From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 Jun 1997 02:12:13 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: piml] Help! (fwd) Date: 01 Jun 1997 13:53:41 PST On Jun 01, by way of Bill Utterback wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] =20 Folks, these people are going to be killed unless we do something to stop it, so, I am asking all of you to start calling and e-mailing any and everyone that could try and stop the killing before it takes place. I have been busy calling and e-mailing members of Congress and the Senate and everyone else that I could think of.=20 Together with 8 other people we met with the Sweeneys today and they are for real. Leroy Crenshaw 1-413-783-0101 Leroy@ix.netcom.com ____________________________________________________________________________= ___ To all who are concerned. . . . . .we need your help. At 12:01AM, Tuesday June 3, 1997 a U.S. Marshal siege will begin on our home in Hamilton, Massachusetts. The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) have instructed their lawyers to send in U. S. Marshals to seize our home and property, seeking to gain possesion through fraud. WE ARE NOT GOING TO LEAVE OUR HOME OR RELINQUISH OUR RIGHTS. We are the victims of a crime committed by a lawyer who stole our= court documents and as a result of his intentional actions we are facing the loss of our home and property. HERE ARE THE FACTS: All of which are on the INTERNET at our World Wide Web site Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on link "U. S. Federal Marshals") We have lived in Hamilton since 1965 and our family before that for several generations. Consider the following: Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click family history and photos.) 1. In August of 1987 we entered into commercial loan agreements with the= ComFed Savings Bank of Lowell, Massachusetts to finance the development of our home and 14 acres of land. When the bank violated their own rules, state laws, federal regulations, and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, we filed claims against the bank for "unfair and deceptive trade practices." The bank LOST the case. 2. We won a $4 million dollar state court judgment against the Massachusetts bank and it=92s subsidiaries because it committed =94Unfair= and Deceptive Trade Practices=94 against us. The 45 page state court judgment paid back our loan in full and awarded us further damages because of the harm we had suffered from the bank=92s unfair actions. Incredibly, the bank lawyer, John Hanify of Hanify & King secretly removed= this judgment from the state court and concealed it in his own law office for 28 days, never notifying our lawyers that we had won the case. Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on state court) 3. It is now known from verified court documents that the bank admitted ComFed had been run as a criminal enterprise by bank officers, directors, accountants, lawyers, and appraisers costing the taxpayers a three (3) billion dollar loss. NOTE: ComFed was also represented by the same John Hanify of Hanify & King who the government later hired to represent them in a =93clear conflict of interest=94 which we have reported to both Congress and the FBI. Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on ComFed Civil Action 90-6712) Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on U. S. Senate Rhetta B. Sweeney testimony before Senator Cohen) We have in good faith taken on the role of =93whistleblowers=94 with the U. S. Congress, exposing our personal knowledge of the multi-billion dollar fraud ring. As a result, individuals acting as government agents -- some whom have been directly involved with the wrong doing against us =96 are now brutally punishing us covering up their own wrong doing. Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on U. S. Senate) Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on U. S. House) 4. FDIC/RTC (Resolution Trust Corporation) lawyers have spent an excess of $1 million dollars of taxpayer money over the last seven years attempting to conceal our state court judgment and have seized our property. The federal banking agencies, who were supposed to regulate the bank and protect us as consumers, have at all times known of the fraud we suffered from the actions of the individuals who ran the bank as a criminal enterprise. Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on FOIA) 5. Rhetta has testified and documented for THREE (3) U. S. CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES =96 ( U. S. Senate Oversight -- U. S. Senate Banking -- U. S. House Small Business) -- the fraud and abuse committed by the bank and the subsequent cover up by the federal banking agencies. After three Congressional= Committees investigated and held public hearings, the Congressional record is clear that the we suffered from the wrong doing of both the bank and the federal banking agencies. Although members of Congress have requested that agencies correct the wrong doing suffered by us, the federal bureaucrats have refused and stonewalled. Go to http://www.qui-tam.com (click on Quotes) Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on U. S. Senate) Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on U. S. House) 6. Recent FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) has now detailed that the bank lawyer who had secretly removed and concealed our state court judgment, acted without authority and never had the required Legal Service Agreement with the government agency. There is also further evidence that the U. S. FEDERAL JUDGE in Boston, MA who has aided and abetted the government lawyer=92s cover up of our state court judgment for =93Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices,=94 is personally connected with the bank lawyer. The federal judge refuses to remove himself from our action despite his direct insider connection with the government lawyer and his family. NOW the federal judge, Edward F. Harrington, has recently issued orders authorizing Federal Marshal action to physically remove us from our home. NOTE: This judge has taken it upon himself to= supersede state law and for the first time is now writing his own rules in an unprecedented eviction action in federal court. WHY? Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on FDIC link) Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on JudiciaryU. S. Senate ) Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on Federal Court) 7. When ComFed failed, the U. S. Federal Banking agencies and the U. S.= Federal Courts, COVERED UP and DISMISSED the bank=92s own racketeering action= against directors, officers, accountants, lawyers, and appraisers who ran the bank as a criminal enterprise---- THE SAME BANK OFFICERS WHO THE STATE COURT JUDGE HAD FOUND COMMITTED =93UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AGAINST US.=94 Judge Skinner dismissed the bank=92s action in federal court, Judge= Harrington has expunged and kept our original state court judgment under seal, and the federal agencies will give no explanation as to why. Go To: http://www/qui-tam.com (click on Judge Skinner link) Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on ComFed 90-6712) Go To: http://www.qui-tam.com (click on State court, Izzo Judgment= $4,000,000) The FDIC and their lawyers will not admit to any wrongdoing and have refused to acknowledge all of the court and legislative documents that we= have presented to them. They now want to evict us and we have no choice but to stand up and face down this injustice. WE WILL NOT LEAVE OUR HOME OR RELINQUISH OUR RIGHTS and we ask for your help and prayers. John & Rhetta Sweeney 24 Meyer Lane Hamilton, MA 01982 508-468-1536 fax 508-468-4428 (fax) [------------------------- 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: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: American Policy Center (fwd) Date: 02 Jun 1997 07:58:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- American Policy Center http://www.americanpolicy.com =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 Another Clinton Land Grab Bill Clinton has found a new way to take your=20 land ... by water. President Clinton has launched an aquatic assault on=20 the American people with the American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI). = =20 By presidential proclamation, ten rivers will be nominated in 1997 to=20 receive =93special attention from the federal government.=94 What kind of= =20 special federal attention? AHRI: =B7 gains control of rivers in order to=20 preserve =93natural, historic, cultural, social, economic, and ecological= =20 diversity=94; =B7 assigns a =93River Navigator=94 to control all federal services=20 and benefits for the river; =20 =B7 allows private citizens, educational and=20 arts organizations, environmental organization, and elected officials to=20 nominate rivers for federal control; =20 =B7 includes 13 Federal Agencies in=20 the planning, implementation, management and enforcement of the program; = =20 =B7 mandates aerial photography and satellite surveillance be used to polic= e=20 and expand the program; and=20 =B7 gives Bill Clinton final approval on what=20 waters he can grab. Do not be fooled ... this has nothing to do with=20 historic preservation and everything to do with sustainable development (a= =20 code word for taking your land). In order to preserve the rivers, the land= =20 surrounding the river must be protected. In order to protect the land=20 around the river, the land around the land around the river must be=20 protected. Without opposition, AHRI goes into effect on June 9, 1997. To=20 stop this initiative, call, fax or write the White House, your Congressman,= =20 and your Senators. Protect your water as you protect your land, for there= =20 is no small battle for freedom. People and Places to contact The White=20 House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20500 Http://www.whitehouse. gov/wh/welcome.html PH (202) 456-1414 FX (202) 456-2883 Karen Hobbs,=20 Agency Representative Council on Environmental Quality Old Executive Office=20 Building, Room 360 Washington, DC 20501 PH (202) 395-7417 FX (202) 456- 6546 Congressional switchboard PH (800) 962-3524 =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 If you would like to be removed from this list visit: http://www.webforums.com/forums/g-read/msa28.154.html =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 Powered by Mediafax WEBFORUMS Copyright 1997 Mediafax Technologies, 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 To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Column, June 1 (fwd) Date: 02 Jun 1997 08:06:50 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JUNE 1, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Stilling the people's voice May 21, The New York Times: "NEW YORK -- A federal appeals court in Manhattan declared Tuesday that judges have a duty to make sure jurors do not ignore the evidence or law in a case and instead impose their own values to acquit or convict a defendant. "The ruling by the court of appeals for the second circuit offered the strongest denunciation yet by the federal courts of the practice known as 'jury nullification.' ... "Calling such an action 'a violation of a juror's sworn duty to follow the law as instructed by the court,' Judge Jose Cabranes wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel that 'trial courts have a duty to forestall or prevent such conduct,' by admonishing or even dismissing jurors from a case. ..." # # # New York: such an interesting dateline. I presume the justices, being New Yorkers, will next move to posthumously overturn the token fine in the John Peter Zenger case, digging up the body of the 18th Century New York printer and hanging the mouldering remains from the nearest lamppost so all our history books can be rewritten to report that the jury was NOT allowed any choice but to punish Zenger for printing inconvenient truths about the king. Then, given that all those northern juries were obviously wrong to refuse to bring in convictions in "runaway slave" cases in the 1850s, and given the likelihood that those slaves would have been whipped to death if returned to their Southern masters, I presume Judge Jose Cabranes and the other New York justices will now order all the descendants of those runaway slaves currently within their jurisdiction to be rounded up ... and put to death? After all, their ancestors should never have been allowed to live to bear children, since those juries "had no right to ignore the evidence or law in a case and instead impose their own values to acquit or convict a defendant," actions which constitute "a violation of a juror's sworn duty to follow the law as instructed by the court." Yes, all-white juries certainly did acquit Klansmen of lynchings in the postbellum South. Random juries are the best protection of everyone's rights -- juries neither stacked by excluding blacks, nor stacked by excluding those who disagree with the War on Drugs. Take the case in question, out of Albany: "The trial judge found a sole black juror refusing to convict because he believed the drug defendants had 'a right to deal drugs'," reports Benjamin Weiser of The Times. The black juror's assertion is plainly true, on its face. The constitution grants the government NO power to prevent consensual commerce in products which the buyer wishes to use for self-medication ... medical liberty is clearly protected by the Ninth Amendment, and no law passed in violation of that or any other part of the Bill of Rights can be held to EVER have been valid (under the wise precedent of Marbury vs. Madison.) Yet the trial judge -- who is MORE responsible to know and defend the Constitution than the average juror -- fired the recalcitrant juror, and allowed the remaining jurors to convict under the unconstitutional statute, 11-0. The appeals court now orders a new trial ... a similar result to the proper original finding of a hung jury. Good. But what will this arrogant judge try the next time: stationing 12 armed bailiffs, one behind each chair in the jury room, noisily loading and cocking their revolvers whenever anyone appears ready to vote "Not guilty?" (One of my correspondents -- it may have been the esteemed J.T., of Maryland -- reminds me that Alfred the Great was deemed The Great, in part, because he hanged 44 judges for depriving citizens of their jury rights. One judge of that distant era, frustrated to find a jury locked 9-3, dismissed the three holdout jurors, and appointed three new jurors who would vote for conviction, at which point the prisoner was hanged. When King Alfred learned of this, he saw to it "that the judge gained a first-hand appreciation of the prisoner's experience.") The segment of the American populace who should be most concerned about the arrogant, elitist trend reflected by this New York appeals court ruling should be police officers. So far, when advising an armed suspect to "Give it up, and I'll see you get a jury trial," the average cop has had a fair chance of success. But once the average suspect realizes that government-salaried judges now can and will remove any juror who votes to acquit -- or who admits under questioning that he might favor a defendant's view of the law over the government's -- that suspect is far more likely to figure "I'm dead anyway, and I might as well take one lying government bureaucrat with me." When those cops start dying, I hope the memorial wreaths will be laid on the doorsteps of jury-hating Judges Jose Cabranes, Edward Lumbard, and Joseph McLaughlin, of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: This land is her land Date: 02 Jun 1997 08:39:21 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- EDITORIAL (The Washington Times, May 30, 1997) This land is her land Environmentalists hoping to outlast the legal claims of an elderly woman whose land they had taken, in effect, got some bad news this week. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the administrative ploy they used to delay her day in court was just that -- a ploy. . . . . Writing for the court, Justice David Souter said Bernadine Suitum had received a "final decision" from government officials on her plan to build on property roughly a mile away from Lake Tahoe. That answer was "no." So she is now free, under the Fifth Amendment clause requiring just compensation for property the government "takes," to seek such compensation, the court held. . . . . The ruling is important not just for the half-blind, wheelchair-bound 82-year-old Mrs. Suitum but for the rest of the country. It suggests that there are limits to the stalling tactics of lawmakers and bureaucrats trying to get around the Fifth Amendment. . . . . The facts of the case are not in dispute. Mrs. Suitum and her late husband bought an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe where they hoped some day to build a home. When her husband became ill, the cost of caring for him meant they had to put their dream on hold. So it wasn't until 1989, after her husband had died, that Mrs. Suitum finally went ahead with the plans. Although her lot was in an area already subdivided and was surrounded by houses on three sides and a street on the fourth, local government officials stepped in to announce that the house was in a so-called "stream environment zone." Building there was prohibited because run-off from the property might somehow diminish the water clarity of Lake Tahoe. . . . . Rather than allow her to build on her property, they offered to allow her to sell "transferable development rights" to some other property owner, presumably one who had also been stopped from building on his property. Mrs. Suitum insisted that this option was a sham. She supplied the affidavit of a government official who argued "there is little to no value" to the transfer rights because there might be no market for them. . . . . Local government officials -- joined by the Clinton administration, seven states including, ahem, Maryland, the National League of Cities, the National Governors' Association, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and California Gov. Pete Wilson -- argued that because Mrs. Suitum had not attempted to sell the worthless development rights, she had not properly pursued an administrative remedy to its conclusion. Hence, her case was not "ripe" for court adjudication. The court disagreed and sent the case back to lower courts for consideration on its merits. . . . . Now, as has been noted in this space previously, property-rights advocates have long sought legislation to trigger a streamlined compensation process in the event of a regulatory taking. Opponents have argued that no such process is necessary; dissatisfied landowners can always go to court to seek a remedy. In the meantime, they force those same owners into an administrative maze guaranteed to prevent them from ever getting to court without costly legal guidance. . . . . Justice delayed is justice denied. It's been eight years since Mrs. Suitum sought to build the place of which she and her late husband once dreamed. How much longer, and at what cost, must she wait? Kevin McGehee North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Another taxpayer for Pete Kelly for Borough Mayor The welfare state gives new meaning to "kill them with kindness." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Column, May 28 (fwd) Date: 02 Jun 1997 08:51:04 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 28, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'They have started mounting raids to retrieve firearms' Americans who warn that gun registration leads inevitably to confiscation are usually dubbed "paranoid." In 1992, Australia enacted mandatory gun registration. In 1996, Australia proceeded to enact laws banning all semi-auto weapons of 22 caliber and larger. All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed, under a 12-month amnesty program. Noting that 7,000 United States Marines have been stationed in Australia since July 31, 1995, supposedly for training, one Australian wrote me recently, contending our Marines are there "quite probably to assist the Australian government in forceful and violent confiscation of weapons at or before the end of the amnesty period." While that fear may be overblown, I did think readers might be interested in this May 9 posting from Australian Carolyn Dillon (cdillon@mail.chariot.net.au): "Good day to you. ... I am in Australia and the amnesty is finished. Stick up for your rights now! Speaking out is easier than what we now face here. "Gun owners who did not comply with new regulations in Australia are now faced with the fact that their name is flagged on govt. computers, (and) they are liable to four years imprisonment and a fine that is about the cost of an average house. "Those with firearms licences and those who did not hand in their weapons are liable to search of person or premises without warrant. "People cannot organise because what the govt. has done is now legislated, enacted law. Therefore any attempt to communicate or organise is liable to the charge of subversion. If an individual says to another 'I would suggest that you do not hand in your firearm,' the speaker may be charged with subverting another to commit a criminal act. "They have started mounting raids to retrieve firearms and this is likely to intensify. "WHATEVER YOU GUYS DO, FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T REGISTER YOUR WEAPONS. It really is happening and it seems to be global. "U.S. brothers, watch your six. If you don't with the politicians then you will have to watch it for real against your own troopers. "Australia to America: God bless you and pray for us poor bastards down under." # # # That "global" business sounded a bit high-strung, until S.T. in Utah forwarded the following report by Elizabeth Fullerton of Reuters: "U.N. presses for action on worldwide gun control "VIENNA, May 5 (Reuter) -- Momentum is gathering for worldwide action on gun control to stem the increasing number of deaths from firearms among civilians, a U.N. crime body said on Monday. "The United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice is expected to approve a resolution this week to urge countries to impose tighter restrictions on gun ownership and export. " 'We strongly believe that effective national regulation is important to international controls, particularly on the illicit movement of small arms,' Australian commission delegate Daryl Smeaton told Reuters. ... "Smeaton said there was no plan for a legally binding convention on gun control but that the resolution looked likely to have broad support from member states, including the United States, despite pressure from the powerful gun lobby. ... " 'At this stage we understand that the U.S. will be able to support the resolution as it is drafted and that is a very, very encouraging sign,' Smeaton said." # # # Recently, I dated the start of the great witch-hunts of the 16th century to the 1486 publication of the book "Malleus Maleficarum," which I attributed to Pope Innocent IV. Let us now recall the importance of "looking it up." "Malleus Maleficarum" -- "The Hammer of Witches" -- was indeed the book that launched the massive witch hysteria. However, the book was authored by two ethically-challenged Dominicans, Heinrich Kramer and Jakob Sprenger, who inserted the 1484 bull "Summis desiderantes affectibus" (issued by Pope Innocent VIII) as a foreward to their work, creating the impression that the current Pope had fully endorsed their efforts. All three certainly share the blame for tossing aside the safeguards of the Canon Episcopi, allowing the Burning Times to begin. As to whether the instructions to Christian clerics to sensibly dismiss charges of witchcraft as so much fantasy -- the section of the church law which became known as the Canon Episcopi -- really dates from the early church counsels at Ancyra and Nicea, or were in fact inserted by the canonist Regino of Prum around 906 A.D., we may perhaps leave to another day. # # # And while I was busy getting things wrong, I recently wrote that in Nevada, concealed handgun permits are issued only for a single weapon, by serial number. A number of readers wrote in to remind me that -- gun owners having complained that they need a lighter-weight pistol during Nevada's broiling summers -- Nevada actually permits the gun owner to list (start ital)two(end ital) guns on the "carry" permit, by make and model. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Larry Becraft - Letter to Patriots (fwd) Date: 02 Jun 1997 09:21:40 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- LETTER TO PATRIOTS By Lowell Becraft, Attorney at Law My interest in the patriot movement over the years has been to oppose and ultimately defeat the looming tyranny which we all see appearing on the horizon. The federales clearly desire to establish a society, here on our shores wherein they possess absolute power over the rest of us. This objective is now infecting the bureaucrats in the states, who also appear to share this objective. The question facing us is this: Do we want for both ourselves and our children to live in a condition of slavery, or will we live in freedom? If we desire freedom, how do we achieve freedom and what is the cost? Further, what mistakes have been made and how do we avoid repeating them? It is obvious that this fight for freedom encompasses at least two approaches. First, we must garner political support for our cause and its issues, and the more people we can involve into seeking freedom will add strength to the political aspects of our movement. Secondly, many of the issues we are pursuing will be decided in the courts, and this letter addresses this aspect of the freedom movement. What are the essential ingredients for the battle in the courts? One of my favorite issues used to be the money issue, and we must all admit that this one is perhaps one of the most important. The manner in which this issue was raised in the past demonstrates very critical lessons about the way we must fight in the courts. In the 70's, concerned Americans raised this issue and butchered it. Then F. Tupper Saussy came along with his book, MIRACLE ON MAIN STREET, and got the issue into the thoughts of many These masses believed that just simply going to court and telling the judge about Article 1, =A710, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution would automatically result in the overnight destruction of the current monetary system. The below cases show precisely what was accomplished by people who meant well but who really lacked knowledge of the law and procedures in the court and spent their time and efforts in the destruction of the issue: Adverse Federal Decisions on Money Issues: United States v. Daley, 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1973)=20 Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974)=20 Koll v. Wayzata State Bank, 397 F.2d (8th Cir. 1968)=20 United States v. Gardiner, 531 F.2d 953 (9th Cir. 1976)=20 United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1976)=20 United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1976)=20 United States v. Schmitz, 542 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1976)=20 United States v. Whitesel, 543 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1976)=20 Mathes v. Commissioner, 576 F.2d 70 (5th Cir. 1978)=20 United States v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111 (8th Cir. 1978)=20 United States v. Anderson, 584 F.2d 369 (10th Cir. 1978)=20 United States v. Benson, 592 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1979)=20 Nyhus v. Commissioner, 594 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir. 1979)=20 United States v. Moon, 616 F.2d 1043 (8th Cir. 1980)=20 United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980)=20 Birkenstock v. Commissioner, 646 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1981)=20 United States v. Scott, 521 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1975)=20 United States v. Hurd, 549 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1977)=20 United States v. Hori, 470 F.Supp. 1209 (C.D.Cal. 1979)=20 United States v. Tissi, 601 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 1979)=20 United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979)=20 Adverse State Decisions on Money Issue Chermack v. Bjornson, 302 Minn. 213 N.W.2d 659 (1974)=20 Radue v. Zanaty, 293 Ala. 585, 308 So.2d 242 (1975)=20 AlIen v. Craig, 1 Kan.App.2d 301, 564 P.2d 552 (1977)=20 Dorgan v. Kouba, 274 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 1978)=20 State v. Gasser, 306 N.W.2d 205 (N.D. 1981)=20 Epperly v. Alaska, 648 P.2d 609 (Ak.App. 1982)=20 Solyom v. Maryland-National Capitol Park & Planning Commission, 452 A.2d 1283 (Md.App. 1982)=20 People v. Lawrence, 333 N.W.2d 525 (Mich.App. 1983)=20 Leitch v. Oregon Dept. of Revenue, 519 P.2d 1045 (Or.App. 1974)=20 Rush v. Casco Bank & Trust Co., 348 A.2d 237 (Me. 1975)=20 Middlebrook v. Miss. State Tax Comm., 387 So.2d 726 (Miss. 1980)=20 Trohimovich v. Dir. of Labor & Industry, 21 Wash.App. 243; 584 P.2d 467 (1978)=20 Union State Bank v. Miller, 335 N.W2d 807 (N.D. 1983)=20 Richardson v. Richardson, 332 N.W.2d 524 (Mich.App. 1983)=20 State v. Pina, 561 P.2d 43 (N.M. 1977)=20 Daniels v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 601 S.W.2d 845 (Ark. 1980)=20 When I got involved with Tupper back in 1980, I did a tremendous amount of legal research on the money issue over several years and found not only a wealth of authority then unknown to the movement which provided support for this issue, but I also found the above cases. With many adverse decisions facing us, advice to carefully plan litigation in this field went unheeded, and the money issue proponents went to court unprepared and added more defeats. About 11 years ago, I stopped adding cases to the above list, because every time I turned around, there was some "patriot" who chalked up another victory for the other side. The most knowledgeable lawyer in all of America regarding the money issue was and is Edwin Viera, but how could he and Solyom accomplish anything beneficial by raising the money issue? Due to the many adverse decisions to overcome when Viera and Solyom went to court, it was easy for the courts to look the other way and reject the issues, notwithstanding being faced with the best case ever devised. Both I and Edwin now realize that the money issue is dead in the courts. What about the issue of "wages are not income"? Bob Golden did some very good research on the wage issue and developed the argument through his book, ARE YOU REQUIRED?. The patriots read this book and started a political movement around this cause. But, we had in our ranks some very desperate people facing criminal charges and they raised this issue pro se, only to suffer defeat. Their briefs were almost impossible to understand and an excellent issue was slaughtered on the alter of stupidity. Jeff Dickstein has written the historical treatise on the issue, JUDICIAL TYRANNY, and it analyzes every case where this issue was raised. The evidence clearly shows that our cause was seriously damaged because we sat back and allowed the most ill-prepared and desperate within our midst to control an important issue. Back in 1983 and 1984, the farmers got the heat from the financial institutions and tried to fight back. Carol Landi tried to champion the cause and promoted an argument about the land patent, which, to put it very bluntly, violated every established rule of property law, most notably the rule that the feds cannot control the devolution of real property within the states. She avoided addressing this "hole" in her position and got thousands of farmers to follow her argument. To make a long story short, she ended up in jail and so did some of her followers. While lots of time, money and energy were expended in this land patent fight, nothing but tragedy resulted. Rick Elliot did the same thing with another stupid argument regarding the federal truth in lending laws. Bill Benson invested lots of his time and money, along with several others, in developing the proof that the 16th amendment was not ratified during his monumental work in 1984. While Bill was doing this, I did the legal research on the issue and developed a very powerful argument to support it. When finished, the first thing we did was raise the issue in the Janey Ferguson case in Indianapolis, where on January 15, 1985, Judge Nolan held that the issue was a political one the courts could not address. This of course was completely wrong and we prepared to go to the 7th Circuit with the argument. Most people are not aware that shortly thereafter, Bill and I went to Topeka, Kansas, and presented this issue in a state case involving the Van Skivers; in response the state dismissed its case against them. Believing that things were proceeding very good, Bill went on the road educating Americans about the issue. Lots of people were very interested in this issue, including the desperate. Thomas and Foster in Chicago were indicted in the spring of 1985 and raised this issue pro se without offering any proof or argument: they hollered, "the 16th amendment was not ratified", hoping they could ride the coattails of the Ferguson case, which was months ahead of them in the 7th Circuit. When they got to the 7th, we were already scheduled for oral argument, so they just weakly raised the issue with no evidence or argument. The 7th detected what these idiots were doing and ruled in their cases first and then used that as precedence against Ferguson; see United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Ferguson, 793 F.2d 828 (7th Cir. 1986). With friends like them, who needs enemies or the government for that matter? A very important lesson may be learned from what happened in the early 80s. The evidence plainly shows that we had lots of ill-prepared and unknowledgeable "patriots" raising our most important issues. They were slaughtered because they knew nothing about procedure or the law. Does it help us in any way to send these types of folks into the courts? Just like you don't give matches to either children or Congressmen, and you let a drunken teenager have the keys to the car, you cannot permit an untrained soldier out on the battlefield. Similarly, we cannot continue the disastrous course of letting our best issues be raised and decided by the likes of these "patriots". They alienate everyone, including the courts and the government and surely people surrounding them. To follow this course of action is just to simply waste our time and effort. Does truth have anything to do with our movement? I think so but I find little of it major areas. For example, do you remember Roger Elvick? He promoted many false beliefs, one of which was that you could file 1099's against public officials reporting that they receive income by damaging some patriot. This crazy idea landed him and several of his followers in jail and it only gave a sense of justification and self-righteousness to our opponents. What about Bob Wangrud and his "zip code" argument? Here, contrary to clearly established principles of federal jurisdiction, he promoted the FLAKY argument that if you used zip codes for your mail, that it gave the feds jurisdiction over you. What about Hartford Van Dyke and his commercial lien position? He paraded around stating that there was clear law supportive of this argument, yet I have NEVER found anything in the law even mentioning it. This LIE caused several people to go to jail for no good reason. WHY? What about some of the bad trust promoters? These guys prey upon the gullible and sell to people already in trouble a bunch of worthless papers. This is money down the drain into the pockets of con-men, such as Bob Chappell; see United States v. Chappell, 698 F.2d 308 (7th Cir. 1983), who was convicted of mail fraud and ran. But perhaps the biggest con-man was Marsh. Back in 1983, a man from Maryland started the "idea" that the IRS was this old, defunct Delaware corporation. Investigation at that time resulted in credible leaders of the movement demonstrating the utter folly of this concept. At the same time, an "idea" was floated about the movement that the "non-positive" titles of the U.S. Code were not law. I wrote an article showing this to be entirely INCORRECT and the followers of this "idea" even went to court back in 1984 and had the argument rejected, and rightly so. Marsh, however, saw "gold" in these arguments and started marketing them all over again, promoting these "ideas" to the unknowing. Because these "lies" proved popular, other con-men entered our ranks. While Marsh now languishes in jail awaiting trial, still his followers continue belief in FALSEHOOD. The "non-resident alien" "idea" is growing. Also the ranks are growing of those who follow Karl "Bacon" Granse and his regulation argument built on CTR cases. We cannot sit back and sanctimoniously ignore what is happening. We now have a vast number of people believing "LIES" who will only be destroyed by an evil enemy. The followers of the "lies" further give a bad name to the rest of us and any valid argument is quickly labeled as being another one of those "stupid tax protester ideas". Nothing is new under the sun and we perish for lack of knowledge, i.e., the "lies". I have been and remain idealistic, which is apparently a fault. I desire for the truth to prevail, but I look about this "movement" and it has become nothing more than a "cesspool" of lies and idiocy. You try to educate these people about something good and solid, and prepare them for a long and hard fight which offers a hope of something beneficial, yet they inevitably want "the easy road", the comfort and "quick fix" of following a "lie". The "road to failure" clearly appears the rut in which we find ourselves, and from it, it is impossible to extract ourselves. This movements prides itself on its knowledge of the law, yet I spent years sending out excellent briefs chocked full of case cites, yet nobody has read the cited cases. Finding fault on my part for being naive enough to think that people would go to the law library and actually look up and read the cases, I then started sending out copies of the cases themselves, hoping that eventually somebody might read them; I now KNOW that only 1 out of 1000 "patriots" will even read the cases. If the patriots claim to understand and know the law, but never read statutes and cases, I can only conclude that this claim is nothing but a lot of hot air. I cannot engage in a good conversation about the law with patriots because they really have nothing but personal opinions about the law. Frankly, I am fed up with their crazy and stupid opinions about the law. I have just about reached my limit of tolerance for this "movement". It surely is not the movement I want or desire, since "lies" are the order of the day. Do we hold ourselves out to the American public as being worthy, credible and part of a good cause? I think not and this movement will obviously be rejected by most Americans because of our association with the "lies". To prevail, we must be ready for the long hard fight and we must champion the truth. If this is not the objective of this movement, then I want no part of it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Oklahoma City Bombing Trial Date: 02 Jun 1997 14:44:53 -0500 For those of you who are interested: The jury has just found Timothy McVeigh guilty on all counts. The penalty phase of the trial begins on Wednesday. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Spotlight (fwd) Date: 02 Jun 1997 19:47:52 PST On Jun 2, Jireh wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Has a velvet hammer been brought down on an > unsuspecting public? > > EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPOTLIGHT > By Robert Treat Paine > > Can you imagine a time when chronic unemployment and seething > racial tension choked this land in its tracks or where shadowy elites made a > secret pact with incumbent politicians to put a stranglehold on democracy? > Two scholars did, nearly 20 years ago. The predictions they made in their > remarkable book, American Politics: Policies, Power & Change, have proven > shockingly accurate over time. > > > > The pair, professors Kenneth Dolbeare of the University of > Massachusetts and Murray Edelman of the University of Wisconsin, > combined in 1977 to produce a 564-page study of the health and future of the > American political system. In 22 chapters they examined every facet of our > representative democracy, from income distribution and national security to > the courts, the presidency, and the Constitution. > > In the end, they came up with four "alternative futures" that our > country might follow. > > FUTURE PATHS > > One called for a continued evolution of the era's corporate-dominated > economic and political status quo; another for a reversion to "progressive" > political reform, culminating in welfare state capitalism. A third called for a > leftist-based revolutionary uprising, with democracy giving way to either > socialism or fascism. > > The most likely future, the professors rued, was a fourth: reactionary > change culminating in "electoral fascism" and the emergence of a police state. > Judge for yourselves how perilously close we've come. Stating in 1977 that > such a condition could evolve by the early 1990s, the authors began their > forecast with the prediction that a stagnating economy would cause > unemployment to spiral and force government to cut back on services. > > The White working class and minorities would suffer the worst, the > authors suggested, inciting racial conflicts while retarding "class > consciousness"-that galvanizing awareness of who has the money and why > that is essential to undermining the tyranny of American political and > economic elites. > > Mincing no words, the authors went on to predict a future where: > "Social tensions multiply, there appear to be many severe problems but no > solutions, and no clear moral or spiritual principles seem applicable. Amid this > general social fragmentation and purposelessness, various militant > populist-type protest movements gain adherents. Some call for a general > redistribution of wealth, others for a 'return to fundamentals'; all are impatient > with the continuing claims of minorities for equal status and opportunity." > > SHADOW PACT > > Thus, they warned, the stage would be set for a covert attack on > electoral freedom: > > "Governing elites, particularly those with roots in the corporate and > financial world, grow alarmed at the obviously decaying social situations and > worsening condition of the economy. They make a private alliance, tentative > at first, either with incumbent politicians or with major popular leaders, > enabling them to remain in or rise to power on this combination of elite and > mass support." > > Worse was to come. Painting with broad and eerily incisive strokes the > scholars continued their chilling narrative: > > "A disorganized left offers little serious resistance, manifesting itself > chiefly in isolated strikes and occasional terrorism. The new government uses > the latter to justify exaggerated public attacks on minorities, the left, and all > forms of unorthodoxy and un-Americanism. Infiltration and surveillance are > used in a broad campaign of intimidation. The general public, genuinely > alarmed by the apparent reality of the alleged threat to national security, > supports vigorous repression as necessary and justifiable." > > Could the suspiciously convenient calamity of the Murrah building > bombing have been in their crystal ball? Certainly the jackbootery of today's > federal law enforcement community was. > > The authors' warning continued: > > "Swept along by the hysteria, courts and juries find the means to jail > people suspected of unorthodox actions or intentions. The Supreme Court, > staffed by the nominees of the same elites, approves (and thereby legitimates) > such uses of the police and judicial systems. The acknowledged vulnerability > of the society appears to justify far-reaching supervision and control over > behavior to prevent outbreaks." > > GLOBAL PLANTATION FORESEEN > > Underestimating the insatiable greed of the plutocrats while > overestimating their willingness to maintain domestic prosperity, the pair > continued: ". . . Established elites [proceed in] regimenting the domestic > working population, actively insisting on opportunities for American > investment and trade in various parts of the world, and employing American > military power freely on behalf of both ends." > > Accurately predicting that mainstream political opposition would > dissolve into complacency, the authors pressed their case: > > "Because of their similar perceptions of social conditions, and trends > among those in authority and among voters, few recognized political leaders > seriously dispute the propriety of existing pubic policy. Elections thus become > contests between candidates who share a commitment to repression of > dissent and promotion of the needs of the economy at practically any cost. > Regardless of the winning political party, and because of the widespread > inability to perceive any alternative to surveillance and repression, such > policies once undertaken become fixed, and can only intensify." > > Driving home their lance, the pair ended with profound foreboding: > > "In this manner-by the steady erosion of fixed standards of due process > and fair procedures, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Noah's ark in '97 (fwd) Date: 02 Jun 1997 19:45:57 PST On Jun 02, eagleflight wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 01:35:48 -0400 (EDT) >X-Sender: robertabob@pop.mindspring.com >To: eagleflt@thumb.net >From: "R. Parker" >Subject: Noah's ark in '97 > >This is so cute. You must read it. I especially liked the part about the >globe. So, take a second a laugh for a change. > >Cyndee > >>Return-Path: >>Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 19:04:40 -0400 >>From: publius >> >>> << If Noah had to build his Ark today: >>> >>> And the Lord spoke to Noah and said: "In six months I'm going to make it >>> rain until the whole earth is covered with water and all the evil people are >>> destroyed. But I want to save a few good people, and two of every kind >>> of living thing on the planet. I am ordering you to build Me an Ark." >>> >>> And in a flash of lightning he delivered the specifications for an Ark. >>> "OK," said Noah, trembling in fear and fumbling with the blueprints. >>> >>> "Six months, and it starts to rain," thundered the Lord. "You'd better >>> have my Ark completed, or learn how to swim for a very long time." >>> >>> And six months passed. The skies began to cloud up and rain began to >>> fall. The Lord saw that Noah was sitting in his front yard, weeping. And >>> there >>> was no Ark. >>> >>> "Noah," shouted the Lord, "where is my Ark?" A lightning bolt >>> crashed into the ground next to Noah. >>> >>> "Lord, please forgive me!" begged Noah. "I did my best. But there were >>> big problems. >>> >>> First, I had to get a building permit for the Ark construction >>> project, and your plans didn't meet code. So I had to hire an engineer >>> to redraw the plans. >>> >>> Then I got into a big fight over whether or not the Ark needed a fire >>> sprinkler system. My neighbors objected, claiming I was violating zoning by >>> building the Ark in my front yard, so I had to get a variance from the city >>> planning commission. >>> >>> Then I had a big problem getting enough wood for the Ark because there >>> was a ban on cutting trees to save the Spotted Owl. I had to convince U.S. >>> Fish and Wildlife that I needed the wood to save the owls. But they wouldn't >>> let me catch any owls. So no owls. >>> >>> Then the carpenters formed a union and went out on strike. I had to >>> negotiate a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board before anyone >>> would pick up a saw or a hammer. Now we have 16 carpenters going on the >>> boat, and still no owls. >>> >>> Then I started gathering up animals, and got sued by an animal rights >>> group. They objected to me taking only two of each kind. >>> >>> Just when I got the suit dismissed, EPA notified me that I couldn't complete >>> the Ark without filing an environmental impact statement on your proposed >>> flood. They didn't take kindly to the idea that they had no jurisdiction >>> over the conduct of a Supreme Being. >>> >>> Then the Army Corps of Engineers wanted a map of the proposed new flood >>> plain. I sent them a globe. >>> >>> Right now I'm still trying to resolve a complaint from the Equal Employment >>> Opportunity Commission over how many Croatians I'm supposed to hire, the IRS >>> has seized all my assets claiming I'm trying to avoid paying taxes by leaving >>> the country, and I just got a notice from the state about owing some kind >>> of use tax. >>> >>> I really don't think I can finish your Ark for at least another five years," >>> Noah wailed. >>> >>> The sky began to clear. The sun began to shine. A rainbow arched across >>> the sky. >>> >>> Noah looked up and smiled. "You mean you're not going to destroy the >>> earth?" Noah asked, hopefully. >>> >>> "No," said the Lord sadly, "Government already has." [------------------------- 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. coupled with rigid insistence on the status quo-a police > state evolves. The American version of fascism, well grounded in popular > support, is complete." > > Just how close is such an Orwellian nightmare to the America of 1996? > How much has already arrived, cloaked in a velvet glove wrapped around an > iron hammer; a hammer a mass media-blinded public begs to have used upon > itself in the interests of its own so-called "security?" > > SPOTLIGHT readers can attest to how large and dark such a shadow of > totalitarianism looms. Only vigilance and an inspired electorate can prevent its > hoary veil from settling over our Republic for good. [------------------------- 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: "Larry BAll" Subject: ```A New Gun Study Date: 03 Jun 1997 07:12:25 -0500 Here the location of a new gun study that relates to the assault weapon ban. I have copied it to my computer so if anyone would like I can post it to them either in text form or HTML. But you can get it yourself by going direct. The address is: > The URL is http://www.urban.org/crime/aw/AWFINAL1.htm This is a rather long document. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ----------> > > Ron Moore ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Fw: More on Gun Control Date: 03 Jun 1997 07:16:57 -0500 Here is an argument taking a group of UN Criminologists to task for their efforts at gun control. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > Subject: More on Gun Control > Date: Tuesday, June 03, 1997 5:48 AM > >> > > Thanks for sharing those UNlist clips. Keep it up. > > Would you do me a favor and send the following post to the UN > list for me? I am internet challenged. > > Thanks, > > Rick > > I read your gun control reading list with amusement. For the > most part they are the rogue's gallery of gun control advocacy > "researchers". Though you will likely misinterpret Wright and > Rossi, at least you gave a nod to Kleck, though you label him a > mere "academic." As far as criminologists go, your list is not > too unlike asking for references on proper government and citing > Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hitler, Mao, Stalin and only then throwing a > bone to Churchill or Madison. > > I chuckle when I read the likes of Lofton, Cook, Kellerman (who > cried at a gun control meeting hoping for the day of total > disarmament), CDC's Dr. Mark Rosenberg who feels the debate > should equate cigarettes with guns: "...dirty, deadly and > banned." We can be assured of balance from these guys. It is > just a wonder how they can get a way with writing this garbage > without addressing contrary opinions and research. When we speak > of "lies, damn lies and statistics" we do so with Kellerman and > his henchmen in mind. > > I was amazed to learn that this is not a liberal/conservative > dichotomy. Oddly, I do not know a "pro self-defense" researcher > who is not a liberal, and most were anti-gun before they did > their major works. > > Professor Gary Kleck of the University of Florida, the man you > refer to disparagingly as an "academic" is a multi-year award > winner in the field of criminology. Kleck is also a member of > Common Cause, ACLU, Amnesty International and a host of other > liberal causes. Kleck argues that Americans use firearms in > defense of life and property some 2.3 million times per year-- > 78% of the time without firing a shot (often a warning). Only 1% > of criminals are injured in this manner, only 0.01% are killed, > but, according to Kleck, and maybe inflated, 400,000 Americans > believe that their defensive use of arms saved a life. > > You see, it has to be this way. In America we are, by history > and by case law (Warren v. District of Columbia, 1981 and South > v. Maryland 1856) in charge of our own safety. The Court has > ruled that police have no duty to defend any individual, only > "society as a whole." And, frankly, how can we assume that a > $30,000 per year cop should defend our lives if we are not > willing to do so? More importantly, they won't show up until it > is time to draw a chalk line and take notes. Warren and her two > girlfriends were raped and beaten at knife point for 14 hours as > police (legally) failed to respond. If District of Columbia gun > laws had not disarmed the women, we would be free of a pair of > rapist scum. Or maybe the rapists would not have had the guts to > try it in the first place. Sure, they could have upped the ante > and come with a gun, but I can tolerate those odds. Kleck and > Lott have it correctly. > > Anti-gun criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang writes of Kleck in > glowing terms in Northwestern University's Fall 1995 Criminology > Journal. Says he, " I would eliminated all guns from the > civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate > guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people." Sheesh! > Of Kleck, he writes, "What troubles me is the article by Gary > Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have > provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound > research in support of something that I have theoretically > opposed for years., namely, the use of a gun in defense against a > criminal perpetrator." He then gives a clarion call for anti-gun > "researchers" to help dig him out of his quandary. It ain't > happened in six years. Even Donald Polsby is a convert and a > good source. > > Don Kates, would be another good source. Also an award winner in > the field of criminology, he was a member of The President's War > on Poverty (LBJ in the 1960s) and an early civil rights activist, > having stood armed guard in front of the homes of civil rights > workers--this was needed because the government would not act. > His biggest achievement in his criminology writings was debunking > the Kellerman studies. Pretty easy if you ask me. > > Note that studies by Kates and others (including Kellerman) have > shown that 75% of homicides are committed by adult felons with > long histories of violent crime. The remaining 25% is vastly > populated with juvenile offenders cut of the same criminal cloth. > Each year only 0.006% of firearms in the USA are involved in > criminal homicides by the same lowly criminal subgroup. And you > want to ban all of them? The lack of logic points either to > ignorance or some other agenda. The multitudes of good people > can be trusted with arms. They have a right to protect > themselves from crooks and despots alike. > > Next up, Professor John Lott, liberal democrat and economist > with the University of Chicago. Lott studies the effect armed > citizens have on their own safety and the drop in crime that > results. Remember the old ladies in Florida who got grabbed in > their cars? Now some of the old ladies are carrying and the > cowardly thugs have moved on to the universally unarmed foreign > tourist--following them from the airport. > > Wright and Rossi, whose work for the Carter administration > (intended to be ant-gun) led them to conclude that 20,000 gun > laws weren't worth a damn and could recommend no more. They also > found that criminals hate armed victims, 45% breaking off an > attack because they knew or suspected that their prey was armed. > 35% had been shot at, scared off, or detained by an armed > citizen. Criminals, even those who happen to be elected > officials, love gun control. > > It is known that some 59% of burglaries in Canada and GB occur > when the owner is home yet this occurs only 13% of the time in > America. Why is that? You folks have created OSHA for > criminals. You have created a safe working environment for your > unsavories. No thanks, no more of a police state needed here. > > Try looking up David B. Kopel, Clayton Cramer, Stephen P. > Halbrook, John Lattimer, to name a few more. > > If you wish to learn something of the United States Constitution, > try giving liberal Chair of Constitutional Studies at Yale, Akhil > Amar, or Duke's William Van Alstyne a read. Historian Joyce Lee > Malcom will teach you a little about the history of gun rights > not only in America, but in your own GB. Black legal historians > Diamond and Cottrol will walk you through the racist history of > gun control. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership > will argue forcefully that gun registration and gun confiscation > preceded every act of genocide in the 20th century. 60 million > lives lost in just the major occurrences; 160 million if we > include all the "little" ones. JPFO will rock your world. > > I've read your peoples research (Cook, Molliconi, Cole, Kellerman > to name a few). Do me the honor of reading the other side. > Let's see if you have the same intellectual honesty found in > Kleck, Lott and Polsby. Please be aware that the anti-gun > advocacy researchers are as cowardly as the criminals that we > wish to keep in jail. They refuse to release their data (as > required by federal law) so that others can review their work, > and they have time and time again balked at debating the likes of > Kleck, Lott, Kates, Holbrook and others in an open forum. The > few times that they did debate (in the early days) Kellerman et > al got their clocks cleaned. > > I invite you to do some reading. > > Thank you, > > Rick DeStephens > Phx, Arizona > zonie@aztec.asu.edu > > -- > "A people that legislate for themselves ought to be in the habit > of protecting themselves; or they will lose the spirit of both." > Joel Berlow (Advice to the Privileged Orders) 1792 > > --------- End forwarded message ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Our Marines Were "Clin-toned" in Sierra Leone! Date: 03 Jun 1997 12:18:04 -0400 (EDT) ( NOT-NOBAN-RELATED ) Does anyone remember the bad decisions that resulted in the deaths of over 240 Marines and sailors in Beirut in the early 1980's ... well, read on, and ask yourselves if the 'touchy feely' Clintonized military has once again placed brave Marines' lives at risk ??? Does anyone remember that Clinton's Defense Secretary's decision not to send armor reinforcements to rescue pinned down Rangers in Mogadishu, Somalia cost many brave Rangers their lives? Read on ... ______________________________________________________________________________ As chaos erupted recently in the violence-torn West African nation of Sierra Leone, here were some media observations ... Excerpts from the BOSTON GLOBE 05/31/97: "Muniteering soldiers careened around in trucks ... U.S. helicopters swooped into the chaos to save the lucky ..." "Mutineers rumbled through the streets in stolen vehicles, firing in the air and shouting, 'If you don't want us, then you are going to die!'" "Major Johnny Paul Koroma (the mutineers' leader) could barely control his troops. They burst into homes and businesses, taking what they could." "A U.S. Embassy statement cited 'the seriously deteriorating situation.'" _____________________________________________________________________________ Now, read this media observation about the Marines' "force level", equipment and rules of engagement as they were sent on the dangerous Sierra Leone rescue mission: Excerpt from the NH Sunday News 06/01/97 by John Diamond AP Washington "Often, these missions require the military to suppress its instinct to go in with guns blazing. In Sierra Leone, the Marines arrived in small numbers - about 200 - wearing soft hats instead of helmets, and kept their gun barrels pointed down to avoid provoking locals." ______________________________________________________________________________ Let me see if I understand this situation correctly ... 1. The Marines did not go into Sierra Leone with an overwhelming show of force (and could have been attacked by large groups of mutineers.) 2. The Marines wore soft covers / patrol caps instead of protective helmets (and had less protection from head injuries than they should have had!) 3. The Marines kept their "gun barrels pointed down to avoid provoking locals" (and *could have died* if the local mutineers had interpreted this "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood" stance as typical Clintonista-ordered weakness!) Comments: Just who made these poor decisions? The commander of the Marine rescue force? Some Navy admiral? Some State Department moron? Some yuppie Clintonista in The White House Situation Room? The Commandant of The Marine Corps? I cannot believe that any Marine commander would allow his men to be placed at risk by sending them unprepared into a violence-torn area. Just 200 helmetless infantrymen who had been told to keep their M-16A2s and SAWs pointed towards the ground to keep locals happy! What if the mutineers had assembled a large force and had cut off some of the Marines on the ground? Why wasn't a battalion size force sent in with orders to send a clear message to the mutineers, "If you 'blank' with us, *you are going to die*, immediately!" ???? You nobanners and roc'ers who were or are Marines ... were Marines placed at risk here? As a former Army officer, I would have protested vehemently being told to go in with 200 men, helmetless, and to keep our guns pointed at the ground! What B.S.!!! This is why U.S. military service members die needlessly in Third World cesspools ... because appropriate measures are not taken to insure that they have the correct equipment (helmets!), "no nonsense" rules of engagement, and overwhelming force on the ground to crush any opposition. Veterans and other concerned Americans, please join me in asking your Senators and Congressmen why the 200 brave Marines sent recently into Sierra Leone were placed at risk! Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Fw: Clinton v. Paula Corbin Jones Date: 03 Jun 1997 11:45:11 -0500 Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: David E. Parsons > To: Linda Wiegand > Subject: Clinton v. Paula Corbin Jones > Date: Tuesday, June 03, 1997 9:48 AM > > Dear Fellow American; > > The URL for the Supreme Court Decision regarding Clinton v. Jones is: > http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZS.html > > Do you also get the impression that the Court has finally determined that > the Executive Branch has taken unlawful power grabs in the last 60 years? > David > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Re: FBI SWAT Weapons Cache Stolen Date: 04 Jun 1997 09:41:56 -0400 (EDT) THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE (With Sincere Apologies To The Kingsmen) Louie, Louie, oh no, SWAT van be gone, Louie, Louie, oh no, SWAT van be gone, We park de van, leave de weapons inside, We enter hotel just to spend de night, When we come out, de weapons, dey gone, We turn our portable radios on (to moan), Louie, Louie, oh no, SWAT van be gone, Louie, Louie, oh no, SWAT van be gone, We leave de guns, unguarded, mon, They disappear before de dawn, Now Louie, we know, you be real mad, About dis loss, we, too, be sad, Louie, Louie, oh no, SWAT van be gone, Louie, Louie, oh no, SWAT van be gone, Eddie de Eagle soon be training us, If we see gun, we must not touch, We run to find a grown up adult, For safety to be de end result, Louie, Louie, oh no, SWAT van be gone, Louie, Louie, oh no, SWAT van be gone, With guns no longer, us, you trust, Because we lost de "weapons bus", Bows and arrows, mon, yes, now we tote, As we head up ---- creek, in leaky boat, Louie, Louie, oh no, SWAT van be gone, Louie, Louie, oh no, SWAT van be gone, Now, ATF, dey be chasing us, Because we lost de "weapons bus", We lost full autos and, yes, grenades, We hear, yes, dat some careers may fade, Louie, Louie, oh no, SWAT van be gone, Louie, Louie, oh no, SWAT van be gone, SWAT van be gone ... SWAT van be gone. ______________________________________ THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Lew, Stephen wrote: > > Fresh off the presses from ABC at: > > http://www.abcnews.com/ > > Note what was stolen: "a cache of high-powered assault weapons, grenade > launchers, bullet-proof shields and tear-gas guns. M-16 military > rifles, shotguns and ammunition were among the take. " > > then checkout the spin control: > > When asked how such a theft could occur, Special Agent Hancock said, > "These weapons could be stolen from a sporting goods store. > Would you ask that same question of the sporting-goods > store dealer?" > > Gee, my local Big-5 Sporting Goods store is fresh out of M-16s and grenade > launchers..., must've been a big sale... B^) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------- > > "SWAT Truck Emptied, Then Torched > FBI Weapons Cache Stolen > > > By Brian Hartman > ABCNEWS.com > Thieves stole, torched and emptied an FBI special > operations van left parked outside a Memphis, > Tenn., hotel, looting a cache of high-powered > assault weapons, grenade launchers, bullet-proof > shields and tear-gas guns. > M-16 military rifles, shotguns and ammunition were > among the take Tuesday in what FBI officials called a very > serious theft. FBI officials are teaming up with Memphis > police to blanket the area and recover the stockpile of > weapons. > The burned-out shell of the GMC suburban van, emptied > of its cargo, was found early Tuesday by Memphis > authorities. Included in the stolen cache were bullet-proof > shields with FBI logos and various sidearms. > The van, said FBI special agent John Hancock, belonged > to one of a half-dozen FBI special weapons and tactics > squads in Memphis for a regional training exercise. Agents > from Arkansas had parked the vehicle outside an East > Memphis hotel before it was stolen, he said. The vehicle was > recovered 10 miles from the hotel. > > Agent Downplays Theft > It's an extremely serious situation, Hancock said. These > weapons will be recovered and we will find out who > committed the theft and we will not stop until the > investigation > is settled. > When asked how such a theft could occur, Hancock said, > These weapons could be stolen from a sporting goods store. > Would you ask that same question of the sporting-goods > store dealer? > About 500 officers from various law enforcement > agencies and the military were gathering in Memphis for > crisis > response training. > The incident comes as the FBI, embroiled in controversy > and criticism for much of the past year, is basking in praise > for its investigation of Timothy McVeigh, convicted Monday > on all 11 counts in the Oklahoma City bombing. > Agents had hoped the verdict might dispel criticism of > the > bureau stemming from a Justice Department report about the > work of its world-renowned crime laboratory and from its > failure to solve last summer s Olympics bombing in Atlanta > and two subsequent blasts there. > The bureau also took heat for pursuing the wrong man, > Richard Jewell, for three months in the Olympics case and > trying to trick him into waiving his right to counsel during > an > interview. Three agents are being disciplined for their work > on that case. > FBI Director Louis J. Freeh likely will be questioned > about the Memphis episode at his previously scheduled > appearance Wednesday before a Senate committee > conducting oversight of the bureau. > > The Associated Press contributed to this story. " > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: LA *Stolen Election* Update: Subpoenas Issued (fwd) Date: 04 Jun 1997 08:49:41 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- E-Mail Opinions from Readers follow: Leave a Comment: senate@theadvocate.com Baton Rouge Advocate June 3, 1997 SUBPOENAS ISSUED Spokesmen: Both sides cooperating By JOAN McKINNEY Advocate Washington bureau WASHINGTON -- Federal investigators have issued wide-ranging subpoenas to U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and to state Rep. Louis "Woody" Jenkins, R-Baton Rouge, the two principals in a bitter dispute over possible election fraud in the 1996 U.S. Senate race. Spokesmen for both sides said Monday that they are cooperating fully, and the Landrieu camp released a copy of its subpoenas. After hearing a recitation of the Landrieu subpoenas, Jenkins said, "that sounds identical, or almost identical" to subpoenas issued to him and his political organization. Last November, Landrieu beat Jenkins by 5,788 votes out of nearly 1.8 million cast. Jenkins claims to have lost because of alleged illegalities committed by "a corrupt political machine" aligned with New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial and gambling interests; the alleged malfeasance of some election officials; improper safeguards of election records and voting machines; campaign finance violations; and vote buying, multiple voting and "phantom" voting. Jenkins' complaint to the U.S. Senate has resulted in a Senate Rules Committee investigation, the dispatching of Senate investigators to Louisiana, and subpoenas previously issued to parish and state election officials. The Rules Committee leadership has said that, to date, it has seen no illegal activities by Landrieu or her campaign organization, but that it is looking at the activities of others which may have affected the outcome of the Senate election. The subpoenas released by the Landrieu camp, and generally described by Jenkins, ask for any and all information that would "prove" or "disprove" allegations about election fraud. There are specific requests for: Numerous campaign-related documents, covering such areas as voter transport to the polls and activities conducted by gambling companies and the LIFE (Louisiana Independent Federation of Electors) organization linked to Morial. Any documents or information shedding light on numerous election-day routines, such as the work of poll watchers and election commissioners. Information related to operations of voting machines and the safeguarding of voting machines and election records. The results of any post-election investigations conducted by or on behalf of the candidates, and the names of anyone who was "employed" or "relied upon" in such investigations. Tony Gelderman, an attorney for Landrieu, said, "I believe he (Jenkins) got virtually mirror subpoenas. "=85We welcome these subpoenas. It means Jenkins will have to produce his mystery evidence." In filings to the Senate, Jenkins has claimed possession of tape-recorded interviews with people who say they were paid to vote and/or voted several times. Jenkins also has allowed some reporters to listen to edited versions of these tape-recorded talks with voters. However, in both his Senate filings and the media contacts, Jenkins obliterated many details and all voter identities from the transcripts and tapes. He said this editing was necessary to protect potential witnesses, and he promised to provide the tape-recordings and the witness names after the Senate established witness protection procedures. The Jenkins organization also has confirmed that it paid one New Orleans resident who then located other New Orleans residents who said they committed election fraud. Presumably, a subpoena to Jenkins demanding the names of anyone "employed" or "relied upon" in an election-fraud investigation (the language in the Landrieu subpoena) would require Jenkins to identify any paid investigators or informants, those who interviewed voters, and the voters themselves. Jenkins said Monday his organization will supply all requested names to the Senate investigators, including the names of voters who have told his organizations that they committed election fraud. However, Jenkins downplayed the significance of that particular part of his case, saying some accounts are "anecdotal." In addition, Jenkins said, his camp identified only some instances of specific voter fraud as a sampling that would point the better-armed Senate investigators -- who have subpoena and deposition power -- to patterns of widespread fraud. Putting too much emphasis on individual voter stories is "looking at the bottom," he said. "=85 Lift your eyes higher up the chain to those who organized it, who paid for it .. That's where we're headed." Jenkins' commentary relates to a key procedural question for the Senate: whether it would unseat Landrieu only after identifying enough vote-by-vote fraud to wipe out her 5,788-vote victory margin; or whether it would unseat Landrieu after a more general finding that a corrupt political machine engaged in a pattern of election fraud. Jenkins said his organization already has submitted 8,000 pages of information in previous filings to the Senate Rules Committee. "Now we'll have tens of thousands of pages we'll be turning over," he said. Both camps said they received subpoenas around 6 p.m. on Friday afternoon. The documents cover the candidates personally and their political committees. And both camps are being required to quickly mobilize their records-gathering. The subpoenas set deadlines of June 3 and June 5 for the delivery of all requested information. (Story ran June 3, 1997 ***************************************************************** Readers' Opinions Main Page Leave a comment Thank you for participating in this discussion group. We ask only that you keep your comments brief and include your name and e-mail adress with each submission= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: CTRL - Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 10 Num. 64 (fwd) Date: 04 Jun 1997 08:55:10 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- from:http://feustel.mixi.net/CN/v10/ Thanks ----- Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 10 Num. 64 ======================================= ("Quid coniuratio est?") AFTER THE VERDICT -- THE OKLAHOMA BOMBINGS ========================================== By Sherman H. Skolnick ---------------------- (Phone 773-731-1100 for recorded message) So far, the newsfakers have seemed to succeed with the Big Lie, promoting One Bomb/One Bomber -- Oklahoma. ITEM: Timothy McVeigh's defense attorneys were forbidden by the judge to mention at the trial any item about a conspiracy. Yet, prior to the trial, McVeigh's attorney, Stephen Jones, and his team, filed a 180-page petition in the higher court, to try to compel the trial judge to force the CIA and other intelligence agencies to release records showing Iraqis, tied to the American CIA, supervised the multiple bombings using local dissidents as surrogates. The monopoly press ignored the petition or sloughed it off as merely "Jones filed his conspiracy theories." The heavily-documented petition referred to both the open records and the secret records in the McVeigh case, supporting the contention that there was Iraqi and other foreign complicity in the bombings. ITEM: Two of the federal prosecutors in Denver were from Chicago: lead prosecutor Joseph Hartzler {1} is in a wheelchair -- a trick by the government to subconsciously seek sympathy from the jurors. His assistant, Scott Mendeloff, is highly corrupt. He covered up the murder of Wallace Lieberman, a Chicago Federal Bankruptcy Court official ready to finger, before a federal grand jury here, several judges for bribery. The assassination of Lieberman, as Mendeloff knew, was tied to the corrupt activities of First National Bank of Cicero, a Mafia/CIA laundry. ITEM: The trial judge in the McVeigh case did not permit evidence showing multiple bombs were used. One fertilizer bomb, on the street, could not have sheared off the reinforced steel concrete pillars inside the Murrah Building. {2} (One of the leading explosives experts in the U.S., retired Brigadier General Benton Partin, had published analyses of this.) ITEM: It could not have been a diesel oil fertilizer bomb which would have released a nitric acid cloud. Notice: none of the rescue people required a gas mask. ITEM: Two or more informants for the U.S. Treasury's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) warned that a plot to destroy a federal building was being hatched. One such was Carol Howe, 24. Carol Howe, whose reliability was evidenced by her passing a dozen lie detector tests, was unknown until early this year. An ABC 20/20 investigating team led by Roger Charles prepared an in-depth expose on her story, which included an interview with the young ATF informant. According to Charles, network executives scuttled the piece following intense pressure from the Justice Department and Clinton White House. An outraged Roger Charles then called into the national talk radio and television program, The Don Imus Show, and decried the network's craven kowtowing to the government coverup. The honor bound reporter was quickly granted his walking papers by ABC. He regained his job after he began to talk to reporters in the independent media. -- (Relevance newsletter, April 1997, page 8) ITEM: An Oklahoma TV station team did a local documentary showing the Iraqi connection. Their TV station was bought out by a mysterious New York group that told them to "shut up" or all of them would be fired. ITEM: Families of some of the victims have a damage suit pending against the U.S. government. Offered are evidence and witnesses that the government had prior knowledge. One man who arrived at the blast scene, looking for his wife, related to Brad Edwards of the local television station, KFOR, that an ATF agent on the scene told him that he and his comrades were "tipped by their pagers not to come into work that day." -- (Relevance newsletter, April 1997, page 8) As we reported in September 1996, the Oklahoma City Fire Department headquarters received a call on April 14th from the FBI warning of a possible terrorist act. One witness recalled seeing a huge convoy of fire trucks, lights and sirens blaring, heading straight for the nearby Murrah Building just seconds before it exploded. -- (ibid.) ITEM: A U.S. Secret Service agent who knew too much about the Clinton White House corruption was steered into the Murrah Building. He was among the 168 that were killed. ITEM: McVeigh's defense attorneys are to be paid between ten and twenty million dollars, for fees and expenses, by the federal government, as Public Defender lawyers. They would lose that as well as risk being sent to jail for contempt if they said a single word to the jury about a conspiracy. ITEM: Trial judge Richard Matsch has always been tight with the American CIA supervising the Iraqi intelligence officers implicated in the bombings. By covering up this, and the missile attack on TWA Flight 800 (reportedly implicating Iran), President Clinton has given aid and comfort to sworn enemies of the U.S. WHAT IS THE REASON NONE DARE CALL THIS TREASON? ---------------------------<< Notes >>--------------------------- {1} "...lead prosecutor Joseph Hartzler..." Hartzler is reportedly now in line for an appointment to a federal judgeship. A reward for his part in the cover-up? {2} "One fertilizer bomb, on the street, could not have sheared off the reinforced steel concrete pillars inside the Murrah Building." From The Spotlight, 6/9/97, "Tape Points to U.S. Cover-Up," by Andrew Arnold (excerpts): Engineers, including [Benton] Partin, have pointed out it is impossible for a bomb placed that far from the pillars of the Murrah building to do the damage attributed to the truck bomb. According to basic physics, i.e. the inverse cube principal, the explosion would have lost too much energy by the time it hit the building to destroy it. If a truck bomb didn't destroy the building, critics want to know what did. Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief. I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation." Mailing List Yanked for "Policy Reasons." New Mailing List Planned. 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: http://feustel.mixi.net 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 ----- Aloha, He'Ping Om, Shalom, Salaam. Peace Be, Amen. Roads End Kris ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Your Genuine Government Official(tm) (fwd) Date: 04 Jun 1997 14:52:29 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear Special Interest, Congratulations on the purchase of your genuine Government OfficialTM. With regular maintenance your Government OfficialTM should provide you with a lifetime of sweetheart deals, insider information, preferential legislation and other fine services. Before you begin using your product, we would appreciate it if you would take the time to fill out this customer service card. This information will not be sold to any other party, and will be used solely to aid us in better fulfilling your future needs in political influence. 1. Which of our fine products did you buy? __ President __ Vice-President __ Senator __ Congressman __ Governor __ Cabinet Secretary - Commerce __ Cabinet Secretary - Other __ Other Elected Official (please specify) _____________________ __ Other Appointed Official (please specify) ____________________ 2. How did you hear about your Government OfficialTM? Please check all that apply. __ TV ad. __ Magazine / newspaper ad. __ Shared jail cell with. __ Former law partner of. __ Unindicted co-conspirator with. __ Arkansas crony of. __ Procured for. __ Related to. __ Recommended by lobbyist. __ Recommended by organized crime figure. __ Frequently mentioned in conspiracy theories. (On Internet.) __ Frequently mentioned in conspiracy theories. (Elsewhere.) __ Spoke at fundraiser at my temple. __ Solicited bribe from me. __ Attempted to seduce me. 3. How do you expect to use your Government OfficialTM? (Please check all that apply.) __ Obtain lucrative government contracts. __ Have my prejudices turned into law. __ Obtain diplomatic concessions. __ Obtain trade concessions. __ Have embargo lifted from own nation / ally. __ Have embargo imposed on enemy / rival nation / religious infidels. __ Obtain patronage job for self / spouse / mistress. __ Forestall military action against self / allies. __ Instigate military action against internal enemies / aggressors / targets for future conquest. __ Impede criminal / civil investigation of self / associates / spouse. __ Obtain pardon for self / associates / spouse. __ Inflict punitive legislation on class enemies / rivals / hated ethnic groups. __ Inflict punitive regulation on business competitors / environmental exploiters / capitalist pigs. 4. What factors influenced your purchase? (Please check all that apply.) __ Performance of currently owned model. __ Reputation. __ Price. __ Appearance. __ Party affiliation. __ Professed beliefs of Government OfficialTM. __ Actual beliefs of Government OfficialTM. __ Orders from boss / superior officer / foreign government. __ Blackmail. __ Celebrity endorsement. 5. Is this product intended as a replacement for a currently owned Government OfficialTM? ______ If you answered "yes," please indicate your reason(s) for changing models. __ Excessive operating / maintenance costs. __ Needs have grown beyond capacity of current model. __ Defect in current model: __ Dead. __ Senile. __ Indicted. __ Convicted. __ Resigned in disgrace. __ Switched parties / beliefs. __ Outbribed by competing interest. Thank you for your valuable time. Always remember: in choosing a Government OfficialTM you have chosen the best politician that money can buy. by Jonathan P. Bernick Copyright January 28, 1997. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Marine story of shooting 18 yr old under review (fwd) Date: 04 Jun 1997 15:50:37 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 06/04/97 By Douglas Holt / The Dallas Morning News EL PASO - Two weeks after a U.S. Marine fatally shot an 18-year-old goat herder near Big Bend, discrepancies are beginning to appear in the military's explanation of the shooting, a prosecutor says. Potentially troubling for the military, the case is in the hands of District Attorney Albert Valadez, who says he is dissatisfied with explanations of military officials. Mr. Valadez said he has taken exception to the preliminary conclusion, offered by Marine Col. Thomas R. Kelly two days after the May 20 shooting, that the case amounted to self-defense in "strict compliance" with the military's rules of engagement. "The comments made by the military were conclusions that were drawn perhaps prematurely," said Mr. Valadez, whose six-county district includes Presidio County, where the shooting occurred. "I would never draw conclusions as quickly as they did without some type of tangible evidence." A spokeswoman for the El Paso-based military unit that coordinates drug-fighting efforts expressed surprise at comments from Mr. Valadez and others but said the military was cooperating with investigations by the Texas Rangers, FBI and Presidio County sheriff's office. In addition, the military unit, Joint Task Force 6, is conducting its own inquiry, said spokeswoman Maureen Bossch. "We're still waiting," she said. "There's been no official release of information at all from this." The May 20 death of Ezequiel Hernandez in his hometown of Redford, the first U.S. citizen shot by a military drug-surveillance team on the border, is still under investigation. It is expected to go to a grand jury next month, raising the specter of a U.S. Marine standing trial for the shooting in a state court. In the interim, the military has suspended its drug-fighting activities in the Marfa sector of West Texas. The shooting has come at a time when the Clinton administration is preparing a long-range plan for the Southwest border that could answer critics of the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border. Key points in the report, due to be released this fall, include an unprecedented increase in the U.S. Border Patrol, from 6,191 today to 20,000 over the next 10 years, said Don Maples, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Mr. Maples said that would allow the government to remove armed troops from the border, reversing a policy inherited from the Reagan and Bush administrations and championed by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. "We don't believe having military forces on the border is in the long run the best way to go about policing our borders," Mr. Maples said. "Policing, defending, managing and administering our border is inherently a law enforcement responsibility." Typically, about 100 troops may be stationed along the border at any one time, officials said. The law allows them to help with surveillance and intelligence-gathering but bars them from making arrests or searching property. In West Texas, Mr. Valadez offered no details on the state's potential case against the Marine who fired one round at Mr. Hernandez with an M-16 rifle. Federal authorities have said the young man, armed with a .22-caliber rifle, had fired in the direction of a unit of four Marines. Military authorities have refused to identify the soldier, saying only that he is a noncommissioned officer based in Camp Pendleton, Calif. But Mr. Valadez made it clear he is not one to be cowed by the military, or anyone else in a mountainous region known as a drug smuggling corridor. "When I get on a case, I'm going to find out what the hell happened," he said. "I don't care where they're from or who they work for." In Midland, Texas Ranger Capt. Barry Caver said last week that the preliminary investigation appeared to conflict with Col. Kelly's initial explanation of the shooting. The colonel is deputy commander of Joint Task Force 6. "Some of the evidence, as far as the injuries to the body and the angle, doesn't exactly match what they're telling us," Capt. Caver said, referring to the angle of Mr. Hernandez's bullet wound. While revealing few details, he said Mr. Valadez "is certainly willing to prosecute the case, and he evidently feels he has enough evidence." Further contradicting the military's account, Capt. Caver said there was a "good possibility" Mr. Hernandez was unaware that he was shooting toward U.S. Marines, who were dressed in heavy camouflage, their faces blackened and bodies covered in burlap and leaves. Col. Kelly had said the military was certain that Mr. Hernandez knew he was shooting at humans, without detailing the basis of that belief. Authorities have said the Marines were conducting surveillance because the area is heavily used by drug smugglers crossing the Rio Grande. Officials said Mr. Hernandez, to their knowledge, was not engaged in any illegal activities when he was shot. His family said he had just returned home from high school and had taken his flock of 30 goats out for grazing. Lawrence Korb, who was an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, said the shooting demonstrated the incompatibility of military and police duties. He opposed a historic loosening in the 1980s of the Posse Comitatus Act, a Civil War-era law that banned most uses of military forces in domestic law enforcement. "The military is much more likely to use force of arms because that's what they're trained to do," said Mr. Korb, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "The military, to put it bluntly, is trained to vaporize, not Mirandize." Others say it's no stretch to compare the border to a battlefield, and efforts to stop drugs to a war. Ranchers near Eagle Pass and elsewhere have complained of armed thugs overrunning their land. Although reported armed confrontations have declined since the early 1990s, border agents were threatened with firearms or shot at 110 times from October to April, according to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which oversees the Border Patrol. Three days before the Marine was involved in the West Texas shooting, a Border Patrol agent on the California border was fired on by a sniper on the Mexico side. He was wounded in the shoulder. Phil Jordan, a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent and former head of the El Paso Intelligence Center, a worldwide anti-drug listening post, said bringing the military to bear on the border merely levels the playing field. Drug traffickers use encrypted telephones and fax machines, advanced night-vision equipment that flooded the surplus military market after the fall of the Soviet Union, sophisticated counterintelligence techniques, airplanes and an unlimited supply of weapons, he said. "The American people don't have any idea of the sophistication of countersurveillance and intelligence that the traffickers based in Mexico have," he said. "When you're dealing with an army of smugglers, you need to respond accordingly." Mr. Maples, the National Drug Control Policy spokesman, said the proposal to boost Border Patrol presence is not a reaction to the Marine shooting. Still, he said, the incident certainly highlights the risk of deploying ground troops "with guns trained on the border," even if the troops are there to gather information and not to make arrests. Lawmakers have strongly supported deploying the military in a widening array of roles since the early 1980s. Since October alone, the military has taken credit for helping seize 13.5 tons of cocaine, 58 tons of marijuana and nearly $1.5 million in drug traffickers' cash, according to Joint Task Force 6. Said Larry Neal, spokesman for U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas: The military "has plainly given valuable assistance to the Border Patrol and it has provided useful training for the military personnel involved." © 1997 The Dallas Morning News About us ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: "Freehdumb Fighter Militia" Assault Weapons Stolen From Parked War Wagon Date: 04 Jun 1997 18:11:27 -0400 (EDT) THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE (American Press, Washington, D.C., June 4, 1997) Reported by Owadda Mayjaa Scruwupp Citizens in Memphis, Tennessee expressed alarm today at press reports that a heavily armed group of Clintonista extremists calling themselves "Freehdumb Fighter Militia" had been in residence at a local Memphis motel when what local media described as "a gun runner's arsenal" of firearms and explosives was stolen from the FFM members' parked motor vehicle. Anonymous, reliable sources reported that automatic rifles, submachine guns, shotguns, handguns, grenade launchers, ammo and protective vests had been stolen from the FFM members' vehicle. The motel manager speculated that the FFM members might indeed have been "separatists" because they had "kept to themselves" and had "parked their vehicle far away from other motel customers' vehicles." Motel manager Richard Jule commented, "Thank God somebody took those weapons away from those FFM nut cases before they could use them on innocent persons. Who knows, those FFM guys might be White House supremacists? I only hope that some responsible gun owner has taken possession of the FFM's guns and will hold them until they can be safely turned over to a certified firearms instructor who might then secure the items at a local fish and game club. I run a clean motel, and I must tell you that the thought of FFM extremists stashing a damn war wagon packed with machine guns and explosives in my parking lot makes me uneasy. I mean, those FFM guys could have posed a threat to my other customers. What if an innocent kid has broken into their vehicle and has stolen their guns, some ammo and, even worse, their grenades? What if an innocent life is lost due to FFM members' irresponsibility?" Local gun club members have joined forces with CCM (Concerned Citizens of Memphis) to scour the area in an attempt to insure that FFM members have departed and have headed back to Arkansas. Commented local city council member Mr. Ray Gunn, "We are peaceful people in Memphis, and we will not tolerate for one minute the presence of heavily armed extremists or separatists or White House supremacists in our midst. Some local drunk called a local radio talk show host and told him that some FFM leaders were claiming to be FBI agents. The talk show host told him that no FBI agents would be stupid enough to leave heavy weapons and explosives in an unguarded, unsecured vehicle. I agree with that assessment. We Memphis residents just want FFM nuts who cannot handle and store guns and ammo safely to get out of our city. We don't need or want paramilitary, camo-clad crazies in our city. It's that simple." THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE ______________________________________________________________________________ Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: GOA Alert-- Federal 06/04/97 (fwd) Date: 04 Jun 1997 18:09:19 PST On Jun 04, eagleflight wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:08:19 -0400 >From: Gun Owners of America >Reply-To: Gun Owners of America >To: crfields@gunowners.org >Subject: GOA Alert-- Federal 06/04/97 > >News Flash! Urgent Action Needed! News Flash! > > Rep. Ron Paul Moving to Eliminate Gun Control Bureaucracy > -- Amendment would remove U.S. from U.N. jurisdiction > > by Gun Owners of America > 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 > (703)321-8585, fax: 321-8408, http://www.gunowners.org > > (Wednesday, June 4, 1997) -- Pro-gun Representative Ron Paul >(R-TX) is working to remove a tourniquet that is slowly being >drawn around gun owners' necks. GOA has learned from his office >that Rep. Paul plans to introduce -- either today or tomorrow -- >an amendment that will pull the U.S. out of the U.N. His office >has asked GOA and its supporters to generate support for passing >this amendment. > > Among the many benefits of withdrawing from the world >government would be that the U.N. would no longer have any >authority to enforce its gun control agenda -- an agenda which >has been quietly gathering momentum in the past couple of years. >Here is a brief synopsis of the problem and what Rep. Paul is >planning to do: > > From the Horse's Mouth -- U.N. openly looking to register > private firearms globally > > * The documents from the U.N.'s own webpage -- > http://www.un.org -- make it clear that they are very serious > about disarming American civilians. For example, on December > 22, 1995, the UN announced the launch of a study of small > arms. Among the countries involved in this study are the > Japanese, Canadian and Russian governments. (Also > participating was Stewart Allen, Chief of the Intelligence > Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.) > > * A few months later, the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention > and Criminal Justice met in Vienna (May, 1996) to discuss > strategies for civilian disarmament among the member states. > In announcing this summit, U.N. bureaucrats set forth what > they perceived to be a major problem -- namely, that "small > arms are spreading throughout society with little > documentation, since they are frequently bought from private > individuals." Thus, one of the commission's objectives was to > study gun control laws around the world for "the development > of related strategies" among the member countries (like the > U.S.). > > * Since most countries register gun owners, one would > undoubtedly expect that the "related strategies" would include > registering all guns so that the U.N. and the subordinate > governments (including the U.S.) will know where the guns are. > No more anonymous gun sales with "little documentation." No > more passing a gun down from father to son. No more selling a > gun to a friend at the office. Big Brother will track > everything pertaining to guns. > > * Gun control illustrates one of the dangers of the U.S. > membership in the U.N. In May of 1994, the Clinton > administration agreed to participate in a discussion of ways > for the United Nations to control the manufacture of guns and > their sales to civilians. This was over a year before all of > the activities of the U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and > Criminal Justice swung into motion with financial support from > Japan and bureaucrats on loan from our neighbor, Canada. > These other countries were not sneaking in the back door of > U.S. sovereignty -- our own government was hiding behind the > U.N. to carry out the civilian disarmament they did not think > they could get away with by themselves. > > >ACTION: Support Rep. Paul and the "American Sovereignty > Restoration Amendment"! > > * Call or fax your Representative and ask them to support what > is known as either the "Paul Amendment" or the "American > Sovereignty Restoration Amendment." He plans to offer this > amendment to H.R. 1757, the Foreign Relations Authorization > Act. In brief, Rep. Paul's amendment would get the U.S. out of > the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S. > > * Phone numbers for Reps: 1-800-962-3524, 1-800-972-3524 and > 202-225-3121. > > * If you wish to call, fax, or e-mail your Representatives' > offices directly, contact info can be found at > http://www.gunowners.org/h105th.htm on the GOA website. > >******************************************************************* >Are you receiving this as a cross-post? You can subscribe to our >E-mail Alert Network directly. Address your request to >goamail@gunowners.org and include in the body of the message either >your state of residence or the word "all". If you subscribe by >state, you will receive every federal alert plus alerts which are >specific to your home state. Requesting "all" means you will >receive all alerts generated whether federal or state in nature. >That address should also be used if you wish to unsubscribe. [------------------------- 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: [Fwd: Choices] Date: 05 Jun 1997 01:43:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from sys1.dps.net by ICSI.Net (8.8.5/SMI-SVR4) id BAA00938; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 01:21:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pm1-s18.panworld.net (pm1-s18.panworld.net [206.154.207.48]) by sys1.dps.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA15040; Tue, 3 Jun 1997 20:35:13 -1000 (HST) Message-Id: <199706040635.UAA15040@sys1.dps.net> X-Sender: orson@dps.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Got this neat story from a dear friend who was incarcerated with me in Hanoi, Jack Bomar, a GREAT AMERICAN! Give it some thought .... and GBU. You have two choices....... ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING Jerry was the kind of guy you love to hate. He was always in a good mood and always had something positive to say. When someone would ask him how he was doing, he would reply, "If I were any better, I would be twins!" He was a unique manager because he had several waiters who had followed him around from restaurant to restaurant. The reason the waiters followed Jerry was because of his attitude. He was a natural motivator. If an employee was having a bad day, Jerry was there telling the employee how to look on the positive side of the situation. Seeing this style really made me curious, so one day I went up to Jerry and asked him, "I don't get it! You can't be a positive person all of the time. How do you do it?" Jerry replied, "Each morning I wake up and say to myself, Jerry, you have two choices today. You can choose to be in a good mood or you can choose to be in a bad mood.' I choose to be in a good mood. Each time something bad happens, I can choose to be a victim or I can choose to learn from it. I choose to learn from it. Every time someone comes to me complaining, I can choose to accept their complaining or I can point out the positive side of life. I choose the positive side of life." "Yeah, right, it's not that easy," I protested. "Yes it is," Jerry said. "Life is all about choices. When you cut away all the junk, every situation is a choice. You choose how you react to situations. You choose how people will affect your mood. You choose to be in a good or bad mood. The bottom line: It's your choice how you live life." I reflected on what Jerry said. Soon thereafter, I left the restaurant industry to start my own business. We lost touch, but I often thought about him when I made a choice about life instead of reacting to it. Several years later, I heard that Jerry did something you are never supposed to do in a restaurant business: he left the back door open one morning and was held up at gunpoint by three armed robbers. While trying to open the safe, his hand, shaking from nervousness, slipped off the combination. The robbers panicked and shot him. Luckily, Jerry was found relatively quickly and rushed to the local trauma center. After 18 hours of surgery and weeks of intensive care, Jerry was released from the hospital with fragments of the bullets still in his body. I saw Jerry about six months after the accident. When I asked him how he was, he replied, "If I were any better, I'd be twins. Wanna see my scars?" I declined to see his wounds, but did ask him what had gone through his mind as the robbery took place. "The first thing that went through my mind was that I should have locked the back door," Jerry replied. "Then, as I lay on the floor, I remembered that I had two choices: I could choose to live, or I could choose to die. I chose to live." "Weren't you scared? Did you lose consciousness?" I asked. Jerry continued, "The paramedics were great. They kept telling me I was going to be fine. But when they wheeled me into the emergency room and I saw the expressions on the faces of the doctors and nurses, I got really scared. In their eyes, I read, 'He's a dead man.' I knew I needed to take action." "What did you do?" I asked. "Well, there was a big, burly nurse shoutin questions at me," said Jerry. "She asked if I was allergic to anything. 'Yes,' I replied. The doctors and nurses stopped working as they waited for my reply..I took a deep breath and yelled, 'Bullets!' Over their laughter, I told them, 'I am choosing to live. Operate on me as if I am alive, not dead." Jerry lived thanks to the skill of his doctors, but also because of his amazing attitude. I learned from him that every day we have the choice to live fully. Attitude, after all, is everything. You have 2 choices now: 1. save and delete this mail from your mail box. 2. forward it your dear ones Hope, you will choose choice 2. Orson Swindle 500 University Avenue, #309 Honolulu, HI. 96826 e-mail orson@dps.net (808) 942 1166/fax 946-3993 "Leaders are like eagles, they don't flock -- you have to find them one at a time!" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Suspect in Chinese Gun Ring Changes Plea (fwd) Date: 05 Jun 1997 08:12:08 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/chronicle/article.cgi?file=3DMN21723.DTL&d= irectory=3D/chronicle/archive/1997/06/04 > [The San Francisco Chronicle] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Wednesday, June 4, 1997 =B7 Page A18 =A91997 San Francisco Chronicle > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > =20 >=20 > Suspect in Chinese Gun Ring Changes Plea to Guilty > Prosecutors will drop most charges on Saratoga man >=20 > Reynolds Holding, Chronicle Legal Affairs Writer >=20 > The alleged leader of a ring that U.S. law enforcement > officials say smuggled 2,000 AK-47 machine guns from > China into Oakland last year pleaded guilty yesterday to > charges of laundering money and illegally importing > weapons. >=20 > Saratoga businessman Hammond Ku, 50, changed his plea on > the three charges from not guilty to guilty in exchange > for the government's agreement to seek dismissal of 27 > counts of conspiracy, smuggling and money-laundering. >=20 > Ku still faces a maximum of 40 years in prison, a $1.75 > million fine and the forfeiture of more than $300,000 -- > although prosecutors are expected to recommend a far > lesser sentence. Sentencing is scheduled for October 24. >=20 > Billed by federal agents as the largest seizure of fully > automatic weapons in U.S. history, the case came to > light after federal officials unsealed a criminal > complaint against Ku and 13 other individuals on May 23, > 1996. >=20 > The complaint accused the suspects of conspiring to > smuggle 2,000 AK-47s, silencers and 20,000 rifle stands > into the United States for purchase by undercover > customs agents. >=20 > Several of the suspects had ties to two arms firms -- > Poly Technologies and Norinco -- controlled by the > Chinese government. >=20 > Although a grand-jury indictment returned on June 4, > 1996 did not charge the firms with wrongdoing, > prosecutors have indicated recently that they may file a > superseding indictment to include additional charges and > corporate defendants. >=20 > Norinco and Poly Technologies have denied any role in > the smuggling ring. >=20 > According to prosecutors, the ring's central figure was > Ku, who acted as a link between the undercover agents > and those who could make the arms available. >=20 > Richard Chen, 66, an Aptos restaurant owner, has been > identified in court documents as another key player who > worked as U.S. representative for Norinco. Ku and Chen > were released on $1 million bond each. >=20 > Federal agents say Ku apparently believed the automatic > weapons he was selling were going to gang dealers. It is > not clear why he thought so, however, because local law > enforcement sources say that AK-47s are not used > regularly by street gangs. >=20 > At a hearing yesterday before U.S. District Judge > Charles Legge in San Francisco, Ku admitted to arranging > the importation of 2,000 Norinco submachine guns and > thousands of ammunition magazines between February 15 > and March 18, 1996. He also admitted to having $252,150 > wired from the United States to Hong Kong on March 22, > 1996, in connection with the smuggling scheme. >=20 > As part of the plea agreement, --which remains under > seal, Ku agreed to forfeit the wired money as well as an > additional $70,000 in cash. >=20 > Ku's case will now go to the federal probation office, > which will review his record and recommend a sentence to > Legge. Ku's lawyer, Gilbert Eisenberg, stressed that Ku > has never been arrested or committed crimes in the past. >=20 > Ku's co-defendants are scheduled to appear before Legge > on Friday to schedule pretrial motions and set a trial > date. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Searches | The Gate News Page | The Gate Sports Page | Feedback | > The Gate >=20 > =A9 The Chronicle Publishing Company =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Heritage River Land Use Grab (fwd) Date: 05 Jun 1997 08:44:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: 75613.3706@compuserve.com, bruce10@juno.com, pan@goodnet.com, mossad@ix.netcom.com, 72467.2617@compuserve.com, 72073.3312@compuserve.com, jwgj@juno.com, jrhulvey@aol.com [www.FreeRepublic.com] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] Topic: Land Grab Liberty Matters: Action Item - Clinton's New Federal Land Use Scheme Bypasses Congress Michael Reagan's Hot Topics 06/04/97 In an end run around Congress, President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) unleashed a plan in the Federal Register May 21, to create the American Heritage Rivers Initiative by presidential proclamation. Since Clinton's announcement in his State of the Union Address that he will designate 10 rivers this year, the CEQ and 13 Federal Agencies have hammered out a new federal land use scheme under the guise of "restoring and protecting America's Rivers." In an unusual move, they have only allowed a two week window (due by June 9) for public comment, effectively curtailing public input and criticism. This plan has been skillfully constructed to appear as another good deed to save the environment, however the implementation of this program will place an unprecedented federal stranglehold on property owners. Key Points: * The initiative proposes to control rives for "natural, historic, cultural, social, economic and ecological diversity." * Encourages cooperation and approval by local governments with the lure of major federal grants. * Nominations of rivers can come form any source in or outside a "river community" including private citizens, educational and arts organizations, environmental organizations and elected citizens. * Designation of a river will be permanent and can include the entire watershed, including all tributaries that come off private property. * 13 Federal Agencies will be involved in the planning, implementation, management and enforcement of the Heritage rivers. * Together with the agencies, a federally appointed "River Navigator" will control all land use and management activities within the designated area. * The federal agencies will be granted "flexibility from certain bureaucratic requirements," effectively allowing them to create special privileges for themselves while those affected must abide by their rules. * Aerial photography and satellite surveillance will be used to police and expand the program. * Finally, only the president has final approval of the initiative. Immediate Action: Contact your Representative and Senators and tell them to oppose the president on this initiative and stop him from implementing this federal land use scheme! Your Congressmen are in their home districts this week. They might not even know the president has released this initiative. Tell them you want this program withdrawn. Tell them they need to have the courage and stand and fight for freedom in this country even if that means challenging the president. CALL NOW! Only You and Congress can stop this by June 9th!. HotTopics Online Preprocessor Copyright =A9 1996, 1997 Mediafax Technologies, Inc. http://www.reagan.com Posted by: Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) 06/04/97 20:55:55 PDT [www.FreeRepublic.com] =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: The Clintons' global federalism (fwd) Date: 05 Jun 1997 09:47:42 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- U.S. Troops To Guard Rain Forest By TOM BAYLES Associated Press Writer MIAMI (AP) -- Some U.S. soldiers are gearing up to take on new duties in Central and South America, helping train warriors for the environment. In at least 32 Latin American and Caribbean nations, members of the U.S. Southern Command -- SouthCom -- may begin training local soldiers to guard rain forests and endangered species. The new green duties are a dividend of the post-Cold War era that has spread democracy, not an easy transition for countries. ``This is a legitimate military issue,'' Timothy E. Wirth, undersecretary of state for global affairs, told the Western Hemisphere Defense Environmental Conference on Tuesday. ``This is not a bunch of trendy greenies.'' The Southern Command, which is relocating from Panama to Miami in late September, is one of nine unified military commands and is responsible for coordinating U.S. military operations in Central and South America. Its varied missions include human rights, military cooperation, and border conflicts in the Western hemisphere, most with an eye toward environmental impacts. ``SouthCom is unique in comparison to other unified commands because there is a real need - when you look at countries that have shifted to democracy over the last few years -- to show them guys wearing uniforms can be good people,'' said Navy Lt. Jane Campbell, a spokeswoman for SouthCom. ``It's vastly different from what many of the citizens have known.'' The green warriors fit with the thinking that a nation that has its environmental affairs in order is positioned to reap the rewards of its natural resources and in better shape for the future. And the military already has people in the region who know each country's dynamics and the expertise to solve problems. In the Panama Canal, for instance, SouthCom could help officials preserve the fragile water table that fills the canal and keeps it free of silt. Troops could help turn the Colombia-Venezuela border region -- the scene of a decades-long dispute stemming from Colombian guerrilla incursions into Venezuela -- into an international park. And they could help preserve Brazil's rain forests. Liakat Ali Errol Alibux, Suriname's minister of natural resources, said SouthCom's possible involvement in his nation was welcome. ``We need international cooperation on our environmental issues to help sustain our development,'' he said. The United States benefits, too. More than 50,000 National Guard and military reservists train every year in Central and South America, learning to build schoolhouses and highways. The training is useful for those serving in a troop-support capacity, like bridge-building engineers. ``It's preparing people for stuff they may have to do in that environment,'' Campbell said. SouthCom, with 6,200 members from all branches of the military, is required by the Panama Canal Treaty to move its 800-member headquarters off Panamanian soil by the end of 1999. SouthCom officials hoped the conference helped change people's attitudes about the range of jobs the U.S. armed forces undertakes. ``People say humanitarian missions and the military are diametrically opposed and we say no,'' Campbell said. AP-NY-06-05-97 1007EDT Copyright 1997 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: The Clintons' global federalism (fwd) Date: 05 Jun 1997 10:55:24 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dateline: The state department briefing room: As part of the new role of the US armed forces, the White House announced today they were contracting with "Earth First" to train the military in anti-urban warfare. This will complement the Ying and Yang of the militaries new role in both anti-civilian training in the many new urban warfare training centers and now anti-urban warfare. Announced a Buddhist monk from Al Gores fund raising White House office. In a related move US troops were stationed at the new Utah clean burning coal national preserve, said a White House spokes person from the Lippo group. At the White House ceremony for the Tiananmen Square student uprising John Huang from Lippo inc. presented the President a pair of Nike shoes made by the student leaders now working as prison laborers in the Nike plant. Attached to the shoes was a picture of the US flag overlaid with the Constitution and a circle with a slash through it. Under the logo was the slogan "Ignore the Constitution Just Do It". ---------- Forwarded message ---------- U.S. Troops To Guard Rain Forest By TOM BAYLES Associated Press Writer MIAMI (AP) -- Some U.S. soldiers are gearing up to take on new duties in Central and South America, helping train warriors for the environment. (cut) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Jenkins Granted an Extension on Subpoena Deadline (fwd) Date: 05 Jun 1997 11:02:18 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: cas@majordomo.pobox.com ROLL CALL June 5, 1997 Jenkins Granted an Extension on Subpoena Deadline By Benjamin Sheffner After eight months of claiming that he has compiled extensive evidence of a vote-fraud conspiracy that denied him election to the Senate last November, Louisiana Republican Woody Jenkins got more time to comply with Rules Committee subpoenas demanding that he hand over his proof. Jenkins was originally supposed to comply with a Rules subpoena by Tuesday but got an extension until Monday to address some logistical concerns over the delivery of what are expected to be hundreds of thousands of documents. Attorneys for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D), who was certified the winner over Jenkins by 5,788 votes and received a similar subpoena, met the deadline, handing over three boxes of documents to investigators holed up in the Hale Boggs Federal Office Building in New Orleans. Landrieu attorney Tony Gelderman said that his team's submissions are "run-of-the-mill stuff." The documents given to investigators include reports from handwriting experts and an analysis by the Peat Marwick accounting firm of so-called "phantom votes." Gelderman blasted Jenkins for failing to come forward Tuesday with the evidence he has been promising all along, specifically of the explosive allegations that teams of van drivers and "vote-fraud supervisors" cruised the poor neighborhoods of New Orleans on Election Day, handing out cash to residents who proceeded to vote multiple times for Landrieu. But Jenkins attorney Mark Seifert said everything will be handed over Monday. "We're not holding anything back," he said. Jenkins has said that his investigators conducted interviews with numerous participants in the alleged conspiracy, but, in his previous filings with the Rules panel, provided only heavily edited transcripts that omitted the names of the interviewees. Jenkins has said that he would provide the identities and full tapes of the interviews once sufficient steps had been taken to protect the alleged witnesses' and participants' safety. Seifert said yesterday that he is satisfied such steps have been taken. Gelderman said it is "incredible" that Jenkins was not ready to turn over his evidence after months of trumpeting it as proof of a "massive" vote-fraud conspiracy led by New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial (D) and his political organization, the Louisiana Independent Federation of Electors (LIFE). The Rules Committee's probe is being led by Richard Cullen of the Richmond, Va.-based firm McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, which was retained by Chairman John Warner (R-Va) to launch a full inquiry after an initial bipartisan team of attorneys recommended that most of Jenkins's allegations be dismissed. In its subpoenas, the Rules Committee made clear that it is looking into all of Jenkins's charges -- including those of "phantom votes," mismatched signatures, election commissioner malfeasance, voting machine tampering, and campaign finance improprieties, which the original investigative team of Republican Bill Canfield and Democrat Bob Bauer said should be dropped for lack of evidence or relevance. The probe is already bumping up against the 45-day window within which Warner originally said he wanted it completed. The Rules panel voted to authorize the investigation on April 17; 45 days from April 17 was last Sunday. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Rest of bombing story a mystery (fwd) Date: 06 Jun 1997 08:00:46 -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. --------------79B065964A37 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.denver-rmn.com/news/bomb/0603okc2.htm -- Gary Chappelle President Comsult Corporation http://www.comsultinc.com The "Big Brother" Home Page http://www2.vivid.net/~gnc422 --------------79B065964A37 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; NAME="0603okc2.htm" Content-ID: [Rocky Mountain News Online] · Bomb Trial News and Archives Rest of bombing story a mystery Despite prosecution, nagging questions about conspiracy theory remain Analysis by Lou Kilzer and Kevin Flynn Rocky Mountain News Staff Writers ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Americans learned Monday that Timothy McVeigh is guilty of bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, but they still don't know the full story. The trial was a search for justice, not necessarily for the real story. The prosecution of McVeigh left many nagging questions about the worst act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. Restricted as much by choice as by U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch's rulings excluding certain evidence and lines of questioning, lawyers on both sides honed their presentations to the narrow question of McVeigh's guilt or innocence. Prosecutors made it clear from the outset that their job was to convict McVeigh -- not necessarily answer every question about the bombing conspiracy. They achieved their goal. But now, a nation once captivated by the search for John Doe 2 is left to wonder whether there ever was such a man at the heart of the conspiracy. The clues are tantalizingly strong and, without resolution, continue to feed conspiracy theories. These mysteries remain: Renting the truck Two witnesses who work at the Ryder agency in Junction City, Kan., where the bomb truck was rented testified that two men came into the office that day. A third employee -- the one whose memory was once deemed the clearest and provided the descriptions for the famous sketches of suspects John Does 1 and 2 -- wasn't called as a witness. He also says two men were there. And a fourth employee, also never called at the trial, told the FBI two men arrived to pick up the truck. He said they arrived in a Jeep Cherokee. All this conflicts with the prosecution theory that McVeigh walked alone 20 minutes in the rain to get the truck. With all the witnesses sure there were two men, neither of whom was co-defendant Terry Nichols, then who could this John Doe 2 be? McVeigh at Denny's A waitress at a Junction City Denny's restaurant testified she seated McVeigh and two other men for brunch on Easter Sunday, three days before the bombing. Again, Nichols wasn't among them; he was at home with his wife. One of the men had long dark hair, similar to that of star witness Michael Fortier. Phone records in the case indicate no activity on Fortier's Kingman, Ariz., home telephone from April 14 until April 22. This was in the midst of the most crucial period of the entire conspiracy. Who were those two other men having Easter brunch with McVeigh? Dreamland Motel Lea McGown owns the Dreamland Motel in Junction City. McVeigh stayed there for four nights before the bombing, registered in his own name. One night, she said, she walked by his room and heard three male voices inside, one of them McVeigh's. She said she remembers this because McVeigh had paid a discount rate for a single room, and she would be upset if he had other guests. Who were those other people? McGown was not called to testify at the trial. The prosecution didn't call her perhaps because she told agents she saw McVeigh in a Ryder truck the day before the bomb truck was rented. The defense likely didn't call her because she did, in fact, see McVeigh in a Ryder truck. The botched bomb When McVeigh and Nichols tried to blow up a small ammonium nitrate bomb in a milk jug in October 1994 outside Kingman, Ariz., they failed miserably, Fortier testified. In that tiny device, the booster went off and sprayed unignited ammonium nitrate all over the desert sand. But in Kansas six months later, the government claimed, McVeigh took just a few hours the day before the bombing in Oklahoma City to mix nearly 5,600 pounds of ingredients into the same type of bomb. On April 19, 1995, the bomb exploded so efficiently that the FBI laboratory could find just a few unignited crystals of ammonium nitrate at the crime scene. And McVeigh cleaned himself up so efficiently that no ammonium nitrate was found on him or his car. How did he go from being unable to blow up a milk jug to cleanly igniting a Ryder truck full of explosives? The government says McVeigh learned the formula from Homemade C-4, a bomb-making book published in Boulder. But the formula for such a bomb in Homemade C-4 reads nothing like the way prosecutors said in court the bomb was built. The book calls for a slow, careful process of grinding and baking ammonium nitrate in small, coffee-can portions at a time. Other threats A paid federal informant infiltrated a racist compound in Oklahoma in 1994 and told her government contact that people there were talking about bombing federal facilities and the need to take action against the federal government. One of the men she said was talking this way was a German illegal alien named Andreas Strassmeir. He is the person McVeigh is alleged to have called from Arizona two weeks before the bombing, immediately after McVeigh called a Ryder agency in Arizona, according to phone records the government put into evidence. Despite this information, the FBI never interviewed Strassmeir before he fled to Berlin in January 1996. Why? The government successfully argued to Matsch that the informant, Carol Howe, should be prevented from testifying. Why? Eyewitnesses Tulsa banker Kyle Hunt is certain he saw McVeigh driving a big yellow car in downtown Oklahoma City, several blocks from the Murrah Building, a half-hour before the blast. Hunt said two men were with McVeigh in the car -- one with long dark hair similar to the unknown person with McVeigh in the Denny's restaurant. The men in the yellow car were tailing a big yellow Ryder truck and appeared to be lost in downtown's one-way street maze. Hunt told the FBI McVeigh glared at him when Hunt caught his eye, ready to offer directions. Hunt is only one of several people who claim to have seen McVeigh that morning in downtown Oklahoma City. All but one say they saw him with other men. None of these eyewitnesses was called to testify at the trial. Why? Philippine connection Nichols traveled often to the Philippines, where he married a mail-order bride. McVeigh's defense team interviewed a jailed Filipino terrorist, Edwin Angeles, who said he met with an American matching Nichols' description in 1992 on Mindanao, the hotbed of Islamic terrorism against the Philippine government. Angeles also claimed in his videotaped statement that his associate, Ramzi Yousef, participated in the meeting. Yousef is the alleged mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In November 1994, a month after the milk-jug bomb failed in Arizona, Nichols set up a two-month trip to the Philippines, where his wife was finishing school. Nichols left behind a letter for McVeigh indicating he might not return alive and that he should "go for it.'' While Nichols was in his wife's hometown of Cebu City, Yousef also showed up there. He boarded a jumbo jet in Manila, planted a small bomb under his seat and got off the plane in Cebu City. The flight continued and the bomb went off en route to Tokyo, killing a Japanese tourist who had taken Yousef's seat. The plane landed safely. Yousef has been convicted in this crime, which authorities say was a practice run for a plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean on a single day. Did a meeting between Yousef and Nichols really happen? Matsch barred McVeigh's lawyers from presenting evidence about a possible Philippines connection, ruling it irrelevant to the charges against McVeigh. Spotlight calls One mystery that no one has yet explained involves dozens of calls, lasting only seconds, to the company issuing the telephone calling card used by the conspirators. On the surface, the calls were merely made to determine account balances. But often the balance was called for repeatedly, only minutes apart. Sometimes a dozen consecutive calls were made to the balance number. The defense believed that the calls may have been used to connect the caller to a second, untraceable line. The issue, however, did not come up at McVeigh's trial because neither side could clearly work the evidence in their favor. The records indicate, as McVeigh's lawyers contended, that a third person had access to the card. The computer records show that on Feb. 17, 1995, several calls were made on the Spotlight card by McVeigh from the Hilltop Motel in Kingman, Ariz., to gun show promoters and to his father in New York. The same day in Junction City, Nichols placed two calls from a hardware store. But that evening, two calls totaling less than a minute were made from a pay phone east of Des Moines, Iowa, both made simply to check the credit balance on the Spotlight card. Who made those two calls? Terry Nichols' trial, expected to begin in August, might answer some of these questions. But it's unlikely that America will ever get the full story unless Timothy McVeigh talks. Tuesday, June 03, 1997 Back to top ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe to Denver's #1 Newspaper © Rocky Mountain News --------------79B065964A37-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: The rest of the bombing story mystery Date: 06 Jun 1997 13:14:07 -0500 (CDT) [Rocky Mountain News Online] =B7 Bomb Trial News and Archives Rest of bombing story a mystery Despite prosecution, nagging questions about conspiracy theory remain Analysis by Lou Kilzer and Kevin Flynn Rocky Mountain News Staff Writers -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -- Americans learned Monday that Timothy McVeigh is guilty of bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, but they still don't know the full story. The trial was a search for justice, not necessarily for the real story. The prosecution of McVeigh left many nagging questions about the worst act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. Restricted as much by choice as by U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch's rulings excluding certain evidence and lines of questioning, lawyers on both sides honed their presentations to the narrow question of McVeigh'= s guilt or innocence. Prosecutors made it clear from the outset that their job was to convict McVeigh -- not necessarily answer every question about the bombing conspiracy. They achieved their goal. But now, a nation once captivated by the search for John Doe 2 is left to wonder whether there ever was such a man at the heart of the conspiracy. The clues are tantalizingly strong and, without resolution, continue to feed conspiracy theories. These mysteries remain: Renting the truck Two witnesses who work at the Ryder agency in Junction City, Kan., wher= e the bomb truck was rented testified that two men came into the office that day. A third employee -- the one whose memory was once deemed the clearest and provided the descriptions for the famous sketches of suspects John Does 1 and 2 -- wasn't called as a witness. He also says two men were there. And a fourth employee, also never called at the trial, told the FBI two men arrived to pick up the truck. He said they arrived in a Jeep Cherokee. All this conflicts with the prosecution theory that McVeigh walked alon= e 20 minutes in the rain to get the truck. With all the witnesses sure there were two men, neither of whom was co-defendant Terry Nichols, then who could this John Doe 2 be? McVeigh at Denny's A waitress at a Junction City Denny's restaurant testified she seated McVeigh and two other men for brunch on Easter Sunday, three days befor= e the bombing. Again, Nichols wasn't among them; he was at home with his wife. One of the men had long dark hair, similar to that of star witness Michael Fortier. Phone records in the case indicate no activity on Fortier's Kingman, Ariz., home telephone from April 14 until April 22. This was in the midst of the most crucial period of the entire conspiracy. Who were those two other men having Easter brunch with McVeigh? Dreamland Motel Lea McGown owns the Dreamland Motel in Junction City. McVeigh stayed there for four nights before the bombing, registered in his own name. One night, she said, she walked by his room and heard three male voices inside, one of them McVeigh's. She said she remembers this because McVeigh had paid a discount rate for a single room, and she would be upset if he had other guests. Who were those other people? McGown was not called to testify at the trial. The prosecution didn't call her perhaps because she told agents she saw McVeigh in a Ryder truck the day before the bomb truck was rented. The defense likely didn't call her because she did, in fact, see McVeigh in a Ryder truck. The botched bomb When McVeigh and Nichols tried to blow up a small ammonium nitrate bomb in a milk jug in October 1994 outside Kingman, Ariz., they failed miserably, Fortier testified. In that tiny device, the booster went off and sprayed unignited ammoniu= m nitrate all over the desert sand. But in Kansas six months later, the government claimed, McVeigh took just a few hours the day before the bombing in Oklahoma City to mix nearly 5,600 pounds of ingredients into the same type of bomb. On April 19, 1995, the bomb exploded so efficiently that the FBI laboratory could find just a few unignited crystals of ammonium nitrate at the crime scene. And McVeigh cleaned himself up so efficiently that no ammonium nitrate was found on him or his car. How did he go from being unable to blow up a milk jug to cleanly igniting a Ryder truck full of explosives? The government says McVeigh learned the formula from Homemade C-4, a bomb-making book published in Boulder. But the formula for such a bomb in Homemade C-4 reads nothing like the way prosecutors said in court the bomb was built. The book calls for a slow, careful process of grinding and baking ammonium nitrate in small, coffee-can portions at a time. Other threats A paid federal informant infiltrated a racist compound in Oklahoma in 1994 and told her government contact that people there were talking about bombing federal facilities and the need to take action against th= e federal government. One of the men she said was talking this way was a German illegal alien named Andreas Strassmeir. He is the person McVeigh is alleged to have called from Arizona two weeks before the bombing, immediately after McVeigh called a Ryder agency in Arizona, according to phone records th= e government put into evidence. Despite this information, the FBI never interviewed Strassmeir before h= e fled to Berlin in January 1996. Why? The government successfully argued to Matsch that the informant, Carol Howe, should be prevented from testifying. Why? Eyewitnesses Tulsa banker Kyle Hunt is certain he saw McVeigh driving a big yellow car in downtown Oklahoma City, several blocks from the Murrah Building, a half-hour before the blast. Hunt said two men were with McVeigh in the car -- one with long dark hair similar to the unknown person with McVeigh in the Denny's restaurant. The men in the yellow car were tailing a big yellow Ryder truck and appeared to be lost in downtown's one-way street maze. Hunt told the FBI McVeigh glared at him when Hunt caught his eye, ready to offer directions. Hunt is only one of several people who claim to have seen McVeigh that morning in downtown Oklahoma City. All but one say they saw him with other men. None of these eyewitnesses was called to testify at the trial. Why? Philippine connection Nichols traveled often to the Philippines, where he married a mail-orde= r bride. McVeigh's defense team interviewed a jailed Filipino terrorist, Edwin Angeles, who said he met with an American matching Nichols' description in 1992 on Mindanao, the hotbed of Islamic terrorism agains= t the Philippine government. Angeles also claimed in his videotaped statement that his associate, Ramzi Yousef, participated in the meeting. Yousef is the alleged mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In November 1994, a month after the milk-jug bomb failed in Arizona, Nichols set up a two-month trip to the Philippines, where his wife was finishing school. Nichols left behind a letter for McVeigh indicating h= e might not return alive and that he should "go for it.'' While Nichols was in his wife's hometown of Cebu City, Yousef also showed up there. He boarded a jumbo jet in Manila, planted a small bomb under his seat and got off the plane in Cebu City. The flight continued and the bomb went off en route to Tokyo, killing a Japanese tourist who had taken Yousef's seat. The plane landed safely. Yousef has been convicted in this crime, which authorities say was a practice run for a plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocea= n on a single day. Did a meeting between Yousef and Nichols really happen? Matsch barred McVeigh's lawyers from presenting evidence about a possible Philippines connection, ruling it irrelevant to the charges against McVeigh. Spotlight calls One mystery that no one has yet explained involves dozens of calls, lasting only seconds, to the company issuing the telephone calling card used by the conspirators. On the surface, the calls were merely made to determine account balances. But often the balance was called for repeatedly, only minutes apart. Sometimes a dozen consecutive calls were made to the balance number. The defense believed that the calls may have been used to connect the caller to a second, untraceable line. The issue, however, did not come up at McVeigh's trial because neither side could clearly work the evidence in their favor. The records indicate, as McVeigh's lawyers contended, that a third person had access to the card. The computer records show that on Feb. 17, 1995, several calls were mad= e on the Spotlight card by McVeigh from the Hilltop Motel in Kingman, Ariz., to gun show promoters and to his father in New York. The same day in Junction City, Nichols placed two calls from a hardware store. But that evening, two calls totaling less than a minute were made from = a pay phone east of Des Moines, Iowa, both made simply to check the credi= t balance on the Spotlight card. Who made those two calls? Terry Nichols' trial, expected to begin in August, might answer some of these questions. But it's unlikely that America will ever get the full story unless Timothy McVeigh talks. Tuesday, June 03, 1997 Back to top -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -- Subscribe to Denver's #1 Newspaper =A9 Rocky Mountain News http://www.denver-rmn.com/news/bomb/0603okc2.htm --=20 Gary Chappelle President Comsult Corporation http://www.comsultinc.com The "Big Brother" Home Page http://www2.vivid.net/~gnc422 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: L&J: Fwd: ECO-LOGIC: THE EROSION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN AMERICA (fwd) Date: 06 Jun 1997 14:43:15 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- RICA --------------------- Forwarded message: ECO-LOGIC - SEPT/OCT 1996 THE EROSION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN AMERICA - eco-logic staff Philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that society would benefit most if the land were owned by the sovereign who had the authority to distribute the land to those best suited to use it for the benefit of society, and "=85no individual can set their own private judgment of right and wrong in opposition to the sovereign's commands." John Locke, on the other hand, believed that society would benefit most if the land were owned by its first possessor, who had the authority to use the land to benefit himself. Society, consisting of individuals who owned their own land and were free to use it for their own benefit, would, therefore, take care of themselves. At the core of all land use battles, the conflict between these two fundamental views of land ownership continues to rage. In America, it took a revolution to convince King George that Thomas Hobbes had no influence. While few Americans knew anything about John Locke, they knew all they needed to know about the ownership by first possession.=20 Trespassers were not prosecuted, they were shot. Water rights were inviolate and resources =96 under, on, and above the land =96 belonged to t= he landowner. The property rights which accompanied ownership by first possession were absolute, unquestioned, and enforced. When the exercise of those absolute rights infringed the absolute rights of a neighbor, the dispute was often resolved in the graveyard. But as communities developed, more civilized methods of dispute resolution evolved. Communities devised methods of recognizing and recording the transfer of property. Some early communities even devised methods of restricting land use on privately owned property. Nevertheless, through the early years of the evolution of property rights in America, the fundamental Lockean concept of individual, absolute ownership prevailed.=20 The U.S. Constitution enshrined that concept and required the federal government to pay "just compensation" when it took property from private citizens. The Lockean concept of property rights has almost vanished from American reality. Local zoning ordinances imposed by local elected officials was widely accepted (except in Houston which seems to have survived without it) across the land. In the 1970s, the idea of regional planning (zoning) by transboundary, or state authorities became popular. Then federal land use planning became the rage until Congress defeated the effort =96 twice. The Hobbesian concept did not die with the Federal Land Use Planning Act. It retreated only to retrench, redesign itself, and return in the form of "environmental" regulations. Moreover, the courts seem to have studied under Hobbes. To most Americans, a property is "taken" by the government when the owner cannot use his property as he wishes because of a government regulation. Not so in many courts. The reasoning is hard to follow and even harder to swallow. If a property is "taken" to benefit society, then the government should pay just compensation to the owner. If, however, the property is "taken" to prevent "harm" to society, then the government has no liability to pay.=20 What, then is "harm"? Until recently, harm, also referred to as nuisance, was considered to be an activity that would have a negative impact upon people, especially those people who were directly impacted by the activity. A junk yard in a residential neighborhood, for example, would be considered a harm, or nuisance, to the other people in the neighborhood and could therefore be prevented by government without the government having to pay just compensation. The definition of "harm" began to expand with the judicial gerrymandering of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 was intended to give the Corps of Engineers the authority to prevent the pollution of the "navigable waters of the United States." Law suits brought by the National Wildlife Federation stretched, distorted, and expanded the meaning of the law so badly that Ocie Mills spent 21 months in a federal prison for polluting the waters of the United States when he deposited 19 loads of building sand on his own property =96 after getting a building permit from his county and having his site approved by the state of Florida. With the expansion of the Clean Water Act, nearly 200-million acres of private property came under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Use of that land is restricted and no compensation is due the owner because use of what the government declares to be a wetland is considered a "harm" to society. No longer does an alleged "harm" have to directly impact people. The wetland policy has been accepted and government does not even have to prove that society will actually be harmed by a proposed wetland use. Government has only to declare a property to be a wetland and its use is restricted without compensation. The Endangered Species Act further expanded the concept of "harm." This law allows the government to restrict land use when the proposed use may interfere with the activities of an animal the government has declared to be endangered or threatened. The concept of "harm" is no longer limited to harming people. Animals and plants now take precedence over the property rights of a landowner. These two laws, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, have given the federal government more authority to control land use than would have been conveyed by the Federal Land Use Planning Act which failed in the 1970s. But it gets worse =96 much worse. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act gives the federal government authority to control land use on either side of designated rivers. The Department of Transportation's Scenic Byways program can control land use on all the private property that can be seen from a designated highway. Heritage areas are popping up all over the country in which land use is restricted for every conceivable purpose which is defined as "harm" and therefore not compensable. Additionally, there are 47 Biosphere Reserves in America in which land use is restricted by international agreement. The U.S. State Department's Man and the Biosphere Program is funding private organizations working to nominate additional Biosphere Reserves. The federal government has control of the land now, and it is tightening its grip. Two international treaties are hovering on the horizon that will, if ratified by the Senate, end any resemblance to private property rights as they have been known for 200 years in America. Warren Christopher, Secretary of State, announced on April 9 at Stanford University, that ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity would be a top priority for President Clinton's second term. Close on its heels will be the Convention on Desertification. These two treaties will require that the federal government implement land use policies that comply with international law. Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity requires the establishment of a "system of protected areas." The treaty does not define what a system of protected areas might be. The treaty also requires a global biodiversity assessment. The assessment has been prepared and published by Cambridge University Press. It is an 1140-page document entitled Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), in which a system of protected areas is thoroughly defined in the last 200 pages. The ideal system of protected areas is said to be The Wildlands Project, published in 1992 in the United States (GBA, p. 993). The Wildlands Project calls for at least 50 percent of the land area of North America to be converted to wilderness, off limits to humans. An additional 25 percent of the land area is to be buffer zones in which only limited human activity may occur =96 with the approval of government. Huma= ns are to be resettled into the remaining 25 percent of the land area in what is called "sustainable communities." The time table for implementation is 50 to 100 years. The process has already begun. Obviously, private property rights, as evolved from the Lockean concept of first possession, cannot survive the onslaught of Hobbesian philosophy being implemented by the federal government. The fledgling property rights movement in America was able to prevent the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity in the 103rd Congress, and to prevent the last four Biosphere Reserves nominated in America, but those were only temporary setbacks for those who want a sovereign government to control all land use. A New Strategy A new strategy has been devised by the proponents of The Wildlands Project. In the Winter 1995/96 edition of Wild Earth (the magazine which first published The Wildlands Project in 1992), proponents are told that the idea of property rights is too powerful to confront head-on. Instead, proponents should support the idea of property rights and advocate the payment of just compensation when property is taken to benefit society =96 but not when it is taken to prevent "harm" to society. Publicly, The Wildlands Project proponents would be in agreement with property rights advocates. But behind the scenes, the definition of "harm" continues to expand. Now, thanks to a Wisconsin court decision, Just v. Marinette County, "harm" has been expanded beyond harm to people and harm to animals and plants, and now embraces the integrity of the ecosystem.=20 The decision holds that "An owner of land has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essential natural character of his land so as to use it for a purpose for which it was unsuited in its natural state." Under this expansive concept of "harm," the federal government can prevent any and all activity by simply alleging that such activity will alter the integrity of the ecosystem. How can a landowner prove that a proposed, unperformed activity will not "harm" an ecosystem? Wild Earth readers are told: "What counts ultimately is not whose name is on the deed, but how the land is put to use, and who makes the land-use decisions." Federal land use control is almost complete. Many people, perhaps the majority of Americans, sincerely believe that the environment and society will benefit from the Hobbesian philosophy of government control of the land. The majority of people already live in cities and have little contact with the reality of land ownership. Many people have bought into the idea that the land and the biodiversity it contains really should be "public property," under the control of the government. There is a much more important principle at stake, however. If the federal government can circumvent the Constitution and take control over the privately owned land, what is to prevent that government from taking control over any other privately owned property? The only protection from the exercise of sovereignty by the government over its people is the exercise of sovereignty by the people over the government. Before there was a Constitution, people exercised their sovereignty with bullets. The U.S. Constitution made it possible for people to exercise their sovereignty with ballots. Once the Hobbesian philosophy of the Convention on Biological Diversity is ratified by the U.S. Senate, both individual and national sovereignty will be ceded to an international body beyond the reach of ballots or bullets. [Reprinted, with permission, from the September/October 1996 issue of eco-logic, a bi-monthly publication of Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), P.O. Box 191, Hollow Rock, TN 38342, (901) 986-0099.] Membership in ECO (which includes a subscription to "eco-logic" magazine, published bi-monthly) is $35 a year for individuals; $100 a year for businesses and organizations; and $1,000 a year for an "ECO protector" membership. . Back issues of eco-logic are available for $3.00 each. =20 Memberships are not tax-deductible as donations. See below for special reports available from ECO. SPECIAL REPORTS Bulk orders delivered to the same address may be available at a discount.= =20 Call for information. See below for ordering information. List of all Special Reports available from ECO: SPECIAL REPORTS: ($10 each + $2 S&H) The Rise of Green Religion (28 pages) The Rise of Global Governance (36 pages) Convention on Biological Diversity:=20 =09Cornerstone of the New World Order (17 pages) Federal Land Use Control through Federal Ecosystem =09Management (20 pages) Why Chlorine Should NOT Be Banned (17 pages with endnotes) GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT: Section 10 Summary (31 pages with glossary, and maps) Section 9 Summary (31 pages) INTERNATIONAL TREATIES: Convention on Biological Diversity Convention on Climate Change World Heritage Treaty CITES (Endangered Species) BASEL (Hazardous Waste) Rights of the Child ($15 please) NEWSPAPER COLUMNS: $50/year Weekly columns (4 per set, mailed monthly) available for publication in newspapers and newsletters. VIDEOTAPE: $15 (1hour +) Henry Lamb's presentation to the Granada Forum CONFERENCE WORKBOOK: $29.95 (plus $5 S&H, $10 international) Global Environmentalism: Agenda 21's Impact on America (570+ pages, 3-ring binder) Send payment with your name (and organization, if applicable), address, phone, fax and e-mail address to ECO, requesting the report or membership you desire. ECO does not accept payment by credit card. ECO P.O. Box 191 Hollow Rock, TN 38342 (901) 986-0099 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) Shootout Causes Waco-like CS Gas Fireball (Repost) (fwd) Date: 06 Jun 1997 15:02:56 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater This story is under a news blackout by the national media. SD Shootout Friday Results in CS Gas Explosion On Friday May 2, San Diego Police attempted to serve a warrant at a house in the surburb of National City and were greeted by automatic gunfire. Police exchanged gunfire with the suspected criminals inside. The confrontation lasted over and hour and was videotaped. CS gas, the same type used in Waco, was shot into the house. According to the Union Tribune newspaper as the CS gas filled the house it ignited and caused the entire structure and surrounding palm trees to be engulfed in flames. Two people inside the house died of either gunshot or incineration. The recent Los Angeles bank robbery shootout gathered hours of national media attention. Yet the San Diego shootout, every bit as "exciting" as Los Angeles, has been completely ignored. Why would national and major media ignore a story that has all the notorious visual elements so attractive to media sensationalists? During the Waco hearings 3 years ago the Federal Government maintained that CS gas was not flammable. This formed the basis of the mass suicide charge against the Branch Davidians. The Branch Davidian ranch burst into flames after the FBI and other Federal Police pumped CS gas into the occupied buildings. Attorney General Janet Reno approved the use of CS gas. This recent incident with CS gas affirms the conclusions of earlier reports which stated CS gas to be flammable and it's use restricted to out-of-doors. The CS gas explosion knocks the legs from under the Branch Davidian mass suicide theory. America is facing the very ugly reality that Federal Police, under the direction of Attorney General Reno, used a flammable gas on the Davidian ranch and then concealed the resultant incineration of approximately 60 adults and 20 children. Congressional hearings held in the wake of the Davidian incident whitewashed Federal actions. The national media did yeoman's work in perpetrating the mass suicide theory on the public. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: A Jan & Dean Oldies Hit Sung By FBI Agents Driving Back to Little Rock From Memphis Date: 07 Jun 1997 20:27:16 -0400 (EDT) THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE (With Apologies to Jan & Dean and their infamous "409" !) She's real fine, my MP-5, my M ... P ... 5 ... Louie Freeh told me that it wasn't jive, Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, That there soon would come a time, Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, When I would get a brand new MP-5. Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, Wanna have MP-5, wanna have MP-5, Nothing shoots faster, bad guy blaster, MP-5, MP-5 ... Then I lost a SWAT van filled with guns, Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, And Director Louie Freeh really torched my buns, Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, Now I know I'll never see a brand new MP-5. Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, Wanna have MP-5, wanna have MP-5, Nothing shoots faster, bad guy blaster, MP-5, MP-5 ... In that stolen SWAT van there were M-16s, Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, Shotguns, grenades, but no Recon Marines, Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, Boo hoo I'll never see my brand new MP-5. Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, Wanna have MP-5, wanna have MP-5, Nothing shoots faster, bad guy blaster, MP-5, MP-5 ... Now, we pressed really hard and we found lost guns, Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, But my Hanes are discolored, I still have the runs, Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, I can hear Freeh saying "Nyet" to my brand new MP-5. Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, Wanna have MP-5, wanna have MP-5, Nothing shoots faster, bad guy blaster, MP-5, MP-5 ... We're very special agents fighting "terror" at home, Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, We're dressed like Special Forces wherever we roam, Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, We're Sly Stallone's cuzzins and I still want my MP-5! Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, Wanna have MP-5, wanna have MP-5, Nothing shoots faster, bad guy blaster, MP-5, MP-5 ... A man said we're not soldiers, we're the FBI, Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, Get me his name, we'll "Ruby Ridge" that guy, Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, With any luck I'll get to use my brand new MP-5. Wanna have, wanna have MP-5, Wanna have MP-5, wanna have MP-5, Nothing shoots faster, bad guy blaster, MP-5, MP-5 ... MP-5 ... MP-5 ... MP-5 ... THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: What FBI Agents Were Singing Before The Missing SWAT Van Was Found Date: 07 Jun 1997 21:26:33 -0400 (EDT) THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE (With Apologies to the late Richie Valens ... sung to the oldies hit "Oh, Donna!") SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, We had a SWAT van, and gone-ahh is its name, Since we lost it, our careers aren't the same, Yes, we loved that SWAT van, Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, Loaded with weapons (full auto), grenades, Explosive ordnance, but no motel maids, Yes, we loved that SWAT van, Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, We left the SWAT van unwatched, not secure, Now we're real busy just shoveling manure, Yes, we loved that SWAT van, Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, Some weapons lost were Class III, you bet, In big trouble, we commandos will get, Yes, we loved that SWAT van, Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, We'll pass the blame, and we'll pass the buck, Because we're Freeh's ninjas, we might have good luck, Yes, we loved that SWAT van, Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, We'll find what we lost and Freeh will forgive, He will promote us and soon medals he'll give, Yes, we loved that SWAT van, Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, Should a civilian ever lose a "SWAT van", That poor jerk will land right in the can, Yes, we loved that SWAT van, Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? Oh, SWAT van, oh SWAT van, Oh, SWAT van, oh SWAT van ... THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: >>> Dave Kuehne? Date: 07 Jun 1997 18:26:33 -0700 Dave, are you on one of these lists? If so, please respond privately to ghostpwr@dmi.net Thanks. - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: What FBI Agents Were Singing Before The Missing SWAT Van Was Found Date: 07 Jun 1997 18:57:02 PDT roc@mail.xmission.com wrote : >THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE > >(With Apologies to the late Richie Valens ... sung to the oldies hit "Oh, > Donna!") > >SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, >We had a SWAT van, and gone-ahh is its name, >Since we lost it, our careers aren't the same, >Yes, we loved that SWAT van, >Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? > >SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, >Loaded with weapons (full auto), grenades, >Explosive ordnance, but no motel maids, >Yes, we loved that SWAT van, >Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? > >SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, >We left the SWAT van unwatched, not secure, >Now we're real busy just shoveling manure, >Yes, we loved that SWAT van, >Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? > >SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, >Some weapons lost were Class III, you bet, >In big trouble, we commandos will get, >Yes, we loved that SWAT van, >Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? > >SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, >We'll pass the blame, and we'll pass the buck, >Because we're Freeh's ninjas, we might have good luck, >Yes, we loved that SWAT van, >Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? > >SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, >We'll find what we lost and Freeh will forgive, >He will promote us and soon medals he'll give, >Yes, we loved that SWAT van, >Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? > >SWAT van, gone-ahh, SWAT van, gone-ahh, >Should a civilian ever lose a "SWAT van", >That poor jerk will land right in the can, >Yes, we loved that SWAT van, >Oh, SWAT van, where can you be, where can you be? >Oh, SWAT van, oh SWAT van, >Oh, SWAT van, oh SWAT van ... > >THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE > >Christopher C. Ferris >Litchfield NH >ferriscc@mainstream.net While not being able to compare with Chris's delightful satire I thought that Alan Abelson's cpmments in BARRONS this morning on this subject were fairly biting Still another once-revered part of government, the FBI, has also been subjected to a drumfire of totally unwarranted criticism. The latest shameful barrage was occasioned by the misfortune that beset one of the agency's SWAT teams on an anti-terrorist training mission in Memphis. Exhausted after a hazardous drive from their headquarters in Little Rock, Ark., the agents repaired to a motel. They awoke the next morning refreshed and ready for action only to discover their Chevrolet Suburban was missing and along with it, the precious tools of their trade: M-16 rifles, shotguns, tear-gas equipment, bulletproof vests, helmets and ammunition (the Suburaban was, as car dealers say, fully loaded). News of the theft prompted widespread increduling and hilarity. Yet, the FBI team had turned if for the night after having painstakingly attended to the security of the vehicle by prominently displaying a "no radio" sign in the windshield. Jack > > > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: A Distinct Community Date: 07 Jun 1997 22:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Posted in the G.U.N.S. Folder, June 8, on the AOL Gun Talk Board (Keyword, GUNS): ===== Subj: A Distinct Community (1) I have been asking the "powers that be" at AOL, for several months now, for a new Folder in AOL Gun Talk, tentatively to be called "Gunners' Bar & Grill." I am not going to name names, but surely by now most of you know who "they" are. I wanted to create a virtual PLACE, a new Folder, a kind of cyber-cafe, where we could all post messages that were not related directly to guns, but still the fact that we all own and use guns would kind of be there in the background, linking and bonding us in a way that would allow us to share OTHER intimate aspects of our lives that needed to be expressed, and that could be understood in a special way because we all tend to agree on so much else in our lives--once we've agreed on the right to keep and bear arms, which we all seem to have done. We are very special people, with big hearts. We are a distinct group. Yes, we are a community! But, my request was turned down, of course, for no reason other than gun-owning posters should only post their personal chat in the same old "Gun Talk" Folder, which already exists. "I'm sorry," AOL said, "this duplicates the function of the general Gun Talk folder. Please use that folder for general posts...." No nuances allowed on AOL for the gun owners, was the implied response. No, Sir, no Ma'am! Gunowners have no range of emotions, and certainly don't need no stinking separate folder for (gulp!) ... real "FEELINGS" about other subjects. Heaven forbid! Okay, so here I go, anyway. I need to post this! Let's see if "THEY" (AOL "police") delete it! This message is very mushy and personal, and is NOT about guns directly, but I want to get it off my chest, so to speak, and I thank you in advance for listening, and I KNOW you will listen, because I KNOW GUN OWNERS! And I know they have have BIG HEARTS. If the powers that be at AOL ever want to reconsider, and use this as a FIRST posting in a new folder called "GUNNERS' BAR & GRILL," fine with me. If not, here's my message, regardless, anyway, for the proposed GUNNERS' BAR & GRILL Folder: ---- Subj: A Distinct Community (2) Dear Folks: I am so sorry I haven't been posting more lately, but my Mom has been in the hospital since April 19, when she had a heart attack at about 3:00 a.m. She has endured and chosen the whole bit: angiogram, aborted angioplasty, open heart surgery, complications (bleeding heart [another surgery!], loss of appetite, feeding tube [another surgery]), on and on and on .... I have visited Mom at least 80 times in the hospital, and I still feel guilty that I am not doing enough for her. On Monday, June 9, we'll probably move her to a "nursing home." Mom's somewhat agreeable to this, even though she always said that you don't get "nursed," and it ain't a "home," in those places called "nursing homes." Mom's going on 88, and she was the oldest patient the surgeon ever operated on (and he's done 3,000 + bypasses). And--side note--my beloved Mom shot her first gun at age 5, and gave me a .22 rifle when I was 8. Until lately, she kind of wondered about my gun rights "activism." "Shucks, it's protected in the Constitution," she told me. Then she began to see what was really happening, especially watching the TV news, and now she cheers me on: "Give 'em hell, son! My goodness, now they're attacking OUR CONSTITUTION!" For Mom, and most of those in her generation, attacking the Constitution might as well be attacking God Almighty himself (or herself). Frankly, I have been so worried and stressed about Mom the past two months that I actually learned something: that I can only worry and fret so much, and then my mind peaks-freaks out, and there's no room left to worry any more (my cup runneth over), and, at that point, I can hopefully be more effective in looking after her. Yesterday, in an excruciatingly intimate moment, I brushed Mom's teeth for her. She's so pitifully weak now she can hardly lift her arms. It broke my heart. But I want you to know I did a very good job. I don't know what the reference points are any more, the so-called "baselines," and neither do the countless, faceless doctors, for someone as old as Mom is. I have my nagging, unstoppable judgments and evaluations, e.g., Mom "should" be doing this, and progressing more, etc., but the truth is, I think Mom's also giving me maps on how to handle major trauma, at age 87--if I can only see them through my tears.... Yep, Mom's one tough lady. She always wanted to see my newest gun, and would handle it like a pro, ejecting the magazine, checking the chamber, asking me if it was accurate. Jesus. Good thing she quit smoking a few years ago. She loudly admits she wouldn't otherwise have made it through all the surgeries. If she ever gets home, I know she's going to celebrate with a sip or four of Johnny Walker Black. Maybe more. And, damn it, this old "Gun Lady" will have earned it. And so will I. [End.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: List of Executive Orders Date: 08 Jun 1997 08:08:11 -0400 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net >Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 01:01:50 -0400 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: E Pluribus Unum >Subject: List of Executive Orders > >--------------- >Forwarded msg. >From: Dave Delany >Subject: List of executive orders > > > >*Jus Dare* >List of executive orders > >>Dave, Would you publish to the Jus Dare news group a list of all the >>executive orders that have been released since Comrade Clinton has >>been in office? Thank you. Barbara > >Get a comprehensive look at these issues: subscribe to Freedom House. > >Send a check for $20 to Dave Delany at > > Dave Delany's Freedom House > PO Box 212 > Conklin NY 13748 > >This month Freedom House will be looking at the encroachment of >Socialism and, lo and behold, Executive Orders. Due out June 30. > > >How about a quick review of Executive Orders? History and knowledge >of these commands is essential in working against the treason of the >United States presidents and congress. Merely one small aspect of the >violence against our legitimate Constitutionally limited Republic, >EOs have become the drug of choice for a developing monarchy and >Parliament in the United States. > >EOs have been with us for a long time. Originally, they were commands >by the president to his cabinet -- how he wanted the business of his >officers conducted. Cleveland, for instance, issued 71 of them. >McKinley signed 51 EOs. They did not deal with the public, or >legislation. > >Then came Teddy. The first of the Roosevelt dynasty issued 1,006 >Executive Orders! He felt that any power not specifically denied the >executive was his to claim, and claim he did. > >Ted said, "I decline to adopt the view that what was imperatively > necessary for the Nation could not be done by the President > unlesss he could find some specific authorization to do it. My > belief was that it was not only his right, but his duty to do > anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such > action was forbidden by the Constitution or by Law. Under this > interpretation of Executive power I did and caused to be done > many things not previously done by the President and the heads > of the Departments. I did not usurp powers, but I did grearly > broaden the use of Executive power." > >In WWI, Wilson used this "implied authority" to create all sorts of >law, including the Food Administration and the War Trade Board. > >It wasn't until the reign of cousin Franklin in the dynasty of >Roosevelts that Congress got nervous. There was so much "new law" in >the Raw Deal that Congress passed the Federal Register Act. At that >point, all EOs had to be published and numbered. Since the fed are >less than stringent in their application of law, it is estimated that >between 20,000 and 50,000 EOs have merely "slipped between the >cracks." They are still recognized by the powers that be; it's just >that no one can actually put a finger on them ... > >Clinton has issued 125 numbered EOs since January 20, 1993. Are there >more? Your guess is as good as anyone's. Remember: the damned things >are still regarded as law, even if you can not find them or refer to >them. > >Here they are, in reverse date order: > > 1. 1997-05-20 > Executive Order for Economic Sanctions on Burma > 6308 > 2. 1997-05-16 > Executive Order for Bioethics Advisory Board > 1017 > 3. 1997-04-21 > Exec Order on Health and Safety Risks to Children > 12714 > 4. 1997-04-18 > Exec Order Amends Agricultural Trade Development Act > 1393 > 5. 1997-04-16 > Executive Order on Fed Employees Use of Seatbelts > 7186 > 6. 1997-03-11 > Exec Order on Naval Special Warfare Development Group > 1389 > 7. 1997-03-11 > Exec Order for Advisory Committee on Digital TV > 4144 > 8. 1997-03-05 > Renewal of Iran Emergency Order > 1986 > 9. 1997-03-04 > Commission to Study Capital Budgeting Established > 4256 > 10. 1997-02-11 > Exec Order on Advisory Com on Computing and Internet > 4356 > 11. 1997-01-30 > Statement on Gulf War Veterans Illness > 3256 > 12. 1996-12-27 > Executive Order Adjusting Certain Pay and Allowances > 3255 > 13. 1996-12-26 > Further Amendment to Executive Order 12964 > 1053 > 14. 1996-12-13 > Exec Order on Alternative Fueled Vehicle Leadership > 10251 > 15. 1996-12-12 > Exec Order for Foreign Aid and Arms Export Controls > 2254 > 16. 1996-12-03 > Exec Order on Enterprise for the Americas Initiative > 2656 > 17. 1996-12-03 > Exec Order on Conference on Security in Europe > 1681 > 18. 1996-11-15 > Exec Order Establishing SEPTA Dispute Emergency Board > 2877 > 19. 1996-11-15 > Exec Order on Crypto Export Controls Administration > 7250 > 20. 1996-11-07 > Exec Order on Council on Counter Narcotics > 3113 > 21. 1996-11-07 > Exec Order Amending Work Study Program Terms > 1543 > 22. 1996-10-31 > Executive Order on Jurisdiction over Midway Islands > 4239 > 23. 1996-10-19 > Executive Order on Tribal Colleges and Universities > 12092 > 24. 1996-10-18 > Proclamation Honoring The Filipino Veterans of WW II > 2765 > 25. 1996-10-12 > Exec Order on Commercial Satellites Export > 5557 > 26. 1996-09-28 > Executive Order Concerning Child Support Collection > 10014 > 27. 1996-09-16 > Executive Order Increasing Bioethics Advisory Board > 963 > 28. 1996-09-05 > Exec Order for Health Consumer Protection Commission > 4653 > 29. 1996-08-28 > Executive Order on Great Lakes Pollution > 4560 > 30. 1996-08-06 > Executive Order on Armed Forces Reserve Medal > 3693 > 31. 1996-07-18 > Exec Order Emergency Dispute Board on SEPTA Dispute > 2768 > 32. 1996-07-18 > Exec Order for Emergency Board on SEPTA Labor Dispute > 2768 > 33. 1996-07-16 > Exec Order on Federal Information Technology > 21015 > 34. 1996-07-15 > Exec Order on Critical Infrastructure Protection > 12754 > 35. 1996-06-14 > Executive Order on HIV/AIDS Advisory Council Size > 1039 > 36. 1996-06-03 > Exec Order on Narcotics Control Policy Authority > 1107 > 37. 1996-05-24 > Executive Order on Protection of Indian Sacred Sites > 4849 > 38. 1996-05-21 > Executive Order on Locating Federal Facilities > 5121 > 39. 1996-05-14 > Executive Order Terminating Vietnam as Combat Zone > 1037 > 40. 1996-05-08 > Executive Order for Emergency Board in RR Disputes > 5417 > 41. 1996-04-24 > Executive Order on Succession for Sec of Defense > 4580 > 42. 1996-04-17 > Executive Order on Computer Technology for Education > 8662 > 43. 1996-04-02 > Exec Order on Korean Energy Development Org > 1483 > 44. 1996-03-26 > Executive Order on Recycled Paper Content > 2317 > 45. 1996-03-25 > Executive Order on National Wildlife Refuge System > 6540 > 46. 1996-03-22 > Executive Order on Mental Retardation Committee > 9057 > 47. 1996-03-22 > Executive Order on Committee on Mental Retardation > 9057 > 48. 1996-03-23 > On Handling Allegations against Inspectors General > 9904 > 49. 1996-03-15 > Executive Order on Counter-Narcotics Council > 4033 > 50. 1996-02-29 > Executive Order on Pay Rates for Uniform Services > 1526 > 51. 1996-02-13 > Exec Order on Illegal Immigration and Fed Contracts > 8959 > 52. 1996-01-31 > Executive Order on US-Pacific Trade Policy > 1174 > 53. 1996-01-19 > Executive Order regarding International Conservation > Union > 2454 > 54. 1995-01-11 > Executive Order Establishing Armed Forces Medal > 2838 > 55. 1995-12-28 > Executive Order on Military Pay Raise > 3911 > 56. 1995-12-21 > Amendment to Executive Order on Partnership Councils > 2381 > 57. 1995-12-09 > Exec Order Ordering Selected Reserve to Active Duty > 1745 > 58. 1995-12-05 > Executive Order on Administration of Export Controls > 17546 > 59. 1995-11-20 > Further Amendment to Executive Order 12852 > 893 > 60. 1995-10-26 > Executive Order on Agency Procurement Protests > 3606 > 61. 1995-10-05 > Executive Order on Gov't Corps Compensation Practices > 4125 > 62. 1995-10-03 > Executive Order on Human Research Subjects Protection > 7715 > 63. 1995-09-29 > Executive Order on Federal Advisory Committees > 3873 > 64. 1995-07-31 > Executive Order on Board for Metro North Disputes > 3593 > 65. 1995-07-12 > President's Statement on Wetlands Policy Reform > 1686 > 66. 1995-05-12 > Executive Order Amending Manual for Courts Martial > 40719 > 67. 1995-05-06 > Executive Order on Iran Trade Ban > 7931 > 68. 1995-03-15 > Exec Order Barring Iranian Petroleum Development Role > 4281 > 69. 1995-03-13 > Exec Order for Israel US Industrial Foundation > 1474 > 70. 1995-03-08 > Exec Order Re Contractors With Replacement Workers > 8252 > 71. 1995-02-27 > Exec Order for Facilitating Payment of Child Support > 11608 > 72. 1995-02-24 > Exec Order for Release of Space Based Imagery > 3789 > 73. 1995-02-22 > Exec Order for Emergency Board on Metro North Dispute > 3321 > 74. 1995-02-10 > President Proclaims Older Workers Employment Week > 2599 > 75. 1995-02-09 > Exec Order on Foreign Intelligence Physical Searches > 2351 > 76. 1995-01-30 > Amendment to Environmental Justice Executive Order > 1167 > 77. 1995-01-24 > Executive Order on Transactions With Terrorists > 6949 > 78. 1995-01-23 > Exec Order on Arms Proliferation Policy Board > 4256 > 79. 1994-12-29 > Executive Order on Federal Pay and Allowances > 5921 > 80. 1994-12-23 > Executive Order on Continuation Libya Emergency > 2227 > 81. 1994-12-12 > Elevation of Native American Admin Commissioner > 1073 > 82. 1994-12-13 > Order Amending Government Purchases Executive Order > 1539 > 83. 1994-11-22 > Executive Order on Gulf War Veterans Naturalization > 1428 > 84. 1994-11-14 > Exec Order on Mass Destruction Weapons Proliferation > 13428 > 85. 1994-11-14 > Executive Order on Declassification of Documents > 1694 > 86. 1994-10-28 > Executive Order on Definition of Field Duty > 1369 > 87. 1994-10-25 > Executive Order for Sanctions on Bosnian Serb Areas > 6119 > 88. 1994-09-16 > Order to Promote Govt Purchases from Black Business > 6055 > 89. 1994-09-15 > Haiti Executive Order > 1796 > 90. 1994-08-29 > Order for Emergency Board on Soo Line RR Strike > 2693 > 91. 1994-06-30 > Executive Order on Export Control Regulations > 4751 > 92. 1994-06-22 > Executive Order Blocking Haitian Assets > 4295 > 93. 1994-06-10 > Executive Order on Haiti Sanctions > 6030 > 94. 1994-06-06 > National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness > 36810 > 95. 1994-06-06 > Exec Order on National Defense Resources Preparedness > 36810 > 96. 1994-03-08 > Executive Order on Federal Energy and Water > Conservation > 35551 > 97. 1994-03-03 > Executive Order Reinstating Super 301 > 5044 > 98. 1994-02-15 > President Establishes Board on Long Island Railroad > Dispute > 2931 > 99. 1994-01-18 > Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments > 2379 > 100. 1994-01-17 > Executive order on fair housing > 17844 > 101. 1994-12-28 > Executive Order on NAFTA > 11325 > 102. 1993-11-05 > Executive Order on Entitlement Cuts > 4716 > 103. 1993-11-01 > Historic Colleges Executive Order > 9723 > 104. 1993-10-18 > Executive Order on Haiti > 4509 > 105. 1993-09-15 > Information Infrastructure Executive Order > 4854 > 106. 1993-09-11 > Exec Order on the Elimination of Internal Regulations > 2278 > 107. 1993-09-11 > Executive Order on Government Customer Standards > 4505 > 108. 1993-09-03 > Executive Order on Foreign Investment > 1621 > 109. 1993-08-17 > Establishment of the Domestic Policy Council > 4442 > 110. 1993-08-04 > Executive Order on Entitlement Controls > 10526 > 111. 1993-08-04 > Executive Order: Deficit Reduction Trust Fund > 4082 > 112. 1993-08-04 > President's Remarks at Signing of Executive Orders > 6485 > 113. 1993-07-04 > Executive Order: Implementation of the Cuban Democracy > Act > 2793 > 114. 1993-06-29 > Executive Order on Sustainable Development > 4518 > 115. 1993-06-14 > Middle East Arms Notification > 11471 > 116. 1993-05-28 > Executive Order on China MFN > 4237 > 117. 1993-05-19 > Federal Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessness > 3078 > 118. 1993-04-25 > Executive Order on Serbian Sanctions > 6424 > 119. 1993-04-21 > Executive Order on Ozone Depletion > 10032 > 120. 1993-03-09 > Nuclear Cooperation Executive Order > 1577 > 121. 1993-02-01 > Revocation of Certain Executive Orders > 1360 > 122. 1993-01-21 > President Instructs Staff to Follow Strict Ethics > Rules > 1546 > 123. 1993-01-25 > Death of Thurgood Marshall > 2448 > 124. 1993-01-20 > Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees > 19675 > 125. 1993-01-25 > Establishment of the National Economic Council > 4258 > > > > >_____________________________________________________________ >copyrighted material. You may forward or repost this material, >intact and with the author's name, if credit is given to: > > Dave Delany's Freedom House > PO Box 212 > Conklin NY 13748 > >For the real thing, send $20 for an annual subscription to the >printed newsletter. Freedom House is published 10 times per year. > > >================================================== >E Pluribus Unum: Central Ohio Patriot Group Web Site >http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html > >Patriot Personals: Lovers of Liberty With Hearts That Need Love >http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/personal/personal.htm > > P.O. Box 381; Groveport, OH 43125 >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > "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 nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Sanders' TWA-800 book (fwd) Date: 09 Jun 1997 08:43:47 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Attn: Brenda I have belatedly acquired and read a copy of James Sanders' book "The Downing of TWA Flight 800." (I was obliged to turn down Brenda's kind offer of a complementary copy a while back because I was immersed in another project and did not have time to review it). I am now in a position to say that Sander's book is a terrific read. In fact, it would serve as a basic reference on how to cover up the cause a major air disaster. While I am hardly in a position to pass upon the authenticity of all of the information presented in the book, I am prepared to say that, based on my experience in the aerospace industry, it is at least plausible. I'll go a step beyond that, even -- it hangs together very well; that is to say the material has internal consistency. Those who were with us in the waning days of the CS list may recall the rather heated discussion I had with Mr. Rivero on the possibility that the destruction of TWA-800 was caused by friendly fire. My problem in accepting this was that the firing of SAMs in close proximity to heavily traveled air corridors seemed to me a gratuitously senseless act. I could not believe that a seasoned naval officer would take such a pointless risk which placed the public at hazard. I believe that I later amplified this opinion in an exchange with a CAS member by asserting that not even Captain Queeg would obey such an order. As I recall, Rivero had cited cost as the reason for conducting live missile tests so close to Long Island. Well, hang on to your hats folks; Sanders provides a rationale for the alleged test that is quite chillingly cogent: "Zone W-105 was selected for this final precertification test because of the complexity of the area. It was as close to a simulated Persian Gulf environment as the Navy could get without leaving US coastal waters. Long Island offered dense ground clutter, and the constant flow of commercial air traffic out of JFK gave the Navy the "neutral" radar blips it needed to test the discrimination skills of the targeting software." Think about it. Remember the ugly incident in which a US naval vessel fired a missile which downed an Iranian airliner in the Strait of Hormuz? The captain had been a bit too quick on the trigger. And recall the incident in which the USS Stark had been hit by an Exocet missile in the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War? The captain had been a bit too slow on the trigger. Saddam Hussein had cited the clutter of commercial and military aircraft, both friendly and hostile as factors that made it possible for the Stark to be attacked. Clearly there is a requirement for a SAM system that will take the captain out of the loop by recognizing and avoiding commercial aircraft. Sanders cites this as a reason for the development of the Navy's new Cooperative Engagement Capability which he maintains was the system under test in area W-105 on July 17, 19996, when TWA-800 went down. The object of the exercise, according to Sanders, was to shoot down a "hostile" drone with a missile fired from a ship which was part of a Navy task force cruising in area W-105 located SSE of Long Island. The drone was to be tracked by the ship's radars and the missile was to be guided to the approximate position of the drone by radio signals until such time as it was close enough to the target to acquire it with its on-board radar. To make the test realistic, the ships' radars were being jammed all the while. The commercial air traffic and ground clutter of the L.I. area added to the realism of the environment. Sanders maintains that the test went very well until time for the mid-course correction that was to guide the missile within acquisition range of the drone. At the point the radar on the vessel that had been tracking the drone was jammed, the correction could not be given and ultimately the missile acquired a target that happened to come within range -- TWA-800. Reality check: Is this story plausible? Well, it can't be the whole story. There should have been a destruct charge on the missile and a range safety officer keeping an eye on things, thumb poised to hit the "chicken-switch" in an eventuality such as that depicted above. But even range safety officers are human -- all too human. Did I ever tell you about the time we friendly folks at Aerojet-General bombarded Mexico with a -- well, never mind. They didn't take it very well. Especially when Aerojet asked them if they could please have the bits and pieces of their missile back. As I recall their reply was something like, "Piss-off, Gringo." Sanity check: Would the Navy REALLY fire a live missile against a backdrop of commercial air traffic? I have already expressed skepticism on this point, but given the circumstances described above, the issue seems more complex than I had at first imagined. According to Sanders, it was necessary to test the missile in such an environment before it could be certified for operational use. In practical terms, it either had to be fired for the first time off the coast of this country, in the presence of commercial air traffic, under controlled conditions, or off the coast of some other country, in the presence of commercial air traffic, under operational conditions. [click-click] "Uh -- that is, if you'll just go over the questions you may have, I'll be glad to answer them one-at-a-time." [click- click] [click-click] [long, awkward period of silence] (For those who didn't read "The Caine Mutiny," or see the film, that was my best Queeg impression -- including the bit with the ball-bearings). -- EZ  ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Re: Knowlton Files Evidence of FBI Cover-up (fwd) Date: 09 Jun 1997 08:47:26 -0500 (CDT) I think this is the guy who was taking a leak and found Foster in the park. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- In a message dated 97-06-08 00:23:44 EDT, you write: << There has been mention of a rather lengthy document, supporting the charges of intimidation and coverup, that Knowlton's team has prepared. Is this document now available as a public document from the court, or can one purchase it from a copy shop? >> The Friday, June 6, 1997, filing was about 300 pages in total, consisting of ~45 pages of legal brief with the rest being "tabbed" exhibits taken from the official US Government investigative record of the Foster death (including the government reports) and a few other sources (largely various affidavits of witnesses, experts, and others taken for the suit). I have not seen a hard copy of the actual document yet. One is on its way to me. It was a privilege to be invovled in this effort -- lawyers often speak of the need to do "pro bono" work -- that Latin phrase has become a term of art which few attorneys translate in their own minds these days when they use it. It means "For the Public Good" -- a phrase whose true meaning has been highjacked or otherwise corrupted today. I reviewed about 5 drafts of the document between ~5/15 and ~6/3 and made a vareity of suggested changes -- it is impressive, IMHO, but I am obviously rather "close to it," as those who have read the CIR will be able to tell. John Clarke, Pat Knowlton's attorney, worked like a dog on this, assisted in major part by Hughie2U in DC. They were pretty well "asleep on their feet" before this project was over -- many high-hour days and long nights to say the least. My understanding is that Bel-Jean Printing will have hard copies of the whole document for distribution on the same basis as the CIR -- that is, for Bel-Jean's normal charges for copying and shipping (no profit to Clarke or Knowlton). My understanding is that the entire document will be available for shipping by Bel-Jean sometime around the middle or end of next week (don't hold me too closely to this estimate). Bel-Jean's phone number is 301-937-6500 (Beltsville, Maryland). The Contact Person at B-J: Denise (though others there may know of the document). B-J accepts credit card phone orders. Given its length (and the presence of at least one color photocopy), this filing won't be that cheap to acquire in hard copy, even for just the copying and shipping rates. My understanding is that it will be on-line in the "near future" but I don't know how much time it will take the Webmaster(s) involved to get it on-line. It may take a while since my understanding is (and it is only that) that the text itself will be supplied via diskette, but that the exhibit material (copies of documents) will have to be scanned first (that is, John Clarke does not have them in electronic form currently). I have asked John Clarke to make available a copy of the ~45 page brief itself on-line directly (I should have though of this before). That way the brief (not including the exhibits) can be "out there" relatively quickly. Oh, yes. The document is a public document and will be available (if the court meets the standard timetable) from the court this coming Wednesday. I don't know what the charge will be, but folks might want to get a quote from the court AND from Bel-Jean before ordering the hard copy. I don't know if the court will make available the ~45 page brief withOUT the ~250 pages of tabbed exhibits or not. Poeple might want to look into that possible option by talking to the Court clerk's office, since I assume it would be cheaper to acquire without the exhibits. The info you will need to get it from the court (or some of it -- I don't know the phone number -- I'm sure 202 directory assistance has it -- or what forms of payment the court clerk requires): Patrick James Knowlton, Plaintiff v. The Unnited States of America et al., Defendants Civil Action No. 96-2467, US District Court for the Distric of Columbia, Civil Division. The document was filed on Friday, June 6th, 1997: "Plaintiff's Opposition to (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint & (2) Defendants Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment" The suit was brought under 42 US Code Section 1985(2): "Conspiracy to interfere with Civil Rights;" "Obstructing Justice; Initimidating party, witness, or juror." Tell the World. Warm regards, Hugh S. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: More on Sander's TWA-800 book (fwd) Date: 09 Jun 1997 09:01:11 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Just a few quick observations regarding James Sander's book "The Downing of TWA Flight 800." 1) If, as the FBI maintain, the residue on the seats was "glue" why did the fibbies go to the trouble of seizing the swath of residue coated material Sanders had given to CBS to be analyzed BEFORE the independent analysis could be done? Wouldn't it have been a lot more clever to let CBS have the stuff analyzed and then tell the world that "yes, it really is glue"? HINT: Hardly any glue is used is used in the manufacture of airliner seats. What holds them together? Velcro mostly. This makes them easier to take apart. For that matter, why did the fibbies not tell the NTSB about the results of the tests they had done on the residue in August? And why did they lie about this to the media? (They said that they had done a quick analysis AFTER the Press-Enterprise story had appeared last March. No mention was made of their having discovered the residue in August). 2) Why was the preliminary FAA radar analysis sent to the White House if it did not indicate that TWA-800 had been hit by a missile? And how was the FAA able to determine a few hours later that this report was in "error"? News broadcasts at ten o'clock on the evening of the crash said that the government had reviewed the tape and believed that the blip seen by the operator was only an "anomaly." How were they able to "analyze" the tape in a few hours? Sanders notes that such an analysis usually takes days if not weeks. If, indeed, the radar tapes showed only an anomaly, why did the FBI confiscate the copy Mr. Russell had made and was going to show to the media? 3) Why are the federal authorities seeking to prosecute Sanders' wife? Is it because Sanders himself is protected by a "shield law" designed to prevent malicious prosecution of journalists who are investigating allegations of government corruption? 4) Why, six months after the crash, had the NTSB still not had the cockpit voice recorder independently analyzed? This is normally one of the highest priority tasks in an air crash investigation. HINT: A cursory check of the recording by the NTSB revealed a vibration on the CVR that was moving at a speed in excess of 2,000 feet per second. Sanders notes that "A bomb will send a vibration through a plane's structure at about 350 feet per second." The vibrations produced by a mechanical failure would likely move slower than those produced by a bomb since they lack explosive or impact energy. "Oh what a tangled web we weave..." and all that. -- EZ  ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: William Weld and the Drug Trade (fwd) Date: 09 Jun 1997 09:05:04 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: 75613.3706@compuserve.com, bruce10@juno.com, pan@goodnet.com, mossad@ix.netcom.com, jrhulvey@aol.com, 72467.2617@compuserve.com, 72073.3312@compuserve.com THE TROUBLING NOMINATION OF WILLIAM WELD The Significance of the Drug Trade in Mexico Bill Clinton has nominated Massachusetts governor William Weld for U.S. ambassador to Mexico. This is a truly troubling nomination, because of Weld's past in the Iran-Contra drug affair. During Iran Contra, William Weld was head of the Justice Department Criminal Division, and as such responsible for covering up U.S. complicity in drug smuggling to finance Central American wars. When Senate investigator Jack Blum tried to investigate the Contra connection to the West Coast cocaine trade (recently resurrected by the San Jose Mercury News), Weld fought giving him access to essential records and to witnesses in government custody. Instead, U.S. attorneys in California were instructed in running interference. Just as U.S. attorney Michael Fitzhugh was stonewalling the investigations by Russell Welch, Bill Duncan, and a grand jury in Arkansas. But that is not all. As the head of the Criminal Division, Weld was part of all the sinister plots hatched in a Justice Department run amok: he wrote a February 29, 1988 memo declining a preliminary investigation of the Inslaw affair "due to lack of evidence of criminality." Congress later concluded otherwise. Already as U.S. attorney in Boston in 1985, Weld had shown his value to drug networks. He failed to vigorously pursue evidence that the Bank of Boston had participated in money laundering in the amount of $1.2 billion. It does serve to Weld's credit, however, that he resigned as Assistant Attorney General in 1988, protesting Attorney General Ed Meese's political use of the agency. So what may appear on the surface to be a gesture by Bill Clinton to include Republicans in his administration, is more likely the shadows a bipartisan network of political corruption, a network that was in its formative years during Iran-Contra when Weld was at Justice and Clinton was in Mena, Arkansas. But the connection goes back even before that. It started back in 1974, where Bill Weld and Hillary Clinton served on the temporary staff of the Watergate Committee together with Richard Ben-Veniste, later the lawyer for drug smuggler and covert operative Barry Seal. Interestingly, Jerome Zeifman, permanent counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate proceedings, claims that Watergate counsel John Doar and his entourage, including Weld, Nussbaum and Clinton, were brought in not so much to defeat Nixon but to prevent the exposure of other government crimes--crimes committed in the name of national security. Weld's nomination is the more troubling, coming as it does right after the appointment of Barry McCaffrey to U.S. drug Czar. McCaffrey looked the other way when U.S. counter-narcotics funds were diverted to death squads in Colombia, and he called the Mexican drug czar "incorruptible" and of "unquestioned integrity" months before he was indicted on massive drug corruption. So a suspicious mind would conclude that the Clinton Administration has another agenda besides "bipartisanhip" in Mexico. And that agenda is to protect the drug trade. Published in the Jun. 9, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: interesting political action Date: 09 Jun 1997 11:31:54 -0400 (EDT) The exerpt below is from Neal Knox's letter. Essentially the same analysis was presented in the latest Weekly Standard. Looks like Clinton and the R's are manuevering re: the budget. If the R's can pass the continuing resolution, it means they can reject any bill they don't like and not have the political threat of a government shutdown. Interesting in its own right. Shows how far out of the "mainstream" I am, I guess. I generally think the R's are too centrist and don't act on principles enough. I thought that their reduction of Medicare rate of increase and shut down of the Gov. were the two most daring things they did. And behold, they got slammed for both of them. ciao, jcurtis > Senate Democrats and the White House are raising Cain with the >Republican leadership for leaving town without taking action on the >House-passed emergency spending bill, needed for flood victims in >the midwest. > > The real reason is that they wanted to strip the bill of >everything they didn't like -- which includes Rep. Bob Barr's >funding for the Law Enforcement Investigation Commission. More >important was an amendment that said if Congress couldn't agree on >the next year's funding bill for an agency, the agency would >automatically be appropriated the previous year's budget. > > It might not sound like it, but that provision is extremely >important to gunowners. > > The automatic funding amendment is designed to prevent a >government shut down if Congress and the White House can't agree on >a funding bill. In 1995 President Clinton shut down the government >by refusing to sign a spending bill, but managed to blame the >Republicans. > > Now Republicans are so afraid they will get saddled with fresh >blame for a government shutdown that they will give Clinton almost >anything he wants to sign an appropriations bill -- which is how >Clinton forced adoption of the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Gun >Ban last year. It was the Lautenberg Amendment to an omnibus >appropriation bill. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Fwd: Book Review: No More Wacos (fwd) Date: 09 Jun 1997 16:21:26 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com (John_Johnson) ---- Begin Forwarded Message ---- Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.batf,talk.politics.libertarian Organization: Conceptual Design David B. Kopel and Paul H. Blackman *No More Wacos: What's Wrong With Federal Law Enforcement and How to Fix It* Prometheus Books, 1997 524 pages, $26.95 hb. Reviewed by Gary McGath This review Copyright 1997 by Gary McGath The definitive book on the confrontation between federal law enforcement agencies and the Branch Davidians in 1993 has yet to be written, and cannot be written until more of the facts are known. However, *No More Wacos* comes the closest of any book so far published to being definitive. The previous best book on the subject, Dick J. Reavis's *The Ashes of Waco*, is still a very good account of the many wrongs which the federal government engaged in. Kopel and Blackman don't contradict Reavis on any important points, but they do provide more thorough documentation, commentary on other events which shed light on Waco, and suggestions for reform. Each of the books is more thorough in some areas than the other, so the two complement one another. Being published two years later, *No More Wacos* also covers some later events, such as the 1995 Congressional hearings. Readers of Reavis or any other good account will be familiar with the main points that Kopel and Blackman cover: the publicity campaign prior to the assault; the horribly inept and inaccurate search warrant; the needless use of massive force in serving a search and an arrest warrant; the frustrating negotiations; the use of psychological warfare against the Davidians; the final assault, the fire, and the reckless disregard for human lives which the federal authorities showed; and the miscarriage of justice at the ensuing trial. The authors of the present book are particularly good at dealing with issues of firearms law, as well as the legal issues involved in bringing in military equipment. The latter issue is important because the BATF invented a "drug nexus" at Mount Carmel in order to obtain the use of military equipment free of charge. And as they note, such valid charges as can be found in the search warrant amount to no more than failure to register otherwise legal weapons; thus, an armed break-in by dozens of agents supported by helicopters against a house containing numerous children was conducted for a tax collection case. In any discussion of Waco, two questions will always stand out: who fired the first shot on February 28, and what started the fire on April 19? No one has yet come up with a really convincing answer to either question, and Kopel and Blackman recognize the difficulty. They offer various alternatives regarding the first question, and note that one key piece of evidence, the right front door to the Davidians' building, mysteriously disappeared. The direction from which bullets passed through the door would have given important information about who was firing blindly. (The Treasury Department's report states that the initial shots were fired through the front door, from the inside.) With regard to the fire, the authors argue that it is more likely that some of the Davidians started the fire than that the attackers' actions did, either intentionally or accidentally. However, the "Jonestown" theory, that the fire was an act of mass suicide, is extremely unlikely. It may be that the Davidian leaders started the fire to stop the tanks, and it's possible they expected to be divinely protected and even translated into heaven. On the other hand, the government's apparent suppression of evidence has to make us wonder. For instance, the BATF claimed that all the surveillance devices which they had planted in Mt. Carmel (without a warrant) malfunctioned before the fire started. Perhaps this happened as a result of the tanks smashing in the walls, but it does give cause to wonder. (There is also Linda Thompson's theory that the FBI equipped its tanks with flamethrowers; this is the least believable scenario of all, and the book treats it as such.) Whoever started the fire, it is clear that the FBI was expecting one. They had inquired about the capacity of a hospital burn unit, and used FLIR (forward-looking infrared) photography, used for fire detection, as part of their observation of the attack. However, they made no provision for fire-fighting, and actually delayed the arrival of fire trucks once they were called. The stated reason for this was that the Davidians might shoot at the firefighters; but the authors note that safe alternatives were available, including fire-fighting tanks and aerial fire-fighting equipment. The authors stress the harmful effects of CS gas even more than Reavis does, and state that "it seems likely that at least some Branch Davidians were dead before the fire began, killed by the CS." Reavis, on the other hand, places more of a stress on deaths caused by the tanks' making parts of the building collapse on people. Both books agree that the latter resulted in some deaths. One noteworthy difference between *No More Wacos* and *The Ashes of Waco* concerns the Davidians' aborted surrender on March 2. Kopel and Blackman say that the Davidians planned "to exit the building, and, when federal agents came close, blow up themselves and the agents with grenades." Reavis argues that if there was such a plan, it was not known to many of the Davidians. Three Davidians, acting as government witnesses, stated that there was a proposal by David Koresh; others denied having heard of any such plan. If such a plan was seriously intended, this would increase the plausibility that the Davidians used fire to fight the tanks even at the cost of their own lives. In the 1995 Congressional hearings, Charles Schumer and other Democrats disgraced themselves by diverting the hearings from the subject of massive abuse of law enforcement power to Kiri Jewell's rape charges against Koresh (a serious matter, but not one for a Congressional investigating committee) and the involvement of the NRA. However, as the authors note, the Republicans didn't do very well either, as they concentrated on embarrassing the Clinton administration rather than uncovering wrongdoing at all levels. The book treats Waco as part of a pattern of increasing federalization and militarization of law enforcement. They discuss Ruby Ridge, the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia, and various abuses of power by the BATF, FBI, and other federal agencies. They state that Janet Reno should resign, but note that "the best argument for her staying in office is that the Clinton administration would probably name an even worse replacement." They offer a number of suggestions for reform, most of which involve limiting the powers of the federal government and turning enforcement back to state and local authorities where there is no solid reason for federal involvement. They specifically note the role of victimless crime laws and civil forfeiture in encouraging abuses. The first appendix to the book is a detailed legislative proposal for federal law enforcement reform. However, the authors do not blame the government alone. They also note the frequent hostility to "cults" in our society, comparing this to the attacks on "heretics" and "witches" in earlier centuries. This is an issue which Tabor and Gallagher discuss at length in *Why Waco?* In my own experience, I've found that otherwise reasonable people are outraged at any suggestion that the government violated the rights of those "religious nuts," and regard such criticism as "conspiracy theory" and therefore absurd. Waco has clearly touched a strong vein of hidden religious hatred in America. The appendices contain a glossary of names, summaries of the negotiation tapes, a chronology of the events, and a bibliography. There is also a promotional Web site for the book (http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Waco/Waco.htm ) which includes links to other sources of information. *No More Wacos* is essential reading for anyone seriously interested in learning about what happened in Waco, and is an important book for anyone concerned about abuses of federal law enforcement power. If you would like to be added to my book review mailing list, send E-mail to gmcgath@ultranet.com asking to subscribe to it. Reviews go out on an irregular basis, depending on my time and my having read books suitable for reviewing. Past reviews are available on the Web at Links to this page are welcome. This review may be forwarded by electronic mail provided all attached notices are included, but may not be sold in printed or electronic form without the consent of the author. -- Gary McGath gmcgath@ultranet.com http://www.ultranet.com/~gmcgath ---- End Forwarded Message ---- -- From the computer of: John_Johnson TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com The opinions expressed above represent those of the writer (me) and not necessarily those of his employer (also me). By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. All incoming unsolicited commercial traffic will therefore be billed at a rate of $500 per msg to compensate for loss of service. -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ABA001@aol.com Subject: Re: A Distinct Community Date: 09 Jun 1997 23:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Hi Jon, Been a long time. Saw your post on ROC. Sorry to hear about your Mom. I'll say a prayer for the two of you. Sounds as though it has been quite a struggle. Hope all goes well, and I wish for her a speedy recovery. Regards, Al ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Fw: Numbers Date: 10 Jun 1997 07:13:49 -0500 Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: Larry BAll > To: United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network > Subject: Re: Numbers > Date: Tuesday, June 10, 1997 7:11 AM > > Kevin Kilpatrick wrote: > > "I suggest that we all consider any FBI/BJS statistic at least as highly > suspect. Understand that the director of the FBI and many of this > highest staff are all appointed by the current administration. further, > and most important, the data is probably based on very incomplete > information. " > > Kevin P. Kilpatrick > Criminal Justice Information Systems Coordinator > Leon County, Florida > > Well, Kevin, I share your disdain of the current administration. I also > share your disdain for the source of the statistics. But, I also question > the use that many of those in the field of criminal justice put stats to. > > To use them to reveal the degree of a problem or the success of a strategy > is fine. But to use them supplant the tenants of philosophical or > "natural" truth is specious. Sociologists/Criminologists/Political > Scientist/Pollsters seemingly do this routinely. On the issue of the Right > to Keep and Bear Arms the use of statistics on both sides is constant, to > the exclusion of any other type of consideration. > > For Americans, I do not think that the solution to this argument is in the > statistics. The solution is to understand who and what an American citizen > is. > > A man by the name of Ernst in his "Firearms Policy Journal" has defined > this argument precisely. It is "DO GUN OWNERS CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED?" > > The answer is NO and YES; or IT DEPENDS! It depends on the context. > Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence that the American > citizen (really all men) has certain unalienable rights and that these were > granted by our Creator. Notice that these are UNALIENABLE. Man has no > right or requirement to consent to third party governance of these values. > These are -- > > 1. Equality: The blacks would have been morally justified in rising up and > slaughtering their "masters" when they were held in perpetual bondage. > They should have, in fact. To defend an "unalienable right" is to > vindicate its reality. Blood is frequently the necessary way to accomplish > vindication. > > 2. Life: One of the greatest public values is self defense. It is > necessary because the pace at which violent crime progresses does not allow > for third party (police) response. Again, defense (successful or not) > vindicates the unalienable right of life. It seems to me that since we do > not have a moral society willing to die for this right that we ought to arm > the fetus's of this world. The most dangerous place in America is not in > darkest Washington, DC late at night, but the mothers womb. > > 3. Liberty: Political liberty is increasingly at risk in this country. > Political correctness, misuse of the RICO act and misconstruing a person's > thoughts for "hate crime," we truly on a slippery slope. > > 4. Pursuit of Happiness: This is not the right to carry on "rights of > moral license." It is the right to pursue your own vocation. It is the > right to make your way in this world in what ever lawful pursuit you > desire. > > To these things spoke the Bill of Rights. It says that Americans do not > and should not submit to others in governance over them. > > To these things spoke the Dec of Independence when Jefferson stated that > title deed to the American government was wrested from him and given to the > People of this country. > > The things to which the people of this country submit to governance are > those things described in the Constitution. No where in it or in any state > constitution has the American Citizen submitted to governance his > unalienable rights. To do so is a violation of the trust our forefathers > established for all of our posterity. > > My jumping in on Canadian Robert Kieth Elias's campaign to disarm America > is in keeping with that trust. The GUN is the power base of the American > citizen. > > Take the gun away from the American citizen and you emasculate the American > political experiment. > > Take the gun away from the American citizen and he becomes a "subject" just > like the Canadian, the Britisher, or the Australian. > > Take the gun away from the American citizen and he becomes a SLAVE to > tyrants just as you see in the Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, > Bosnia, Serbia, Cambodia, China, Mexico, Haiti, and many other places. > > The Sociologist/Criminologist and their misuse of statistics seem to be > aiding and abetting the trend towards enslavement of the American citizen. > > I am an American, I do not submit to total governance, that is a PUBLIC > VIRTUE and not a radical right wing violence prone attitude! > > Larry Ball > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Michael Collins Date: 10 Jun 1997 06:51:31 -0700 (PDT) The lessons of Michael Collins for war against superior forces: 1. The enemy's strong suit is the source of their weakness, i.e., reliance on gadgets and technology which can be sabotaged. 2. Counter-intelligence is more valuable than weapons. 3. Target spies and traitors for summary execution. 4. The enemy can replace a spy but never his knowledge. The lesson I think Michael Collins missed: 1. Don't negotiate when your enemy is in retreat. See also e.g., Michael Collins: The Man Who Made Ireland, by Tim Pat Coogan (The 1996 movie "Michael Collins" was based upon this book.It is not especially well-written, but it is a useful study in modern revolt.) S. "Life is always hopelessly complex to those who have no principles." -- Joseph Sobran "The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated." -- Thomas Sowell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Book Review - "Kill Zone" Date: 10 Jun 1997 08:29:32 -0700 Hi Folks -=20 Here's a book review from the new Idaho Observer... --- "Kill Zone - A Sniper Looks At Dealey Plaza" by Craig Roberts Every once in a while I read a book that shocks the dickens out of=20 me; Kill Zone by Craig Roberts is one of those books. As the=20 similarities between Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy McVeigh become=20 more and more apparent, the timeliness of this book is amazing. The author, Craig Roberts, was a Marine sniper, with a lot of=20 experience in Viet Nam. After the war, Roberts became a police=20 officer. Many years later, in 1987, he was in Dallas for a law=20 enforcement convention and found himself with some free time=20 between meetings. He decided to visit the infamous Texas School=20 Book Depository building in Dealey Plaza where Lee Harvey Oswald=20 had allegedly fired the three rifle shots that killed president=20 John F. Kennedy. As Roberts glanced out the window next to the window that the=20 shots were allegedly fired from, he says he felt like he=92d been=20 hit by a sledge hammer; as he looked down the supposed line of=20 fire to where the limousine had been that fateful day in 1963,=20 one word occured to his highly-trained sniper=92s mind: "Impossible!" Roberts says that he knew instantly that Oswald couldn=92t have done=20 it - alone - with his cheap Carcano rifle, because he, Roberts,=20 couldn=92t have done it, even with the state-of-the-art equipment=20 he=92d used in Viet Nam. And thus began a seven-year investigation by Craig Roberts into=20 what really happened on 22 November, 1963; the results of that=20 investigation are in the form of "Kill Zone." Roberts documents who was responsible for the Kennedy assassination,=20 and why. "Kill Zone" is a tour of America=92s dark underside that will=20 leave you speechless as you discover the connections between mafia=20 thugs and hitmen, CIA operatives and American presidents. I can=92t=20 say you=92ll be surprised, exactly, when you learn who profited=20 financially from Kennedy=92s assassination - it=92s way too clear to be=20 surprising once Roberts helps you connect the dots. But buckle your=20 seat belt and hold on. It=92s quite a ride down the dark tunnel of a=20 conspiracy you=92ve known had to exist but about which you didn=92t know=20 the details. Kill Zone has had an interesting history since its original=20 publishing in 1994 - apparently, it=92s been disappearing from the=20 computers and microfiche of bookstores nationwide; over and over=20 again. Now why would that be?=20 It=92s currently available directly from: Consolidated Press International 3171-A South 129th East Ave., #338 Tulsa, OK 74134 The cost is $11.95 + $2.50 for shipping and handling, making a=20 total of $14.45. It=92s money well worth spending, folks; this book=20 is an absolute must read.=20 - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land,=20 for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in=20 power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Property Rights: Make Lawmakers Beg for Mercy! (fwd) Date: 10 Jun 1997 11:08:39 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Daily Bulletin of the Alliance for America's 7th Annual Fly-In for Freedom Volume 3, Issue I June 7, 1997 Alliance for America P. O. Box 449 Caroga Lake, NY 12032 (518) 835-6702 Fly-In for Freedom's Media Room (June 7-11 only): (202) 879-7996 Fax (202) 879-7959 *7th Annual Fly-in for Freedom Convenes Nearly 400 property rights advocates, forest products workers, ranchers, farmers, fishermen, recreationists and other grass roots activists have converged on Washingon, D.C. to take part in the 7th annual "Fly-in for Freedom. Organizers said this year's conference promises the most elaborate program in the Fly-In's history, with more than 40 panel discussions and nearly 100 speakers scheduled. Highlights on the agenda include presentations by Congressmen David McIntosh (R-IN) and Richard Pombo (R-CA) and Becky Norton Dunlop, Secretary of Natural Resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Other highlights include discussions on property rights and why they matter to urban America, especially with regard to zoning issues; federal policy as it relates to the property rights of Native Americans; and workshops on one-sided environmental education programs. *Weyrich: Make Lawmakers Beg for Mercy "We are fighting for limited government and freedom, but our freedoms are being taken away at a greater rate today than at any time in the last 40 years," said Paul Weyrich, president of National Empowerment Television and the Free Congress Foundation. Weyrich, in a heartfelt keynote address Saturday, said extreme environmentalists continue to make inroads with Congress because the majority of elected officials are driven by fear of losing re-election. Congress mistakenly believes extremists represent the majority opinion, according to Weyrich. "We have failed to make the linkage between our issues and their (Congress's) future," Weyrich said, suggesting that Grass Roots activists should apply techniques successfully used by their adversaries. "Be tough, Be respectfuIly militant," Weyrich said. "It is not your job to come here and negotiate deals or make compromises, that's what Congress does," he said. "You must make it crystal clear that you will settle for nothing less than what is rightfully yours." Weyrich declared: "Congress does not respond to reason, truth, fact or science. They only react to those who will potentially cause them a problem. Be their worst nightmare, make them have dreams about what you say. Make them beg for mercy!" McIntosh: Restoring Freedom is #1 Priority Declaring that big government erodes individual liberty, Rep. David McIntosh (R-IN) received a standing ovation during his Saturday luncheon address in which be championed property rights, attacked the federal regulatory system and called for reform. McIntosh claimed the biggest enemy we face is Uncle Sam, because of overbearing and contradictory regulations. He cited several examples of ridiculous regulations that seemed designed to create headaches and heartaches, rather than solve problems. "The system," McIntosh said, "is causing enormous burden... government should be on the side of families, not working against them." McIntosh said there must be a guarantee that when government regulatory action reduces the value of private property, the government must pay just compensation to the property owner. "It is time we put the family budget ahead of the government budget," he said. McIntosh closed his remarks with a reminder to his audience that as the size of government is reduced, individuals must take some initiative and accept responsibility to "fill the gaps." -- Forwarded by the Indiana Republican Liberty Causus, promoting individual and economic freedom in Indiana. Write INRLC@aol.com for details. See also the Nat'l Republican Liberty Caucus at www.rlc.org =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: CA legislation Date: 10 Jun 1997 13:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Just pulled this from rec.guns, can't vouch for its accuracy, but thought it was worth our attention. It was date 6-8-97. jcurtis rights Fr: Webmaster, NRA Members Council of Silicon Valley. RE: Massive statewide anti-gun legislation Fellow gun-right supporters, The last 72 hours has been unlike anthing in California history for gun owners. Almost 2 dozen anti-gun bills have been voted on, many have passed. For all those who thought they would never go after you "huntin' rifles", think again. Massive registration schemes, stiff penalties, confiscation and banning of many if not most semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines (regardless of style or configuration), you name it. Due to the gravity of this situation, we have created a special web page for California gun owners to track the progress of this gun grab by the state Senate and Assembly: http://www.ca-rkba.org/nra-sv/news/articles/stategc97.html Just to name a few: * Widespread semi-auto bans, massive resigration, magazine bans (AB 23) * Complete ban on magazine that hold 10+ rounds (SB 1339, AB 23) * One gun a month limits (SB 513) * Remote weapons scanning devices (AB 533) * Ban on most small handguns, or guns not made of steel or alloy i.e. Glock, Sigma (AB 488, SB 500) * Ban on gun sales on state property, like gun shows (AB 1107) * Tighter penalties for carrying with a license (AB 304) And the list goes on! Again, for full details, please visit: http://www.ca-rkba.org/nra-sv/news/articles/stategc97.html Thank you, Phil REMEMBER: The only real "assault weapon" is a politician's pen! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Re: Judicial Watch on Quinn (fwd) Date: 10 Jun 1997 13:12:45 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: cas list This was another excellent interview on Quinn. If you want to contribute money to a useful and committed group, then Judicial Watch would be it. Larry Klayman states it bluntly, that the U.S. is at a crossroads, hanging by a thread. There is bipartisan corruption in Washington, and it is up to us, the people to take our country back. Janet Reno has blackmail material on many leading Democratic AND Republican leaders, and therefore, they better lay off of her (so to speak), or she'll lay into them. She has filed as a "friend of the court" on the President's side in his attempt to protect Hillary's notes on the basis of lawyer-client privilege. Larry states that in Law 101, the student learns that any conversation between a lawyer and his client that is attended by any other person, including another lawyer, does not qualify as protected lawyer-client privilege. This filing as a "friend of the court" on behalf of the Clinton's blatantly proves that the Justice Department has been compromised, that Jeno Reno's task is to protect the Clinton's at all cost, not to represent the American people which is what she is supposed to do. The Republican's should be outraged by this, but because of the skeletons in many of their closets, they remain silent. There are very few such as Bob Barr and Dan Burton that are chasing the truth. The truth will not come out thru Senate or House investigations because of the corruption and stonewalling, and the media's coverup. If we want the truth, we will have to bring it to light ourselves. If you want to help call Judicial Watch at 1-888-JWETHIC. Beverly Bendiksen wrote: > > 6/10/97 Tuesday > Larry Klayman (sp?) of Judicial Watch was interviewed by Quinn. > Starts 2h36m into show. > Topics: > -Janet Reno, the advocate of the Clinton Administration, not the people. > -The Supremes and Reno's amicus brief on behalf of FLOTUS. > -An explanation of attorney-client privilege. > -Class action lawsuit against State Farm for their payment to POTUS' > delay tactics. > -State Farm buying influence. > -Tatics of Janet Reno to bury investigation of Fundgate and Commiegate. > -Speculation on blackmail of Reno. > -Skeleton in Hatch's closet (BCCI?). > -Speculation on Janet Reno's deal with the Republicans. > -How to support Judicial Watch. > > bev > > ========================================================================== > This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If > you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to > majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas -- Gary Chappelle President Comsult Corporation http://www.comsultinc.com The "Big Brother" Home Page http://www2.vivid.net/~gnc422 ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: The John Huang - China connection (fwd) Date: 10 Jun 1997 16:48:45 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.taiwandc.org/nws-ch21.htm The John Huang - China connection An issue which continues to mar US-China relations is the John Huang / Lippo case. On 13 February 1997, the Washington Post reported that the Chinese Embassy in Washington DC had been involved in attempting to raise funds to donate to the Democratic national Committee, with the purpose of influencing US policy on China. On 10 November 1996 the London Times reported that the John Huang connection and the Indonesian/Chinese Lippo Group may have been part of a Chinese spy operation designed to gain insight information on matters like the United States negotiating position on Most Favored Nation status. Subsequently, two other major publications, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal published reports presenting indications that this may have been the case. On 3 January 1997, the New York Times printed an article by columnist William Safire (published as "Has Chinese intelligence penetrated the White House" in the International Herald Tribune, 4 January 1997), in which the author points to a number of pieces of evidence which indicate that the Chinese were able to get a significant amount of confidential information. A second investigative article was written by Mr. Peter Schweizer and published in the Wall Street Journal ("Lippo's Chinese Connections", 15 January 1997). Mr. Schweizer states that "Questions swirling around former Deputy Assistant Commerce Secretary John Huang, the Lippo group of Indonesia and the fund-raising activities of Charles Yan Lin Trie may well be linked by the shadowy efforts of the Chinese military to influence U.S. foreign and military policy." Mr. Schweizer presents detailed information on the links between John Huang / Lippo and the Chinese military establishment, in particular COSTIND, the Chinese Commission on Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense. The article refers to the meeting arranged with Mr. Clinton at the White House by another operative in the affair, Arkansas restaurant owner Charlie Trie, for Mr. Wang Jun, a Chinese arms dealer, who is chairman of Poly Technologies, a front for COSTIND. Mr. Wang also happens to be the son of one of China's most vengeful hardliners, Wang Zhen. During the Tienanmen Incident, the older Wang was one of the most relentless advocates of crushing the pro-democracy movement. Mr. Schweizer describes how COSTIND and its front organizations such as Poly Technologies manage arms sales to countries such as Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan, how they acquire advanced dual use technologies to assist in the modernization of the PLA, and, thirdly, serve as conduits for intelligence operations. Mr. Schweizer argues that in gaining access to the upper levels of the Commerce Department, the Chinese were probably most interested in gaining access to high technology, in particular dual-use technologies, which have both civilian and military applications. The article gives several examples when the Commerce Department, which is responsible for licensing exports for dual-use items, overrode objections from U.S. military and intelligence officials, and approved the export of machine tools (the McDonnell Douglas case we described earlier) and of AT&T telecommunication technology to China. The latter case involved Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and Digital Synchronous Hierarchy equipment to HuaMei Company. Pentagon officials in 1994 warned Commerce that such equipment would greatly enhance the capability of the Chinese military in their command and control of military operations. At Commerce, the warnings fell on deaf ears. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: L&J: RE: IP: WHEN THE IRS SAYS YOU ARE DEAD (fwd) Date: 11 Jun 1997 09:17:21 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hmmmmm. How can I get the IRS to think I am dead? That's what I'd like to know.... WHEN THE IRS SAYS YOU ARE DEAD Rep. Traficant, D-OH, House of Representatives - June 04, 1997 Mr. Speaker, the IRS, in denying the 1996 tax return and refund to Pamela Damon, said, Pamela Damon, you are dead. You have been dead for 26 years. Now, if that is not enough to bury your 1040, Pam went to the Social Security Administration. They called the IRS and they said, Pam is here in our office, she is alive. They said, Pam's presence is not enough. She is dead as far as the IRS is concerned. Beam me up, Mr. Speaker. I recommend that Congress do two things. No. 1, hire a proctologist to perform brain scans on all those morticians at the IRS. And No. 2, pass H.R. 367, that simply transfers the burden of proof to the IRS. Unbelievable. Pam Damon is alive. Published in the Jun. 9, 1997 issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright 1997 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact ---------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe, email majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point or unsubscribe ignition-point http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Reno will be gone by August 8th.... (fwd) Date: 11 Jun 1997 13:35:14 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "Reno will be gone by August 8th...." Jim Quinn interview with Jack Thompson Wednesday, June 11, 1997 Rodger Schultz Appearing on Jim Quinn's radio show Wednesday, Jack Thompson disclosed he is filing an amicus brief in the Starr-White House dispute to be heard by the Supreme Court. Thompson, himself an ex-Dade County prosecutor, has been trying for ten years to bring Reno's criminal behavior under public scrutiny, but has been ignored by the main stream media. "By filing her amicus brief in support of the President, Janet Reno has opened the door for [me] her chief nemisis over the last ten years," said Thompson. In an unusual, if not outrageous move, Reno has decided to have her Justice Department urge the court to overturn a lower court decision that would force the White House to turn over notes taken during a meeting between Hillary Clinton and government lawyers. By doing this, Reno is -in effect- waging war against her own department - the special prosecutor. Thompson's brief will urge the court to disregard Reno's argument by virtue of the fact she is doing so in order to protect herself against disclosure of her background, i.e. blackmail. He will present evidence to show: *That Reno is an aggresive lesbian. *While Dade County State Attorney, she used mafia controlled call girls. *That Reno is an alcoholic with a history of DWI arrests. *That Reno was blackmailed by the mafia because of this. *That Reno's amicus brief is the result of being pressured in the same manner by the White House. He also predicted that "Janet Reno will be gone - by resignation or letters of impeachment - by August 8th" David Letterman recently quipped - "The biggest joke at last year's Women's Conference in China was 'Hey, Janet left the toilet seat up again." Despite daring her to do so, Reno has never filed a slander suit against Thompson. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Oklahoma Bomb Probe Ordered (fwd) Date: 12 Jun 1997 08:23:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- REUTERS =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 OKLAHOMA CITY - An Oklahoma judge Wednesday ordered a grand jury investigation into an alleged cover-up by federal agents in the Oklahoma City bombing case. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The grand jury probe was forced by Republican state Rep. Charles Key, who collected more than 10,000 signatures on a petition to investigate the bombing and the way it was handled by federal agents. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 District Judge Charles Owens ruled that Key had met all the requirements and ordered that a state grand jury be selected from a pool of 100 potential jurors on June 30. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Key has been highl= y critical of the FBI and meets regularly with anti-government groups who share his theory that federal agents were aware of a bombing plot but Key said he was pleased with the judge's order. It is not clear who would present evidence to the grand jury, however, because state Attorney General Drew Edmondson and Oklahoma County District Attorney Bob Macy have both said they believe Key's allegations were unfounded. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Key called on both Edmondson and Macy to remove themselves from the probe "because they themselves have been so extremely biased." =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Over and over again, he (Macy) has done everything that he could do to try to stop us. Rhetoric is one thing and actions are another, and that's what really counts - action," =A0 =A0 Key's conspiracy theory centered on information he claimed showed federal agents knew there was going to be a bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City before it happened on the morning of April 19, 1995. The bomb blew the building apart and killed 168 people. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 A federal jury in Denver last week found Gulf war veteran Timothy McVeigh guilty of planting the bomb. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Alleged co-conspirator Terry Nichols is scheduled to = go on trial later this year, but Key and other government critics claim that others were involved in or knew about the bombing plot. =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 "We want to find the truth and hold everyone accountable who had any participation or knowledge in this," Key said when he presented his petition for a grand jury investigation last week. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Many relatives of the 168 people killed in the bombing have accused Key of trying to take political advantage of the tragedy. c 1997 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. =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 This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: re: Progressive Review #56 (fwd) Date: 12 Jun 1997 08:38:15 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -- I suggest that everyone read this closely ... several of these stories sound like they are are right out of cas and related environs, word for word almost ... I've deleted unrelated snippets ... An attempted break-in at the home of the lawyer for Vince Foster death site witness Patrick Knowlton has renewed special protection by the DC cops. Knowlton is suing feds for harassment . . . .Philip Weiss wrote that strangely ambivilent piece on the "Clinton Crazies" for the NYT Sunday tabloid but since has been undergoing self-revisionism. This from a Philip Weiss piece on Foster: "'Mr. Hubbell hired Jim Hamilton on the evening of Foster's death as the family's attorney,' a 1996 House report . . . states baldly. A White House memo . . .has a different take: 'Nussbaum had asked Hamilton to represent the family of VF.' . . . For nine days after the death, [Park Police] were unable to interview Lisa Foster, and ultimately did so at Hamilton's office and after lengthy negotiation of ground rules. [Park Police Captain Charles] Hume said that the Park Police would like to have talked with Foster's children, but abandoned the plan because of Lisa Foster's resistance. 'And I think Mr. Hamilton helped her make the decision we couldn't talk to anybody.' And the police did not ask Lisa Foster directly whether another woman was involved. In a run-of-the-mill case, they would have done so." Weiss isn't the only mainstream reporter having trouble with the Arkansas scandals. Michael Lewis has written a book about the 1996 campaign that includes this remarkable (for a journalist) reflection: "On balance I've decided it's better to let Clinton get away with everything than to become further involved in his conspiracies, and I wonder how many other journalists have arrived at the same conclusion . . . whether a lot of scandals are going undetected." Judy Woodruff asked him about the line and Lewis said that he had start to "sort of investigate" some of the things down in Arkansas but it was "like lifting a rock and all these things come out from under it and some of them are very edifying and some of them are very, kind of, threatening and you don't want anything to do with them." Not everyone has run as scared. One of those who helped blow the whistle on the Contra/drug operation at Mena is a former state trooper by the name of Russell Welch. To some Welch is among the few heroes of the whole dismal Whitewater saga. One evening not so long ago, he took documentary maker Daniel Hopsicker (who's working on a Mena film). The gist, reports Hopsicker, is that "Mena is not about just things that went on in the early 80s , Mena is about things that are going on right now." Welch pointed out one hanger he says is owned by a man who "doesn't exist in history back past a safe house in Baltimore in 1972." Another is owned by someone who "smuggled heroin through Laos back in the seventies." Still another is "owned by a guy who just went bankrupt. So what's he do? Flies to Europe for more money." Welch showed Hopsicker and his crew a half dozen Fokker aircraft parked on an apron, noting that "the DEA's been tracking those planes back and forth to Columbia for a while now." [snip] ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (OT?) Gore Attacks Extreme Individualism (fwd) Date: 12 Jun 1997 15:36:12 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Gore Attacks Extreme Individualism By SANDRA SOBIERAJ Associated Press Writer Thursday, June 12, 1997 3:37 pm EDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- While the White House has studiously kept quiet about the trial of Timothy McVeigh, Vice President Al Gore touched the issue Thursday in suggesting that as a militia enthusiast McVeigh was a product of ``extreme individualism.'' In a speech tracing recent American political history from the ``overindulgence of government-sponsored solutions'' to today's ``movement toward extreme individualism,'' the vice president never referred to McVeigh by name. But he called the anti-government militia movement one manifestation of an environment that ignores a person's connections with family and community. He also talked about the T-shirt McVeigh was wearing on the day he bombed the Oklahoma City federal building, killing 168 people. Gore told his audience at a George Washington University conference on character building: ``There are movements in America now that are aimed at attacking the very concept of self-government, where you have these militias and you have people wearing T-shirts that quote John Wilkes Booth -- `Sic semper tyrannis' -- on a wanted poster of Abraham Lincoln. In 1997? Hellooo?'' That Latin phrase on McVeigh's T-shirt, now government evidence, was shouted by Booth at Ford's Theater after he assassinated Lincoln. Its translation: ``Thus always to tyrants.'' Gore's comments came as a jury was deciding whether McVeigh should be put to death for the April 1995 bombing. He was convicted last week of 11 counts of murder and conspiracy in a crime that prosecutors said was driven by hatred for the government after the FBI's fatal raid on Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas. On Thursday, Gore rejected the notion of a heavy-handed federal government that dictates to communities and individuals. He said the Clinton-Gore administration has expressly sought to portray a more benevolent image and recognize federal limits through initiatives such as community policing and welfare reform. ``The federal government should never be the baby sitter, the parents,'' he said, but should be ``more like grandparents in the sense that grandparents perform a nurturing role and are aware of what parenting was like but no longer exercise that kind of authority.'' =A9 Copyright 1997 The Associated Press =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 This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Don't listen to Miranda (fwd) Date: 12 Jun 1997 23:16:09 PST On Jun 12, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > Don't listen to Miranda > By John Leo, US News & World Report June 16, 1997 > > Parents: Be on the lookout for Miranda, the toucan. She shows up in Here's > Looking at You, 2000, a health curriculum used in several thousand public > schools. Because she knows that parents can't be trusted, Miranda > encourages children to check the family cupboards for "poisons," including > alcohol or tobacco. The busybody curriculum also urges them to confess > "problems at home" by writing secret messages to the teacher. > > Using students to "re-educate" their parents is standard fare now in the > schools. Adults commonly joke about being "turned in" by their children for > such crimes as drinking a glass of wine with dinner or failing to recycle a > soda can. > > Working on those "problems at home," which many schools consider part of > their role, is a never-ending task for zealous reformers. In Petaluma, > Calif., ninth-graders in a "human interaction program" were sent home with > work sheets that judged whether their families worked on an "open" or > "democratic" model or on a "closed, authoritarian" model. > > In Tucson, Ariz., high school students were asked in a health class, "How > many of you hate your parents?" Oregon parents testified that in a "values > clarification" program, their children were asked, "How many of you ever > wanted to beat up your parents?" Discussing or judging parents is routine > in heavily therapeutic "life skills" and "human interaction" programs. In > the sex-education handbook Changing Bodies, Changing Lives, students are > encouraged to weigh and judge the "voices" in their lives, including their > parents'. As in other textbooks, parents are either problems to contend > with or examples of what to avoid. > > No use for adults. Told by the schools to construct their own value > systems, students are often led to challenge parental values or to dismiss > almost any adult objections as illegitimate. Last week, a friend here in > New York saw this in action. When she asked what her young child's school > was going to do about a wave of bullying, including pushing classmates down > a flight of stairs, the head of the school said no action would be taken > because "children at this stage in their development do not welcome adult > intervention." > > Dana Mack's strong new book, The Assault on Parenthood: How Our Culture > Undermines the Family, makes the case that the crisis of the public school > system is not simply the familiar one of academic failure. It's also that a > new ethic, dismissive of parents and traditional values, has descended on > the schools. "At the heart of parents' frustration," she writes, ". . . is > a deep and unbridgeable chasm between the vocabulary of moral dictates, > rules, and authority that parents think are best for children and the > vocabulary of autonomy and `choices' that emanates from the classroom." > > For generations, child-rearing experts have been suspicious or negative > about the instincts and authority of parents. Mack makes the case that a > new culture has extended its control to the public schools, a culture based > on relativism, egalitarianism, "sexual diversity," a therapeutic view of > the world, and hostility to family, authority, and religion. > > Like a submarine slowly surfacing, this set of attitudes is becoming more > visible each day as an official school ideology that nobody has ever voted > for. In their franker moments, many educators admit that their real > business is social transformation. In her book Ed School Follies, about the > dominant philosophy at schools of education, Rita Kramer quotes the acting > dean of the University of Texas ed school: "You can't not use the schools > as the agencies of social change. It's too convenient." > > Most of us would settle for schools that skip all the social transformation > and just concentrate on teaching children how to read and write. It turns > out that the modern touchy-feely "affective" curriculum, aimed at improving > self-esteem or "getting children to think about themselves," tends to crowd > out actual learning. The new ideology is heavily anti-achievement as well, > sometimes actively hostile to brighter students because excelling is > regarded as elitist, illiberal, and antidemocratic. Better to stay dumb, > fit in, and feel good about yourself. > > In the media, parental objections to all this usually come under the > heading of condoms, school prayer, and the religious right. But behind the > media screen, parents of all political stripes are getting the message, and > pressure is building. Alan Wolfe, one of our best public intellectuals, > reviewed the Dana Mack book in the New Republic and didn't much like it. > But he agreed with the central message. In his well-off suburb, he said, > friends and neighbors are shopping around for alternatives to the public > schools because of the schools' anti-intellectualism and hostility to > parents. "If social trends can be proclaimed based on my personal > experience," he wrote, "suburban public schools are about to face the same > precipitous declines in enrollment suffered by urban ones." This is just > one indicator that the problem isn't a regional, conservative, or religious > one. Unhappiness with the social transformers in our schools is national, > and it's growing. [------------------------- 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: Tom Cloyes Subject: [FWIW] Land of the Freeh (II) Date: 14 Jun 1997 10:33:25 -0400 >Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 00:03:09 -0500 (CDT) >From: James Fish >X-Sender: jfish@earth >To: fwiw@execpc.com >Subject: [FWIW] Land of the Freeh (II) >Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > >FWIW > >ENEMIES OF "WORLD ORDER" > >Addressing a May 13th session of the Senate Appropriations >Committee, FBI Director Louis Freeh stated that the focus >of the federal government's domestic anti-terrorism efforts >are "various individuals, as well as organizations, some >having an ideology which suspects government and particularly >the federal government, of world-order conspiracies - >individuals who, for various reasons, have organized themselves >against the United States." Allowing that action against such >groups requires "some indication of criminal activity." Freeh >made it clear that the chief domestic "enemy" consists of >"individuals who espouse ideologies inconsistent with principles >of federal [sic] government" - in short, right-wing extremism. > >The May 13th Senate committee session also disclosed the >existence of the previously unknown Presidential Decision >Directive (PDD) 39, which, according to Freeh, "sets out >the responsibilities not only of the FBI, but emphasizes >most importantly [inter-agency] coordination, which is >required among all federal agencies to discharge the >objectives of the federal policy with respect to terrorism." >Freeh noted that "there is particular emphasis in that >plan for coordination between the Department of Defense >and the Department of Justice" in matters of chemical, >biological, or nuclear terrorism, or threats to the >infrastructure (highways, power grids, etc.). > >Both PDD 39 and recently enacted federal anti-terrorism >legislation have led to significant amalgamation of >federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Freeh >proudly referred to "coordination with our other partners, >and particularly our partners in the CIA. We have exchanged >deputies at a very high level between the FBI and the CIA >in the counter-terrorism areas....The deputy at the CIA's >counter-terrorism center has been and will be...an FBI >agent. We have conducted joint training with the CIA, >conferencing, operational planning across the board." > >In addition, Freeh explained that the FBI's new counter- >terrorism center "contains representatives of 16 other >federal agencies and...is dedicated for the first time >to a central collection, analytical point, in the >federal government for threats, particularly those >regarding domestic terrorism." > >None of the senators expressed misgivings about the >consolidation of federal law enforcement, intelligence, >and military functions, or about the implications of >directing those newly consolidated powers at a domestic >"enemy." > >[end] > >Source: The New American > Insider Report, p.7 > June 23, 1997 > >Subscription: 1-800-727-TRUE > >Web Site: http://www.jbs.org > > =================================================================== > 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. > =================================================================== > Visit the largest on-line collection of quality > non-mainstream "true" Conservative text files at: > THE CONSERVATIVE CORNER - 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 nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: How One American Counteracts "Extreme Individualism" (fwd) Date: 15 Jun 1997 03:29:16 -0400 (EDT) PLEASE NOTE: Final draft (with a few minor typos corrected) is shown below. Thanks for your patience. ccf ---------- Forwarded message ---------- THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Wow. Until Vice President Gore warned Americans recently about the dangers posed to society by "extreme individualism", I had no idea that my daily routine exposed my family and me to such grave risks. A man of action, I took immediate steps to mitigate any "extreme individualism" which had crept, year by insidious year, into my otherwise ordinary life and into the otherwise ordinary lives of my beloved spouse and my two wonderful daughters. I was especially concerned that the Vice President had linked the rise of "extreme individualism" to the decline of "family and community." Heavy duty stuff. Serious. Super serious. Heck, even Paula Jones civil litigation serious. So, I moved. I acted. I made decisions. I took Clintonian "common ground" and held it, as follows: 1. I have detailed the Secretary of the Interior to live in and inspect the interior of my home to insure that all furnishings and decor therein meet approved Clintonista guidelines. 2. I have appointed the new Secretary of the Exterior (a brand spankin' new Cabinet post) to approve the wardrobes, skin tones, hair styles and overall demeanor of all members of my family. The Secretary of the Exterior will also have veto power over the color of my home, the mowing schedule for my lawn, the types of trees and vegetation planted on my property and the type of lawn furniture used on my home's deck. 3. I have detailed the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to keep a close eye on me, a former Army officer, just to insure that I never stray away from my spouse. Although I would die before I would cheat on my wife, it is possible that I could suddenly be consumed by an attack of "extreme individualism" and attempt to contact Cindy Crawford by phone to inquire whether or not she would be interested in coming over to watch a movie on the Disney Channel and to sing "Amazing Face", "How Great Thy Part" or other Clintonista approved hymns. 4. I have detailed the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to reside underneath my bedroom bureau and to daily remove any alcohol, tobacco or firearms found therein. I do not drink or smoke, and my firearms are kept in a locked gun safe, but one cannot be too careful when the "extreme individualism" virus (worse than E-Bill-Clinton-a, I hear!) is spreading all across America. 5. I have detailed the Director of the Secret Service to insure that any "servicing" taking place at my home is completed in full accordance with Jiffy Lube procedures and that agents working underneath my Ford truck or my spouse's Ford Taurus work only in the dark of night to keep their activities secret. Such servicing will be completed solely at the Director's discretion to preclude any extreme individual within my family from suggesting that an oil and filter such be changed every 3,000 miles during severe service, or perhaps every 1,000 miles for the duration of Bill's Clinton's presidency. 6. I have detailed the Attorney General to inspect and remove all "offensive" or "dissident" literature, e.g., historical volumes referring to the War for Independence of 1775-1781, from my bookshelves and to have them replaced with current copies of the U.S. Code and all executive orders signed by the current President of the United States. Burning of books not approved by the Clintonistas' Book Police will be overseen by the EPA. 7. I have detailed the Director of the U.S. Customs Service to eat dinner at our modest table each evening in order to teach my family and me new Clintonista approved customs, e.g. how to lie, cheat and steal and feel no remorse, guilt or pain, how to bite one's lower lip when trying to render a display of faked emotion, etc. 8. I have detailed the Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to stand watch by my home's mailbox to insure that no "unnatural (non-Clintonista) persons" immigrate into my front yard or driveway without first obtaining a visa from the President's Chief of Stuff or his Legal Artilleryman, Lanny "No Comment" Davis. 9. I have asked the Director of the Drug Enforcement Administration to investigate whether or not the fact that individual family members of mine have taken prescription medications prescribed solely for their respective use by competent medical doctors is a worrisome indicator that "extreme individualism" is, in fact, being promoted by physicians who do not want patients to share medication, as members of a Clintonista community perhaps should? Does it "take a (Clintonista) village" to consume the same prescribed medication to feel the same way? My inquiring, clear mind wants to know. 10. Cognizant that allowing my family members to have their own names was a dangerous sign of "extreme individualism" running amok, I have renamed my spouse and my two daughters "Christopher C. Ferris" ... everyone under the Ferris roof now bears the same name. We are even thinking of asking the permission of the oh-so-hep Social Security Administration to share, communitarian-style, one social security number! Wouldn't that be a Rose Garden ceremony photo op kind of progressive decision on our "Ferris Family Village's" part? As you can see, it is easy to include an ever more responsive government in your daily lives so that you will never again feel that gnawing sensation in your gut, that anxious feeling that "extreme individualism" may have slid into your homes through cracks in the windows and turned your own families into free thinkers. Free thinkers? Individuals making decisions about their own lives without asking Uncle Wee Willie C.'s experts? Thank the Good Lord that Nostradamus the Vice President discovered this "extreme individualism" outbreak before it spread countrywide. And thank God that all Americans have been alerted. Act now. Act promptly. Do not hesitate. Don't do it for yourselves. Do it for the children. It may not be too late. There may yet be time to stamp out the scourge of "extreme individualism." There may yet be time to preserve Bill Clinton's America. For all of us. For the children. And for the disenfranchised midnight basketball-playing childrens' children. Do the night thing. Find Clintonian common ground. Even if it means keeping (it) up with the Joneses. THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: L&J: SPOTLIGHT EXCLUSIVE: OKC Coverup (fwd) Date: 16 Jun 1997 10:16:22 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://TeamInfinity.com/ookkcc.html http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html Ok folks, couple of quick points to make before this excellent report from the Spotlight. 1. Our Constitution CLEARLY prohibits EX POST FACTO LAWS 2. The statutes that Tim McVeigh, guilty or not, is being charged under were past into law AFTER the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City that our Government ALLOWED to occur with TONS of prior knowledge, not unlike Pearl Harbor, Israel's massacre of the USS Liberty, the FBI's particpation in the World Trade Center Bombing (they supplied the LIVE powder), and the sinking of the Lusitania. 3. Even if McVeigh is guilty, (i.e. the hammer of the evil part of our gov state, knowing or not), which I doubt he is the more I find out, killing him (the hammer, and not the one using the hammer, i.e. the specific evil individuals in the government) is tantamount to destroying EVIDENCE, the murder weapon if you will, just like they did when they destroyed the Murrah building and the Waco family house/church before independent investigation and complete photographing could occur, just like no xrays exist of Vince Foster, just like JFK's brain disappeared, just like the steel doors to the Waco family home/church "burned up" in the CS gas fueled fire which would have CLEARLY shown trajectories of ATF hitmen's bullets piercing those double sided STEEL doors that DO NOT burn in fires. Remember, hammer's dont kill people, specific faceless evil people within our government do either through commission of omission. i.e. if a train is heading towards your blind friend looking the other way at you, and you do not signal him, you are a murderer !!! All ATF at okc, (same individuals who "worked" waco, were given a beeper signal, but no one else except one Judge was given the opportunity to avoid being struck by the train so to speak. What about the THREE undetonated devices of mammoth proportions according to INITIAL reports at the scene and OFFICIALS of FBI and ATF, who later recanted, what about those devices, who could have had the access to plant those INSIDE the building. Maybe that is why the ATF did not show up to work that day, I guess that if they planted them that we could certainly call THAT prior knowledge. (to obtain a tape with original footage see, http://TeamInfinity.com/ookkcc.html) 4. If you think Stephan Jones gave Tim McVeigh an adequate, let alone any defense whatsoever, THINK again, and listen to his own words and comments and body language in recent news broadcasts. To order the video write: okc@TeamInfinity.com ralph@TeamInfinity.com A SPOTLIGHT EXCLUSIVE: Why has the 'Fourth Estate' joined the government in its conspiracy of silence involving much of the evidence in the Oklahoma City bombing case? EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPOTLIGHT by tom valentine In another sign of just how corrupt our federal government and its supporters within the major media have become, evidence continues to mount that the FBI and U.S. prosecutors in the Oklahoma City bombing case are guilty of the felony of "obstruction of justice." What else can it be called? Stephen Jones, attorney for Timothy McVeigh, filed a 155-page, carefully detailed brief supporting a Writ of Mandamus on March 25 and not a peep has to see this Mandamus in its entirety please go to: http://TeamInfinity.com/ookkcc.html been heard about this important document from the mainstream media. The 10th District Court of Appeals denied the petition, stating simply that they agree with Judge Richard Matsch that the material should be "sealed." Denying the accused access to documents held by the government, which would surely implicate many more perpetrators of the bombing and perhaps even an international plot, is certainly obstructing any opportunity for justice. It has been more than two years since the death and destruction at the Alfred P. Murrah building rocked America. Two years without a trial, but with innumerable machinations of propaganda, demonization and emotional drama under the guise of "the most massive investigation ever." When the trial finally began a few weeks ago, the federal government wasted opening day putting on witnesses to the tragedy and pain, who were irrelevant as to whether Timothy McVeigh may be the culprit as charged. Judge Matsch, obviously playing his part in the seemingly scripted melodrama, allowed the irrelevant testimony. Defense attorney Jones, mindful of how it would look to object, did not do so. The hyping of the irrelevant testimony merely shows how much more important the propaganda value is to the government case than the actual evidence. EVIDENCE DESTROYED In fact, within weeks of the bombing, the government used a pathetic "psychological" excuse to destroy the evidence of the bombed out building. Despite opposition to the blatant destruction of evidence, the government blasted the rest of the building into rubble, then carted the rubble away and buried it. Any forensic examination is now impossible. Are we certain that a fertilizer bomb did the dirty work; or was it merely a cover for well placed charges within the building? Will we ever know? In his detailed brief, Jones did not mention the FBI's use of coercion on witnesses who saw things the Feds don't wish to discuss, or the FBI's falsification of witness reports-all of which has been covered by The SPOTLIGHT and Radio Free America. The brief calls attention to the conflicts of the government's case and the facts. To cite only two examples, the brief states: The theory of the prosecution in this case, not the Grand Jury's theory, is that the two named Defendants constructed a simple device capable of toppling a nine-story building at a public fishing lake and that one of them transported this device over two hundred miles without blowing himself up. That is the heart of the prosecution's case. Any evidence concerning the participation of others, the complexity of the device, or foreign involvement takes away the heart of the government's case and there is therefore an institutional interest on the part of the government in keeping such evidence shielded from the defense and the public. But unfortunately for the government such evidence exists. One of the core allegations in the Indictment is that Timothy McVeigh rented a Ryder truck at Elliott's Body Shop in Junction City, Kansas. The evidence, however, negates McVeigh's presence and suggests instead the presence of two other suspects. The government's theory is that Timothy McVeigh rented a Ryder truck from Elliott's Body Shop using the name "Robert Kling." However, three employees of Elliott's Body Shop each informed the FBI that "Kling" was accompanied by another man. Eldon Elliott met Robert Kling on Saturday, April 15, 1995, at approximately 8:45 a.m. See D.E. 1081 Exhibit "D." On this day, Kling was by himself, gave Elliott $281 to rent the truck, and told Elliott that he would pick the truck up on Monday at about 4:00 p.m. When Kling came into Elliott's on Monday there was, according Elliott, a second individual with him. Elliott described the person with Kling as a white male, 5'7" to 5'8", and wearing a white cap with blue stripes that headed front to back. He described Kling as a white male 5'10" to 5'11", 180 to 185 lbs., with a medium build. Vicki Beemer, then the bookkeeper and counter clerk at Elliott's, told the FBI on the day of the bombing that a contract to rent a truck was executed on Monday, April 17, 1995 with Robert Kling. Id (Exhibit "A"). She verified that Kling had reserved the truck and prepaid the contract with cash. Beemer told the FBI that she recalled a second person accompanying Kling but that she had no specific recollection of that individual. She stated that while she processed the contract another employee named Tom Kessenger was sitting in the office watching. Id Kessenger initially told the FBI that two males came into Elliott's and initiated a conversation with Vicki Beemer concerning a rental truck. See D.E. 3240 at 7, 10 (Hearing on Motions to Suppress Eyewitness Identification-Volume I, February 18, 1997). Kessenger stated that Robert Kling was accompanied by the individual that later became known worldwide as John Doe 2. He described this person as wearing a black t-shirt, jeans, and a ball cap colored Royal blue in the front and white in the back. He also stated that John Doe 2 had a tattoo on his upper left arm. However, Kessenger has testified that a year and half after he first saw John Doe 2 at Elliott's Body Shop, the government convinced him that he had made a mistake and identified another person who rented a truck on April 18, 1995. He described Kling as 5'10, weighing 175 to 185 lbs., green or brown eyes, and with a rough complexion or acne. . Although Elliott and Kessenger may have been describing the same person they saw and knew as Robert Kling-it is clear that neither was describing Timothy McVeigh. At the time that McVeigh was booked into the Noble County Jail on April 21, 1995, he weighed 160 lbs., stood 6'2", his eyes were blue, and his complexion was clear. In addition, the government and defense both have, and it has been referenced in open court proceedings, a video tape of the accused at McDonald's on I-70 in Junction City, a mile and a third away from Elliott's Body Shop. The accused is seen at McDonald's between 3:55 and 4:00 p.m. wearing clothes completely different from those ascribed to Robert Kling. The accused is supposed to have traveled the 1.3 miles on foot, in less than 20 minutes, and somehow or the other along the road, changed clothes. Oklahoma City Eyewitness The government has announced that it will not call a single identification witness from Oklahoma City. The government has declined to do so for a very good reason-all of them undercut the government's theory of the case; perhaps none more so than the dramatic story of a young woman who was trapped in the rubble of the Murrah Building, had to have a leg amputated, and lost her mother and two children in the bombing. Her sister was also injured but survived. She was first interviewed by the FBI on May 3, 1995 at the hospital and then again on May 21, 1995. She was also interviewed by the Defendant's attorney and several reporters. Her story is consistent in all accounts. She stated that she left her home in Oklahoma City at approximately 7:15 a.m. on the morning of April 19, 1995, to go to the Social Security Office. She went with her mother, two children, and her sister. She recalled standing in the lobby of the Social Security Office in the Murrah Building near a large window facing Fifth Street when she looked out the lobby window and saw a Ryder truck pull into a parking place in front of the building between two cars. After the truck parked, she then observed an individual exit the passenger side of the Ryder truck and start walking away. She stated that she observed a side view of the person and described him as an olive-skinned (he looked also like he was tanned), white male, wearing a baseball cap with black, clean cut hair, with a slim build and also wearing jeans and a jacket. She observed the man walking very fast, heading west, toward Harvey Street. The next thing she remembered was feeling what she described as electricity running through her body and then falling into rocks. While she was in the hospital convalescing from her injuries, the FBI showed her a sketch consisting of frontal view of a man wearing a hat--John Doe 2. She told the FBI that the unknown male that she saw looked similar to the man in the sketch. Attorney Jones continues for more than one hundred pages in his brief with much more exculpatory evidence, all of which has been denied and will not be admitted by Judge Richard Matsch who is well-known as an obedient "federal man" who does whatever the Justice Department wants him to, even if it concerns the real murderers of 168 people in worst terrorist action ever seen in the United States. >From the day this petition was filed with the court, the major media was aware of it. Why have Americans been denied this news? While it proved nothing in itself, the details revealed in the brief raise questions that require straight answers. This just in: BRAND NEW: COVER UP in OKLAHOMA CITY on VHS tape To obtain this 1 hour VHS Video with original media coverage showing multiple undetonated bombs being recovered INSIDE the building and detailed analysis of coverup send email to: okc@TeamInfinity.com El Jeffe, El Capiton, Generalissimo Klintonista speaks out about the US Constitution: "When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ..." "And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." President Bill Clinton, 3-22-94, MTV's "Enough is Enough" "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A) Why cant any of these be considered a violation of the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and qualify as TREASON !! "Gun registration is not enough." Attorney General Janet Reno, December 10, 1993 (Associated Press) "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno "What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned." Sen. Howard Metzanbaum "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3. ralph@TeamInfinity.com (I can get you SAPF films/tapes/materials, "Harry's War" the suppressed film, Tragedy & Hope the book, US/UN/DontTreadonMe FLAGS, bumperstickers YardSigns & T-Shirts, inquire) http://TeamInfinity.com/~ralph/code/t26.html http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html This correspondence in NO WAY represents Save A Patriot Fellowship (SAPF), but feel free to contact them thru RALPH@TEAMINFINITY.COM CALL 703-904-7770 ask for document 777 ######################################################################### TO RECEIVE email from ralph: send email to ralph@TeamInfinity.com and in the Subject make sure your email address and the word GO-RALPH (no spaces) is in the subject. TO STOP RECEIVING email from ralph: send email to ralph@TeamInfinity.com and in the Subject make sure your email address and the word WHOA-RALPH (no spaces) is in the subject. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 97/6-3 (15-Jun-97) (fwd) Date: 16 Jun 1997 10:16:14 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 97/6-3 15-Jun-97 ------------------------------------------------------------------- A Special Focus on McVeigh Verdict PUT THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM ON TRIAL PHOENIX - In a vivid illustration of the kind of a macabre society we are becoming, some people in Oklahoma City clapped and cheered as a man was condemned to death on Friday, June 13. The following day, some legal pundits rushed to predict that Timothy McVeigh would be put on a "fast track" to the execution chamber, maybe by the year 2000, according to a REUTER report. Federal prisoners usually spend decades on death row as their appeals are considered. The last time a Federal prisoner was executed was 34 year ago. What's the rush to kill? To silence McVeigh? And thus destroy more evidence? In his July 30, 1995 letter to Senator Trent Lott, Brigadier General, Benton Partin, USAF Ret., an explosives expert who had spent 25 years in research, design and testing of various weapons, warned the government that, "both the Federal Building in Oklahoma and the Trade Center in New York show evidence of a counter-terrorism sting gone wrong." For that reason, Gen. Partin urged that, "no government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a counter-terrorism sting operation, sabotage or terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency." So what did the Feds do? They rushed to bulldoze the Oklahoma City's Murrah Federal Building! Why? Upon examining the Murrah Building while it still stood in June 1995, as well as "hundreds of photographs taken throughout the cleanup operation," Gen. Partin concluded that, "the photos present irrefutable evidence that at least four demolition charges were set off at four critical columns of the reinforced concrete structure at the floor level of the third floor." He added that, "based on my experience in weapons development and bomb damage analysis, and on my review of all evidence available, I can say, with a high level of confidence, that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb." Nor is the general the only one who contends that the prosecution's case was flawed. Sam Cohen, a physicist, reportedly also thinks that internal demolition charges were used. And the Oklahoma State Representative, Charles Key, has been continuously blocked by authorities and ridiculed by the establishment media when he tried to discover what really happened at the Murrah Building by impaneling a grand jury (see the April 8 Truth in Media report). Yet the Denver McVeigh jury was reportedly never allowed to hear such testimony. Why not? Nor did they hear the story of a bartender from McPherson, Kansas, which raised doubts about the identity of the real suspect. The bartender's friend, Patsy Hiebert, also from McPherson, Kansas, sent this writer an e-mail message on the eve of McVeigh's trial in which she said that her friend, "called the 800 FBI number and told her story, but they treated her as if they were totally uninterested and they never contacted her for any other details and never required an in-person interview. The man she served in the bar was NOT Tim McVeigh. Similar in looks, but she claims that McVeigh is much healthier looking, the hair cut was a little different, and McVeigh had a little more weight than the guy she served. She claims that the man in the bar that night actually looked more like the composite drawing than McVeigh does." Hiebert added that she and her friend "found it very unusual that the FBI never called her back, particularly a few weeks late, after the statement that receipts had been found at the local McPherson COOP connected to the bombing, which apparently would have coincided with the timing of the incident at the bar." (for more details on this story, check out the Truth in Media Global Watch Bulletin 97/4-5, 4/17/97). "For someone doing a nationwide search for answers, I would have thought they would have at least checked this story out" Hiebert wondered. Indeed, why didn't they? Now, add to the McPherson, KS, story the expert opinions cited earlier in this column, and what you have is REASONABLE DOUBT of which the Denver jury was deprived. A man is condemned to die while evidence is suppressed and/or destroyed. And that's "due process of law?" Nor is this the only case which calls for the American JUSTICE SYSTEM to be put on trial. Remember the World Trade Center bombing? It was perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. Like McVeigh, the suspects were also convicted of the crime. The WTC bombers murdered innocent Americans in cold blood. But unlike McVeigh, they will not be put to death. Why not? Why is our Federal government using a double standard in dealing with terrorism? Because it didn't want to turn the New York bombers into Islamic martyrs, but didn't mind if it were to scare off the potentially more dangerous, yet currently more wimpy domestic militias - by using McVeigh's execution as a tool of intimidation? If so, that's not justice. That's a brazen abuse of justice! For political purposes... Nor is this the only reason for the American justice system to be put on trial. Remember Ruby Ridge, 1992? A woman and a child were murdered in cold blood by Federal agents. Why was no one prosecuted for those deaths? Because the Federal officials are "above the law? Remember Waco? About 80 people perished when the FBI stormed the Branch Davidian compound. Not all were killed by smoke or fire (which also conveniently destroyed some of the evidence), as is the official version. "You can't believe your eyes," the WASHINGTON POST reported in an April 16 story, "Waco: Still Burning." "The man on the screen, a distinguished scientist, makes it all seem true. He is pointing out bright bursts that look to him like machine gun fire. You are witnessing what could be a military-style slaughter of civilians -- My Lai in America. First they were gassed, then burned, then shot. It all happened on April 19, 1993, according to a new documentary film, 'Waco: The Rules of Engagement.'" The "distinguished scientist" whom the Post described was Edward Allard, a former supervisor of the Department of Defense's night vision laboratory at Fort Belvoir, who has a doctorate in physics. Using the so-called Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) technology, which was widely used in the Persian Gulf War to detect enemy tanks and installations, he said that the "weapons signatures are so clear as to eliminate all doubt" that the FBI agents were shooting at the Branch Davidians. Yet, "no official has ever lost a day's pay for precipitating the incineration of 80 people, most of them women and children, in the worst abuse of power since Wounded Knee a century ago," wrote Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a former Washington correspondent for the London TELEGRAPH, in his farewell piece filed on April 20. Why was no one prosecuted for those deaths? Because the Federal officials are "above the law?" If the Federal government can shoot innocent civilians as if they were rabbits; if they can intimidate grand juries; if Vincent Foster, the Clintons' now deep-sixed former lawyer, can commit "suicide" twice (!?) - then why couldn't the people like that be also involved in framing McVeigh as the scapegoat to cover up their own dirty tricks? (Re. Foster: "The paramedics and crime scene witnesses in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993, tell a story that flatly contradicts the official findings," wrote Ambrose-Pritchard, in his London TELEGRAPH's April 20 piece. "A police Polaroid shows a .22 calibre bullet wound in Foster's neck that the autopsy somehow failed to note. Are Americans to believe that Hillary Clinton's closest friend shot himself twice, with two different guns?") We don't know the answer to that question, but asking it certainly could have put more doubts into the Denver jury's minds. Furthermore, no Anti-Terrorist Force (ATF) agents perished in the Oklahoma blast. This alone would make an amazing actuarial story, had the McVeigh defense lawyers engaged some actuaries to calculate such odds. But they didn't. (Whose side was the defense on, anyway?). But even without such expert testimony, Rep. Key claimed that an Oklahoman, Bruce Shaw, who went to look for his wife in the smoldering building, was told by an ATF agent, "you won't find any ATF agents in the building because they were warned on their pagers not to come in this morning, and they're now in debriefing." As if that weren't enough, Carol Howe, a paid ATF informant reportedly fired just days prior to the OK city bombing, had confirmed that two individuals, Dennis Mahon and Andreas Strassmeir, were planning to bomb the Murrah Federal building on April 19, 1995, according to Rep. Key. Howe, the former "Miss Teenage America" semi-finalist before she became an undercover ATF agent, reportedly shared the details of the Strassmeir plans with her ATF boss, Angela Finley. Strassmeir, apparently a "John Doe 2 look-alike," is a German national born in Berlin in 1959. He is the son of Gunther Strassmeir, a politician regarded by some as the "architect of German reunification." Strassmeir Jr. is also a former member of the German elite counter-terrorism unit, GSG-9, according to an Ian Williams Goddard's May 1997 Internet article (see the LINKS below). Goddard also writes that Strassmeir once told the Oklahoma City attorney, John Michael Johnston, that he had done undercover counter-terrorism work while in Germany, Strassmeir was allowed to leave U.S. after the Murrah bombing even though he was "wanted for questioning by the FBI, Oklahoma City," according to an Immigration and Naturalization "Lookout," dated Jan. 11, 1996, as reported by the Digital City Denver News, which provided a detailed Internet account of the McVeigh trial. The INS "Lookout" even cited the FBI case number of the bombing investigation. Also, the State Department Diplomatic Security Service documents indicate that a Federal agent by the last name of Hudspeth requested a German police background check on Strassmeir on April 27, 1995 - eight days after the Oklahoma City bombing. "My understanding is you feel that John Doe 2 was not pursued by the prosecution because he could well turn out to be a government informant or agent. That would link the government to the bombing?" asked Jon Rappoport, a Los Angeles-based author of "Oklahoma City Bombing - The Suppressed Truth," in his December 14, 1995 interview with Hoppy Heidelberg, a grand juror in the Oklahoma City case (see the LINKS below). "Right," this grand juror replied, risking a contempt-of-court citation and/or imprisonment, since the grand jury proceedings are supposed to remain secret. Heidelberg risked all this, because he felt that his grand jury was steered away from evidence that could implicate the government itself in the bombing. Of course, all this may not amount to much more than another conspiracy theory, routinely ridiculed by the "establishment" media. But it doesn't have to, according to our justice system. All the McVeigh defense needed to do was show cause for "REASONABLE DOUBT." Why didn't they? Instead of trying to raise more doubts about his client's crime, McVeigh's defense attorney, Stephen Jones, made a tacit admission of his client's guilt, and all but adopted the prosecution's theory of the crime, the ASSOCIATED PRESS reported on June 13. In his closing remarks, for example, Jones told the jury: "It is a political crime. It is an ideological crime. He is not a demon, though surely his act was demonic." That's a "tacit" admission of guilt? How about a screaming one? No wonder Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor, was unforgiving in his evaluation of the defense. "He (Jones) was at his absolute worst, asking the jury in effect to say everybody was responsible for this, and that somehow patriotism and political motivation should be a mitigating factor," he told the AP. "That's the kind of argument that forces people who are on the fence to vote against you." So was McVeigh's defense incompetent or bought? Guess that's one question which an "all-American" grand jury should contemplate when the U.S. justice system is put on trial. As if that weren't bad enough, we now also have the racial issues creeping back into our justice system. What was once a PROGRESSIVE "affirmative action" is turning into a REPRESSIVE discrimination against the white (majority of) Americans. The racial pendulum is swinging the other way... Four WHITE policemen are acquitted by an all-WHITE jury in the beating of a BLACK (Rodney King). Los Angeles erupts in riots. Blacks across America are outraged. Some months later, white policemen are the retried, and some are convicted. A BLACK man (O.J.) is acquitted of murdering two WHITE people, one his former wife. Blacks across America cheer the verdict. Whites are outraged, but silent. There are no riots, no protests. The black man is later found guilty in a civil case, and ordered to pay the victims' families substantial restitution. Victims' families cheer. America shrugs. Ruby Ridge, Waco, World Trade Center, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City... not to mention the TWA 800 alleged FBI cover-up - if what happened in those examples of American justice is "justice," then "we, the people" must put the American justice system on trial in the court of public opinion. And we must do it not just for our sake, but for the sake of our children. Before the likes of Bill Clinton, or Janet Reno, hijack our country and our liberty. As that British reporter, Ambrose-Pritchard, put it in his last Washington piece, "to the American people I bid a fond farewell. Guard your liberties. It is the trust of each generation to pass a free republic to the next. And if I know you right, you will rouse yourself from slumber to ensure exactly that." Is the McVeigh's sentence that long-awaited wake-up call by the Liberty Bell? ----- Bob Djurdjevic TRUTH IN MEDIA Phoenix, Arizona e-mail: bobdj@djurdjevic.com LINKS: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/prior.htm (Goddard's Internet article) http://home.earthlink.net/~alto/hoppy.html (Rappoport's interview with Heidelberg) http://www.forbes.com/tool/html/returns0610.htm (Djurdjevic's FORBES' column) http://www.djurdjevic.com (Djurdjevic/Annex Research home page). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (OT) Bilderberg Meeting (fwd) Date: 16 Jun 1997 10:17:27 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -- Whether you believe the Bilderberg clique rules the world, or is just an annual exercize of private, self-congratulation, the tea leaves of the attendee list always make for interesting reading ... - - - from: http://www.drudgereport.com/911.txt HEADLINE: Bilderberg Meeting of 1997 Assembles... DATELINE: ATLANTA, GA USA BODY: The 45th Bilderberg Meeting will be held near Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. June 12- 15, 1997 to discuss the Atlantic Relationship in a Time of Change. Among others the Conference will discuss NATO, China, Islam, EMU, Energy, Growth, Corporate Governance. Approximately 120 participants from North America and Europe will attend the discussions. The meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion. Bilderberg takes its name from the Hotel where the first meeting took place in May 1954. That meeting grew out of the concern on both sides of the Atlantic that the industrialized democracies in Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on matters of critical importance. It was felt that regular, off-the-record discussions would contribute to a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations. What is unique about Bilderberg as a forum is (1) the broad cross -section of leading citizens, in and out of government, that are assembled for nearly three days of purely informal discussion about topics of current concern especially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy, (2) the strong feeling among participants that in view of the differing attitudes and experiences of their nations, there is a continuous, clear need to develop an understanding in which these concerns can be accommodated, and (3) the privacy of the meetings, which have no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued. In short, Bilderberg is a flexible and informal international leadership-forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced. To ensure full discussion, individuals representing a wide range of political and economic points of view are invited. Two-thirds of the participants come from Europe and the remainder from the United States and Canada. Within this framework, on average about one-third are from the government sector and the remaining two-thirds from a variety of fields including finance, industry, labour, education and the media. Participants are solely invited for their knowledge, experience and standing and with reference to the topics on the agenda. All participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not in an official capacity. Participants have agreed not to give interviews to the press during the meeting. In contacts with the news media after the conference it is an established rule that no attribution should be made to individual participants of what was discussed during the meeting. There will be no press conference. A list of participants is appended. BILDERBERG MEETINGS PineIsle Resort near Atlanta, U.S.A. June 12-15, 1997 CURRENT LIST OF PARTICIPANTS STATUS 12 June 1997 Chairman GB Carrington, Peter Former Chairman of the Board, Christies International plc; Former Secretary General, NATO Honorary Secretary General NL Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Public Economics, Leiden University I Agnelli, Giovanni Honorary Chairman, Fiat S.p.A. I Agnelli, Umberto Chairman, IFIL S.p.A. USA Allaire, Paul A. Chairman, Xerox Corporation DK Andersen, Bodil Nyboe Governor, Central Bank of Denmark USA Armacost, Michael H. President, The Brookings Institution P Balsemao, Francisco Pinto Professor of Communication Science, University, Lisbon; Chairman, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister S Barnevik Percy Chairman, ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. USA Bartley, Robert L. Editor, Wall Street Journal CDN Bassett, Isabel Parliamentary Assistant to the of Finance, Government of Ontario USA Bentsen, Lloyd M. Former Secretary of the Treasury; Partner, Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered USA Berger, Samuel R. Assistant to the President for Security Affairs NL Bergh, Maarten A. van den Group Managing Director, Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies USA Bergsten, C. Fred Director, Institute for International Economics USA Bernstein Richard Book Critic, New York Times NL Beugel, Ernst H. van der Emeritus Professor of International Relations, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Meetings for Europe and Canada TR Beyazit, Selahattin Director of Companies INT Bildt, Carl The High Representative TR Bilgin, Dinc Chairman of the Board, Sabah A.S. CDN Black, Conrad M. Chairman, The Telegraph plc H Bokros, Lajos Senior Adviser, The World Bank P Borges, Antonio Dean, INSEAD GB Browne, E. John P. Group Chief Executive, The British Petroleum Company p.l.c. USA Bryan, John H. Chairman and CEO, Sara Lee Corporation GB Buchanan, Robin W.T. Senior Partner, Bain & Company D Burda, Hubert Chairman, Burda Media CH Butler, Hugo Editor in Chief, Neue Zurcher Zeitung GR Carras, Costa Director of Companies D Cartellieri, Ulrich Member of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG E Carvajal Urquijo, Jaime Chairman and General Manager, Iberfomento F Collomb, Bertrand Chairman and CEO, Lafarge USA Corzine, Jon S. Chairman and CEO, Goldman Sachs & Co. CH Cotti, Flavio Federal Councillor and Minister for Foreign Affairs GB Cranborne, Robert M.J.C. Leader of the Opposition in the House Lords USA Dam, Kenneth W. Max Pam Professor of American and Foreign Law, The University of Chicago Law School GR David, George A. Chairman of the Board, Hellenic Company S.A. B Davignon, Etienne Executive Chairman, Societe Generale Belgique; Former Vice Chairman of the Commission of the European Communities B Donnea, Francois X. de Former Minister of Defense; Mayor of Brussels; Member of Parliament DK Ellemann-Jensen, Uffe Chairman, Liberal Party TR Ercel, Gazi Governor, Central Bank of Turkey TR Erguder, Ustun Rector, Bosporus University CDN F ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Salinger: Mafia Killed Kennedys (fwd) Date: 16 Jun 1997 10:17:13 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Caveat lector ... Salinger: Mafia Killed Kennedys .c The Associated Press DENVER (AP) - Former White House press secretary Pierre Salinger, who claims he has evidence an unarmed Navy missile accidentally downed TWA Flight 800 last year, now says the Mafia killed John F. Kennedy Jr. and his brother, Robert. Salinger said Friday he expects the Mafia soon will be linked to the assassinations. ``In the last three months, I have been involved with some people, and I'm beginning to feel very strongly that there was a conspiracy,'' Salinger said during a breakfast at a Denver shopping center that is exhibiting photos of former first lady Jackie Kennedy Onassis. ``We're going to have new information on it, probably in the next six months, that it was the Mafia that decided to kill John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy because when they became president they had done such an attack on the Mafia that no other president before had ever done, that they wanted to get rid of them,'' Salinger said. Robert Kennedy was attorney general during his brother's presidency; Salinger was President Kennedy's press secretary. Salinger said he initially believed a report by the Warren Commission that concluded Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he shot Kennedy in Dallas in 1963. Robert Kennedy was murdered in 1968 while running for president. Later, during a speech Friday at a Denver hotel, Salinger said an upcoming book had changed his thinking. ``I've recently backed off the Warren Commission report in the light of a book that should appear in about four months,'' he said, adding that he trusted the book's author. Salinger, a former Paris bureau chief for ABC News, would not name the author, but called him ``highly placed.'' Salinger, 72, also said he stands by his report last November that a Navy missile unintentionally hit TWA's 737 Boeing jet after it took off from New York on a flight to Paris. The plane crashed July 17, killing all 230 aboard. AP-NY-06-14-97 2150EDT Copyright 1997 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. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas rum, David Political Commentator USA Gadiesh, Orit Chairman of the Board, Bain & Company Inc. P Galvao Teles, Jose M. Lawyer, Member of the Social Party, Member of the Council of State F Gergorin, Jean-Louis Member of the Board of Directors, to the Chairman Strategic Matra Hachette USA Gerstner, Jr., Louis V. Chairman, IBM Corporation USA Hamilton, Lee H. Congressman (D, Indiana) N Hoegh, Westye Chairman of the Board, Leif Hoegh & ASA; Former President, Norwegian Shipowners' Association USA Holbrooke, Richard C. Former Assistant Secretary for Affairs, Vice chairman, CS First GB Hutton, Will Editor, The Observer B Huyghebaert, Jan Chairman, Almanij-Kredietbank Groep FIN Iloniemi, Jaakko Managing Director, Centre for Finnish Business and Policy Studies; Former Ambassador to the United States of America D Issing, H.C. Otmar Member of the Board, Deutsche GB Jacobi, Mary Jo Head of Group Public Affairs, HSBC Holdings plc; Former US Assistant Secretary of Commerce INT Johnston, Donald J. Secretary-General, OECD USA Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. Senior Partner, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP ( Attorneys-at-Law) USA Kissinger, Henry A. Former Secretary of State; Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc. NL Korteweg, Pieter President and CEO, Robeco Group A Kothbauer, Max Director of Companies GR Kiranidiotis, Yannos Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs F Levy-Lang, Andre Chairman of the Board of Management, Banque Paribas USA Lewis, William W. Director of McKinsey Global Institute, McKinsey & Company GB Mabro, Robert E. Director, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies USA McDonough, William J. President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York A Mitterbauer, Peter Chairman, Miba AG F Montbrial, Thierry de Director, French Institute of International Relations; Professor of Economics, Ecole Polytechnique CDN Munroe- Blum, Heather Vice-President, Research and International Relations, University of Toronto N Myklebust, Egil Chief Executive, Norsk Hydro D Nass, Matthias Managing Editor, Die Zeit NL Netherlands, Her Majesty the Queen of the FIN Niinisto, Sauli V. Minister of Finance USA Nunn, Sam Former Senator (D, Georgia) ICE Oddsson, David Prime Minister PL Olechowski, Andrzej Chairman, Central Europe Trust, Poland FIN Ollila, Jorma President and CEO, Nokia Corporation USA Page, Jr. , John M. Chief Economist, Middle East and Africa Region, The World Bank USA Powell, Colin L. Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff CH Pury, David de Chairman, de Pury Pictet Turrettini & Co. Ltd. IRL Quinn, Lochlann Chairman, Allied Irish Bank Group GB Robertson, Simon Former Chairman, Kleinwort Benson Group plc USA Rockefeller, David Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank International Advisory Committee USA Rockefeller, Sharon Percy President and CEO, WETA-TV and FM E Rodriguez Inciarte, Matias Vice Chairman, Banco de Santander GB Rell, Eric Senior Adviser, SBC Warburg I Rossella, Carlo Editor, Editrice La Stampa S.p.A. F Roy, Olivier University Professor and Researcher, Laboratoire Monde Iranien, CNRS CDN Sabia, Maureen Corporate Director and President, Maureen Sabia International P Salgado, Ricardo Espirito Santo President and CEO, Banco Espirito D Schrempp, Jurgen E. Chairman of the Board of Management, Daimler-Benz AG INT Schwab, Klaus President, World Economic Forum DK Seidenfaden, Toger Editor in Chief, Politiken A/S USA Sheinkman, Jack Chairman of the Board, Amalgamated I Silvestri, Stefano Vice President, Istituto Affari Internazionali; former Undersecretary Defense USA Stahl, Lesley R. National Affairs Correspondent, CBS USA Stephanopoulos, George Visiting Professor, Columbia Former Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy H Suryanyi, Gyorgy President, National Bank of Hungary IRL Sutherland, Peter D. Chairman and Managing Director, Sachs International; Former Director General, GATT and WTO S Svedberg, Bjorn President and CEO, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken TR Tara, Sinan Vice President, Enka Construction & Ind. Inc. GB Taylor, J. Martin Chief Executive, Barclays PLC GB Villeneuve, Andre-Francois H.Executive Director, Reuters Group Holdings plc USA Vogel, Ezra F. Henry Ford II Professor of Social Sciences, Harvard University USA Volcker, Paul A. Chairman, BT Wolfensohn A Vranitzky, Franz Former Federal Chancellor INT Vries, Gijs M. de Chairman, Liberal Group, European Parliament S Wallenberg, Marcus Executive Vice President, Investor AB USA Weiss, Stanley A. Chairman, Business Executives for National Security, Inc USA Whitehead, John C. Former Deputy Secretary of State INT Wolfensohn, James D. President, The World Bank D Wolff von Amerongen, Otto Chairman and CEO of Otto Wolff GmbH USA Wolfowitz, Paul Dean, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies; Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy NL Wijffels, Herman H.F. Chairman of the Executive Board, Rabobank Nederland GB Yahuda, Michael B. Professor of International Relations, London School of Economics USA Yost, Casimir A. Director, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Federal Judge Rules In "Limbaugh" Case (fwd) Date: 16 Jun 1997 16:45:55 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FEDERAL JUDGE RULES IN "LIMBAUGH" CASE Press Contact: Wayne Haig (540) 982-1755 or Rita Woltz (804) 978-3888 Lynchburg, Va. A federal district court judge in Lynchburg has granted partial summary judgement in the "Rush Limbaugh" case. The judge ruled in favor of school officials who confiscated Limbaugh's "The Way Things Ought To Be," but allowed other claims in the case to move forward. Montvale Elementary School officials confiscated Limbaugh's book when Jason Gardner, a fourth-grade student at Montvale, attempted to read it during a free-reading period. However, the court will still hear and decide whether the school's censorship of other political material was justified. "We are encouraged that the court allowed the case to go forward as to the actions by school officials, which we contend reveal a pattern of viewpoint discrimination," said Wayne Haig, a Rutherford Institute affiliate attorney who is handling the case. The Rutherford Institute amended its complaint earlier this year to include further acts of discrimination which, with the judges' decision last Monday, will now move forward. Montvale teachers told Jason to remove an Oliver North bumper sticker from his book bag and required him to remove a pin which opposed the Clinton/Gore ticket in order to receive a better evaluation on an assignment. In addition, they refused to let him read the "Limbaugh Letter," Rush Limbaugh's monthly newsletter, during recreational reading time. "We are pleased that the judge has allowed this case to go forward," said Rita Woltz, legal coordinator for The Rutherford Institute. "School should be a place where students are challenged to broaden their minds, not censored for reading political materials." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: L&J: [Fwd: IP: OKC-Jones: 'No State Trial'] (fwd) Date: 17 Jun 1997 08:55:44 -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. --1915762710-197079797-866555744=:24319 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII --1915762710-197079797-866555744=:24319 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-ID: Return-Path: Received: from listbox.com ([208.210.124.23]) by sirius.wnstar.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36386U2500L250S0) with SMTP id AAA370 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 20:14:11 -0700 Received: (qmail 14856 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 1997 03:10:12 -0000 Delivered-To: ignition-point-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 14829 invoked by uid 516); 17 Jun 1997 03:10:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 14569 invoked from network); 17 Jun 1997 03:09:48 -0000 Received: from zoom1.telepath.com (HELO telepath.com) (root@205.228.200.20) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 17 Jun 1997 03:09:48 -0000 Received: from LOCALNAME (zoom3232.telepath.com [205.228.193.232]) by telepath.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA26124; Mon, 16 Jun 1997 22:09:45 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199706170309.WAA26124@telepath.com> X-Sender: believer@telepath.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 2 (High) Sender: owner-ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com Transcript of Oklahoma City-KWTV Channel 9 (CBS affiliate) broadcast, 6 p.m. CDT, 06/16/97: JENIFER REYNOLDS: Good evening. I'm Jenifer Reynolds. KELLY OGLE: And I'm Kelly Ogle. Stephen Jones has a strong message for the people of Oklahoma tonight. REYNOLDS: He talked one-on-one with our Tamara Pratt and we will get to that interview in just a moment. OGLE: Well, the trial of the century may be over... REYNOLDS: ...but the work continues for Timothy McVeigh's defense team. News 9's cameras caught up with Stephen Jones heading back into federal court for a meeting with Judge Matsch this afternoon. Jones said this closed-door conference was to take care of some administrative details. He would not elaborate on the topics covered. OGLE: Before that meeting, Jones sat down with News 9's Tamara Pratt and Jones made a rather bold prediction. He claims Timothy McVeigh will never be prosecuted in Oklahoma. Tamara is in our Denver Bureau now with this latest revelation. Tamara? TAMARA PRATT: Well, it may strike a raw nerve with many, Kelly, the idea that Timothy McVeigh, that man who was found guilty and sentenced to die for bombing the Murrah Building, would never and will never be back in the State of Oklahoma to stand trial. It's a statement Stephen Jones stands by, and in this interview you'll hear why. STEPHEN JONES: If I thought the State of Oklahoma was really interested in the truth as opposed to just some political side show, I would insist that Mr. McVeigh have a state trial and demand that he be released to the state authorities. But this is all politics. PRATT: A political game, where Jones says his client is in the middle. Jones claims the government will not allow a state trial because too many doors would be opened up -- doors leading to conspiracy theories and other players like Carol Howe: she's the ATF informant who claims to have had prior knowledge of bombing plans -- all doors Jones says the government wants kept closed. JONES: But a living nightmare for the Department of Justice is an Oklahoma state criminal trial -- not only a nightmare for them, but a nightmare for the intelligence community, for the ATF. There isn't going to be any Oklahoma trial. PRATT: And Jones leaves Oklahomans with this word: JONES: Don't let Bob Macy, don't let the Attorney General of Oklahoma, don't let the federal government, Executive Branch, tell you that they've solved the crime. Most assuredly, they have not. PRATT: Now I asked Jones, "Do you think that we'll ever find out the truth?" His response: "Probably not." But Jones did say that he intends to do all he can to make sure that there is accountability for what happened in Oklahoma City. [END OF INTERVIEW] To subscribe or unsubscribe, email majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point or unsubscribe ignition-point http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman --1915762710-197079797-866555744=:24319-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: SWAT (fwd) Date: 17 Jun 1997 14:21:58 -0500 (CDT) Exploding Number of SWAT Teams Sets Off Alarms Some Paramilitary Units' Expanding Missions Eclipse Police Image of Community Outreach By William Booth Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 17, 1997; Page A01 The Washington Post =97 FRESNO, Calif. -- Sgt. Wade Engelson is preparing his new recruits for war. Dressed in fatigues, sporting buzz hair cuts, the new men are being trained in the use of submachine guns, explosives and chemical weapons. They have at their disposal a helicopter and, soon, an armored personnel carrier. Engelson's men are not Navy Seals or Army Rangers. They are members of the Fresno Police Department, whose enemy will not be found in faraway lands but in the neighborhoods where the police routinely patrol -- fully armed and in urban camouflage. In their expanding strength and mission, the SWAT team in Fresno mirrors a growing trend in U.S. law enforcement -- the rise in the number of police paramilitary units across the country and a rapid expansion of their activities, a controversial trend that police scholars refer to as "the militarization" of civilian police. The explosive growth and expanding mission of SWAT teams has, in turn, led to complaints that an occupying army is marching through America's streets -- that they are too aggressive, too heavily armed, too scary -- and that they erode the public's perception of police as public servants. "It's a very dangerous thing, when you're telling cops they're soldiers and there's an enemy out there," said Joseph McNamara, former chief of police in San Jose and Kansas City who is now at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. "I don't like it all." In a new study, police researcher Peter Kraska and his colleagues have documented the explosive growth of SWAT, which stands for Special Weapons and Tactics. In a nationwide survey of 690 law enforcement agencies serving cities with populations with 50,000 or more, the researchers found that 90 percent now have active SWAT teams, compared to 60 percent in the early 1980s. Even in rural communities and smaller cities, the researchers have found that two of every three departments now boast a SWAT team -- a phenomenon Kraska compares to "militarizing Mayberry," he said referring to the fictional small town in the Andy Griffith television show. Yet more important than the raw numbers, Kraska says, the SWAT mission has expanded. Once limited to highly specialized actions, such as dealing with barricaded gunmen or hostage-takers, the SWAT teams are now increasingly engaged in more standard police work. There is a boom in "high risk warrant work," including "no-knock entries." The work is mostly related to the war on drugs, and by extension, "gang suppression." "Where the SWAT teams were once deployed a few times a year, they are now used for all kinds of police work -- dozens of calls, hundreds of calls a year," said Kraska, a professor of police studies at Western Kentucky University. "In SWAT units formed since 1980, their use has increased by 538 percent." And some units, like those in Fresno, are being deployed full-time as roaming patrols. The 30 members of Fresno's Violent Crime Suppression Unit now patrol crime-ridden neighborhoods day and night, serving warrants at homes of suspected drug dealers and criminals, stopping vehicles, interrogating gang members, showing a presence. As they move through the city, they wear subdued gray-and-black urban camouflage and body armor, and have at the ready, ballistic shields and helmets, M17 gas masks and rappelling gear. More equipment is carried in a mobile command SWAT bus that roves the city. The deparment is purchasing an armored personnel carrier. The tactical police here also carry an assortment of weaponry denied the normal beat cop -- battering rams, diversionary devices known as "flashbangs," chemical agents, such as pepper spray and tear gas, and specialized guns, including assault rifles and most famously, the Heckler and Koch MP5, the short, highly accurate 9mm, fully automatic submachine=20 gun used by the Navy Seals. While the phenomenal rise in SWAT work has drawn some fire, police officials say the change has been a necessary one that has made an impact on crime. Fresno Police Chief Ed Winchester says that a highly armed and more violent criminal class requires an extreme response. Fresno formed its SWAT team in 1973, about a decade after the first such unit appeared in Los Angeles. Its creation occurred after an officer was shot and killed by a robbery suspect following a chaotic police response in which patrol officers fired hundreds of rounds at the suspect, borrowed an armored car and let fly canisters of tear gas, which then=20 floated across the neighborhood. "It was what we would call a fiasco," Winchester said, convincing everyone that a more highly trained, specialized=20 and disciplined unit was required. >From 1973 until 1994, Fresno's SWAT team operated only in response to very specific call-outs, such as barricaded suspects. But by late 1994, Fresno was experiencing a crime wave. There were 55 shootings in five months, with 13 people killed, including three children. And so Fresno's traditional SWAT unit transformed itself into the Violent Crime Suppression Unit and took to the streets in constant patrols. "The criminals aren't stupid," Winchester said. "They see eight guys surrounding them, all carrying submachine guns and wearing black fatigues, they don't want to get killed." Fresno SWAT member C.D. Smith, writing in Police magazine in 1995, put it this way: "The streets of Fresno have become a war zone for cops, who find themselves in the heat of battle with the bad guys at least once a month." Winchester credits the unit, in part, with reducing violent crime in Fresno by 8.7 percent in 1995 and 3.5 percent in 1996. Now, he is expanding the unit again -- for day patrols as well as night. "Is there a downside? Sure there is," Winchester said. "It's a sad commentary -- sad when crime is so bad you got to put a SWAT unit on the street." Yet critics warn the growing use of paramilitary-style police units threatens the very idea of a civilian police force -- just as many law enforcement authorities begin to apply a new technique known as "community policing," putting more beat cops on the street and letting them interact more with citizens=20 to solve problems and well as crimes. "Despite the conventional wisdom that community policing is sweeping the nation, the exact opposite is happening," said McNamara. "The police and their communities ought to think seriously about this. Is there a need for SWAT teams? Yes, for highly specialized functions. But the police love these units,=20 and this is a disastrous image to project." McNamara and other police scholars say that the positive impact of the SWAT teams on reducing crime is most likely short-lived -- and that the pressure must be maintained. They also fear that heavily armed, commando-style police -- if they remain in a neighborhood for long -- will eventually be seen as an occupying army. Kraska said his research shows that the rise in SWAT activities has closely followed the increased resources applied to fight illegal drug use. "The drug war created the atmosphere for this kind of pro-active policing," Kraska said. "We have never seen this kind of policing, where SWAT teams routinely break through a door, subdue all the occupants and search the premises for drugs, cash and weapons." Between 1980 and 1995, for example, Kraska found that SWAT units were employed in their traditional roles only for a minority of call-outs. Some 1.3 percent of their work was to quell civil disturbances; 3.6 percent for hostage situations; 13.4 percent for barricaded individuals. But 75 percent of their mission is now devoted to serve high-risk warrants, mostly drug raids. Police chiefs and SWAT officers defend the practice, saying they are more aggressively rooting out and arresting drug dealers. And because of the more powerful weapons used by gangs and dealers, the work should be done by highly trained SWAT teams. Fresno Police Chief Winchester says that the SWAT teams, because of their training and style of assault, actually fire fewer shots. "They overwhelm suspects," the chief said. "They don't need to shoot." Kraska's survey of police departments finds many SWAT teams are instructed by active and retired U.S. military experts in special operations. The SWAT teams also receive training not only from the FBI, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and National Tactical Officers Association, but in classes organized by private companies. One of the most popular courses is offered by Heckler and Koch, which trains hundreds of SWAT officers a year. The company also offers the units discounts on its popular weapons, such as the MP5. Kraska points to the private companies role in the encouragement of SWAT response=20 as part of a new "crime control industry." Larry Glick, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association, said that some of the private training seminars are taught by "retired military personnel who don't know what they're doing." The training offered by Heckler and Koch is "very successful and credible, among the best," he said.=20 "Their ultimate goal is to sell their guns." Kraska and other police scholars said that even with the most community-sensitive training, the new weaponry and paramilitary-style tactics of the SWAT units attract a different kind of officer -- less the cop as social worker and more the cop as an elite special `ops' soldier. And most SWAT officers are paid a premium for the work. "The SWAT teams love this stuff," Kraska said. "It's fun to fire these weapons. It's exciting to train. They use `simmunition' -- like the paint balls and play warrior games. This stuff is a rush." =A9 Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D This mailing list is processed through Majordomo at Oakland University. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@oak.oakland.edu. In the message body put: unsubscribe okcty -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: SWAT (fwd) Date: 17 Jun 1997 16:06:47 -0400 (EDT) [deletions for brevity] > >In their expanding strength and mission, the SWAT team in >Fresno mirrors a growing trend in U.S. law enforcement -- the >rise in the number of police paramilitary units across the >country and a rapid expansion of their activities, a controversial >trend that police scholars refer to as "the militarization" of >civilian police. > [deletions for brevity] >Even in rural communities and smaller cities, the researchers >have found that two of every three departments now boast a >SWAT team -- a phenomenon Kraska compares to >"militarizing Mayberry," he said referring to the fictional small >town in the Andy Griffith television show. > Just as a small comment, I think that this militarization of civilian police extends into areas beyond the use of special weapons or tactics and into the mindset of the individual officers. I live in a midsized NH town (~30k) on the Mass. border. We have our share of vandalism, shoplifting, and burglary and there is some drug use problems, but "it ain't New York City". When I drive to work in the morning, the cop who waves me by the phone or electric crew at the roadside is wearing black BDU's and black military-style boots. So my question is: what happened to the blue uniform of the regular cop, and what is going through the mind of a cop wearing black BDU's on a sleepy NH roadway? Who does he want to be as he advances in his career, and if its SWAT, (he may already by SWAT), then does that serve our little town? I will admit that sometimes the balloon does go up and bad things happen in small places, but I worry that these guys may be styling themselves after what they see on TV and I would submit that the important transformations in police practice occur between the ears of those guys who are now waving cars around work crews. God forbid, but what would happen if something occured at a house on my street and the black BDU cops with rifles showed up around some guy barricaded inside. Would my neighbors and I go outside and wonder what was happening between Mr. X (known to us) and the local police (mostly known to us) or would we go inside and watch the anonymous SWAT team do its job on TV ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Jack Wheeler Discusses Clinton's UN Plans and Impeachment (fwd) Date: 17 Jun 1997 16:19:36 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (Sorry about (lack of) formatting)... The Man Who Wrote the Reagan Doctrine Calls For Impeachment Dr. Jack Wheeler Council for National Policy* - Montreal - June 6, 1997 (* a bit about CNP is at: http://www.berkshire.net/~ifas/cnp/text.html) These are a few ways to get into the fight for constitutional government, a fight which we all must join, for the consequences of us giving up are severe. Ok, folks, here it comes, and it's not going to make you happy. Guess what Slick Willie wants to do with the rest of his life? When he finishes his second term, he'll be 54 years old - do you think he's going to shuffle off into the Arkansas sunset, or build homes for the homeless like Jimmy Carter? Yeah, right. Have you noticed the extent to which the Clintonistas have enthusiastically transferring our sovereignty to the United Nations whenever they can get away with it - such as the "World Heritage" sites over which the U.N. has jurisdiction? For any normal politician, being President of the United States is the ultimate crowning achievement. But for Slick, it's just a stepping stone to being President of the World. Yes, Bill Clinton intends to be Secretary General of the United Nations - and permanently. Come on, you didn't really think that he was going to go away and leave us alone after eight short years in the White House, did you? Oh, no - he's just getting started with his life... and running yours. The nightmare is going to continue indefinitely and world-wide. There's one way to put a stop to this - and that the T-word. A friend of mine's cousin from Germany visited him recently. When the talk turned to politics in Americ a, she informed him that people in Germany were utterly mystified by something. "We understand that your president is an amoral crook - but how unusual is that for a politician?" she observed. "Yet everyday our newspapers are full of stories like Clinton refusing to sell F-16 fighter jet technology to Germany while selling it to China, and all the spy deals he's made with Beijing. So everyone in Germany is asking now: why isn't you President Clinton being tried for treason?" Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) has asked his fellow members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee to draw up Articles of Impeachment against Mr. Clinton. A conservative activist group just delivered 100,000 petitions to Barr's office supporting his request. There is a web site, http://www.impeachclinton.org, devoted to efforts to impeach Clinton and Gore. All of these cite numerous instances of "obstruction of justice" and a legion of other examples of "Bribery, High Crimes and Misdemeanors" for which the Constitution says are grounds for impeachment. But so far, none of them accuse Mr. Clinton of the ultimate cause for impeachment listed in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution: Treason. But it is not simply Bill Clinton who has committed treason against his country. The leadership of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are his willing accomplices. For 64 years, since 1930 with two short and irrelevant interruptions, Democrats ruled Congress as their private kingdom. Their corruption was only matched by their arrogance. Losing their control of Congress in 1994 drove them insane - so criminally insane they were willing to do anything to get their power back: unequaled demagoguery with the Mediscare campaign; massive vote-buying and cheating to win numerous elections (such as Hernandez/Dornan in California and Landrieu/Jenkins in Louisiana); and raising money with wholesale disregard for campaign finance laws. But that's not all. What they did to insure Slick's re-election and to try and regain control of Congress was to sell classified military secrets to the Chinese government in exchange for donations to the Democratic National Committee. That, folks, is treason. Clinton's bag man to the Chinese was, of course, John Huang, long time employee of Mochtar Riady (both are from China)1. He raised $5 million for the DNC, most of which the DNC has pledged to return as it came from "illegal foreign sources." What the DNC is desperate to hide, however, is that one of those sources was Chinese military intelligence. Huang's conduit was Wei Guioqiang, the Washington bureau chief of Xinhua, the Chinese news agency. Wei was also the Chinese military intelligence officer in Washington channeling money into DNC coffers. In late March, Wei was summoned to Beijing on the pretext of receiving an award. Instead, he got a bullet in the back of his head from an officer of China's Ministry of State Security. Someone (John Huang?) had tipped Beijing off that Wei was about to request asylum in the U.S. and go public with what he had done to re-elect Bill Clinton. Dan Burton's investigators on the House Government Reform & Oversight Committee are examining the connection between Huang and Wei. Their findings may show that not only is the President guilty of treason but the Democratic Party is as well. So here's the in-your-face bottom line now: If Clinton continues to get away with everything, if he survives his presidency intact and unimpeached, he will convert the U.N. into something approaching a world government, and he will shmooze his way into becoming the U.N.'s permanent leader - just like his idol, FDR, because a permanent President until he died. Now... are we going to let this happen? The answer is inside ourselves. Are we going to bequeath to our children an outlaw government or a constitutional government? Are we going to resign ourselves to the fascist corruption of Bill Clinton and the Washington Oligarchy or are we going to start kicking in doors on Capitol Hill and demand impeachment proceedings? Are we going to let conservatives who reach vast audiences like Limbaugh and Liddy continue to slip deeper into mush, or are we going to relentlessly push them to talk about democratic fascism and an outlaw government? The goal is clear and the direction is clear. The obstacles in the way will remain there only if we do not remove them. With our insistence ane perseverance, we can enable the American people to unchain themselves, bolt out of the boiling water, reclaim their liberty, and transfigure their country into a land the Founding Fathers would recognize and be proud of. This can be our legacy to America, if we have the will to achieve it. 1 In 1984, Riady's Lippo Group and Stephens, Inc. (the Arkansas investment bank that financed Clinton's gubernatorial campaigns) bought the Hong Kong Chinese bank and installed Huang as vice-president. Shortly after Clinton was inaugurated in January 1993, a 50% interest in the Hong Kong Chinese bank was sold to China Resources, a Hong Kong company owned by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation and a front for the First Bureau of Chinese military intelligence. In June of 1993, Huang arranged a private meeting with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and Shen Jueren, chairman of China Resources. In mid-1994, Huang left Riady's Lippo Group to become Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and received Top Secret security clearance with no FBI background check. During the next 18 months; he received at least 109 classified intelligence briefings. High level sources within Commerce say that Brown was forced to hire Huang and give him the security clearance at the Clintons' personal insistence. He then left Commerce in January 1996 to become a DNC chief fund-raiser. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: SWAT (fwd) Date: 17 Jun 1997 14:00:07 -0700 John, [...] God forbid, but what would happen if something occured at a house on my street and the black BDU cops with rifles showed up around some guy barricaded inside. Would my neighbors and I go outside and wonder what was happening between Mr. X (known to us) and the local police (mostly known to us) or would we go inside and watch the anonymous SWAT team do its job on TV ? [...] About the safest and most legal thing you could do is tactfully record the situation, in whatever way that plays well in a court of law. In regards to what may be done otherwise, consider that the time of rank action will expose itself when everything seems to be getting out of hand. Of course, by that time, the UN blueboys will be doing most of the police work anyway. Three things: Don't keep all your 'eggs' in one basket; Keep your 'eggs' dry; Don't count your fascists before they click their jackboots. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Very Telling Quotes .... (fwd) Date: 18 Jun 1997 14:05:38 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Times Change, But Collectivist Message Remains Constant We must organize all labor, no matter how dirty and arduous it may be, so that every [citizen] may regard himself as part of that great army of free labor.... The generation that is now fifteen years old =8A must arrange all their tasks of education in such a way that every day, and in every city, the young people shall engage in the practical solution of the problems of common labor, even of the smallest, most simple kind. - Vladimir Lenin Imagine an army of 100,000 young people restoring urban and rural communities and giving their labor in exchange for education and training.... [National Service] will harness the energy of our youth and attack the problems of our time. It literally has the potential to revolutionize the way young people all across America look at their country and feel about themselves. - Bill Clinton [T]here is the great silent, continuous struggle; the struggle between the State and the individual; between the State which demands and the Individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or a hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war. - Benito Mussolini I'm here because I want to redefine the meaning of citizenship in America.... [I]f you're asked in school, "What does it mean to be a good citizen?" I want the answer to be, "Well, to be a good citizen, you have to obey the law, you've got to go to work or be in school, you've got to pay your taxes and - oh, yes, you have to serve...." - Bill Clinton All the people I know who are driving for a form of national service, primarily want it to be compulsory. They realize that's a terrible problem politically, so they're not willing to say it. It is endangerment of freedom and the potential for indoctrination that skeptics do not like in the national service concept. However benign the program, some think it will not succeed on any meaningful scale unless it is compulsory. - Martin Anderson, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution Boston Globe, November 29, 1992 In his April 5 radio address outlining the goals of the summit, the President endorsed compulsory volunteerism - and even called for extending it to middle schools. In other words, the man who so famously avoided the dangerous duty of fighting in Vietnam as a young man now proposes drafting a new generation of young people to perform a different set of difficult tasks. - New York Post editorial, April 27, 1997 Fascism finds it necessary, at the outset, to take away from the ordinary human being what he has been taught and has grown to cherish the most: personal liberty. And it can be affirmed, without falling into exaggeration, that a curtailment of personal liberty not only has proved to be, but necessarily must be, a fundamental condition of the triumph of Fascism. - Mario Palmieri The Philosophy of Fascism (1936) [W]hen we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. - Bill Clinton Before they have their own families, the young can make a unique contribution to the family of America. In doing so, they can acquire the habit of service, and get a deeper understanding of what it really means to be a citizen. That is the main reason, perhaps, why we are here. - Bill Clinton Family - see Fascist State. - Benito Mussolini's Fascist dictionary We're here =8A for the first President's Summit for America's Future - to mobilize every community and challenge every citizen =8A and to ask our you= ng people to become citizen-servants, too. - Bill Clinton According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, with this need of raising the State to its rightful position. - Mario Palmieri What they're trying to do is enslave our society by taking our children's rights away. Young people who go through these [mandatory community service] programs learn to submit, and later on they won't mind giving up a few more of their rights when the government says it's necessary. - Thomas Moralis (father of two students denied high school diplomas for not complying with a mandatory service requirement) When an opponent says, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already.... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community." - Adolf Hitler We need a national-corporate commitment to public service to look after [the elderly]. We aren't able to provide resources unless the young pay something for their patrimony through public service. - William F. Buckley Jr. in Mother Jones magazine We will not recognize [American Fascism] as it rises. It will wear no black shirts here. It will probably have no marching songs. It will rise out of a congealing of a group of elements that exist here and that are the essential components of Fascism.... It will be at first decorous, humane, glowing with homely American sentiment. But a dictatorship cannot remain benevolent. To continue, it must become ruthless. When this stage is reached we shall see that appeal by radio, movies, and government-controlled newspapers to all the worst instincts and emotions of our people. The rough, the violent, the lawless men will come to the surface and into power. This is the terrifying prospect as we move along our present course. - John T. Flynn Writing in the American Mercury, February 1941 =20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Violence: a Political Disease? Date: 18 Jun 1997 19:20:20 -0700 (PDT) The item below was published in the June 1997 issue of "Gun Law News," the monthly newsletter of the NRA Members Council of Pasadena/Foothills (CA). To view the City of Pasadena's newsletter on the net: http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/infocus/may_97/index.html ----- PASADENA--OUT OF FOCUS City Newsletter, PASADENA IN FOCUS, tells readers that violence is now a "disease. .. HUH? THE CITY OF PASADENA Public Affairs Office publishes Pasadena in Focus, a bimonthly newsletter mailed to 55,000 households. The May-June issue contains an article titled "FINDING A CURE FOR VIOLENCE." It begins with the bald assertion that "Violence is a health problem much like many other diseases," and tells readers that "It's fitting, then, that the Pasadena Public Health Department has begun a campaign to prevent and eliminate this disease." Efforts are underway to "raise awareness of the impact of guns on our community." The article concludes with the statement that "A recent study shows that nationwide the leading cause of death for boys ages 15 to 17 was gunshot wound, either from homicide, suicide or accident." No other statistics are given. Gun Law News readers know that how a problem is framed largely determines how a problem is solved. Context is all-important. Common sense tells us that the criminal use of firearms is a crime problem. We don't go to the hospital to get medical attention from policemen, and if we call 911 because someone is breaking into our home, we don't expect doctors to arrive in a squad car. Obviously, there are several groups in our society that are attempting to substitute "health" for morality. But many other groups strongly disagree. Contrary to what Pasadena in Focus seems to imply, the medical community is actually divided on the notion that guns are a "public health issue." We asked Timothy Wheeler, M.D., what he thought of the Pasadena in Focus article on guns and violence. Dr. Wheeler is the Director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (a Project of The Claremont Institute). His response: Violence: a Political Disease? by Timothy Wheeler, M.D. [DRGOTWW@aol.com] Pasadena has declared violence to be no longer a social problem with social sanctions as the answer (Pasadena in Focus, May-June 1997). Violence, presumably justified and otherwise, is now a disease. But have Pasadenans worked through the implications of this seemingly innocuous paradigm? If you take the concept halfway seriously, murder would no longer be a crime punishable by serious prison time (well, okay, in California it's not even serious prison time, but that's another story). And what about lawful self defense? Is it a disease to protect yourself against the perpetrator of the above murder? Does the defender suffer from the same disease as the would-be killer? Yes, if you buy the arguments of public health reformers, who view any dangerous or hurtful thing as a disease. Well, that may create a lot of jobs for public health doctors eager to direct our lives. But it doesn't reduce the crime rate. Accepting the "violence is a disease" paradigm requires a certain moral dumbing down. Rather than taking on the difficult job of making community moral judgments and meting out punishments, we can now relax. We can avoid confrontation and apply the new hygiene (like more gun control laws) to not just proven criminals, but to everyone. No discrimination, no morals...no problem. When the violent crime capital New York City got tough on crime, the effect was remarkable. Criminals, faced with punishment instead of more understanding, backed off. When confronted with the same societal limits the rest of us live by, the muggers, vandals, and subway fare cheats stopped what they were doing. Did the New York cops cure these reprobates? Not likely. But they did something even more noble than that. The cops showed them how to behave as good people do. Drawing a line between right and wrong, then defending it, is a sign of a stable and decent society. A community that can't or won't do this eventually ceases to exist, because communities live by trust. That means you can't pop off a few shots at your neighbor if he makes you angry or hangs with a crowd you don't like. And if you do, you will pay dearly. When we call violence a disease, we are giving up on the community. We are escaping from responsibility and rejecting our right (and burden) of choosing good over bad. When we call violence a disease, we devalue the efforts of citizens who seem to make it through each day without committing a violent felony. And we give a wink to the true criminals, the real dangerous guys who would destroy our community. Pasadena and its people are too good to let that happen. [end.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: "Waco" Tries to Place the Blame (fwd) Date: 19 Jun 1997 09:00:39 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FYI...the documentary is coming to Boston. Austin American Statesman May 5, 1997 "Waco" Tries to Place the Blame "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" presents so much powerful evidence, in such a persuasive manner, that the wisest critical advice would seem to be to tell every interested party to see it, then break into discussion groups. By Ann Hornaday American-Statesman Film Critic "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" presents so much powerful evidence, in such a persuasive manner, that the wisest critical advice would seem to be to tell every interested party to see it, then break into discussion groups. Because audiences will have divergent takes on this nearly 3-hour film, which traces the events that led up to the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in 1993. But no one will deny that the perspectives and facts it presents are crucial to a fuller understanding of what may be one of the murkiest and most disturbing chapters in American political history. "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," which was directed by William Gazecki and produced by Amy Sommer Gifford and Dan Gifford, goes about its business with somber deliberation, building its case with workmanlike steadiness and allowing the inherent drama of the Waco tragedy to emerge of its own accord. Using rare archival film of the first Branch Davidians, interviews with attorneys and scholars, and C-SPAN video of the congressional hearings that followed the siege's fiery end in 1993, "Waco" convincingly suggests that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms manufactured the raid on the Mount Carmel compound in order to get favorable publicity before appropriations hearings; that the BATF and eventually the FBI continually lied during negotiations with Branch Davidian leader David Koresh and his lieutenants; and that the U.S. government never had control of its forces in Texas -- forces that became more and more unbalanced as time wore on and Koresh's resolve hardened. As one Harvard psychologist puts it, he went to Waco in order to study the people inside the compound, wondering what kind of cult would behave in such self-destructive ways. When he arrived -- to the FBI blaring Nancy Sinatra songs and the cries of dying rabbits from loudspeakers -- he began to think that the people outside were more worthy of inquiry. Damning evidence Using very little narration and a brooding, repetitive synthesizer score, Gazecki has woven a daunting amount of material into a thoroughly absorbing narrative. Especially interesting are the "home movies" of the Davidians and the FBI; some damning audio tapes of mendacious negotiators and a desperate call to 911 during the first moments of the ATF raid. And, in clear-eyed, laconic counterpoint to "Waco's" most disturbing material, there's some pretty convincing remarks from the Waco chief of police, a Texas Ranger and a medical examiner whose video records of the fire's aftermath mysteriously disappeared while in FBI hands. (Presumably it went to the same place the feds sent a metal door to the compound that held clues about who fired the first shots.) By the film's grim last moments, it seems startlingly clear that, as one former FBI special agent puts it, the Branch Davidians weren't victims of a suicide; they were victims of a homicide. The centerpoint of "Waco's" argument is video taken by the FBI using Forward InfraRed (FLIR) technology -- a heat-sensitive "night vision" system that American audiences first saw during the Persian Gulf War. With the help of FLIR expert Edward Allard, the filmmakers play -- and replay and replay -- the grainy images of a tank entering the back of the Davidian building, with bursts of light that seem to represent machine-gun fire. Later, Allard concludes that government forces not only fired on the Mount Carmel compound, they also deliberately ran over a Branch Davidian member with a tank, then set the fatal fires by shooting into a tear-gas filled house. Of course, this is the most explosive material presented in "Waco," and it's all the more gripping because the back side of the building was off-limits to the press, which was kept a mile away from the compound by federal agents. It is also a problematic moment, when viewers are being led through material that they cannot interpret on their own. Even with such a convincing witness as Allard, the FLIR material -- although admittedly compelling -- may not be as conclusive as the filmmakers would like it to be. Koresh as saint Still, "Waco" doesn't have to be conclusive to make its point, which is that there are still some tough questions about Waco that demand attention. The film pays short shrift to Koresh's responsibility for putting his followers and their children in harm's way, and its treatment of the two charges that ostensibly brought the government to Waco in the first place -- child sexual abuse and weapons stockpiling -- is superficial and contradictory. (Koresh is shown admitting that he's hoarding guns because he believes he might need them to fight the federal government, then a Davidian survivor dismisses the stockpile as the collection of a hobbyist.) The filmmakers' efforts to humanize Koresh and his followers are understandable and even laudable. But it isn't necessary to portray Koresh as a saint in order to lend credence to the theory that the government -- and its agents who went "off the shelf" -- was responsible for what happened at Waco, and blatantly covered up its culpability to a credulous Congress. The most chilling scene of "Waco" isn't in the FLIR tapes, nor the sickening photographs of children who were burnt and bent beyond recognition. It's when the first tank rams its way into the Davidian compound, pumping the building with toxic gas. After all that's gone before, it is impossible at that particular moment to remember what the argument was originally about. And the nagging sensation one comes away with from "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" is that the men driving the tanks -- and their bosses in Washington -- couldn't remember, either. (c)1997, Cox Interactive Media, Inc. _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Clinton's Executive Orders? Date: 19 Jun 1997 18:22:29 -0700 Anybody know where I can find *all* of Clinton's Executive Orders? Please respond via private email to ghostpwr@dmi.net Thanks in advance :) - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh Lord, lead us into Your Glory - bathe us in the holy & pure light of Your Spirit; let Your righteous fire burn away all that is in us that is not of You, so that we might worship the Living God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Amen. ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Traficant on the Sweeneys (fwd) Date: 20 Jun 1997 13:45:04 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- forwarded message: AMERICANS ARE FED UP WITH FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS (House of Representatives - June 17, 1997) [Page: H3809] (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, in Boston for the last 14 days the Sweeney family has literally barricaded their property, fighting the Federal Government who they say is trying to take their home. Now, I do not know who is right or wrong in this case, but one thing is for sure. Many American people are fed up with fat cat government bureaucrats. Open your eyes, Congress. EPA, IRS, FBI, FDIC, ATF, intimidation, liens and seizures, technicalities, regulations, on and on, and every single day more messages and signals keep coming to Washington; and no one here seems to be listening. Mr. Speaker, it is not just Texas and Idaho, now it is Michigan, New York, and even the wealthy suburbs of Boston. I say, Mr. Speaker, what is next? Maybe another Tea Party? Do not be surprised when a nation that forgets their history is many times apt to revisit it. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Tobacco industry gives in (fwd) Date: 20 Jun 1997 15:28:27 -0500 (CDT) CNN logo TOBACCO INDUSTRY SUBMITS TO REGULATION, HUGE PAYMENTS UNDER LANDMARK DEAL Moore June 20, 1997 Web posted at: 4:06 p.m. EDT (2006 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The tobacco industry agreed to major regulatory concessions Friday after landmark negotiations with state attorneys general suing for billions in damages. Tobacco companies agreed to spend $368 billion in public health efforts over 25 years. Under the settlement, tobacco companies will submit to nicotine regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and will pay some $370 billion in punitive and compensatory damages over the next 25 years. Of that total, some $60 billion would go toward a punitive fund, to be paid in one lump sum, a large part of which would be applied to a trust fund to provide health care for uninsured children. Another $308 billion would reimburse the 39 states involved in the talks for Medicaid costs and fund the deal's public health provisions, sources said. In exchange, tobacco companies would not have to apologize for past misdeeds, as the Liggett Group did in March when it separately settled with suing states. Additionally, the FDA can regulate nicotine as a drug but could not ban it until the year 2009, giving the industry years to develop alternatives to nicotine, sources said. The companies would be protected from smokers seeking fines for past industry misconduct -- although smokers would be able to sue for and collect punitive damages for future industry wrongdoing. Sick smokers could no longer sue tobacco companies seekingpunitive damages for past industry misconduct, but they could sue to recover actual damages, such as medical bills. And smokers still could sue for and collect both actual and punitive damages for any future industry wrongdoing. Both Congress and the president would have to ratify the deal. The megadeal would settle 40 state lawsuits that seek to recover Medicaid money spent treating sick smokers and 17 class-action suits against the industry by setting a new national tobacco policy. Smokers would see dire new warnings on cigarette packs, get free medical help to kick the habit and be inundated with nationwide anti-smoking advertising -- even as Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man disappeared under new tobacco ad curbs. After three months of negotiations, there were snags right up to the moment the settlement was announced. A news conference to announce the deal was delayed several times because at least one tobacco company was stalling over a deal to protect industry whistle-blowers. A whistleblower protection provision was included in the final deal. Even as the two sides work toward agreement, the attorneys general say they would continue to prepare and try their lawsuits against tobacco, because Congress may ultimately reject or alter the pact. Aides said President Clinton, who has been receiving regular updates on the talks, would name a special task force to review details of the agreement before taking a final position. The task force would be headed by Donna Shalala, secretary of health and human services, and Bruce Reed, the president's top domestic policy adviser. The group would be expected to present its assessment "within about 30 days," an administration official said. Clinton's primary concern, aides say, has not changed throughout the talks: he wants the settlement to curb nicotine's impact on public health, especially the health of children. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has said that even after a deal is reached, the Senate was "locked out pretty much until September" from acting on tobacco legislation. Correspondent Brian Cabell, The Associated Press and Reuters ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" Subject: NH Date: 20 Jun 1997 17:49:08 -0600 Hey I may be in NH the night of July 18 through morning of Tuesday 22. I will be visiting friends and stuff while there. I was wondering if you could get me the head of the NH State Police/Public Safety address and phone so I can apply for a NH permit.? (i'll be driving up from DC where I am the 14-18 at NeXT training in VA). Chad Chad Leigh Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net chad@pengar.com info@pengar.com info@shire.net Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites. WWW Wholesale including virtual domains. Tango. PHP/FI Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" Subject: Re: NH Date: 20 Jun 1997 18:02:36 -0600 >Hey > >I may be in NH the night of July 18 through morning of Tuesday 22. I will >be visiting friends and stuff while there. I was wondering if you could >get me the head of the NH State Police/Public Safety address and phone so I >can apply for a NH permit.? > >(i'll be driving up from DC where I am the 14-18 at NeXT training in VA). > >Chad sorry folks Thought this was a private mail to John Curtis I cut and pasted his email but obviously did it wrong Chad Chad Leigh Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net chad@pengar.com info@pengar.com info@shire.net Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites. WWW Wholesale including virtual domains. Tango. PHP/FI Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: The Iron Lady Helps Young William Up The Greasy Pole (fwd) Date: 21 Jun 1997 09:28:48 PST We can but hope that this bodes well for other changes in the UK. On Jun 21, An Exegesis Update From Washington wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Exegesis Update A Forum Encouraging Moral Excellence =46riday, June 20, 1997 Published Worldwide from Washington The Iron Lady Helps Young William Up The Greasy Pole LONDON - It could have been a Shakespeare play being performed at the newly rebuilt Globe Theater, yet one wonders whether even the Bard could have dreamed up such a fantastic plot. Seven weeks after Britain's Conservative Party was swept from office having ruled for a generation, and John Major resigned as Party Leader, the contest to succeed him has finally ended with the election of 36 year-old William Jefferson Hague - coincidental first names - as the Party's youngest leader for 150 years. Just as in 1975, the Conservatives have tried a bold experiment. Initially, there were six candidates, but by last week, just three were left after two conservatives, Peter Lilley and Michael Howard, dropped out to support Mr. Hague. They were accused of betraying conservative principles by failing to endorse John Redwood, the most conservative of those remaining. In Tuesday's second round, Mr. Redwood came third and was obliged to withdraw, but for 24 hours he held court as the most powerful man in the Party, with his 38 votes apparently up for grabs. The subsequent twists and turns in the plot defied belief. John Redwood used his power poorly. Just a few hours after his elimination, he was sipping wine with Michael Heseltine, the Party's despised arch-traitor who had engineered Margaret Thatcher's downfall and her replacement by a vacuum. Heseltine apparently infected Redwood, convincing him to betray his supporters just as he had been betrayed himself, and to team up instead with his arch-enemy, left-of-center candidate Kenneth Clarke, in return for the piecrust promises of a Cabinet job (though it would have been many years before that promise could have been fulfilled) and a third chance to run for the leadership. In Oliver North's words, one should never "abandon old friends to appease new enemies." Nonetheless, Mr. Redwood took the bait and his supporters were justifiably furious. As we reported, Sir Peter Tapsell described Redwood's deal as "one of the most contemptible and discreditable actions" during his 38 years in Parliament. Even the BBC called it an "astonishing decision". The Times went further: in an editorial yesterday, they called it "an act of folly, malice and pique" and described the act as Redwood's Munich. Yet this unexpected Chamberlain had a Churchill waiting in the wings, thank God. In fact, she was waiting in the House of Commons tea room. As so often before, it was left to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to save the day: out of St. Stephen's entrance she came dressed in royal blue, looking as though she were still Prime Minister, with William Hague beaming at her side. She gave him an enthusiastic endorsement. "I come out firmly for William because the principles that he is founding his vision upon are very much the principles I founded my Government on." And that did the trick. No sooner had Lady Thatcher spoken than everything changed. John Redwood's supporters were liberated. Pomposity gave way to modesty, age to youth, yesterday to tomorrow, and Clarke to Hague by 72 votes to 90. Of John Redwood's 37 supporters, two abstained, seven stayed with him and thirty followed Margaret Thatcher's advice, thereby ensuring William Hague's comfortable victory. So now what? We'll have analysis and a biography of William Hague in July's Exegesis (Have you subscribed yet?). Meanwhile, Margaret Thatcher has again reminded us why she is the Iron Lady and how desperately the West needs principled leaders like her and Ronald Reagan. (Are you listening on Capitol Hill?) As for John Redwood, we earnestly hope he takes our earlier advice. After calm reflection, he should seek the wisdom of Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner on how to transform his Conservative 2000 Foundation into a British think-tank that can harness his exceptional talents for the benefit not only of the United Kingdom but of many places beyond its shores. =87 Steve Myers =D7 Editor ________________________________________________________________________ Steve's Travels: This weekend: South Carolina (Savannah GA area) July 4-7: Phoenix, Arizona July 10-12: College Republicans Conference, Washington DC Hope to see you! ________________________________________________________________________ =A9 Exegesis 1997 * PO Box 789, McLean VA 22101, USA Subscriptions USA $32.95, Overseas $44.95, Students $19.95 Voice (703) 734 5656 * Fax (703) 734 0606 Internet: www.sm.org/exegesis * E-Mail: exegesis@sm.org ___________________________________________________ Steve's Web Pages are at http://www.sm.org Exegesis: A Forum Encouraging Moral Excellence http://www.sm.org/exegesis The Global Opportunity Foundation http://www.sm.org/gof ___________________________________________________ Extel: Our 9.9=A2 a minute phone service, 24 hours a day, with very low international rates too. No gimmicks, no signup fees, 6 second billing increments. We also have 800/888 numbers at just 9.9=A2 a minute. To switch, visit our web page for information, rates and a signup form http://www.sm.org/extel or call 1-800 324 3245, quote ID# MY734 5656 ___________________________________________________ GodSpeed! - our travel agency. For the lowest fares and best deals, just call us on 1-800 571 7121 http://www.sm.org/travel [------------------------- 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: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: AOL (UK) and Gun Control Date: 21 Jun 1997 16:21:10 -0400 (EDT) The below listed exchange is re-posted from the NJ-RKBA list. It bears looking into. Handguns are now effectively banned in GB. If the below is true, then freedom of discussion is next on their agenda. An Australian poster warned us that some firearms discussions and the assembling of groups to DISCUSS firearms related items, may be considered "subversive" under their new gun control law. Verification of AOL's action in merry olde England, IF government suggested or mandated, could be a fine rebuttle to those gun controllers who hold GB up as the ideal society where only "guns" are banned and people are free. Regards, Dennis Baron ---------------------------- I am forwarding a small part of a thread of messages circulating on another firearms list. It seems that AOL(UK) is blocking mail concerning shooting. This may be localized to the UK, but may be worth watching. Are any of the AOL subscribers here having any similar trouble? Is AOL (A) one big multinational corp, or (B) does each country/region have it's own autonimous management/ownership? If "A" you might look to giving your business elsewhere. See attached, Lee Scroggins > From: CYoung1097@aol.com > To: geof@borbar.scotborders.co.uk, fullbore@winshop.com.au, > ICAMERON@leigh.winshop.com.au > Subject: Re: AOL woes > > In a message dated 18-06-1997 04:23:29, you write: > > >For those following the AOL saga, it has become apparent that AOL is > >blocking mail from the fullbore-list. AOL has provided me with a work > >around that must be implemented by each individual AOL subscriber, which > >I have forwarded on to the people concerned. In the meantime I will try to > >establish the fullbore-lists bona fides with AOL and have us removed from > >their "Blocked Sites List." > > > Dear Fullbore Subscribers, > > This is addressed principally to USA users of AOL, who are shooters in any > shape or form. Please ensure the US-NRA receives a copy. > > It appears from what I was told today by AOL in UK, that AOL has blocked > e-mails to and from the Fullbore list because it is to do with > S-H-O-O-T-I-N-G." ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Police cases Date: 21 Jun 1997 15:25:06 -0700 (PDT) I am aware that the courts -- especially the U.S. Supreme Court -- have ruled repeatedly that police agencies and officers have NO duty to protect any given individual. I wonder if anyone out there can give me case cites on those cases -- especially US Supreme Court? Thanks for your help. S. "Life is always hopelessly complex to those who have no principles." -- Joseph Sobran "The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated." -- Thomas Sowell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up (fwd) Date: 21 Jun 1997 17:37:31 PST On Jun 21, DAVE RYDEL wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 19:47:22 -0400 (EDT) >X-Sender: fiedor19@mail.eos.net >To: fiedor19@eos.net >From: Doug Fiedor >Subject: Heads Up > > Heads Up > > A Weekly edition of News from around our country > > June 20, 1997 #40 > > by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net > >---------------------------------------------------------- > Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html >---------------------------------------------------------- > > >CORRUPTION > Here's a list of felonies you're all going to >love. And these felonies have hardly anything to do >with the White House, either. "Hardly," of course, is >the Clintonesque weasel-word in that last sentence. . . . > In this case, we have misappropriation and >misapplication of public funds, misconduct in office and >misfeasance. There is also an ongoing conspiracy of long >duration to carry out the above. Any good lawyer could >probably add a few more crimes to this list, but those >will get us going for now. > Oh, and just to add a little flavor to the >story, most of the conspirators, and the majority of at >least one House of Congress (most of them are not >directly involved), admit this is true. > Among the conspirators are the past and present >Secretary of State, certain members of the Army and Air >Force, certain employees of the EPA, and a number of >management-level employees in at least twelve other >federal agencies. > Many members of government don't seem to see >the "crime" here. Or, at least publicly they won't admit >they do. So let's define our terms enough to show them >that there is clear-cut wrongdoing deserving of >prosecution. > Our Barron's Law Dictionary defines >misappropriation and misapplication as: "The use of >funds or property for a purpose other than that for which >they are intended or legally required to be used. >Misapplication and misappropriation particularly apply to >acts of fiduciary [one in a position of trust], including >public servants as well as private trustees. The term >can include the misapplication of funds intended for >another purposes, e.g., the misapplication of public >money. . ." > Misconduct in Office is defined as: "Corrupt >misbehavior by an officer in the exercise of the duties >of the office or while acting under color of the office; >includes any act or omission in breach of a duty of >public concern by one who has accepted public office." > Misfeasance is "the doing of a proper act in a >wrongful or injurious manner; the improper performance >of an act which might have been lawfully done." > With that taken care of, now we can get to the >particulars. > Back in the Carter Administration there was a >big international agreement which many countries signed >onto. The United States agreed, in part. And, like >always, the American taxpayer got stuck paying big bucks >for something that had zero benefit for the American >public. > The key word there was "agreement." It was not >an international treaty. President Carter agreed, in >part, and implemented part of the agreement through an >executive memoranda. The administration then secured >minimal program funding from Congress. > A committee was formed, made up of members of >various federal agencies, the State Department, the Army, >and the Air Force. > But, Carter lost the election. Reagan became >President. And this agreement was costing us big bucks. >So, out it went. Funding was stopped, and the program >was over. > Well, on the books -- as far as Congress >knew -- the funding was stopped, anyway. In reality, >little changed. > The story gets a bit foggy during the last two >years of the Reagan Administration and throughout the >Bush Administration. But, based on the actions of the >committee running the program -- as you will see >shortly -- it's obvious that they did not lack for >funding. > The State Department kicked in a million >dollars a year or so to keep the project going. The Army >and Air Force contributed big bucks most years. So did >at least thirteen federal agencies involved in the >project. The committee proceeded on for thirteen >continuous years that way. > Every year, Congress designated funds for specific >needs of these federal agencies and departments, and every >year, for thirteen years, bureaucrats from these different >federal agencies and departments diverted a part of their >funding to support a project that was legally canceled. > Nothing ever showed up on the federal budget, >but every year the U.S. National Committee for the Man >and the Biosphere Program was well funded with >misappropriated and misapplied taxpayer dollars. > Members of the military have a shortage of fuel >and ammunition with which to train. But still, the Army >and the Air Force found money to help fund an illegal >bureaucracy. Some of the ambassador's residencies around >the world are in such disrepair that the roofs leak and >the plumbing will not work. Yet the State Department >poured millions of taxpayer dollars into a project that >was legally canceled. > Federal agencies with mandated >duties . . . err . . . well, let's just say that they >had no authority to spend the money that way. Actually, >it would be to our benefit if most federal agencies were >totally defunded -- but that's another story. > The point is, EPA, BLA, and the rest of those >agencies misappropriated money. And it ends up totaling >a lot of money! > Now comes the Man and the Biosphere Committee >itself, and even different offenses. Because, this was >the group -- most of whom work for federal agencies and >know better -- that intentionally received the misapplied >and misappropriated money thirteen years in a row. > They knew they had no authorization to exist. >They knew the funds they received were legally designated >for other programs. Yet, they participated in this >illegal program anyway. > Now comes the opinion of the majority of Congress: > On April 24, 1997, Rep. Coburn offered an >amendment to the National Science Foundation budget >stating that: "No funds appropriated pursuant to this >Act shall be used for the United States Man and Biosphere >Program, or related projects." > Coburn spelled out the law for the House: > "It is important that the people recognize that >the Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage sites are under >the guidance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific >and Cultural Organization also known as UNESCO. The >United States withdrew from that Organization in 1984 >because of gross financial mismanagement. > "Over 68 percent of our national parks, >preserves, and monuments have been designated as United >Nations World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves or both. >There are currently 47 of those sites [94 actually] in >the United States, covering an area the size of Colorado. >Under the relative agreements, the United States is >promising to manage lands in accordance with international >guidelines. Many times local governments, [and] private >property [owners] are never consulted in these management >plans. This is a clear violation of private property >rights. The biosphere programs, including the United >States Man and Biosphere Program, have never been >authorized by any Congress, never been authorized, but >still received [funds] this past year and this year will >receive over $700,000 of taxpayers' money. > "The National Science Foundation distributed >more than $400,000 in grants to this unauthorized program >despite the fact that the program has never had a >consideration or vote in Congress and has never been >approved by a body of the Congress." > The amendment easily passed. > That was last April. On June 5, the liberals >responded with a correction for the problem. Reps. Brown >and Miller, both liberal Democrats from California, >introduced H.R. 1801: A bill "To authorize the United >States Man and the Biosphere Program." > But, even if that bill were to pass, it would >not be retroactive. All biosphere reserves that exist >today would still be illegal. So too are all those UNESCO >signs at the entrance to many of our parks. Not even >H.R. 1801 would authorize involvement in a UNESCO program. > So, Mister and Misses American Citizen, now >what do we do about those bureaucrats who misappropriated >all that money and bothered thousands of American families >with their totally unauthorized project? > Quite obviously, prosecution is warranted. > Your responsibility, then, is to tell them so. > >WHY NO PRESS > "Is the fourth estate for UNESCO?" was asked >us in one form or another nearly a dozen times these past >three weeks. "This subject is important to people! Why >doesn't the national press pick up on this biosphere >story?" > Why indeed! > Better asked would be why doesn't the national >media ever discuss Constitutional issues. There's a >simple answer for that -- and it's not necessarily because >they're all a bunch of socialists, either. All are not. >The answer is a whole lot simpler than that. > First, most members of the national press -- the >political reporters, anyway -- live in Washington. And >most of them are a bunch of party-people. They like to >hang out at the good bars, dine at the fancy restaurants >and attend all the good parties. Understandably, they >want to be seen hobnobbing with the movers and shakers >of the nation. > And duty in Washington is a good place for >that. Washington is a political town, to be sure. But >intermixed with all the political stuff is what seems >like a never ending series of cocktail parties. And these >parties all have free food and drink, which reporters like. > Even fund-raisers supply free food and drink >for those attending. And all parties have politicians >attending. Which, of course, are the very same people >the reporters were sent to Washington to write about. > If a reporter writes in opposition to a position >taken by a lobbyist, that reporter might not be welcome >at the fund-raiser parties that lobbyist throws for >politicians. That's usually not a big deal, because >there are numerous parties going on every week -- usually >more than any one reporter could attend. > But, for a reporter to anger the political >power structure in Washington is an altogether different >problem! That would mean no more hobnobbing with the >powers that be. That could mean no more invitations to >the power-elite parties. That could mean no more of those >little leaks most politicians like to give "off the >record" at cocktail parties. > It could also mean that a reporter would have to >actually dig to get a story, rather than just "report" >verbatim from press conferences and the supplied press >releases. > It's much easier to be friends with elected >officials and their staffs. That is what reporting is >all about in Washington: Passing on the information you >are told. Oh sure, some so called "journalists" might >actually rewrite a line or two and add an interesting >tidbit not offered on that particular press release. But >if you read the reports from a number of different >Washington reporters attending the same press conference, >you will always see the exact same words used in all of >the reports. > There's a reason for that. They all write >their "news report" from the script provided by the >politicians. And, for the most part, they follow the >script exactly. > So, what if the politician is a bold faced liar >and crazy as a loon? Well, there are a few of them in >government, and they do not seem to have a problem >getting their "spin" printed, no matter how preposterous >it may be. > And what about those Constitutional issues? >Yeah. What about them? > Ninety percent of the officials in Washington >obviously have no intention of obeying the Constitution. >If they did, the federal law books would probably all fit >on one shelf. So, how can anybody expect a reporter with >a permanent post in Washington and lots of political >friends to want to rock that boat? > Get real! > In a nutshell, that's the problem. > The politics of our nation's Capital is made >up of entangling alliances. So there is no surprise to >find a synergistic relationship between politicians and >the reporters making up the national press corps. The >fact is, they need each other. And simply put, the needs >of both groups are best met when they get along with each >other. > But a reporter is the more expendable of the two. >So, when reporters don't get along with the political >types, they are usually transferred. That's because many >politicians also know the media bosses. Therefore, it's >little problem to have a reporter who is "rocking the >boat" too often transferred to another city. > Consequently, the "approval rating" of the >national media is only slightly better than that of >Washington politicians. Both are down around 20% in >believability. They should be, too. Because in many >cases, Americans would receive exactly the same news if >politicians just e-mailed us all their press releases and >eliminated the media people altogether. > So when Heads Up readers ask why stories like >the biosphere reserve scam never seem to make the major >news . . . well, it's because all the Washington media >does is "report" what they are told nowadays. There are >no "journalists" covering the waste, fraud and abuse in >government anymore. And there most certainly are not any >"journalists" willing to report any of the thousands of >violations of our Constitution every year. > If they did, they wouldn't be invited to any more >parties. > >BIODIVERSITY TREATY BANS HUMANS > by: Craig M. Brown > There was a lot of noise made recently, both in >and out of the Senate, when the Kentucky State Senate >voted unanimously for a resolution opposing the yet- >unratified Biological Diversity Treaty. > Since this has a lot to do the recent federal land >grabs of property in Kentucky, I decided to read the >treaty. It's not what you'd call a "fun read" for the >kids at bedtime, but I'd recommend that you take two >aspirin and look it over. Then ask your Congressman to >read it. If you don't, you may find that what you can or >can't do with your property -- or even if you can live on >it -- will be decided by a bunch of guys who live in >Paris. That's Paris, France, not Kentucky. > After plowing through ten pages of legal gobbley- >gook you will find that the Biological Diversity Treaty >is all based on the dubious premise that the survival of >our species is dependent on turning over the basic human >rights that we as Americans have come to expect to a >"contracting party." These "contracting parties" will be >appointed by UNESCO and their decisions will directly >affect you and me, bypassing all our federal, state and >local governments. > When this treaty was first submitted in 1992, >then-President Bush didn't like it and never presented it >to Congress for ratification. Then along came President >Clinton. He kind of liked this one-world idea, so he >went about signing Executive Orders and Initiatives to >take over state lands without passing it through Congress >for ratification. > He didn't tell us why he bypassed Congress, >but it's safe to assume that he was afraid that Congress, >which is supposed to be representative of the people, >might not agree with him. So there it stands. Forty >seven large hunks of sovereign state land, stretching >through all fifty states, including Kentucky, have been >designated by the federal government to be used by >UNESCO to study biological diversity, free from >"contamination" by people. > This is our sovereign land, soaked with the >blood of patriots who centuries ago wrenched it from >the hands of tyrants to give to a free people with a free >will and a constitution to guide them. Now, by Executive >Orders and an unratified treaty our land will be >transferred back to the tyrants. > Or will it? It's your call. > >THE SPIRIT OF VLAD > The more we blab on about socialism -- and >the decline of freedom --in the United States, the more >politicians seem to say things that prove our point. See >if you can guess which famous politicians these quotes >are from. > "Imagine an army of 100,000 young people >restoring urban and rural communities and giving their >labor in exchange for education and training. . . . We >will harness the energy of our youth and attack the >problems of our time. It literally has the potential to >revolutionize the way young people all across America >look at their country and feel about themselves." > That quote, should be easy. It pertains to >"national Service," or paid "volunteering." So now let's >try a quote from an equally famous person. The following >quotation will not be published in the national press for >reasons that will become obvious momentarily. > "We must organize all labor, no matter how >dirty and arduous it may be, so that every [citizen] may >regard himself as part of that great army of free >labor. . . . The generation that is now fifteen years >old must arrange all their tasks of education in such a >way that every day, and in every city, the young people >shall engage in the practical solution of the problems of >common labor, even of the smallest, most simple kind." > The first quotation should be easy. That's Bill >Clinton encouraging paid volunteers -- by whatever means >he can use to force people to do his bidding. The second >quotation is a little harder to read because it is a >translation. Vladimir Lenin did not intend to pay his >"volunteers." In those days, if you did not follow >orders you could be shot. > We have not yet declined to the point where >citizens will be shot for not volunteering. However, if >the Clinton program continues, we can be sure that there >will soon be fines, assessments and other punishments >inflicted on those who do not "volunteer" as directed. > >REBEL, REVOLT, RESIST > Yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee >approved the McCain-Kerrey "Secure Public Networks Act" >(S. 909). This bill would impose severe restrictions on >the ability of Americans to protect their personal >privacy. It is an outright threat to the privacy and >security of Internet communications. > In this bill, Senators McCain and Kerrey >outwardly and intentionally violate both the intent and >meaning of the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution. >Although S. 909 "allows" Americans to minimally encrypt >files transmitted over the Internet, the federal >government is to keep the encryption keys, and a search >warrant will not be necessary for agents to use the >keys. The bill also calls for a whole slew of new >criminal penalties for the use of encryption that is >inconvenient for government agents to break. > The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) >has provided a full text of the bill, along with a >detailed analysis of S. 909, and an analysis of the >constitutional issues raised by the key-recovery >provisions. The text is online at: http://www.crypto.com > We could provide a discussion of applicable >court cases here, but CDT covers all that very nicely on >their web page. So instead, we provide a very applicable >story we ripped off (with permission) from the "Weekly >Update" Internet Edition, Volume 4 Issue 20, June 9, >1997, a publication of The Michigan Militia Corps'. > Because folks, our position in this matter must >be "Just say No!" It's time we told them to back off, >shut up, and don't ever speak of that again! It is >neither the business nor the concern of government to >monitor what we communicate to each other. > It is, however, our responsibility as sovereign >American citizens to instruct our servants in government >to cease and desist. We must be loud and clear with our >warning that they have overstepped their Constitutional >boundaries, and so must stop. > Please take the time to instruct your three >Members of Congress next week. S. 909 is a violation >of the Fourth Amendment, and hence a violation of the >inalienable right to privacy of all American citizens. > And now the message from Jeff, editor of the > "Weekly Update:" > > The following article was taken from a >newsletter called "The Resistance," put out by the >National Smokers Alliance. Although this article >concerns smoking laws in particular, this course of >action is probably the most effective approach to dealing >with bad laws, and I can guarantee that when you announce >such intentions, in advance, to those who pass such laws, >they are absolutely dumb-founded. Since our legislators, >local, state and federal, no longer seem to listen to the >people or abide by Constitutional limitations, this may >be our last resort. >------------------------------ >Does Resistance Work? > Just ask the people of Toronto who successfully >defeated one of the most severe smoking laws in North >America. > "Bad laws should not be obeyed," advised >Toronto Star columnist Rosie Dimanno of the bylaw that >banned smoking in almost all restaurants and bars >citywide as of March 3 of this year, "Rebel, revolt, >resist." And that's just what the citizens of this >Canadian city did. > Faced with revenue losses of up to 30 percent, >restaurant owners openly defied the law. Some refused >to enforce the ban even in the face of hefty fines that >ranged from $205 to $5,000. > "What am I going to do when the inspectors come >around?" said the proprietor of one Toronto cafe. "I'm >going to say [that] I'm not complying with this law and >you do whatever you have to do." "I've talked to a lot >of restaurateurs in town ... and nobody's respecting it >(the bylaw)," said the owner of a popular restaurant. >"I've visited seven of my friends in their restaurants >and everybody smokes. There's ashtrays everywhere. >Nobody cares." > "Waiters are playing a little game," commented >a pub owner. "They tell people they are sorry there is >no smoking and then get them a menu and an ashtray." >Some restaurateurs, fed up with the law, put their >establishments up for sale, while others closed their >doors in protest. Individual smokers also resisted the >law. Left with nowhere to go, many wound up smoking in >sections that had once been reserved for non-smokers. > "We used to be able to accommodate non-smokers, >now people smoke wherever they feel like," said a saloon >owner. "A lot of peoples' attitude is, 'Come and give me >a ticket,'" said another. Ontario Restaurant Association >President Paul Oliver noted that "I had a call from a 70- >year-old woman who said she went out today and broke the >law for the first time in her life, and she'd do it >again. It's like the wild west out there," Oliver >concluded. > The resistance of citizens and business owners >surprised city officials, who had been advised by anti- >smoking activists in the United States that things would >settle down within six months. "It didn't work the way >we had hoped it would," commented Toronto Mayor Barbara >Hall in The Globe and Mail. > The issue was resolved within six weeks. After >restaurant workers showed up at an April 14 city council >meeting in T-shirts that said, "Save our jobs" and "Let >the consumer decide" -- and began chanting, "We won't >comply" -- the Toronto City Council backed down and voted >to allow restaurants and bars to have smoking sections. > "Elected officials in the United States should learn a >lesson from our neighbors to the North," said NSA >President Thomas Humber. "When they go too far, the >people will resist." > > -- End -- [------------------------- 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: Re: AOL (UK) and Gun Control Date: 21 Jun 1997 18:00:30 PST Part of the problem may be due to SPAM. I've heard that sites all over the Country are closing down their servers to mail/news that doesn't originate within their own domain(s) in order to stop propagating it via uncontrolled bouncing. Here in the Peoples Republic of Washatonia even the Attorney General is geting involved. I Guess he's getting tired of it too. On Jun 21, BludyRed@aol.com wrote: > The below listed exchange is re-posted from the NJ-RKBA list. It >bears looking into. Handguns are now effectively banned in GB. >If the below is true, then freedom of discussion is next on their >agenda. An Australian poster warned us that some firearms discussions >and the assembling of groups to DISCUSS firearms related items, >may be considered "subversive" under their new gun control law. > > Verification of AOL's action in merry olde England, IF government >suggested or mandated, could be a fine rebuttle to those gun controllers >who hold GB up as the ideal society where only "guns" are banned and >people are free. > >Regards, >Dennis Baron > ---------------------------- > >From: Lee Scroggins >Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:40:11 -0400 >Subject: AOL censorship of shooters > >I am forwarding a small part of a thread of messages circulating on >another firearms list. > >It seems that AOL(UK) is blocking mail concerning shooting. This may be >localized to the UK, but may be worth watching. > >Are any of the AOL subscribers here having any similar trouble? > >Is AOL (A) one big multinational corp, or (B) does each country/region >have it's own autonimous management/ownership? If "A" you might look to >giving your business elsewhere. > >See attached, > >Lee Scroggins > >> From: CYoung1097@aol.com >> To: geof@borbar.scotborders.co.uk, fullbore@winshop.com.au, >> ICAMERON@leigh.winshop.com.au >> Subject: Re: AOL woes >> >> In a message dated 18-06-1997 04:23:29, you write: >> >> >For those following the AOL saga, it has become apparent that AOL is >> >blocking mail from the fullbore-list. AOL has provided me with a work >> >around that must be implemented by each individual AOL subscriber, which >> >I have forwarded on to the people concerned. In the meantime I will try to >> >establish the fullbore-lists bona fides with AOL and have us removed from >> >their "Blocked Sites List." >> >> Dear Fullbore Subscribers, >> >> This is addressed principally to USA users of AOL, who are shooters in any >> shape or form. Please ensure the US-NRA receives a copy. >> >> It appears from what I was told today by AOL in UK, that AOL has blocked >> e-mails to and from the Fullbore list because it is to do with >> S-H-O-O-T-I-N-G." > ------------------------------------- -- 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: Anti-Drug Marines Stalked Teen for 20 minutes Date: 21 Jun 1997 21:25:42 -0500 More questions in border shooting Investigators say anti-drug force stalked teen for about 20 minutes By THADDEUS HERRICK Copyright 1997 Houston Chronicle San Antonio Bureau SAN ANTONIO -- Anti-drug troops on the Texas-Mexico border followed a teen-ager for about 20 minutes after he fired his .22-caliber rifle, investigators said Friday, raising additional questions about the military's claim of self-defense in the shooting death of Ezequiel Hernandez Jr. Military officials maintain U.S. Marines on a surveillance mission near Big Bend National Park had no choice but to shoot Hernandez, a Presidio High School sophomore who was tending his family's goats on the evening of May 20 when he inexplicably fired his rifle twice. At a news conference two days after the incident, Marine Col. Thomas Kelly, deputy commander of Joint Task Force-6, which operates anti-narcotics efforts with federal agents, said only that the Marines "took immediate defensive posture" and tried to "maintain visual observation." But Texas Rangers said Friday that the heavily camouflaged troops who had staked out a surveillance post in the tiny town of Redford went "bush to bush" tracking the youth for 20 minutes, closing the gap between themselves and Hernandez from 700 feet to 425 feet. "It just doesn't sound like your typical self-defense case," said Texas Rangers Capt. Barry Caver, who is overseeing the work of head investigator David Duncan in Alpine. Potentially more troublesome for the military is that investigators say Hernandez, a U.S. citizen, was not aiming at the Marines when he was shot once with an M-16. The Marine named in the shooting is Cpl. Clemente Banuelos, who like the other three Marines was on loan from Camp Pendleton, Calif. Though the 125 or so troops on the border anti-narcotics operations cannot perform traditional police duties such as search and seizure, they are allowed by law to defend themselves. But Caver said the Marines apparently violated military policy when they followed Hernandez. "My understanding is that this is totally against the rules of engagement," he said. "I'm not sure what their intent was." Joint Task Force-6 spokeswoman Maureen Bossch refused comment on the matter, saying she was not aware of the facts of the investigation. Caver said the investigation thus far also has revealed that the Marines failed to administer first aid to Hernandez once he was shot and that they waited 22 minutes to call for medical help. Though the Marines reported a "man down" to the Border Patrol at 6:27 p.m., the call for a helicopter did not go out until 6:49 p.m., he said. "The only thing they did was check his pulse," Caver said. Details of the shooting released to date do not make it clear if Hernandez died instantly or whether he could have been saved with a faster response. Bossch said the Border Patrol had called an ambulance when they first heard from the Marines. But Presidio County sheriff's Deputy Oscar Gallegos, who arrived on the scene at about 6:45 p.m., said last week that he made the first ambulance call. Regardless, Caver said the finding that none of the Marines assisted Hernandez underscores a serious flaw in the policy that put troops on the border. "These are the kinds of problems you're going to run into when the military takes the role of law enforcement," Caver said. "The military is trained to shoot to kill, not to shoot and then run up and give first aid." The Hernandez shooting was the second by anti-drug troops since they were established by the Reagan administration in 1989 amid the escalating war on drugs. The first came in Brownsville in January, when Cesareo Vazquez, an illegal immigrant who fired a .38-caliber revolver, was shot by a Green Beret on loan from Fort Campbell, Ky. Vasquez was prosecuted, pleading guilty to assault. Local prosecutors are developing a criminal case against Cpl. Banuelos in the Hernandez incident. Caver said Texas Rangers intend to subpoena documents Tuesday from the military at Fort Bliss, home of Joint Task Force-6. Touted by federal officials as a success, Joint Task Force-6 allows law enforcement the support of some 700 troops. About 125 of those are dispatched to border missions while the rest do everything from train federal agents to build border fences and roads. "Had we started using the military along the border 10-15 years ago we would not be in the epidemic situation we are in today," said Phil Jordan, a longtime official of the Drug Enforcement Agency and former head of the El Paso Information Center, a worlwide drug surveillance center. --- Of course the DEA, the original American Storm Troopers would say this. Or was the BATF first? Oh and lest any WAR or other sheeted or swatiska-ed folk think that its no big deal, just another dead beaner, check out the names of the Cpl. who did the shooting and the deputy sheriff who responded. Remember this was in south Texas, where folks with those sorts of surnames were there long before any gringos showed up. The victim's Spainish ancestors likely where in North America, well before those usptarts at Plymouth Rock or even Jamestown even heard of "America". This is the classic example of why the military should not be used for law enforcement. They are trained differently , and rendering aid to the "enemy" one has just shot isn't required, usualy isn't even practical, since his buddies may still be shooting at you. The other reason for the military *not* to get involved in the war on *some* drugs, is because that war dirties everything it touches, and we may need a "clean" military someday, maybe sooner than anyone thinks, since that's the way it usually works. 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: Re: Police cases Date: 22 Jun 1997 14:52:16 -0700 On 1997-06-21 roc@mail.xmission.com said to linzellr@datastar.net >I am aware that the courts -- especially the U.S. Supreme Court -- >have ruled repeatedly that police agencies and officers have NO >duty to protect any given individual. I wonder if anyone out there >can give me case cites on those cases -- especially US Supreme >Court? Thanks for your help. Check the JPFO web site; I'm pretty sure they have such a file. I think the URL starts with http://www.prn-bbs.org/. Also, here's a URL I have handy for an on-line copy of a Peter Kasler article: --------------- MESSAGE firearms-alert.v001.n080.1 --------------- I have finally marked up Peter Alan Kasler's excellent article, "Self-Reliance for Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn' Enough!" and made it available at the NJSDC web site. The article is a review of standing case law that makes it clear that the police have no lawful duty to protect any individual citizen. Use it well when people try to tell you "You don't need a gun; the police will protect you." This is copyrighted material: Dr. Kasler has allowed its free distribution so long as it is unaltered and so long as the copyright notice remains attached. Check it out at NJSDC's web site: http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/njsdc.html Good luck, 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 | |_______________________________________________________________|  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: balpert@sky.net Subject: From an Israeli friend- Date: 22 Jun 1997 17:11:43 CST Brad, I just visited your home page and enjoyed it quite a bit. I thought you might be interested in knowing the gun situation here in Israel. In theory, we have very tought control laws. It takes quite a bit of time to get a license. BUT...every soldier is required to keep his gun with him, even while on leave. This means that every 19-21 year old girl and every 19-22 boy has an automatic rifle, with a minimum of two full clips, at all times. In addition, the same rules apply when you are in reserve duty. All men do 30 days a year reserves until they are 50, and they, too, carry M-16s. If you live in what is considered a dangerous area, like I do (along the Lebanese border) you are issued a M-16 which you keep at home (with 5 full clips). Some people, like myself, have special army duties that require additional firepower. I was deputy commander of an sniper unit (reserves) and had an FN sniper rifle. BUT -- despite all this, Israel has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world. On the rare occasion that a weapon is misused it is front page news. Sort of casts doubt on the wisdom of keeping citizens unarmed, doesn't it? Dov ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk@wrq.com Subject: Re: AOL (UK) and Gun Control Date: 22 Jun 1997 19:30:01 -0700 Hadn't heard about the SPAM thing, doesnt sound like a winning tactic to me. People have to get mail from outside their domain and blocking news just makes people mad. I've heard about problems with the system of peering networks, maybe that's what you were thinking of. But I do know that Brits do not have anything like the gaurantees of free speech we have. If you ever say it to a brit plan a week to prove it to them (my experience is they -really- dont want to believe it) but the use of "anti terrorism" legislation there is quite advanced because of their problems in Ireland. It's kinda an interesting parallel to whats going on here lately IMHO. Wired magazine, despite it's obvious flaws, had an excellent article on "the troubles" and civil rights in brittain about the middle of last year. Boyd Kneeland ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Author: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org Part of the problem may be due to SPAM. I've heard that sites all over the Country are closing down their servers to mail/news that doesn't originate within their own domain(s) in order to stop propagating it via uncontrolled bouncing. Here in the Peoples Republic of Washatonia even the Attorney General is geting involved. I Guess he's getting tired of it too. On Jun 21, BludyRed@aol.com wrote: > The below listed exchange is re-posted from the NJ-RKBA list. It >bears looking into. Handguns are now effectively banned in GB. >If the below is true, then freedom of discussion is next on their >agenda. An Australian poster warned us that some firearms discussions >and the assembling of groups to DISCUSS firearms related items, >may be considered "subversive" under their new gun control law. > > Verification of AOL's action in merry olde England, IF government >suggested or mandated, could be a fine rebuttle to those gun controllers >who hold GB up as the ideal society where only "guns" are banned and >people are free. > >Regards, >Dennis Baron > ---------------------------- > >From: Lee Scroggins >Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:40:11 -0400 >Subject: AOL censorship of shooters > >I am forwarding a small part of a thread of messages circulating on >another firearms list. > >It seems that AOL(UK) is blocking mail concerning shooting. This may be >localized to the UK, but may be worth watching. > >Are any of the AOL subscribers here having any similar trouble? > >Is AOL (A) one big multinational corp, or (B) does each country/region >have it's own autonimous management/ownership? If "A" you might look to >giving your business elsewhere. > >See attached, > >Lee Scroggins > >> From: CYoung1097@aol.com >> To: geof@borbar.scotborders.co.uk, fullbore@winshop.com.au, >> ICAMERON@leigh.winshop.com.au >> Subject: Re: AOL woes >> >> In a message dated 18-06-1997 04:23:29, you write: >> >> >For those following the AOL saga, it has become apparent that AOL is >> >blocking mail from the fullbore-list. AOL has provided me with a work >> >around that must be implemented by each individual AOL subscriber, which >> >I have forwarded on to the people concerned. In the meantime I will try to >> >establish the fullbore-lists bona fides with AOL and have us removed from >> >their "Blocked Sites List." >> >> Dear Fullbore Subscribers, >> >> This is addressed principally to USA users of AOL, who are shooters in any >> shape or form. Please ensure the US-NRA receives a copy. >> >> It appears from what I was told today by AOL in UK, that AOL has blocked >> e-mails to and from the Fullbore list because it is to do with >> S-H-O-O-T-I-N-G." > ------------------------------------- -- 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: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Re: Police cases Date: 22 Jun 1997 20:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Much obliged. At 02:52 PM 6/22/97 -0700, you wrote: >On 1997-06-21 roc@mail.xmission.com said to linzellr@datastar.net > >I am aware that the courts -- especially the U.S. Supreme Court -- > >have ruled repeatedly that police agencies and officers have NO > >duty to protect any given individual. I wonder if anyone out there > >can give me case cites on those cases -- especially US Supreme > >Court? Thanks for your help. >Check the JPFO web site; I'm pretty sure they have such a file. I think >the URL starts with http://www.prn-bbs.org/. Also, here's a URL I have >handy for an on-line copy of a Peter Kasler article: > >--------------- MESSAGE firearms-alert.v001.n080.1 --------------- >I have finally marked up Peter Alan Kasler's excellent article, >"Self-Reliance for Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn' Enough!" >and made it available at the NJSDC web site. >The article is a review of standing case law that makes it clear >that the police have no lawful duty to protect any individual >citizen. Use it well when people try to tell you "You don't need a >gun; the police will protect you." >This is copyrighted material: Dr. Kasler has allowed its free >distribution so long as it is unaltered and so long as the >copyright notice remains attached. >Check it out at NJSDC's web site: >http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/njsdc.html > >Good luck, >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 | >|_______________________________________________________________| > > > S. "Life is always hopelessly complex to those who have no principles." -- Joseph Sobran "The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated." -- Thomas Sowell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: AOL (UK) and Gun Control Date: 22 Jun 1997 23:52:19 PST On Jun 22, boydk@wrq.com wrote: > Hadn't heard about the SPAM thing, doesnt sound like a winning tactic > to me. People have to get mail from outside their domain and blocking > news just makes people mad. I've heard about problems with the system > of peering networks, maybe that's what you were thinking of. Could be. I understand that there are "openings" in many a system that the unscrupulous can take advantage of, and that might be what was being refered to, but when people "short cut" their explanations of such things it's hard for anyone unfamilier with the actual details, (like me), to fathom. I just passed it along as it was originally stated. > But I do know that Brits do not have anything like the gaurantees of > free speech we have. If you ever say it to a brit plan a week to prove > it to them (my experience is they -really- dont want to believe it) > but the use of "anti terrorism" legislation there is quite advanced > because of their problems in Ireland. It's kinda an interesting > parallel to whats going on here lately IMHO. Wired magazine, despite > it's obvious flaws, had an excellent article on "the troubles" and > civil rights in brittain about the middle of last year. Boyd Kneeland Yeah, what was that quote, "There are non so enslaved as those who falsely believe that thay are free"? >______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ >Subject: Re: AOL (UK) and Gun Control >Author: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org >Date: 6/21/97 7:00 PM > > >Part of the problem may be due to SPAM. I've heard that sites all over the >Country are closing down their servers to mail/news that doesn't originate >within their own domain(s) in order to stop propagating it via uncontrolled >bouncing. Here in the Peoples Republic of Washatonia even the Attorney >General is geting involved. I Guess he's getting tired of it too. > >On Jun 21, BludyRed@aol.com wrote: > >> The below listed exchange is re-posted from the NJ-RKBA list. It >>bears looking into. Handguns are now effectively banned in GB. >>If the below is true, then freedom of discussion is next on their >>agenda. An Australian poster warned us that some firearms discussions >>and the assembling of groups to DISCUSS firearms related items, >>may be considered "subversive" under their new gun control law. >> >> Verification of AOL's action in merry olde England, IF government >>suggested or mandated, could be a fine rebuttle to those gun controllers >>who hold GB up as the ideal society where only "guns" are banned and >>people are free. >> >>Regards, >>Dennis Baron >> ---------------------------- >> >>From: Lee Scroggins >>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:40:11 -0400 >>Subject: AOL censorship of shooters >> >>I am forwarding a small part of a thread of messages circulating on >>another firearms list. >> >>It seems that AOL(UK) is blocking mail concerning shooting. This may be >>localized to the UK, but may be worth watching. >> >>Are any of the AOL subscribers here having any similar trouble? >> >>Is AOL (A) one big multinational corp, or (B) does each country/region >>have it's own autonimous management/ownership? If "A" you might look to >>giving your business elsewhere. >> >>See attached, >> >>Lee Scroggins >> >>> From: CYoung1097@aol.com >>> To: geof@borbar.scotborders.co.uk, fullbore@winshop.com.au, >>> ICAMERON@leigh.winshop.com.au >>> Subject: Re: AOL woes >>> >>> In a message dated 18-06-1997 04:23:29, you write: >>> >>> >For those following the AOL saga, it has become apparent that AOL is >>> >blocking mail from the fullbore-list. AOL has provided me with a work >>> >around that must be implemented by each individual AOL subscriber, which >>> >I have forwarded on to the people concerned. In the meantime I will try to >>> >establish the fullbore-lists bona fides with AOL and have us removed from >>> >their "Blocked Sites List." >>> >>> Dear Fullbore Subscribers, >>> >>> This is addressed principally to USA users of AOL, who are shooters in any >>> shape or form. Please ensure the US-NRA receives a copy. >>> >>> It appears from what I was told today by AOL in UK, that AOL has blocked >>> e-mails to and from the Fullbore list because it is to do with >>> S-H-O-O-T-I-N-G." >> ------------------------------------- > >-- >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. > > > -- 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: Fwd: Bill Gates launches drive to register firearms (fwd) Date: 23 Jun 1997 08:55:49 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com (John_Johnson) ---- Begin Forwarded Message ---- From: Soft.Blue@ieway.com Newsgroups: rec.guns Subject: Bill Gates launches drive to register firearms Followup-To: talk.politics.guns Date: 21 Jun 1997 10:40:54 -0400 Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 46 Sender: magnum@cs.umd.edu Approved: gun-control@cs.umd.edu Message-ID: <5ogp5m$cd4@xring.cs.umd.edu> As soon as one Microsoft billionaire apparently bought an election to have Washington state taxpayers build him a new football stadium Bill Gates has jumped into the "buy a law" bandwagon. Last night, 6-19-97, it was announced on local news that Mr. Gates has launched an initiative drive to register all handguns in the state of Washington. He was reported to be concerned with the rising incidence of firearm violence (I thought violent crime was down?). Mr. Gates hopes to bypass the Republican controlled WA legislature by gaining enough signatures to put the initiative on the ballot. If that happens, Washington residents can expect to be sold on the idea with Gates' spending millions on local anti-gun ads, the same as Paul Allen's media assault on the truth. Mr. Gates appears to believe that the "Bill of Rights" is a buffet of which we can pick whatever tastes good and reject that which is distasteful. When the "Free Speech Online Blue Ribbon Campaign" was begun to protest the Telecommunications Act Mr. Gates supported the First Amendment and placed the Blue Ribbon Campaign logo on his (Microsoft's) web pages. His step child (the internet) was under attack by those that want to amend the meaning of free speech. Two questions. How can a guy smart enough to become that rich be that stupid? Also, if it passes here, will your state be the next to suffer the wrath of his billions? As a self employed computer specialist I am really ticked off. I spend my life working on Microsoft/Intel based systems and can't even boycott Gates' products as I did with Toshiba after they sold the silent sub technology to the Soviets. I did sell my Microsoft stock today but tomorrow I have to install and configure $8000 worth of Microsoft software. I've been turned into a whore. What's a country to do? Take care, James Hay ---- End Forwarded Message ---- -- From the computer of: John_Johnson TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com The opinions expressed above represent those of the writer (me) and not necessarily those of his employer (also me). By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. All incoming unsolicited commercial traffic will therefore be billed at a rate of $500 per msg to compensate for loss of service. -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: NH Date: 23 Jun 1997 10:03:24 -0400 (EDT) Chad, Sure, I'll find 'em for you. I'll make a quick post to ma-firearms mailing list, as those guys has it. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) VITALLY IMPORTANT!! Date: 23 Jun 1997 16:41:15 -0700 From Linda Thompson, and I agree with her about its importance. - Monte >Return-Path: >Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:15:26 -0700 >X-Sender: lindat@iquest.net >To: lindat@iquest.net >From: lindat@iquest.net (Linda Thompson) >Subject: VITALLY IMPORTANT!! > >The decision below from the Supreme Court has the MOST DANGEROUS >IMPLICATIONS OF ANY TO COME OUT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS. >URGENT THAT YOU CROSS-POST EVERYWHERE. > >Our service provider tampered with our service and upon complaint, changed >the password to my account (SO MY MAIL IS STILL GOING TO P-C-NET.NET, I >can't read it, but apparently THEY can. They also cut off AL but actually >turned his account off. (Please read following message for details on that). > >However, that means AEN NEWS is down, so this message is only reaching >people on my list. PLEASE WIDELY FORWARD THIS AND POST IT TO NEWSGROUPS >EVERYWHERE. > >The Supreme Court Case says that a CIVIL proceeding can be brought to >MENTALLY COMMIT someone said to be "dangerous to himself or others," with NO >proof being offered whatsoever of any harm to anyone else, NO criminal >charge being filed, NOTHING. > >Mental commitments are for AS LONG AS THE DOCTORS SAY TO KEEP YOU -- there >is NO DEFINITE SENTENCE. > >How many patriots has this already been done to and been tried on? NOW THEY >HAVE CARTE BLANCHE, PEOPLE! > >Note, too, that in civil cases, as opposed to a criminal prosecution for a >crime, the standard of proof isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt," but that >there must only be a showing by a "preponderance of the evidence." > >This is a GHASTLY, GHASTLY ruling. This is EXACTLY the technique that was >used to send Alexander Soljenitzen and thousands of dissidents off for >"mental commitment" in the Communist Soviet Union. > >(They, of course, have used a case involving a very sick deviant person, to >set precedent, but now that the precedent says what it says, the gloves are >off and they will be taking out people on "civil commitments" left and >right. Watch.) > > > >========================================== > >KANSAS v. HENDRICKS > >certiorari to the supreme court of kansas > >No. 95-1649. Argued December 10, 1996 -- Decided June 23, 1997 > >============================================== >[n.*] > >Kansas' Sexually Violent Predator Act establishes procedures for >the civil commitment of persons who, due to a "mental >abnormality" or a "personality disorder," are likely to engage in >"predatory acts of sexual violence." Kansas filed a petition >under the Act in state court to commit respondent (and cross >petitioner) Hendricks, who had a long history of sexually >molesting children and was scheduled for release from prison. The >court reserved ruling on Hendricks' challenge to the Act's >constitutionality, but granted his request for a jury trial. >After Hendricks testified that he agreed with the state >physician's diagnosis that he suffers from pedophilia and is not >cured and that he continues to harbor sexual desires for children >that he cannot control when he gets "stressed out," the jury >determined that he was a sexually violent predator. Finding that >pedophilia qualifies as a mental abnormality under the Act, the >court ordered him committed. On appeal, the State Supreme Court >invalidated the Act on the ground that the precommitment >condition of a "mental abnormality" did not satisfy what it >perceived to be the "substantive" due process requirement that >involuntary civil commitment must be predicated on a "mental >illness" finding. It did not address Hendricks' ex post-facto and >double jeopardy claims. > >Held: > >1. The Act's definition of "mental abnormality" satisfies >"substantive" due process requirements. An individual's >constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding physical >restraint may be overridden even in the civil context. Jacobson >v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 26. This Court has consistently >upheld involuntary commitment statutes that detain people who are >unable to control their behavior and thereby pose a danger to the >public health and safety, provided the confinement takes place >pursuant to proper procedures and evidentiary standards. Foucha >v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80. The Act unambiguously requires a >precommitment finding of dangerousness either to one's self or to >others, and links that finding to a determination that the person >suffers from a "mental abnormality" or "personality disorder." >Generally, this Court has sustained a commitment statute if it >couples proof of dangerousness with proof of some additional >factor, such as a "mental illness" or "mental abnormality," see, >e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 314-315, for these additional >requirements serve to limit confinement to those who suffer from >a volitional impairment rendering them dangerous beyond their >control. The Act sets forth comparable criteria with its >precommitment requirement of "mental abnormality" or "personality >disorder." Contrary to Hendricks' argument, this Court has never >required States to adopt any particular nomenclature in drafting >civil commitment statutes and leaves to the States the task of >defining terms of a medical nature that have legal significance. >Cf. Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 365, n. 13. The >legislature is therefore not required to use the specific term >"mental illness" and is free to adopt any similar term. Pp. 8-13. > >2. The Act does not violate the Constitution's double jeopardy >prohibition or its ban on ex post-facto lawmaking. Pp. 13-24. > >(a) The Act does not establish criminal proceedings, and >involuntary confinement under it is not punishment. The >categorization of a particular proceeding as civil or criminal is >a question of statutory construction. Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. >364, 368. Nothing on the face of the Act suggests that the Kansas >Legislature sought to create anything other than a civil >commitment scheme. That manifest intent will be rejected only if >Hendricks provides the clearest proof that the scheme is so >punitive in purpose or effect as to negate Kansas' intention to >deem it civil. United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248-249. He >has failed to satisfy this heavy burden. Commitment under the Act >does not implicate either of the two primary objectives of >criminal punishment: retribution or deterrence. Its purpose is >not retributive: It does not affix culpability for prior criminal >conduct, but uses such conduct solely for evidentiary purposes; >it does not make criminal conviction a prerequisite for >commitment; and it lacks a scienter requirement, an important >element in distinguishing criminal and civil statutes. Nor can >the Act be said to act as a deterrent, since persons with a >mental abnormality or personality disorder are unlikely to be >deterred by the threat of confinement. The conditions >surroundingconfinement--essentially the same as conditions for >any civilly committed patient--do not suggest a punitive purpose. >Although the commitment scheme here involves an affirmative >restraint, such restraint of the dangerously mentally ill has >been historically regarded as a legitimate nonpunitive objective. >Cf. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747. The >confinement's potentially indefinite duration is linked, not to >any punitive objective, but to the purpose of holding a person >until his mental abnormality no longer causes him to be a threat >to others. He is thus permitted immediate release upon a showing >that he is no longer dangerous, and the longest he can be >detained pursuant to a single judicial proceeding is one year. >The State's use of procedural safeguards applicable in criminal >trials does not itself turn the proceedings into criminal >prosecutions. Allen, supra, at 372. Finally, the Act is not >necessarily punitive if it fails to offer treatment where >treatment for a condition is not possible, or if treatment, >though possible, is merely an ancillary, rather than an >overriding, state concern. The conclusion that the Act is >nonpunitive removes an essential prerequisite for both Hendricks' >double jeopardy and ex post-facto claims. Pp. 13-21. > >(b) Hendricks' confinement does not amount to a second >prosecution and punishment for the offense for which he was >convicted. Because the Act is civil in nature, its commitment >proceedings do not constitute a second prosecution. Cf. Jones, >supra. As this commitment is not tantamount to punishment, the >detention does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, even >though it follows a prison term. Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. >107. Hendricks' argument that, even if the Act survives the >"multiple punishments" test, it fails the "same elements" test of >Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, is rejected, since >that test does not apply outside of the successive prosecution >context. Pp. 22-23. > >(c) Hendricks' ex post-facto claim is similarly flawed. The Ex >Post-Facto Clause pertains exclusively to penal statutes. >California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 505. >Since the Act is not punishment, its application does not raise >ex post-facto concerns. Moreover, the Act clearly does not have >retroactive effect. It does not criminalize conduct legal before >its enactment or deprive Hendricks of any defense that was >available to him at the time of his crimes. Pp. 23-24. > >259 Kan. 246, 912 P. 2d 129, reversed. > >Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which >Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. >Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. Breyer, J., filed a >dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and Souter, JJ., joined, and >in which Ginsburg, J., joined as to Parts II and III. > >---------- >Notes > >*Together with No. 95-9075, Hendricks v. Kansas, also on >certiorari to the same court. >Kind regards, > >Linda Thompson > >******************** V *************************** > DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER >*************************************************** >Dr. Linda Thompson >Attorney at Law >Chairman, American Justice Federation >Internet: lindat@p-c-net.net > >**************************************************** > Remember Waco. > The Murderers are still free > (and running YOUR country). >**************************************************** > > > See brutal mass murder scene, graphic details: > > http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum > >**************************************************** > > > - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh Lord, lead us into Your Glory - bathe us in the holy & pure light of Your Spirit; let Your righteous fire burn away all that is in us that is not of You, so that we might worship the Living God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Amen. ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Vitally Important (?!) Date: 23 Jun 1997 17:26:12 -0700 (PDT) (Monte, please fwd this to Linda for her email replies, also to any of the original lists you feel appropriate.) This act was originally written by Ida Ballasiotes (R 41st Washington) to apply to people with multiple convictions of violent sexual predation on minors. Rep Ballasiotes forwarded it to the "Schlitz" (no sp) family of Kansas on hearing tht their daughter, like hers, had been violently attacked, sodomized and then murdered by a man with a prior history of violent pedophilia. In Washington it is applied to people who 1) Show no remorse and 2) show continued pedophilic tendency and no response to therapy. In it's history here it has been applied to 51 people who are kept in a special (clean, relatively comfortable and segregated from other prisoners) counseling ward at the secure hospital at Monroe. While not perfect, Rep. Ballasiotes has been a help to the RKBA movement here, she can generally be relied on to help advance RKBA certainly more then most of her colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I sincerely hope that any of you with problems like this are fortunate enough to land in a program like the violent predator program here in Washington It would certainly be preferable to the cold slab so many think you deserve. Sincerely, Boyd. All opinions expressed are mine alone. boydk@wrq.com Remove "no.spam" from address when replying. PGP key at BAL's. Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? E-mail me. Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harassment, requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Solzhenitzyn Date: 23 Jun 1997 23:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Alexander Solzhenitzyn wrote: "How we burned in the prison camps *later* thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return? "Or, if during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step of the staircase, but had understood that they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. "The Organs (police) would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers . . . and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt." S. "Life is always hopelessly complex to those who have no principles." -- Joseph Sobran "The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated." -- Thomas Sowell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: LEOs Not Obligated to Protect Date: 24 Jun 1997 07:55:05 -0600 I checked the JPFO site--nothing on the above subject. I also checked GOA, which has its 1997 Firearms Facts sheet posted. Among other useful infor- mation, this URL has a legal citation re: LEOs not obligated or required to protect (with full references): http://www.gunowners.org/fs9712.htm HTH, 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 | |_______________________________________________________________|  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: L&J: Gulf War Report Released Today (fwd) Date: 24 Jun 1997 08:23:12 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- forwarded from Renee Jordan Reform Party June 23, 1997 Attention! Report Critical of Government Research and Treatment of Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses The long awaited Report to Congress from its General Accounting Office critically evaluating the Government's response to illnesses in our veterans of Operation Desert Storm is to be released TODAY, Monday, June 23, 1997. Public hearings will be held tomorrow, Tuesday, in the House Committee on Governmental Affairs and Oversight (The Honorable Christopher Shays, Chairman). The GAO report criticizes the DoD, VA and Presidential Advisory Committee for over emphasizing research into psychological stress and under emphasizing research on the effects of chemical weapons and other chemicals despite strong scientific evidence of its plausibility. The GAO had access to all government and private sources including still classified information on U.S. bombing of Iraqi chemical weapons stockpiles and possible fallout on U.S. troop positions during the war. In 1994 Ross Perot personally commissioned two independeant medical studies of Gulf War Veterans. These studies, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on January 15, 1997 comprise a significant portion of the scientific evidence on which the GAO's report is based. NEWS REPORTERS can be referred to Dr. Robert Haley of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at 214/648-3110 for information on the study initiated and funded by Ross Perot. You can access the report and the government's critical replies on the Internet (see address below), or you may write the U.S. General Accounting Office, Special Studies and Evaluation Group, 441 G Streew NW, Washington, DC 20548 for a mailed copy. DoD, VA and White House staff have had private access to the GAO report for several weeks and have appended strongly negative criticisms of GAO conclusions on the end of the report. The DoD has attempted to downplay the report in two press conferences of the past week, and the White House reportedly held a similar press conference to counteract the report this afternoon. C-SPAN is presently deciding whether to televise Tuesday's hearing live from the House of Representatives. If you want the story to be covered, you must quickly scan the report on the Internet, call your local TV and radio stations, and ask that they televise the GAO testimony in the House Committee hearing live tomorrow in your area and cover it on local and national network news programs and in the print media. We should see what is in this report that the DoD, VA and White House are reacting so strongly to. Also, let your elected representatives in Congress know what you think of the report. GAO report on the Internet: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/newtitle.htm C-SPAN Television Network scheduling hotline: 202-628-2205 For further information contact Russ Verney at 972/450-8800 -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: UN LEGISLATIVE ALERT!! (fwd) Date: 24 Jun 1997 08:54:15 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Fellow OPS Members, Looks like we have winner in this one. Richard R. Biondi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ACTION ITEM: Clinton and UN Furious Over These UN Certification Requirements in Sen. Helms Bill S 903 Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1997 ACTION: These are some of the 40 certification requirements in Senate Bill 903 which passed the Senate and is now in Conference with the House. The Clinton Administration and United Nations supporters are putting great pressure on Congressmen to modify th "upsetting" requirements for UN Reform. Call your Representative in Congress and tell them you want ALL of them left in. SEC. 2211. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. (a) CONTENTS OF CERTIFICATION- A certification described in this section is a certification by the Secretary of State that the following conditions are satisfied: (1) CONTESTED ARREARAGES- The United Nations has established an account or other appropriate mechanism with respect to all United States arrearages incurred before the date of enactment of this Act with respect to which payments are not authorized by this ct, and the failure to pay amounts specified in the account do not affect the application of Article 19 of the Charter of the United Nations. The account established under this paragraph may be referred to as the `contested arrearages account'. (2) SUPREMACY OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION- No action has been taken on or after October 1, 1996, by the United Nations or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies that requires the United States to violate the United States Constitution or any law of the United States. (3) NO UNITED NATIONS SOVEREIGNTY- Neither the United Nations nor any of its specialized or affiliated agencies-- (A) has exercised sovereignty over the United States; or (B) has taken any steps that require the United States to cede sovereignty. (4) NO UNITED NATIONS TAXATION- (A) NO LEGAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in subparagraph (D), neither the United Nations nor any of its specialized or affiliated agencies has the authority under United States law to impose taxes or fees on United States nationals. (B) NO TAXES OR FEES- Except as provided in subparagraph (D), a tax or fee has not been imposed on any United States national by the United Nations or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies. (C) NO TAXATION PROPOSALS- Except as provided in subparagraph (D), neither the United Nations nor any of its specialized or affiliated agencies has officially approved any formal effort to develop, advocate, or promote any proposal concerning the imposition of a tax or fee on any United States national in order to raise revenue for the United Nations or any such agency. (D) EXCEPTION- This paragraph does not apply to-- (i) fees for publications or other kinds of fees that are not tantamount to a tax on United States citizens; or (ii) the World Intellectual Property Organization. (5) NO STANDING ARMY- The United Nations has not budgeted any funds for, nor taken any official steps to develop, create, or establish any special agreement under Article 43 of the United Nations Charter to make available to the United Nations, on its cal the armed forces of any member of the United Nations. (6) NO INTEREST FEES- The United Nations has not levied interest penalties against the United States or any interest on arrearages on the annual assessment of the United States, and from the date of enactment of this Act, neither the United Nations nor its specialized agencies have amended their financial regulations or taken any other action that would permit interest penalties to be levied against or otherwise charge the United States any interest on arrearages on its annual assessment. (7) UNITED STATES PROPERTY RIGHTS- Neither the United Nations nor any of its specialized or affiliated agencies has exercised authority or control over any United States national park, wildlife preserve, monument, or property, nor has the United Nations nor any of its specialized or affiliated agencies implemented plans, regulations, programs, or agreements that exercise control or authority over the private property of United States citizens. (8) TERMINATION OF BORROWING AUTHORITY- (A) LIMITATION ON EXTERNAL BORROWING- On or after the date of enactment of this Act, neither the United Nations nor any specialized agency of the United Nations has engaged in external borrowing that would result in total net income being in excess of the approved budgetary appropriation for that fiscal year. (B) PROHIBITION ON AUTHORIZATION OF EXTERNAL BORROWING- On or after the date of enactment of this Act, neither the United Nations nor any specialized agency of the United Nations has amended its financial regulations to permit external borrowing. (C) PROHIBITION OF UNITED STATES PAYMENT OF INTEREST COSTS- The United States has not paid its share of any interest costs made known to or identified by the United States Government for loans incurred by the United Nations or any specialized agency of the United Nations through external borrowing. (b) TRANSMITTAL- The Secretary of State may transmit a certification under subsection (a) at any time during fiscal year 1998 or thereafter if the requirements of the certification are satisfied. Subchapter C--Reform of Assessments and United Nations Peace Operations SEC. 2221. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL- A certification described in this section is a certification by the Secretary of State that the conditions in subsection (b) are satisfied. Such certification shall not be made by the Secretary if the Secretary determines that any of the conditions set forth in section 2211 are no longer valid. (b) CONDITIONS- The conditions under this subsection are the following: (1) LIMITATION ON ASSESSED SHARE OF REGULAR BUDGET- The share of the total of all assessed contributions for the regular budget of the United Nations, or any designated specialized agency of the United Nations, does not exceed 22 percent for any single Un ed Nations member. (2) LIMITATION ON ASSESSED SHARE OF BUDGET FOR PEACE OPERATIONS- The assessed share of the budget for each assessed United Nations peace operation does not exceed 25 percent for any single United Nations member. (3) TRANSFER OF REGULAR BUDGET-FUNDED PEACE OPERATIONS- The mandates of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) and the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) are subject to annual review by members of the ecurity Council, and are subject to the notification requirements pursuant to section 2103(c). Subchapter D--Budget and Personnel Reform SEC. 2231. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL- A certification described in this section is a certification by the Secretary of State that the following conditions in subsection (b) are satisfied. Such certification shall not be made by the Secretary if the Secretary determines that an of the conditions set forth in sections 2211 and 2221 are no longer valid. (b) CONDITIONS- The conditions under this subsection are the following: (1) LIMITATION ON ASSESSED SHARE OF REGULAR BUDGET- The share of the total of all assessed contributions for the regular budget of the United Nations, or any specialized agency of the United Nations, does not exceed 20 percent for any single United Nations member. (2) INSPECTORS GENERAL FOR CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS- (A) ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICES- Each designated specialized agency has established an independent office of inspector general to conduct and supervise objective audits, inspections, and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the organization. (B) APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTORS GENERAL- The Director General of each designated specialized agency has appointed an inspector general, with the approval of the member states, and that appointment was made principally on the basis of the appointee's integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations. (C) ASSIGNED FUNCTIONS- Each inspector general appointed under subparagraph (A) is authorized to-- (i) make investigations and reports relating to the administration of the programs and operations of the agency concerned; (ii) have access to all records, documents, and other available materials relating to those programs and operations of the agency concerned; and (iii) have direct and prompt access to any official of the agency concerned. (D) COMPLAINTS- Each designated specialized agency has procedures in place designed to protect the identity of, and to prevent reprisals against, any staff member making a complaint or disclosing information to, or cooperating in any investigation or inspection by, the inspector general of the agency. (E) COMPLIANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS- Each designated specialized agency has in place procedures designed to ensure compliance with the recommendations of the inspector general of the agency. (F) AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS- Each designated specialized agency has in place procedures to ensure that all annual and other relevant reports submitted by the inspector general to the agency are made available to the member states without modification. (3) NEW BUDGET PROCEDURES FOR THE UNITED NATIONS- The United Nations has established and is implementing budget procedures that-- (A) require the maintenance of a budget not in excess of the level agreed to by the General Assembly at the beginning of each United Nations budgetary biennium, unless increases are agreed to by consensus; and (B) require the systemwide identification of expenditures by functional categories such as personnel, travel, and equipment. (4) SUNSET POLICY FOR CERTAIN UNITED NATIONS PROGRAMS- (A) EXISTING AUTHORITY- The Secretary General and the Director General of each designated specialized agency have used their existing authorities to require program managers within the United Nations Secretariat and the Secretariats of the designated spec lized agencies to conduct evaluations of United Nations programs approved by the General Assembly and of programs of the designated specialized agencies in accordance with the standardized methodology referred to in subparagraph (B). (B) DEVELOPMENT OF EVALUATION CRITERIA- (i) UNITED NATIONS- The Office of Internal Oversight Services has developed a standardized methodology for the evaluation of United Nations programs approved by the General Assembly, including specific criteria for determining the continuing relevance and effectiveness of the programs. (ii) DESIGNATED SPECIALIZED AGENCIES- Patterned on the work of the Office of Internal Oversight Services of the United Nations, the inspector general office equivalent of each designated specialized agency has developed a standardized methodology for the aluation of programs of designated specialized agencies, including specific criteria for determining the continuing relevance and effectiveness of the programs. (C) PROCEDURES- The United Nations and each designated specialized agency has established and is implementing procedures-- (i) requiring the Secretary General and the Director General of the agency, as the case may be, to report on the results of evaluations referred to in this paragraph, including the identification of programs that have met criteria for continuing relevance and effectiveness and proposals to terminate or modify programs that have not met such criteria; and (ii) authorizing an appropriate body within the United Nations or the agency, as the case may be, to review each evaluation referred to in this paragraph and report to the General Assembly on means of improving the program concerned or on terminating the ogram. (D) UNITED STATES POLICY- It shall be the policy of the United States to seek adoption by the United Nations of a resolution requiring that each United Nations program approved by the General Assembly, and to seek adoption by each designated specialized agency of a resolution requiring that each program of the agency, be subject to an evaluation referred to in this paragraph and have a specific termination date so that the program will not be renewed unless the evaluation demonstrates the continuing relevance and effectiveness of the program. (E) DEFINITION- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `United Nations program approved by the General Assembly' means a program approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations that is administered or funded by the United Nations. (5) UNITED NATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUDGETARY QUESTIONS- (A) IN GENERAL- The United States has a seat on the United Nations Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions or the five largest member contributors each have a seat on the Advisory Committee. (B) DEFINITION- As used in this paragraph the term `5 largest member state contributors' means the 5 United Nations member states that, during a United Nations budgetary biennium, have more total assessed contributions than any other United Nations member tates to the aggregate of the United Nations regular budget and the budget (or budgets) for United Nations peace operations. (6) NATIONAL AUDITS- The United Nations has in effect procedures providing access by the United States General Accounting Office to United Nations financial data so that the Office may perform nationally mandated reviews of United Nations operations. (7) PERSONNEL- (A) APPOINTMENT AND SERVICE OF PERSONNEL- The Secretary General-- (i) has established and is implementing procedures that ensure that staff employed by the United Nations is appointed on the basis of merit consistent with Article 101 of the United Nations charter; and (ii) is enforcing those contractual obligations requiring worldwide availability of all professional staff of the United Nations to serve and be relocated based on the needs of the United Nations. (B) CODE OF CONDUCT- The General Assembly has adopted, and the Secretary General has the authority to enforce and is effectively enforcing, a code of conduct binding on all United Nations personnel, including the requirement of financial disclosure statements binding on senior United Nations personnel and the establishment of rules against nepotism that are binding on all United Nations officials. (C) PERSONNEL EVALUATION SYSTEM- The United Nations has adopted and is enforcing a personnel evaluation system. (D) PERIODIC ASSESSMENTS- The United Nations has established and is implementing a mechanism to conduct periodic assessments of the United Nations payroll to determine total staffing, and the results of such assessments are reported in an unabridged form to the General Assembly. (E) REVIEW OF UNITED NATIONS ALLOWANCE SYSTEM- The United States has completed a thorough review of the United Nations personnel allowance system. The review shall include a comparison to the United States civil service, and shall make recommendations to reduce entitlements to allowances and allowance funding levels from the levels in effect on January 1, 1998. (8) REDUCTION IN BUDGET AUTHORITIES AND PERSONNEL LEVELS- The designated specialized agencies have achieved a negative growth budget in the budget for 2000-01 from the 1998-99 biennium levels of the respective agencies. (9) NEW BUDGET PROCEDURES AND FINANCIAL REGULATIONS- Each designated specialized agency has established procedures to-- (A) require the maintenance of a budget that does not exceed the level agreed to by the member states of the organization at the beginning of each budgetary biennium, unless increases are agreed to by consensus; (B) require the identification of expenditures by functional categories such as personnel, travel, and equipment; and (C) require approval by the member states of the organization of supplemental budget requests to the Secretariat in advance of expenditures under those requests. CHAPTER 2--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS SEC. 2241. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ON RELATION TO EXISTING LAWS. Except as otherwise specifically provided, nothing in this chapter may be construed to make available funds in violation of any provision of law containing a specific prohibition or restriction on the use of the funds, including section 114 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (22 U.S.C. 287e note) and section 151 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 (22 U.S.C. 287e note), and section 404 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (22 U.S.C. 287e note). SEC. 2242. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENTS RELATING TO UNIDO AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS FROM WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS WITHDRAWN OR RESCINDED FUNDING. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this chapter shall be used to pay any arrearage for-- (1) the United Nations Industrial Development Organization; (2) any costs to merge that organization into the United Nations; (3) the costs associated with any other organization of the United Nations from which the United States has withdrawn including the costs of the merger of such organization into the United Nations; or (4) the World Tourism Organization, or any other organization with respect to which Congress has rescinded funding. WEBMASTER +=====================+ "The Citizens Reform Forum" http://www.phonet.com/~bsimon +===============================+ "The Un-Official Home Page of NE State Govt." http://www.phonet.com/~bsimon/neb-govt.html +======================================+ "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Re: LEOs Not Obligated to Protect Date: 24 Jun 1997 12:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Thanks, Bob. Every reference helps. At 07:55 AM 6/24/97 -0600, you wrote: >I checked the JPFO site--nothing on the above subject. I also checked GOA, >which has its 1997 Firearms Facts sheet posted. Among other useful infor- >mation, this URL has a legal citation re: LEOs not obligated or required >to protect (with full references): > http://www.gunowners.org/fs9712.htm > >HTH, >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 | >|_______________________________________________________________| > > > S. "Life is always hopelessly complex to those who have no principles." -- Joseph Sobran "The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated." -- Thomas Sowell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: I-75, Russia or Amerika??? (fwd) Date: 24 Jun 1997 18:58:10 PST On Jun 24, DAVE RYDEL wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >From: SBurton3@aol.com >Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:41:26 -0400 (EDT) >To: TangoBird@aol.com, BOBURWELL@aol.com, HenryM4306@aol.com, > tagnine@beaches.net, burro@panama.gulf.net, charles@dabney.com, > JanJean@aol.com, Emmilene@aol.com, DotHB@aol.com, eagleflt@thumb.net, > No1Poppie@aol.com, DesertVet2@aol.com, A2Fast4U@aol.com, > freedom7@redrock.net, psico1@bgn.mindspring.com, fiedor19@eos.net, > eleazer@pdn.net, pinknoiz@ccnet.com, Jcstewart4@aol.com, Ss427@aol.com, > Birddog02@aol.com, nolso@sunny.ncmc.cc.mi.us, jimhan19@idt.net, > rwphoto@netquest.com, iron30mg@hotmail.com, CHOOKIE1@aol.com, > jmorgan@1stresource.com, roscoef@esper.com, HPBIII@aol.com >Subject: I-75, Russia or Amerika??? > > Fellow Americans, > > It was supposed to be a get away weekend, after fighting a federal agency >all >week and researching violations of my civil rights and inalienable rights and >filling >legal documents with this agency, to stop their actions (no small feat for a >novice). > My wife and I decided to go to Ohio for a visit,from our home in east Tn. >It was late evening 8:15PM 6/20/97 when we came upon signs which stated: slow >down Drug Check Zone ahead. I can remember thinking to myself how can they >keep >doing things like this without people realizing they are living in a police >state? > As we came upon mile marker 146 northbound about 5 miles north of La >Follette >Tn. I was astounded to see a military apc sitting in the median, with two men >in >camos holding what appeared to be some strange large lensed objects like a >special >kind of binocular. They were aiming it toward a tower about a quarter mile >away to >the northwest and to the northeast my wife spotted a Cobra helicopter which >was >circling the interstate. We then noticed three teams of patrol cars two cars >to a team >on each side of the interstate for a total of 6 teams,they had some, already >stopped and were working on stopping others, one car would pull to the front >of the vehicle stopped and one to the rear and then they would have occupants >outside and be >searching vehicles. I noticed one vehicle stopped was a van with a family and >I wondered what was the criteria for a stop and search and what was the tie >in with >the military?? What was this tower?? What branch of service?? Heck, for that >matter, >what country since the apc, nor chopper appeared to have any markings of >country >or service apparent?? I do not do illegal drugs so, I was not worried about >that aspect >should we be stopped,but I was concerned, regarding Constitutional >issues,Posse >Commitatus issues as well as wondering if a family is stopped and one of them >has >prescription meds in vehicle without proper documentation, will these tyrants >arrest >family and confiscate vehicle?? My wife and I were discussing between >ourselves >what color the Cobra was, since our most recent encounter over our home of a >black >unmarked one, on 6/6/97,(filmed & documented), but you see we could not tell >for sure due to the late hour,what exact color (gray,geen or black) because >even the mountais near sunset ironically looked like purple mountains >majesty, just like in that song we all used to sing, you remember don't you?? >America the Beautiful,but the scene we just witnessed was not so >beautiful,this was not the America I grew up in and have known and loved for >my 48 yrs.!!!! This was something I would imagine in a communist country or a >dictatorship!! I have to admit it was gut wrenching to see it >here! > I wish I could end this real life episode here,but as we made our return >trip thru >Cincinatti in daylight on 6/22/, we began to notice every two or three >miles, cameras >mounted on poles like we heard we are getting here in Knoxville soon. Some of > >these would film the rear of vehicle and some the front. Some were in globe >looking objects similar to the ones in Wall mart or K mart. > This makes me wonder, HOW can any American citizen drive by this kind of >BIG >BROTHER events and not at least wonder whats going on in this our beloved >Country??? No maybe they can't see the global positioning satellites >overhead, >keeping up with so much that effects our lives these days, but these events >are >right in front of their noses, will they continue to ignore these events, >until the fighting >begins, to bring back the America we once knew?? Fight you ask? Yes if these >events over the last weekend have convinced me of anything for sure,it is >that SOON >a showdown is comming,soon the traitors and tyrants must be faced,exposed and >dealt with, according to OUR Constitution, we soon will restore with GOD's >permissive will. For you see, many of us who have spent the last several >years, writing to these very tyrants, who pledged their supposed sacred oath >to this Nation, now realize WE have no voice, WE have no Representation,for >that matter we have no FREE REPUBLIC,we have no more AMERICA the BEAUTIFUL, >only the communist dictatorial, big brother, we have evolved into from >TYRRANY !! His eye is not just on me, it's on you too and your >families,friends, co-workers and fellow citizens!! Now the question is: what >will you do to expose and fight tyranny? Are you prepared? Ready or not here >it comes !! > AS ALWAYS feel free to repost!!!! Anyone having more info on this,please >share. > > Joe 6pk & Shannon Burton (sburton3@aol.com) > Plunging a New Whirrled Odor and sticking it up the REAR of Tyrants !! > > Querry-- Where were all the green tree huggers, when all these towers were >being >erected in these beautiful mountains??? [------------------------- 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: Re: Fwd: Bill Gates launches drive to register firearms (fwd) Date: 24 Jun 1997 18:57:32 PST On Jun 24, CHASPEN@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Dear Jon, (Please Repost as Necessary) A message you posted to regarding Washington Initiative 676 was apparently reposted to the Restore Our Constitution list here is Seattle, and forwarded to me. May I just take a moment to clarify a few things...? The Firearms Community needs to be unanimously accurate in our objections to this initiative. I-676 does NOT register handguns, but worse, it registers all handgun OWNERS through the Department of Licensing (DOL) by requiring them to take an 8-hour safety course (as yet to be defined by the Initiative or DOL) in order to acquire a Handgun Safety License. This is just one onerous provisions of this Initiative which has 26 Sections. Please check-out our Website to get more facts. It has a Summary of the Initiative, and a list of the contributors, as well as Donation/Volunteer forms. http://www.halcyon.com/wac/support/ I was delighted to see such a post on and hope to see others like it reposted around the country. We will need to raise $1,000,000+ to fight this thing successfully. If we lose, it will clone itself all over country. Please feel free to contact me, or JOE WALDRON the Chairman of WE CARE with any questions. WE CARE is the PAC formed to fight the Initiative. We will need the help of every gun owner in the country to beat Bill Gates at his own game. Sincerely, Charles Long, Political Action Director, Council For Legislative Action, Washington, and the NRA Member Council of King County Chairman, Washingtonians for Accountability in Government, A Political Action Committee Member of Washington Arms Collectors Communications, and Legislative Committees "Working to defend and preserve the Bill Of Rights for the next generation." [------------------------- 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: Lew Glendenning Subject: Disenchanted with NRA Date: 25 Jun 1997 01:46:27 -0700 I am a Life Member, and think I wasted my $. I don't EVER give a dime to ILA, because my $ ends up on both sides of too many races. Pushing the CCW laws is the same as registering guns. These guys refuse to take a principled position, always play politics. Don't care any more about the Constitution than the Dems and Repubs do, not even the 2nd Amendment. Either "shall not be Infringed" means what it says, or the NRA is merely another lobbying group. If the 2nd Amendment means what it says, they need to push a strict Constructionist position for the entire Constitution and act like a Civil Rights and Constitutional Liberties group. But, they would rather be Republicans, a wholly-owned subsidiary of that benighted party. Law-and-order rather than Constitution and Freedom. What a dismal failure and lost opportunity the NRA represents. Lew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Liberals rule newsrooms. Date: 25 Jun 1997 07:58:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ***Media Research Center CyberAlert*** Wednesday, June 25, 1997 (Vol. Two; No. 94) #### Distributed to over 2,500 recipients by the Media Research Center, bringing political balance to the media. Visit the MRC on the Web: http://www.mediaresearch.org. Past CyberAlerts can be read at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/mrc/cyberalert/ Subscribe/unsubscribe information at end of this message. #### Liberals Rule Newsrooms Newspaper staffs have become even less conservative over the past eight years, a poll for the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) found. Last fall, ASNE polled 1,037 journalists at 61 papers of all sizes. Released in April, The Newspaper Journalists of the 90s report discovered: -- "In 1996 only 15 percent of the newsroom labeled itself conservative/Republican or leaning in that direction, down from 22 percent in 1988" when the ASNE last conducted a comprehensive survey. Those identifying themselves as independent jumped from 17 to 24 percent while the percent calling themselves "liberal/Democrat" or "lean" that way held steady, down one point to 61 percent. -- The bigger the paper, the more liberal the staff: "On papers of at least 50,000 circulation, 65 percent of the staffs are liberal/Democrat or lean that way. The split at papers of less than 50,000 is less pronounced: still predominantly liberal, but 51-23 percent." -- "Women are more likely than men to fall into one of the liberal/Democrat categories," as just 11 percent said they were conservative or leaned that way. Minorities "tend to be more liberal/Democrat," with a piddling 3 percent of blacks and 8 percent of Asians and Hispanics putting themselves on the right. The least liberal: 20 percent of those 50-plus in age were conservative or leaned that way. Ideological imbalance isn't a concern, however, to ASNE which believes skin color and sex has the most impact on reporting. The poll plugged in three groups as responders were asked "How would you describe your newspaper's commitment to...." The three: "ethnic and race diversity," "gender diversity," and "fairness on sexual orientation." So how did the media establishment react to this latest evidence that reporters overwhelming view the world through a liberal prism? The poll numbers led a media think tank leader to pen an article titled, "The Myth of the Liberal Slant." To learn more about that, read the entire article from MediaWatch. Go to: http://www.mediaresearch.org/mrc/1997/mw0597p8.html You can read all of the January through May MediaWatch articles at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/mrc/1997/ >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: mrc-cyber-request@list.us.net. Put "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the BODY of the message, NOT in the subject line. Problems and comments can be addressed to: cyber@mediaresearch.org <<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: There's a lot to be *sorry* for (fwd) Date: 25 Jun 1997 08:27:21 -0500 (CDT) I doubt that any of you have heard of this but it is true. This kind of history explains a lot of the anger still around today. ---------- FORWARDED MESSAGE ---------- X-POP3-Rcpt: ishgooda@mercury We were talking earlier about the "apology" that Clinton wants to give to the African Americans....this was sent to me by one of them...she said it pretty much sums up their feelings about the so-called "apology." << By Patricia Smith, Globe Staff, 06/20/97 In John Eliot Square at 7:20 a.m. yesterday, a small band of people gathered for a solemn, first-ever ceremony. A woman portraying Harriet Tubman and two period-garbed members of the Colored Ladies of the 54th Regiment,Massachusetts Glory Brigade, raised the American flag alongside a newly created Juneteenth flag, a banner adorned with sunbursts and flaming candles. ``It's our emancipation proclamation, our freedom day,'' said Ben Haith, head of Boston's National Juneteenth Celebration Foundation. ``We can't forget that time and space in American history that involved our ancestors. We can't sweep it under the rug just because it might be embarrassing or uncomfortable for some of our younger folks. We keep celebrating our freedom, keep trying to help make ourselves whole.'' On June 19, 1865, two years after the Emancipation Proclamation, Union forces stormed into Texas and 200,000 slaves finally got the word that they were free. The date is an official Texas holiday now celebrated in more than 30 states. Thanks to a steadily growing band of believers, Massachusetts is now one of them. ``We got to keep reminding ourselves that the shackles are off,'' said Roxbury reveler Joseph Hurley. ``That's what Juneteenth is all about. Staying strong when we're being told over and over again `Guess what? You ain't free yet.''' With that said, let's insist that President Clinton forget about publicly apologizing, as well-meaning Congressfolk put it, ``to African-Americans whose ancestors suffered as slaves under the Constitution and laws of the United States until 1865.'' I know how anxious Clinton is to get his mucho-heralded dialogue on race begun with a bang, but absolutely no one who lives in black skin should take such a trendy salvo seriously. Here's just one reason why. Ever since the horrific blast at Oklahoma City claimed 168 American lives, it's been called the worst act of terrorism on US soil. How conveniently we seem to have forgotten June 1, 1921, when angry white citizens of Tulsa, Okla., manned planes and dropped nitroglycerin on a 36-block thriving black business district in north Tulsa known as ``Black Wallstreet.'' A call for the lynching of a black man accused of assaulting a white elevator operator was just an excuse masking jealousy of the area's affluence and self-sufficiency. In just 12 hours in Tulsa, more Americans were killed by their fellow citizens than at any time since the Civil War. KKKers, who'd been in cahoots with some city officials, proudly distributed postcards of the carnage all over the country. Six hundred businesses were lost. Fifteen hundred homes, gone. Twenty-one churches. Twenty-one restaurants. Thirty stores. Two movie theaters. A hospital, a bank. The post office. Libraries. Schools. Law offices. Six private airplanes. An entire bus system. The Tulsa Tribune estimated deaths at 250. However, Ron Wallace, a Tulsa native and author of the book ``Black Wallstreet: A Lost Dream,'' spent three years poring through family records and interviewing survivors, Klu Klux Klan members, and historians. He says more than 3,000 African-Americans died. Bodies were buried in mass graves, stuffed in the shaft of a coal mine, tossed into the river. ``Just recently, an Oklahoma television anchor talking about the Tulsa riot death toll, said the word `thousands,''' said Wallace. ``For 75 years, they've been saying `10 to 100.' You cannot tell me that 10,000 people fought in the streets for 12 hours and only 10 people died. ``We heard about what survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing went through. I talked to people 75 years after what happened in Tulsa, who were still afraid to tell their stories, afraid that the Klan would come back and get them. And the fear in their faces was real.'' You won't read about the Tulsa race riot in the history books. As tragic as it is, it's a story you have to search for. How deftly slavery has shaped the American soul. Because of its poison,still threaded through the blood and mindset of the servant and the served, whole chapters have been erased from our past. There are people who will feel a twist in their guts when they read about what happened in Tulsa, and people who will guffaw and turn the tale into a comic icebreaker tonight at a party. While we gather in tiny pockets to celebrate our freedom, many still celebrate our capture. Prez, don't waste your time worryin' `bout sorry. This knife has long ago reached and sliced through bone - and no string of syllables can begin to heal that kind of cut. You can drawl ``I'm sorry'' a million times in that earnest Arkansas drawl of yours. But there are just too many people - black and white - who are too deaf or too dead to hear you. >> In Struggle,T " A Nation is not conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground." Wow, my dad was at his high school reunion, Bowie class of 1935, and was talking to one of his classmates a few years ago. She was a retired writer from the Fort Worth Star Telegram. He ask what she was up to and she replied she had been doing research on the white attack on blacks in Oklahoma where they used bombs and mounted machine guns at street intersections to kill hundreds of them in the 1920s. She said the living relatives of the KKK members involved had threatened her and her families life so she would never be able to publish the book. I wonder if she is the ghost writer for this guy? Paul Watson, Dallas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: On the NRA...6 pages Date: 25 Jun 1997 07:54:03 PST It would seem that the Libertarian Party is still excercizing it's penchant for leaving me without that .0000000001% necessary for me to be in total agreement with them, but as you can see below, John still leaves us some food for thought on those less than satisfactory occaisions. Being all too human, I need a kick in the butt and a, "Say hey!", as often as anyone else. Some people on some of the lists I inhabit seem to think it's the NRA's turn, and John seems to have the plan..... Forwarded message follows: "TOUGH LOVE" By John Taylor Special to _The Libertarian Enterprise_ There comes a time when you just have to apply the Reagan Rule (that's Nancy, not Ronald), and "Just Say No". Sometimes, it's the only way to show someone you love them. Recent events within the power structure in the NRA (lately referred to by some as the "Necrotic Republican Apologists") are indicators that such a time has come for rank-and-file members of the organization. Regardless of which side a member might have backed in the recent internecine feud -- or perhaps other members found, as did I, little to cheer for on _either_ side -- it has become clear that the NRA is not, and for some time has not been, an organization responsive to, solicitous of, or even interested in the welfare of its members. This despite the simple fact that a core of contributing members make possible all the organization's expenditures, be they lavish, foolish, or simply ineffective. The ascendency of (former?) gun rights icon Charlton Heston to the position of First Vice President (after a brief courtesy stop on the Board of Directors) demonstrates that even the superficial attempts to pander to the membership (direct election of the 76th board member) have been subverted by the need of the organization's inner circle to maintain complete control of the association's affairs. This heightened perception of need for tight control may well have something to do with the appearance that the NRA's "leadership" is no longer as interested in supporting gun rights as they are in featherbedding. There is a school of thought that says, "We have to support the NRA. They're the biggest gun rights organization on the planet; they're our only hope; if we fight among ourselves, we'll destroy ourselves ..." etc., etc., etc. I submit to the membership that (a) support, as with a wayward child, requires neither coddling nor covering up for transgressions; (b) they're only a "hope" for us as long as they're working for us; (c) if we don't get back on track, we'll destroy ourselves through simple neglect of duty. The most successful and popular ad campaign in the organization's history was called, simply, "I'm the NRA". (I've always been convinced that the campaign was dropped because too many members began to actually dare to _believe_ it.) It's true -- I'm the NRA, as are you who contribute time, money, and other support. Without that constant infusion, the organization will become paralyzed. And that -- paradoxical as it may seem -- is exactly what I propose. I propose that every contributing member begin, right this minute, to cut off the flow of air to this over-fueled monstrosity. Not to kill it -- not at all -- but merely to bring it to its knees, gasping, forcing it to say, in tones feeble through lack of sustenance, "What do you want of me, that I may live on?" At which time, the battle will be over, and we will have won. But what do we want? What is the solution to our dilemma? How do we rein in this beast, bring it to a halt, and set it back on the right path, restored and re-invigorated? First, I submit that it is emphatically _not_ by purging the organization of its so-called "extremists". The "extremists" in the NRA are that very core that is most activist, most caught up in the life-or-death struggle that rages on around the insulated, uninvolved, country-club-minded set that constitutes the bulk of our membership. It is these "extremists" who give of their time and money beyond any reasonable expectation. It is these "extremists" who are there _all_ the time, not just when their particular ox is in danger of being gored (or perhaps "clintoned"). It is these "extremists" who read about, write about, and even exclusively "live and breathe" the constant struggle between the controlling state and the free individual. If we purge ourselves of these "extremists", we've cut out our own heart and brain, and the body will soon cease to exist. Second, we, the membership, must demand that the NRA's leaders defend our rights unequivocally, aggressively, and resolutely. The war can be successfully fought only by those with a total commitment to winning. There is no compromise when it comes to principle. That assertion bears repeating. There is _no_ compromise when it comes to principle. Third, we must begin, today, an active campaign to regain the ground we have lost. It is insufficient to merely oppose further limitations. We must begin to actively campaign for repeal of _all_ anti-gun laws, starting with those at the federal level, all of which are demonstrably unconstitutional. We must unrelentingly seek, educate, and support, legislators, NRA officers, board members, and associates who are dedicated to repeal of NFA '34, GCA '68, import bans, "appearance" bans, registration laws, permit laws, licensing laws, record-keeping laws, as well as all "executive orders", "rules and procedures", "interpretations", and other unauthorized edicts. We must reject all local and state anti-gun laws as inconsistent with the supreme law of the land. We must reject any and all anti-gun court interpretations as unconstitutional. All such restrictions must be rejected unequivocally, repeatedly, and summarily. We must no longer tolerate infringement in _any_ form. If we want to restore our rights to their intended status, we cannot do so by accepting a "small infringement" instead of a big one. Our purpose must be clear and unequivocal. If an initiative is introduced that intends to support us, but falls short of meeting a simple test of constitutionality, then we must be strong enough to not support it in any substantive way. We can affirm the intent without conceding our rights or compromising our position. If our goal is to re-direct our efforts to meet these goals, we must have a plan. I submit that the agenda is simple. There are three things we must do, beginning immediately. 1. Stop contributing to the NRA -- time, money, or any other resources. As harsh as it seems, this is the only way we have a chance to get their attention. This will be difficult, and will require greater sacrifice than it might appear at first. All direct _and_ indirect contributions (e.g. "round-up", FONRA dinners, _anything_ that puts money or effort into the coffers) must cease immediately, and must not be resumed, no matter how desperate the pleas, until we have regained control of our NRA. 2. Every "fund-raiser" must be returned with a long, detailed letter setting forth what we want, in detail. Every board member must be sent letters describing the same. Every officer must be flooded with requests -- no, demands -- for accountability. Each member must take it upon himself or herself to spread the word, preach the gospel, and recruit as many other members as possible to _actively_ join the cause. It will not be sufficient to merely offer support. 3. Our list of demands must be short, precise, and unequivocal; said demands must be pressed relentlessly until they are met. Nothing less than total agreement must be accepted. OK, that's the easy part. If you're still with me -- that is, still in agreement in principle -- here comes the rough part. We've established that we as the NRA have to be assertive, active, dedicated, and focused to succeed. But what specifically are we to promote as our organizational agenda? What are to be our demands? If we're against compromise, what are we _for_? I offer three simple principles that we must apply _uncompromisingly_ -- three benchmarks by which we measure every effort. 1. No bill, no matter how sympathetic to our cause, may be actively supported by members' dues, staff time or efforts, or other association resources if it compromises, in any way shape or form, the principles behind the Second Amendment. This means that we must actively oppose as flagrantly unconstitutional (and inimical to liberty) any and all taxation, licensing, regulation, registration, or other restriction of the right to keep and bear _any_ arms suitable to the individual. This includes any and all so-called "right-to-carry" legislation other than a simple affirmation of the right as described above. Yes, including bills such as those federalizing the regulation of concealed carry, and state initiatives that relax restrictive carry laws if they themselves constitute an infringement of the basic right. 2. No legislator may be actively supported by members' dues, staff time or efforts, or other association resources if he or she is not an active gun rights advocate. No exceptions, regardless of how much he or she promises -- the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Conversely, _true_, _proven_ allies _should_ be supported, regardless of political affiliation, or some qualitative assessment of "viability". Finally, _no_ candidate should receive support or a positive "rating" from the NRA if they have ever actively supported "gun control" in any form, regardless of their reason for doing so. 3. No NRA initiative that is not _directly_ related to gun rights may be actively supported by members' dues, staff time or efforts, or other association resources. This includes all book tours, anti-crime programs, and any other efforts that are tangential (at best) to gun rights issues. The funds of the membership may be used _only_ to support true pro-gun legislation or the repeal of anti-gun legislation. We must recognize that there is no future in continuing to attempt to resist the assaults of the anti-liberty forces, as long as we are fighting on their turf. We are wasting our effort reacting to attacks that are launched under conditions that are totally favorable to our assailants. There is no value in trying to fight our battles in the media. If we're smart, we'll fight at the grass roots level, and let the media find us if they can. Our fight must be inclusive of others who find themselves targeted by the government and/or the mass media. We need not embrace all of their principles, but we do need to recognize, acknowledge, and publicize the misdeeds of our common enemies. We can gain (and give) much sympathy merely by pointing out that we are individuals, just like other individuals, who have been targeted for marginalization and demonization by those who would control us. We must use the tools available to us -- grass roots networks, clubs, associations, and other informal gatherings -- to create our own network of individuals who are irrevocably dedicated to protecting our rights. One of the most potent weapons we have is the internet. The measure of the degree of fear that the government and media have of the internet can be found in their efforts to control it and marginalize it, respectively. In summation, we have two tasks at hand. First, we must regain control of the NRA, and use it, as controlling members, to support our rights. Second, we must reshape the nature of our gun rights efforts. We must seize the high ground and hold it against all assaults. Let the enemy come to us ... and when he does, let him find us prepared. ------------------------ John Taylor is the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus Maryland Coordinator -- 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: I-75, Russia or Amerika??? (fwd) Date: 26 Jun 1997 01:06:08 -0400 (EDT) I was the guest of honor at one of these affairs a couple of years ago. I encountered a "Narcotics Checkpoint 1 Mile Ahead" sign just before exit 340 on I-40E. I try to peacefully resist the impingements of the police state on my life, so I exited at #340. The real checkpont was set up just out of sight at the exit and my exiting was construed as providing "reasonable suspicion" that I was a criminal. There were about 20 cops there of all flavors, local, state, and "out of state agency." They asked me to voluntarily consent to search and I declined, so they brought in the "drug dogs." First one did nothing, the second they claimed detected marijuana in my car. Either the dogs really can't accurately detect the presence/absence of drugs or the cops just lie to justify a search when they feel like it. I've owned the car since it was new and have never transported marijuana in it. Anyway, they spread me out on the hood and patted me down. They took a great interest in the little round red pill-like objects in my pants pocket, until they realized they were cinnamon candies. Then they spent about an hour going through my car. Among the many evidences of subversion they found and questioned me about were pieces of radio gear (I'm a ham) and an ammunition holder (I must be a domestic terrorist). After an hour, they let me go, minus a big chunk of my faith in the system. bd On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Bill Vance wrote: > On Jun 24, DAVE RYDEL wrote: > > [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > >From: SBurton3@aol.com > >Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:41:26 -0400 (EDT) > >Subject: I-75, Russia or Amerika??? [...] > > > > Fellow Americans, > > > > It was supposed to be a get away weekend, after fighting a federal agency > >all > >week and researching violations of my civil rights and inalienable rights and > >filling > >legal documents with this agency, to stop their actions (no small feat for a > >novice). > > My wife and I decided to go to Ohio for a visit,from our home in east Tn. > >It was late evening 8:15PM 6/20/97 when we came upon signs which stated: slow > >down Drug Check Zone ahead. I can remember thinking to myself how can they > >keep > >doing things like this without people realizing they are living in a police > >state? > > As we came upon mile marker 146 northbound about 5 miles north of La > >Follette > >Tn. I was astounded to see a military apc sitting in the median, with two men > >in > >camos holding what appeared to be some strange large lensed objects like a > >special > >kind of binocular. They were aiming it toward a tower about a quarter mile > >away to > >the northwest and to the northeast my wife spotted a Cobra helicopter which > >was > >circling the interstate. We then noticed three teams of patrol cars two cars > >to a team > >on each side of the interstate for a total of 6 teams,they had some, already > >stopped and were working on stopping others, one car would pull to the front > >of the vehicle stopped and one to the rear and then they would have occupants > >outside and be > >searching vehicles. I noticed one vehicle stopped was a van with a family and > >I wondered what was the criteria for a stop and search and what was the tie > >in with > >the military?? What was this tower?? What branch of service?? Heck, for that > >matter, > >what country since the apc, nor chopper appeared to have any markings of > >country > >or service apparent?? I do not do illegal drugs so, I was not worried about > >that aspect > >should we be stopped,but I was concerned, regarding Constitutional > >issues, [...] > > AS ALWAYS feel free to repost!!!! Anyone having more info on this,please > >share. > > > > Joe 6pk & Shannon Burton (sburton3@aol.com) > > Plunging a New Whirrled Odor and sticking it up the REAR of Tyrants !! > > > > Querry-- Where were all the green tree huggers, when all these towers were > >being > >erected in these beautiful mountains??? > > [------------------------- 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: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Is it Treason yet? (fwd) Date: 26 Jun 1997 08:08:26 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Investor's Business Daily E D I T O R I A L To China With Love? The president's ''good friend'' and top fund-raiser a Red Chinese agent? Tom Clancy couldn't have written a more sinister plot. But the real-life plot of Clinton's fund-raising scandal is thickening - with U.S. security at stake. When the mysterious Jian-Nan ''John'' Huang turned up as a central figure in the campaign scandal last November, he kept a very low profile. He even went into hiding for a week, dodging U.S. marshals. It turns out he was just as secretive at his Commerce Department job. At one point, his boss wanted to upgrade Huang's security clearance. All Huang had to do was fill out some paperwork. He declined - twice. If Huang had applied, Commerce and CIA security officials would have interviewed foreign nationals with whom Huang had business ties. Even though he handled top-secret documents, China-born Huang avoided any check of his foreign background during his '94-'95 tenure at Commerce. Five months before he was to report to work there, he asked for an ''interim'' security clearance. Commerce gave it to him after conducting a cursory one-day background check. A normal vetting takes about a month. After Huang started working in July 1994, he got a permanent security pass. Yet the security probe that was required for government workers with foreign backgrounds was waived. Huang can't seem to get his date of birth straight. On Commerce Department employment forms and visa application forms, he lists it variously as 1941 and 1945. And on the part of his background questionnaire that asks if he has any China connections, Huang wrote ''N/A,'' or not applicable. Yet Huang's former employer, the Indonesia-based Lippo Group, has ties to Beijing. In fact, Lippo jointly owns the Hongkong Chinese Bank with the Chinese government. Huang was its vice president in 1986. After leaving the Chinese air force in 1968, Huang went to work for China's state-owned oil company. Then he moved to the U.S., where he worked for several banks. He took Chinese delegations on tours of U.S. businesses and executives on trips to China. He also dealt with the Bank of China. Huang made quite an impression on Chinese embassy officials while at Commerce. They called him and met with him several times. And they invited him to attend embassy breakfasts and dinners. Commerce records show he took a $5 cab ride from the ambassador's home in October 1995. So what? Well, electronic intercepts confirm that Huang talked to Lippo officials within minutes of getting classified briefings at Commerce. At a minimum, he ''committed economic espionage,'' said House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y. During his 17 months at Commerce, Huang was privy to classified U.S. intelligence. He sat in on 109 CIA briefings on China and Taiwan, among other countries. Yet China policy was not part of his job description. Meanwhile, Huang kept in close contact with his former employer. Phone logs show he called Lippo Bank in Los Angeles no less than 70 times. Is Huang an agent for the People's Republic of China? If he's not, he sure acts like one. And he has spooky friends, such as the Los Angeles-based Asian businessman Ted Sioeng. He's an FBI spy suspect. At first, the White House tried to spin Huang as a ''low-level'' bureaucrat. Commerce officials went along. At first they said he attended just a handful of sensitive trade policy meetings. Then they said it was 37 classified briefings. Now it's 109. Now that Huang's China ties have surfaced, Clinton and his aides have distanced themselves from Huang. The new spin is that if Huang had anything going on, it was a rogue operation. Clinton and Huang go way back. Huang took him on a trip to East Asia in 1985. Clinton appointed him to his post at Commerce in December 1993. And Clinton tapped him as his Asian fund-raiser in 1995. From July 1995 on, Huang visited the White House 78 times, 12 as a Commerce official. Clinton has known Huang's Lippo boss, China-born James Riady, since Riady started operating out of Little Rock in 1977. Riady has contributed heavily to Clinton's campaigns. And Hillary Clinton's law firm represented Lippo. Riady, too, has been a frequent White House visitor. Wang Jun, a Chinese arms dealer, met with Clinton in February 1996. (It turns out the late Commerce secretary, Ron Brown, also met with Jun.) Jun, the chairman of Poly Technologies, which is owned and run by the Chinese People's Liberation Army, was invited by Yah Ling ''Charlie'' Trie. Who's Trie? Another Clinton crony from Arkansas. The Bank of China wired Trie money in $50,000 and $100,000 sums at the same time he was giving to Clinton and other Democrats last year. Recall that Trie also delivered bags of cash totaling $640,000 to help the Clintons pay off their legal bills. If Huang and Trie are spies, it's a natural question to ask why our president is so close to them. (C) Copyright 1997 Investors Business Daily, Inc. Metadata: E/IBD E/S =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Alien Crash dummies at Roswell New Mexico per JFK Warren report Date: 26 Jun 1997 10:48:34 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "Does anyone seriously believe that James Carville and Janet Reno were born on earth?" Copyright "New York Times" Fair Use Doctrine Cited. LIBERTIES / By MAUREEN DOWD June 25, 1997 We're Not Alone WASHINGTON -- Talk about your wacky military optimism. Just in time for Independence Day and the big U.F.O. bash in Roswell, the Air Force has finally coughed up an explanation of what happened in the New Mexico desert that caused untold numbers of Americans to believe that the military covered up a 1947 spaceship crash. The Air Force put an alien on the cover of its Roswell Report and stamped it "Case Closed." Klaatu Barada Nikto. Or as we say in our galaxy, get a grip. The Roswell report will settle the debate over aliens about as well as the Warren report settled the debate over the single-bullet theory. There is a perfectly logical explanation, Col. John Haynes told tittering reporters at the Pentagon. The Air Force was taking 200-pound crash dummies up as high as 98,000 feet and dropping them from balloons and planes to see what would happen. Some of the dummies lost fingers and legs in Project High Dive, leaving them -- doo-doo-DOO-doo -- four-fingered and four feet tall. The Air Force also ventured that a serviceman had crashed in a test balloon near Roswell, suffering cranial swelling that might have made him look like an extraterrestrial. Oh, that sounds plausible, coming from the folks who brought you Agent Orange, optimistic body counts in Vietnam and denials of chemical weapons in the gulf. And why has the Air Force never mentioned the skies raining dummies, even in the 1994 report on Roswell? The new report, with sections that sound like "The X-Files" episodes ("The Alien at the Hospital," "The Missing Nurse") will simply be taken as another sign that the truth is out there. Here is how the Air Force tries to rebut witness descriptions of the "mysterious little men." A witness said, "Their heads were hairless . . . no eyebrows, no eyelashes, no hair." The Air Force said: "Anthropomorphic dummies did not have 'hair.' " A witness said, "No visible ears." The Air Force said, "Dummies had ears that were molded to their heads . . ." Colonel Haynes could not explain why dummies dropped in the 50's could account for what witnesses saw in 1947, except to say that witnesses might have been mixed up. And he refused to reveal anything about Area 51, a military facility in Groom Lake, Nev., except to say, "classified things go on there." This cover-up may be bigger than we thought. The briefing with Colonel Haynes indicates that aliens may now be working at the highest levels of government. Only aliens would be unsophisticated enough about American culture to think they could dispel suspicions of their presence here by issuing a government report. Indeed, aliens infiltrating Washington with the aim of destroying the fabric of democracy is a perfectly coherent explanation for a lot of hitherto inexplicable phenomena. If the military leadership hasn't been body-snatched, then why is the Pentagon conspiring against itself with weird sexual inquisitions? If you were the leader of a hostile galaxy, what better way to disarm the earthlings than to make the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs too pure a job to fill? Consider this description by a Roswell witness, Frank Kaufmann, 81, who said the aliens "were very good looking people, ash-colored faces and skin . . . about 5-feet-5 tall, eyes a little more pronounced, small ears, small nose, fine features and hairless." The spitting image of Dick Gephardt, obviously. And doesn't that alien with the big eyes and light-bulb head on the cover of Time bear an ominous resemblance to Bob Kerrey? (D-Pluto.) Does anyone seriously believe that James Carville and Janet Reno were born on earth? Don't Dick Armey, Bob Bennett, Brian Lamb and Erskine Bowles all have the look of people who were kidnapped and experimented on in a flying saucer? Why else would the President suggest that middle-class people could be lured back to live amid urban blight by offering them a $200 break on their closing costs for a new house? And why else would he talk about rewriting the rules of human evolution, and creating a truly multi-racial democracy? Maybe he doesn't mean just the human race. It's a strange day in America when the Steven Spielberg view of life and the Oliver Stone view of life coincide. --------------------- ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: (Fwd) Column, July 1 Date: 26 Jun 1997 09:47:49 PST On Jun 26, M.L.Seymour wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JULY 1, 1997 EDITOR'S NOTE: THIS "CLASSIC" COLUMN WAS ORIGINALLY FILED FOR RELEASE ON JULY 3, 1995. IF USED, IT SHOULD BE SO IDENTIFIED THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Some passages unlikely to be read in Washington this week What an inconvenient holiday the Fourth of July must seem to Bill Clinton, who went to Michigan May 5, 1995 to warn that citizen militias represent "the forces of organized destruction and evil" in America, and that it is no longer permissible to "pretend" to love our country while opposing its government. "How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on earth live in tyranny?" the president asked. On this date, of course, we celebrate the courage of men who risked hanging to sign a certain document on July the Third, 1776, men like Richard Henry Lee of Virginia and the young red-headed fellow who signed just just beneath him, "Ths. Jefferson." But the words for which they risked their lives were Jefferson's alone: "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends (securing the unalienable rights with which men are endowed by their Creator), it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it." When Mr. Clinton said in East Lansing that, "There is no right to kill people who are doing their duty," he was, of course, referring to the tragic, wrongful deaths of unarmed women and children in Oklahoma City. But we expect our presidents to voice principles beyond the emotion of the moment. What, for instance, would Mr. Clinton have us do with teen-ager Jim Monroe, who awakened a small group of government officials in Trenton, N.J. from a sound sleep one winter day not so very long ago, charged at them with a huge, machete-like weapon, and before they could even pull on all their clothes, slashed a number of them to death? The dead men, surely, were "only doing their duty," while young James was apparently under the absurd delusion that the government they served was operating as some kind of "tyranny." The teen-ager Monroe's astonishing actions, of course, occurred on Christmas Day, 1776, after he had crossed the icy Delaware with the leader of this nation's "forces of destruction and evil," co-founder of the Fairfax County Militia, a man who definitely loved his country but despised his government, George Washington. And the young lieutenant's crime did not go unpunished -- his own sentence in the White House lasted a full eight years, from 1817 to 1825. If Mr. Clinton hopes to remain as long, he might remember that the aforementioned Richard Henry Lee wrote in 1788, "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves. ... To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms." But he was a piker next to Mr. Jefferson, who wrote to Madison: "I hold that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing." Later, writing to William S. Smith in 1787 -- six full years after the last Redcoat departed Yorktown in disgrace -- Mr. Jefferson went further: "What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Why is it that I doubt these passages will be among the readings from the Founders at the White House this Fourth of July? But the world is very different now from those days so long ago, we're assured. Here is the most childlike of error of all, to assume that because we now have superhighways and personal computers, it must no longer be true that the best defense of a free nation is an armed populace. Ask the Afghans about that. Ask the North Vietnamese. Ask the Israelis, many of whose grandparents so willingly gave up their arms to prove they were "law-abiding Germans" in 1938, whether they would turn over their own rifles now to the Syrians, in exchange for smiling promises. "Americans have the habit of saying they're the freest nation in the world," says Canadian tax scholar Charles Adams, author of the current best-seller on the destructiveness of taxes through the ages, "but they should say 'used to be.' America of all the Western nations is the worst. No one else lets the government go through your bank records, no one else makes you file a form when you hire a baby-sitter." "He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their Substance," wrote Mr. Jefferson in 1776. Oh, nothing like today. The problem is not that our current government is less tyrannical than King George's, which never jailed anyone for practicing medicine -- or self-medication -- without a license, which never would have dreamed of stacking juries by asking them in advance whether they agreed to convict if so ordered by the judge. No, I think Mary Wollstonecraft hit our problem on the head a century and a half ago, noting that men and women both "submit everywhere to oppression, where they have only to lift their heads to throw off the yoke," licking the dust instead of asserting their birthright until, "at last, they despise the freedom which they have not sufficient virtue to struggle to obtain." Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking." ================================================ Educate, agitate, organize for freedom in our lifetimes! Want to Take Action for Liberty?? http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1797/action.htm Check out the Action of the Month at the new Activist Web Site! http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1797 =================================================== Have some tips, strategies to include? Mary lou Seymour: liberty@csranet.com ICQ Pager: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/1621963 Posterity -- you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. -- John Quincy Adams -- [------------------------- 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: Re: Humor... a REALLY good one (fwd) Date: 26 Jun 1997 09:46:44 PST On Jun 26, TSBench@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] With Bill Gates in the news out there, thought I forward the following which I just received from my daughter... >To: robert.morley@state.ma.us, staceyW@cmbinfo.com, bmorley@juno.com If Microsoft Built Cars 1. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you'd have to buy a new car. 2. Occasionally your car would just die on the motorway for no reason, accept this, restart and drive on. 3. Occasionally, executing a manouvre would cause your car to stop and fail to restart and you'd have to re-install the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this too. 4. You could only have one person in the car at a time, unless you bought a "Car 95" or a "Car NT". But then you'd have to buy more seats. 5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was twice as reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive - but it would only run on five percent of the roads. 6. The Macintosh car owners would get expensive Microsoft upgrades to their cars which would make their cars go much slower. 7. The oil, engine, gas and alternator warning lights would be replaced with a single "General Car Fault" warning light. 8. People would get excited about the "new" features in Microsoft cars, forgetting completely that they had been available in other cars for many years. 9. We'd all have to switch to Microsoft gas and all auto fluids but the packaging would be supurb. 10. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt. 11. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off. 12. If you were involved in a crash, you would have no idea what happened. 13. They wouldn't build their own engines, but form a cartel with their engine suppliers. The latest engine would have 16 cylinders, multi-point fuel injection and 4 turbos, but it would be a side- valve design so you could use Model-T Ford parts on it. 14. There would be an "Engium Pro" with bigger turbos, but it would be slower on most existing roads. 15. Microsoft cars would have a special radio/cassette player which would only be able to listen to Microsoft FM, and play Microsoft Cassettes. Unless of course, you buy the upgrade to use existingstuff. 16. Microsoft would do so well, because even though they don't own any roads, all of the road manufacturers would give away Microsoft cars free, including IBM! 17. If you still ran old versions of car (ie. CarDOS 6.22/CarWIN 3.11), then you would be called old fashioned, but you would be able to drive much faster, and on more roads! 18. If you couldn't afford to buy a new car, then you could just borrow your friends, and then copy it. 19. Whenever you bought a car, you would have to reorganise the ignition for a few days before it worked. 20. You would need to by an upgrade to run cars on a motorway next to each other. Regards, TSB [------------------------- 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: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Rutherford Institute On Supreme Court Decision (fwd) Date: 26 Jun 1997 15:36:56 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From the URL: http://www.rutherford.org/press.html THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE SAYS SUPREME COURT DECISION STRIKING DOWN RFRA BODES ILL FOR RELIGIOUS AMERICANS Press Contact: Rita Woltz (804) 978-3888 Charlottesville, Va. Today's Supreme Court decision striking down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will leave millions of religious Americans with no legal recourse when their right to religious free expression is violated says a spokesperson for The Rutherford Institute, the nation's leading civil liberties organization specializing in the defense of religious liberty. "The Supreme Court today has bulldozed the last barrier of protection for religious Americans," said Rita Woltz, legal coordinator for The Rutherford Institute. "After the Supreme Court's reckless decision in Smith whereby it emasculated the Free Exercise clause, Congress created RFRA to protect the fundamental right to religious free expression. But now, that protection has been lifted, and religious Americans will have to turn to their state legislatures or lobby Congress for a Constitutional amendment to protect religious exercise." In striking down RFRA, the Supreme Court said Congress had overstepped its boundaries and endangered the system of checks and balances that exist within government. The court also reprimanded Congress for changing the meaning of the First Amendment while claiming to affirm it. The case in question, Boerne v. Flores, involved a church which attempted to expand but was prohibited by the city of Boerne, Texas. The church sued under RFRA. The Rutherford Institute submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of the church. "The original intent of the Constitution and its framers has been almost completely obscured by this decision," said Woltz. "We are now on the verge of true religious apartheid in this country." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Column, June 23 (fwd) Date: 27 Jun 1997 08:08:48 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JUNE 23, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Bleating Republicans can't even close down a few old army bases Pinch yourself. Keep repeating: "The lower-tax, less-government Republicans captured both house of Congress three years ago. We are now watching the actions of a (start ital)Republican(end ital) Congress." The Pentagon has closed or is preparing to close 97 major domestic bases by 2001, according to The Associated Press. A few weeks ago the military high command announced it will ask Congress to authorize two more rounds of base closings, beginning in 1999. Since post-Cold War troop levels have shrunk, fewer bases are needed. In a recent letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Joint Chiefs urged further cuts in the base structure, predicting a further reduction in manpower of 36 percent. In contrast, the Cold War base structure had been reduced only by a quarter, tying up money needed for equipment modernization. "If we're serious about having funds for modernization ... you've got to then reduce the excess infrastructure," Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee's ranking Democrat, told reporters June 13. Yet the committee -- dominated by those tight-fisted Republicans who supposedly want to reduce our taxes and clean up 40 years of accumulated porkfat -- failed to authorize the two further rounds of base closings in 1999 and 2001, on a 9-9 vote. This despite support for the closings by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Dan Coats, R-Ind. -- hardly a couple of peaceniks. Meantime -- forget the gentle pinching, could you now just please slap me solidly upside the head -- the Republican Senate is actually considering sending big packages of greenbacks, in plain brown wrappers, to the shipyard at Newport News, Va., to start paying for construction of a new aircraft carrier. This despite the fact no aircraft carrier is now being built, because the Navy has not asked for another aircraft carrier. Never mind. Sending money to the shipyard now, explain Senate Republicans, would allow it to operate more efficiently, thus achieving a total saving of $600 million on the new multibillion-dollar jobs program for the constituents of Virginia senators John Warner and Chuck Robb ... should the need ever arise for another new carrier. Have I stumbled into the Mad Hatter's tea party? Is there a prize for whoever can waste the most tax money by the Fourth of July? Defense readiness, as the Joint Chiefs keep insisting, requires that the federals (start ital)stop(end ital) spending money on the big congressional jobs programs which our superfluous, outdated system of domestic military bases have become. Military readiness requires that the federals shift money to modernizing their downsized post-Cold War armed forces ... (start ital)not(end ital) continue to waste it building overpriced, behemoth aircraft carriers and B-2 bombers, designed to fight enemies long vanished. Fed up with 40 years of Democratic arrogance, favoritism, and deficit spending, Americans put the GOP in charge of the nation's purse-strings in 1994 expecting -- at the very least -- some fiscal sanity, some real reductions in federal spending and power, a federal budget annually balanced with appreciable tax cuts, and the shutdown of (start ital)at least(end ital) a handful of redundant federal offices and bureaus, with extra trains leaving Union Station to carry the cashiered bureaucrats back home with their steamer trunks. Instead, terrified by a prospect no more daunting than waking up each morning to whining criticism by the devoutly socialist, inside-the-Beltway mosquito media, congressional Republicans have backed away from every remaining promise and principle ... no matter how threadbare. Mind you, I engage in a certain amount of role-playing when I pretend to be "surprised" or "appalled" at this behavior by the Republican branch of the Incumbent Republicrat Party. In fact, I doubt there are more than a handful among this oinking litter who really believe in rolling back the New Deal-Great Society welfare state -- one of the few was Steve Stockman of Texas, who was happily thrown to the wolves by his own party last fall for embarrassing the GOP leadership (as well as the Quisling NRA) by continually reminding them of their promise to repeal the assault weapons ban. I mean, Newt Gingrich is an avowed fan of Franklin Roosevelt! Would the Italians elect a devotee of Benito Musolini, and then call him a (start ital)conservative(end ital)? The GOP may have another year to dig up their principles and their backbones, in the back yard where they hid them when they abandoned Robert A. Taft and went with that devil's two-pack of big-government quartermasters, Dwight Eisenhower and Dick Nixon. They may have three years. But they do not have forever. The question is: What then? Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. 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@lvrj.com Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Supreme Court news: Property Rights (fwd) Date: 27 Jun 1997 08:10:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- NEWS FROM DEFENDERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS SUPREME COURT COMMENTARY June 25, 1997 CHURCHES HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS, TOO By Nancie G. Marzulla, Esq. President and Chief Legal Counsel Even though the United State Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in its Boerne v. Flores decision, it does not necessarily mean that parishioners of St. Peter's Catholic Church must continue holding their worship services in a local school gym. Like private citizens, churches possess constitutionally protected property rights which may safeguard religious freedoms where an act of Congress failed. St. Peter's is a beautiful church that sits atop a hill overlooking the city of Boerne, Texas. Residents have enjoyed looking at its twin bell towers and southwestern-style architecture since 1923. In that time, St. Peter's congregation has swelled to over 2,000 members, forcing the overflow of parishioners from its meager 230-seat sanctuary to a local gym for services. This, coupled with the need to make liturgical changes to comply with Vatican II standards, led the Archbishop of San Antonio to convey his blessing upon plans both to expand and modernize St. Peter's sanctuary. City officials, however, denied the church the building permits it needed to make the intended changes. The city contended that the church was "historic." The power of this designation gave the government the ability to block St. Peter's plans, thus restricting its ability to adequately serve the needs of its congregation. Archbishop Flores filed a lawsuit against the city. Among other things, he contended that the permit denial violated the RFRA law passed by Congress in 1993. It is this statute - of which the stated purpose is to protect "persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government" - that the Supreme Court just struck down. The Court's decision did not, however, address the very heart of the matter. The real issue is whether the government may legally destroy the church's ability to make necessary changes to its own building - changes which would not affect the building's "historic" facade. Defining the line between the right of St. Peter's parishioners to worship as they please in a building they own and the city's right to protect its perceived aesthetic and historic heritage is the true issue that has yet to be decided. Fortunately, the Constitution does provide a dividing line. Like the columns found in the portico of the Supreme Court building itself, the first ten amendments to the Constitution protect the foundation of our liberties and individual rights. In the case of a church, the First Amendment's religious freedoms and the Fifth Amendment's property rights protections combine to protect both the rights of the church's members as well as provide a limit on how far government can infringe upon those rights. As the Founding Fathers so aptly recognized when they authored the Constitution, the parishioner's rights to free exercise of their religious beliefs are directly related to the protection of their property rights. In the 1993 case of U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Property, the Supreme Court held that "[i]ndividual freedom finds tangible expression in property rights." Nowhere is that more true than in the case of a church. The plain fact is that the very design of a church building - be it the steeple of a Christian church to the minaret of a Muslim mosque - is a form of religious expression in itself. The Founding Fathers created a constitutional structure which forbids government from dictating the architecture of our churches and temples any more than it can dictate the structure of our religious beliefs. Ours is a nation of tolerance and respect for the rights and the dignity of the individual. Having struck down Congress' attempt to ensure this freedom by statute, it is now up to the courts to make sure that the religious and property rights of St. Peter's parishioners are protected. Defenders of Property Rights is the only national legal defense foundation dedicated exclusively to the protection of private property rights. In the Boerne case, Defenders filed a brief amici curiae ("friends of the court") on behalf of itself and thirty-three other organizations concerned with the threat that historic preservation ordinances pose to the reasonable use of private property. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Exerpt from Justics Thomas' concurrance - striking down Brady Date: 27 Jun 1997 15:35:42 -0400 (EDT) Here is an interesting tidbit from Justice Thomas' concurrence on striking down the Brady Law: The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: "[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." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. [n.1] If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. [n.2] As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." Sorry, I forgot to add this footnotes. 1 Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment. 2 Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right. See, e.g., J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo American Right 162 (1994); S. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (1984); Van Alstyne, The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms, 43 Duke L. J. 1236 (1994); Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, 101 Yale L. J. 1193 (1992); Cottrol & Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L. J. 309 (1991); Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 637 (1989); Kates, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983). Other scholars, however, argue that the Second Amendment does not secure a personal right to keep or to bear arms. See, e.g., Bogus, Race, Riots, and Guns, 66 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1365 (1993); Williams, Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment, 101 Yale L. J. 551 (1991); Brown, Guns, Cowboys, Philadelphia Mayors, and Civic Republicanism: On Sanford Levinson's The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L. J. 661 (1989); Cress, An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms, 71 J. Am. Hist. 22 (1984). Although somewhat overlooked in our jurisprudence, the Amendment hascertainly engendered considerable academic, as well as public, debate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Exerpt from Justics Thomas' concurrance - striking down Brady Date: 27 Jun 1997 15:39:39 -0400 (EDT) Arrrgh. I should have made it clear that this posting was provided by Joel Young, on another mailing list, not by me. In other words, its just a forward. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: L&J: FBI Global Surveillance Scheme Exposed (fwd) Date: 27 Jun 1997 15:33:56 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >You may find the following information of interest: > >BEGIN QUOTE > >European Union and FBI launch global surveillance system >>>From Statewatch, >25 February 1997, >London, UK > > > "The EU, in cooperation with the FBI of the USA, is launching > a system of global surveillance of communications to combat > "serious crime" and to protect "national security", but to do > this they are creating a system which can monitor everyone > and everything. The EU will be able to trawl the airwaves for > "subversive" thoughts and "dissident" views and, with its > partners, across the globe." > > "It seems extraordinary given the concern over the Police > Bill in the UK and the "Clipper chip" in the USA that there > has been no debate over the creation of a global telephone > tapping system initiated by the EU and the USA and supported > by Canada, Australia, Norway and Hong Kong." > > "the UK Parliament, like many others in the EU, has been by- > passed in the most blatant way. To claim as the Home > Secretary does that the "Memorandum of Understanding" is "not > a significant document" and to fail to send the main EU > Council Resolution to parliament for scrutiny is quite > extraordinary when the Police Bill - which extends police > surveillance - is going through parliament." > > OVERVIEW > > EU-FBI: global tapping system > > The Council of the European Union and the FBI in Washington, > USA have been cooperating for the past five years on a plan > to introduce a global telecommunications tapping system. > > The system takes advantage of the liberalisation of > telecommunications - where private companies are taking over > from national telephone systems - and the replacement of > land/sea based lines and microwave towers by satellite > communications. > > Telephone lines are now partly land-based or under sea or via > microwave land-based towers but the new generation of > telecommunications will be totally satellite based. > > The EU-FBI initiative notes the demise of: > > 1. state-owned telephone companies > 2. nationally-based telephone systems is concerned about: > 3. the problems faced with intercepting "mobile" phones and > encrypted communications and wants to ensure: > 4. there is harmonisation of national laws on interception > 5. to ensure that telecommunications provider business > cooperate with the police and internal security > 6. the equipment produced has standards which can be > intercepted > 7. as many countries as possible to sign up and thus create > a de facto global system (through provisions of > equipment etc to third countries) > > A related disclosure in a book by Nicky Hager shows that > instead of "suspects" and "targets" the ECHELON system simply > trawls the airwaves for "subversive thoughts" in written form > and increasingly in verbal form. > > ECHELON is run under the 1948 UKUSA agreement by the US, UK, > Canada, New Zealand and Australia. > > REPORT > > The Trevi decision > > The first reference to this initiative was at a Trevi > Ministers meeting in December 1991 which decided that: > > "a study should be made of the effects of legal, > technical and market developments within the > telecommunications sector on the different > interception possibilities and of what action > should be taken to counter the problems that have > become apparent" > > At the meeting of Trevi Ministers in Copenhagen in June 1993 > they agreed the text of a "questionnaire on phone tapping" > which was sent to each Member State in July 1993 and to the > new members (Finland, Sweden and Austria) in September 1993 > (see below). > > EU-FBI linkup > > At the first meeting of the new Council of Justice and Home > Affairs Ministers in Brussels on 29-30 November 1993 they > adopted the following Resolution on "the interception of > telecommunications" which speaks for itself and reproduced > here in full: > > "COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON THE INTERCEPTION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS > > The Council: > > 1. calls upon the expert group to compare the requirements > of the Member States of the Union with those of the FBI; > > 2. agrees that the requirements of the Member States of the > Union will be conveyed to the third countries which > attended the FBI meeting in Quantico and were mentioned > in the memorandum approved by the Ministers at their > meeting in Copenhagen (Sweden, Norway, Finland > (countries applying for accession to the European > Communities), the USA and Canada) in order to avoid a > discussion based solely on the requirements of the FBI; > > 3. approves for practical reasons the extension to Hong > Kong, Australia and New Zealand (which attended the FBI > seminar) of the decision on co-operation with third > countries which was taken at the Ministerial meeting in > Copenhagen; > > 4. hereby decides that informal talks with the above-named > countries may be envisaged: to that end the Presidency > and the expert group might, for example, organize a > meeting with those third countries to exchange > information." > > Source: "Interception of communications", report to COREPER, > ENFOPOL 40, 10090/93, Confidential, Brussels, 16.11.93. > > Main Resolution on the "lawful interception of > communications" > > The draft Resolution on the "lawful interception of > communications", an initiative by the Netherlands (which set > out the "Requirements", see below) was discussed in the K4 > Committee in March, April, November and December 1994. > > The JHA Council discussed the draft Resolution in March 1994 > but it was only formally adopted by "written procedure" (by > telexes to Member States dated 21.12.94, 9.1.95, and 18.1.95: > source Council of the European Union; the last date is after > the Resolution was agreed) on 17 January 1995. The decision > was not published in any form for almost two years - on 4 > November 1996 it finally appeared in the Official Journal. > The Resolution has three parts: First, the short Resolution > which says: > > "the legally authorised interception of > telecommunications is an important tool for the > protection of national interest, in particular > national security and the investigation of serious > crime." > > Second, the "REQUIREMENTS" which place a whole series of > obligations on: network providers, eg: satellite > communications networks; and on service providers, who > provide the equipment for national telecom centres, business, > groups and individuals. And finally, a Glossary of > definitions. > > The "Requirements" are based on the needs of "law enforcement > agencies" (defined as "a service authorised by law to carry > out telecommunications interceptions") who "require access to > the entire telecommunications transmitted.. by the > interception subject" (defined as: "Person or persons > identified in the lawful authorisation and whose incoming and > outgoing communications are to be intercepted") who is the > subject of an "interception order" defined as: "An order > placed on a network operator/service provider for assisting a > law enforcement agency with a lawfully authorised > telecommunications interception." > > The "law enforcement agencies" are required to be provided > with access not just to the content of a communication, in > whatever, form, but also "associated data", "post-connection" > signals (eg: conference calling or call transfer), all > numbers called, all numbers called by - in both cases even if > a connection is not made - plus "realtime, fulltime > monitoring capability", the location of mobile subscribers, > simultaneous and multiple interceptions "by more than one law > enforcement agency", and "roaming" by mobile phone users > "outside their designated home serving area". > > The network operators and service providers are expected to > provide "one or several" permanent "interfaces from which the > intercepted communications can be transmitted to the law > enforcement monitoring facility." And, if they provide > "encoding, compression or encryption" to the customer they > must provide it en clair (decrypted) to the law enforcement > agencies. > > Finally, they are obliged to ensure that: > > "neither the interception target nor any other > authorised person is aware of any changes made to > fulfil the interception order... [and] to protect > information on which and how many interceptions are > being or have been performed, and not to disclose > information on how interceptions are carried out." > > Source: "Memorandum of Understanding concerning the lawful > interception of telecommunications", ENFOPOL 112, 10037/95, > Limite, Brussels, 25.11.95; this report contains the > "Memorandum" with the Resolution adopted on 17 January 1965 > attached. The Resolution was published in the Official > Journal on 4.11.96, ref: C 329 pages 1-6. > > Memorandum of Understanding on the Legal Interception of > Telecommunications > > The "Memorandum of understanding with third countries" (later > described as the "Memorandum of Understanding on the Legal > Interception of Telecommunications") was discussed at the K4 > Committee in November 1994. > > The significance of the "Memorandum" is that it extends the > agreement on the surveillance of telecommunications to non-EU > countries who are being invited to adopt it - and with it the > "Requirements". > > The Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the 15 EU > Member States on 23 November 1995 at the meeting of the > Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers. > > The contact addresses for signatory countries and for further > information, which confirms the EU-USA link, should be sent > to: > > a. Director Federal Bureau of Investigation, Attention: > Information Resource Division, 10 Pennsylvania Avenue, > N.W., Washington D.C. 20535 > > b. General Secretary of the Council of the European Union, > FAO The President, Rue de la Loi 175, B-1048 Brussels, > Belgium." > > The number of signatories to the "Memorandum" is open-ended, > any country can join providing the existing member states > agree. > > It invites "participants" because "the possibilities for > intercepting telecommunications are becoming increasingly > threatened" and there is a need to introduce "international > interception standards" and "norms for the telecommunications > industry for carrying out interception orders" in order to > "fight.. organised crime and for the protection of national > security." > > The strategy appears to be to first get the "Western world" > (EU, US plus allies) to agree "norms" and "procedures" and > then to sell these products to Third World countries - who > even if they do not agree to "interception orders" will find > their telecommunications monitored by ECHELON (see below) the > minute it hit the airwaves. > > Source: "Memorandum of Understanding concerning the lawful > interception of telecommunications", ENFOPOL 112, 10037/95, > Limite, Brussels, 25.11.95. > > "not a significant document" - the Home Secretary > > The Chair of the Select Committee on the European Communities > in the House of Lords, Lord Tordoff, took up the "Memorandum" > with the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, in an exchange of > letters on the Committee~s access to documents for scrutiny. > > On the subject of the "Memorandum of Understanding on the > Legal Interception of Telecommunications" Mr Howard told Lord > Tordoff: > > "The Memorandum of Understanding is a set of > practical guidelines to third countries on the > lawful interception of telecommunications. It is > NOT A SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENT and does not, therefore, > appear to meet the criteria for Parliamentary > scrutiny of Title VI documents." (emphasis added) > > It is quite clear from this Briefing that the "Memorandum" is > not an insignificant document concerning as it does a EU-US > plan for global telecommunications surveillance. > > The "Memorandum" itself is just two pages. It is the full > text of the "Resolution" attached to it which demonstrates > its full meaning. > > However, not only did Mr Howard not think the "Memorandum" > was "a significant document" he also apparently believes the > attached Resolution also insignificant as he did not submit > it to the House of Lords Committee for scrutiny prior to its > adoption in January 1995 or thereafter. > > Source: Correspondence with Ministers, 9th Session 1995-96, > HL 74, pages 26-29. > > Letter to international standards bodies > > In December 1995 COREPER agreed a letter to be sent out to > "international standardisation bodies in the field of > telecommunications" (IEC, ISO and ITU). The letter said: > > "Modern telecommunications systems present the risk > of not permitting the lawful interception of > telecommunications if they have not been adapted, > at the standardisation and design stage, to allow > such interception." > > These bodies are "invited" to take account of the > requirements of the Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 and > told that Member States would be applying "these requirements > to network operators and providers of services". > > The December 1995 letter to international standards bodies > and the publication of the main Resolution in November 1996 > in the Official Journal announced to manufacturers of > equipment and service providers that they will be expected to > meet the "Requirements" allowing surveillance for any new > contracts within the EU and via the "Memorandum" that these > standards would also apply to any countries signing up to it > - for example, the USA. > > Source: "Draft letter to be sent to the international > standardisation bodies concerning the Council Resolution of > 17 January 1995 on the lawful interception of > communications", Council General Secretariat to > COREPER/COUNCIL, ENFOPOL 166, 12798/95, Limite, 14.12.95. > > Letter to non EU countries > > At its meeting on 28-29 November 1996 the Council of Justice > and Home Affairs Ministers agreed a "draft letter" prepared > by the K4 Committee to "non EU participants in the informal > international Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar". > > "The letter.. informs you of the wider international support > for the "Requirements" annexed to the Council Resolution. > > The Council considers that the lawful monitoring of > telecommunications systems is an important tool in the > prevention and detection of serious crimes and in > safeguarding national security. Mindful of new technological > developments in the field of telecommunications, the Council > adopted the Resolution of 17 January, 1996 laying down > technical Requirements, for the lawful interception of > telecommunications. The Member States of the European Union > have been called upon to apply those Requirements to > telecommunications operators and service providers... > > The "Requirements" have been discussed by interception > experts from EU Member States with colleagues from other > countries which are equally concerned to ensure that adequate > technical provision is made for legally authorized > interception in modern telecommunications technologies. > Arising from those discussions which have taken place during > a seminar, the Council of the European Union has received > expressions of support for the Requirements from Australia, > Canada, Norway and the United States of America. In > particular, the relevant authorities In those countries have > undertaken to (i) have the Requirements taken into account in > their appropriate national policies and (ii) use the > Requirements as a basis for discussions with the > telecommunications industry, standards bodies and > telecommunications operators... > > You are invited to take note of this letter for the purpose > of your further discussions with the telecommunications > industry standards bodies and telecommunications operators. > > The President, for the Council of the European Union." > > Source: "Draft letter to non EU participants in the informal > international Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar > regarding the Council Resolution", ENFOPOL 180, 11282/96, > Limite 6.11.96. > > Behind the scenes > > Behind the formal decisions and letters the various Working > Parties under the K4 Committee were at work on the details. > > In January 1995 the Police Cooperation Working Group, which > comes under the K4 Committee, considered a report by the UK > delegation on the problems presented by the next generation > of satellite-based telecommunications systems which should be > able to: > > " ~"tag" each individual subscriber in view of a > possibly necessary surveillance activity." > > The report said that the new mobile individual communications > working through satellites were already underway and unlike > the current earth-bound systems based on GSM-technology would > "in many cases operate from outside the national territory". > > The rationale for the plan was that these new systems: > > "will provide unique possibilities for organised > crime and will lead to new threats to national > security". > > The report said all the new systems have to have the > capability to place all individuals under surveillance - the > product of "tagging" individual phone lines could therefore > easily be extended to political activists, "suspected" > illegal migrants and others. > > The fact that the new systems were being developed by large > private international corporations, not national state-run > systems, created "unusual problems for the legally permitted > surveillance of telecommunications". The first problem to > surface, according to the report, was that: > > "initial contacts with various consortia... has met > with the most diverse reactions, ranging from great > willingness to cooperate on the one hand, to an > almost total refusal even to discuss the question." > > It goes on to say: > > "it is very urgent for governments and/or > legislative institutions to make the new consortia > aware of their duties. The government will also > have to create new regulations for international > cooperation so that the necessary surveillance will > be able to operate." > > Another "problem" for surveillance under the new systems is > that satellites will communicate with earth-bound stations > which will function as distribution points for a number of > adjoining countries - there will not be a distribution point > in every country. While the existing "methods of legally > permitted surveillance of immobile and mobile > telecommunications have hitherto depended on national > infrastructures" (italics added). The: > > "providers of these new systems do not come under > the legal guidelines used hitherto for a legal > surveillance of telecommunications." > > The report says it would be difficult to monitor the "upward > and downward connections to the distribution point" so the > "tag" would start the surveillance at "the first earthbound > distribution point". > > Due to the number of different countries that might be > involved in making a connection it has been agreed that the > following "relevant data" should be provided: "the number of > the subscriber calling, the number of the subscriber being > called, the numbers of all subscribers called thereafter". > The report uses the example of a subscriber who is a national > of country A, with a telephone subscription in country B > (supplying the relevant data for the "tag"), who occasionally > uses the system in country C which uses the distribution > point in country D (which conducts the surveillance) and who > is in contact with a person in country E concerning a > suspected serious crime in country F. > > The report with a series of recommendations including > amendments to national laws to "ensure that surveillance will > be possible within the new systems" and that "all those who > are involved in planning the new systems" should be made > aware of "the demands of legally permitted surveillance". > > A later report from the same Working Party, in June 1995, > concludes: > > "These new telecommunications systems have much in > common with existing mobile phone systems... [and] > will very quickly develop into a global problem, > which looks like it can only be controlled by > global cooperation of a hitherto unknown degree." > > Sources: "Legally permitted surveillance of > telecommunications systems provided from a point outside the > national territory", report from the UK delegation to the > Working Group on Police Cooperation, ENFOPOL 1, 4118/95, > Restricted, 9.1.95; Report from the Presidency to the Working > Group on Police Cooperation, ENFOPOL 1, 4118/2/95 REV 2, > Limite, 2.6.95. > > Questionnaire on "national law regarding phone tapping" > > In November 1995 while the EU Ministers were signing the > "Memorandum of Understanding" for non-EU countries a Working > Party under the K4 Committee was considering a report from > the Spanish delegation on national laws within the EU on > phone tapping surveillance. > > The 1995 report opens with the cynical observation: > > "As it was foreseeable, all states which have > answered the questionnaire guarantee the > confidentiality of private communications either by > their constitution or their Basic Law, or both, in > accordance with Article 8 of the European > Convention on Human Rights." > > However, it goes on to observe, and assume, "under certain > conditions the interception of telecommunications" is > allowed. > > The report says the country surveys showed - and this is of > crucial importance regarding surveillance by ECHELON (see > below) that: > > "At the moment there does not seem to be a legal > problem for interception that depends on the kind > of device used for the transmission of voice, text, > data or images" > > This is a reference to forms of "written" communications or > "images" sent by e-mail, fax, and telex. > > It summarises the legal positions as: the following countries > "can simply" make changes in the penal procedure: Germany, > Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Spain and Portugal, while > Belgium, France, the UK, Ireland, Greece, Norway and Sweden > require new legislation, with a combination of both in Italy. > > Discussions had taken place, the report says, on the "great > advantages" the police have if: "they can keep people under > surveillance on the grounds of suspicion of criminal > activity". Some countries require objective evidence of an > offence before surveillance can start but in Austria a > request for a phone tap "leads automatically to an > investigation being opened". > > Another problem addressed was the right of individual's to be > informed about phone tapping (Article 6.3 in relation to > Article 8 of the ECHR): > > "Obviously such information prejudices the result > of the police investigation. Therefore, each > country has to arrange for a procedure to legally > delay notification." > > The report recommends the Danish system where a lawyer is > appointed by the Justice Ministry who represents the > interests of the person to be placed under surveillance at a > private hearing but is not allowed to tell the person > concerned. > > The survey found that the maximum duration of authorisation > varied from 2 weeks to 4 months. > > The report concludes that phone tapping "is justified by a > serious offence" where "a punishment of imprisonment of one > year or more" is available to fight "organised crime". Yet > again the justification for combating "organised crime" is so > widely drawn - sentences of just one year or more - that the > purpose of surveillance has to be fundamentally questioned. > > Source: "Report on the national laws regarding the > questionnaires on phone tapping", Report from the Spanish > Presidency to the Working Group on Police Cooperation, > ENFOPOL 15, 4354/2/95 REV 2, Restricted, 13.11.95. > > Who is going to pay for it? > > One issue on which the reports from the K4 Committee are > silent is who is to pay the costs for the special facilities > needed under the "Requirements" of law enforcement agencies - > network and service providers or the governments? > > However, a report produced by the German government, says > that the costs are going to be astronomical. It estimates > that to set up surveillance of mobile phones alone will cost > 4 billion D-Marks. > > Source: draft report, dated 5 May 1995, from the German > government on the "problems and solutions regarding the > surveillance of telecommunications". > > The "ECHELON" connection > > "ECHELON" is a world-wide surveillance system designed and > coordinated by the US NSA (National Security Agency) that > intercepts e-mail, fax, telex and international telephone > communications carried via satellites and has been operating > since the early 1980s - it is part of the post Cold War > developments based on the UKUSA agreement signed between the > UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in 1948. > > The five agencies involved are: the US National Security > Agency (NSA), the Government Communications Security Bureau > (GCSB) in New Zealand, Government Communications Headquarters > (GCHQ) in the UK, the Communications Security Establishment > (CSE) in Canada and the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) in > Australia. > > The system has been exposed by Nicky Hager in his 1996 book, > Secret Power: New Zealand's role in the International Spy > Network. He interviewed more than 50 people who work or have > worked in intelligence who are concerned at the uses of > ECHELON. > > "The ECHELON system is not designed to eavesdrop on > a particular individual's e-mail or fax link. > Rather, the system works by indiscriminately > intercepting very large quantities of > communications and using computers to identify and > extract messages from the mass of unwanted ones." > > There are three components to ECHELON: > 1. The monitoring of Intelsats, international > telecommunications satellites used by phone companies in > most countries. A key ECHELON station is at Morwenstow > in Cornwall monitoring Europe, the Atlantic and the > Indian Ocean. > > 2. ECHELON interception of non-Intelsat regional > communication satellites. Key monitoring stations are > Menwith Hill in Yorkshire and Bad Aibling in Germany. > > 3. The final element of the ECHELON system is the > surveillance of land-based or under-sea systems which > use cables or microwave tower networks. > > At present it is thought ECHELON's effort is primarily > directed at the "written form" (e-mails, faxes, and telexes) > but new satellite telephones system which take over from old > land-based ones will be as vulnerable as the "written word". > > Each of the five centres supply "Dictionaries" to the other > four of keywords, phrases, people and places to "tag" and the > tagged intercept is forwarded straight to the requesting > country. > > It is the interface of the ECHELON system and its potential > development on phone calls combined with the standardisation > of "tappable" telecommunications centres and equipment being > sponsored by the EU and the USA which presents a truly global > threat over which there are no legal or democratic controls. > > Source: "Exposing the global surveillance system", Nicky > Hager. CovertAction Quarterly, Winter 1996-97, pages 11-17. > > CHRONOLOGY > > December 1991 > A meeting of the Trevi Ministers decide a study should be > carried out on the new telecommunications systems and "the > different interception possibilities". > > 29-30 November 1993 > The first meeting of the new, post-Maastricht, Council of > Justice and Home Affairs Ministers meeting in Brussels adopt > a Resolution calling on experts to compare the needs of the > EU "with those of the FBI". > > March, April, November and December 1994 > The K4 Committee discusses the draft Resolution on the lawful > interception of telecommunications and the "Requirements" to > be placed on network and service providers. > > March 1994 > The Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers discuss the > draft Resolution. > > November 1994 > The K4 Committee discusses the draft "Memorandum of > Understanding with third countries". > > 9 January 1995 > The Working Group on Police Cooperation, under the K4 > Committee, considers a report on the need to "tag" all > communications. > > 17 January 1995 > The Resolution is adopted by "written procedure". It is not > published in any form until 4 November 1996 when it appears > in the Official Journal. > > 13 November 1995 > The Working Group on Police Cooperation consider a report on > the situation in each EU state on telephone tapping. > > 23 November 1995 > The Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers agree the > "Memorandum of Understanding". It is not published in any > form. > > December 1995 > COREPER agree the text of a letter to be sent to > international standards bodies attaching the Resolution. > > 7 May 1996 > Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, tells the Chair of the > Select Committee on the European Communities in the House of > Lords that the "Memorandum of Understanding on the legal > interception of communications" is "not a significant > document". > > 28 November 1996 > The Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers agree the > text of a letter to be sent out to other potential > "participants" (countries) in the "Memorandum of > Understanding". > > Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers > Set up under Title VI, Article K, of the Maastricht Treaty. > First meet on 29 November 1993 when it took over from the > Trevi Group and the Ad Hoc Group on Immigration. > > K4 Committee > Also set up under the Maastricht Treaty to coordinate the > work on the "third pillar" - policing, immigration and > asylum, and legal cooperation. Is comprised of senior > officials from Interior Ministries and prepares report to go > to the Council. > > Under the K4 Committee there are three Steering Groups > covering policing and customs, immigration and asylum, and > legal cooperation (civil and criminal) to which a series of > Working Groups report. > > COREPER > The Committee of Permanent Representatives from each EU state > based in Brussels. > >END QUOTE > > > > >--- > >NON-ASSUMPSIT: W. K. "Bill" Gorman >"God always answers prayers. Sometimes the answer is NO." >Copyright (C) 1997 W. K. Gorman. All Rights Reserved. >X-NO-ARCHIVE: YES > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum, > Indiana's Fully Informed Jury Association, Inc. > http://www.drtavel.com/ > ************************* > Not a high-tech law firm brochure. > Dr. Tavel's Self Help Clinic and Sovereign Law Library > promotes "action that raises the cost of state violence > for its perpetrators (and) that lays the basis for > institutional change " -- Noam Chomsky > For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, J.D. > ************************** > Updated Daily by > The Other One Computer Consulting International, Ltd. > mailto:rj@drtavel.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ******************************************************************** * Liberty is NEVER an option ... only a condition to be lost! * ******************************************************************** * Every president should be planned and wanted - ABORT CLINTON! * ******************************************************************** * Roger Cravens, SYSOP * * South East Signals Intelligence Group BBS * * Atlanta, GA * * Specializing in Federal Frequencies * * (770-) 942-1089 * ******************************************************************** * Signals Intelligence: "... and the truth will set you free"! * ******************************************************************** =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: iwilsker@ih2000.net Subject: Text of Supreme Court on Brady Date: 27 Jun 1997 14:35:57 -0600 AN E-BULLETIN LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE -- CORNELL LAW SCHOOL lii@lii.law.cornell.edu The following decisions have just arrived via the LII's direct Project HERMES feed from the Supreme Court. These are not the decisions themselves nor excerpts from them, but summaries (syllabi) prepared by the Court's Reporter of Decisions. Instructions for accessing the full text of any of these decisions are provided at the end of this bulletin. =============================================================== PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 95-1478. Argued December 3, 1996 -- Decided June 27, 1997 =============================================================== [n.*] Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act provisions require the Attorney General to establish a national system for instantly checking prospective handgun purchasers' backgrounds, note following 18 U.S.C. Sect. 922 and command the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct such checks and perform related tasks on an interim basis until the national system becomes operative, Sect. 922(s). Petitioners, the CLEOs for counties in Montana and Arizona, filed separate actions challenging the interim provisions' constitutionality. In each case, the District Court held that the background check provision was unconstitutional, but concluded that it was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding none of the interim provisions unconstitutional. Held: 1. The Brady Act's interim provision commanding CLEOs to conduct background checks, Sect. 922(s)(2), is unconstitutional. Extinguished with it is the duty implicit in the background check requirement that the CLEO accept completed handgun applicant statements (Brady Forms) from firearms dealers, Sects. 922(s)(1)(A)(i)(III) and (IV). Pp. 4-34. (a) Because there is no constitutional text speaking to the precise question whether congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional, the answer to the CLEOs'challenge must be sought in historical understanding and practice, in the Constitution's structure, and in this Court's jurisprudence. P. 4. (b) Relevant constitutional practice tends to negate the existence of the congressional power asserted here, but is not conclusive. Enactments of the early Congresses seem to contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the States' executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization. The early enactments establish, at most, that the Constitution was originally understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the judicial power. The Government misplaces its reliance on portions of The Federalist suggesting that federal responsibilities could be imposed on state officers. None of these statements necessarily implies--what is the critical point here--that Congress could impose these responsibilities without the States' consent. They appear to rest on the natural assumption that the States would consent, see FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 796, n. 35 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part). Finally, there is an absence of executive commandeering federal statutes in the country's later history, at least until very recent years. Even assuming that newer laws represent an assertion of the congressional power challenged here, they are of such recent vintage that they are not probative of a constitutional tradition. Pp. 4-18. (c) The Constitution's structure reveals a principle that controls these cases: the system of "dual sovereignty." See, e.g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution's text. See, e.g., Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government's power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service--and at no cost to itself--the police officers of the 50 States. Pp. 18-22. (d) Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Brady Act effectively transfers the President's responsibility to administer the laws enacted by Congress, Art. II, Sects. 2 and 3, to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control. The Federal Executive's unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, ifCongress could simply require state officers to execute its laws. Pp. 22-23. (e) Contrary to the dissent's contention, the Brady Act's direction of the actions of state executive officials is not constitutionally valid under Art. I, Sect. 8, as a law "necessary and proper" to the execution of Congress's Commerce Clause power to regulate handgun sales. Where, as here, a law violates the state sovereignty principle, it is not a law "proper for carrying into Execution" delegated powers within the Necessary and Proper Clause's meaning. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 166. The Supremacy Clause does not help the dissent, since it makes "Law of the Land" only "Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance [of the Constitution.]" Art. VI, cl. 2. Pp. 24-25. (f) Finally, and most conclusively in these cases, the Court's jurisprudence makes clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. See, e.g., New York, supra, at 188. The attempts of the Government and the dissent to distinguish New York--on grounds that the Brady Act's background check provision does not require state legislative or executive officials to make policy; that requiring state officers to perform discrete, ministerial federal tasks does not diminish the state or federal officials' accountability; and that the Brady Act is addressed to individual CLEOs while the provisions invalidated in New York were directed to the State itself--are not persuasive. A "balancing" analysis is inappropriate here, since the whole object of the law is to direct the functioning of the state executive, and hence to compromise the structural framework of dual sovereignty; it is the very principle of separate state sovereignty that such a law offends. See e.g., New York, supra, at 187. Pp. 25-34. 2. With the Act's background check and implicit receipt of forms requirements invalidated, the Brady Act requirements that CLEOs destroy all Brady Forms and related records, Sect. 922(s)(6)(B)(i), and give would be purchasers written statements of the reasons for determining their ineligibility to receive handguns, Sect. 922(s)(6)(C), require no action whatsoever on the part of CLEOs such as petitioners, who are not voluntary participants in administration of the federal scheme. As to them, these provisions are not unconstitutional, but simply inoperative. Pp. 34-36. 3. The Court declines to address the severability question briefed and argued by the parties: whether firearms dealers remain obliged to forward Brady Forms to CLEOs, Sects. 922(s)(1)(A)(i)(III) and (IV), and to wait five business days thereafter before consummating a firearms sale, Sect. 922(s)(1)(A)(ii). These provisions burden only dealers andfirearms purchasers, and no plaintiff in either of those categories is before the Court. P. 36. 66 F. 3d 1025, reversed. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. O'Connor, J., and Thomas, J., filed concurring opinions. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined. ---------- Notes *Together with No. 95-1503, Mack v. United States, also on certiorari to the same court. =============================================================== These and all other recent Supreme Court decisions are archived in full text at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ (in hypertext versions prepared by the LII and the original word-processing files received from the Court) <---- End Forwarded Message ----> Ira Wilsker iwilsker@ih2000.net ICQ: 1641171 http://www.ih2000.net/ira/ira.htm OR http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1814/ira.htm NOW on POINTCAST! Details at http://www.ih2000.net/ira/pcn_jump.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: I smell a Rodham! (fwd) Date: 27 Jun 1997 15:54:59 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- And watch the Republican scum suckers just roll over and play dead. The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition -- June 27, 1997 Potomac Watch $50 Million Men: Tobacco Lawyers Become Sultans By PAUL A. GIGOT Is this a great country or what? Only in America can a struggling public defender and failed politician like Hugh Rodham Jr. become a multimillionaire overnight. The brother of Hillary Rodham Clinton has just won America's next best thing to the lottery, a lawsuit. Make that the mother of all lotteries, otherwise known as the $368.5 billion tobacco settlement. The likely enrichment of a man with no previous plaintiffs' bar experience cer tainly shows there's more going on here than "public health." The proposed tobacco deal is one of the greatest transfers of wealth and political resources in American history. An interest loyal to Republicans--tobacco companies--will be paying billions of dollars to a plaintiff's bar that shovels hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash almost exclusively at Democrats. But that's not all. To collect their taxes and fees, the politicians and tort lawyers are conspiring to let the tobacco companies raise cigarette prices in what amounts to a regressive tax hike on poor Americans, who smoke more than rich folk. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates that more than one-third of the 20-cent per pack cigarette tax proposed in Congress would be paid by smokers making less than $15,000 a year. That's a $5 billion income cut over five years. The settlement implies a cigarette price increase of as much as $1 per pack. So where is the outrage about the working poor being asked to enrich the likes of Hugh Rodham? Where's David Bonior when you really need him? Perhaps the first lady should lend her brother her 1992 speeches about the evils of "greed." It's true that no one yet knows how big a windfall the lawyers will get--a calculated evasion. "I'm not going to give you a number," says John Coale, the lawsuit legend who invited Mr. Rodham into his smoke-filled suite. "Because any number I give you will be a target." There are actually two groups of lawyers who want to get paid. The first includes some 65 law firms called the Castano class-action group, to which Mr. Rodham belongs. They were politically shrewd enough to keep their payment separate from the $368.5 billion going to the states for Medicaid or for anti-tobacco education. Instead, they'll submit their bills to a third-party arbitrator, who will dole out the riches. Mr. Coale, who didn't make millions being modest, says the case was risky enough and their legal theories novel enough to deserve more than even the usual class-action bonanza. "I would assume we will be paid well," he says. No kidding. Sources close to the tobacco companies say they'd like these lawyers to divvy up less than $1 billion, but that probably isn't realistic. If it's equal to even 1% of the $368.5 billion settlement, the 220 or so class-action lawyers would split $3.7 billion. One class-action lawyer, Russ Herman, has said that 3%, or $11 billion, would be "fair." That'd be a cool $50 million each, though some could get more and others less. Hard as it is to believe, the second group of lawyers could do even better. These are the 100 or so firms (perhaps 250 lawyers) that represent the state attorneys general who brought suits. They suckered the pols into signing contingency-fee contracts that entitle them to as much as 25% of a state's share of the $368.5 billion. "I'm sure some of my colleagues are going to make that claim," says Richard Scruggs, the Mississippi tort titan who represents 25 states and happens to be Senate leader Trent Lott's brother-in-law (though he's a Democrat). We are talking Sultan of Brunei potential here. Mr. Scruggs is no political rube and has already made a killing from asbestos suits. So he says he's going to forget his contingency contracts and take his chances with the Castano arbitrator--not that this will make him a pauper. The political essence of all of this is symbolized by Mr. Rodham, who wasn't even brought into the tobacco wars until two years ago. Mr. Coale praises his effort and expertise, though Mr. Rodham had never done a similar case. More plausibly, the losing Senate candidate from Florida in 1994 was brought in as a political smoothie. We know he's attended meetings with presidential confidant Bruce Lindsey and other antitobacco lawyers. Mr. Rodham didn't return my calls, but Mr. Coale says, "Hugh has the right to practice law." True, but that isn't the same as the right to reap millions from a settlement advertised as saving kids from Joe Camel. Mr. Rodham's influence means the legal fees won't be second-guessed at the White House. Democrats also know that trial-lawyer riches will flow back to them in campaign cash aimed at blocking legal reform. Will Republicans let the lawyers sneak all this past them too? Congress must approve any settlement, and Speaker Newt Gingrich has said he'll look at the fees. But the tobacco companies will now have their own stake in seeing the deal approved as is, and they have a friend in GOP House Commerce Chairman Tom Bliley from Virginia. Maybe Republicans should look at it this way: If this political wealth transfer were reversed--if trial lawyers were paying off tobacco companies--does anyone think President Clinton would let it pass without a fight? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: The Medicalization of the Schools (fwd) Date: 27 Jun 1997 16:12:27 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- June 1997 Phyllis Schlafly Report [Article 4] The Medicalization of the Schools Indonesians aren't the only billionaires covertly spending big bucks to influence public policy. There is just as big a scandal brewing about private foundations. Unbeknownst to the American public, several billionaire foundations whose "charity" purports to be "children" and "health care" are using their lavish resources to lobby state legislatures and school districts to persuade them to adopt policies and appropriate taxpayers' money that promote the foundations' social agenda. The foundations' game plan is to turn the public schools into delivery centers for all kinds of health services, including physical examinations, treatment and medication of children, with or without their parents' knowledge or consent. This changeover of the schools' mission from academic learning to social services dispenser also includes compiling all sorts of private information on schoolchildren and their families. The role of certain elite foundations in influencing U.S. health care policy first came to light when the lawsuit by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) against Hillary Rodham Clinton forced her to admit that her Health Care Task Force included people who were not government employees. Many turned out to be persons who had a financial interest in promoting managed care or were part of a previously unreported network of foundations that had been using their vast wealth to promote managed care. If the Clinton health care bill had passed, these managed care special interests would have been in the drivers' seat to control one-seventh of our economy. They failed to achieve that goal, but they are on the way toward achieving the same goal incrementally. Their game plan is to persuade state legislatures and school districts to accept "grants" with strings attached that bind the governmental recipients to pass laws, or adopt policies, or reveal information, or carry out procedures that implement the foundations' agenda. If an Indonesian or U.S. corporation were doing this, such transactions would be called bribes and the guilty would be headed for jail, but foundations are hiding behind the label "tax-exempt." The engine driving the movement to use the public schools as a launching pad for a government-controlled health care system is the $5.5 billion Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Following close behind are the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Pew Charitable Trust. The principal expertise of these foundations is developing creative ways to locate and lock in taxpayer funding for foundation projects. The foundations have successfully captured federal grants from the Medicaid benefit called Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT), Medicaid waivers, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Goals 2000, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Goals 2000, whose number-one-proclaimed goal is "every child should start school ready to learn," provides the fig leaf of legal authority for this array of federal intervention in public schools. The foundations are making the states and school districts believe that federal mandates in Goals 2000 and IDEA require the schools to test children for emotional, social, mental and physical disorders. The foundations are persuading the schools that "readiness" requires the schools to provide health services clinics, which then must be staffed by nurse practitioners emboldened with new authority to prescribe medications. The foundations then demand a perpetual, exclusive license to use, and to allow others to use, all data generated by the services. So much for medical privacy! The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation started funding school-based health clinics 20 years ago and now boasts that there are more than 600. Foundation documents state the expectation that "every grant dollar is expected to leverage five dollars in public monies." These covert foundation activities operate in a murky area without legislative authority or accountability. They cry out for a thorough Congressional investigation of possible violations of the laws against tax-exempt lobbying, against bribery of public officials, against fraud in Medicaid (which is supposed to be only for children in poverty), and against violations of the privacy laws that forbid releasing personal data or transferring it from one agency to another. The investigation should also explore the battery committed against 59 sixth-grade girls at the J.T. Lambert Middle School in East Stroudsburg, PA, who were taken out of math class and given pelvic exams without their parents' consent. The investigators should expose how profit-making businesses connected with tax-exempt foundations are using school clinics as captive markets for the sale of their commercial products. Foundations dole out about $100 million each year to state and local governments and school districts. Since this is all tax-exempt money, and since the recipients are taxpayer-paid bureaucrats, and since the targets of all this money flow is our children, the American people have the right to know what is going on. Phyllis Schlafly has her B.A. from Washington University, her M.A. from Harvard University, her J.D. from Washington University Law School, and an honorary LL.D. from Niagara University. Mrs. Schlafly taught her six children to read before they entered school, and all had outstanding academic careers. Her most recent book, First Reader, is a system to teach children how to read. Her best-selling book, Child Abuse in the Classroom, was called "required reading for every parent" by Hoover Institution scholar Thomas Sowell. Her nationally syndicated daily radio commentaries and Saturday call-in radio programs are devoted primarily to education topics. Her best-selling video documentary, Crisis in the Classroom, is an up-to-date explanation of why the public schools are the way they are. To order call 1-800-700-5228. June '97 Phyllis Schlafly Report includes: + What's Going on in the Schoolhouse? + K-III Buys a Captive Audience + The Smoking Gun in Medicaid + The Medicalization of the Schools http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/ ===================================== EAGLE FORUM PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 Fax: 618-462-8909 Are you on our E-mail list? Just send us an e-mail message with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line! URL: http://www.eagleforum.org E-mail: eagle@eagleforum.org ====================================== =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: "Who Controls the Fruits of Your Labor?" (fwd) Date: 27 Jun 1997 16:14:35 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following article for submission is from the Lincoln Heritage Institute's publication the ADDRESS, and concerns the current rhetoric on the pending tax bill. "Who Controls the Fruits of Your Labor? By C. Grady Drago, President, Lincoln Heritage Institute Congress is once again, attempting to pass a tax reduction bill providing modest relief to favored segments of the economy. This means that the liberals are once again fomenting class warfare, stirring up their traditional constituencies mostly with false information, and the media carries their message basically unchallenged. More for non-producers, from producers. You can drag out the standard form used in years past, and fill in the blanks. US Representative Bill Archer, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee had it right; "...tear the income tax out by its roots." and start over. This is an emotional subject because the ability to control your property and efforts is no longer in your hands. What is the potential impact of this situation? In 1764, the seeds of the American Revolution were cast by the British Parliament when they began the imposition of a series of taxes on what the colonists considered their productivity and personal property. The battles and debates that ensued were very similar to the debate that is occurring today. Why has this level of outrage over taxes and a "tyrannical" government occurred? A glance at historical events and data bring our current tax and deficit picture into focus. It took 164 years (until 1940) for the federal budget to reach the $10 billion level. In that same year, the federal debt was $51 billion and the GNP stood at $96 billion. It took only 30 more years (1970) for the budget to approach the $200 billion plateau and for the national debt to be run up to $381 billion. As bad a picture as these figures paint, things have actually worsened during the past 22 years. The federal budget exceeds the astronomical level of $1.6 trillion, the deficit exceeds $125 billion which is greater than the entire federal budget in 1965, and our national debt has soared to over $5 trillion. This money drain, plus strangling regulatory burdens, are viruses that are sapping the vitality from our economy. Beginning in 1909, with the passage of a corporate excise tax, and 1913, with the enactment of the federal income tax, the U.S. Congress has generated just over 226 tax bills that have been signed into law. The overwhelming majority of these bills were to fund new programs or to "retire" the debt. Perhaps only one or two of these tax bills can be proven to have a net positive result of holding down the growth or reducing the national debt. In spite of the occasional "tax rebellions", the liberals have been tenacious and creative in attempting to satiate their appetite for the fruits of our labor so they can continue their favorite programs. In November of 1994, the voters of this nation rebelled against big government and against the efforts of President Clinton and his liberal supporters to accelerate the centralization of power in Washington. This was reinforced when the voters, in 1996, once again rejected the liberal philosophy and not only reelected and Republican House, but expanded the Republican majority in the Senate. In tune with this rebellion, they also reelected Bill Clinton to a second term, a Bill Clinton that now sounded more like a Conservative than a Conservative. He had no programs of his own that were not liberal, so what did our "Monday Morning" President do; he claimed Republican programs as his own. Now that the election is over, it appears to be the same old liberal approach to solving problems. Our foundation is cracked, and he wants a new coat of paint. Hey! How about a break for working Americans and for those that are taking risks and generating jobs and capital? The current condition of our tax code and the level of taxes is due to the centralization of power in Washington and to the continuance and expansion of the liberal social programs that came out of the past fifty years. These programs, which this President and his liberal supporters have continued to pursue failed (with a few exceptions). There are very few problems that the Great Society set out to eliminate that are not worse today -- crime, public education, drugs, to name a few. Decentralizing power in Washington, revising the tax code, cutting back on government regulations, and allowing one to reap the fruits of their labor will provide the fuel for a vital free market economy and the return of the freedom American's fought for in 1876. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: New Clean Air Standards Could Place Children at Greater Risk (fwd) Date: 27 Jun 1997 16:20:25 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- New Clean Air Standards Could Place Children at Greater Risk by David Ridenour National Policy Analysis Paper #164 published June 1997 by The National Center for Public Policy Research, 300 Eye St. NE #3, Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/543-1286, Fax 202/543-4779, E-Mail ncppr@aol.com, Web http://www.nationalcenter.inter.net. Reprints permitted provided source is credited. On September 23, 1994, at approximately 3:02 a.m., 17-year-old J. Brandon Young III died. His young life slipped away after it took more than an hour for an ambulance to come to his aid. The ambulance station was just six miles away. If the Clinton Administration gets its way, there may soon be a lot more of these preventable tragedies. Late last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans for new, more stringent standards for particulate matter (soot) and ground level ozone (smog), arguing that stringent air pollution standards could prevent some 250,000 cases of serious respiratory problems in children, some of them life-threatening. But instead of protecting children, the new standards could put children at greater risk. The new standards would not only fail to produce the results advertised but would drain state, county and local government resources, forcing them to choose between compliance with the new standards and such vital emergency services as ambulance, fire and police services. At the same time, the new standards would send thousands of childrens' parents to unemployment lines, reducing family incomes and endangering access to health care. The EPA has estimated that the annual cost of the new tightened air pollution regulations would run from $6.5 - $8.5 billion per year. Other estimates put those costs much higher. Alicia Munnell, a member of the President's Council ofEconomic Advisors estimates that the costs would be more in the $11.6 to $60 billion per year range while the Reason Public Policy Institute estimates that the true cost would range between $90 and $150 billion. Regardless of which estimate is accurate, local governments would pay some of these costs in one form or another, placing greater demands on already limited resources. Because spending money in one way means it can't be spent in another, using these resources to comply with new air pollution standards could mean sacrificing the additional training, oversight, personnel or ambulance needed to save a young person like Brandon Young. The economic consequences of EPA's new standards would place children at greater risk. The EPA claims that by improving air quality its proposed standards would prevent 250,000 serious respiratory problems in children and prevent 15,000 premature deaths among the general population per year. But there is little evidence to support these conclusions and every reason to believe that the economic impact of the new regulatory burden would have the perverse effect of endangering public health. According to study of asthma death rates in Philadelphia conducted by David M. Lang and Marcia Palansky and summarized in the New England Journal of Medicine, the link between air pollution and serious respiratory illnesses is nonexistent. The study, which examined the city's asthma death rates between 1969 and 1991, found that asthma deaths rose from 1.68 per 100,000 population in 1969 to 2.41 per 100,000 in 1991. But the rise in asthma deaths occurred at the very time concentrations of major air pollutants were in decline in the city. The study further found that death from asthma was more common in census tracts in which greater proportions of residents were black, Hispanic, female or poor. "The hospitalization rate for asthma among African-American children is twice that of white, but socioeconomic status is a more significant risk factor," explains Floyd Malveau, Dean of the Howard University Medical School. "...Poor environmental conditions in urban communites, along with other factors such as inadequate access to health care, are what tip the asthma incidence statistics..." A child's socio-economic status is certainly influenced by whether or not his or her parent remains employed. According to the Reason Foundation Institute for Public Policy, the EPA's new, more stringent clean air standards would destroy 200,000 jobs, reduce the average personal disposable income for every American by $250 to $450 per year and cost between 11,000 and 27,000 Americans their lives each year. The arguments that the EPA's new clean air standards pose a health threat to children and the public at-large are so compelling that even the Clinton Administration's staunchest supporters are balking, including Mayor Daley's Chicago. In comments sent to the EPA by Chicago's Department of Environment Commissioner Henry L. Henderson, the City of Chicago maintains that, "True protection of public health can only be achieved if a proposal to improve air quality is based on comprehensive public health criteria. In addition to the clinical and epidemiological effects of exposure, protection of public health also includes good nutrition, access to effective health care including prenatal care, viable housing, personal security, as well as freedom from poverty and inequality. Policies or programs that strip individuals of any of these basic elements serve only to jeopardize or diminish public health. The City has serious and well-founded concerns that adoption of EPA's proposals may do just that..." Unfortunately, President Clinton has thus far been unmoved by Chicago's plea. He has similarly been unmoved by the pleas of 86 House Democrats who have signed letters opposing the new standards and by the evidence that the new regulations will cost many Americans their jobs. Perhaps most surprising, however, is that President Clinton has been unmoved by the mounting evidence that the new standards will place at risk the very people they were ostensibly designed to protect -- America's children. Mr. President, won't you please think of the children? -David Ridenour is Vice President of The National Center for Public Policy Research and directs its Environmental Policy Task Force. He can be reached directly at reliefrprt@aol.com. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: New Laws and 666 (fwd) Date: 27 Jun 1997 08:18:08 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 666 -- A Beast =09This could absolutely be added as the final chapter to George Orwell's 1984 =96 or it could be the first chapter in the fulfillment of Revelation 13. I, myself, find it somewhat humorous that the prototype for the National I.D. System has been implemented under U.S. law subsection 666. However, "dead beat dads" won't find it so funny =96 neither should you. And, don't assume that just because it's a U.S. law that it's limited to just u.s. No, there's a provision written into the law for "international" enforcement. Yep, international. Make of that what you will =96 the fact remains: this "system" will soon be applicable to us all. If reading the following condensed piece of federal law doesn't send chills up and down your spine, then you can take some comfort in knowing that you will be a good subject in the "New System". =09The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, Public Law 104-193 implements the first iteration of the Beast System. Dead beat dad's will be tracked like dogs. Only thing is, just the ones who are working will be gone after; as long as they have a job they're "wanted men" =96 sounds like an incentive to quit work all together. The following is right out of the amended U.S. Code. The paragraph and section numbering has been removed for easier reading. Very little commentary is added, but where it is it will be [bracketed]. =09[The law is] 42 USC Sec. 666 CHAPTER 7 - SOCIAL SECURITY Part D - Child Support and Establishment of Paternity. Sec. 666. Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement. [As amended by Public Law 104-193. Keep in mind: the following is enacted federal law imposing new requirements on the States. It is not commentary or opinion (except as noted)]. =09Each State must enact laws requiring the use of the following "procedures" to increase the effectiveness of the [child support] program: The State shall provide procedures for withholding from income, for obtaining and enforcing support orders, and for establishing paternity. The State shall [also] provide procedures under which liens are imposed against real and personal property for amounts of overdue support owed by an absent parent. =09The State shall provide procedures which permit the establishment of the paternity of a child. In a contested paternity case [the State shall] require the child and all other parties to submit to genetic tests upon request supported by a sworn statement by the party alleging paternity, and setting forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility of the requisite sexual contact between the parties; or denying paternity, and setting forth facts establishing a reasonable possibility of the nonexistence of sexual contact between the parties. If no objection is made, the test results are admissible as evidence of paternity without the need for other proof of authenticity or accuracy. The State shall also provide procedures for a simple civil process for voluntarily acknowledging paternity [this is for regular married parents] under which the State must provide that, before a mother and a putative [means "assumed to be"] father can sign an acknowledgment of paternity, the mother and the putative father must be given notice, orally and in writing, of the alternatives to the legal consequences of, and the rights and responsibilities that arise from signing the acknowledgment [parents will be "read their rights"]. Such procedures must include a hospital-based program for the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity. Such procedures must require the State agency responsible for maintaining birth records to offer voluntary paternity establishment services [parents must sign an acknowledgement that they are the parents of their children at the time of receiving a birth certificate]. States must give full faith and credit to a determination of paternity made by any other State. =09The State shall provide procedures for child support withholding from wages. The wages of an absent parent shall be subject to withholding, regardless of whether support payments are in arrears. The employer, upon being given notice, is required to withhold wages in the amount specified by the notice and pay such amount to the appropriate agency. The employer must be held liable to the State for any amount which the employer fails to withhold from wages due an employee following receipt of the notice. A fine [shall be] imposed against any employer who discharges from employment, refuses to employ, or takes disciplinary action against any absent parent subject to wage withholding because of the existence of such withholding and the obligations or additional obligations which it imposes upon the employer. The State may withhold from forms of income other than wages regardless of the nature of their income-producing activities. The State must extend its withholding system [to provide for withholding in] cases where the applicable support orders were issued in other States. Any refund of State income tax will be reduced by the amount of any overdue support owed by an absent parent. The State shall periodically report to consumer reporting agencies [credit bureaus] the name [and number] of any parent who owes overdue support. The State has authority to withhold or suspend, or to restrict the use of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses, and recreational licenses of individuals owing overdue support or failing, to comply with subpoenas or warrants relating to paternity or child support proceedings. =09The State agency shall enter into agreements with financial institutions doing business in the State to develop and operate a data match system using automated data exchanges in which each such financial institution is required to provide the name, address, social security number or other identifying information for each noncustodial parent who maintains an account at such institution and who owes past-due support, and will encumber or surrender, as the case may be, assets held by such institution on behalf of the parent. A financial institution shall not be liable under any Federal or State law to any person for any disclosure of information to the State agency; for encumbering or surrendering any assets [under these laws]; or for any other action taken in good faith to comply with the requirements. [This system of automated bank withdrawal or withholding will eventually be used to pay everything the State collects including: fines, taxes and any other fees, without your "approval" =96 you'll have no more choice in the matter than the dead beat dads now have.] =09The State shall provide procedures to ensure that all Federal and State agencies conducting activities under this part have access to any system used by the State to locate an individual for purposes relating to motor vehicles or law enforcement. The State shall [have] the authority to take actions relating to establishment of paternity or to establishment, modification, or enforcement of support orders, without the necessity of obtaining an order from any other judicial or administrative tribunal: To order genetic testing for the purpose of paternity establishment, to subpoena any financial or other information necessary to establish, modify, or enforce a support order and to impose penalties for failure to respond to such a subpoena. The State shall require all entities [corporations] in the State to provide promptly, (in response to a request by the State agency of that or any other State), information on the employment, compensation, and benefits of any individual employed by such [corporation] as an employee or contractor and to sanction failure to respond to any such request. And, to obtain access, (subject to the nonliability of entities [corporations] that afford such access), to information contained in the following records: (including automated access, in the case of records maintained in automated databases): Records of other State and local government agencies [police, licensing, revenue, etc.] including vital statistics including records of marriage, birth, and divorce. =09[The following additional new laws were added by Public Law 104-193 to other sections of the U. S. Code to support the new requirements of Title 42 - Section 666.] The State shall [establish an automated data collection system (linked database)] to include a registry to be known as the `State Case Registry' that contains records with respect to each case in which services are being provided by a State agency. Each [child] support order established or modified in the State on or after October 1, 1998, shall be included in the State Case Registry. [The information in the State Case Registries shall be] furnished to the Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders. The State Case Registry may be established by linking local case registries of [child] support orders through an automated information network [no one will hide from this]. Such records shall use standardized data elements for both parents (such as names, social security numbers and other uniform identification numbers [like fingerprint scanned data], dates of birth, and case identification numbers), and other information as the Secretary may require. The State agency operating the automated system shall establish, update, maintain, and regularly monitor, case records in the State Case Registry. The State shall use the automated system to extract information (at such times, and in such standardized format or formats, as may be required by the Secretary), to share and compare information with, and to receive information from, other databases and information comparison services, in order to obtain (or provide) information necessary to enable the State agency (or the Secretary or other State or Federal agencies) to carry out this part. =09On and after October 1, 1997, each State shall establish an automated directory (to be known as the `State Directory of New Hires') which shall contain information supplied on each newly hired employee. The State will operate a State Directory of New Hires in accordance with section 453A. Each employer shall furnish to the Directory of New Hires of the State in which a newly hired employee works, a report that contains the name, address, and social security number of the employee, and the name and address of the employer [eventually, everyone who has a job will be listed in this database. If the Secretary receives a certification that an individual owes arrearages of child support in an amount exceeding $5,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of passports, and refuse to issue a passport to such individual, and may revoke, restrict, or limit a passport issued previously to such individual. =09The Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, is authorized to declare any foreign country to be a foreign reciprocating country if the foreign country has established, or undertakes to establish, procedures for the establishment and enforcement of duties of [child] support substantially in conformity with [these laws]. [This will be implemented through treaties.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: From the new Idaho Observer... Date: 28 Jun 1997 00:16:22 -0700 What is the Matter with Me? by Ronn Jackson When I wake up in the morning I have this feeling. It is hard to describe, and I can’t put my finger on it. I throw the blanket over and sit up. As I am doing so, a piece of paper scratches my nose. I grab it and find that it is sewn onto the blanket. I put on my glasses that are made to government specifications. I remember that there is a tag on the mattress, and I’m sure the mattress also complies to one or more government regulations. I remember that the bed is a government taxed item; the pillows have government labels and all of the bedroom accessories are taxed by the government. And, of course, regulated by the government. I light a cigarette that has a government warning on the outside of the heavily government controlled and taxed package, and I notice a government warning on the outside of the government taxed and regulated lighter. I walk across the carpet, which is regulated and taxed by the government and go into the bathroom. Mother nature calls. I flush the government specified toilet, using government owned and taxed water. I wash my hands with soap regulated and taxed by the government again using government water, and dry them with a government regulated and taxed towel. I brush my teeth with a government regulated and taxed toothbrush and toothpaste, using government water. I walk back over to the bed, put on my government regulated and taxed robe and slippers, and walk into the kitchen. I get down a can of government regulated and taxed coffee, fill the government controlled, taxed and regulated Percalator with government water, plug in the appliance to a government controlled, regulated and taxed outlet to use government controlled, regulated and taxed electricity. My wife comes into the kitchen wearing her government controlled and taxed night clothing, followed by our children wearing government controlled and taxed clothes, carrying government controlled and sometimes government written school books. We have breakfast composed of government controlled and regulated food that has been taxed by the government. When finished, I usher the children outside, cross a government sidewalk and put them on a government bus that takes them to a government school to learn what the government tells them to learn. I return to my home, which I purchased with a government loan, and am reminded that my government taxes are due soon and government required insurance is also due. I kiss my wife (our marriage required a government license) and go out and get into my car, which was built under government regulation and which was taxed and licensed by the government. I start it, using government controlled and taxed fuel and oil, and back out onto a government street. I drive to work, obeying government signs and government lights, and park in a government controlled and taxed facility. I go into my place of employment, which is controlled and taxed by the government, and sit down at my desk in an environment controlled by the government. As I do my job, I’m using materials made to government specifications. My $10.00 per hour wage is assessed by four government agencies, and my work product is controlled, shipped and taxed by the government. My conduct is regulated by the government, and my timecard is "screwtinized" by the government. I go to lunch in a facility controlled and taxed by the government, and I’m served food that is regulated, controlled and taxed by the government. I return to work, and make several phone calls which are controlled, taxed and regulated by the government. When my day is over, my supervisor stops at my desk and asks me to contribute to her boss’ campaign fund for government office. On my way home, using government streets, I stop to buy government controlled and taxed liquor and cigarettes. Outside, I stop and purchase a newspaper from a stand that has a government warning on it. In the twenty-minute drive to my home I pass a government owned police car, a government owned fire truck, a government owned garbage truck, a government owned mass-transit bus and a government owned street sweeper. When I arrive home I pick up my mail, which has been delivered by government employees. The mail includes four bills, all of which have government fees attached to them. I turn on the television, which is regulated and taxed by the government, to watch the news. A government spokesperson says that the government is going to reduce taxes. I pour myself a drink in a government controlled and taxed glass and sit down in a chair that I paid government taxes on and reflect upon my day. My family is all in bed, and my thoughts are still on that feeling I had this morning. Something is still on my mind, and I’m no nearer to a solution than I was then. Maybe..., I think, and then I push those bad thoughts right out of my mind. This is America! This is the land of Liberty and Freedom! I know I’m free. The government tells me that I am. - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh Lord, lead us into Your Glory - bathe us in the holy & pure light of Your Spirit; let Your righteous fire burn away all that is in us that is not of You, so that we might worship the Living God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Amen. ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Rutherford Institute On Supreme Court Decision (fwd) Date: 28 Jun 1997 13:10:23 -0500 At 03:36 PM 6/26/97 -0500, pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > >>From the URL: >http://www.rutherford.org/press.html >In striking down RFRA, the Supreme Court said Congress had overstepped its >boundaries and endangered the system of checks and balances that exist >within government. The court also reprimanded Congress for changing the >meaning of the First Amendment while claiming to affirm it. Of course the Court recognizes *no* boundries on itself. It can overturn state Constitutional amendments passed by the people of that state, it can refuse to hear cases dealing with disfavored amendments (like the second), The only limit on its power that it *might* recognize, and in fact would have little choice in the matter, is the power of impeachment. Impeachment is something like nuclear weapons, no one really wants to use it. Perhaps the time has come. I myself am not a religious person, but it seems to me that the government, the Court included, in its zeal to observe the first part of the religion clause of the first amendment has chosen to ignore the second part. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ****or prohibiting the free exercise thereof****" Maybe they just don't like "second" things, the second part of the religion clause, the second amendment... 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: Rutherford Institute On Supreme Court Decision (fwd) Date: 28 Jun 1997 13:10:23 -0500 At 03:36 PM 6/26/97 -0500, pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > >>From the URL: >http://www.rutherford.org/press.html >In striking down RFRA, the Supreme Court said Congress had overstepped its >boundaries and endangered the system of checks and balances that exist >within government. The court also reprimanded Congress for changing the >meaning of the First Amendment while claiming to affirm it. Of course the Court recognizes *no* boundries on itself. It can overturn state Constitutional amendments passed by the people of that state, it can refuse to hear cases dealing with disfavored amendments (like the second), The only limit on its power that it *might* recognize, and in fact would have little choice in the matter, is the power of impeachment. Impeachment is something like nuclear weapons, no one really wants to use it. Perhaps the time has come. I myself am not a religious person, but it seems to me that the government, the Court included, in its zeal to observe the first part of the religion clause of the first amendment has chosen to ignore the second part. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ****or prohibiting the free exercise thereof****" Maybe they just don't like "second" things, the second part of the religion clause, the second amendment... 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: I-75, Russia or Amerika??? (fwd) Date: 28 Jun 1997 13:34:31 -0500 At 01:06 AM 6/26/97 -0400, you wrote: > >I was the guest of honor at one of these affairs a couple of years ago. I >encountered a "Narcotics Checkpoint 1 Mile Ahead" sign just before exit >340 on I-40E. I try to peacefully resist the impingements of the police >state on my life, so I exited at #340. The real checkpont was set up >just out of sight at the exit and my exiting was construed as providing >"reasonable suspicion" that I was a criminal. I have gotten two first hand reports of the same technique being used on I-35 south of Dallas. It's an obvious trick, I'm supprised you "fell" for it. They also will use the "game check" dodge. The Nebraska State Game and Parks Commission was *bragging* about such a stop on I-80 in central Nebraska, in their NebraskaLand magazine in a recent issue.The stop included particpation by state patrol, DEA and "other" agencies, as well as game wardens. The agencies other than Game & Parks had a much larger "haul" than G&P did. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: New Clean Air Standards Could Place Children at Greater Risk Date: 28 Jun 1997 08:05:54 -0700 Paul, [...] New Clean Air Standards Could Place Children at Greater Risk [...] You know that he knows, that children aren't even the reason. You also know that depriving citizens of mobility will achieve a majot goal of his administration: Centralizing the population into very tight urban centers, where effective gun control can be administered. Taxation of the worst kind will then be enforced to pay for the necessary police populations needed to enforce strict laws. If the states enforce the laws, as intended, the cities may become worse than the ghetto's ever thought of being. Hmmm, kind of reminds me of a scene right of "Soylent Green." It isn't a far fetched thought. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: New Clean Air Standards Could Place Children at Greater Risk Date: 28 Jun 1997 08:05:54 -0700 Paul, [...] New Clean Air Standards Could Place Children at Greater Risk [...] You know that he knows, that children aren't even the reason. You also know that depriving citizens of mobility will achieve a majot goal of his administration: Centralizing the population into very tight urban centers, where effective gun control can be administered. Taxation of the worst kind will then be enforced to pay for the necessary police populations needed to enforce strict laws. If the states enforce the laws, as intended, the cities may become worse than the ghetto's ever thought of being. Hmmm, kind of reminds me of a scene right of "Soylent Green." It isn't a far fetched thought. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: I-75, Russia or Amerika??? (fwd) Date: 28 Jun 1997 16:06:00 -0400 (EDT) On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Joe Sylvester wrote: > At 01:06 AM 6/26/97 -0400, you wrote: > > > >I was the guest of honor at one of these affairs a couple of years ago. I > >encountered a "Narcotics Checkpoint 1 Mile Ahead" sign just before exit > >340 on I-40E. I try to peacefully resist the impingements of the police > >state on my life, so I exited at #340. The real checkpont was set up > >just out of sight at the exit and my exiting was construed as providing > >"reasonable suspicion" that I was a criminal. > > I have gotten two first hand reports of the same technique being used on > I-35 south of Dallas. > > It's an obvious trick, I'm supprised you "fell" for it. I had a naive belief that I couldn't be detained and searched without first having done something wrong. I know better now. bd > > They also will use the "game check" dodge. The Nebraska State Game and > Parks Commission was *bragging* about such a stop on I-80 in central > Nebraska, in their NebraskaLand magazine in a recent issue.The stop > included particpation by state patrol, DEA and "other" agencies, as well as > game wardens. The agencies other than Game & Parks had a much larger "haul" > than G&P did. > > > > > 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: Column, June 23 (fwd) Date: 28 Jun 1997 16:21:59 -0500 At 08:08 AM 6/27/97 -0500, pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 04:17:43 -0400 >From: Vin Suprynowicz > THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz > Bleating Republicans can't even close down a few old army bases > > Pinch yourself. Keep repeating: "The lower-tax, less-government >Republicans captured both house of Congress three years ago. We are now >watching the actions of a (start ital)Republican(end ital) Congress." > > The Pentagon has closed or is preparing to close 97 major domestic bases >by 2001, according to The Associated Press. A few weeks ago the military >high command announced it will ask Congress to authorize two more rounds of >base closings, beginning in 1999. > > Since post-Cold War troop levels have shrunk, fewer bases are needed. > > In a recent letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Joint >Chiefs urged further cuts in the base structure, predicting a further >reduction in manpower of 36 percent. In contrast, the Cold War base >structure had been reduced only by a quarter, tying up money needed for >equipment modernization. Of course ginning up a base takes longer than calling up a bunch of reservists and/or pushing a bunch of new enlistees through basic and advanced individual training. Now closing bases wouldn't be nearly so bad if what they actually did was convert them to reserve forces bases or revert them to caretaker status with a small maintaince crew to preserve the investment of the taxpayers, against the day, which could come at any time and very swiftly, that they might be needed again. > > "If we're serious about having funds for modernization ... you've got to >then reduce the excess infrastructure," Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the >committee's ranking Democrat, told reporters June 13. Of course many making such pleas have no intention of spending the money saved on Modernization, nor of giving it back to the taxpayers either. > > Yet the committee -- dominated by those tight-fisted Republicans who >supposedly want to reduce our taxes and clean up 40 years of accumulated >porkfat -- failed to authorize the two further rounds of base closings in >1999 and 2001, on a 9-9 vote. This despite support for the closings by >Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Dan Coats, R-Ind. -- hardly a couple of >peaceniks. Not familiar with Coats, but McCain is sounding more and more like a RINO, still suffering from the effects of North Vietnamese brainwashing during his time as a POW. > > Meantime -- forget the gentle pinching, could you now just please slap me >solidly upside the head -- the Republican Senate is actually considering >sending big packages of greenbacks, in plain brown wrappers, to the >shipyard at Newport News, Va., to start paying for construction of a new >aircraft carrier. > > This despite the fact no aircraft carrier is now being built, because the >Navy has not asked for another aircraft carrier. Or more correctly hasn't been allowed by the Clintonistas to ask for one. Read the Naval Institute proceedings and decide if Naval Officers think they actually need one. (Hint they do, if for no other reason than to reduce the time spent on long deployments necessitated by the current small number of carrier battle groups and the activism of the Clintonistas in sending them hiether and yon to "show the flag" to some third world cesspool. > Never mind. Sending money to the shipyard now, explain Senate >Republicans, would allow it to operate more efficiently, thus achieving a >total saving of $600 million on the new multibillion-dollar jobs program >for the constituents of Virginia senators John Warner and Chuck Robb ... >should the need ever arise for another new carrier. > > Have I stumbled into the Mad Hatter's tea party? Is there a prize for >whoever can waste the most tax money by the Fourth of July? > > Defense readiness, as the Joint Chiefs keep insisting, requires that the >federals (start ital)stop(end ital) spending money on the big congressional >jobs programs which our superfluous, outdated system of domestic military >bases have become. Military readiness requires that the federals shift >money to modernizing their downsized post-Cold War armed forces ... (start >ital)not(end ital) continue to waste it building overpriced, behemoth >aircraft carriers and B-2 bombers, designed to fight enemies long vanished. Oh the Communists no longer control China? Aircraft Carriers and long range bombers would come in very handy should the need to fight China ever occur. It remains as it has always been, the best way to have peace is to prepare for war. Applies to countries and individuals alike. > > Fed up with 40 years of Democratic arrogance, favoritism, and deficit >spending, Americans put the GOP in charge of the nation's purse-strings in >1994 expecting -- at the very least -- some fiscal sanity, some real >reductions in federal spending and power, a federal budget annually >balanced with appreciable tax cuts, and the shutdown of (start ital)at >least(end ital) a handful of redundant federal offices and bureaus, with >extra trains leaving Union Station to carry the cashiered bureaucrats back >home with their steamer trunks. Don't look now but the military has been suffering such cutbacks and drawdowns since around 1988, before the fall of the Soviet Union, which did accellerate them. Many commented at the time on the incongruety of supplemental appropriations for Desert Shield/Storm at a time when the Bush administration and Congress had just instituted signifigent cuts. Defense is one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal Government. Yes it has at times, like any program with bucks involved, too often become a federal jobs program for the districts of powerfull congressmen. That in no way lessens the importance of doing it right. We are not in danger of having a hollow military, we already have one, at least in terms of protecting the United States from foreign threats, We still have enough to intervene in every jerkwater country that can't get it's own act together, at the behest, or under the cover of, the UN. 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: Column, June 23 (fwd) Date: 28 Jun 1997 16:21:59 -0500 At 08:08 AM 6/27/97 -0500, pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 04:17:43 -0400 >From: Vin Suprynowicz > THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz > Bleating Republicans can't even close down a few old army bases > > Pinch yourself. Keep repeating: "The lower-tax, less-government >Republicans captured both house of Congress three years ago. We are now >watching the actions of a (start ital)Republican(end ital) Congress." > > The Pentagon has closed or is preparing to close 97 major domestic bases >by 2001, according to The Associated Press. A few weeks ago the military >high command announced it will ask Congress to authorize two more rounds of >base closings, beginning in 1999. > > Since post-Cold War troop levels have shrunk, fewer bases are needed. > > In a recent letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Joint >Chiefs urged further cuts in the base structure, predicting a further >reduction in manpower of 36 percent. In contrast, the Cold War base >structure had been reduced only by a quarter, tying up money needed for >equipment modernization. Of course ginning up a base takes longer than calling up a bunch of reservists and/or pushing a bunch of new enlistees through basic and advanced individual training. Now closing bases wouldn't be nearly so bad if what they actually did was convert them to reserve forces bases or revert them to caretaker status with a small maintaince crew to preserve the investment of the taxpayers, against the day, which could come at any time and very swiftly, that they might be needed again. > > "If we're serious about having funds for modernization ... you've got to >then reduce the excess infrastructure," Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the >committee's ranking Democrat, told reporters June 13. Of course many making such pleas have no intention of spending the money saved on Modernization, nor of giving it back to the taxpayers either. > > Yet the committee -- dominated by those tight-fisted Republicans who >supposedly want to reduce our taxes and clean up 40 years of accumulated >porkfat -- failed to authorize the two further rounds of base closings in >1999 and 2001, on a 9-9 vote. This despite support for the closings by >Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Dan Coats, R-Ind. -- hardly a couple of >peaceniks. Not familiar with Coats, but McCain is sounding more and more like a RINO, still suffering from the effects of North Vietnamese brainwashing during his time as a POW. > > Meantime -- forget the gentle pinching, could you now just please slap me >solidly upside the head -- the Republican Senate is actually considering >sending big packages of greenbacks, in plain brown wrappers, to the >shipyard at Newport News, Va., to start paying for construction of a new >aircraft carrier. > > This despite the fact no aircraft carrier is now being built, because the >Navy has not asked for another aircraft carrier. Or more correctly hasn't been allowed by the Clintonistas to ask for one. Read the Naval Institute proceedings and decide if Naval Officers think they actually need one. (Hint they do, if for no other reason than to reduce the time spent on long deployments necessitated by the current small number of carrier battle groups and the activism of the Clintonistas in sending them hiether and yon to "show the flag" to some third world cesspool. > Never mind. Sending money to the shipyard now, explain Senate >Republicans, would allow it to operate more efficiently, thus achieving a >total saving of $600 million on the new multibillion-dollar jobs program >for the constituents of Virginia senators John Warner and Chuck Robb ... >should the need ever arise for another new carrier. > > Have I stumbled into the Mad Hatter's tea party? Is there a prize for >whoever can waste the most tax money by the Fourth of July? > > Defense readiness, as the Joint Chiefs keep insisting, requires that the >federals (start ital)stop(end ital) spending money on the big congressional >jobs programs which our superfluous, outdated system of domestic military >bases have become. Military readiness requires that the federals shift >money to modernizing their downsized post-Cold War armed forces ... (start >ital)not(end ital) continue to waste it building overpriced, behemoth >aircraft carriers and B-2 bombers, designed to fight enemies long vanished. Oh the Communists no longer control China? Aircraft Carriers and long range bombers would come in very handy should the need to fight China ever occur. It remains as it has always been, the best way to have peace is to prepare for war. Applies to countries and individuals alike. > > Fed up with 40 years of Democratic arrogance, favoritism, and deficit >spending, Americans put the GOP in charge of the nation's purse-strings in >1994 expecting -- at the very least -- some fiscal sanity, some real >reductions in federal spending and power, a federal budget annually >balanced with appreciable tax cuts, and the shutdown of (start ital)at >least(end ital) a handful of redundant federal offices and bureaus, with >extra trains leaving Union Station to carry the cashiered bureaucrats back >home with their steamer trunks. Don't look now but the military has been suffering such cutbacks and drawdowns since around 1988, before the fall of the Soviet Union, which did accellerate them. Many commented at the time on the incongruety of supplemental appropriations for Desert Shield/Storm at a time when the Bush administration and Congress had just instituted signifigent cuts. Defense is one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal Government. Yes it has at times, like any program with bucks involved, too often become a federal jobs program for the districts of powerfull congressmen. That in no way lessens the importance of doing it right. We are not in danger of having a hollow military, we already have one, at least in terms of protecting the United States from foreign threats, We still have enough to intervene in every jerkwater country that can't get it's own act together, at the behest, or under the cover of, the UN. 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: Man refuses to hook up to municipal water] (fwd) Date: 18 Jun 1997 07:46:36 -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. --1915762710-1355752201-866637996=:3001 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII --1915762710-1355752201-866637996=:3001 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-ID: Return-Path: Received: from mars.galstar.com ([204.251.80.4]) by sirius.wnstar.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36386U2500L250S0) with ESMTP id AAA97; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 20:54:52 -0700 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mars.galstar.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA15867 for piml-mail; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 22:51:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by mars.galstar.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA15860 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 22:51:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA03738; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 23:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970613235007_-1964172586@emout15.mail.aol.com> Errors-To: piml-owner@mars.galstar.com X-bmw: Black Marble Wombat Version 5.1 Galstar Secure Hack --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Man refuses to hook up to municipal water Stafford's water utility holdout let out of jail after serving 8 days By STEPHANIE HOO MANAHAWKIN BUREAU STAFFORD TOWNSHIP -- For three years, Robert Kusznikow steadfastly refused to hook up his Oxycocus Road home to the municipal water supply. Kusznikow quoted the Constitution, he spoke of personal liberties. But after a cycle of appeals, Municipal Court Judge Paul J. Carr on June 2 sentenced Kusznikow to 90 days in jail. It turned out that eight days was enough. Kusznikow Tuesday finally had his house hooked up to municipal water lines a day after getting out of jail -- even though the water hookup was not a condition of his early release. He paid a plumber $750 to do the job. Kusznikow Tuesday said he gave in because he heard that the Municipal Utilities Authority was threatening to try to send his wife, Susan, to jail too. But MUA attorney Gregory P. McGuckin said there is no complaint filed against Susan Kusznikow. "That's absolutely ridiculous," he said. "We don't want his wife to go to jail." Superior Court Judge Peter J. Giovine on Monday issued a stay of sentence while Kusznikow waits for an appeal of his sentence to be heard, a court spokeswoman said. There were no requirements attached to the postponement of the sentence, she said. In fact, since the Kusznikow home is now hooked up to municipal water, "we would anticipate no further legal action," McGuckin said. "All we wanted was, we wanted him to connect." Kusznikow, though, said his fight is not over. "We plan to fight it as far as we can take it," he said. "I can't believe that this is going on in this country." The well on his property is just fine, he said. No one is compelled to hook up to electricity or cable television, he argued, so why should he be forced to pay for water? He said he has finally hooked up "under protest," while he considers his next action. Kusznikow is the first person jailed in New Jersey for refusing to accept public water, according to lawyers familiar with public utilities laws. His case has become something of a cause celebre in Stafford, and long before he was thrown in jail last week, he often displayed a stubborn streak and independent nature, say those who know him. His libertarian leanings were first instilled in him by his Russian emigre parents, who met while prisoners in Nazi Germany and later chose to make their way to America rather than return to Russia to suffer under Stalinism, said Kusznikow's sister, Tamara Mazzola of Denville Township, Morris County. Their father always taught them "you have to believe what you believe and stand up for what you believe," Mazzola said. Kusznikow said he has taken those lessons to heart. His parents "influenced me a great deal, by coming to a country where people are free and have rights," he said. But Kusznikow's former employer, Deborah C. Whitcraft of the Black Whale passenger boat fleet in Beach Haven, found his independence more annoying than idealistic. "He has a real problem with authority," she said. "He did not want to take orders." She said she eventually fired him about five years ago because of his "arrogant attitude." But he landed on his feet, becoming his own boss by opening two Dollar Discount stores. "My husband always wanted to go into his own business," said wife Susan Kusznikow. "He's a good guy. He's outspoken, he's stubborn, he tells you how it is." Robert and Susan Kusznikow moved to Stafford from Bergen County in 1980, for the lower taxes and to be closer to the ocean. But "in the time we've been here, the taxes have become just outrageous," she said. "It's no longer a nice, quiet town. . . . It's got the same junk as North Jersey." Kusznikow has become increasingly unhappy with Stafford's suburbanization, she said. "I'm always saying you can't fight City Hall," Susan Kusznikow said. "But he says, 'No, you're wrong.' " Published in the Asbury Park Press 6/11/97 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman --1915762710-1355752201-866637996=:3001-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Sanchez Fundraiser (OT) (fwd) Date: 16 Jun 1997 13:41:59 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: 75613.3706@compuserve.com, bruce10@juno.com, pan@goodnet.com, mossad@ix.netcom.com, 72073.3312@compuserve.com, jrhulvey@aol.com [www.FreeRepublic.com] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] Topic: Voter Fraud House Democratic Leaders Start Sanchez Fund-Raiser The Los Angeles Times 06/10/97 By GEBE MARTINEZ, Times Staff Writer ASHINGTON--Signaling the high stakes in the fight over the Orange County congressional seat held by Rep. Loretta Sanchez, House Democratic leaders have undertaken a major fund-raising campaign on her behalf. In a letter signed last week by House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt and other Democratic Caucus leaders, each of the 206 Democratic members of Congress is being asked to donate at least $500 to Sanchez's election "Recount Fund." House Republicans have been reluctant to raise money on behalf of former Rep. Robert K. Dornan, who is trying to reclaim his seat through an election challenge. The National Republican Congressional Committee has turned down his requests for help raising money for the fight before the House, said Mike Schroeder, Dornan's attorney. "They didn't give a specific reason why they have not helped," Schroeder said. The fight over Orange County's 46th Congressional District extends beyond the political careers of Sanchez and Dornan, as the stepped-up defense by the Democrats indicates. It is a congressional seat the Republicans did not want to lose in a legendary GOP stronghold and one the Democrats want to hold on to after it unexpectedly fell into their hands after November's election. Dornan and Sanchez have spent about $300,000 each on the election recount and the subsequent election challenge that Dornan filed. The former Garden Grove congressman is attempting to prove that voting by noncitizens cost him the election, which he lost by 984 votes. The letter to Democratic House members says Sanchez has spent more than $200,000 on legal bills alone. "Because the Republicans are likely to extend this case until the end of summer, the possibility of Loretta having to spend another $200,000 is very real," according to the letter. "Loretta needs and deserves our help." The letter was signed by Gephardt of Missouri, Minority Whip David E. Bonier of Michigan, Caucus Chairman Vic Fazio of Sacramento, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Martin Frost of Texas and Caucus Vice Chairman Barbara Kennelly of Connecticut. Federal law places no limit on contributions individuals and political action committees can make to support post-election fights like the one between Dornan and Sanchez, and the donations do not have to be publicly reported. Corporations and unions, however, cannot make contributions. Dornan is raising money for his case through his congressional campaign committee, which is subject to limits set by the Federal Elections Commission of $1,000 for individuals and $5,000 for PACs, and a separate fund to contest the election, Schroeder said. He recently began soliciting donations through his Web site. Copyright Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com Visit Robert K. Dornan's Voter Fraud Website Posted by: Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com) 06/10/97 12:22:41 PDT [www.FreeRepublic.com] ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Land-Mine Legislation (fwd) Date: 28 Jun 1997 11:43:54 PST On Jun 28, djustice wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] When I first received Land-Mine Legislation I thought it was written about MY congressperson. It wasn't, but it should have been. The question in my mind is, how many more does it apply to? Passing this article around to my fellow activists has resulted in a growing effort to 'dethrone' the woman we once championed. If you or anyone else would like to know how are we doing this, please contact me. Remember Tom Foley? He may have been the first to go down via the internet, but he will not be the last! **************************************** ***Is YOUR congressperson the one doing this to the country???*** LAND-MINE LEGISLATION By Claire Wolfe NOTE: The first half of this essay originally circulated on the Internet under the title "Pearl Harbor Legislation." The entire essay, with that title, appeared on some web pages. ----- Let me run by you a brief list of items that are "the law" in America today. As you read, consider what all these have in common. 1. A national database of employed people 2. 100 pages of new "health care crimes," for which the penalty is (among other things) seizure of assets from both doctors and patients 3. Confiscation of assets from any American who establishes foreign citizenship 4. The largest gun confiscation act in U.S. history -- which is also an unconstitutional *ex post facto* law and the first law ever to remove people's constitutional rights for committing a misdemeanor 5. A law banning guns in ill-defined school zones; random roadblocks may be used for enforcement; gun-bearing residents may become federal criminals just by stepping outside their doors or getting into their vehicles. 6. Increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, an agency infamous for its brutality, dishonesty and ineptitude 7. A law enabling the executive branch to declare various groups "terrorist" -- without stating any reason and without the possibility of appeal. Once a group has been so declared, its mailing and membership lists must be turned over to the government. 8. A law authorizing secret trials with secret evidence for certain classes of people 9. A law requiring that all states begin issuing drivers licenses carrying Social Security numbers and "security features" (such as magnetically coded fingerprints and personal records) by October 1, 2000. By October 1, 2006, "Neither the Social Security Administration or the Passport Office or any other Federal agency or any State or local government agency may accept for any evidentiary purpose a State driver's license or identification document in a form other than [one issued without a verified Social Security number and "security features"]." 10. And my personal favorite -- a national database, now being constructed, that will contain every exchange and observation that takes place in your doctor's office. This includes records of your prescriptions, your hemorrhoids and your mental illness. It also includes -- by law -- any statements you make ("Doc, I'm worried my kid may be on drugs," "Doc, I've been so stressed out lately I feel about ready to go postal.") and any observations your doctor makes about your mental or physical condition, whether accurate or not, whether made with your knowledge or not. For the time being, there will be zero (count 'em, zero) privacy safeguards on this data. But don't worry, your government will protect you with some undefined "privacy standards" in a few years. All of the above items are the law of the land. Federal law. What else do they have in common? Well, when I ask this question to audiences, I usually get the answer, "They're all unconstitutional." True. My favorite answer came from an eloquent college student who blurted, "They all SUUUCK!" Also true. But the saddest and most telling answer is: They were all the product of the 104th Congress. Every one of the horrors above was imposed upon you by the Congress of the Republican Revolution -- the Congress that pledged to "get government off your back." BURYING TIME BOMBS All of the above became law by being buried in larger bills. In many cases, they were what my friend, gun-rights activist Charles Curley, calls "Pearl Harbor Legislation" -- sneak attacks upon individual liberty that were neither debated on the floor of Congress nor reported in the media. For instance, three of the most horrific items (the health care database, asset confiscation for foreign residency and the 100 pages of health care crimes) were hidden in the Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HR 3103). You didn't hear about them at the time because the media was too busy celebrating this "moderate, compromise" bill that "simply" ensured that no American would ever lose insurance coverage due to a job change or a pre-existing condition. Your legislator may not have heard about them, either. Because he or she didn't care enough to do so. The fact is, most legislators don't even read the laws they inflict upon the public. They read the title of the bill (which may be something like "The Save the Sweet Widdle Babies from Gun Violence by Drooling Drug Fiends Act of 1984"). They read summaries, which are often prepared by the very agencies or groups pushing the bill. And they vote according to various deals or pressures. It also sometimes happens that the most horrible provisions are sneaked into bills during conference committee negotiations, after both House and Senate have voted on their separate versions of the bills. The conference committee process is supposed simply to reconcile differences between two versions of a bill. But power brokers use it for purposes of their own, adding what they wish. Then members of the House and Senate vote on the final, unified version of the bill, often in a great rush, and often without even having the amended text available for review. I have even heard (though I cannot verify) that stealth provisions are written into some bills after all the voting has taken place. Someone with a hidden agenda simply edits them in to suit his or her own purposes. So these time bombs become "law" without ever having been voted on by anybody. And who's to know? If congresspeople don't even read legislation before they vote on it, why would they bother reading it afterward? Are power brokers capable of such chicanery? Do we even need to ask? Is the computer system in which bills are stored vulnerable to tampering by people within or outside of Congress? We certainly should ask. Whether your legislators were ignorant of the infamy they were perpetrating, or whether they knew, one thing is absolutely certain: The Constitution, your legislator's oath to it, and your inalienable rights (which preceded the Constitution) never entered into anyone's consideration. Ironically, you may recall that one of the early pledges of Newt Gingrich and Company was to stop these stealth attacks. Very early in the 104th Congress, the Republican leadership declared that, henceforth, all bills would deal *only* with the subject matter named in the title of the bill. When, at the beginning of the first session of the 104th, pro-gun Republicans attempted to attach a repeal of the "assault weapons" ban to another bill, House leaders dismissed their amendment as not being "germane." After that self-righteous and successful attempt to prevent pro-freedom stealth legislation, Congresspeople turned right around and got back to the dirty old business of practicing all the anti-freedom stealth they were capable of. STEALTH ATTACKS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT Three other items on my list (ATF funding, gun confiscation and school zone roadblocks) were also buried in a big bill -- HR 3610, the budget appropriation passed near the end of the second session of the 104th Congress. No legislator can claim to have been unaware of these three because they were brought to public attention by gun-rights groups and hotly debated in both Congress and the media. Yet some *90 percent* of all congresspeople voted for them -- including many who claim to be ardent protectors of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Why? Well, in the case of my wrapped-in-the-flag, allegedly pro-gun, Republican congressperson: "Bill Clinton made me do it!" Okay, I paraphrase. What she actually said was more like, "It was part of a budget appropriations package. The public got mad at us for shutting the government down in 1995. If we hadn't voted for this budget bill, they might have elected a Democratic legislature in 1996 -- and you wouldn't want THAT, would you?" Oh heavens, no! I'd much rather be enslaved by people who spell their name with an R than people who spell their name with a D. Makes all the difference in the world! HOW SNEAK ATTACKS ARE JUSTIFIED The Republicans are fond of claiming that Bill Clinton "forced" them to pass certain legislation by threatening to veto anything they sent to the White House that didn't meet his specs. In other cases (as with the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill), they proudly proclaim their misdeeds in the name of bipartisanship -- while carefully forgetting to mention the true nature of what they're doing. In still others, they trumpet their triumph over the evil Democrats and claim the mantle of limited government while sticking it to us and to the Constitution. The national database of workers was in the welfare reform bill they "forced" Clinton to accept. The requirement for SS numbers and ominous "security" devices on drivers licenses originated in their very own Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, HR 2202. Another common trick, called to my attention by Redmon Barbry, publisher of the electronic magazine, *Fratricide*, is to hide duplicate or near-duplicate provisions in several bills. Then, when the Supreme Court declares Section A of Law Z to be unconstitutional, its kissing cousin, Section B of Law Y, remains to rule us. Sometimes this particular form of trickery is done even more brazenly; when the Supreme Court, in its *Lopez* decision, declared federal-level school zone gun bans unconstitutional because Congress demonstrated no jurisdiction, Congress brassily changed a few words. They claimed that school zones fell under the heading of "interstate commerce." Then they sneaked the provision into HR 3610, where it became "law" once again. When angry voters upbraid congresspeople about some Big Brotherish horror they've inflicted upon the country by stealth, they claim lack of knowledge, lack of time, party pressure, public pressure, or they justify themselves by claiming that the rest of the bill was "good." The simple fact is that, regardless of what reasons legislators may claim, the U.S. Congress has passed more Big Brother legislation in the last two years -- more laws to enable tracking, spying and controlling -- than any Democratic congress ever passed. And they have done it, in large part, in secret. Redmon Barbry put it best: "We the people have the right to expect our elected representatives to read, comprehend and master the bills they vote on....If this means Congress passes only 50 bills per session instead of 5,000, so be it. As far as I am concerned, whoever subverts this process is committing treason." By whatever means the deed is done, there is no acceptable excuse for voting against the Constitution, voting for tyranny. And I would add to Redmon's comments: Those who *do* read the bills, then *knowingly* vote to ravage our liberties, are doubly guilty. But when do the treason trials begin? BILLS AS WINDOW DRESSING FOR AN UGLY AGENDA The truth is that these tiny, buried provisions are often the *real* intent of the law, and that the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pages that surround them are sometimes nothing more than elaborate window dressing. These tiny time bombs are placed there at the behest of federal police agencies or other power groups whose agenda is not clearly visible to us. And their impact is felt long after the outward intent of the bill has been forgotten. Civil forfeiture -- now one of the plagues of the nation -- was first introduced in the 1970s as one of those buried, almost unnoticed provisions of a larger law. One wonders why on earth a "health care bill" carried a provision to confiscate the assets of people who become frightened or discouraged enough to leave the country. (In fact, the entire bill was an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code. Go figure.) I think we all realize by now that that database of employed people will still be around enabling government to track our locations (and heaven knows what else about us, as the database is enhanced and expanded) long after the touted benefits of "welfare reform" have failed to materialize. And most grimly of all, our drivers licenses will be our de-facto national ID card long after immigrants have ceased to want to come to this Land of the Once Free. CONTROL REIGNS It matters not one whit whether the people controlling you call themselves R's or D's, liberals or conservatives, socialists or even (I hate to admit it) libertarians. It doesn't matter whether they vote for these horrors because they're not paying attention or because they actually *like* such things. What matters is that the pace of totalitarianism is increasing. And it is coming closer to our daily lives all the time. Once your state passes the enabling legislation (under threat of losing "federal welfare dollars"), it is YOUR name and Social Security number that will be entered in that employee database the moment you go to work for a new employer. It is YOU who will be unable to cash a check, board an airplane, get a passport or be allowed any dealings with any government agency if you refuse to give your SS number to the drivers license bureau. It is YOU who will be endangered by driving "illegally" if you refuse to submit to Big Brother's licensing procedures. It is YOU whose psoriasis, manic depression or prostate troubles will soon be the reading matter of any bureaucrat with a computer. It is YOU who could be declared a member of a "foreign terrorist" organization just because you bought a book or concert tickets from some group the government doesn't like. It is YOU who could lose your home, bank account and reputation because you made a mistake on a health insurance form. Finally, when you become truly desperate for freedom, it is YOU whose assets will be seized if you try to flee this increasingly insane country. As Ayn Rand said in *Atlas Shrugged*, "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." It's time to drop any pretense: We are no longer law-abiding citizens. We have lost our law-abiding status. There are simply too many laws to abide. And because of increasingly draconian penalties and electronic tracking mechanisms, our "lawbreaking" places us and our families in greater jeopardy every day. STOPPING RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT The question is: What are we going to do about it? Write a nice, polite letter to your congressperson? Hey, if you think that'll help, I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying. (And it isn't your "bridge to the future," either.) Vote "better people" into office? Oh yeah, that's what we thought we were doing in 1994. Work to fight one bad bill or another? Okay. What will you do about the 10 or 20 or 100 equally horrible bills that will be passed behind your back while you were fighting that little battle? And let's say you defeat a nightmare bill this year. What are you going to do when they sneak it back in, at the very last minute, in some "omnibus legislation" next year? And what about the horrors you don't even learn about until two or three years after they become law? Should you try fighting these laws in the courts? Where do you find the resources? Where do you find a judge who doesn't have a vested interest in bigger, more powerful government? And again, for every one case decided in favor of freedom, what do you do about the 10, 20 or 100 in which the courts decide against the Bill of Rights? Perhaps you'd consider trying to stop the onrush of these horrors with a constitutional amendment -- maybe one that bans "omnibus" bills, requires that every law meet a constitutional test or requires all congresspeople to sign statements that they've read and understood every aspect of every bill on which they vote. Good luck! Good luck , first, on getting such an amendment passed. Then good luck getting our Constitution-scorning "leaders" to obey it. It is true that liberty requires eternal vigilance, and that part of that vigilance has been, traditionally, keeping a watchful eye on laws and on lawbreaking lawmakers. But given the current pace of law spewing and unconstitutional regulation-writing, you could watch, plead and struggle "within the system" 24 hours a day for your entire life and end up infinitely less free than when you began. Why throw your life away on a futile effort? Face it. If "working within the system" could halt tyranny, the tyrants would outlaw it. Why do you think they encourage you to vote, to write letters, to talk to them in public forums? It's to divert your energies. To keep you tame. "The system" as it presently exists is nothing but a rat maze. You run around thinking you're getting somewhere. Your masters occasionally reward you with a little pellet that encourages you to believe you're accomplishing something. And in the meantime, you are as much their property and their pawn as if you were a slave. In the effort of fighting them on *their* terms and with *their* authorized and approved tools, you have given your life's energy to them as surely as if you were toiling in their cotton fields, under the lash of their overseer. The *only* way we're going to get off this road to Hell is if we jump off. If we, personally, as individuals, refuse to cooperate with evil. *How* we do that is up to each of us. I can't decide for you, nor you for me. (Unlike congresspeople, who think they can decide for everybody.) But this totalitarian runaway truck is never going to stop unless *we* stop it, in any way we can. Stopping it might include any number of things: tax resistance; public civil disobedience; wide-scale, silent non-cooperation; highly noisy non-cooperation; boycotts; secession efforts; monkey-wrenching; computer hacking; dirty tricks against government agents; public shunning of employees of abusive government agencies; alternative, self-sufficient communities that provide their own medical care and utilities. There are thousands of avenues to take, and this is something most of us still need to give more thought to before we can build an effective resistance. We will each choose the courses that are right for our own circumstances, personalities and beliefs. Whatever we do, though, we must remember that we are all, already, outlaws. Not one of us can be certain of getting through a single day without violating some law or regulation we've never even heard of. We are all guilty in the eyes of today's "law." If someone in power chooses to target us, we can all, already, be prosecuted for *something*. And I'm sure you know that your claims of "good intentions" won't protect you, as the similar claims of politicians protect them. Politicians are above the law. YOU are under it. Crushed under it. When you look at it that way, we have little left to lose by breaking laws *creatively and purposefully*. Yes, some of us will suffer horrible consequences for our lawbreaking. It is very risky to actively resist unbridled power. It is especially risky to go public with resistance (unless hundreds of thousands publicly join us), and it becomes riskier the closer we get to tyranny. For that reason, among many others, I would never recommend any particular course of action to anyone -- and I hope you'll think twice before taking "advice" from anybody about things that could jeopardize your life or well-being. But if we don't resist in the best ways we know how -- and if a good number of us don't resist loudly and publicly -- *all* of us will suffer the much worse consequence of living under total oppression. And whatever courses of action we choose, we must remember that this legislative "revolution" against We the People will not be stopped by politeness. It will not be stopped by requests. It will not be stopped by "working within a system" governed by those who regard us as nothing but cattle. It will not be stopped by pleading for justice from those who will resort to any degree of trickery or violence to rule us. It will not be stopped unless *we* are willing to risk our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honors to stop it. I think of the words of Winston Churchill: "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." # # # NOTES on the laws listed above: 1. (employee database) Welfare Reform Bill, HR 3734; became public law 104-193 on 8/22/96; see section 453A. 2. (health care crimes) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HR 3103; became public law 104-191 on 8/21/96. 3. (asset confiscation for citizenship change) Same law as #2; see sections 511-513. 4, 5 and 6. (anti-gun laws) Omnibus Appropriations Act, HR 3610; became public law 104-208 on 9/30/96. 7 and 8. (terrorism & secret trials) Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996; S 735; became public law 104-132 on 4/24/96; see all of Title III, specifically sections 302 and 219; also see all of Title IV, specifically sections 401, 501, 502 and 503. 9. (de-facto national ID card) Began life in the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, sections 111, 118, 119, 127 and 133; was eventually folded into the Omnibus Appropriations Act, HR 3610 (which was itself formerly called the Defense Appropriations Act -- but we wouldn't want to confuse anyone, here, would we?); became public law 104-208 on 9/30/96; see sections 656 and 657 among others. 10. (health care database) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HR 3103; became public law 104-191 on 8/21/96; see sections 262, 263 and 264, among others. The various provisions that make up the full horror of this database are scattered throughout the bill and may take hours to track down; this one is stealth legislation at its utmost sneakiest. And one final, final note: Although I spent aggravating hours verifying the specifics of these bills (a task I swear I will never waste my life on again!), the original list of bills at the top of this article was NOT the result of extensive research. It was simply what came off the top of my head when I thought of Big Brotherish bills from the 104th Congress. For all I know, Congress has passed 10 times more of that sort of thing. In fact, the worst "law" in the list -- #9, the de-facto national ID card--just came to my attention as I was writing this essay, thanks to the enormous efforts of Jackie Juntti and Ed Lyon and others, who researched the law. Think of it: Thanks to congressional stealth tactics, we had the long-dreaded national ID card legislation for five months, without a whisper of discussion, before freedom activists began to find out about it. Makes you wonder what else might be lurking out there, doesn't it? And on that cheery note -- THE END (c) Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint freely granted, provided the article is reprinted in full and that any reprint is accompanied by this copyright statement. [------------------------- 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: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Reference book Date: 29 Jun 1997 21:29:07 -0700 (PDT) About six months ago, one of the esteemed members of this list suggested several books for reference material. One of which was a book on legal defenses written by an inmate listing various court decisions which errode our rights. Does anyone have the name of the book or the author's name. I thought I had filed this info for later purchase, but now I can't seem to find it when I went to order the book. Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: C.O.P.S. Press Release 6-27-97 / WashPost responce (fwd) Date: 30 Jun 1997 08:44:00 -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. --PART.BOUNDARY.0.15522.emout20.mail.aol.com.867598536 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: <0_15522_867598536@emout20.mail.aol.com.1949> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- See attached press release we sent out Friday. Please pass it on. This file is in "Word Perfect 6.0" formate. I could not attach a copy of Dr. Allards' letter to the file, and you can find a copy of the WashPost story on our webb sight (dated 6-20-97) ( www.Waco93.com) , under "Press" . If. you want Allard's letter I can fax it to you. Thanks, Mike McNulty --PART.BOUNDARY.0.15522.emout20.mail.aol.com.867598536 Content-Type: APPLICATION/OCTET-STREAM; NAME="PRRE6-26.WPD" Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: <0_15522_867598536@emout20.mail.aol.com.1950> /1dQQ4cDAAABCgIAAAAAAgUAAABwIgAAAAIAACW7pYEt80hxCjnousy/zrO3mLAwF39djCSO WtJ2L0RnR4H8pskNsnOHDwqLsnAwvXdG1jOLGey4YjQ6p8SOx3PEgGOPLF4GcGfw65EKdXqm l5aC8QgfTC3IxqKPIxBwP6COFFb+ucg2t2l9ZnxmeCi3AG8Nde992eZp3/4+hkJJrLJOrufY FScNT0biQHlh2RTipdkGCoGN5B+f7VJ2pPdzVNfaihqTKgYw5ouw1hYwBs+3bkaxSSGLmW/w ZRHOGOyD7TrS1RupCo1PhJOvCsvtMPaAkN8hde2A9eeI+Mog5JQDqpQJ9wSRr8eDBGO7HV19 C5TkWmVlqddO5NtcdFtVtvLSx/K7dGGnEtTqs1YyMEyqX/zivTeMcW/QoQKK9HbmnTp3eyYA Z9Gw71Oh2sFUS/UznHm966dXkBIciNTyeHKqMTc2lu7SLtZhZEF4TJED3sS8CAGY4C/5hxX5 6udDU/i/sNPkGsHY/yojmlzNUWKB3RrYv9o6mCS+nRxpqZSN+etP8Ds+6259wut1wwj7kWPg S4EB5YM/6LFBlYp78N7MLQTyOE9uyDvpd2SdG2KeyWgWxvSXp77nKW14qA2gthcLJzu1ThHQ IlfRkkSZpxxdQvYZpdtZvWKv4liKfJpOPLgCAAcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgjAQAAAIYAAABiAgAA AFUGAAAATgAAAOgCAAAJJQEAAAAGAAAANgMAAAswAgAAACgAAAA8AwAACAIBAAAADwAAAGQD AAAINAEAAAAUAAAAcwMAAACYSABQACAATABhAHMAZQByAEoAZQB0ACAASQBJAEkAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIUFBDTDVBAAAAAAAALAHI ACwBLAEsASwBLAHIADD3CBTRAQAU0fcCXx88VPcILCg4GQDOXhkDAAAA8ADWHsMPOQgAAAAJ AAAAWgAbAQCLFDYAVABpAG0AZQBzACAATgBlAHcAIABSAG8AbQBhAG4AIABSAGUAZwB1AGwA YQByAAAAAAAAAAAAAQACAFgCAQAAAAQAKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABEgIAJAChAAAA oQAAAAgzfAB4AAACAABDBQAAAypVVCEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA3QoQAIMBBAADAAIAIRAA 3d0LCwADAAAECwDd1BsfAIABAgAIAIQD38YBAIQDAABYAgIAWAIAAB8A1ICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgEGAUHJlc3OAUmVsZWFzZdAEFQAACwAJAAGwBAAAAAAB IBUA0ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICARnJvbcyAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAVGhlgENJVElaRU5TgE9SR0FOSVpBVElPToCAgICAgICAgICAgICA gEZvcsyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICARk9SgFBVQkxJQ4BTQUZFVFmAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICASW1tZWRpYXRlgM+AgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAMTAwMYCE QYBFYXN0gEhhcm1vbnmAUmQugCMzNTOAgICAgICAgICAgICAgFJlbGVhc2WAgIDPgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICARnQugENvbGxpbnMsgENvLoA4MDUyNcyAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgNQbHwCAAQIACABYAlJzAABYAgEAhAMC AIQD38YfANRKdW5lgDI3LIAxOTk30AQVAAALAAkAAfAMQAgGAAEgFQDQgICAgICAgICAgNQb HwCAAQIACAC7AkhGAgC7AgAAWAICAFgCUnMfANSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgEGAZGlzdHVy YmluZ4Aic3BpbiKAZnJvbYB0aGWAV2FzaGluZ3RvboBQb3N0gICA0AQVAAALAAkAAVAOoAkH AAEgFQDQzNQbHwCAAQIACABYAlJzAABYAgIAuwICALsCSEYfANRJboB0aGWASnVuZYAyMCyA MTk5N4BlZGl0aW9ugG9mgHRoZYBXYXNoaW5ndG9ugFBvc3QsgFJpY2hhcmSATGVpYnmAcmVw b3J0c4B0aGF0gG1hY2hpbmWAZ3Vu0AQVAAALAAkAAXAQwAsJAAEgFQDQzGZpcmWAaW50b4B0 aGWAQnJhbmNogERhdmlkaWFugGNvbXBsZXiAb26AQXByaWyAMTksMTk5MyyAImRpZG4ndIBo YXBwZW4iLIBhY2NvcmRpbmeAdG+AdGhlzMxNYXJ5bGFuZIBBZHZhbmNlZIBEZXZlbG9wbWVu dIBMYWJvcmF0b3J5gGlugEdyZWVuYmVsdIAsgE1hcnlsYW5kLoBXaGlsZYB3ZYBjZXJ0YWlu bHmAaG9sZIDMzGFugG9wcG9zaW5ngHZpZXeAb26AdGhpc4Bpc3N1ZSyAd2WAYXJlgHBlcnBs ZXhlZIBieYB0aGWAUG9zdHMngHNwaW6Ab26AdGhpc4BzdG9yeS6AVGhlgHJlYWyAzMxpc3N1 ZYBjZW50ZXJzgG9ugHRoZYBMYWInc4BhdHRlbXB0gHRvgGNvbXBhcmWAb25lgGtpbmSAb2aA aW5mcmFyZWSAY2FtZXJhgHRvgGGAdG90YWxseYBkaWZmZXJlbnSAzMxraW5kgG9mgGluZnJh cmVkgGRldmljZYAsgGFuZIB0aGVugGNhbGxpbmeAaXSAYW6AJ2FwcGxlc4B0b4BhcHBsZXMn gGNvbXBhcmlzb26AeWllbGRpbmeAInZhbGlkgMzMcmVzdWx0cy4igFdlgHdvdWxkgGxpa2WA dG+AcG9zZYBzZXZlcmFsgHF1ZXN0aW9uc4BvZoBvdXKAb3dugHRvgHRoZYBXYXNoaW5ndG9u gFBvc3SAd2l0aIByZWFsgMzMZXhwZWN0YXRpb25zgG9mgHRoZWlygGJlaW5ngGFuc3dlcmVk LoDMzICAgICAgICAgICAgDEugFdoeYBkaWRuJ3SAdGhlgFBvc3SAcmVwb3J0gHRoYXQsgGJl Zm9yZYB0aGWAc3RvcnmAd2FzgHByaW50ZWSAdGhlgHJlcG9ydGVygMzMgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgGF0dGVtcHRlZIB0b4BnZXSAdGhlgGNvcnJlY3SAaW5mb3JtYXRpb26Ab26AdGhlgG1h a2WAYW5kgG1vZGVsgG9mgHRoZYBGTElSgGRldmljZYDMzICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIB1c2Vk gGJ5gHRoZYBGQkksgGFmdGVygGJlaW5ngGluZm9ybWVkgHRoYXSAdGhlgG9yaWdpbmFsgGlu Zm9ybWF0aW9ugHN1cHBsaWVkgGJ5gHRoZYBGQkmAzMyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAcmVwcmVz ZW50YXRpdmWAd2FzgGluY29ycmVjdIA/gFRoaXOAd2FzgHRoZYBwcmltYXJ5gGRhdGGAdXNl ZIBieYB0aGWATWFyeWxhbmSASW5zdGl0dXRlgMzMgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgHRvgG1vZGVs gGNvbXB1dGVyaXplZIBhbmFseXNpc4BvZoB0aGWAImFsbGVnZWQigGd1boBmaXJlgCyAYW5k gHRoZXJlYnmAY3JpdGljYWyAzMyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAaW5mb3JtYXRpb24ugEFzgHRo ZYBvbGSAc2F5aW5ngGdvZXMsgCJHYXJiYWdlgGlugISAR2FyYmFnZYBvdXQhIoBUaGWAYmFk gGRhdGGAc2tld2VkgMzMgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgHRoZYB0ZXN0gHJlc3VsdIB0b4BhgGZh bHNlgHJlYWRpbmeALszMzICAgICAgICAgIAyLoCAV2h5gGRpZG4ndIB0aGWAcmVwb3J0gGNv bnRhaW6AdGhlgHJlc3BvbnNlgG9mgHRoZYBGQkmAd2hlboBMaWVieYBhc2tlZIBmb3KAdGhl gGNvcnJlY3SAzNAGFQAACwAJAAHwLUApKQABIBUA0IeAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgFBh Z2WAMoCAgICAgICAgICAzICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgFByZXNzgFJlbGVhc2XMzICAgICAgICA gICAgICAZGF0YYBvboB0aGWAZGV2aWNlgHVzZWSAYXSAV2Fjb4A/gEF0gGZpcnN0gHRoZYBG QkmAgHJlbGllZIBvboB0aGWAb2xkgHNhd4AsgCKAd2WAY2FuJ3SAzMyAgICAgICAgICAgICA gGdpdmWAaXSAdG+AeW91gGJlY2F1c2WAb2aAJ05hdGlvbmFsgFNlY3VyaXR5J4Bjb25jZXJu cy4igFRoZYBGTElSgHRlY2hub2xvZ3mAdXNlZIBhdIDMzICAgICAgICAgICAgICAV2Fjb4Bo YWSAYmVlboAiZGVjbGFzc2lmaWVkIoB0d2+AeWVhcnOAYmVmb3JlgHRoZYBXYWNvgGluY2lk ZW50gC6AzMyAgICAgIAzLoCAgIBXaHmAZGlkbid0gHRoZYByZXBvcnSAc3RhdGWAdGhhdIB3 aGVugHByZXNzZWSAZnVydGhlcoBmb3KAdGhlgGNvcnJlY3SAaW5mb3JtYXRpb26AYnmAdGhl gMzMgICAgICAgICAgICAgIBQb3N0cyeAc3RhbHdhcnSAcmVwb3J0ZXIsgHRoZYBGQkmAc2hp ZnRlZIB0b4B0aGWAcGxveYBvZoAicGVuZGluZ4BsaXRpZ2F0aW9ugHByZXZlbnRzgHVzgMzM gICAgICAgICAgICAgIBmcm9tgHNwZWFraW5ngHRvgHlvdYBmdXJ0aGVygG9ugHRoaXOAc3Vi amVjdC4iP4CASXQnc4BpbnRlcmVzdGluZ4B0b4Bub3RlgHRoZYBGQkmAd2FzgMzMgICAgICA gICAgICAgIBmYWxsaW5ngGFsbIBvdmVygGl0c2VsZoBpboBjb29wZXJhdGlvboB3aXRogHRo ZYBQb3N0cyeAZmlyc3SAc3RvcnmAb26AdGhpc4BzdWJqZWN0zMyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiA V2FzaGluZ3RvboBQb3N0gCyANIQxOIQ5N4ApgCyAZXZlboB0aG91Z2iAdGhlgGFmb3JlbWVu dGlvbmVkgCJsaXRpZ2F0aW9uIoB3YXOAzMyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCJwZW5kaW5nIoBldmVu gGF0gHRoYXSAbW9tZW50LoCAgMzMgICAgICANC6AgICAV2h5gGRpZG4ndIB0aGWAcmVwb3J0 gGdpdmWAYWxsgHRoZYBmYWN0c4Bhc4B0b4Bob3eAdGhlgFBvc3SAY2FtZYB0b4BiZYBpboBj b250YWN0zMyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgHdpdGiAdGhlgE1hcnlsYW5kgEluc3RpdHV0ZYA/gFRo ZYBhcnRpY2xlgGxlYWRzgHRoZYByZWFkZXKAdG+AYmVsaWV2ZYB0aGF0gHRoZYBQb3N0gHNv dWdodIDMzICAgICAgICAgICAgICAb3V0gHRoZYBJbnN0aXR1dGUugElugGZhY3QsgHRoZYBw cmVzaWRlbnSAb2aAdGhlgGluc3RpdHV0ZYBjb250YWN0ZWSAdGhlgHJlcG9ydGVygGFmdGVy gHJlYWRpbmeAzMyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgHRoZYBmaXJzdIBzdG9yeYBhbmSAInZvbHVudGVl cmVkIoB0b4Bjb25kdWN0gHNvbWWAdmVyeYBjb3N0bHmAdGVzdHOAZm9ygHRoZYBQb3N0gCiA YXSAbm+AgICAgICAz4CAgIDMgICAgICAgICAgICAgIBjb3N0c4B0b4B0aGWAcGFwZXKAKYAu gFRoZYBNYXJ5bGFuZIBJbnN0aXR1dGWAYXOAYYAigHZvbHVudGVlciKAYmVjb21lc4BpbnRl cmVzdGluZ4B3aGVugMzMgICAgICAgICAgICAgIB3ZYBub3RlgHRoYXSAaXSAZG9lc4Bob2xk gGGAdmFsdWFibGWAZ292ZXJubWVudIBjb250cmFjdIB0b4BkZXZlbG9wgGFugGluZnJhcmVk gMzMgICAgICAgICAgICAgIBiYXNlZIBjb3VudGVyhHNuaXBlcoBkZXRlY3Rpb26Ac3lzdGVt gGZvcoB0aGWAbWlsaXRhcnkugIBBZGRpdGlvbmFsbHksgHRoZYByZXBvcnSAZmFpbGVkgHRv gIDMzICAgICAgICAgICAgICAbWVudGlvboB0aGWAZmFjdIB0aGF0gHRoZYBNYXJ5bGFuZIBB ZHZhbmNlZIBEZXZlbG9wbWVudIBMYWKAaXOAcGFydIBvZoB0aGWAc2FtZYDMzICAgICAgICA gICAgIBvcGVyYXRpb26AKHRoZYBVbml2ZXJzaXR5gG9mgE1hcnlsYW5kKYB0aGF0gHByb3Zp ZGVkgHRoZYBnb3Zlcm5tZW50J3OAYW5hbHlzaXOAb2aAdGhlgMzMgICAgICAgICAgICAgGZp cmVzgGF0gFdhY28ugFRoZYBnb3Zlcm5tZW50gHByZXNlbnRlZIB0aGWAZmluZGluZ3OAb2aA dHdvgCJleHBlcnRzIiyARHIugEphbWVzgEcugMzMgICAgICAgICAgICAgFF1aW50aWVyZYBh bmSARHIugEZyZWRyaWNrgE1vd2VygGlugGGAZG9jdW1lbnSAZW50aXRsZWSAIkZpcmWARGV2 ZWxvcG1lbnSAQW5hbHlzaXOAzMyAgICAgICAgICAgICATW91bnSAQ2FybWVsgEJyYW5jaIBE YXZpZGlhboBDb21wb3VuZIAsgFdhY2+AVGV4YXMsgEFwcmlsgDE5LIAxOTkzLiLMgNAGFQAA CwAJAAFALZAoLAABIBUA0IeAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgFBhZ2WAM8yAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgIBQcmVzc4BSZWxlYXNlzMzMgICAgICAgICARHIugFF1aW50aWVyaYBwcmVz ZW50ZWSAdGhvc2WAZmluZGluZ3OAYXOAYYBnb3Zlcm5tZW50gHdpdG5lc3OAZm9ygHRoZYBw cm9zZWN1dGlvboBpboB0aGWAzMyAgICAgICAgIBCcmFuY2iARGF2aWRpYW6AY3JpbWluYWyA dHJpYWyAaW6AMTk5NC6ASW6AMTk5NYBRdWludGllcmWAcHJlc2VudGVkgHRob3NlgGZpbmRp bmdzgHRvgGGAzMyAgICAgICAgIBDb25ncmVzc2lvbmFsgGNvbW1pdHRlZYBpbnZlc3RpZ2F0 aW5ngHRoZYBnb3Zlcm5tZW50J3OAcm9sZYBhdIBXYWNvLoBBdIB0aGF0gHRpbWWALIDMzICA gICAgICAgFF1aW50aWVyZYBvZmZlcmVkgHRoZYBvcmlnaW5hbIBnb3Zlcm5tZW50gGh5cG90 aGVzaXOAZm9ygHRoZYBGTElSgGFub21hbGllc4Bhc4AiLi4uZmxhc2hlc4DMzICAgICAgICA gG9mgHN1bmxpZ2h0gG9mZoBvZoBkZWJyaXOAaW6AdGhlgHJ1YmJsZS4igIBEci6AUXVpbnRp ZXJlgGlzgG5vdIBhgEZMSVKAZXhwZXJ0LoBIaXOAZXhwZXJ0aXNlgMzMgICAgICAgICAbGll c4BpboB0aGWAZmllbGSAb2aAZmlyZYBkZXZlbG9wbWVudIBhbmSAcHJvZ3Jlc3Npb26AhIBo ZYBpc4BhboBhcnNvboBpbnZlc3RpZ2F0aW9ugGluc3RydWN0b3KAzMyAgICAgICAgIBhdIB0 aGWAVW5pdmVyc2l0eYBvZoBNYXJ5bGFuZC6AgICAzIDMgElugHRoZYBmaW5hbIBhbmFseXNl cyyAdGhlgHF1ZXN0aW9uc4ByYWlzZWSAYnmAb3VygGZpbG2Ab26AdGhlgGd1bmZpcmWAYXSA dGhlgGJhY2uAb2aAdGhlgEJyYW5jaIDMzERhdmlkaWFugIBjb21wbGV4gG9ugEFwcmlsgDE5 LIAxOTkzLIBzdGlsbIBzdGFuZIB1bmFuc3dlcmVkLoBIb3BlZnVsbHmALIB0aGWAV2FzaGlu Z3RvboBQb3N0zMx3aWxsgHNlZYBmaXSAdG+AYW5zd2VygG91coBxdWVzdGlvbnOAYWJvdXSA dGhlaXKAcmVwb3J0aW5ngG9ugEp1bmWAMjAugFVudGlsgHRoZW6ALIB3ZYBjb250aW51ZYB0 b4DMzHdlbGNvbWWAYWxsgHNjaWVudGlmaWOAaW5xdWlyeYBpbnRvgHRoZYBzdWJqZWN0gG9m gEZlZGVyYWyAZ3VuZmlyZYBhdIBXYWNvgG9ugEFwcmlsgHRoZYCAgIDMgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgMwxOXRogCyAMTk5My6AgFRvgHRoYXSAZW5kgHdlgGhhdmWA YXR0YWNoZWSAYYBjb3B5gG9mgGGAbGV0dGVygHRvgHRoZYBFZGl0b3KAb2aAdGhlgFdhc2hp bmd0b27MzFBvc3SALIB3cml0dGVugGJ5gG91coBGTElSgGV4cGVydCyARHIugEFsbGFyZCyA cmVzdGF0aW5ngGhpc4Bwb3NpdGlvboBvboB0aGWAZ3VuZmlyZYBpc3N1ZXOAzMxhZGRyZXNz ZWSAaW6AdGhlgFBvc3Qnc4BzdG9yeYBvZoBKdW5lgDIwLDE5OTcuzMxBZGRpdGlvbmFsbHks gHdlgGZlZWyAY29tcGVsbGVkgHRvgG9ic2VydmWAYYBmYWN0gG9mgGNvbnRlbXBvcmFyeYBq b3VybmFsaXN0aWOAbGlmZS6ASXSAd2FzgGJlc3SAzMxleHByZXNzZWSAYnmAVGV4YXOAam91 cm5hbGlzdIBEaWNrgFJlYXZpc4BpboBhgHJlY2VudIBjb21tZW50YXJ5gG9ugHRoZYBtZWRp YYAsgCJSZXBvcnRlcnOAYXJlgMzMbGlrZYBkb2N0b3JzgHRoYXSAd29ya4Bmb3KASE1Pc4CE gHdlgGFpbnSAY2FsbGlugHRoZYBzaG90c4Bub4Btb3JlLoBCZWFugGNvdW50ZXJzgGFuZIBp bnZlc3RvcnPMzCiAUHVibGlzaGVycymAYXJlLiKAgCiAIk5pZW1hboCARmVsbG93gCyARGlj a4BSZWF2aXMpLoBXaGlsZYB3ZYBhcmWAZGlzdHVyYmVkgGJ5gHRoZYBQb3N0J3OAzMwnZGlh Z25vc2lzJ4AsgHdlgGFwcHJlY2lhdGWAdGhlgGhvbmVzdIBlZmZvcnRzgG9mgIAiRG9jdG9y IoBMaWVieYCALszMV2WAY29udGludWWAdG+AaGF2ZYBldmVyeYBjb25maWRlbmNlgGlugHRo ZYBwb3NpdGlvboB0YWtlboBieYBvdXKAZXhwZXJ0LIB0aG9zZYBvZoBDQlOAzMwiNjCATWlu dXRlcyIsgGFuZIBvdGhlcnOAhIB0aGWAaW1hZ2VzgGlugHRoZYBGQkmAgEZMSVKAZm9vdGFn ZYBhcmWAY29uc2lzdGVudIB3aXRogGF1dG9tYXRpY4DQBhUAAAsACQABQC2QKCwAASAVANCH gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIBQYWdlgDTMgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIBQcmVzc4BSZWxlYXNlzMx3ZWFw b25zgGZpcmWAYmVpbmeAZGlyZWN0ZWSAYXSAdGhlgEJyYW5jaIBEYXZpZGlhbnOAZnJvbYB0 aGWAYmFja4BvZoB0aGWAY29tcGxleIBvboB0aGWAMTl0aIDMzG9mgEFwcmlsLIAxOTkzLszM zMxNaWNoYWVsgEougE1jTnVsdHmALIBQcm9kdWNlci+AUmVzZWFyY2hlcoAiV2Fjb4CEgHRo ZYBSdWxlc4BvZoBFbmdhZ2VtZW50Ii7MgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgIBEaXJlY3RvcoBvZoCAQ2l0aXplbnOAT3JnYW5pemF0aW9ugGZvcoBQdWJsaWOAU2Fm ZXR5zMxXaWxsaWFtgEdhemVja2mALIBQcm9kdWNlci9EaXJlY3RvcoAiV2Fjb4CEgHRoZYBS dWxlc4BvZoBFbmdhZ2VtZW50IoCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgIDPgICAgICAgICAgMzMzMzMzPIM8tQbHwCAAQIACADyAX3iBADyAQAAWAICAFgCgg8f ANTMzMzMzMzMzMzMzMzMzMzMzMyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgFBsZWFzZYBzZWWATWljaGFlbIBNY051bHR5gHJlZ2FyZGlu Z4BxdWVzdGlvbnPMzICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA4EgSAAAAAPkB+QEAANwOEgDggICAgICAgICAgICAgICA gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIBPRkZJQ0WA gICAKIA5NzApgIA0NzKAhIA5MDQ4gICAgICAgICAgIBGQViAKDk3MCmAgDQ3MoCEOTA0OfMM 84jQBBUAAAsACQABXCWsICcAASAVANDMzMzMzMzMzMzM0AYVAAALAAkAAcYtFikyAAEgFQDQ h8zMzMzMzMzMzMzMzMw= --PART.BOUNDARY.0.15522.emout20.mail.aol.com.867598536-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Oklahoma holds grand jury on bombing Date: 30 Jun 1997 14:45:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- dallasnews.com Oklahomans to start forming bomb inquiry panel Monday Legislator alleges government covered up the truth 06/29/97 By Arnold Hamilton / The Dallas Morning News OKLAHOMA CITY - What did federal agents know about plans for the Oklahoma City bombing? And when did they know it? A county grand jury to be impaneled Monday is being asked to explore those questions - and a plethora of others - advanced by government skeptics since America's worst act of domestic terrorism. The investigative panel was ordered after state Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City, successfully circulated a petition demanding a probe of what he contends was a government coverup. Mr. Key says the federal government had prior knowledge about the 1995 attack and failed to prevent it. The government has denied that, and state officials have tried to block the grand jury, but the state Supreme Court ruled he had the right to petition. More than 13,500 qualified Oklahoma County residents - nearly three times as many as required to force the grand jury's impaneling - signed Mr. Key's petition. But some federal law officers, prosecutors and state officials have scorned his effort, calling it wasteful and misleading. The government has spent an estimated $50 million on the federal investigation and defense of Timothy McVeigh. Critics of the grand jury effort say it's unlikely anything was overlooked. "I believe a local grand jury investigation . . . is unneeded," said Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating. "It would be impossible for a local grand jury to match the most massive criminal investigation in U.S. history. "I have complete confidence in the investigation being conducted by the federal, state and local law enforcement officials into this horrific crime." Mr. Key, who helped produce the video Oklahoma City: What Really Happened? and occasionally speaks about the alleged government conspiracy at gun shows and survivalist expos, defends his effort. He insists the inquiry can "get to a lot more of the truth than we already know." The 15-member grand jury - including three alternates - will be chosen from a pool of 100 Oklahoma County residents, picked randomly by computer from state driver's license rolls. They convene Monday at the county jail downtown, about eight blocks south and west from the site of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and four weeks to the day after a federal jury in Denver convicted Mr. McVeigh of conspiracy and murder for blowing up the nine-story office tower. Mr. McVeigh, a decorated Persian Gulf War veteran, was sentenced to death for the crime, which killed 168 people. Prosecutors depicted it as his revenge for what he perceived as government wrongdoing at the Branch Davidian siege near Waco in 1993. His former Army buddy, Terry Nichols, will stand trial on similar charges starting Sept. 29 in Denver. Among the areas the grand jury may consider: * Was there a John Doe No. 2, or are prosecutors right that a case of mistaken identity led to an innocent man being sought in the bombing? If there was a mysterious, olive-skinned, square-jawed accomplice accompanying Timothy McVeigh, who was he? * Did one bomb, packed in a Ryder rental truck, pulverize the Murrah Federal Building? Or were there other explosives, perhaps some improperly stored in the office tower by federal law officers? * Were federal agents aware of any specific threats against the building? And if so, did they fail to prevent the attack? Federal cooperation In at least a legal sense, the county grand jury review of alleged federal corruption is a late-century version of former New Orleans prosecutor Jim Garrison's bid 30 years ago to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Federal officials refused to cooperate with Mr. Garrison then. Some say they aren't likely to be much more receptive to Oklahoma County's grand jury. Friday, Leesa Brown, a spokeswoman for the federal Oklahoma City bombing team, said, "We'll monitor the grand jury, and we will respond appropriately." It also isn't known whether Mr. McVeigh's defense team, preparing an appeal, will cooperate. Lead attorney Stephen Jones repeatedly has suggested an international conspiracy was behind the bombing, and some of the elements cited by Mr. Key and his supporters overlap with that that theory. Mr. Jones was in Washington late last week and could not be reached for comment. Mr. Key, a six-term state representative, said he strongly believes federal authorities had prior warning of the bombing plot. He also said he has evidence federal officials covered up information that could point to others involved in the attack. Federal officials dismiss both accusations as unfounded. Mr. Key said he will ask to speak directly to the grand jury, but it's not a certainty the panel will hear from him. Unlike Texas, where grand juries meet routinely to consider indictments in criminal matters, Oklahoma grand juries typically are convened only when citizens, through petition drives, demand them. Most cases involve allegations of public corruption that residents believe were not investigated thoroughly by elected officials. No guarantees According to experts, Oklahoma law gives grand juries extraordinary latitude to investigate whomever and whatever they want. Although the county's prosecuting attorney serves in an advisory capacity and the presiding judge selects the foreman, grand juries ultimately decide their own direction. While it's unlikely grand jurors would refuse to hear from the petition's organizer, there are no guarantees they will decide he has sufficiently provocative information to warrant an extensive review. "I know a lot of people are very opposed to it," said Oklahoma County District Attorney Bob Macy. "But the people do have the right in the state of Oklahoma to call a grand jury if the court finds the subject to be a legitimate area of investigation." Still, state officials said there are risks that such inquiries could interfere with the federal prosecution of Mr. Nichols or future state prosecution of Mr. McVeigh and Mr. Nichols. And the state officials said there always is the possibility that just one or two grand jurors with a political agenda could drag out the process. "We call these people in off the street," Mr. Macy said. "They're just ordinary citizens. You know very little about them when they're impaneled as a grand jury. There's always a possibility somebody could do something like Hoppy Heidelberg." Mr. Heidelberg is the Blanchard, Okla., rancher who was booted from the federal grand jury that indicted Mr. McVeigh and Mr. Nichols in the Oklahoma City bombing. He was dismissed for violating his oath of secrecy, going public with his concerns, he said, because he believed federal prosecutors were thwarting the grand jury from inquiring into the possible involvement of others in the attack. In the months since, Mr. Heidelberg has repeated his claims of government misconduct. He also predicted Mr. McVeigh would be acquitted, contending federal prosecutors purposely threw the case to serve their political agendas. And he also announced he will run for governor next year. "We've been fortunate," Mr. Macy said. "Most of our grand juries have been very responsible in that they have come in and put in full days and met nearly every day and were able to handle a lot of different matters in a very short time." Fairness is a concern No one knows for sure how long the grand jury will meet; by law it could remain impaneled until year's end. Mr. Macy declined to speculate on the time or cost, but Mr. Key predicted the panel's inquiry could last as long as four months. They begin their work Monday, as do all Oklahoma grand juries, by inspecting the county jail. While Mr. Key and his supporters are pleased the county grand jury finally will be seated, they are not necessarily confident their concerns will be given a fair and impartial hearing. Mr. Macy, whose office will advise the grand jury, fought against its creation, all the way to the state Supreme Court. So did the Oklahoma attorney general, Drew Edmondson. And the state district judge presiding over the grand jury, William Burkett, is a former federal prosecutor. Mr. Key announced Friday that he formally asked the state Supreme Court to order Mr. Macy and Mr. Edmondson to "fully and openly investigate this crime." He said he and his supporters filed the request because there is no mechanism in the state's grand jury laws to remove a prosecutor or seek appointment of a special prosecutor not tied to the attorney general's office. While successful in forcing the grand jury, Mr. Key has been ridiculed publicly by some of the state's leading elected officials. And the state's two largest newspapers also railed against him. "The last thing Oklahoma needs is a state grand jury to redo the federal investigation," the Tulsa World said in an editorial. The Daily Oklahoman, a frequent critic of the federal government, urged Mr. Key to drop his grand jury efforts, saying his "meddling borders on pandering." The paper also said Mr. Key "seems determined to help conspiracy theorists from across the political spectrum create the equivalent of the grassy knoll in Dallas." Staff writer Lee Hancock in Tyler contributed to this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Police still will do Brady checks (fwd) Date: 30 Jun 1997 14:52:29 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- dallasnews.com Many chiefs, sheriffs to continue background checks 06/28/97 By Scott Parks / The Dallas Morning News Many Texas sheriffs and police chiefs said Friday they will continue background checks on prospective handgun buyers even though the federal government can no longer force that job on them. "It would be ridiculous not to do the background checks until someone else takes it over," said Lee County Sheriff Joe Goodson, president of the Sheriffs Association of Texas. Police chiefs in several major cities - Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio - also vowed Friday to keep up the scrutiny that began in 1994 after Congress passed the Brady handgun-control law. The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down a key part of that law, saying the federal government cannot compel local police to determine whether would-be handgun buyers are fit to own the weapons. Plano Police Chief Bruce D. Glasscock, a vice president with the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said he is disappointed with the court's decision. He said his department will continue the checks. "It is our duty to protect the public from armed criminals," he said. "Part of fulfilling this duty means continuing to conduct background checks to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals and children." But other law officers hailed the court ruling as relief from burdensome paperwork and said the Brady law was little more than a public relations gesture by lawmakers concerned about their crime-fighting image. "The criminal doesn't give a rat's rear end about laws," said former Val Verde County Sheriff J.K. Koog, now retired. "He will steal 'em where he can get 'em, buy 'em out of someone's car trunk or beat you over the head and take yours." Mr. Koog was one of a handful of sheriffs across the nation who sued the federal government over the Brady law's provision to perform the background checks. Angelina County Sheriff Kent Henson said his department, based in the East Texas town of Lufkin, will stop the checks immediately. He had assigned one file clerk to perform the checks, based on 15 to 30 background requests a week. "It was another trail of paper," he said. "It's kind of like insurance on cars. If they had a way to effectively enforce it with everybody, that'd be one thing. . . . It seems like this was just an imposition on good working people." The Brady law allowed local police to reject handgun-buying applications from people who have committed felonies or who have a history of mental illness, drug use or alcohol abuse. Sheriff Henson said the background checks turned up some convictions for misdemeanor assaults or family violence. "But we never found anything serious," he said. Most complaints came from gun dealers, he said. "They would lose sales, because it's like buying a car. If someone's got the fever to buy, they want to get it then, and if they have to wait 'til next week, they might lose interest," he said. An imperfect solution But most police agencies on Friday pledged to continue the background checks until the federal government installs a computerized national "instant check" system in gun stores. Houston Police Chief C.O. "Brad" Bradford and many of his peers said the background checks have been important, even if handgun control laws are an imperfect solution to the crime problem. "If we can deny just one person from obtaining a handgun who should not have one, our efforts are worthwhile," he said. Dallas and Fort Worth police officials said will not abandon the background checks but the ruling gives them the option to review the merits of the issue. Sgt. Jim Chandler, a Dallas police spokesman, said the program costs about $100,000 annually, including computer services and clerks' salaries. "When you talk longterm, you start talking about budget issues," he said. He said it might become a policy item Chief Ben Click would have to discuss with City Manager John Ware. Some departments approached the background checks with an eye to recovering their costs - mainly paper and clerical staff salaries. In Carrollton, police set up a 900 fax line - believed to be the first of its kind in North Texas - for gun dealers who want to check customers' backgrounds. The department charges a $15 fee. The line will remain in operation as the city reviews the court the court's decision, said Sgt. Jack Adams, a police spokesman. Several Texas sheriffs in small counties groused about the law, but said they probably will continue the background checks until the federal government comes up with a better system. "This law has never set right with sheriffs, especially in Texas," said Smith County Sheriff J.B. Smith in Tyler. "We felt it was another law by the federal government that was passed down to us with no funding. That's really the way everybody felt. It was very offensive." As for the criminal background checks, he said he has no intention of stopping immediately. "I owe that service to the public," he said. But he said believes they have been of limited use. His deputies have found only a few felons trying to buy handguns through the background checks. Few violators found In Lamar County, Chief Sheriff's Deputy J.D. Clark said his small Paris-based department also turned up only a few violations among the Brady forms it processed. "Since it began, we've probably had less than 5 percent rejected. And none of these were for the violent felony crimes that the law was after," he said. "From the applications we got, none of those kinds of people applied." He said his department, which patrols a Northeast Texas county of 45,000, may not continue making the checks because they take so much time and manpower. "It was a hassle," he said. "It may not seem like a whole lot of time involved in the checks, but as small a department and as busy as we are, it helps not to have to do it." Van Zandt County Sheriff Jeryl Cockerhamsaid he understands other sheriffs' resentment at being ordered to implement the Brady Law without financial help from the federal government. But he said he believes the checks have been effective, and his Canton-based department will continue doing them. "It's no effort. Just a little time is all," he said. "We don't want just anybody and everybody having guns." Other law enforcement officials said the court's decision involved much more than just gun-control. "The ruling reminds the federal government that they cannot just order state and local governments to do things," said Commander Bryan Smith of the Corpus Christi Police Department. "I'm glad to see it." Attorney General Janet Reno has predicted that the Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will have a system for national background checks up and running by the end of 1998. But Commander Smith said he believes local police agencies will be doing the job long after next year. "In law enforcement circles, word is that they are having a lot of problems developing a national system," he said. "I think we are in this business for awhile." Staff writers Lee Hancock and Michael Saul contributed to this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Pengar Enterprises Inc. & Shire.Net LLC" Subject: Re: Police still will do Brady checks (fwd) Date: 30 Jun 1997 14:08:14 -0600 >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > dallasnews.com > > Many chiefs, sheriffs to continue background checks > > 06/28/97 > > By Scott Parks / The Dallas Morning News > > Many Texas sheriffs and police chiefs said Friday they will continue > background checks on prospective handgun buyers even though the > federal government can no longer force that job on them. ... > Plano Police Chief Bruce D. Glasscock, a vice president with the > International Association of Chiefs of Police, said he is disappointed > with the court's decision. He said his department will continue the > checks. > > "It is our duty to protect the public from armed criminals," he said. > "Part of fulfilling this duty means continuing to conduct background > checks to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals and children." > This guy is stupid. He didn't even listen to himself: Since when has Brady ever claimed that it was keeping handguns away from *children* !!! laughing... Chad Chad Leigh Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net chad@pengar.com info@pengar.com info@shire.net Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites. WWW Wholesale including virtual domains. Tango. PHP/FI Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these.