department official who allegedly tried to pull Clinton's visa file to document Clinton's trip to the Soviet Union; a trip that was made while Clinton was leading anti-American rallies overseas. Clinton was "shocked" at the Bush campaign's "outrageous" use of official personnel and records to gain an advantage on a political adversary. Ironically, Clinton can not understand why everyone seems so outraged by the hundreds of FBI files on Republican opponents that he and Craig Livingston had squirreled away in the White House. What does it mean when the victor of this fall's campaign will take the oath of office to lead our nation into the next millennium? For me I want to believe the man who places his hand on the Bible and says, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." November 5th is national examination day. The question is one of character. Not Clinton's character but our character; our character as a nation and as individual voters. And, if the answer is Bill Clinton, we all fail. Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II ----- End Included Text ----- _______________________________________________________________ | Robert S. Linzell linzellr@datastar.net | | Disclaimer: The content of the preceding message reflects | | my opinion only, unless otherwise indicated. | | "Live" from South Mississippi State Motto: Virtute et Armis | |_______________________________________________________________| `[1;36;47mNet-Tamer V 1.06X - Registered ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: School Nazis at it Again (fwd) Date: 28 Oct 1996 08:26:22 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- AEN News EBRyans THIS IS BULLSHIT, INTOLERABLE, AND A JOKE OF A "JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM!" Girl's knife slices S.C. opinions Can schools keep'zero tolerance' rule? Saturday, Oct. 26, 1996 By PAUL TOSTO, Staff Writer Zero tolerance. When it comes to crime, it's a popular public policy. But what happens when that policy turns so rigid there's no room left to forgive a mistake? School leaders say that's what happened last week at Hopkins Middle School when an 11-year-old honor student brought a steak knife to school in her lunch pail so she could eat a piece of chicken. Charlotte Kirk seemed to do the right thing when she showed the knife to a teacher at lunch and asked if it was OK to use. Kirk did break the rules and she did get a lecture. But her question also set off a series of events that led to her facing charges of bringing a weapon onto school grounds. The charge against Charlotte Kirk is resurrecting a debate about children and the law. Lawmakers and school boards in South Carolina and across the country responded to public worries over school violence by toughening penalties for students who bring weapons on campus, who sexually harass others or who commit crimes once connected only with adults. Supporters say those laws and policies have made schools safer. But they've also created situations that seem to defy logic: A North Carolina grade-school boy suspended for kissing a classmate on the cheek, an Ohio girl disciplined for giving a friend a Midol tablet, or an 11-year-old girl in Hopkins suspended for bringing a kitchen knife to school. Kirk, suspended Oct. 18, will return to school Tuesday. But she'll spend the rest of the year on probation, and the suspension will stay on her school record. Richland 1's hearing officer, James Taylor, imposed the 20-day suspension listed for a non-gun weapons violation, although he had the power to ignore it. The suspension will stay on Charlotte's school record. Benjamin Wofford, the family's lawyer, wasn't satisfied with the ruling. He wants Charlotte's previously unblemished discipline record wiped clean. He plans to appeal to the Richland 1 school board. Public reaction to Charlotte's story was swift and angry, with many in the Midlands questioning the common sense of school officials and sheriff's deputies. Observers say that the school and the police appeared to follow procedures, and that the law gave them little wiggle room. "It puts the administrator in a very unenviable situation," says Robert Scarborough, executive director of the South Carolina Association of School Administrators. If school leaders "err on the side of safety, someone feels like it was an overreaction. If they err on the side of discretion, and something serious results, then we all attack the school administrator for having made the wrong decision. They're under terrific pressure." A South Carolina law signed two years ago, for instance, says school administrators must contact law enforcement immediately if there's any activity on school grounds that results in injury or even may result in injury. That, combined with the law forbidding knives longer than 2 inches on school grounds, gave Hopkins Middle School officials little to room to maneuver with Charlotte Kirk. Supporters say the must-call provision was designed to prevent schools from sweeping problems under the rug and to keep everyone on campus safe from weapons. "We were getting calls from parents of kids who'd been beat up and the police were never called," said former 5th Circuit Solicitor Dick Harpootlian. Requiring schools to call the cops, "I think, made the schools safer." He believes the law was flexible enough to avoid an incident like this. "There's nothing in the law that requires signing a warrant in that situation, only calling law enforcement," Harpootlian said. "What you've done is taken a good concept, which is we don't want guns and knives in our schools and taken it to its illogical extreme, which is everybody who gets caught with anything that violates the law is handcuffed and taken away." Richland County Sherriff Allen Sloan said his office had little choice. Hopkins Middle School officials signed a complaint against Kirk, prompting her arrest. "I think this needs to be addressed. There should be some other way than what had to be done in this particular case," said Sloan. "We were only a tool. We had to transport a child down here and release her to her parent. I would like to see the law changed." The sheriff's office, he added, did not contact the solicitor's office about whether an arrest was needed. Nationwide, school leaders have been putting such "zero-tolerance" policies in place, and they've helped get serious weapons out of school without the kind of problems that snagged Charlotte Kirk. "The punishment is the issue here. Most boards and principals administer it in a reasonable fashion with the end result that the knife is no longer in the hands of the child, but the child is not arrested," said Gwendolyn Gregory, deputy general counsel with the National School Boards Association. "Zero tolerance is valid educational policy," she added. "The only problem we've got in this case is there's no discretion, and you've brought in the criminal authorities, which is just ridiculous." Lezlie Patterson contributed to this story. Paul Tosto covers statewide K-12 education. Call him at 771-8366. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: The CIA, Drugs, And The "Angel Of Death"... (fwd) Date: 28 Oct 1996 08:28:26 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- A NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE Advisory: For those on this list who are not aware of who Chuck Hayes *is*, he's the so-called "Angel of Death" who has reputedly been involved in delivering information [obtained via Promis software] on their Swiss bank accounts to numerous Congressional politicians, thus causing large numbers of abrupt and unexpected resignations from office. For those as yet unaware that the CIA and sections of the US government are in the drug importation business via Mena, Arkansas, and - according to the San Jose MERCURY - Los Angeles, you are recommended to read the book COMPROMISED and to consult the San Jose MERCURY web site. Here's the latest on the sudden arrest of the "embarrassing" Chuck Hayes from Jim Norman, himself a fine investigative reporter. Interesting that it comes just before the election. Mena, Arkansas...hmm...who else is from Arkansas whom Hayes could damage politically? As he said recently, "It's a target-rich environment out there!" John Whitley, Editor NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE --------------------- Forwarded message: Reply-to:ciadrugs@mars.galstar.com (The ciadrugs mailing list) ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 09:26:53 -0400 >To: jqp@globaldialog.com >From: James Norman >Subject: Re: AOD >At 11:24 PM 10/24/96 -0500, you wrote: >>What do you know about Hayes' being busted, >>independent of what OG posted? >> >Hayes was picked up Tuesday afternoon about 5 p.m. by three FBI agents. They >cuffed him. No "incident." The indictment purports to claim that an >undercover agent taped conversations in which Hayes contracted the killing >of his son, then paid $100 in expenses. Attached is my opinion of the whole >thing, as spelled out in a memo to xxxxx xxxxxxxx yesterday. > >In addition to the points in my memo and Orlin's post, things that smell >really fishy: >1.) The price is awfully cheap for a professional hit. And Hayes would not >use an amateur. >2.) The payment was to be after the job was done. Unusual terms in most hits. > >My personal opinion is that the FBI fabricated the audio tapes based on >months worth of tapping Hayes' phone. (I'm sure that from his converstaions >with me alone they could pull together what looks like an incriminating >string of statements.) Eventually they would have collected enough >phraseology to concoct any sort of lurid scenario. You could wonder why >they would take such a crazy risk. But considering the stakes involved >(massive drug and arms payolla that would be severely hurt if Hayes were >allowed to continue) it was necessary. > >The good news is that Hayes has a pretty sharp criminal attorney working for >him now who has a track record of beating the FBI (and even getting an agent >fired for fabricating evidence). I'm confident he will ultimately prevail >in court. But the media slanders and damage to Chuck's credibility may >persist and cast a pall over Starr's pending indictments. Evil abounds. > >Regards, JN > >(xxxmemo attached) > >24 October 1996 >xxxxx xxxxxxxx >xxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx > >xxxxx: >Here is a copy of the federal indictment on which Chuck Hayes has been >arrested and held in jail without bond in the London (Ky) jail. I believe >this is a bogus prosecution meant for intimidation purposes. Here is why: > >1.) The timing. Hayes has been working closely with Ken Starr in drafting >the indictments against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hayes has indicated to a >number of sources that those indictments will, in fact, come down BEFORE the >election. Hayes himself would very well be a primary witness against the >Clintons, in that his Fifth Column computer hacking team has generated much >crucial banking documentation for Starr under a sanction from a high-level >U.S. intelligence agency. It was such hacked bank records (introduced in >after-hours testimony sealed under auspices of the National Security Act) >which resulted in the conviction of Jim Guy Tucker. > >2.) The circumstances described. The FBI would have the world believe that >Hayes was stupid enough to talk on an open phone line (Hayes Always assumed >it was tapped when talking to me on that line) about this stuff, to someone >he didn't know, then mail them incriminating materials with his own return >address on them, and then arrange a meeting at his own home and place of >business. Hayes may be unorthodox, even a bit crazy by our standards. But >he is NOT stupid about this stuff. > >3.) Blatant errors in the information. One that leaps out is the claim in >the affidavit that 606-636-6900 is the listed number for the Becket Motel. >Wrong. The only listed number for the motel is 606-636-6411. > >4.) Motive. It is no secret Hayes and his son (a druggie) don't get >along. There is civil litigation pending between them over an inheritance >issue. But Hayes is not THAT hard up for money (he's worth easily a couple >of million dollars) and no matter how mad he might be at John, It is utterly >implausible that he'd put out a contract to kill his own son now after all >these years of animosity, when he is on the verge of winning the inheritance >case. > >5.) Capabilities. If Hayes wanted John dead, he would have gone up there >and killed him himself or could have called on any of a dozen loyal >supporters. Hayes is certainly capable of killing. He has in the past. >But I absolutely believe this is a blatantly political prosecution by a >corrupt Dept. of Justice desperately trying to protect a gigantic illegal >money vortex of arms and drug money that has compromised the highest levels >of our government. > >6.) The DOJ wants revenge. Hayes has been kicking their ass for the past >year or more, partly through the internet postings of J. Orlin Grabbe >(http://www.aci.net/kalliste/) and through Media Bypass magazine. He also >submitted to a DoJ deposition in the Inslaw case last April that proved a >major embarassment to the government. Not to mention the drubbing he gave >DoJ in that 1990 computer salvage case (in which he bought used DoJ compuers >with pirated Inslaw software on them along with witness protection files). > >Hayes' attorney, I'm told, is one Warren Scovill, 606-878-6400. A detention >hearing on DoJ's petition that he be held without bond is set for tomorrow >at 10 a.m. in London, Ky. > >Cordially yours, > > >Jim Norman xxx xxx-xxxx (phone and fax) > > > ****************************************************** Want the really *bad* news on the New World Order - gun confiscation, use of the US military against US civilians, Congressional attacks on patriots, the new FBI "domestic counter-terrorism center", etc? Visit THE NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE Web page at: http://www.inforamp.net/~jwhitley/index.htm Then get out of debt, get informed, get some food supplies...and get ready! ******************************************************* "If you will not fight for 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 odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - W. S. Churchill to the British Parliament, prior to Britain's declaration of war upon Nazi Germany. [This item may be freely re-posted] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: 10-27 Meeting Log Date: 28 Oct 1996 13:18:53 -0500 >Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:04:11 -0600 >From: sandyj@hic.net >Subject: Re: 10-27 Meeting Log >To: Tom Cloyes > >thought you might be interested in this please pass it on to the guys and also >to the NRA for there own use SANDY its an adresse of the best homepage >around for FIREARMS " >http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/webpath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINTRO.HTML > > > IT HAS EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO HELP IN FIGHTING FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, >LET JASPER AND TANYA NO ABOUT THEM. and spread the word on this page >being a iniversity page it has a lot of clout and factual evidenceall of these >articles are written by M>D>S > > >your friend SANDY > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: "The Simpsons" -- best political analysis to date (fwd) Date: 28 Oct 1996 13:06:01 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Dan Day Last night's "The Simpsons" was, strangely enough, some of the best political analysis I've seen to date. In their annual "Halloween" episode, they had a segment wherein Homer gets abducted by a flying saucer. On it are Kang and Kodos, two ugly aliens (giant green heads, one eye, tentacles) who tell Homer to take them to his leader. Homer thinks for a moment, and says, "well with the elections coming up, I'm not sure who our leader might be next month". So the aliens abduct both Clinton *and* Dole. The caricatures of Dole and Clinton were pretty funny in and of themselves, but the best came later. After the aliens imprisoned the two candidates in tubes, the two aliens took on the form of the candidates and beamed down to Earth, knowing that whichever of them got elected, they'd now be in charge. One of them, as Clinton, gave a speech something like, "people of Earth, I am Clin-Ton -- after I am elected, I will enslave you and make you toil endlessly for my amusement". The crowd cheers. Marge, watching on TV, says, "Oh, that Slick Willy, always telling people what they want to hear..." The Dole clone gives similar speeches. Finally, as the two aliens are debating on national TV, Homer runs up behind them, rips off their Clinton/Dole skins, and yells "see! they're actually aliens intent on conquering the earth!" The crowd is taken aback, but one of the aliens laughs, and says "so what! We're the two major candidates! Who else are you going to vote for?" One guy in the crowd says, "well, I could vote for a third party candidate". Kodos the alien laughs derisively, and says, "oh, sure, *throw* your vote away!" The final scene shows the people of Earth slaving away for Lord Kang, in a scene similar to the ancient egyptian slaves hauling stones for the pyramids. Someone says, "I can't believe we voted ourselves into slavery." Homer replies, "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos." Amen, Homer. -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] BEWARE THE SKULL AND BONES (fwd) Date: 28 Oct 1996 13:15:41 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- October 28, 1996 SENATOR DUKE (719) 481-9289 By Senator Charles R. Duke Colorado District 9 BEWARE THE SKULL AND BONES Many who read this column are already aware that the "Term Limits" initiative an many states' ballots this November is as slick a piece of deceptive advertising as could be. Flying under the friendly colors of term limits, a widely popular issue, this pirate ship is really a Constitutional Convention request, down beneath the veneer. In Colorado, the deception is nearly complete, with the Secretary of State and state district court both ruling the measure did not violate Colorado's constitutional requirement for a single subject to be contained in ballot initiatives. One portion of that initiative goes far beyond the issue of term limits by requiring all legislators in our General Assembly to vote for a resolution requiring "...an amendment-proposing convention under Article V of the Unites States Constitution." This language is contained in the ballot initiatives in the other 16 states which have this issue before the voters. In addition to Colorado, those states are Alabama, Arizona, Alaska, California, Idaho, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. This issue would throw the United States into the greatest constitutional crisis since 1787. A number of proposals for a new Constitution are in the wings just waiting for the American people to drop their guard. These include the Newstates Constitution, authored by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, a Rockefeller-funded tax-exempt think tank, and the Constitution for the Federation of the Earth, authored by a world government proponent agency headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, among others. One might think that, if such a convention were assembled and should become a runaway convention, one could just file suit in the U.S. Supreme Court to stop it. Wrong-o. You see, the court would view this idea of a Constitutional Convention as a political question, rather than a legal one, and then refuse to hear the case. We do have some help from the courts, however. This trick of using an initiative, or citizen's petition, to require the legislature to pass a resolution calling for such a convention has already been tried in California. In 1981, the California Supreme Court ruled, and the U.S Court of Appeals subsequently refused to grant a stay of the ruling, in Uhler, et al, v American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, et al, that using the initiative as a means of coercing the Legislature to act was itself unconstitutional on the basis that it would violate representative government. You see, ordinarily when the voters pass a measure placed before them by initiative, no further action on the part of the legislature is required, although there are exceptions. That is, an initiative may not be used to direct the behavior of a legislator in any way. Suppose, for example, a representative's district voted heavily against a measure but the measure passes when the overall state votes are counted. If that representative's vote could be commanded by initiative, said representative would be required by people not represented to vote in a way that was counter to the interests of the very district that was to be represented. The California Supreme Court correctly ruled that this was itself unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals essentially agreed. This is precisely what the term limits ballot proposal does in all the states previously mentioned. Thus, under the benign flag of term limits, this measure's proponents are hoping we do not see the skull and bones, symbolically representing the outright theft of our present Constitution, until it is too late to stop it. The major media, meaning such propaganda organs as the New York and L.A. Times, almost all national electronic networks, et al, have carefully avoided any mention of this danger. You may consider yourself fortunate if you have found a media source with the courage to print the truths contained in this column. You may consider yourself as one with courage if your desire for Truth has caused you to read this column after having found the media. Brace yourself for the massive changes our society is about to undergo if this push for a Constitutional Convention can not be stopped. Even Presidential candidate Ross Perot was on national television recently warning that a constitutional crisis in 1997 was approaching. Now would be a good time to say a little prayer for America. END ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Clinton's Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg - "Super Socialist" (fwd) Date: 28 Oct 1996 13:19:29 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The below came from the morning section of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/29/96 quoting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee. Used without permissions due to important content. Quote: The Constitution is among the most revered documents in American history. Still, it could use a little fleshing out, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg say. Ginsburg said the document, written 1787, doesn't guarantee individual rights such as housing and health care, as do about 200 constitutions written since 1970 around the world. "The Constitution's text is very skimpy on individual rights," she said last week at Louisiana State University. "It details only a few." The document instead focuses on preventing government from depriving people of their rights. End Quote Now boys and girls, this is a Clinton appointee as I indicated above, and this has got to be one of the most outrageous comments to ever originate from a Justice of this country. I guess the fact of personal responsibility has absolutely and totally gone completely over her head. If you need one good reason _NOT_ to vote for Clinton, this is it. His selections for judgeship will obviously outlive all of his tenure even if he's in there eight years. Which is why it is so extremely important to vote on a president who has morals, ethics, and has as close as possible unimpeachable character. Otherwise you get nonsense such as the above. It is also important to vote on a House/Senate representative with these same personal characteristics. In my considered opinion, this woman should be impeached immediately if not sooner, right along with the person who nominated her, President Clinton. After the election, I would recommend in the strongest terms that you write both your representative and senator and request that this woman does not meet the high standards required of a Supreme Court Justice, and that impeachment proceedings being without further waste of time. Roger Cravens Atlanta, GA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: ForeignCorrespondent ON TO THE WINTER PALACE (fwd) Date: 28 Oct 1996 16:04:12 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Foreign Correspondent Inside Track On World News By International Syndicated Columnist & Broadcaster Eric Margolis ,,ggddY"""Ybbgg,, ,agd888b,_ "Y8, ___`""Ybga, ,gdP""88888888baa,.""8b "888g, ,dP" ]888888888P' "Y `888Yb, ,dP" ,88888888P" db, "8P""Yb, ,8" ,888888888b, d8888a "8, ,8' d88888888888,88P"' a, `8, ,8' 88888888888888PP" "" `8, d' I88888888888P" `b 8 `8"88P""Y8P' 8 8 Y 8[ _ " 8 8 "Y8d8b "Y a 8 8 `""8d, __ 8 Y, `"8bd888b, ,P `8, ,d8888888baaa ,8' `8, 888888888888' ,8' `8a "8888888888I a8' `Yba `Y8888888P' adP' "Yba `888888P' adY" `"Yba, d8888P" ,adP"' `"Y8baa, ,d888P,ad8P"' ``""YYba8888P""'' ON TO THE WINTER PALACE by Eric Margolis 28 Oct 1996 New York, NY St. Petersburg, November 7, 1917. As night fell, Bolshevik sailors and soldiers were besieging the provisional government of Alexander Kerensky in the former czar's Winter Palace. The Bolsheviks delivered an ultimatum to Kerensky: surrender or die. Kerensky and his minister stood in the palace's great Hall of Mirrors, debating what to do. Suddenly, powerful searchlight beams from `Aurora,' a cruiser moored in the harbor that had been seized by Bolsheviks, , shone through the hall's floor-to-ceiling windows. The message was clear: surrender, or 6-in. shells would quickly follow the beams of light. . Russia's government capitulated. Kerensky went into exile, ending up -of all places - teaching at UCLA. Lenin and his Bolsheviks had seized power. Not, as communist propaganda was later to insist, through a popular uprising, but by a military putsch. Today, Russia is in the most perilous political condition since the Fall of 1917. Government and the economy reel out of control as a deepening power struggle grips `fin du regime' Moscow. The stage is being set for another coup d'etat, or even civil war. President-Czar Boris Yeltsin is gravely ill, barely able to function. His nominal successor, stolid Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, watches as his power ebbs away. Deep in the Kremlin, Chief of Staff Anatoli Chubais runs his own government within the government. The wily Chubais is relentlessly gathering the reins of bureaucratic power. He is now the de facto Regent of All the Russias. Chubais just got his arch rival, Alexander Lebed, fired from the job of national security supremo. Ex-general Lebed, a T- 80 tank in a GUM department store suit, predicts Chubais will engineer Chernomyrdin's ouster `with months. ' Lebed's other arch-enemy, Interior Minister Kulikov, the main architect of the slaughter in Chechnya, claims Lebed tried to mount a military coup using - shades of `Seven Days in May' - a special military unit ostensibly formed to combat crime and subversion. Meanwhile, the still powerful Communist Party, led by Genaddy Zuganov, howls it was defrauded of rightful victory in last summer's elections by a conspiracy to mask Yeltsin's failing health. No more Tovarich Niceguy, say angry Reds: `On to the Winter Palace!' Military putsches are nothing new in Russian history. `Streltsi' - archers of the palace guard - were czarmakers for three centuries until Peter the Great broke their power. Lenin, keenly aware of the threat posed by the army, demanded constant vigilance against `Bonapartism.' Stalin had a more drastic remedy: he had 36,000 senior Red Army officers shot. The army was later to participate in overthrowing Khrushchev, and in the farcical, 1991 coup against Gorbachev. Today, the demoralized, barely paid regular forces, commanded by Defense Minister Igor Rodionov, have shrunken to 1.2 million men. They may mutiny any day. But there are also 22 other official military and para- military groups in Russia, all coup-capable. Gen. Kulikov's Interior Ministry(MVD) has 230,000 troops in 30 divisions, with armor and artillery. The brutal, ambitious Kulikov also commands 8,000 crack OMON commandos - ideal for putsches. Through the presidency, Chubais commands a 50,000-man special Kremlin security force with heavy weapons, 100,000 border guards. and 25,000 mobile security troops. The KGB's internal arm has a sizeable force of troops, including armor. There are a number of top-secret `anti- terrorist' outfits that are also ideal for coups - like the shadowy `Alpha` and `Cascade' groups who briefly surfaced during the anti-Gorbachev coup. And, of course, eight elite `Spetsnaz' commando brigades. In the event of a coup, four regular army units will likely play decisive roles. First, two elite units of the Moscow garrison - the Taman and Kantimir motor rifle divisions. These Kremlin Praetorian Guards could well decide who becomes the next ruler of Russia. Second, the Tula and Ryazan elite paratroop divisions. They can move on 6 hours notice. Former paratroop general Lebed is hated by the corrupt regular military brass, but loved by his former paras. But these divisions are useless unless air force generals agree to fly them to Moscow. Lebed has some strong supporters in the Air Force, the most progressive of the armed services. Unusual movement by these four divisions will be the first sign of a military coup. A chaotic power struggle in Moscow after the demise of Yeltsin, or economic collapse, could also ignite regional warlordism, such as China suffered in the 1920's. Siberian military units are traditionally independent-minded and are now highly restive. Talk of setting up an independent Far East republic is heard. Some military units in Moldova, the Kaliningrad enclave, Sevastapol, and the Caucasus are particularly mutinous. Russians are champion muddlers. They may stumble on downhill for many months or years. Yet one senses a crisis approaching; there is a smell of gunpowder in the Fall air. A clearcut political resolution of the current leadership crisis appears unlikely. Chances another election will be held soon are slim. . Either Lebed, or the communists, would win. Chubais and Chernomyrdin will do everything possible to prevent a new vote. A Lebed- communist alliance - white knight on a red horse - would sweep the polls, or simply seize power, to the joy of many Russians. The failure of the politicians to resolve Russia's titanic problems opens the way for the men with guns. Tough generals transformed and enriched once impovrished South Korea and Chile. Why then not international bag lady, Mother Russia? copyright eric margolis 1996 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** To receive Foreign Correspondent via email send a note to Majordomo@lglobal.com with the message in the body: subscribe foreignc To get off the list, send to the same address but write: unsubscribe foreignc WWW: www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm For Syndication Information please contact: Email: emargolis@lglobal.com FAX: (416) 960-4803 Smail: Eric Margolis c/o Editorial Department The Toronto Sun 333 King St. East Toronto Ontario Canada M5A 3X5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cap Schwartz" Subject: Re: 10-27 Meeting Log Date: 28 Oct 1996 14:24:31 -0700 I've just perused this web page, and am wondering if the information on it has suddenly changed. I see all the old HCI and Kellerman lies, all the misguided CFDC statistics, and all prettied up with charts and graphs. (with a paragraph on the back explaining what each one was....) In short: these people are not our friends, that I can see. Anybody else? cAp_ At 01:18 PM 10/28/96 -0500, Tom Cloyes wrote: >>Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 10:04:11 -0600 >>From: sandyj@hic.net >>Subject: Re: 10-27 Meeting Log >>To: Tom Cloyes >> >>thought you might be interested in this please pass it on to the guys and also >>to the NRA for there own use SANDY its an adresse of the best homepage >>around for FIREARMS " >>http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/webpath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINTRO.HTML >> >> >> IT HAS EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO HELP IN FIGHTING FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, >>LET JASPER AND TANYA NO ABOUT THEM. and spread the word on this page >>being a iniversity page it has a lot of clout and factual evidenceall of these >>articles are written by M>D>S >> >> >>your friend SANDY "... we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly." --John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Georgia Militia Trial Second Week (fwd) Date: 28 Oct 1996 16:25:13 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- TO: MACON COURT LIST DATE: October 27, 1996 SUBJECT: Second Week The trial has now been going on for two weeks, and so far the evidence is exactly what we already knew. There have been no surprises, other than the utter clarity of the baseless nature of the charges. Both Ms. Buafo and I thought that they would at least present testimony, even if it was not believable, that the accuseds had contemplated even a little of what was charged. Quite the contrary, the materials that Ms. Buafo received at the beginning of the trial only helped the defense. For instance, Danny and Kevin Barker earned $50,000 of tax dollars for their "work" in this case. That is just for them, and does not count all of the money spent on out-of-town Marshalls staying at a luxury hotel, "evidence" like ANFO, that nobody is even alleged to have had, countless interviews by a dozen or so BATF agents, and the salaries of Sharon Ratley and Sam Wilson for a case that has taken most of their time for the past six months. A congressional oversight hearing appears to be in order. Ms. Buafo's cross-examination of Danny Barker was spectacular, and should be used to teach law students in the future. She has done an heroic job of thoroughly learning a serious, complicated case in less than a month. Ms. Buafo began by going over Barker's BATF contract point by point. He was not to engage in or promote illegal activity, and this would include carrying a firearm by a convicted felon. Though apparently well-trained on direct and speaking to the jury, on cross examination he often stared befuddled at his questioner as he tried to get his story straight. Barker mixed up meeting dates and did not know who was at which. He could not corroborate Mr. Faglier's testimony about a January meeting because he did not remember meeting Mr. Faglier. Then he made the absurd statement that if "he was there and I was there I remember him." Jurors' eyes started roll. Barker had no explanation for why some meetings were taped and others were not. Government attorneys heads went into their hands as they watched their case crumble like the house of cards that it always was. Jurors looked bored, and were probably left wondering why they are being sequestered over this. Mr. Barker denied having any idea that Robert Starr was investigating him, and was surprised when asked if he knew that he could be charged for his own activities on this case. The Judge is considering a dismissal of the charge under the assault weapons ban. It involves a "conspicuous" pistol grip that protrudes less than it did at purchase, and a "flash suppressor" that is really only a recoil compensator, fully legal and available for purchase today. But the high point of the day was Ms. Buafo's closing line of questions of Danny Barker. She went through each count of the indictment, and asked him directly if Robert Starr had ever done or planned the act. In each count, he admitted, "No, Ma'am," until he got to the possession of explosives, Count IV. Barker then stated, "only what was on his property." Ms. Buafo then asked "You mean the ones you planted there?" Barker responded, "Yes Ma'am." On Saturday, there were a series of technical experts on such crucial matters as Mr. Starr's handwriting, and fingerprints of "explosives" that did not contain any of Mr. Starr. Few questions were asked on cross. The government will probably wrap things up by mid- week next. Witnesses may include Kevin Barker, a wild-eyed nut case. Then the defense will be presented for counts that survive an motion for judgment of acquittal. Our only disappointment has been the low turnout of supporters. Of course, few people can be away from their jobs and families for a month. But now that it's almost over, please come and support those on trial. Their bravery in fighting this out will protect the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights of us all. Appropriate dress, preferably suits and dresses, is requested. This posting is written by Liberty Defense League in an effort to continue bringing news of the case to those who are interested. We do not speak on behalf of either Mr. Starr or Ms. Buafo. In Liberty Nancy Lord Attorney at Law P.O. Box 7223 Macon, Ga 31209-7223 (912) 788-6272 (912) 785-1809 Fax defense@mindspring.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: >>> RADIATION TESTING on US CITIZENS (fwd) Date: 28 Oct 1996 16:27:16 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html ...and you think they didn't experiment on our troups in Iraq and you say Agent Orange was an accident! Sent by ACHES-MC (Advocacy Committee for Human Experimentation Survivors - Mind Control) www.wco.com/~gomi/aches-mc.html lsharman@microage-tb.com or c4ixxx@aol.com FAMILIES OF RADIATION VICTIMS TO GET SETTLEMENT Karen MacPherson, Scripps Howard News Service (found in Chronicle Journal Thunder Bay October 26/96) Washington - The families of 12 people unwittingly involved in government sponsored human radiation experiments during the Cold War would receive $400,000 each under a proposed legal settlement, people involved in the case said Thursday. Under the proposed $4.8 million settlement, the families also would receive an in-person apology from the head of the US Department of Energy, whose predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, sponsored the tests. Government officials would try to have the ashes of one plutonium victim, Albert Stevens, returned to his family, according to a draft of the settlement. The ashes apparently have been missing since they were sent from a California mausoleum to Argonne National Laboratory in suburban Chicago in 1975 for further study, although Energy Department officials say they have a record showing the ashes were returned to the mausoleum three years later. The settlement still must be approved by a federal judge in Rochester, N.Y. where the families filed a lawsuit last year. "We feel very positive about this," said Jerry Mousso, whose uncle, John Mousso, was one of 18 people injected with plutonium without their knowledge or consent. "I think a lot of good has come out of this ... We now have, as a result of this case, very strict rules and regulations as part of the government's plan to prevent this type of thing from happening again." But Mousso said he was sorry that the scientists and hospitals involved in the government-sponsored experiments "got off scot- free". Still the $4.8 million that the government will pay to the families "is an admission of guilt on the part of the government and its minions," Mousso said. "It's a vindication for our families." Most of the attorneys for the plutonium victims, as well as federal officials, refused to talk about the settlement, saying it was "ongoing litigation". One attorney for the victims, E. Cooper Brown, reluctantly agreed to talk, noting that the families involved in the proposed settlement "hope that it sets a favorable precedent" for lawsuits brought by other experiment victim families. The families involved in the case include eleven whose family members - all now deceased - were injected with plutonium in a series of experiments from 1945 through 1947 at hospitals in Rochester, Chicago, San Francisco and Tennessee. The 12th person, Mary Jean Connell, was part of a related experiment in which she was injected with uranium. The settlement follows a recommendation by a presidential advisory committee which was formed by President Clinton in 1994 after a Pulitzer-prize winning series in The Albuquerque Tribune, revealed the identities of most of the plutonium victims. In its final report last year, the White House Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments urged the federal government to provide financial compensation to the families of those injected with plutonium. ---end------------ What about the Syphilis Experiments ? http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: English Preview of 2nd Term? Date: 28 Oct 1996 21:21:56 -0600 More sad news from England, and a likely preview of the second Clinton term.= =20 ----Forwarded---- Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,uk.politics.crime,talk.politics.guns In article , I wrote regarding compensation for guns and accessories: > >After his statemewnt to the Commons regarding proposed changes to >firearm legislation after the publication of the Cullen report Howard >was asked to address these two points specifically. > >To the best of my recollection he said that compensation would be =A3150 >per gun or the market value prior to his statement. I assume that >whichever figure is the higher will be awarded but there is obviously >plenty of room for government equivocation here. > >When pressed he also stated that compensation would be given for >accessories and ancilliaries but did not say how the value of these >would be calculated. > > Bad news I'm afraid: This week a bill is to be presented to parliament outlining the government's proposals for compensating gun-owners, gun clubs and gun shops for their=20 losses as a result of proposed new firearm legislation. It is reported in the Sunday Times that "One Whitehall Official said= 'Shooters will not find us in a generous mood'". Given the following report this=20 appears to be a massive understatement! Home office ministers hope to limit the payout to =A350,000,000 not the =A3150,000,000 estimated by Michael Howard when presenting the proposed new legislation to the Commons. How will they achieve this? If reports in the Times are correct by: 1 Awarding gun owners an estimated average of =A3250 for every gun confiscated despite his promise in the commons of =A3150 or market value prior to the announcement of the new proposals. =20 Gun owners will know this is outragous but to put in into perspective for= non- shooters. A second hand 357/38spl. revolver or .45 ACP semi-auto in only reasonable condition would make that. A new colt revolver is about =A3600,= a=20 new Beretta 9mm semiauto about =A3500 and some specialist competition guns used= in practical pistol cost in excess of =A33000. 2 Refusing to compensate gun owners for accessories and ancilliaries again=20 despite explict promises to the contrary. To put a figure on this: Gun cabinets and other security measures insisted= on=20 by the police, range bags and shooting mats, gun cleaning and maintenance equipment, specialist sights, holsters and gun slips, spare magazines,= speed loaders, unfired ammunition.... For the home reloader add reloading press= and dies, unused cases, case tumbler and cleaning media, primers, powders and=20 bullet heads, weighing scales, chronograph, ammunition boxes.....=20 Not all shooters will have all this, many will have more - let's say an= easy =A3750 average per shooter. The average gun owner is going to be at the very least a grand out of= pocket. 3 By awarding gun shop owners only the value (at trade I presume) of= confiscated stock and not for loss of future business. Although I suspect that loss of pistol sales, pistol ammunition and accessories will cause many shops to go= =20 out of business entirely - what's a few more on the dole though. 4 Gun clubs forced to close as a result of the stringent new security=20 requirements (expected to cost between =A330,000 to =A380,000 per club)-will receive no compensation. Some good news regarding this though. The Sports Council looks to be able to obtain up to half of this amount on behalf of shooting clubs from National Lottery funds. Ann Pearson ('ban everything' fanatic and Snowdrop=20 co-founder) has predictably called for an all out boycott of the National Lottery! Andy Rodgers 'There is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is= =20 when they attend to only one that errors harden into prejudices' J.S.Mill The Second Amendment is the RESET button=20 of the United States Constitution. =20 ---Doug McKay" =20 Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Perot Nut Quote Date: 28 Oct 1996 22:42:50 -0600 I was watching perot on cnn tonight with half and eye and ear so I may be screwing this up. I don't think so but I'd like to see the transcript to make sure. Perot said, in reference to the constitution of the us, something very close to the following. It may even be an exact quote. "Asking the country to live by the constitution of the u.s. is like asking a man to wear the same pants he wore when he was a little boy." Anyone see anything on this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: joesylvester@texoma.net (Joe Sylvester) Subject: DEMOCRAT WHO SOUGHT NIXON IMPEACHMENT SAYS CLINTONS ARE FELONS (fwd) Date: 28 Oct 1996 22:45:37 -0600 ----Forwarded---- Path: news.texoma.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news .sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!inx3.inx.net!news Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Organization: Internet Exchange Lines: 138 Message-ID: <54rdqh$lcg@inx3.inx.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm3-120.inx.net X-Newsreader: AIR News 3.X (SPRY, Inc.) Xref: news.texoma.com talk.politics.guns:425700 *not to be used for commercial purposes* CHIEF COUNSEL TO HOUSE COMMITTEE THAT VOTED ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST RICHARD NIXON SAYS THAT CLINTONS ARE FELONS A Cancer on the Presidency By JEROME M. ZEIFMAN Sadly, as a life-long Democrat and chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment inquiry, I cannot in good conscience vote to re-elect Bill Clinton. Having reached this decision, I am proud to be among those Democrats who have chosen principle over party. Defeating Mr. Clinton would help revive the traditional moral values of the Democratic Party -- as they existed under Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter. Having long championed traditional Democratic causes, I simply cannot accept Mr. Clinton's shameless election-year surge to the right as his chosen means of winning a second term. And like most if not all traditional Democrats, I have grave reservations about the Clintons' morality and ethics. In my view there is now probable cause to consider our president and first lady as felons, who are likely to be indicted after the Nov. 5 election. The misdeeds of the Clinton administration have fallen into a pattern of deceit and corruption that now clearly justifies denying Mr. Clinton a second term in office. To date more than 30 high administration officials have been investigated, fired or forced to resign, and the White House has illegally obtained more than 900 confidential FBI files. Four independent counsels have been appointed, three to investigate cabinet members and one to investigate the president himself. The White House suppressed documents under subpoena. The Department of Justice, the FBI and the Treasury Department have been politicized and misused to prosecute or investigate innocent staffers of the White House Travel Office. The president's Health Care Task Force operated secretly in gross violation of federal disclosure laws, misled the federal courts and ignored conflict-of-interest laws. The most recent scandal, involving former Commerce Department official and Democratic Party fund-raiser John Huang (who still has failed to answer a summons issued by District Judge Royce C. Lamberth), is but another hauntingly familiar throwback to my days as an investigator of Watergate crimes and a wide variety of other forms of presidential misconduct. The 1972 Republican Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) was involved in many shady operations that mixed legitimate government funding operations with the illegitimate refunneling of money through backdoor corporate contributions into CREEP coffers. Now it appears that Mr. Huang, and his former associates from the Indonesian Lippo financial conglomerate, were unlawfully funneling contributions from foreign sources (that had both corporate and political interests in U.S. policy) into Democratic Party coffers. This mixing of U.S. policy with partisan fund-raising -- not to mention the questionable background of some of the institutions and individuals given top clearance by the White House and the DNC -- has produced a cancer on the Clinton presidency painfully reminiscent of the cancer that brought down Nixon. I am particularly saddened that the Clintons now believe that their unethical and unlawful acts in the pursuit of power will be condoned by all but a few Democrats in the name of party unity. During the Nixon impeachment inquiry it was my view that the core of Nixon's corruption was his belief that in politics his ends justified any means at all. Ironically, it is now the Clinton administration that has given renewed intensity to the corrupt notion that immoral means can be legitimized in the pursuit of political ends. If Mr. Clinton is re-elected it will be testimony to his success in putting politics before principle. A second Clinton term would polarize the nation even more dangerously than did Richard Nixon's -- this time with Republicans as the new defenders of integrity in government and Democrats as the defenders of a corrupt administration. If Mr. Clinton is defeated, Democrats may find a new strength -- and long remember the folly of marching in lockstep in support of a corrupt president in the name of party unity. By all accounts Robert Dole is a man of personal integrity. His principles are conservative, and I will continue to oppose them. Yet because I must remain true to my traditional Democratic moral values, I will vote for Mr. Dole. Mr. Zeifman was chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment inquiry. He is author of "Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot" (Thunder's Mouth Press, 1996). WALL STREET JOURNAL October 25, 1996 -- The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Perot Nut Quote Date: 28 Oct 1996 22:52:00 -0600 At 11:02 PM 10/28/96 -0500, the Blue Wolf wrote: > >Perot said, in reference to the constitution of the us, something very >close to the following. It may even be an exact quote. > >"Asking the country to live by the constitution of the u.s. is like >asking a man to wear the same pants he wore when he was a little boy." > >Anyone see anything on this? > What, me watch CNN, when I could be getting the *real* news on the net? Someone needs to tell Mr. Perot that those pants were tailored for the man the boy would become. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Perot Nut Quote Date: 29 Oct 1996 00:16:34 -0600 Joe Sylvester wrote: > Someone needs to tell Mr. Perot that those pants were tailored for the man > the boy would become. Ohhhhhh. Great line, Joe. Consider it stolen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: English Preview of 2nd Term? Date: 29 Oct 1996 05:58:09 -0500 (EST) I find it interesting that they're whining most about the compensation they are to receive, which implies that they are ready to hand 'em over. bd On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Joe Sylvester wrote: > More sad news from England, and a likely preview of the second Clinton term. [...] > > The average gun owner is going to be at the very least a grand out of pocket. > [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Perot Nut Quote Date: 29 Oct 1996 06:01:48 -0500 (EST) I was watching with the same degree of attentiveness. I thought he attributed the quote to Thomas Jefferson, which is plausible. Could be a TJ "Nut Quote." Topic, anyway, was amending the Constitution to allow direct election of the president instead of electors who are supposed to elect one. I can't work up a burning opinion on either side of that issue. bd On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Howlin' Blue wrote: > I was watching perot on cnn tonight with half and eye and ear so I may > be screwing this up. I don't think so but I'd like to see the > transcript to make sure. > > Perot said, in reference to the constitution of the us, something very > close to the following. It may even be an exact quote. > > "Asking the country to live by the constitution of the u.s. is like > asking a man to wear the same pants he wore when he was a little boy." > > Anyone see anything on this? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: The Libertarian Enterprise [Excerpt] Date: 29 Oct 1996 06:21:53 -0500 (EST) Whole thing is big, but worth it. Consider subscribing. It's free. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- #Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:21:06 -0700 (MST) #From: Andrew Boardman #Subject: The Libertarian Enterprise 84K [...] _The Libertarian Enterprise_ is available by email. Please email boardman@dimensional.com, and specify whether you would like one issue or a free subscription. If you do not specifically ask for a subscription, you may only get whatever issues you ask for. Please keep in mind that our issues are all very large, so if you request all back issues, your mailbox may explode. _The Libertarian Enterprise_ is available by ftp. Visit our site at ftp://ftp.dimensional.com/users/boardman/enterprise/ and download any of the back issues. _The Libertarian Enterprise_ is available through the World Wide Web at various addresses. The most permanent of these looks like it's somewhere in http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/libemain.html ===================================================================== CLINTON'S CRIMES ARE HITLER'S CRIMES By L. Neil Smith Special to _The Libertarian Enterprise_ Forty-five years ago, I first raised my hand to my heart and pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stood, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. A year or two later, First Amendment be damned, God got edited into it, an event I should have seen as a dire warning; it wasn't long afterward that I began a lifetime of learning that everything the pledge represents is a sick, twisted lie. Think I exaggerate? Then explain Waco. It would never occur to most Americans (or it won't until it's too late) that next month they'll be casting ballots in a referendum on the Holocaust. In the 1930s and 1940s, Hitler rounded up social and political undesirables -- homosexuals, Gypsies, Jews -- and imprisoned them in camps to be worked to death, cruelly experimented on by sadistic butchers pretending to be scientists, killed by diseases of overcrowding, fatigue, and malnutrition that people hadn't died in Europe from for centuries, gassed to death and the valuable gold removed from their mouths -- even the hair from their heads -- before their murdered, mutilated remains could be incinerated to anonymous ashes in ovens that will be infamous for 1000 years. That's what we'll be voting on, come November: whether we think the Holocaust was commendable or not. Because, historically and morally, there isn't a speck of difference between what happened then in Germany and what Bill Clinton ordered done in 1993 to another group of social and political undesirables, outside of Waco, Texas. Then, as now, the people approve the current regime's acts of mass murder, pretend they didn't know what was going on, keep silent from a well-founded fear that the same could happen to them, or from an even more contempible fear of being embarrassed if they make a fuss. After all, anybody who'd speak up for that "Wacko from Waco" David Koresh must be a religious, right-wing, racist, neofascist gun-nut, right? Then as now, the national media -- consisting largely of failed personalities who crave power but (due to severe emotional handicaps) are unable to do more than enjoy its exercise vicariously -- echo the government's lies while helping it bury incriminating evidence. Why, the Davidians believed differently than others do, and, even more horrifyingly, _acted_ on those beliefs. Besides, they had almost as many weapons in their home, per capita, as the avergae Texas family! Almost. Meanwhile the Clinton Administration, like all leftist regimes, floats serenely upon the ocean of blood it's spilled in order to take and keep power. Of course, compared with the 200,000 murders in East Timor that we now know Clinton shares culpability for, Waco may seem like small potatoes to a collectivist like he is, with no regard for the unique, irreplaceable value of a single individual. Yet this is more than merely a matter of right versus left, conservative versus liberal, Republican versus Democrat. This is a matter that transcends ordinary politics, a matter of right and wrong, and ultimately of crime and punishment. For months, now -- forty-two of them, to be precise, plus 51 days -- I've wondered incessantly, to myself and others, why Bill Clinton isn't in jail, instead of running for reelection. Why aren't Webster Hubbell and Janet Reno -- who did Clinton's evil bidding during the Mount Carmel affair -- making the same lame, revealing, gratifyingly futile excuses that Adolf Eichmann made, from inside a glass box exactly like the one he spent his final public days in? What I've been wondering most of all is why Bob Dole hasn't denounced his opponent for the mass murderer he is. Could it have something to do, by any chance, with the embarrassing fact that what happened to the Branch Davidians was conceived, approved, planned, and rehearsed during the _Republican_ Bush Administration? Come on, Republicans, I know you read this publication, that's one reason I created it. Let's hear why your guy isn't saying the one thing that could get him elected and shut down forever the despicable party that refused to rescue German Jews when it was given a chance, and sent Japanese-Americans to concentration camps in the 1940s. Is it because, despite your prattle about respect for the law, you have as little genuine regard for the highest law of the land -- the Bill of Rights -- as Clinton does? Or is it simply that you want to retain the power to commit exactly the same kind of atrocity yourselves? Regardless of who wins or loses this election, it's going to present me with a serious personal problem. I know what Clinton's guilty of. And so does everybody else. How can I go on offering friendship, doing business, even being _civil_ with anyone I know voted for him? I'm not talking about the first time around in 1992. Anybody can make a mistake, I suppose. To my eternal chagrin, the first time I voted it was for Richard Nixon. But anybody who votes for Clinton _now_ is approving what happened at Waco after the fact. They're rubberstamping it, ratifying it, becoming Clinton's accessory to mass murder. The deaths of 81 innocent people -- 22 of them children -- are on their conscience. And any presidential campaign that doesn't scream its outrage over Waco from the housetops is much worse than an accessory, it's a bloody-handed co-conspirator. On November 5th, as you step into that booth, do the _human_ thing, the thing that separates us from animals: learn from the experience of others. Remember the hardest lesson history ever taught our species. Remember the millions Hitler slaughtered and the dozens Clinton's only gotten started with. Try to imagine what it must feel like to be confined, terrorized, gassed, and burned to death -- what it must feel like to be a German Jew or a Branch Davidian. Remember that -- for the sake of this nation's future, as well as for the future of our own children -- there can be only one political issue of any importance. Remember Waco. On November 5th, remember Waco. ------------------------ L. Neil Smith is publisher of _The Libertarian Enterprise_. His award-winning first novel, _The Probability Broach_, long out of print, has just been republished in _unexpurgated_ form by TOR Books. A list of his books and a collection of essays like this may be seen at http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/lneil.html. Permission to redistribute this article is granted by the author, provided it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Election Night Meeting Date: 29 Oct 1996 07:24:59 -0500 Some have suggested that we meet on AOL election night to discuss the results. Why not meet instead on the net in mIRC channel #right2beararms? I'll open the room after work next tuesday night at 6:00 eastern, and look forward to seeing all of you there. For those who aren't familiar with mIRC, e-mail me, and I'll help you get there. Regards Tom "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: PROFESSOR P.D. SCOTT ATTACKS THE WASHINGTON POST FOR MISLEADING READERS (fwd) Date: 29 Oct 1996 07:56:01 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *caveat lector*. This means, "reader beware." In other words, it is up to the reader to form her/his own judgements as to the following. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- PROFESSOR P.D. SCOTT ATTACKS THE WASHINGTON POST FOR MISLEADING READERS Editor Washington Post The October 4 article by Robert Suro and Walter Pincus on Contra-related drug trafficking concedes that "the CIA knew about some of these activities and did little or nothing to stop them." It nevertheless discounts the importance of recent revelations on this subject, by implying that the amount of cocaine involved, "about five tons," was only a fraction of the nationwide cocaine trade in the 1980s ("more than 250 tons"). This argument is highly misleading. To understand it in context, we should recall that five years ago another apologist for the CIA, Michael Massing, made almost the same case, but about a different Contra drug connection. In an article in The Nation, Massing focused on cocaine moved by Contra support aircraft in Costa Rica, and objected that this, too, was only an "insignificant" part of the overall hemispheric trade. He concluded that it was thus "absurd" to blame the CIA for our national cocaine epidemic at that time. If we begin to list all of the different drug traffickers who in the mid-1980s enjoyed immunity from prosecution during their support for the Contras, we see that the real absurdity is to reduce this problem to small aircraft in Costa Rica, or two Nicaraguans in California. In this era the big traffickers who traded their Contra support into temporary immunity included, among others, the top brass in the Honduran Army, the Guadalajara Cartel in Mexico, their ally Juan Matta Ballesteros in Honduras, Noriega in Panama, and possibly Barry Seal and "The Company" in the United States. At this time DEA Agents attributed from one fifth to one half of our cocaine importants to the Honduran Army alone (two of whose shipments, when finally seized, totalled 6.7 tons). Newsweek quoted U.S. drug agents as claiming that Matta's Mexican organization supplied "perhaps one third of all the cocaine consumed in the United States." Noriega, Seal, and "The Company" were similarly described as major traffickers. All estimates of market share are suspect, and subject to overlap. There is however no doubt that the relation between the U.S. government and Contra supporters profoundly aggravated our cocaine problems, in ways that continue to the present day. The problem was not that the CIA "did nothing to stop" these activities. The problem was that the U.S. Government, recurringly, intervened in drug cases to prevent major traffickers, like the Contra supporter Norwin Meneses, from prosecution. By printing the Suro-Pincus article, you have rendered a major service to the CIA. And, I would add, a profound disservice to your readers and the American people. Yours, Peter Dale Scott Co-Author, Cocaine Politics Published in the Oct. 28, 1996 Issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright (c) 1996 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: The New American Insider Report (fwd) Date: 29 Oct 1996 08:07:50 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The New American November 11, 1996 INSIDER REPORT Extradited to UN Tribunal. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a 73-year-old Rwandan living in Texas, was arrested on September 26th for extradition to Tanzania, where he will be arraigned before the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The former Seventh-Day Adventist minister is accused of genocide, complicity to commit genocide, and crimes against humanity. In April 1994, hundreds of Rwandan Tutsis sought refuge in a church compound over which Ntakirutimana had responsibility; most of them were slaughtered by their ethnic rivals, the Hutus. According to Alison Desforges of Human Rights Watch, Ntakirutimana "did not use his influence to stop [the massacre], and there certainly is some indication that he used his influence to make the massacre happen." However, Dr. Eliel Nataki, Ntakirutimana's son, insists, "My father could not be guilty because he fled the area before the massacres started." Nataki also maintains that the war crimes charges were filed by people who have seized the family's property. Uncovering Soviet Secrets. In the October issue of Commentary, former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky shares some gleanings from 3,000 pages of top secret documents from the Central Committee of the Soviet Union. Examining the documents, Bukovsky writes, "I study the signatures of Leonid Brezhnev, Konstantin Chernenko, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Dimitri Ustinov, and Boris Pomarev. I read their handwritten comments in the margins, their profound decisions concerning everything from arrest and exile and murder of those they considered undesirable to the financing of international terrorism, from disinformation campaigns to the preparation of aggression against neighboring countries." In 1991, Bukovsky gained access to key Soviet archives, and he stored thousands of documents digitally using a computer with a hand-held scanner. In 1993, those archives were sealed again and will remain locked away for at least another 30 years. Bukovsky notes that "only a few years ago, anyone who dared to suggest that `the hand of Moscow' was at work in some international development or another would have been routinely accused of `McCarthyism' and relegated to the status of a pariah. I know; it happened to me. And even those disposed to believe the worst of the Kremlin would often raise a doubt, lamenting that we would never see the evidence. Well, here it is, signed, stamped, and numbered." The documents provide such information as: Detailed instructions for funding and directing Soviet agents of influence abroad, including former Finnish Prime Minister K. Sorsa. Proof that the "split" between Moscow and the Italian Communist Party (the largest and most powerful in Europe) was a strategic fraud. A 1979 memo describing the interest of President Jimmy Carter "in the making of a joint Soviet-American film on disarmament." Memos describing the interest of "one of the largest American television corporations" in broadcasting a Soviet-made disinformation film on Vietnam - in 1967, while American servicemen were fighting Soviet clients in Southeast Asia. The evidence of Soviet penetration of Western media sources is overwhelming, writes Bukovsky: "So voluminous is material of this nature that I finally gave up noting all the instances in which Western television companies, those fiercely independent souls, willingly agreed to serve as channels for Soviet propaganda, to put themselves under the ideological control of the Communist party - and to pay hard cash for the privilege." It was Bukovsky's intention to publish a book examining his findings, and his difficulty in finding an American publisher suggests that Soviet ideological influence over Western media remains formidable. Bukovsky reports that Random House "asked to buy the U.S. rights to my book but then, after five months of haggling over my credibility, and attempting to exercise political censorship over my conclusions, reneged on its offer." Apparently Bukovsky's perspectives aren't compatible with the Random House party line, which is, to some extent, dictated by Russia's External Intelligence Service (SVR). Soviet analyst J. Michael Waller of the American Foreign Policy Council reports that "the SVR signed an exclusive arrangement with Crown Publishers, a subsidiary of Random House, to provide archival information to selected Western authors. A contract envisioned books on the Cuban missile crisis, KGB penetration of the British government and its intelligence services, KGB operations in Berlin, the assassination of Leon Trotsky, and the history of Soviet intelligence. The arrangement ensured that the SVR would control all literary products by making SVR personnel coauthors with Western writers." (Emphasis added.) Gun Grabbing in Mexico. According to the September 16th Christian Science Monitor, as the U.S. and Mexico "work to dissolve the border under the North American Free Trade Agreement," an increasing number of Americans who travel to Mexico with registered firearms are finding themselves jailed on charges of "weapons smuggling." The March 1994 murder of presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio and various guerrilla uprisings have prompted Mexican officials to reemphasize the country's ban on importing weapons, as well as national and municipal gun-control laws. The Monitor noted, "Sentences for possession of firearms in Mexico can be for up to 30 years." In 1995, Mexican border authorities stopped 110 Americans for weapons possession. One typical case was that of Arizona resident Don Tucker, who crossed the border to purchase a discount prescription last spring, only to be thrown in jail for seven weeks after Mexican authorities found a rifle and a shotgun (both unloaded) in the trunk of his car during a random search. Of course, Mexico enjoys the sovereign right to its own gun control laws, and some Americans have been detained on legitimate gun smuggling charges. However, U.S. officials are apparently more anxious to insure the sanctity of Mexico's gun smuggling laws than they are to protect the rights of Americans traveling in that country. Daniel Knauss, assistant U.S. Attorney for Arizona, insists that Americans are "fairly chauvinistic. We assume our rights go with us [when we travel abroad]. That is not the case." Karie Dozer, a spokeswoman for Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods (who negotiated Don Tucker's release), emphatically defended Mexico's gun laws: "They mean no firearms. They don't want your guns in their country. And that is their law. We have to respect it." Orbital Interdependence. Michael New-style patriots who dream of becoming astronauts will be dismayed to learn that service aboard an international space station will include service under foreign command. According to the Orlando Sentinel, "The United States designed the international space station and is paying half its construction costs, but when U.S. astronauts arrive there, they won't always be in charge. Sometimes they'll have to take orders from a Russian cosmonaut or an astronaut from Japan, Canada or the European Space Agency." In late September, NASA agreed to this arrangement in compliance with Russian demands. "Last year, [NASA Associate Administrator Wil] Trafton said at a news conference that the United States and Russia had agreed that Americans would run the station," the Sentinel reported. "But the Russians later said they never made such an agreement. Now an international committee will decide who is in charge of each station crew.... Those commands could last months." In the meantime, the Russian company in charge of building the station's service module, which will provide life support and living quarters for the station, has fallen at least three months behind schedule. The service module is scheduled to be launched in April 1998. Martial Law Madness. Christina Jean Morrison of North Carolina's Pender County survived Hurricane Fran, only to be devastated by the military personnel who administered martial law in the storm's aftermath. The September 9th issue of Jacksonville's Daily News featured a photograph of Morrison being handcuffed and arrested by three National Guardsmen on charges of "violating state of emergency ordinances." Morrison offered her side of the story in the September 26th issue of the Daily News. "Sticking out Hurricane Fran in Surf City wasn't the smartest thing I've ever done, but the aftermath turned out to be more dangerous than the storm for this Surf City resident," Morrison wrote. She visited the local police station, where she signed up for a house inspection, which was necessary in order to have her power reconnected. After asking acquaintances if she could help them put their properties back in order, Morrison set off in search of groceries, which necessitated a trip across a nearby bridge. "Before I tried to cross the bridge, I thought to ask a patrolman I saw in a parking lot about the requirements for crossing," she recalled. "As quickly as I approached the officer, he became hostile. Instead of hearing my question, he reprimanded me for being off my property. This confused me, as I had just come from the police station and nobody had said anything to me there and I saw all sorts of other people walking around." As she sought to explain that she was simply trying to find water and ice, "The officer cut me off in mid-sentence and raised his voice, yelling `Get back to your property.'" Morrison threw up her hands in exasperation, exclaimed that she was "going home," and began to comply with the officer's demand - only to be grabbed from behind and thrown face-down in the parking lot. "That's it, you're going to jail," the officer shouted as he shoved her into the hands of three military personnel. "I was charged with violating the state of emergency and resisting arrest," she recounts. After being verbally berated and frisked in front of at least ten men, she was finally returned to her home. The trauma made her physically ill. "I just couldn't believe this was happening to me in America," she concluded. Strangling Heterosexuality in the Schools. The case of six-year-old Jonathan Prevette, the grade schooler from Lexington, North Carolina who was suspended for "sexual harassment" after kissing a female classmate, is just one example of a larger trend. According to the September 25th issue of Education Week, "A small but growing number of lawsuits around the country are seeking to hold school districts responsible for the sexual harassment of students by their classmates." The Prevette case follows federal initiatives to crack down on "sexual harassment" in the schools: "The U.S. Department of Education recently warned districts that they must take stronger steps to combat so-called peer harassment, and a similar message is emerging from the federal courts. Such cases have yet to result in huge damage awards, but education-law experts, citing the history of sexual-harassment lawsuits in the workplace, believe the likelihood of future costly judgements against districts is high." "Sexual harassment" may include any action, gesture, or statement that creates a "hostile environment" - and the offense is defined entirely by the perceptions of the alleged victim. Thus a grade school proto-feminist could scream "sexual harassment!" if invited to "play house" with a more traditional male student. However, adult educators who seek to lure schoolchildren into homosexuality enjoy a special dispensation. Writing in the October issue of Chronicles, Eugene Narrett, a professor of English at Framingham State College in Massachusetts, describes a quiz administered at the local high school. Students were asked: "Is it possible heterosexuality is a phase you will grow out of? Are you heterosexual because you fear the same sex? If you have never slept with anyone of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it? Is it possible you merely need a good gay experience?" Another question in the sensitivity-training curriculum asked: "Given the problems men and women face, would you want your child to be heterosexual? If they [sic] were, would you consider aversion therapy?" Arguably, feminist-driven "sexual harassment" policy constitutes a subtle but significant exercise in anti-heterosexual "aversion therapy." Alan Sagner/CPB. On September 17th it was announced that the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had elected New Jersey real estate developer Alan Sagner as its new chairman. Sagner told Washington Times reporter Joyce Price, "I'm a liberal and proud of it," an admission confirmed by his service in 1992 as head of the New Jersey Business Council for Clinton-Gore. Even more disturbing, however, was the role he played in co-founding and promoting the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), a notorious communist front launched in 1960. The FPCC's most renowned member was President John F. Kennedy's presumed assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Sagner told reporter Price that the FPCC "was not an organization to defend Castro.... It was an organization that said small countries ought to be able to resolve their own internal differences without undue influence by the United States." No, it was an organization to defend Castro. On one occasion, for instance, Sagner and his colleagues sought to place a large ad in the New York Times defending the Castro regime. When letters soliciting funds raised only $600 (according to an FBI report, Sagner personally gave $500) for the $3,500 ad, the Cuban government, through its mission at the United Nations, supplied the balance. The ad ran, stating in part that "there are in the U.S. powerful interests bent on frustrating the primary purpose of the revolution: to give Cuba to the Cubans." Subsequent activities of the FPCC, as summarized by the New York Telegram and Sun for December 27, 1963, included "sponsorship of pro-Castro street rallies and mass picket lines and direction of an active propaganda mill high-lighting illegal travel-to-Cuba campaigns." The September 29, 1996 issue of the Washington Times concluded: "At a time when the United States was engaged in a deadly conflict with Cuba Mr. Sagner was associated with an organization whose purpose it was [to] propagandize and build domestic support for Fidel Castro's revolutionary Communist government." That, the Times noted, is "quite something for a man who will head public broadcasting in this country." Crime Lab Follies and OKC. According to a Reuters wire service report, Timothy McVeigh's lawyers intend to introduce testimony and evidence that the FBI's crime lab reports are often sloppy and inaccurate. Two foreign forensic scientists, both retained by McVeigh's lawyers, reviewed the FBI crime lab reports. According to one of the experts, Brian Cuddy of the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland, "If these reports are the ones to be presented to the court as evidence, then I am appalled by their structure and the information content." The scientists' statements help to support the charges of a former FBI lab supervisor that the cases "have been seriously compromised" by the poor quality of work done at the FBI crime lab. According to McVeigh's attorneys, the prosecution should be required to supply the "underlying data, methodologies and protocols" which were used in examining the evidence from the crime scene. ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996 American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or the above address. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Key to Survival (fwd) Date: 29 Oct 1996 08:43:39 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- KEY TO SURVIVAL IN A HOSTILE ECONOMIC/POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT IS THE CONSCIENTIOUS ACTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL Needed is tactical intelligence and plan of action to successfully challenge men and system who seek to overthrow the Constitution and erect a socialist America on ruins of the Republic. Intelligence on facts behind national crisis, and county/state operations to defend and preserve your Life, Liberty and Property, await receipt of your tax-exempt gift of $25.00 ($35.00 foreign) to FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION, SCHOLARSHIP, PATRIOTISM and AMERICANISM, Inc (FESPA). FESPA, identification #74-6052458, is a Texas tax-exempt organization authorized to, "....aid or assist other organizations whose activities are such as to further, accomplish or attain any of FESPA purposes", Art 10, FESPA Articles of Incorporation (1960). FESPA brochure and IRS 'determination letter' designating FESPA a charitable tax-exempt foundation operating under provisions of Section 501 (c) (3), Internal Revenue Code, sent to you on receipt of self-addressed, stamped #10 business envelope. COMMITTEE TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION, Inc., a Colorado non-partisan research and public education organization, falls within the select FESPA catagory of compatible associations. Your tax-free gift to FESPA will initiate a one-year subscription to Committee BULLETIN, monthly resource publication revealing hidden facts behind national emergency. Incorporates model procedures motivating State legislation which will restore interest-free money, defend/preserve freedoms of person and property guaranteed to you by the Constitution. Sample county/state operation, information you can use, included with your subscription to Committee Bulletin. Provides criminal sanctions for violators of State statutes. Participate in the action to liquidate The New World Order and its U.S. manifestations: United Nations Organization, Federal Regional Governance and Federal Reserve System. To begin, send your tax-exempt gift to FESPA before the window of opportunity slams shut. Foreign nationals, too, have a stake in the American campaign to halt and reverse the march toward world socialism. FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION, SCHOLARSHIP, PATRIOTISM and AMERICANISM, Inc. Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret, President Post Office Box 986 Fort Collins, Colorado USA 80522 America need not become a land of 'yesterday's people'. The one solution that offers grounds for hope - for you and your descendants - is to restore, defend and preserve basic principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: The Kick-Back Racket Date: 29 Oct 1996 08:35:41 -0700 (MST) The Kick-Back Racket: Performance Management and Recognition System by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved (October 1996) It is becoming increasing apparent, in large part because of a conspiracy of silence which has descended upon the District of Columbia in recent months, that President Clinton has a lot of explaining to do, in quite a few departments. One of the best suppressed stories of his administration thus far is evidence of White House kick-backs from the IRS for each and every indictment issued by federal grand juries against "illegal tax protestors," whatever they are. The term itself is an oxymoron, because protest has never been illegal in America. Protest is even recognized by the federal government's precious Uniform Commercial Code for repudiating presentments in a lawful manner. So, for the phrase "illegal tax protestor" to withstand the obvious constitutional challenge (yes, the First Amendment is still the supreme Law in America), the adjective "illegal" must modify the noun "tax." This is a telling admission on the part of our vaulted Congress of what many Americans have known for a long time, namely, the federal income tax is a total and utter fraud, from stem to stern. Our Ship of State is a sieve at sea that's riddled with loop-holes and sinking fast. What makes this term even more obnoxious is the way in which the IRS now attacks American "rebels" who dare to learn and speak the truth. A key page from the Internal Revenue Manual clearly shows that the President routinely receives $35,000 from the Performance Management and Recognition System ("PMRS"). We have a political prisoner in federal custody right now who is prepared to testify that the President receives this sum each and every time a federal grand jury issues an indictment against any illegal tax protestor ("ITP"). U.S. Attorneys receive a mere $25,000 per indictment of ITP's. Now, if the Department of Justice ("DOJ") has a secret task force in place to attack ITP's who've become organized, like the former Pilot Connection Society which has been reported to have over 5,000 members, the President stands to rake in a tidy sum if his hench-persons in the DOJ succeed in bringing grand jury indictments against all 5,000. Let's see, 5,000 times $35,000 equals $175,000,000. The bad news for President Clinton is that the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM") provides absolutely no authority for these "performance recognition rewards" (read "kick-backs"). Courts have consistently ruled that the IRM has no more authority than a pizza recipe, when it comes to authorizing salaries and other compensation for federal government employees. Federal employee salaries must be determined by Acts of Congress, and the IRM is a far cry from that high standard of law. Furthermore, the Constitution forbids the President from receiving any other "emoluments" during his term of office. See Article II, Section 1, Clause 7: "... he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them." This is bad enough. But, when you couple these kick-backs with the perjury racket now rampant within the Department of Just US, and with a grand jury system which badly needs a complete overhaul, you quickly find that the indictments issuing from federal grand juries, for alleged violations of the Internal Revenue Code, are really threats, engineered by the biggest extortion racket this planet has ever seen. Jury tampering, perjury, and obstruction of justice are terms which do a far better job of describing what is really going on. In one recent grand jury case, involving a subpoena for certain books and records, a federal judge in Arizona conspired with the Assistant U.S. Attorney to commit 27 counts of mail fraud, 27 counts of jury tampering, 27 counts of obstruction of justice, and 27 counts of conspiracy to commit all of the above. When a formal request was submitted to that grand jury to investigate probable violations of federal law by the AUSA, the judge intercepted this certified request, and all subsequent pleadings which were then directed to the grand jury, in order to keep them informed of what was really going on. These pleadings contained crucial evidence -- you guessed it -- of the PMRS kick-back racket, and of a pattern of pathological lying by the AUSA dating back to a $4,797 fine imposed on him for repeatedly lying to a federal court in Phoenix. This was unprecedented for federal courts who almost never eat their own. Last but not least, the evidence is now overwhelming that the law which Congress enacted to qualify and convene all juries, both grand and trial, is horribly defective for exhibiting obvious class bias against state Citizens who are not also federal citizens. The courts have consistently ruled that Americans can be state Citizens without also being federal citizens, whether or not the federal government's precious Fourteenth Amendment was properly approved and adopted (and we now know that it was not). Unfortunately for Congress, this class discrimination in the Jury Selection and Service Act, Title 28 United States Code Sections 1861 thru 1865, invalidates each and every federal grand jury indictment, and each and every federal trial jury verdict, ever since the end of the Civil War. The United States is now in very deep trouble for putting so many Americans in federal prisons, with absolutely no lawful authority whatsoever to do so. Couple that with the fact that the U.S. incarceration rate is twice as high as South Africa, which is second world-wide in prisoners per capita. Do you think maybe that the federal government may be running an extortion racket here, just for money? I think so. I know so. I can prove it. I am appalled. # # # =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Coon Hunts Votes Date: 29 Oct 1996 11:24:42 -0600 Libertarian Coon using videotape in mail to get votes By Lama Bakri / The Detroit News When Mary Stoyka went through her junk mail and came across an unmarked videotape, her curiousity got the best of her. When she saw Jon Coon, she couldn't believe she had been tricked into watching 18 minutes of the Libertarian candidate's campaign for downriver state representative. But it worked. Stoyka said she is going to vote for Coon. "He left one humongous impression on me," said Stoyka, 44, owner of Mini Mat in Wyandotte. "The tape is unique and caught my attention. This is the first time I've decided not to vote for a Democrat or Republican." Coon's campaign volunteers delivered 23,000 videotapes this weekend to almost every registered voter's household in the 24th District. The tapes cost more than $35,000 and show Coon on the campaign trail. Although Coon's videotape approach is causing a stir, opponent and State Rep. Joseph Palamara, D-Wyandotte, said he doesn't feel threatened. "There's a clear choice in this campaign," Palamara said. "If voters in the 24th District want to vote for someone who's voted for hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts, welfare reform and to protect senior citizens, then they'll vote for me." Coon disagreed. "We wanted to make sure the voters got to see a side of me a lot of them don't get to see on literature," he said. "Our phones have been ringing all day and people were stopping by to give me their support. I'd say we've been getting real good reaction." Copyright 1996, The Detroit News ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: English Preview of 2nd Term? Date: 29 Oct 1996 11:23:55 -0500 >More sad news from England, and a likely preview of the second Clinton term.= RE: news from England. Well, as another ROC'er has commented, between England, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and probably a half-dozen locations around the globe that I'm unfamiliar with: the lack of a guarantee of the individual right to self-defense is a pretty serious lack. Those citizens have lost a fundamental right, probably forever. Freedom is expensive. Socialism doesn't work and exercises in government enroachment on freedom have to be fought politically. Regardless of how you vote in the Presidential election: Vote Republican for all House and Senate races. Even vote for a bad Republican. Keeping those committee chairmanships in Republican hands is the only thing that will keep Clinton in check. If you don't think that Clinton is a socialist at heart and a gun-grabber to his soul, you simply haven't been paying attention. We need to keep the investigations rolling and we need to stop anti-Constitutional legislation from reaching Clinton's desk. Call 10 of your friends who might be bored or apathetic and convince them to vote Republican in all the Congressional races. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Lippo Suction (fwd) Date: 29 Oct 1996 11:41:41 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- <> DATE: 10/28/96 7:42 PM http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/28safi.html October 28, 1996 Lippo Suction By WILLIAM SAFIRE WASHINGTON -- In 1994, a former U.S. naval officer named Nicholas Eftimiades, who now works for our Defense Intelligence Agency, wrote and cleared an article titled "Chinese Intelligence Operations" for the Naval Institute Press. "Case officers make extensive use of commercial covers," he reported. "For example, a vice president of the China Resources Holding Company Hua Ren Jituan in Hong Kong is traditionally a military case officer from Guangzhou. This officer coordinates the collection activities of other intelligence personnel operating under Hua Ren cover." In 1995, David Harris, ex-chief of strategic planning of Canadian intelligence, confirmed in The Toronto Globe and Mail that "U.S. Intelligence even says Hong Kong's China Resources Holding Co. traditionally reserves one vice-presidential position for an MID [Military Intelligence Department] intelligence officer." What does China's espionage use of a company in Hong Kong have to do with us? Only this: in November of 1992, China Resources bought control of the Hongkong Chinese Bank, part of the Lippo empire headed by Indonesia's Riady family. That put Lippo in business with the Chinese Communists. This is the same family that bought a Little Rock bank in the mid-80's that turned out to be of great help to the Clintons. And this was a family whose patriarch boasted of placing one of his employees -- John Huang, who worked at the Hongkong Chinese Bank in the mid-80s -- in a sensitive trade post in the Clinton Administration. The Riady's Mr. Huang has been as missing as Suharto's first name for three weeks, and has recently been untouchable by marshals with subpoenas. The Democratic National Committee, despite public assurances from Chairman Chris Dodd, is trying not to surface its fund-raising vice chairman to answer reporters' questions until the election is over. Most media interest in Huang concerns funny foreign fund-raising and laundered contributions, and is brushed off by White House cover-uppers with an airy everybody-does-it. But the line of inquiry that troubles them is what the Riady's man did at the Department of Commerce when he was principal deputy assistant secretary for international trade. Merely a low-level flunky, Secretary Mickey Kantor would have us believe. Top-secret clearance meant nothing; the Lippo million-dollar bonus baby was supposedly only a paper-pusher, of no influence on policy, privy to no really sensitive material. I think that's baloney. "Huang was high enough to see everything," a foreign-trade hand says, "and low enough not to be seen." When a mid-level official at Commerce gets to attend two private meetings in the Oval Office with the President and James Riady, word gets around that this guy has clout. If Huang had such access to the Oval Office, logic suggests he would have access to trade secrets and trade negotiating policy, economic intelligence of great interest to his former employer and its new partner in China. I have seen no evidence at all to suggest that John Huang is anything other than a loyal American citizen eager to advance himself and his friends through aggressive fund-raising for Democrats -- aided, as Newsweek now reveals, by a Clinton political diplomat on Taiwan. But what Congress, the Justice Department and the White House should want to know is this: the Lippos bank in Los Angeles at which Huang worked signed the F.D.I.C.'s cease-and-desist order regarding anti-money laundering laws. Was Huang questioned about the F.D.I.C.'s inquiry before getting a top-secret post? And given the Defense Intelligence Agency's knowledge of Chinese spying conducted out of a Lippo affiliate, did no spook raise a question about placing Lippo's longtime employee in a position to see our economic secrets? (D.I.A., worried about offending Clinton, may yank Eftimiades off China operations.) "Please be advised that the F.B.I. did not conduct an investigation of Mr. Huang," faxes the F.B.I., correcting my assumption that top-secret clearance required its full fieldwork. Only a name check came from the F.B.I.; perhaps the security-unconscious Office of Personnel Management waved Mr. Huang through. We'll find more to the Asian connection than fund-raising -- unless Clinton's corruption is abetted by an anything-goes Democratic Congress. Copyright 1996 The New York Times Company ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Hamblin on Welfare (fwd) Date: 29 Oct 1996 11:48:45 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Of course, folks like Jesse Jackson and other liberals don't want you to hear anything like this. . . -------------Begin forwarded message------------- WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE POOR by Ken Hamblin (from the October 16, 1996 issue of "Ken Hamblin Talks With America") After listening patiently to my message denouncing the current welfare system, people often try to trip me up in asking: "Well then, just what would you do about the poor?" I'm sure I must give them further ammunition to try to discredit or dismiss me when I say that I would do my very best to advise the poor about the opportunity available to them in this great land of America. Then I would level the ghetto. Those who grasped the concept of opportunity would struggle on to join the mainstream made up of other hard working Americans who fight to overcome obstacles of all sorts and who ultimately reap some level of rewards and success as a result. Those who didn't understand of seize opportunity would be moved to a federal facility, such as a closed military base, where they would be fed, clothed and sheltered -- cared for at a subsistence level. Sound undignified? Uncomfortable? Embarrassing? Well, being poor isn't supposed to be a cake walk. By nature, it's miserable. That inherent misery is a good part of the incentive not to be poor. I come from a generation of poor, black, first generation Americans who refused to settle for poverty. We also refused to settle for second class citizenship, and we did something about that in the civil rights movement. As a result, a whole lot of us are not poor anymore. I personally have not collected a penny of welfare since the dreadful indignities I suffered as a child growing up in Brooklyn. I didn't like the way being on welfare made me feel about myself. I didn't like the way others viewed me and my family. And I made a commitment to myself to get off the dole and never to go back. But amazingly, the success that I and other black Americans who have fought their way off welfare have realized is regarded with scorn by many parasitical African Americans -- the African Americans who are either still poor and collecting welfare or the ones who make a comfortable living as politicians and administrators as parties to the welfare bureaucracy. These black Americans who fail to acknowledge, much less take advantage of, this country's opportunity are the ones who call me a "dupe of the white man" or an "Uncle Tom who sold out for money." And understant, I'm a long way from being rich, like the black super athletes and media stars who are also held to this bogus standard of being true to their roots -- a standard measured solely by the dollars the shell out to the "black community." I am certain Oprah Winfrey, ranked by Forbes magasine as the highest paid entertainer in the country, sincerely agonizes -- as do I -- over the unchecked growth of the black underclass and its welfare culture today. But I also surmise that race-based pressure played a role in her recent personal attempt at welfare reform. Two years ago, the "Chicago Tribune" reported that Winfrey was committing as much as $3 million of her own money "to move 100 families out of public housing, off public aid and into better lives." Last month, after donating some $843,000, Winfrey put her support for the Families for a Better Life program on hold after only five families had completed it. Of those, one of the single parent families still receives public aid and one still lives in public housing. Jane Adamms Hull House Association, an established social services agency in Chicago, administered the program. A host of families who were candidates for the program went through a rigid screening, which barred drug users, alcoholics and those deemed to lack motiviation. But officials admitted that one of the biggest barriers to ending poverty remains attitude. The "Tribune" article reported: "Even though we carefully screened them, there was the mind frame of entitlement," Isabel Blanco, of Hull HOuse, said. "We had to keep emphasizing that this is not about what you get. This is about what you do." I am not denying that many forces have contributed to that sad, but prevalent, attitude among poor welfare recipients today. But the equally sad outcome of Winfrey's generosity is only more proof to me that the message of guilt about "those we left behind in the community" serves only the African-American activists and politicians who continue to spew it with open hands. I'll joyously meet anyone halfway who stands to take the first step out of the degredation of poverty. But I won't spend my hard-earned money or my precious time conducting safaris into the bowels of America's Dark Towns to free a black underclass that doesn't believe in the great opportunity this country holds for them. I am fed up with poor minorities who have twisted the original concept of welfare as a temporary helping hand into a demand for reparation to make up for past sins of white America. I am disgusted with the community leaders who preach an anti-American doctrine of hopelessness to their poor subjects. I firmly believe that the only way to salvage the lives of some from this growing class of poor blacks is for successful black Americans to say follow me, believe in America, believe in yourself. Oprah has only confirmed for me that writing checks -- whether out of compassion or because of guilt -- simply doesn't work. People do not derive the strength they need to fight their way from poverty by handouts. ====================== Ken Hamblin is a nationally-syndicated black American columnist and radio talk show host. "Ken Hamblin Talks With America" is a monthly newsletter available for $34.95 by calling (800)408-2427 or by sending payment to: Ken Hamblin Talks With America, PO Box 562, Castle Rock, CO, 80104. While supplies last, receive a free poster featuring Ken Hamblin riding his Harley Davidson, affectionately known as "Wild Thing" (and featured on the front of his upcoming book, "Pick A Better Country"). -------------End forwarded message------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Bulemics for Dole! (from berg stephen erik ) Date: 29 Oct 1996 13:52:30 -0700 >Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 14:29:27 -0600 (CST) >From: berg stephen erik >Sender: berg stephen erik >Reply-To: berg stephen erik >Subject: Bulemics for Dole! >To: Restore our Constitution >Message-Id: >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII > > I've been doing a lot of thinking here for the past few weeks. >The result of this cogitation is this post, and will likely also consist >of a hearty meal of crow. I have not been very active on the 'net, and >even had to uns*bscribe from a number of lists. I have taken some time >away from my studies to read everything I can find about this election >next week. The more I read, and the more I ponder, the more I realize >that we are in a hell of a pickle. Despite all of the partisan rhetoric >on this list, the fact of the matter is that we have a choice between a >bumbling new deal liberal, with a socialist nitwit for a running mate, and >two personifications of Evil, running with another socialist nitwit. I >supported Buchanan, and still am angry over his cave-in at the San Diego >Convention. The sad fact is that we do not have any other real choice >except these two sorry tickets. > > The present administration has corrupted and politicized every >aspect of the national government. This is especially true of the secret >police agencies. It is also true of the courts and the justice >department. If the present gang of thugs are re-elected, there is not >going to be any check on their activities. This bodes very ill for >ourselves and our liberties. We saw the Brady's there on the podium. We >saw Waco. If we let them stay, we are next. This bunch has already >shaken off scandals that would have brought down any previous government. >After this election, we will have no other check on them. They will call >all the shots. The press covers their butts like a diaper. The >investigative agencies are corrupted. The courts are corrupted. It even >appears that the intelligence agencies are in the same sorry fix. How >then, are the Clintons to be brought to justice? How are we going to >maintain what little remains of our liberties? > > Some people think that they can take out their AR-15 and hit the >streets. "We'll rebel, they say, and once again the tree of liberty will >be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots." Sorry guys, with the >sort of overwhelming forces arrayed against you, it will be a large scale >prairie dog hunt, with the patriots starring in the role of the scurrying >little rodents. I was in the infantry. I called in cluster shells on >troops. I watched the gunships, the fighters, and the big bombers. Hell, >I was mortared and strafed by my own side, and shot at by the other side >too. I know what it is like. We simply do not have what it takes to win. >The Republican Guard had some of the best Soviet and Western equipment >around, and got massacred. Do you think you can prevail with your SKS? >There will not be much tryant blood shed. Trust me. > > Clinton will do whatever it takes to maintain power. It is all he >knows, and after this gig, there is nothing else for him to do. He will >crush any foe. Hell, he even crushes his own "allies", like Ron Brown. >He has the whole deck stacked against us, and all that he needs to do is >put the last few pieces into place. We simply cannot let him put in the >keystone to our Republic's doom. > > So what to do? I know that the only decent candidates are >Phillips, Browne, and Nader. My heart goes out to them, but I look at the >forces arrayed against us, and I come to the sad conclusion that if we >blow this election, we will never have another chance. Look at the U.K., >Canada, Hong Kong, and Australia. The lamp of liberty is being snuffed >out in those once proud nations. If Clinton is re-elected, the same >curtain of darkness is going to come down on us. It is not going to rise >again in our lifetimes, probably never at all. Liberty is tenuous. It has >existed only in a few places, and those were all special cases in the >West. Liberty is not inevitable, rather, it is exceptionally fragile. It >is always under attack, and it is the arch enemy of the Clintons. I have >seen the look on the faces of people without liberty. I guarded enemy >POW's in the late South East Asian Unpleasantness. I saw them sent off to >"interrogation" at the hands of their "countrymen", and that they were >helpless to prevent a nasty death at the hands of skilled torturers. I do >not want the same gruesome fate to fall on Americans. Those of us on the >Internet, know just how likely this scenario really is. It is >frightening, but it can likely be stopped. > > The only possibility that I see that can forestall this fate for >our country is to stop the Clinton Juggernaut dead in its' tracks. Sadly, >the only force that can possibly effect this now, is the doofus >incompetent, Bob Dole. Those of you who have read my previous posts, know >that I despise the man. I did not post much about his running mate since >I do not want to run afoul of the Internet Decency Police. The very >thought of voting for this gruesome twosome is enough to make me heave my >last week's worth of meals. Consequently, I have decided to organize a >pressure group, late in the campaign, of like minded persons. Due to the >prevalence of uncontrollable gag reflexes in people who treasure Liberty, >whenever Dole and Kemp are mentioned, I have decided to name this new >political force "Bulemics for Dole." If you want any chance of restoring >our Republic, please join us by early next week. The country can >withstand another four years of fumbling, inept, Republican governance. I >doubt that it can survive another four months of a lame-duck Clinton >dictatorship. > > >Steve > >z931086@corn.cso.niu.edu > >My views only, of course. All pertinent disclaimers apply. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Bulemics for Dole! (from berg stephen erik ) Date: 29 Oct 1996 17:03:19 -0500 Chad, thanks for the repost. > The present administration has corrupted and politicized every >aspect of the national government. This is especially true of the secret >police agencies. It is also true of the courts and the justice >department. If the present gang of thugs are re-elected, there is not >going to be any check on their activities. This bodes very ill for >ourselves and our liberties. We saw the Brady's there on the podium. We >saw Waco. If we let them stay, we are next. This bunch has already >shaken off scandals that would have brought down any previous government. >After this election, we will have no other check on them. They will call >all the shots. The press covers their butts like a diaper. The >investigative agencies are corrupted. The courts are corrupted. It even >appears that the intelligence agencies are in the same sorry fix. How >then, are the Clintons to be brought to justice? How are we going to >maintain what little remains of our liberties? > I would add the following modifier: this is the base problem. A lot of people whine about corruption in politics, but the vast majority of people do not care. I believe that we are at a juncture where the rule of law is at stake. Do the laws of the land apply to all, irrespective of individual party politics and individual power? Do they apply to the intelligence agencies, when gross moral violations, like massive drug-running, have occurred? (We aren't talking fine points of covert operations here.) I think that for the long term health of the Republic, the best thing that could happen would be a Clinton victory, re-election of Republican majorities in House and Senate, and full scale investigations into the CIA drug running, drug money corruption in the banking and political systems, and the Clinton's felonious behaviour in raising political funds, burying bodies, and just plain doing what it takes to consolidate power. What happened to Vince Foster, Ron Brown, and William Colby? Why is Clinton's Lasater connection brushed under the rug? What about the bit players (Furgeson and Jerry Parks) who have turned up dead? If Bush (former CIA director) gets dragged into this mess, then so be it. Ditto for Ronnie Reagan. If Ollie North's diaries implicate others, then too bad. Nothing but a fully energized Republican Party, willing to push the law to the brink of a Constitutional crisis is going to resolve any of this. If he has got the evidence, let Starr step up and bring down a standing President. The legislative control of the TLA's is an issue that has recurred for the past 40 years or so. Its time for a gloves off rehash of these issues, with at least the threat of impeachment raised as a real possibility. The Agency was making so much money on their cover operations and running so many private airlines that they were totally outside Congressional control in the late 60's and 70's. Well, its happened again in the 80's and 90's. The alternative is to slip a little closer to Banana Republic status, with two or three classes of people, all unequal before the law, "disappearances" and large flow of illegal money the norm. Remember, Nixon was re-elected by a landslide and Colson went to jail for improperly viewing *one* FBI file. ciao, Jack Curtis P.S. I agree totally on the AR15 toting wannabees. The examples we've seen thusfar are a bunch of thoroughly infiltrated nitwits. I'll state right now that I know enough history to *run* from anyone expousing any kind of "revolution". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Drawing The Line Between Legal and Illegal -- Phyllis Schlafly (fwd) Date: 29 Oct 1996 16:30:41 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Column 10/24/96 Drawing The Line Between Legal and Illegal by Phyllis Schlafly October 24, 1996 Most people don't have any problem telling the difference between legal and illegal drugs. Why is it that public school administrators can't figure out where to draw the line? The recent incidents of schoolgirls being suspended for Midol/Advil offenses are not just ten o'clock TV news trivia items. They are the result of school drug policies and drug education courses that do not distinguish between legal and illegal, or prescription and nonprescription, drugs. In the Houston case, a junior high honor student, Brooke Olson, was suspended after a drug-sniffing dog, going through her belongings while she was in gym class, discovered Advil in her backpack. School Principal Steve Busch defended the suspension on the argument that Advil is "just the tip of a potentially lethal drug iceberg." In the Dayton, Ohio case, a junior high school girl, Kimberly Smartt, was thrown out of school for four and a half months for giving a Midol tablet to a classmate, Erica Taylor (an honor student with a perfect attendance record), who was suspended for ten days and recommended for expulsion. The "student discipline referral" sent home to parents stated that the suspension was for "possession of a controlled substance." Midol and Advil are over-the-counter, nonprescription painkillers sold to relieve headaches, cramps, and other symptoms related to menstrual periods. Erica's penalty was reduced to three days when she agreed to go to a drug counseling and education session, but Kimberly was not given that option. Erica's father withdrew the agreement for her to attend the counseling sessions when he discovered that the first appointment would cost $100 and subsequent ones $90 each. Kimberly, age 14 and black, has sued in federal court on grounds of race discrimination, since she was treated so much more severely than Erica, age 13 and white. Subsequently, the school board voted to reduce Kimberly's expulsion to time already served, which was 13 days. I suggest that Kimberly amend her lawsuit to change the allegation of race discrimination to sex discrimination. The male supervisors in these cases unreasonably and heartlessly discriminated against 13-year-old girls who have a gender-specific need to take and share painkillers for menstrual cramps. These are not isolated examples. Last year in Maryland, at least two students in unrelated cases were suspended for possession of dietary-supplement tablets, and earlier a 13-year-old girl was ordered to attend drug-abuse prevention sessions after she was found with an over-the-counter allergy medication in her purse. In checking these news stories on the Internet, I found that they were filed under the heading "miscarriage of justice" in addition to the obvious categories. Conventional wisdom has decided that the schools' actions were lacking in common sense. But the schools did not retreat in the face of near-unanimous public disapproval. They are sanctimoniously defending their decisions, just like the Lexington, NC school administrators who charged a first-grade boy with "sexual harassment" for kissing a classmate on the cheek, and the East Stroudsburg, PA school officials who inflicted 59 sixth-grade girls with unauthorized genital examinations. Drug education courses for the last 15 years have blurred the lines between legal and illegal drugs. The typical drug curriculum teaches that "everybody takes drugs," and that it's up to the child to decide which kinds and amounts of drugs he will take. This is called "decision making," the follow-on word for the discredited technique called values clarification. The drug course that was probably the most widely used curriculum 15 years ago, "Here's Looking at You Two," gave students a picture of what it called a "drug family tree." The branches all growing out of the same trunk included coffee, tobacco, Tums, Pepto-Bismol, alcohol, sleeping pills, glue, aspirin, cough syrup, marijuana, heroin, LSD, and cocaine. This gave the message that differences among drugs are minor. In "Here's Looking," the social acceptability of drug use was promoted by presenting such examples as the use of wine at Communion in church and in spaghetti sauce, toasting the bride and groom at a wedding, anesthetics during surgery, drinking tea in honor of the Queen of England, and having hot chocolate at bedtime. Fifth graders were told to do such assignments as rewriting the fairy tale of Goldie Locks and the Three Bears so that she samples pills instead of porridge, and writing "Dear Abby" letters voicing complaints such as Mom keeps a whiskey bottle in her closet. Children were never told that painkillers are okay and illegal drugs are just plain wrong for moral, legal, and health reasons. We now have a generation of public school administrators who were taught this kind of drug education in school, as well as the falsehood that there isn't any difference between 13-year-old girls and boys. EAGLE FORUM -- eagle@eagleforum.org PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 ---------------------------------------------- Are you on our E-mail list? Tell a friend about us! http://www.eagleforum.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: The "Dweeb". (fwd) Date: 29 Oct 1996 16:34:42 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Sixth Mesa Risk Assessment <6mysmesa@1eagle1.com> This was written by an old line officer (a personal acquaintance) in response to some younger cop referring to Richard Jewell as a fat "dweeb". This came from the national Police list and identifiers have been removed. We can be proud that there still are thinking people out there behind the badge who are on the side of the Constitution. Thank God. Joe Horn Richard Jewell presents some interesting things to consider. When he appeared on TV after the bombing, identified as the man who had found the bomb and alerted those who needed to be, I found myself looking at him in one light. I saw an overweight, dumpy, none too bright cross between Barney and Festus, who, through being in the right place at the right time, had stumbled on The Big One. Not because of training, not because of ability, not because of skill, knowledge, intuition....but just because he was another of thousands of kind of below average guys who was Just There. Then a few days later the Feds went after him, and that made sense to me, because I am somewhat cynical by nature. Then I watched the incredible circus, orchestrated by the Feds and the media....the Fed ostentatiously climbing into his coveralls in the parking lot where Jewell's apartment is. Those idiotic, contemptible buffoons that pass for reporters, grasping at everything they could to sensationalize the entire process. It was so surreal that I actually thought that Jewell was working with the Feds, drawing all the attention while the real investigation focused elsewhere. And then things sort of went away for awhile. Now we have the Feds issuing a letter to Jewell...if not 'finding him innocent' then at least removing him from the suspect list. I'd like to see the letter. Has anyone? Even more, I would like to see the affidavits for the search warrants. And I see the media, at least some of the Fourth Estate, still trying to justify their assholery, by pointing out that Jewell bragged about being famous, and then there was his knapsack, and a host of things that identify his 'personality faults'. Yet when I look up and down the lower Arkansas Valley, at the law enforcement agencies sprinkled hither and yon....I see many Jewells...I see overweight deputies and cops who are none too bright, who love to run around in black cammie fatigue trousers, talking about their guns and working on bombs and doing raids and how they just love the job. I see not-so-fat but still none too bright patrol officers in dweebie little towns, a thousand little towns across the country ,...poorly trained, poorly equipped, dumber than boxes of rocks in some cases....but loving the job in much the same way that Jewell professes to. What the hell, we can't all be Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. or Tommy Lee Jones. Most of these guys have no concept of Bobbie Peel's philosphies...many of them have a serious 'us vs them' attitude problem regarding the public which we allegedly serve....some of them are genuine downhome jerks that I would not have in my house. But they all profess to love the job...and for their various reasons, they really do. Jewell is not that big a dweeb. In fact, Jewell is kind of typical of a lot of peace officer types. If he did do the bombing, he has stood up to the best....or the worst....the Feds can do to roll him. That makes him a lot smarter than I think he is....if he did do the bombing. His lawyers can put a sock in it, what do they know other than the bottom line....but as for Jewell, The Big Dweeb....I hear what he says. I won't gag everyone with ....."I feel your pain"....but I hear what he says. Rather than poke jibes at The Dweeb....let's take a good hard look at Our Beloved Gummint....again. This comes across to me as on a par with Ruby Ridge. -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: THE GOVERNMENT RESTS (fwd) Date: 29 Oct 1996 16:42:37 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- If you are planning to come to Macon to be here for Robert Starr, Jimmy McCranie, and Troy Spain when they take the stand, better load up your gear and hit the road. It will all be over by Friday, according to the Judge himself. Today, Kevin Barker was dessimated on cross- examination by Gregory Spicer, Mr. Spain's attorney. He kept saying, "Not at this time" and when Mr. Spicer asked him sarcastically if that meant no, Mr. Barker said, "Yes, Sir." The fact that the government decided against calling the handful of jail house snitches who were ready to lie for them in exchange for shorter sentences tells all. Even they know that the jury is not buying it. The real high point of the trial was the cross examination of the man who was alleged to have sold the "explosives" to the accused. He did not remember who purchased the chemicals, and the price changed since he testified before the grand jury. Under Ms. Althea Buafo's cross-examination, he broke. When asked about the oak leaf and upside down flag that he had said we're on Mr. Starr's uniform, he stated, "It was not Mr. Starr's uniform because it was not Mr. Starr." Anyone who has read the lap dog press reports about a "link" with the Olympic Park Bombing, not to worry. Just another of Kevin Barker's lies and the jury knows it. Robert Starr will take the stand tomorrow morning. If you need a place to stay, please email me or call me. The house is about 3 minutes from I 475 and I 80, Eisenhower. Directions available on request, and there are plenty of cheap motels around too! For Victory in Liberty Nancy Lord Attorney at Law P.O. Box 7223 Macon, Ga 31209-7223 (912) 788-6272 (912) 785-1809 Fax defense@mindspring.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: Bulemics for Dole! (from berg stephen erik ) Date: 29 Oct 1996 16:17:28 -0700 John Curtis said: >Chad, thanks for the repost. > >P.S. I agree totally on the AR15 toting wannabees. The examples we've seen >thusfar are a bunch of thoroughly infiltrated nitwits. I'll state right now >that I know enough history to *run* from anyone expousing any kind of >"revolution". Your welcome. It bounced the first time because of the word "unsubscribe" in it. re: AR15 toting wannabes For all those claiming militia status etc I agree on the above. There are a lot of people who disagree with the organizing "militias" but who would never-the-less take up arms if need be. Probably a whole lot more than the wannabes. I disagree that it would be a slaughter if people did rebel. The people would win. Hands down. The military is small and the united states is large. And a lot of the military probably would jump ship (judging from people I know in the NG out here in Utah). Iraq/Kuwait and Vietnam are not comparable to this situation. regards Chad who believes in peaceful resolutions of problems. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Bulemics for Dole! (from berg stephen erik ) Date: 29 Oct 1996 16:54:31 PST roc@xmission.com wrote : >John Curtis said: >>Chad, thanks for the repost. >> >>P.S. I agree totally on the AR15 toting wannabees. The examples we've seen >>thusfar are a bunch of thoroughly infiltrated nitwits. I'll state right now >>that I know enough history to *run* from anyone expousing any kind of >>"revolution". > >Your welcome. It bounced the first time because of the word "unsubscribe" >in it. > >re: AR15 toting wannabes >For all those claiming militia status etc I agree on the above. There are a >lot of people who disagree with the organizing "militias" but who would >never-the-less take up arms if need be. Probably a whole lot more than the >wannabes. I disagree that it would be a slaughter if people did rebel. >The people would win. Hands down. The military is small and the united >states is large. And a lot of the military probably would jump ship >(judging from people I know in the NG out here in Utah). Iraq/Kuwait and >Vietnam are not comparable to this situation. Besides with all the trouble spots: Bosnia / Iran / Iraq / N Korea / Israel / Zaire / Central Asia and the list getting longer by the day it is more than likely that when the urge to rebel is strongest that most of the armed forces will be elsewhere. This is a corollary of Murphey's law: Everything goes wrong at the same time. If instead of viewing from the citizens viewpoint one should look at it from the view point of those trying to run the world: Finite resources and infinite trouble spots and the whole structure will collapse when there is more trouble spot than available resources Jack > >regards >Chad >who believes in peaceful resolutions of problems. > > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: English Preview of 2nd Term? Date: 29 Oct 1996 23:02:52 -0600 At 05:58 AM 10/29/96 -0500, Brad Dolan wrote: >I find it interesting that they're whining most about the compensation >they are to receive, which implies that they are ready to hand 'em over. Exactly,that's what struck me as so sad, they were beat before they started. Even now they, mostly, can not get off the "sporting purposes" issue. That's a non starter. No one would ever be able to protect "sporting goods" against someone elses (perceived) safety. Of course they still have a point, that their peacefull pursuit of their hobby should not be sacrificed for the actions of a (few) nutters. But in a way you can only fight fear by addressing the fear and providing alternate, and ultimately more effective actions to alleviate it. (Like CCW for instance.) The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: [LA] _The_Times-Picayune_: For President, We Pass Date: 30 Oct 1996 09:18:22 -0600 In an unusual fit of candor, _The_(New Orleans)_Times-Picayune_ abandoned President Clinton in his re-election bid Sunday. The editorial, entitled, "For president, we pass," states in part: "But in the case of the presidential election, we to not feel comfort- able recommending either the re-election of Bill Clinton or the election of Bob Dole. "Mr. Clinton is a superb campaigner and speech-maker. He has presided over a robust economy, though he is hardly responsible for it. He has been unable to chart a consistent course on many issues, swerving at each puff of the political winds. "He and is administration are surrounded by scandals and near-scandals. ..[and lists a few of the better-known ones] "All this gives us too much pause to affix our seal of approval." "Bob Dole has neither offered a clear vision nor mapped a discernable path for the country. Moreover, all signs point to an inability to inspire others and rally them around his cause.... "In light of these misgivings, we pass." (_The_Times-Picayune_, Sunday, October 27, 1996, p. B-6) Activists wishing to write to the T-P for their glimmer of honesty regarding Mr. Clinton can write to: "Letters to the Editor" 3800 Howard Ave. New Orleans, LA 70140 FAX: 504-826-3369 Internet: tpletters@aol.com Other snippets from the Big Easy: Last week, both presidential candidates were in town to campaign for themselves and for the two candidates running for J. Bennett Johnstons's (D) seat in the U.S. Senate. Bob Dole picked up the endorsements of the Police Association of New Orleans (PANO) and the state FOP. He stumped for Senate candidate Woody Jenkins, who also has gotten Governor Mike Foster's endorsement. The RNC is running a big ad campaign here as well. Louisiana is a major swing state, and a recent statewide poll had Dole and Clinton in a _DEAD HEAT_. Another poll is being broadcast tonight on WWL-TV (Ch. 4 in N.O.); I'll post results when I get a chance. Today, both presidential candidates are stopping in LA for further campaigning and for further stumping for the two U.S. Senate candidates. Mary Landrieu (D) and Jenkins (R) are also in a dead heat here. The vice-president and his wife are also going to be in the state. Things are getting very interesting.... Yours in the Struggle, Bob _______________________________________________________________ | Robert S. Linzell linzellr@datastar.net | | Disclaimer: The content of the preceding message reflects | | my opinion only, unless otherwise indicated. | | "Live" from South Mississippi State Motto: Virtute et Armis | |_______________________________________________________________| `[1;31;44mNet-Tamer V 1.06X - Registered ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Seismograms Offer Insight Into Oklahoma City Bombing Date: 30 Oct 1996 09:18:14 -0600 Seismograms Offer Insight Into Oklahoma City Bombing Thomas L. Holzer, Joe B. Fletcher, Gary S. Fuis, Trond Ryberg, Thomas M. Brocher, and Christopher M. Dietel The terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, generated seismic waves that were recorded on two permanent seismographs about 7 and 26 km away from the bombing. The seismogram recorded at 26 km shows two low-frequency wave trains, discrete sets of oscillatory signals, that begin about 10 s apart. Public release of this record prompted speculation that each wave train was caused by a different energy source. On May 23, 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey monitored the demolition of the bomb- ravaged Federal Building with portable seismographs (Figure 1). Two wave trains were picked up again. The recordings indicate that the wave trains during both the bombing and demolition represent seismic waves traveling at different velocities. We conclude that the two wave trains recorded during the bombing are consistent with a single impulsive energy source. Eos Vol. 77, No. 41, October 8, 1996, pp. 393, 396-397. . © YEAR American Geophysical Union. Permission is hereby granted to journalists to use this material so long as credit is given, and to teachers to use this material in classrooms. [The complete article, with figures including seismograms, can be found at URL: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eosholzer.html.] _______________________________________________________________ | Robert S. Linzell linzellr@datastar.net | | Disclaimer: The content of the preceding message reflects | | my opinion only, unless otherwise indicated. | | "Live" from South Mississippi State Motto: Virtute et Armis | |_______________________________________________________________| `[1;35;44mNet-Tamer V 1.06X - Registered ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Part 5, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum (fwd) Date: 30 Oct 1996 08:28:10 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Text Excerpt 5: Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum Entire html text of the Museum currently available at home.overthe.net/pub/showtime/wm1-1f01.zip. Excerpted by Carol Valentine from http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum. Images omitted. Who Struck John? [Photo from soldier of Fortune showing front of Mt. Carmel shortly after start of raid] "Then gunfire erupted from virtually every window in the compound." --Treasury Report, pg. 96. We see the agents, the broken windows, and the bullet holes in the building. But would you please point out the Davidians and the Davidian guns? This photo was printed in Soldier of Fortune magazine, July, 1993, with an article entitled "What Went Wrong in Waco?" written by Col. Charlie Beckwith, who is described in the footnote as "founder of America's elite Delta force and a noted authority on raids and assault planning." Col. Beckwith wrote, "I cried when I heard that four ATF agents had been killed and 16 wounded," but apparently shed no tears for the Branch Davidians. The brilliant tactician also failed to notice there was no photographic evidence of retaliation by the Branch Davidians. Who shot first, and who shot whom in the February 28, 1993 Mt. Carmel gunfight? The Treasury Report states that when the ATF agents left the cattle trailers they were met with a hail of gunfire and homemade grenades. "In the face of overwhelming firepower the agents displayed extraordinary disciple and courage," (pg. 11). Perhaps unknown to the raid planners, most of the guns owned by the Branch Davidians were off the premises that day, having been taken to a gun show in nearby Austin, Texas by Branch Davidian Paul Fatta. Concerning the ATF claim that they were met "by a hail of gunfire" as they approached the building: photographic evidence shows the agents firing blindly into a building with empty windows and drawn blinds. Let's have a look at the Treasury statement in more detail: "Koresh appeared at the front door and yelled, 'What's going on?' The agents identified themselves, stated they had a warrant and yelled 'freeze' and 'get down.' But Koresh slammed the door before the agents could reach it. Gunfire from inside the Compound burst through the door. The force of the gunfire was so great that the door bowed outward. The agent closest to the door was shot in the thumb before he could dive for cover into a pit near the door. Then gunfire erupted from virtually every window in the front of the Compound." (Pg. 96) A picture published in Soldier of Fortune, July, 1993 (our copy was slightly damaged at the centerfold as it was removed from the magazine) shows about 11 agents in front of the building. Note that eight of the agents in this picture are using the automobiles for cover, while the rest are in the open. The ATF said the Davidians had illegal machine guns. The ATF Report also said the agents were ambushed by waiting Davidians (pg. 11). When talking to the press after the raid failure, ATF PR agent Sharon Wheeler explained: "They had bigger guns than we did." But these agents don't seem concerned about Davidian guns, big or small, manual or automatic. Where are the guns? Where are the Davidians? Where is the ambush? Automobiles are not good cover from firearms. Most bullets will easily penetrate the thin steel of a car body. If a Davidian were shooting at an agent who was taking cover behind a car, he could as easily hit the agent by aiming through the car at the hidden portion as by aiming at the exposed portion of the agent's body. On Monday, March 1, 1993 the Dallas Morning News published a page of color pictures from the raid. One 7 x 11 shows the main entrance of Mt. Carmel. Judging by the number of visible bullet holes in the walls, the condition of the window to the right of the door, and the condition of the second floor window frames, this picture was taken later than the Soldier of Fortune picture. We see (Dallas Morning News, March 1, 1993, Figure 21) agents in the foreground are carrying off an injured comrade. Looking over the picture for details, we see a spray of bullet holes around the second floor windows (magnified view at Figure 21A). Those holes were quite obviously caused by shots aimed at the general area of the windows from the outside--that is, by agents shooting at Davidians or at guessed locations of Davidians. The Dallas Morning News photograph has been magnified to verify the point: The windows and bodies of all the automobiles within the frame of the picture reveal not a single bullet scar (Figure 21B). In addition, not a single tear appears in the canvas of the cattle trailer (Figure 21C). Had the Davidians been returning fire, we should be able to see evidence in the photo. The shots should have left scars, similar to the scars in the building, on the trailer canvas and the metal and window glass of the cars and trucks the agents were hiding behind. A careful examination of the vehicles in this picture reveals not a single bullet scar to compare with the bullet scars on the building. The Treasury Report contains a picture of the second trailer to arrive in front of the Mt. Carmel Center. The side facing the camera is the same side that was visible to the Branch Davidians; that side should bear bullet marks if the agents had received fire as they claimed. However, the photo reveals no bullet holes. In a final test of the veracity of the Treasury Report account, a magnification of the double door reveals that it is not "bowed out" from gunfire (Figure 21D), as alleged. It stands as any normal door (disregard crease mark in newspaper). One section of the double door in particular would have been a key piece of defense evidence when the Branch Davidians were charged with the murder of the ATF agents. The trajectory of the bullet scars would have told the story of who shot whom; but the door section mysteriously went missing after the April 19 inferno, while the crime scene was under control of the ATF's allies, the Texas Rangers. TV footage of the scene clearly shows the agents firing into the building, and not one Davidian returning fire--or even visible. The ATF also took videos of the raid as it was occurring. Later, the ATF claimed that their video camera malfunctioned and that no pictures had been taken after all. Next: Text Excerpt 6, Not An Ambush http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum or http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum SkyWriter@Public-Action.com Postal Address: Carol A. Valentine, Public Action, Inc., PO Box 10933, Burke, VA 22009 Copyright 1996 by Carol A. Valentine, on loan to Public Action, Inc. All commercial rights are reserved. Full statement of terms and conditions for copying and redistribution is available in the Museum Library. "Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum," "SkyWriter," and the skywriting logo are trademarks of Public Action Inc. Carol A. Valentine President Public Action, Inc. ________________________________________________ TERRORISM: The use of terror, violence, and intimidation to achieve an end. A system of government that uses terror to rule. (American Heritage Dictionary, 1976) Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum | NOW-- WHO ARE THE *REAL* TERRORISTS??? ________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Clinton and the Russian Mafia Date: 30 Oct 1996 10:22:29 -0600 Well, I've been to the river, been baptized, been to the county fair, saw the elephant, the dancing girls, watched the monkey make love to the football and heard the football pronounce it sublime; seen it all and bought the tee shirt but I ain't never seen nothing like this. Suspected N-dealer attended Clinton fund-raiser By Christopher Ruddy FOR THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW WASHINGTON - Why did President Bill Clinton meet with Grigori Loutchansky, a man whose company the current CIA director has told Congress is "an organization associated with Russian criminal activity"? That question has a number of national security experts who are concerned about Loutchansky and NORDEX - an international company which has been linked to the smuggling of nuclear materials - wondering. In October of 1993, Loutchansky was invited to the U.S. to attend a private fund-raising dinner for the Democratic National Committee where Loutchansky met with the President. The meeting was memorialized in the Latvian newspaper SM Today on Nov. 12, 1993. In 1995, though Loutchansky was still a priority concern for U.S. intelligence, he was again invited by the DNC to attend another fund-raising dinner with the president. Disclosures about Loutchansky come on the heels of questions about dealings the president and the DNC have had with businessmen from Indonesia, South Korea and Taiwan. Earlier this month, Republicans sharply criticized the president for meeting with a Miami drug dealer after he had made a $20,000 donation to Democratic coffers. NORDEX CONNECTIONS TIME magazine, in an expose on Loutchansky only three months ago, reported that NORDEX, based in Vienna and Moscow, has been "one of the top intelligence targets in the West". Since NORDEX was formed in 1989 to trade Russian commodities and natural resources with the West, allegations have surfaced that the firm has been involved in money laundering, narcotics trafficking, arms deals, and other Russian Mafia criminal activities. Loutchansky, a former professor and Latvian university official who once served a two-year term in prison for embezzlement, has not been charged with any crimes in Russia or elsewhere since he founded NORDEX. According to a secret German intelligence report, NORDEX was created by the old Soviet regime "with the aim of bringing foreign currency accumulated by the KGB and top Communist Party officials into the West," as well as a means to continue earning hard currency for Russian intelligence organizations. Domestic intelligence sources believe numerous such companies were created for that purpose, but NORDEX, with its $3 billion in annual business, appears to be the largest such concern operating in the West. NORDEX also may be the most dangerous. In the spring of 1995, Ukrainian officials in Kiev inspected a NORDEX-owned cargo plane that had emanated in North Korea and was destined for Iraq. The aircraft was carrying SCUD missile warheads. Suspicions, too, have been raised about nuclear smuggling to rogue states like Iran, Iraq and North Korea. According to TIME, in the past three years the National Security Agency has "found indications" that NORDEX has been "engaged" on the black market with nuclear materials. Christopher Story, editor of the London-based Soviet Analyst - the one-time British Foreign office newsletter on Russian matters - told the Tribune-Review that sources in British intelligence believe NORDEX is "a rapidly proliferating amoeba or cancer, constantly replicating and mutating into a network of business fronts engaged in enterprises ultimately controlled by Russian intelligence." NORDEX controls more than 100 Russian firms and has more than three dozen businesses in the West. SECOND INVITATION In an unpublished, extensive interview with TIME magazine, excerpts of which the Tribune-Review has obtained, Loutchansky explained how he ended up meeting with Clinton: "I was invited by a friend of mine - Sam Domb - he was a trustee (sic) of the Democratic National Committee - to take part in a dinner which was given by Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore and 20 Senators ... in October 1993. It was in Washington in some museum. ... I was invited as an outstanding Jewish businessman." Loutchansky went on to say he spoke privately with the president for about two minutes, discussing the "problems of nuclear missiles in the Ukraine." Loutchansky also told the Jerusalem Report he "agreed to a request from the president to deliver a private message to the leader of the Ukraine." New York businessman Sam Domb told the Tribune-Review he has no idea who Loutchansky was, and had never met him before the dinner. Domb, apparently agitated by the call, had no explanation as to why he was photographed with Loutchansky and Clinton, or why he was previously quoted extensively in a Russian emigre newspaper praising Loutchansky. According to Federal Election Commission records, in the months immediately following the October, 1993, Washington dinner, Domb donated $90,000 to the DNC. In the past three years he has forked over $155,000 to the committee. Loutchansky has stated he never donated any money to the Democratic Party or the Clinton-Gore campaign. Federal law prohibits donations by foreign individuals or companies to political candidates or parties. Sometimes foreigners try to skirt the law by having American citizens make donations on their behalf. There is no evidence that has occurred here. But Loutchansky has a track record in Russia and elsewhere of showering officials with money and gifts for favors and access. For instance TIME located a dummy Swiss company owned by NORDEX called Dorotel AG which, according to a NORDEX official, was nothing more than a bank account "used to make discreet payments for friends of NORDEX. ..." Calls to the Democratic National Committee for comment as to why Loutchansky was invited to a fund-raising dinner for the president, and why Loutchansky, according to a source familiar with the case, received a letter from the president thanking him for his support, went unreturned. Also unexplained is the invitation Loutchansky received just last year from the Democratic National Committee for a VIP dinner with Clinton. "Dear Mr. Loutchansky," wrote DNC finance director Richard Sullivan, "I cordially invite you to have dinner with President Clinton on Tuesday, July 11, 1995, at the Hay Adams Hotel in Washington, D.C." Loutchansky told the Jerusalem Report he did not go to that event because he feared U.S. officials would not allow him to enter the country. Already Loutchansky has been barred from Britain and Canada. Soviet Analyst editor Story suggested Loutchansky's meeting and invitations to see Clinton were "nothing short of scandal." "It's preposterous to believe Loutchansky came once to meet the president, and was invited again without giving some benefit, or receiving some in kind," Story said. [Return to News] Return to News ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) "Holographic" Full-Body Security Scanning Date: 30 Oct 1996 08:30:41 -0800 > ================= Begin forwarded message ================= > > From: pagre@weber.ucsd.edu (Phil Agre) > To: rre@weber.ucsd.edu > Subject: "Holographic" Full-Body Security Scanning > Date: Tue, 29 Oct > > > [Yet another reason to read Compressed Air magazine...] > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). > Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. > You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use > the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions > for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 96 21:20 PST > From: privacy@vortex.com (PRIVACY Forum) > Subject: PRIVACY Forum Digest V05 #20 > > PRIVACY Forum Digest Monday, 28 October 1996 Volume 05 : Issue 20 > > > > Date: Sun, 27 Oct 96 15:15 PST > From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator) > Subject: "Holographic" Full-Body Security Scanning > > According to an article in the Oct-Nov 1996 issue of "Compressed Air" > magazine (a wonderful Ingersoll-Rand publication that covers a very wide > range of topics), the Federal Aviation Administration is planning to begin > testing the use of a full-body "holographic" imaging system at a U.S. > airport next year. > > The system (an earlier version of which was discussed previously in the > PRIVACY Forum), actually uses millimeter waves (~30 Ghz) to quickly > (within > a few seconds) generate a "naked" image of the scannee. The device has > been under development for a number of years and appears to be evolving > rapidly. > The transmitted millimeter radiation passes through clothes but bounces > off > the body or other objects (e.g., everything from loose change to firearms, > hidden money packets, etc.) > > Outside of the rather obvious broader privacy implications of such a > device, > two special issues should also be considered. First, even though the > millimeter radiation used is non-ionizing (e.g. less energetic than > x-rays), > there is considerable controversy about the health risks of exposure to > non-ionizing radiation at these wavelengths. The statement is made that > the > system is similar in exposure to supermarket "door opener" microwave > scanners, though this seems somewhat difficult to accept given the > completely different scanning requirements of the two devices. > > But another problem may be even more likely to concern the public at large > about such equipment. As the photographs included with the article show > all too clearly, the device generates quite detailed "nude" images. It is > decidedly uncertain how people will feel about being required to pass > through a system that creates instant 360 degree naked pictures, possibly > archived to tape as well! The promoters of the system suggest that using > "same-sex" operators would alleviate these concerns. Excuse me, but are > we all living on the same planet? Talk about needing a reality check... > > I have no doubt that there might be special situations where such a > device, > as an alternative to "pat-downs" or other intrusive personal searches, > could > be useful. But broadscale deployment of such systems in airports as a > routine body scanning procedure seems unlikely to be acceptable to most of > the public. > > --Lauren-- > > ------------------------------ > > End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 05.20 > ************************ > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Jewell Date: 30 Oct 1996 08:34:39 -0800 forwarded message... >Mike Kemp writes: >> >> To All: >> It was reported yesterday that the warrant/affidavit used to >> search for and seize Jewell's property did not specifiy what was to be >> searched for, nor what was to be seized, nor where the (unstated) >> material might be found. >> Further, the affidavit contained only rumor and innuendo, >> interspersed with irrelevant *facts,* with no factual allegations of >> wrongdoing. >> Has anyone read the Fourth Amendment, lately? Do you suppose it >> would do any good to forward a copy to the Feral Bureau of Intimidation >> and whatever hizzoner signed the warrant? >> >> In disgusted Liberty, >> Mike Kemp > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: More Oklahoma Bomb Propaganda (fwd) Date: 30 Oct 1996 10:43:19 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- NOTE: For the record: We have confirmed that no elevators fell on the day of the bombing and Alex McCaulley was not in the building. One can only surmise that DEA Special Agent David Schickendanz is being rewarded for his silence and continued support of a story we have proved to be untrue. And of course, the bomb threat was not false.... and so the propaganda continues. ============================================================================ ===== 5 Bombing Heroes Named Police Officers of the Year 10/30/1996 PHOENIX (AP) -- They did what they were supposed to do -- help people in trouble. But five law enforcement officers went beyond the call of duty and risked their lives to pull others from the rubble of a once anonymous office building in Oklahoma City. The International Association of Police Chiefs recognized the five Tuesday as the 1996 Police Officers of the Year for their heroism in the aftermath of the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. The blast caused 168 deaths and injured more than 500. ''Everybody calls us heroes, but there were a lot of people helping out that day, even private citizens,'' Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent David Schickedanz said after receiving his plaque and diamond-studded gold pin at the group's annual convention . The other honorees were Midwest City Cpl. Regina Bonny, 36; Sgt. Robert Campbell, 39; Sgt. Rod Hill, 46; and officer Jim Ramsey, 27, of the Oklahoma City Police Department. ''I've received a lot of awards in the past year -- the Attorney General's Award, the Medal of Valor from the DEA, the Top Cop Award. But there's a little bit of sorrow when I go to one of these ceremonies,'' Schickedanz said. Schickedanz rescued himself and federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms supervisor Alex McCauley from an elevator and returned to help search for Drug Enforcement Administration colleagues. He then set up a command post in his car, checked on survivors, comforted families and took calls. Schickendanz, 46, lost part of his hearing in the explosion and was forced to retire in May after 28 years with the drug agency. Bonny, an undercover officer on assignment with the drug agency, was knocked unconscious by the blast. She was covered with debris and heard the faint cries of Vernon Buster, an inspector with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms who had been blown through a wall. She dug out Buster and removed a piece of metal from his left arm. Even though she had head and shoulder injuries she guided Buster down a stairway and dragged injured Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms inspector Jim Staggs into the street. She returned to look for others. Bonny was later diagnosed with irreparable nerve damage, brain injury, and hand and shoulder wounds. Campbell, Hill and Ramsey were rescuing people from the building when they were ordered to leave because of a threat of a second bomb. Hill saw two women trapped on the seventh floor and the three officers made their way to the women, put together a metal bridge and pulled the women to safety. The bomb threat was false. ''I lost my best friend that day. It was such a tragedy,'' Ramsey said. [end of article] >From the "Daily Oklahoman" 'Wacky Theories' Unfair, McVeigh Attorney Says 10/29/1996 By Nolan Clay and Penny Owen, Staff Writers The lead attorney for bombing defendant Timothy McVeigh complained Monday after a prosecutor described defense claims as ''wacky theories.'' ''It's a violation of the judge's order,'' attorney Stephen Jones said Monday from his law office in Enid. ''It's a comment on the strength of the case and it's a comment on the evidence.'' The defense attorney also was upset with a private meeting held by prosecutors with about 200 victims Sunday in Oklahoma City. The nine prosecutors held another meeting Monday night with more than 100 victims. Jones' complaints received widespread attention because he first made them on a national morning news program, the ''Today'' show on NBC. After both meetings, many victims said they had more confidence in the evidence against McVeigh and a second defendant, Terry Nichols. ''We know what's going on now and that they're there for us,'' Pamela Weber-Fore said of the prosecutors. She was displaced from her home in the Regency Tower Apartments for a time because of the bombing. Lead prosecutor Joseph Hartzler made his ''wacky theories'' comment Sunday in response to an observation from a reporter forThe Oklahoman. The reporter noted that some victims said prosecutors had addressed victims' concerns about ''all this stuff from Mr. Jones about Iran and Iraq and foreign terrorists.'' ''Right,'' Hartzler replied Sunday. ''I think that (prosecutor) Beth Wilkinson spoke to that. ... Her point was that: We have an obligation to investigate everything. And if we find some rumor or whatever it is, it makes it into an FBI report. ''Because we're giving unprecedented amounts of discovery in this case, the defense then gets that allegation and they can make out of it whatever they want -- even though they may only use one portion from the report to try to make something out of it. If you read the whole report, it would show that there's nothing to it. ''So to that extent,'' he said, ''I think that we were able to -- I hope - -- lay to rest some of the claims of some of what I characterize as the wacky theories.'' McVeigh's defense attorney complained that the comment violated U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch's June 13 order limiting what attorneys can say to news reporters. ''The prohibition on commenting on the strength or weakness of the case was something that Mr. Hartzler himself asked the judge to add.'' Jones said. He complained that prosecutors apparently discussed evidence during the private meeting -- also in violation of the judge's order. ''I don't have a problem with them meeting with victims. There are a number of things the victims are entitled to know: closed-circuit television arrangements, the seating arrangements, whether they will be witnesses or not,'' Jones said. ''But this wasn't a meeting. This was a pep rally in which they're using these victims as surrogates to go out and contaminate the jury pool,'' he said. Prosecutors Monday denied violating the judge's order. They said they stuck to information already in the public record in their discussions with victims and reporters. ''Nothing that was said in these meetings, I believe, or otherwise, was in any way a violation of the protective order, '' Hartzler said Monday. ''We talked about defense theories and things that we have explained that our discovery information does not give them any basis,'' Hartzler said. Hartzler said prosecutors ''discussed and disposed of some of the more bizarre theories'' during the meetings. Justice Department spokeswoman Leesa Brown told The Oklahoman that nothing was said during or after the meeting that hasn't been discussed in public legal briefs or during hearings. Defense claims have not been labeled wacky in legal briefs, but prosecutors have called them meritless and speculation ''without any credible support.'' At a hearing in April, prosecutor Wilkinson told the judge one of Jones' theories ''might make an interesting Oliver Stone movie.'' McVeigh, 28, and Nichols, 41, are accused of blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City with a fertilizer bomb. The explosion last year resulted in 168 deaths. McVeigh's defense attorneys have questioned whether foreign terrorists were behind the attack. Jones has told the judge the defense is looking especially into a report that the bombers were seven former Afghani freedom fighters hired by the Iraqi Special Services. On Friday, the judge ordered separate trials in the case. The case was moved to Denver in February after the judge decided the two men could not get a fair jury in Oklahoma. Victims Sunday and Monday praised prosecutors. ''I just got a better feeling about what's going on,'' said Bud Welch, whose daughter, Julie Welch, 23, died in the attack. ''The prosecution assured us that there was no evidence that was suppressed. We really didn't know that,'' he said Monday. During the private meetings, prosecutors discussed holding teleconferences with victims during the trials. Those at the meetings said they also learned there would be greeters at the airport for victims going to Denver to watch the trials and ''safe havens'' for them to stay at during the trials. [end of article] ************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kevin Stackhouse Subject: End Subscription Date: 30 Oct 1996 16:43:57 -0800 End Subscription - ROC Digest ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Army urban training , SugarLand Texas Date: 30 Oct 1996 17:47:53 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 10:30 PM 10/29/1996 Hard landing by Army copter hurts 2 Copyright 1996 Houston Chronicle An Army Special Operations Command helicopter being used for urban military training "hard-landed"near Sugar Land Tuesday night, injuring the pilot. Sugar Land police said the helicopter landed about 7:15 p.m. near Flanigan Road, close to the intersection of U.S. 90A and Texas 6, just southwest of Sugar Land. Police did not know what caused the accident, but an Army official said the aircraft had rolled over on its side after the hard landing. Police said the pilot, 28, was flown by helicopter to Hermann Hospital, where he was listed in good condition Tuesday night. Police reported that a second person was hurt, but that could not be confirmed Tuesday night. The landing occurred on property owned by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, police said. The Sugar Land Municipal Airport is less than a mile north of Flanigan Road, but it was not known if the airport was being used to stage the training exercise. The maneuvers were canceled for the rest of the night, police said. The military operations are scheduled to be conducted in the Houston area until Nov. 6. Houston Police Chief Sam Nuchia said in a press conference before the accident that the exercises began Monday, but his department had not notified citizens. "This is a necessary Army practice," Nuchia said. "There's no danger to the public." The forces will be practicing with helicopters, small arms fire and explosives in vacant buildings near downtown, the Houston Ship Channel and Sugar Land. All of the test facilities are several blocks from residential areas, and police will block traffic into or near the sites during each exercise. Most are scheduled between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. ************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: End Subscription Date: 30 Oct 1996 20:51:12 -0700 >--------------------------------------------------- >End Subscription - ROC Digest >--------------------------------------------------- you need to send unsubscrobe roc-digest to majordomo@xmission.com ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Electoral College article Date: 30 Oct 1996 22:57:30 -0600 At 11:15 PM 10/30/96 -0500, wbg@hevanet.com wrote: >The other day I posted a reference to an article in the November >_Discover_ magazine explaining why the Electoral College is still a good >idea and shouldn't be scrapped. I've had some requests for the article, >but do not have scanner capability. So here's what I'll do - if you'll >observe the following instructions, I'll send you a copy - do not ask me >to fold it into a number 10 envelope :-) No need, at least for those with Web access. The article can be found at: http://www.dc.enews.com/magazines/discover/magtxt/110196-1.html There you go, enjoy. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: The Winning Tactic Date: 30 Oct 1996 14:31:10 PST Try this one on your Liberal "friends". If they win re-election, what with all the scandals, foreign Campaign contributions, E. Timur Genocide, and all that, neither Clinton or Gore are likely to survive Impeachment Procedings. That means that the Speaker Of The House will be the new President. A Vote for Clinton is a Vote for President Gingrich! -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: The Winning Tactic Date: 31 Oct 1996 05:48:35 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Bill Vance wrote: > Try this one on your Liberal "friends". > > If they win re-election, what with all the scandals, foreign Campaign > contributions, E. Timur Genocide, and all that, neither Clinton or Gore are > likely to survive Impeachment Procedings. > > That means that the Speaker Of The House will be the new President. > > A Vote for Clinton is a Vote for President Gingrich! Or Gephardt? I guess the political gurus are mostly predicting that this won't happen, but politics are weird enough around me in Tennessee this year that I wouldn't count this possibility out. bd P.S. Ben Stein had a good Op-Ed in the 10/30/96 WSJ theorizing about what life might be like if Bill decides not to leave. > > -- > An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep > weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your > hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder > on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Better version of The Federalist Date: 31 Oct 1996 07:23:00 -0500 >From: "Jon Roland" >Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 23:12:12 -0700 >To: jdr@crl.com >Subject: Better version of The Federalist > >The most complete and accurate version of The Federalist Papers has now >been added to the Constitution Society WWW site. This version includes >all known variants in passages that appeared in various publications >during 1787 and 1788, and replicates the original usage of italics and >all-upper-case for emphasis, and the special characters used in foreign >words. > >We have also tagged the paragraphs so that links can be made to >particular paragraphs. The format is federann.htm#Pp, where nn is the >number of the Federalist Paper and p is the paragraph number, preceded >by the capital "P", to distinguish it from the author's footnotes, >indicated by just a number, and the editor's footnotes, indicated by a >number preceded by the capital "E". We use this for the Idea Index still >under construction, which will ultimately link The Federalist Papers to >key ideas and to the Constitution and Madison's Notes on the Debates in >the Federal Convention, which is currently being converted to HTML. >Eventually, we plan to put online all known documents relevant to >interpreting the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution. >The internal links are designed to enable others to develop their own >links to these documents, such as our Idea Index, to help people >explore the ideas and the relevant passages that discuss them. We will >also continue to expand our collection of constitutional commentaries, >court decisions, and other relevant materials. > >The text version of The Federalist is temporarily absent while we >finish editing it as well, to bring it into line with the HTML version. > >We would appreciate reports on any errors you may discover, and your >comments and suggestions for further development. > >--Jon > >-- >======================================================================= >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916-450-7941 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@the-spa.com >======================================================================= > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: The Winning Tactic Date: 31 Oct 1996 07:25:18 -0500 At 05:48 AM 10/31/96 -0500, you wrote: > > >On Wed, 30 Oct 1996, Bill Vance wrote: > >> Try this one on your Liberal "friends". >> >> If they win re-election, what with all the scandals, foreign Campaign >> contributions, E. Timur Genocide, and all that, neither Clinton or Gore are >> likely to survive Impeachment Procedings. >> >> That means that the Speaker Of The House will be the new President. >> >> A Vote for Clinton is a Vote for President Gingrich! > >Or Gephardt? > >I guess the political gurus are mostly predicting that this won't happen, >but politics are weird enough around me in Tennessee this year that I >wouldn't count this possibility out. > >bd > >P.S. Ben Stein had a good Op-Ed in the 10/30/96 WSJ theorizing about what >life might be like if Bill decides not to leave. > This I'd like to see, anybody have it in E form? Thanks Tom > >> >> -- >> An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep >> weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your >> hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder >> on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. >> > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: C-NEWS: Project 21 on CCRI (fwd) Date: 31 Oct 1996 07:51:59 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Project 21 News **Members of African-American Group Support End of Racial Preferences California Civil Rights Initiative Defended; Endorsed by California Members, Including a Former Black Panther Date of Issue: October 29, 1996 General Information Contact: Arturo Silva, 202/543-1286 or Proj21@aol.com Diversity should be achieved through non-discriminatory outreach efforts, not preferences or quotas for special groups, says the African-American leadership group Project 21. Project 21's California members say that the California Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) seeks to achieve this goal by prohibiting the state from using race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to determine who should be favored or discriminated against by the state with respect to public employment, public education or public contracting. "The arguments made by many minorities for maintaining racial preferences show a complete lack of confidence in their abilities," says Project 21 member James Coleman, a former Black Panther, who participated in a debate on the topic at Southwest College in Los Angeles last week. "It is as if no black person has ever achieved anything without the help of government. I get the feeling that the whole future of the black race is dependent upon state-based racial policies when I talk to opponents of Proposition 209. " Coleman, a California resident, has been involved in the struggle for civil rights all his life. He attended the 1963 "I Have a Dream" Civil Rights March in Washington at the age of ten and participated in protests at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, later becoming a conservative. "Opponents of Proposition 209 are suffering from a superiority complex," says Project 21 member C. Mason Weaver, a California resident and businessman. "They honestly believe they are superior to 'minorities' but because of their kindness they want to make sure they don't abuse their superiority. If they had their way, I would be placed on the Endangered Species list, captured and tagged. I would be preserved in a zoo somewhere, taken care of, and provided for." Critics of Proposition 209 have charged that passage would allow discrimination against women because of a clause that includes an exception that allows the state to take gender into account in certain circumstances. For instance, male prison guards would not be allowed to conduct body searches of female prisoners. Proponents of Proposition 209 counter this argument by saying that this same prohibition appears in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and that it has no effect on the equal protection clauses of the California State Constitution. "I fully support the goals of the California Civil Rights Initiative," says Project 21 member Jesse Peterson, President of the Los Angeles-based Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny. "Quota-based affirmative action is now and has always been a racist, destructive policy. Proposition 209 is designed to eliminate quota-based programs, not positive affirmative action programs." A recent Los Angeles Times poll showed Californians support Proposition 209 by a margin of 54 to 31%. Due to the popularity of the initiative, opponents have sought to diminish its popularity by attacking its most prominent supporters. Ward Connerly, a black Sacramento businessman and University of California regent who has led the crusade to pass Proposition 209, has been attacked by a California State Senator, who claimed Connerly is "lacking ethnic pride" and "wanting to be white." Former Communist Party candidate and professor Angela Davis encouraged students in her class to harass Mr. Connerly. Connerly has also received numerous death threats. Project 21 is a leadership group that promotes the views of African-Americans not traditionally represented by the leaders of the civil rights establishment. For an interview with a Project 21 member, contact Arturo Silva at 202/543-1286 or Proj21@aol.com. -30- (A publication of Project 21, a project of The National Center for Public Policy Research, 300 Eye St. NE #3 Washington, DC 20002 (202) 543-1286; Fax (202) 543-4779; E-Mail NCPPR@AOL.com; Web http://www.nationalcenter.inter.net.) ### ------- To unsubscribe from c-news, send the message UNSUBSCRIBE c-news to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact owner-c-news@world.std.com with questions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Chuck Hayes Versus Bill Clinton (fwd) Date: 31 Oct 1996 07:54:28 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- jw-rh@ix.netcom.com, bigred@duracef.shout.net, jlavis@communique.net, liberty@gate.net, vikbob@halcyon.com, rwb@daka.com, cato@cato.org, akimery@citizen.infi.net, pwatson@utdallas.edu, garb@ix.netcom.com, maddog6@flex.net, edb@interport.com, wdmann@ix.netcom.com, germanic@netcom.com, eric@remailer.net, sandfort@crl.com, loboazul@icsi.net, bdolan@use.usit.net, fathom9@aol.com, defraud@tpi.net, L.L.Grabbe@theol.hull.ac.uk, JMcCorm215@aol.com, jdtabor.uncc@uncc.campus.mci.net, zns@interserv.com, tbyfield@panix.com, drdean@bio.win.net, rpedraza@sierra.net, kalliste@aci.net Chuck Hayes Versus Bill Clinton by J. Orlin Grabbe I had been out of state and only checked my answering machine from time to time. When I got back to Reno, I hit the button. There was a message from Sherman Skolnick. Robert Strauss, a well-known Democrat and head of a large law firm, had called him three times. Strauss was threatening to have Sherman arrested the next day, Monday. "Has Strauss called you?" Sherman wanted to know, when I returned the call. "No," I said. "He hasn't threatened you?" Sherman asked. "No, but if he did, I would tell him to go fuck himself," I replied. Sherman had reported that Robert Strauss had lead a delegation to the White House asking Bill Clinton to resign. I had also reported the same meeting, albeit in deliberately abbreviated form. I rarely paid any attention to Skolnick, because most of his reporting was such a mixture of truth and error, it would take more effort to separate the two than to simply conduct ones own investigation of the facts. But his account of the Strauss meeting was quite accurate. "Strauss was there, right?" Sherman seemed unsure of his sources. "Or maybe there by teleconference?" "He was there, Sherman. He broke the ashtray just like you said," I replied. I didn't tell Sherman the rest of the exchange, the part he didn't know. Clinton had told Strauss he could call the guards and have Strauss thrown out of the White House. Strauss lost his temper: "You do, and I'll break your fucking neck before they get here," he told Clinton. Two other people at the meeting stood up: "And we'll help him," they said. (There were all sorts of false reports about the meeting. John Glenn was there, but only electronically. Ted Kennedy was not present.) I told Sherman that Strauss was just blowing smoke, and even though Strauss was a hot-head, I doubted Strauss would do anything. Strauss had no legal basis for doing so: Sherman's report was accurate. And I had no reason to get involved: Strauss was doing the right thing with respect to Bill Clinton, even if he was angry Skolnick had reported the meeting. Strauss was not the villain in the story. Bill Clinton was. On Monday, August 5, shortly after the Strauss visit, Chuck Hayes had a meeting with Bill Clinton. Clinton had requested the meeting to discuss the issues Strauss had raised. Clinton and Hayes had known each other for years: Chuck Hayes had been Bill Clinton's CIA controller, after Clinton was recruited into the CIA by Cord Meyer of the London CIA station. Hayes had supervised Clinton's forays into the Soviet Union, and it was Hayes who had gotten Clinton out of not-so- infrequent trouble while Clinton served the agency. "Before I ever cross you, " Clinton once told Hayes after having had his ass redeemed, "I hope I will put a gun to my head and pull the trigger first." I talked to Hayes about the Clinton meeting while Hayes was still at the White House. He had explained to Clinton some of the evidence that had been accumulated, reinforcing what Strauss had said, and detailing numerous other projected unpleasant consequences that would accompany any decision to not resign. The timing of this meeting was early in the game, in what is now a full-scale war over Clinton's resignation. Jim Guy Tucker was singing, specifically about Mena, even while Tucker's lawyer was denying that Tucker was cooperating out of fear that Tucker would be an assassination target. Hayes, in a more practical mode, had assigned two bodyguards to watch over Tucker. In escalating the pressure on Clinton to resign, it wasn't that Hayes disliked Bill Clinton as a person. It was just that Hayes loved his country more, and wasn't going to tolerate Clinton's participation in the transformation of the U.S. into a narco-republic. It was Hayes who first alerted me to Clinton's serious cocaine habit. In the mid- 80s, in Hayes' assessment, sure, Clinton would use coke at parties, but it wasn't a daily problem. But now, Hayes said, the coke was in control. And what Hayes claimed to me about the seriousness of Clinton's cocaine habit, was confirmed both by a White House source and by personnel at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Clinton was doing "five plus" lines of coke a day. That simply meant that five lines was the *minimum* usage. And it was Hayes and an associated group of computer hackers calling themselves the "Fifth Column" that was providing much of the financial and banking evidence that Kenneth Starr needed to nail Bill Clinton to the wall. This included downloading the entire White House "Big Brother" data base (WHODB), complete with its 2045 FBI files. (The Lippo computer was also connected to the Big Brother system. Does this imply the Lippo computer was also downloaded? I would advise Mr. James Riady to choose sides carefully.) Then Dick Morris resigned and began cooperating with the Special Prosecutor. Clinton was panicked. Dick Morris knew more about Clinton's illegal financial affairs than anyone since Vince Foster (who had conveniently died). Clinton wanted to meet again with Hayes to discuss things. They agreed to a time and place. But then Clinton cancelled at the last minute, and sent a jet to pick up Hayes to take him to the new rendevous location. Hayes refused to board the plane. They finally met at an airstrip in Kentucky. Clinton had an entourage that included Leon Panetta and George Stephanopolous. Other witnesses to this meeting include the Air Force Major who tried to intercept Hayes as he approached the Presidential jet, and the member of the Kentucky State Police who acted as Hayes' bodyguard. Hayes and Clinton had a private conversation in a motel room near the airfield. Hayes began by presenting Clinton with a copy of one of my Internet posts and an article from Barron's ("Federal agency attacked as dispenser of corporate welfare," by Jim McTague, September 16, 1996). The latter article gave context to a lot of computer-generated information. "Clinton's face turned whiter the more he read," according to Hayes. Their actual conversation is confidential. But one incident that happened afterwards is not. A FEMA group showed up to talk to Hayes. Clinton recognized them. "Did you tell them you were going to be here?" Clinton asked. "No," Hayes replied. "Do you talk to them?" "Daily." "How serious are they?" Clinton wanted to know. "Deadly." Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton had got it into her head that the Clinton's problems could be made to disappear. First of all, Dick Morris--like Vince Foster-- knew too much. She had conversations with an obscure group at the National Security Agency known as I3. She discussed details of a plan to murder Dick Morris. They also planned, provided the Dick Morris hit was successful, the assassination of Chuck Hayes. But word got out about the I3 plans. The men were arrested and interrogated. Hillary's next action (see "The Dickheads Are Getting Desperate") was to send sixteen FBI and Secret Service personnel down to Kentucky to make inquiries whether there was "some way to get to that son-of-a- bitch," meaning Chuck Hayes. And, ultimately, they found the ammunition they needed: 1) a local U.S. attorney who was representing the Justice Department in its attempt to quash all evidence with respect to the theft of the PROMIS software; 2) Hayes' ex-wife and one of his sons, who were involved with Hayes in an inheritance dispute; and 3) a lying FBI, eager to deflect attention from Fifth Column evidence of FBI involvement in drug-dealing. (To Be Continued) October 30, 1996 Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Questions for the Army RE: Army urban training, SugarLand Texas Date: 31 Oct 1996 12:06:46 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ----- Begin Included Message ----- Questions for the Army: "This is a necessary Army practice," Nuchia said. "There's no danger to the public." ________________________________________ History has demonstrated that statements of each and every public relations official, and most Politicians, have been bogus and extremely unreliable. REMINDERS: 6/13/95 Chicago Sun Times- "Top-Secret Strafing wake whole suburb" Desplains and Lemont, Ill. ___________________ 6/6/96 Washington Times--- Pittsburg---"Military Exercizes Terrorize Civilian Population" QUESTIONS TO THE ARMY: 1) Exactly what are the reasons for the Army to subject the citizens of a community to a "4-hour rein of terror?" 2) What valid reasons, acceptable to the citizen, have the Army for totally disrupting a community, terrorizing the citizens, and subjecting them to serious danger of injury from low flying aircraft and the detonation of explosives? Practice for what? The thought must occur to thinking citizens that the Army and the Administration had "better come clean" with acceptable dialog for the unwarranted intrusion into the State and the life of the affected community. 3) The following question demands an answer: "Is the Army in preparation to make war on each and every community thus assaulted?" 4) It is sheer nonsense that no danger exists to the public for it has be shown conclusively that there is a significant danger to Army personnel operating the aircraft as well as a significant hazard to citizens underneath the operation of low flying aircraft unlawfully flying below the regulation ceiling. Why is not the Army not utilizing government property for these experiments? 5) There is an immediate danger from falling, malfunctioning helicopters, there is a constant danger from inept personnel being "TRAINED" in the use of explosives. The occurrence of mishaps to citizens, is particularly likely as a result of the unauthorized military presence, and the unauthorized use of explosives in a civilian community. 6) It is unlawful to fly UNMARKED aircraft in the United States at ANY altitude and particularly at extremely low altitudes over civilian populations. Army: Why do you fly unmarked aircraft, are you an enemy? 7) The use of explosives are forbidden in almost every community in the nation and military use of explosives has been appropriately confined to special training areas of Federal Lands named Military Reservations. Further: 8) Unmarked aircraft, "shooting," "dropping", or "exploding devices" are considered a THREAT to the civilian population and a SERIOUS ACT OF AGGRESSION by AN UNKNOWN ENEMY. Who is responsisble if a citizen is shot, maimed, or made blind by these invaders? Can one be sure of the truth in court? Has the Citizenry been so desensitized by the Gulf War, Waco, Ruby Ridge, that you're going to stand in the doorway with your cup of coffee and watch?? You've never been told anything other than "Whitewash" regarding the Army shooting-up suburban communities in the middle of the night. Most of you bought it hook, line and sinker.........but, your Congresspersons and State Representatives are in to this up to their ears , never saying a word to those they represent. Then, how can you sweep this all under the rug with all the other lies, and yet not call it a Conspiracy or EVEN CONSIDER QUESTIONING THE ACTIVITY? I can't believe what I am thinking. Gene Orrico ************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) Re: Jim Norman Re: DNC: Everything's for sale (fwd) Date: 31 Oct 1996 12:35:38 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:37:46 -0500 >To: jqp@globaldialog.com >From: James Norman >Subject: Re: Ruddy: Suspected N-dealer attended Clinton fund-raiser >> I believe violations of the National Security Act will be among >> the numerous charges contained in the pending Starr indictments. >> It is very intriguing to me that all of a sudden you see this >> gush of very troubling stories coming out.... The point is that >> this government has been for sale, and its most valuable and >> fungible product is state secrets. JN Hello, Jim Norman. Long-time no hear. More likely, our fungible government is for sale, and has been for quite some time. Farhad Azima is a prime example. He donated $29,500 to the Democratics and listed his home address as DNC headquarters. He has also proved most generous to Republicans. Azima looted several S&Ls -- and got away with it. He was a shareholder in the Mob-controlled Indian Springs State Bank in Kansas City. Iranian-born Azima did business with ex-CIA officials Theodore Shackley, Thomas Clines, and and the imprisoned Ed Wilson. He has ties to two aviation companies that flew supply drops to the contras, and he bought a jumbo jet, reportedly used to fly arms to Iran, with a loan from a now-defunct Tulsa, Oklahoma bank that at the time was very well-connected to the Reagan administration, including the office of Vice President George Bush. The bank, Utica National Bank, loaned Azima millions. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records show Utica National Bank gave Azima a loan (among many he received) for a Boeing 707 that was reportedly used to fly arms to Iran. The loan was made in October 1985 to Aviation Leasing Group, Inc. (ALG), a company Azima controlled since the early '80s. Azima leased the plane to his brother, Farzin, who was doing business as Race Aviation. According to published reports, a Boeing 707 belonging to Race Aviation flew 23 tons of arms, including TOW anti-tank missiles, to Iran via Spain and Yugoslavia in July 1986. >From Reagan to Bush to Clinton, the corruption flows seamlessly among a few shadowy figures connected to U.S. intelligence and the Oval Office. Larry $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ The CIA cocaine smuggling on behalf of the Contras through Mena, Arkansas corrupted the Presidencies of Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. For details, see: ftp://pencil.cs.missouri.edu/pub/mena/ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) Today ma butter knife! Tomorrow....? (fwd) Date: 31 Oct 1996 12:36:48 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Corpus Christi, Texas A seventh grader caught at school with a knife she used to slice apples has been suspended for two weeks and must finish the semester at a disciplinary school. Officials at Flour Bluff Junior High said the punishment of 12 year old Bianca Felix was justified because she was carrying a weapon on campus in violation of state law. But Bianca's parents who are appealing the suspension said school officials overreacted. "It was a butter knife, not a weapon", said Bianca's stepfather Les Howitt. "She is just a little girl. She didn't know any better." Bianca says she takes an apple to the bus stop each morning as her breakfast, slices it with what she describes as a butter knife, then puts the knife in her purse and goes to school. A student saw the handle of the knife sticking out of her pruse, she said and reported it to school officials. School board president Dan Thornton said even if Bianca meant no harm with the knife, another student could have taken it and hurt someone. "It is against state law for a student to take a knife on school premises", he said. "It is also against our policy. Our policy calls for expulsion. I think she gotr off easy." School officials suspended Bianca for two weeks after whcich she must complete the semester at an alternative school for children with discipline problems. Bianca's mother, Elena Howitt, said her daughter is being treated like a criminal. "It concerns me that she is going to be put into that school. It puts her in a different category," Mrs. Howitt was quoted as saying in Monday's , COrpus Christi Caller-Times. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) TWA 800: Crash Site 2B Destroyed (fwd) Date: 31 Oct 1996 12:37:53 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *** TWA crash investigators to scrape ocean floor 10/28/96 NEW YORK (Reuter) After more than three months searching for clues to the TWA Flight 800 crash, investigators said Monday they will scrape up the underwater crash site in hopes of finding the key to the disaster. The decision to trawl the ocean bottom marks a turning point in the investigation because the process is expected to irretrievably damage the crash site. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=399616-0e4 IAN: Oh gee, looks like we're just going to have to destroy another govt crime scene. Waco crime scene: burned, pushed into fire, crushed, dug up and buried. OK crime scene: destroyed, carted off and buried. TWA 800: 156 people see a missile hit the plane and report military maneuvers in the area. What are they going to do with this crime scene? Golly gee, let me guess, aaah: they're gonna destroy the site? Well I'll be a monkey's uncle, what do you know, they're gonna destroy the site! How'd I figure that out?? I must be psychic, or perhaps the FBI just easier to read than a newspaper horoscope. ************************************************************************ IAN GODDARD Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________________ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: Jim Norman Re: DNC: Everything's for sale (fwd) Date: 31 Oct 1996 12:16:50 -0900 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Larry-Jennie > Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:21:41 -0800 > >Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 08:37:46 -0500 > >To: jqp@globaldialog.com > >From: James Norman > >Subject: Re: Ruddy: Suspected N-dealer attended Clinton fund-raiser > > >> I believe violations of the National Security Act will be among > >> the numerous charges contained in the pending Starr indictments. > >> It is very intriguing to me that all of a sudden you see this > >> gush of very troubling stories coming out.... The point is that > >> this government has been for sale, and its most valuable and > >> fungible product is state secrets. JN > > Hello, Jim Norman. Long-time no hear. > > More likely, our fungible government is for sale, and has been for quite > some time. Generally speaking, politics is the sales/auction mechanism for government power. Every government power is for sale. The price may be in votes, it may be in political favors, it may be in money to the gov or individuals in the gov. Every dollar we allow a government to spend represents a parcel of power, to be traded for something that some government offical wants. No reform will stop this. The only way to stop it is to radically reduce the size of gov. At some point, gov could be small enough that I wouldn't much care how corrupt it was. Lew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dgilbow@olympus.net (Delbert Gilbow) Subject: Re: (fwd) Today ma butter knife! Tomorrow....? (fwd) Date: 31 Oct 1996 19:38:07 -0800 (PST) >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Survivor >Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:04:44 -0800 > >Corpus Christi, Texas > >A seventh grader caught at school with a knife she used to slice apples has been >suspended for two weeks and must finish the semester at a disciplinary school. Keerist, what in hell has happened to common sense in this country. Screw the bastards. A butter knife for hell's sake??????????????????????????????