From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 Mar 1998 00:58:38 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: jaspar Subject: Incident at CRPA Banquet Date: 01 Mar 1998 15:55:41 -0700 On Sunday, March 1st, I received some highly disturbing information from a reliable source. At the California Rifle & Pistol Association's Annual Members' Banquet, on Feb. 28, Mr. Wayne LaPierre apparently requested that a copy of a press release be passed out to the 750 or so people attending the dinner. I did not personally attend the dinner, but my source says that the release was about the firearms confiscation program that is now occurring in California thanks to Attorney General Dan Lungren's change of attitude regarding so-called "assault weapons." It seems that the CRPA "refused" to allow the press release to be handed out to those in attendance, but plenty of candidate "campaign literature" was allowed to be freely distributed. WHY would the CRPA allow distribution of candidate campaign materials, but apparently prohibit distribution of a press release that explains that thousands of Californians are either going to jail or going to have their firearms confiscated? Assuming this piece of information is correct, one would have to wonder about the priorities of the leadership of the CRPA. I hope we can get an explanation for this worrisome incident. [end.] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Fwd: piml] "GUN CONTROL" = GUN PROHIBITION Date: 02 Mar 1998 13:31:59 -0700 Greg, [...] TO UNDERSTAND THE GUN CONTROL MOVEMENT REQUIRES RECOGNIZING THAT AT ITS CORE LIES THE BELIEF THAT IT IS BARBARIC FOR AN INDIVIDUAL EVEN TO HAVE--MUCH LESS USE--ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENSE. [...] Corollary: If the original thought - upon which a subsequent statement is made - is found to be faulty in logic and reason, then it reasonably follows that all statements made consonant to the original thought are equally faulty and lacking in true reason. One cannot derive truth from a falsehood, unless looking for opposites. If, in looking for opposites, one does discover the truth - in relation to the current and obverse thinking, then all previous suppositions must be held suspect, eepecially if there is connectedness in those suppositions. What I mean to say here is that if one holds a certain belief to be true, and bases all subsequent activity upon that belief, then if the belief is found to be false, then all connected activity is false - consonant with that belief. Thus, in all of the statements made in that article you sent, and to which I reply, if you apply the above to each of the antis arguments, you will arrive at their non-truth. To presume as they do, that self-defense is not a Right, then preservation of life, or self-preservation is also a non-truth. For that to be true, then all organisms on the face of the earth would have to exhibit that precarious fact of life. Since that is not the case, and since people are an extension of all other life, then it follows that self-preservation, and self-defense by that definition is the truth. The only organisms which allow themselve's to be consumed do so as a means of propagation, and thereby ensure their continued existence. This mode cannot be valid for people, since being consumed would negate that existence. **Consonant thinking** [...] >Typical is nationally syndicated columnist Garry Wills. In column after column for over two decades he has reviled gun owners as "anti-citizens"arming " against their neighbors," "gun fetishists," "traitors," "enemies of their patria." As one of his columns puts it, "Every handgun owned in America is an implicit declaration of war on one's neighbor." In another, Wills denounces "individual self-protection" as "anti-social behavior," declaring that "every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other." [...] There is a theory in language, that parallel constructions of a sentence or paragraph have approximate or equal meanings when deciphered for context. I'm sure you are familiar with the parallel construction of the Second Amendment, such that: A well educated citizenry being necessary to the security of a free nation, the Right of the people to keep and bear computers shall not be infringed. Simply exchanging a few terms makes _no_ diference at all in the _end_ meaning of the sentences of either the above or the Second Amendment, ie., the Right to keep and bear something. The consonant thought in the above quote then, is false. Consider: "As one of his columns puts it, "Every handgun owned in America is an implicit declaration of war on one's neighbor." For that to be true, every parallel construction would also have to be true. Is it? What about all the firearms that have never been used in any crime? What about all the firearms held by the Law Enforcement Establishment? What of all the firearms used in self-defense? Try this: "Every handgun *not* owned in America is an implicit declaration of weakness to one's neighbor." Of the two - which is more true, the first, or the obverse? For the first to be true, a threat must be implicit. For a threat to be implicit, it _must_ be declared in a manner that makes itself known. If I never tell my neighbors of my ownership of arms, who could possibily feel threatened? If the United States never knew of the existance of nuclear weapons within the borders of another nation, would those arms still be a declaration of war on the U.S.? If I sell a house built directly over a geologic fault, but tell no one, and nothing ever happens, where is the threat? If I broadcast far and wide that I am totally unarmed, what threat am I? To my neighbors I am _the_ threat, because I invite crime to my house, and by extension, the neighborhood. But there follows another fault here. If I cannot defend myself, then I cannot defend my property. If I cannot defend my property, and I am at the mercy of the police to protect both myself and my property, then I do not own that property - or myself. Ownership implies the right of defense. Ergo, no defense, no Rights. If all political power truely emminates from the citizen, and if the nation derives the power of sovereignty from the citizens, then that power and the Right from which it is derived resides in the citizen. And therein lies the rub of the assertions in that article. It is based on socialism, where no one owns anything, and each person is the property of the state. For a non-truth to be true, then negative and positive logic must exchange places. In a fascist-socialist society, the citizen is state property. The citizen has no Rights, and self-defense is valid only when it is decreed as such. Therefore, in a 'Rightless' society, the citizens have power only, when allowed. That particular convolution is the opposite of our American society, where citizens have the Rights, and government has the limited power - where authorized. In our republican society, the government is the property of the citizens. Now, compare statements from that article, and figure out where those 'journalists' are taking us. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Tax on Internet Date: 02 Mar 1998 17:52:37 -0500 (EST) Its bad form to follow-up to your own post. According to today's (3-2-98) Wall St. Journal, Clinton has proposed a moritourium (sp?) on taxes on the Internet for 5 years. He has introduced a bill to do this, that will keep states away from taxing Internet commerce (based on passing through multiple State juridictions for any one transaction). Rumor is this is going to sail through the U.S. House. The obstacle is Trent Lott, who doesn't like the bill and thinks that there should be a compromise with the governors who wish to see some type of State taxation. IMNSHO, this is just another instance where Trent Lott shows his colors and demonstrates that "he just doesn't get it". Screw the states, the net commerce is just going to flow to those states who tax it least. Trent Lott - Big Taxer in Sheep's clothing. The WSJ take is that taxing net commerce will kill the development of the net and by the time the total breaks through $200B, the States won't be able to do it anyway. regards, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Taxing the Internet Date: 02 Mar 1998 12:39:22 -0500 (EST) Heard a very brief news piece on the radio: "Clinton has promised to not tax the internet for five years." Have you heard anything about this? It sounded fairly ominous to me, like how would he tax the internet now? If you tax commerce on the internet, it would probably play out like mail order taxation now. State taxes apply only to in-state transactions. So, without a Federal sales tax, how are the Feds going to tax the internet at all? color me paranoid, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: CA, FL, IL, NY, TX: test 'worker-authorization program' Date: 02 Mar 1998 04:39:30 -0800 (PST) >X-Sender: pnet@shaw.bmd2.baremetal.com >Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 01:29:12 -0800 >To: heartland@proliberty.com >From: pnet@proliberty.com >Subject: CA, FL, IL, NY, TX: test 'worker-authorization program' >Sender: owner-heartland@proliberty.com >Reply-To: pnet@proliberty.com >X-UIDL: 0d59ff26de62a0ab2afac7c5917e27e3 > > >Companies test worker-authorization program > > >San Diego Union-Tribune, February 24, 1998 > >By Diane Lindquist > >STAFF WRITER > >Employers in California and four other states are signing up for a pilot >program that U.S. officials believe will finally thwart illegal >immigration. The plan is expected to reduce the major pull on >undocumented migrants to the United States -- jobs -- by determining if >the 50 million some employees that U.S. companies hire each year can >work in the country legally. "Most people come here for jobs, so if an >employer won't hire them because they're not authorized to work, then >that eliminates the magnet," said Susan Martin, executive director of >the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform. However, some Latino groups >and advocates of reduced government are criticizing the programs as >ineffective and discriminatory against minorities. > >The pilot program was adopted in slightly altered form by the U.S. >Congress in 1996 on the recommendation of the commission, which has >disbanded. The system will be monitored for as long as four years, and >would be required of all employers throughout the United States if >Congress approves. Unlike previous schemes, the program dubbed "The >Basic Pilot" asks employers to verify employment authorization not only >with the Immigration and Naturalization Service but first with the >Social Security Administration. Furthermore, it includes U.S. citizens >as well as noncitizens. So far, 158 companies have joined the program >since it began in September. > >The plan is limited to employers in the five states with the greatest >estimated number of illegal residents -- California, Florida, Illinois, >New York and Texas. Forty-two California companies are participating, >including one small office with six people in San Diego that does not >want its identity revealed. > >The Tustin office of Interim Personnel, a nationwide temporary >employment agency, signed up for the pilot in November. The operation >processes about 100 people a month for clerical, accounting and light >industrial positions, said client service supervisor Syliva Chavez in >Tustin. "We've done hundreds," she said. "To tell the truth, all the >people have been authorized to work." About 20 percent of those applying >at the agency, however, are routinely rejected before even being >considered for work because their documents appear counterfeit, Chavez >said. Interim Personnel decided to participate in "The Basic Pilot" as a >service to its workers as well as its customers, the supervisor said. >"Now we're able to say everyone here is legally authorized to work. It's >a great selling tool for our clients," Chavez said. "And we're helping >the people who are legal and authorized to work. We did have a lot of >criticism from people who were legal and knew that others we had hired >and were earning more weren't legal." > >The Immigration and Naturalization Service is seeking other employers >for the program. Participation is voluntary and costs nothing. Companies >need a touch-tone telephone and a personal computer with modem. INS >provides the software and training. > >Once in the program, said INS spokeswoman Elaine Komis, employers will >check the Social Security number of new hires with the Social Security >Administration. If the agency is unable to determine that the person is >authorized to work, the employer will check with INS under its current >verification system. "Our hope is we're going to find a way to help >employers confirm eligibility to legally work in the United States that >is quick, easy and efficient," she said. Another pilot, the "Citizen >Attestation Pilot," continues a previous INS test program involving only >non-citizen employees. > >The agency is asking employers to volunteer and will run that pilot >program in the states where the interest is highest. The programs were >designed to address the failures of legislation passed in 1986 that >imposed sanctions on employers. The law punished employers only if they >knowingly hired undocumented workers, so fraudulent documents >proliferated. "An employer was caught between a rock and a hard place. >If they accepted documents they were subject to employer sanctions. If >they turned the documents down, they were open to charges of >discrimination," said Martin, now the director of the Institute for the >Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. > >The pilot programs, however, are drawing almost as much criticism as the >employer sanction provisions. Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy >of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino political advocacy group in >Washington D.C., claims the data on which "The Basic Pilot" program >relies is often flawed or missing. "Social Security didn't start asking >about citizenship until 1972 and didn't start entering it into their >system until several years before," she said. "Our concern is it's not >going to accomplish what it is intended to accomplish and that it's >going to wreak havoc in people's lives. And those people are likely to >be Latino or Asian," Munoz said. > >Stephen Moore, immigration analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington, >D.C., said those illegally in the United States can obtain Social >Security numbers that a phone check cannot verify. "I'm certain it's not >going to work, and just like employer sanctions ... they'll say we'll >need an even more invasive technique," he said. "I just view it as going >down the wrong path." > >- Tom Paine > > >============================================================================== >To unsubscribe send Message: unsubscribe; To: heartland-request@proliberty.com >============================================================================== > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Alpert <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Not So Pro-Gun Nominees Date: 03 Mar 1998 18:38:06 CST Not So Pro-Gun Nominees by NRA NOMINATING COMMITTEE PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, AND PRINT OUT AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS, SPREAD THE WORD! Not So Pro-Gun Nominees by NRA NOMINATING COMMITTEE >From Behanna & NRA Director Dr. Fiora Mike Haas said in reguard to this year NRA Nominating committee Selections: Some great people here... Rep. Bob Barr, Sen. Larry Craig, John Milius, and of course, the others... now this is a SLATE TO BEAT ANTI-GUNNERS! Chris Behanna Replys: Slight problem: Larry Craig *IS* an anti-gunner: he voted for the Lautenberg gun grab as a standalone amendment on the Senate floor (see Rollcall Vote No. 289 Leg., Congressional Record, September 12, 1996, p. S10380), and voted against tabling the Kohl amendment (the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996) (see Rollcall Vote No. 290 Leg., Congressional Record, September 12, 1996, p. S10396). The motion to table failed 72-27, at which point Senator Kohl asked to vitiate the yeas and nays, which was ordered without objection, and the amendment was agreed to. If Craig is such a stalwart pro-gunner, why did he vote against tabling the amendment, and then why did he allow it to come into force without objection? The Congressional Record of September 12, 1996 shows *NO* instances of Sen. Craig rising to speak against either the Lautenberg or Kohl amendments. Perhaps he's not as pro-gun as he styles himself. Perhaps he's afraid of taking a hard vote for which he might get beat up in the press. Perhaps he's too willing to sell us out in order to avoid bad PR from the news media. Mike Haas said: I like the idea of congressmen and senators on the board of the NRA! Chris Behanna Replys: It's a bad idea. Politicians don't want to take hard votes, and have a conflict of interest when they desire to serve on the Board of an organization that *must*, if it is to fulfill its obligation to its members, hold their feet to the fire. Their effect will be to moderate the Board's support for principled stands for our rights. NRA Director Dr. Dan Fiora said in another post: I think we left out a critical message in our ads. We should have pointed out that the other side has four candidates (Craig, Barr, Volkmer & Young) on their slate that voted for Lautenberg. Maybe circulation on the Internet will help? Note that they even turned against us the notice of the lawsuit by not stating that the judge order the NRA (all of us) to follow the membership mandated Bylaw. The announcement will appear to the uninformed member as an attempt by Fezell et al to undermine the normal process of publishing the Nom. Com. report. Members expect to see it since it has been published so regularly. 1. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen Michael J. Beko James A. Church William Dominguez Howard J. Fezell Daniel B. Fiora Arnold J. Gaunt Fred Griisser Wesley H. Grogan Jr. David M. Gross John Guest Fred Gustafson Don L. Henry William B. Hunt Phillip B. Journey Michael S. Kindberg Jeff Knox John C. Krull Robley T. Moore Larry R. Rankin Albert C. Ross Frank H. Sawberger Thomas L. Seefeldt Kim Stolfer John H. Trentes Glen I. Voorhees Jr. 2. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the internet, b) to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) distribute this letter and list at gun shows, gun stores, and shooting ranges. Ask all NRA members you know to VOTE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES. 3. A few dollars go a long way when they tell the truth. Please send your donation to: Second Amendment Action, 100 Heathwood Drive, Liberty, SC 29657. 4. Visit our web sites: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains Heston interview) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Your papers please... (fwd) Date: 03 Mar 1998 17:08:46 PST On Mar 3, JT McBride wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] How many infringements we take for granted today! >In the "Know Your Rights" Dept, I came across this article recently on >another mailing list... > >-------------------------------- >-------------------------------- > >Identification Before Flying? > >by: Betsy Ross > >In the last two years, everyone flying on a commercial airline has stepped >up to an airline's ticket counter and heard the agent recite a familiar >litany. The monologue goes, "has your bag been unattended; have you >accepted gifts from a stranger; can I see your identification please?" The >traveler docilely murmurs answers, and produces a driver's license or some >equivalent. > >As a die-hard Constitutionalist, I believe that we still have an absolute, >unfettered, God-given right to travel from point A to point B without >permission from the state -- in the air, as well as on land. This Nazi >procedure of "your papers, please" has never been appropriate for our >country. I have had occasion to travel a good deal in the last several >months, and on those trips I decided to research and test this issue about >the necessity for producing identification. I have talked with agents, and >their supervisors, of several major airlines in cities across America, and >have gradually pieced together a rather complete picture of the real legal >situation regarding our right to travel. > >Next, I tested this finding with several airlines. When asked for >identification, I produced only my Sam's Club card, or my travel agent's ID >card, or a Costco card. These are all picture ID's, but they are privately >issued, and do not even have a signature on them. The airline agents just >freaked out, and demanded to see some state-issued ID. They routinely told >me that "it was federal law!" The government absolutely required me to >cough up an "official" ID card, without which the agent couldn't even THINK >of letting me on the plane. > >I told the agents that I could not find any federal regulation mandating >that type of identification, and then asked them to cure my ignorance and >please cite the regulation. Now, at this point, individual airline agents >have reacted differently. Some called in their supervisor. Alaska Air >employees were the most gracious; Northwest agents were the worst -- they >were rude, belligerent and hostile brats. But they all folded, every >time. A particularly nasty Northwest employee marched me all the way back >to the electronic detection equipment, made me pass through it a second >time, and had the guard thoroughly search my carry-on bag. The same airline >agent-from-hell actually made rude and demeaning remarks to me as we >trudged back to the counter -- and then she let me on the plane. > >Alaska Air was much more reasonable -- the agent just issued my seat pass, >and commented that some people seem tenaciously to hold the thought that >they have the right to travel without producing government ID -- to which I >responded, "yes, amazing, isn't it -- and I'm one of them." In Seattle, >an agent said AS HE HANDED ME MY TICKET, "you know, if you don't show me >any government-issued ID, I can't let you board the plane." I replied, Yes, >I understand. But I didn't, and you are. With a smile, he just said, "have >a nice trip." So I have flown several times using only my meager privately >issued picture ID cards. > >Every time I used this strategy, I noticed that the agent put an orange >sticker on my checked bags, and also on my seat pass on the ticket. >Several agents divulged that this is the policy they are supposed to follow >when a person does not show government ID. The bags simply wait in the >baggage room until the person presents the matching seat pass as he/she >actually boards the plane; then the bags go on board. > >On my next trip, I decided to push the envelope even further. When the >Alaska Air agent made the usual perfunctory request for identification, I >put on my best face, smiled sweetly, and said, "Gee, I'm so sorry, but I >just don't have any ID I could show you." To my speechless astonishment, >the agent just said, "no problem -- just fill out this simple form, and >present it to the counter at the airplane gate. I watched as the familiar >orange sticker again went on my bag. I repeated the same scenario with >Horizon Air on another trip. I have now flown twice without producing any >identification whatsoever. > >Northwest was actually instrumental in advancing my education about this >issue. I was so aggravated by the insolent and hostile treatment that their >employee gave me, (hopefully former employee, after the blistering letter I >sent to the company president), that I demanded to see a supervisor on the >spot. I then demanded that he produce the relevant federal regulations >RIGHT NOW, or face personal liability for authorizing an unreasonable >search and seizure, dereliction of duty, fraud, conspiracy, civil rights >deprivation and any other legal buzz words I could think of at that moment >which would justify a lawsuit against him personally, as well as his >employer. Like everyone else, he couldn't show me any statute or >regulations. He even admitted that there are none. > >However, he did produce a copy of Security Directive 96-05, which the >Federal Aviation Agency issued to all airlines in August of 1996. Its >wording is very instructive; it reads as follows: > >1. IDENTIFY THE PASSENGER - A. ALL PASSENGERS WHO APPEAR TO BE 18 YEARS OF >AGE WILL PRESENT A GOVERNMENT ISSUED PICTURE ID, OR TWO OTHER FORMS OF ID, >AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH MUST BE ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. B. THE >AGENT MUST RECONCILE THE NAME ON THE ID AND THE NAME ON THE TICKET -- >EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW. C. IF THE PASSENGER CANNOT PRODUCE IDENTIFICATION, >OR IT CANNOT BE RECONCILED TO MATCH THE TICKET, THE PASSENGER BECOMES A >"SELECTEE." CLEAR ALL OF THEIR LUGGAGE AS NOTED IN SECTION 6, BELOW. [no >letter] CLEAR SELECTEE'S CHECKED AND CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPICIOUS >ARTICLES DISCOVERED BY THE QUESTIONS ASKED; A. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON A >FLIGHT WITHIN THE 48 CONTINENTAL US STATES, OR TO MEXICO, OR TO CANADA, >ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED BY EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: 1. EMPTY THE >LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY A QUALIFIED >SCREENER, [remember the actions taken by northwest] OR; 2. BAG-MATCH -- >ENSURE THE BAG IS NOT TRANSPORTED ON THE AIRCRAFT IF THE PASSENGER DOES >NOT BOARD. [remember all those orange stickers] B. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON >AN INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT -- CHECKED LUGGAGE, CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPECT >ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED ONLY BY THE FOLLOWING METHOD; EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR >ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY QUALIFIED SCREENERS. > >This document apparently goes on for ten more pages; the Northwest >supervisor gave me only the first page, which contains the information >printed above. > >The next time I refused to produce ID and the agent freaked, I told her, >"just tap up Sec-Dec 96-5 on your computer, and go to Paragraph 1, Section >C. Designate me as a 'selectee,' and proceed accordingly. She apparently >thought I was an FAA undercover employee, because she said that she was >"tired of you federal guys coming around" and literally spying on airline >agents, "coercing us into lying to people, and essentially being the 'bag >man' for an activity which has no legal requirement." I told her that I >could not agree more. > >Another airline employee later confirmed that FAA agents often engage in >such entrapment activities, to make sure that airline agents parrot the >government party line about state-issued ID. I also hit pay dirt in a >discussion with another, much nicer Northwest agent on the East coast. In a >candid conversation, he told me that FAA personnel had held training >sessions with all airline agents in the fall of 1996. Agents were informed >directly by the FAA that they absolutely could not bar an American citizen >from boarding a plane, even if a passenger refused to produce any >identification at all! I understand Delta Airline is facing two large >lawsuits because employees twice denied this reality, and actually twice >kept off a plane a passenger who had only private ID to show. Anyone want >to own an airline, courtesy of a judge? I have personally flown Delta with >only a private travel card, so I guess they already had their hand slapped. > >Yet another agent in the Midwest admitted that airline personnel were >deliberately and knowingly coercing people into showing government ID by >saying "it's the law." According to him the reality is that the companies >are simply tired of people selling their frequent-flyer tickets. The >airlines wanted to stem this practice by checking everyone's ID, but knew >there would be BIG problems if they instituted this procedure as a private >corporate policy. It was so much more convenient to say it was federal law >and make the government the scapegoat. So this policy meets the airlines' >private financial goals, and the government's goal of ever-increasing >social control. > >If no one complains or asserts their rights regarding travel, then another >freedom is "poof" gone. Our children watch this happen, and grow up >thinking that the state has both the right to define our identity by >issuing documents saying who we are, and also the right to require us to >produce them on demand. > >Reprinted from "The American's Bulletin," 3536 N Pacific Hwy, Medford, OR >97501, May 1997, (541)-779-7709 > >Copyright © 1997 Harvest Trust. All rights reserved. www.harvest-trust.org >Revised: January 21, 1998. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: VETERANS BENEFITS (fwd) Date: 04 Mar 1998 00:18:45 PST I suspect this is some scam to find out where our Vets are, but some will find this to be essential info anyway. On Mar 03, Patricia Fosness wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This is interesting. First, that it's a nasty stab in the back to our veterans, and second, that it essentially forces every vet to come forward and register over the next 6 months or else lose their medical benefits for life. I figure this is legit since it came out through corporate channels. Anyway, I guess anyone here who either is a vet or knows one should be aware of this. > >To: All U.S. Military Veterans >Fm: ...... US West Veterans Association >Date: 02 March 1998 > >Subject: Veteran Benefits > >First, thanks for the information, Jimmy. >This message was sent to all Legionnaires from Northglenn, CO, >Amercian Legion Post 22. > > ATTENTION VETERANS > >If you are a veteran, have a family member who is a veteran or know >somebody who is, this news may be of some interest to you or them. >please feel free to pass it along. > >The President of the U.S. has recently signed into law a bill that >affects all veterans. This law states in effect that if a veteran >has not registered at a Veterans Affairs Hospital since Oct. 1, 1996, >then on Oct. 1, 1998 he or she will loose all medical benefits for >life. > >To make it worse, the V.A. cannot notify veterans about it. That >information must be disseminated via word of mouth or by letter. >We called the local V.A. office and found out this information >is true. > >They recommended that everyone eligible for benefits come by >their office, and sign up prior to the October 1st deadline, >irregardless of whether they have received treatment at a V.S. >hospital since 10/01/96. This way no one will slip through the >the cracks. > >You will need to bring your DD-214 to your local V.A. office and >it will only take about 5 minutes to complete the form. This will >maintain your veterans benefits. If you cannot locate your DD-214, >go to the V.A. office and they can help you obtain a copy. > Pat Fosness "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamaties" - George Mason [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Suspected agent for China linked to drug kingpin and Clinton Date: 04 Mar 1998 08:25:09 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 3/4/98 from http://www.washtimes.com (investigative page) Suspected agent for China linked to drug kingpin By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES In Indonesian businessman suspected of being a Chinese agent who sought to influence the 1996 elections is believed to have formed a partnership with a reputed Cambodian drug kingpin, federal authorities said. Ted Sioeng, who met with President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore during the 1996 campaign, has been spotted by U.S. authorities in Phnom Penh with Theng Bunma, named by the State Department in 1994 as a major heroin trafficker. Mr. Sioeng, whose business holdings include two California hotels and a Chinese-language newspaper in the Los Angeles area, is a major focus of a Justice Department task force probe and a House Government Reform and Oversight Committee investigation concerning accusations he sought to influence U.S. foreign policy with campaign donations during the 1996 elections. He is the first person identified as a suspected Chinese agent in the ongoing investigations. Meanwhile, the House committee yesterday wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno seeking advice on possibly granting immunity to two witnesses in its campaign-finance probe, both of whom could testify on Democratic fund-raiser Charles Yah Lin Trie. Mr. Trie, a longtime Arkansas friend and supporter of Mr. Clinton's, pleaded not guilty last month to federal charges of conspiring to buy political influence through the illegal diversion of campaign cash to the Democratic National Committee. Trial is set for October. Committee Chairman Dan Burton, Indiana Republican, said Maria P. Mapili, Mr. Trie's bookkeeper, and Charlie Chiang, a local restaurateur, have "direct knowledge" of Mr. Trie's activities. He said Mrs. Mapili controlled the books for Mr. Trie's company, Daihatsu International, and knows about his receipt of foreign money. He said Mr. Trie and Mr. Chiang exchanged "large amounts of money." The Justice Department is reviewing the letter. Mr. Sioeng's suspected ties to the Chinese government, the sources said, surfaced in 1996 in communications intercepted by U.S. intelligence sources between Beijing and the Chinese Embassy in Washington. The communications reportedly outlined a scheme to increase China's influence with congressional, state and local officials. Mr. Sioeng is a friend of former Lippo Group executive, Commerce Department official and DNC fund-raiser John Huang, another focus of the task-force probe. Records show his bank account got wire transfers of more than $2 million from two Hong Kong holding companies at the same time he was contributing to Mr. Clinton's re-election campaign. The holding companies handled his business dealings in China. In July 1996, Mr. Sioeng sat next to Mr. Clinton at a fund-raiser in California and has appeared at other events involving the president and Mr. Gore, including a February 1996 dinner with other targets of the task force and House probes, including Mr. Trie. Mr. Theng, whose purported $400 million business empire includes a hotel, a bank, an import-export company and various other properties, has been identified by the State Department as being "closely and heavily involved in drug trafficking in Cambodia." U.S. drug authorities said Cambodia, Thailand, Burma and Laos produce most of the world's heroin; Cambodia is considered the major transit point. Mr. Theng has denied the accusations. U.S. intelligence officials believe Mr. Theng, one of Cambodia's wealthiest businessmen, has contributed heavily to the cash-short Cambodian government, much of the money going to the military, where it was used to hire soldiers to protect his heroin business. Rep. Gerald B.H. Solomon, New York Republican and chairman of the House Rules Committee, which first questioned foreign ties to the 1996 election, has asked Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright to explain how Mr. Theng obtained visas to enter the country, particularly those enabling him to gain access to Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore during the 1996 campaign. The department has said it is reviewing the issuance of visas to Mr. Theng. =46RONT PAGE | POLITICS | OPINION | INVESTIGATIVE | INTERNATIONAL | BUSINESS | LETTERS | SUBSCRIBE Copyright =A9 1998 News World Communications, Inc. - -------- jhofmann@erols.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: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Re: CA, FL, IL, NY, TX: test 'worker-authorization program' Date: 04 Mar 1998 11:34:57 -0500 Re: "Worker Authorization": I work in a Personnel office. I see first hand just how terrible our Government has become. There are 3 forms a new employee has to fill out - 2 of them are government forms. There's a third form that is out there that is state, but we do not require our new employees to fill it out, we just report the information as ordered. All employers must check "employment authorization" of all new employees (this is a law that has been in effect since 1985) with the "Federal I-9 form". I'm routinely rejecting people for insufficient documentation and refusing them employment. Why? Because they never needed to carry around their social security card before. Now let's think about this. When I went to the "new hires program" seminar on how to report all new employees to the "deadbeat dad/mom database", I was told that "estimates range that as much as 10 percent of the Social Security Administration information is wrong, and this is why we also ask you to report the date of birth of a person". 10% - that's a big number in my opinion. So that means that about 10% of the people that are *legal* will be unable to secure employment because of SSA errors. Wow, we're screwed. sigh, Rachel ************************************************************** * "Just when you think you've got me figured out * * The season's already changing..." -- Meredith Brooks * * mestetsr@post.drexel.edu * ************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Not So Pro-Gun Nominees Date: 04 Mar 1998 10:10:42 -0700 I've been active in NRA for several years now. I'm president of a citizen lobbying group that runs an NRA recruiting table and have been area chair in my district of the GOP for several years. Lots of people complain, and rightly so, about how the Republicans "eat their young" with criticism and rhetoric that seems aimed more in the party then at those outside it. But for a long time I've been even more disconcerted at this sort of thing in the RKBA community. After all, as RKBA activists we are centered on a goal that's about ethical behaviour. Allowing people the freedom to self defend isn't comparable to selling guns or running candidates it is (as Wilford would say ; ) The Right Thing To Do. So when we attack each other we are not just doing the wrong thing, but attacking the movements ability to get more people to do the right thing. Because of that I haven't taken sides in the NRA shenanigans in the past. -BUT-, I hope everyone reading up on this will look closely at who's yelling the most shrilly, who is it that started the full page candidate ads, and who's using the most emotion loading in their wording. It seems pretty obvious to me that theres room for a little reform in Virginia. Before you flame me, please bear in mind that Chris Behana and I weren't on "typing terms" for some time because of replies I sent him on this list defending NRA practices. And I will continue to work hard for NRA and hope for unity and effectiveness. I'm not interested in throwing the baby out with the bathwater but there comes a time when the water needs changing and baby needs a "time out". Flame on. Boyd "Freedom needs -more- allies" Kneeland NRA, ACLU, fan of Knox and Metaksa and anybody else working for Liberty. At 6:38 PM -0600 3/3/98, Brad Alpert wrote: >Not So Pro-Gun Nominees by NRA NOMINATING COMMITTEE > >PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, AND PRINT OUT AND SHOW TO >YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN >YOUR MAILINGS, SPREAD THE WORD! > >Not So Pro-Gun Nominees by NRA NOMINATING COMMITTEE >>From Behanna & NRA Director Dr. Fiora > >Mike Haas said in reguard to this year NRA Nominating >committee Selections: Some great people here... Rep. Bob Barr, >Sen. Larry Craig, John Milius, and of course, the others... now >this is a SLATE TO BEAT ANTI-GUNNERS! > >Chris Behanna Replys: Slight problem: Larry Craig *IS* an >anti-gunner: he voted for the Lautenberg gun grab as a snip > Note that they even turned against us the notice of the >lawsuit by not stating that the judge order the NRA (all of us) >to follow the membership mandated Bylaw. The announcement will >appear to the uninformed member as an attempt by Fezell et al >to undermine the normal process of publishing the Nom. Com. >report. Members expect to see it since it has been published so >regularly. >1. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action >candidates: > >Jerry L. Allen Michael >J. Beko James A. Church >William Dominguez >Howard J. Fezell >Daniel B. Fiora >Arnold J. Gaunt >Fred Griisser >Wesley H. Grogan Jr. >David M. Gross John >Guest Fred Gustafson >Don L. Henry >William B. Hunt >Phillip B. Journey >Michael S. Kindberg >Jeff Knox >John C. Krull >Robley T. Moore >Larry R. Rankin >Albert C. Ross >Frank H. Sawberger >Thomas L. Seefeldt >Kim Stolfer >John H. Trentes >Glen I. Voorhees Jr. > >2. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the >internet, b) to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) >distribute this letter and list at gun shows, gun stores, and >shooting ranges. Ask all NRA members you know to VOTE FOR THE >SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES. > >3. A few dollars go a long way when they tell the truth. >Please send your donation to: Second Amendment Action, 100 >Heathwood Drive, Liberty, SC 29657. > >4. Visit our web sites: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains >Heston interview) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html >http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) > > > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Gorbachev and Clinton laud FDR Date: 04 Mar 1998 12:59:11 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Wednesday March 4 6:44 AM EST Clinton, Gorbachev, Spielberg Laud Magazine By Chris Michaud NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Clinton joined luminaries ranging from Mikhail Gorbachev and Toni Morrison to Steven Spielberg and Muhammad Ali Tuesday for a gala celebration marking the 75th anniversary of Time magazine. The magazine, which published its first issue on March 3, 1923, threw a lavish cocktail and dinner party at Radio City Music Hall for some 1,200 guests from the worlds of politics, communications, entertainment, sports and business. The evening was constructed around a series of tributes from leaders in various fields to the preeminent figures of the 20th century, culminating in Clinton's tribute to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he said was the "one man above all others (who) is the personification of 'the American century'. "When our children's children look back they will see that above all else that the story of the 20th century is the story of the triumph of freedom ... the advance of freedom has made this the American century," and FDR its driving force, Clinton said in the final speech of the evening. He called for the application of FDR's embrace of "bold, persistent experimentation" to meet the "challenges and unrivaled opportunities of this era." Clinton also paid tribute to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his recent mission to Iraq, which staved off U.S. military action. "Iraq must match its words with its deeds," the president warned. "In the tradition of FDR, Americans must make sure that happens," he said. After an extended cocktail party in the lobby of Radio City and opening remarks by Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin, a series of Time's cover subjects was screened, with Joe DiMaggio, Gorbachev and Ali receiving especially sustained applause. A series of informal toasts followed, in which guests rose at their tables -- tiered platforms were built over Radio City's 3,000 seats for the event -- and paid tribute to some of the century's indelible figures. First was actor Tom Cruise, who saluted boxer Ali. "He elevated exaggeration to new heights, and yet that exaggeration is as American as Mark Twain," he said. "We've had many kings in history, but only one Ali." Former Sen. Bill Bradley then honored Rev. Billy Graham, followed by writer Jay McInerney toasting Norman Mailer and Sharon Stone feting feminist Betty Friedan. Stone began with a joke about a male and female brain for sale with a punch line about the female one being cheaper "because it was used," at which point Clinton gave his wife Hillary a knowing smile. Other tributes were paid by Kevin Costner to baseball legend DiMaggio, Tom Hanks, who played an astronaut in "Apollo 13" to former astronaut, Sen. John Glenn -- "the pride of Zanesville, Ohio" -- and John F. Kennedy Jr. to former Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, Robert McNamara. The formal tributes included Morrison saluting Dr. Martin Luther King and "the gift that his life truly was", and Spielberg's ode to director John Ford. Gorbachev spoke at length about the significance of FDR, Gandhi and Lenin on the century and Microsoft founder Bill Gates honored the Wright Brothers, Wilbur and Orville. A lighter note was struck when Mary Tyler Moore spoke lovingly of comic actress Lucille Ball, noting that when the legend told Moore "You're very good" at a taping of the old Dick Van Dyke Show", it made her feel she "had better be very, very good." The final tribute to Duke Ellington took place in the form of a dance program by the Alvin Ailey Dancers. Time, the nation's first news weekly magazine, was founded by Yale classmates Henry Luce and Briton Hadden. The first, 32-page issue featured pieces on Negroes, prohibition, women and labor, and ads for the White Star Lines and Bankers Trust. It was also a time when the fact that a man with a strange name in a Detroit court case turned out to be Hindu was considered newsworthy. Its annual Man of the Year honor has entered the popular lexicon, with many of the choices present Tuesday, including Gen. William Westmoreland, Henry Kissinger (shared with Richard Nixon), Dr. David Ho, Gorbachev and Clinton. Some 90 of its cover subjects also attended. Reuters Limited - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Fwd: Check This Out! Date: 05 Mar 1998 07:37:52 -0500 >From: OWOWRITER >Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:58:59 EST >To: Bearflury@aol.com, SGill49685@aol.com, Foolery@bright.net, > UZIFORME@aol.com >Subject: Fwd: Check This Out! >X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 58 > >From: Arvidson C >Return-path: >To: OWOWRITER@aol.com >Subject: Check This Out! >Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 20:52:02 EST >Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > >Subject: Heston Anti-gun???? >Date: Mon, Mar 2, 1998 15:58 EST >From: BBHOOVER >Message-id: <19980302205800.PAA00636@ladder03.news.aol.com> > > > >The following is from: > >The American Rifleman >October 1968, Page 10 > > Stars Fall From Anti-gun Bandwagon > >In the heat of summer and apparently in hot pursuit of publicity, >scores of movie and television personalities hopped on the gun >control bandwagon -- briefly. When the furor died down, they quit. > > Actor-Producer Tom Laughlin, chairman of a Hollywood anti-gun >movement billed as "Then Thousand Americans for Reasonable Gun >Control", admitted defeat and dejection in a news report in "Film >and Television Daily." Laughlin was quoted as terming the quitting >actors "summer soldiers" and lamenting: > > "We'd put them all on network shows. We built the campaign, >and then everyone just became uninterested. When the failure set >in in Washington, when it was clear that there was a need for a >sustained, organized effort, everyone became disinterested. > > "They were all hepped up for 2 weeks. The commitment couldn't >last any longer than that. It's frightening to me." > > Laughlin cited as diehards who stuck with his anti-gun >movement a "little more than a handful" including Producers Richard >Zanuck and Robert Blumoffe, Producer-Director Robert Wise, and film >stars Warren Beatty, Candice Bergen, Marlon Brando, CHARLTON >HESTON, Hugh O'Brien, Jill St. John. > >emphasis added. > >Neal Knox has my vote! >MJH > >I'm interested in seeing what JASPAR puts out later this week! > > -Carl > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Fwd: Check This Out! Date: 05 Mar 1998 15:32:14 -0800 (PST) > >The following is from: > > > >The American Rifleman > >October 1968, Page 10 > > [***] > > Laughlin cited as diehards who stuck with his anti-gun > >movement a "little more than a handful" including Producers Richard > >Zanuck and Robert Blumoffe, Producer-Director Robert Wise, and film > >stars Warren Beatty, Candice Bergen, Marlon Brando, CHARLTON > >HESTON, Hugh O'Brien, Jill St. John. > > > >emphasis added. > > > >Neal Knox has my vote! > >MJH In defense of Heston, if, in fact, the above is accurate: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Alpert <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: NRA Director Voorhees' open letter to Charlton Heston and the NRA Membership Date: 05 Mar 1998 18:34:46 CST PLEASE READ, FORWARD, CROSS-POST, AND PRINT OUT AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS, SPREAD THE WORD! Open letter to NRA voting members from Glen I. Voorhees, Jr. I have been on the Board of Directors long enough to know that in order to operate properly, the Board of Directors must work together. A strong President is necessary to help the different factions work for the good of the NRA. With that in mind, I tried to reach Charlton Heston shortly after the annual meeting in Seattle. It was obvious that Mr. Heston knew nothing about some of the problems that have plagued the Board. It was even more evident when he stated that the Board of Directors needed to be purged of extremists, without finding out what the problems were. He was listening to only one side. Anyone in a leadership role knows that you can't make an informed decision without hearing all arguments. I felt that Mr. Heston might have a better idea of what has been going on if he were to hear our side of key issues. Keep in mind he had never been to a Board Meeting before he was elected to the Board of Directors on Saturday, May 3rd. On the 5th he was elected 1st Vice President. To get to that level takes several years for those of us who have worked hard as directors. With no experience he was now in a position to help command a Board of Directors that he had no personal knowledge of and no background information. My purpose in reaching him was to offer to go to California at MY own expense so that I could relay some of my concerns to him. I first tried to get Mr. Heston's phone number from Mr. Jim Land, NRA Secretary. I was refused that request but told that he would contact me. I next heard from a Ms. Carol Lanning who wanted to know what I wanted with Mr. Heston. When I informed her that I wanted to discuss NRA business and a possible meeting with him, I was told that he is very busy, but will get back to you soon. I have on four other occasions tried to reach him through Mr. Land's office and have never received one word from him. I have had the occasion to serve under some great, some not so great, and one very poor president, but I have always been able to get in touch with the NRA President. We have enough troubles on the Board of Directors without adding a non-responsive president to our woes. I AM NOT AGAINST having Mr. Heston on our Board of Directors. He can be a great asset to our poor image. I am against having a President who is non-communicative with his Board of Directors. He certainly can't gain respect from his peers if this is his style of administration. I would like for Mr. Heston serve as a member of the Board of Directors for a time before stepping into the Presidency. Why should he be led to the front of the pack without any experience? It seems to me we are again courting disaster. Those of us who ask questions of our officers are not extremist. We WANT the NRA to function to its greatest capacity, and it can only do that if the Board of Directors is free to question and disagree without fear of retaliation. Ms. Hammer is a master at that tactic (retaliation) and it is my hope that if Mr. Heston is aware of some of our concerns, he won't follow in her foot steps. Respectfully, Glen I. Voorhees, Jr. - Member NRA Board of Directors 1. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen Michael J. Beko James A. Church William Dominguez Howard J. Fezell Daniel B. Fiora Arnold J. Gaunt Fred Griisser Wesley H. Grogan Jr. David M. Gross John Guest Fred Gustafson Don L. Henry William B. Hunt Phillip B. Journey Michael S. Kindberg Jeff Knox John C. Krull Robley T. Moore Larry R. Rankin Albert C. Ross Frank H. Sawberger Thomas L. Seefeldt Kim Stolfer John H. Trentes Glen I. Voorhees Jr. 2. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the internet, b) to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) distribute this letter and list at gun shows, gun stores, and shooting ranges. Ask all NRA members you know to VOTE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES. 3. A few dollars go a long way when they tell the truth. Please send your donation to: Second Amendment Action, 100 Heathwood Drive, Liberty, SC 29657. 4. Visit our web sites: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains Heston interview) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: FW: PFAW Special Alert: Istook Puts Religious Liberty At Risk Date: 06 Mar 1998 18:43:10 -0500 Forwarding along - no association, no affiliation, just on an email list where it was posted.... >March 5, 1998 > >A Special Alert from People For the American Way President Carole >Shields: > >Every person who cares about religious liberty needs to know what >happened this week. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee took a >dangerous step toward eroding the religious liberty of all Americans. >By a vote of 16 to 11, the committee approved the misnamed "Religious >Freedom Amendment," sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Oklahoma. A >vote on the Istook Amendment could occur on the floor of the U.S. >House as early as next week. > >Istook's amendment would dismantle the wall of separation of church >and state. Americans would no longer be able to rely on the First >Amendment to protect their religious liberty. The Istook amendment >would subject public school children to sectarian prayer, and permit >taxpayers to fund religious schools. > >We know the Christian Coalition is pushing for a vote so that they can >target members of Congress with their distorted voter guides. They've >pledged to distribute 45 million voter guides this year. That's what >this is about. > >Please call your representative in Congress and tell her or him to >vote "No" when the Istook Amendment comes up for debate. Religious >liberty -- not religious coercion -- is the American way. > >Congressional telephone numbers: >http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/mbrcmtee.htm > > >Thank you, > >Carole Shields >President >People For the American Way > >====================================== >For those readers that have not yet subscribed to Attacks on the >Freedom to Learn Online, you may obtain your own subscription by >sending a message to: MAISER@PFAW.ORG with no subject and the message: > SUBSCRIBE AFLO. To unsubscribe, send a message to: MAISER@PFAW.ORG >with no subject and the message: UNSUBSCRIBE AFLO An archive is >maintained at http://pfaw.org/aflo >====================================== >People For the American Way >2000 M Street NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20036 >202 467 4999 | Fax: 202 293 2672 >http://pfaw.org | pfaw@pfaw.org > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: FW: PFAW Special Alert: Istook Puts Religious Liberty At Risk Date: 06 Mar 1998 17:09:11 PST On Mar 6, mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu wrote: >Forwarding along - no association, no affiliation, just on an email list >where it was posted.... Next time how about posting the pertinant text as well? In any case, feel free to forward this reply back to them. >>March 5, 1998 >> >>A Special Alert from People For the American Way President Carole >>Shields: >> >>Every person who cares about religious liberty needs to know what >>happened this week. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee took a >>dangerous step toward eroding the religious liberty of all Americans. I haven't even seen the text, but considering the rest of this post, I doubt it. >>By a vote of 16 to 11, the committee approved the misnamed "Religious >>Freedom Amendment," sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Oklahoma. A >>vote on the Istook Amendment could occur on the floor of the U.S. >>House as early as next week. >> >>Istook's amendment would dismantle the wall of separation of church >>and state. What wall is that? So far it only exists in the so called minds of certain Socialist Judges as a tool _against_ Religion. >> Americans would no longer be able to rely on the First >>Amendment to protect their religious liberty. Seems to be the case allready with the above mentioned Judges, but again, considering the rest of this, I doubt it. >> The Istook amendment >>would subject public school children to sectarian prayer, As long as they all have an equal chance at it, who cares? It's called _Education_. >> and permit >>taxpayers to fund religious schools. Something wrong with supporting schools that teach something as opposed to those that can't/wont? >>We know the Christian Coalition is pushing for a vote Then I guess Religious folks must like it after all, huh? >> so that they can >>target members of Congress with their distorted voter guides. Distorted how? Lets be more specific and less pejorative, hmmm? >> They've >>pledged to distribute 45 million voter guides this year. That's what >>this is about. Gosh that's an awfull lot of Religious folks that seem to be _for_ this. Maybe it's better than you think after all..... >>Please call your representative in Congress and tell her or him to >>vote "No" when the Istook Amendment comes up for debate. Religious >>liberty -- not religious coercion -- is the American way. What coercion would that be? Seems to me putting this stuff out without any actual details of what they're trying to do is more akin to it. Lets get a whole lot more specific shall we? >>Congressional telephone numbers: >>http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/mbrcmtee.htm >> >> >>Thank you, >> >>Carole Shields >>President >>People For the American Way >> >>====================================== >>For those readers that have not yet subscribed to Attacks on the >>Freedom to Learn Online, you may obtain your own subscription by >>sending a message to: MAISER@PFAW.ORG with no subject and the message: >> SUBSCRIBE AFLO. To unsubscribe, send a message to: MAISER@PFAW.ORG >>with no subject and the message: UNSUBSCRIBE AFLO An archive is >>maintained at http://pfaw.org/aflo >>====================================== >>People For the American Way >>2000 M Street NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20036 >>202 467 4999 | Fax: 202 293 2672 >>http://pfaw.org | pfaw@pfaw.org -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: big bro takes another bite Date: 07 Mar 1998 02:43:09 -0500 (EST) ...and this is from our Republican "friends," no less. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [while discussing the scanner ban] On Fri, Mar 06, 1998 at 06:20:39PM -0800, Tim May wrote: > > (Even with guns, in the U.S., there have historically been > "grandfatherings" of existing guns. Not always, as with certain machine > guns. And not with gold, which was declared contraband by the Reichsfuhrer > in 1933.) > > Could possession of PGP be still legal, but _use_ declared illegal? > > (Not addressing the First Amendment issues, which are even stronger, but > just the issue of retroactive contrabanding of something which was acquired > legally, and by hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens.) > The House has just done this yesterday as mentioned in several items posted to this very list: From HR2369, the Wireless Communications Privacy Enchancement Act of 1998, passed by the House 414 to 1.... "(4) Any person who manufactures, assembles, modifies, imports, exports, sells, or distributes any electronic, mechanical, or other device or equipment, knowing or having reason to know that the device or equipment ..." .... clause concerning satellite piracy gear omited ..... " , or is intended for any receipt, interception, divulgence, publication, or utilization of any communication in violation of subsection (a), shall be fined not more than $500,000 for each violation, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years for each violation, or both. For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of this paragraph, the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be deemed a separate violation." Subsection a: " ....... No person not being authorized by the sender shall intentionally intercept any radio communication *or* divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person..........." [note that *and* was changed by this bill to *or*, making interception itself criminal] The only exception being : "Nothing in this subsection prohibits an interception or disclosure of a communication as authorized by chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code." [which covers broadcast, ham, marine, aviation. governmental, and communications readily accessible to the general public, whatever that means] While this doesn't exactly retroactively ban *possession* of radio gear capable of intercepting banned radio communications, it provides extremely stiff felony level penalties for manufacturing, assembling, modifying, importing, exporting, selling, or distributing any radio receiving gear that might be construed to be intended for receipt or interception of any radio communications not on the allowed list. And these penalties apply to each individual sale. Thus selling an old scanner at a Saturday morning hamfest to a stranger for cash - a scanner legally purchased from Radio Shack in the era before cell phone frequencies were outlawed on scanners - could conceivably result in a $500,000 fine and a five year jail term. And Lord knows what horrible penalties could be assessed against innocent people selling the sort of oddball specialized communications gear and test equipment that are the stock in trade of many of the more interesting ham fests and swapmeets [MIT's monthly fleas for example]. Perhaps such informal personal sales will never be prosecuted, but most sales of gear at hamfests and the like are anonymous cash transactions between total strangers with every possiblity that the guy a table over with the video camera is filming your sale for evidence. And for those who like to hack, tinkering quietly in their basements with communications monitoring and decoding software and hardware, manufacture and assembly have been defined in other federal cases to include merely writing software for one's own use. Surely this would apply to creating cryptanalysis software for any form of radio communications at all, since it is not legal to intercept any radio communications that are "scrambled or encrypted". And there is no exception made for research and development or academic purposes. So yes, they have done at least as bad a thing to people who merely want to tinker with their radios and occasionally explore what is out there in the ether by passively and in private receiving radio signals as they have to gun owners, who at least possess a weapon capable of doing some serious harm. And there is not a single sentance in the legislation providing any kind of encouragement for the use of cryptography to protect the privacy of openly broadcast signals receivable for miles around, let alone mandating it. -- Dave Emery N1PRE, die@die.com DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass. PGP fingerprint = 2047/4D7B08D1 DE 6E E1 CC 1F 1D 96 E2 5D 27 BD B0 24 88 C3 18 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: more from the crackdown on crime Date: 07 Mar 1998 09:05:44 -0500 (EST) More from the "crackdown on crime" ... Note how drugs made a nice pretext to kick a guy's door in, said guy eventually being charged with (only!) possession of a firearm. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- a couple more... 3. Newt Gingrich Calls for Lifetime Ban of Drug-Using Athletes Who Refuse to Snitch Speaking at a news conference on Thursday, Feb. 26, House Speaker Newt Gingrich called upon all sports leagues and associations to ban for one year any athlete who tests positive for drugs, with the added proviso that they be forced to reveal where they got the drugs, or be banned for life. Brian McIntyre, spokesman for the National Basketball Association, told the L.A. Times, "We thank the speaker for his thoughts, but as it relates to the NBA, we think that this is an issue that is best addressed solely by the NBA and its players." The various professional sports leagues, of course, negotiate their drug policies within the framework of collective bargaining agreements between the leagues and the players unions. ---- 4. Violent Week in Giuliani's Drug War In New York City, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's new "zero-tolerance" Drug War claimed the life of one suspect and nearly claimed the life of a cop in a "buy and bust" operation in Brooklyn. Also, police acting on an anonymous tip kicked in the door of the wrong apartment in the Bronx and fired over 30 shots. Fortunately, no one was injured. Police taking part in a "buy and bust" operation, which netted a single $20 vial of crack-cocaine, walked into a narrow hallway where one suspect was confronted. In the ensuing struggle, apparently over the officer's gun, the suspect was killed, and the officer, 13 year-veteran Sgt. Dexter Brown, was shot in the lower back by a bullet from the gun of a backup officer. Brown's life was saved by his bulletproof vest. He was hospitalized but is expected to recover fully. Mayor Giuliani told the Daily News that it was an "'excellent job' by officers exposed to 'tremendous danger'". In the Bronx, 44 year-old Ellis Elliot was asleep in his bedroom at 8:15 Friday morning (2/27), when he heard his door being kicked in. Assuming that he was being robbed, Elliot grabbed his (unlicensed) gun and fired once in the direction of his bedroom door. That shot was answered by a barrage, possibly as many as 30 shots from the police. After the barrage, Elliot told The New York Post, the police finally identified themselves, at which time Elliot came out with his hands up. At that point, he was cuffed and, still naked, dragged from his apartment through the new hole in his front door and into the street. Elliot told the Post that while he was being cuffed and dragged from his home, police cursed at him, called him "nigger", and refused to let him put on clothes. When police finally went back into the house to retrieve clothes for Mr. Elliot, officers brought out pants and a blouse belonging to Elliot's girlfriend. Elliot was forced to wear the woman's clothing to jail. Elliot, who has no criminal record, is being charged with possession of his unlicensed firearm. The New York City Police Department has indicated that it will reimburse the building's owner for the damage to the apartment. The Week Online called the New York City Police and spoke to a representative in their press office. That office indicated that the police, out of the Bronx Narcotics Unit, were executing a search warrant at the time of their entry, but could not confirm what exactly was being searched for. We then asked whether it was standard procedure to execute warrants at an hour (8:15 am) when it was likely that any children in a given home would be awake and preparing for school, the press rep responded, "er, no. I mean, you execute it when you think... when you do. I mean, did this guy have kids?" (Editor -- He might just as easily have had kids, since they broke down the door of the wrong apartment.) 8. California Inmates Get Ruling -- but no Justice -- in Sexual Assault Case - Barrington Daltrey for DRCNet The war on drugs continues to exact its toll on the humanity of our system of justice, the civil rights of individuals, and on taxpayers' pocketbooks. On March 3, 1998, Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District Court in San Francisco was presented a settlement of a civil rights suit against the United States Bureau of Prisons brought by three women prisoners, two of whom are in federal prison on drug charges. According to their lawyers, Michael Bien and Geri Lynn Green, the three were victims of sexual assault and rape while housed in the J-2 Segregated Housing Unit of the otherwise all male Federal Detention Center in Dublin, California. The attacks occurred in the fall of 1995. "We are incarcerating people at alarming rates," said Green, "The prison systems are not set up to handle the huge increases. Even in women's prisons, men staff the units. They read the prisoner's mail and listen to all phone calls. There exists no safe and secure method of reporting abuse, meanwhile there has been a steady erosion of prisoners' access to the courts, legal representation, and the press. These attacks and the resulting retaliation occurred because we have a prison system that is accountable to no one. The prison system thrives on cover-ups and retaliation, breeding malfeasance and misfeasance by prison personnel without redress." The settlement requires changes in operating procedures at federal prisons throughout the country, and the women will share in $500,000 in damages to be paid by the federal government. The attacks reportedly occurred repeatedly late at night, when a correctional officer would open the women's cell doors, giving access to male inmates. When two of the women got word out to the regional director requesting help, they received no assistance. Instead, word of one victim's under oath identification of the correctional officer and an attacker was leaked to the male inmates, and subsequently her door was again opened. Three men entered, handcuffing her, brutally beating her and sexually assaulting her. The attackers made clear this attack was retribution for her reports to authorities. Despite polygraph tests validating the victims' statements, the U.S. Attorney's Office sat on the case for two years and refused to bring it before a grand jury. Ultimately the case was closed without action being brought against the correctional officer or anyone else for the violent crimes, the cover-ups, the acts of retaliation or the obstruction of justice. Enforcement of even the civil settlement will be difficult. "In 1996, a new federal law was passed which greatly restricts the power of the federal courts to protect prisoners from serious violations of their Constitutional rights, such as the rape and sexual assault of my clients," said Bien. "Because of this law, plaintiffs will not be able to enforce the settlement of this case by seeking relief from Judge Henderson. There is no reason that the operation of the federal prison system should be beyond the scrutiny of the federal courts. The law is bad policy and is unconstitutional." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jaspar Subject: "Just Say No" to Bylaw Amendment Date: 07 Mar 1998 17:05:58 -0700 From Joel Friedman "Just Say No" to Bylaw Amendment I have been asked by several people what I think about the current Bylaw Amendment now before the voting members of the NRA. For clarity, I will break out portions of the Bylaw Amendment (BL), and add my comments under the heading "plain speak" (PS). While I am not an attorney, I am willing to use some simple logic to attempt to translate what I believe each part of this Amendment means to our organization, our leaders, and, ultimately, to all of us. There is one point I would like to make before I analyze the Amendment piece by piece. The proposed Bylaw Amendment is said to be about fiscal responsibility. I am not going to delve into whether or not " fiscal responsibility" is the real purpose of the Amendment. I will attempt to deal only with the Amendment itself, and not the politics of the people who created, distributed, and endorsed this Amendment. Each member should make up his or her own mind regarding this point. [BL] Article IV, Section 5. Financial Disclosure and Good Conduct of Directors, Officers, and Members of the Executive Council. (a) All Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, and Members of the Executive Council shall provide the Association Secretary with their individual, signed statement, sworn or affirmed as being true, correct and complete in every respect before a notary public, no later than 20 (twenty) days preceding each Annual Meeting of Members which fully discloses: All business, financial, political, or other transactions and ongoing business, political or professional relationships currently engaged in or having occurred within the preceding 36 (thirty-six) months, whether paid or un-paid, with The National Rifle Association of America, its affiliates, Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, employees, vendors or employees of vendors, which directly or indirectly benefits or affects him or his immediate family in any way. [PS] For me, this means that the old and new Directors, and all the past Presidents must write down any business dealings, contributions (like to the foundation or the legal trust) even it is for a single dollar. They must also document any and all political activities and transactions of any kind. This means that if you or I fall into this category and we were to buy a coffee mug or a tee shirt from the NRA, we must mark it down (for the last 3 years). I also understand this section to mean that if any of the affected people says anything about the NRA, they must also write it down and submit it. As an example, this seems to mean that if person X happens to be an employee of a vendor who sells the NRA trash liners, and X happens to know someone who was just elected as a Director (Y), and two years ago X invited his old friend Y (now a newly-elected Director) to his house for dinner, and during dinner X sold a firearm accessory to Y, there would be two transactions that benefited Y (the new Director). One benefit is the accessory, and the second is the dinner itself. As I understand this section, if all these occurrences are not written down, the new Director Y is in violation of the Bylaw and subject to possible suspension of his membership, or, at the least, he/her is subject to a hearing on the matter. Think this could not happen? According to this section of the Bylaw, it is possible. I also notice that if an NRA Director is also a director of any type of affiliated organization, this person is not only subject to the criteria and circumstances mentioned above, but must also perform the same record-keeping chores in all dealings with the affiliated organization, which actually means tracking ALL contacts and dealings with all the people and businesses that he/she has had anything do with. I keep saying "ALL" because the Bylaw states, "which directly or indirectly benefits or affects him or his immediate family in any way." Unless I am mistaken, "all" or everything we do as people affects us directly or indirectly in some manner. Also consider that the Bylaw Amendment says, "whether paid or un-paid." If something is "un-paid", what kind of fiscal impact does that "something" have? [BL] (b) The Executive Vice President, Treasurer, Executive Director of General Operations, Executive Director of National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action , and NRA/ILA Fiscal Officer, acting on behalf of the Association, shall each provide the Association Secretary with a signed independent statement, sworn or affirmed as being true, correct and complete in every respect before a notary public, no later than 20 (twenty) days preceding each Annual Meeting of Members which fully discloses: All business, financial, political, professional and other transactions or business, political or professional relationships, whether paid or un-paid, between all Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, or Members and the Executive Council currently holding or having held such office within the preceding 36 (thirty-six) months and the National Rifle Association of America, its affiliates, Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, employees, vendors or employees of vendors, which directly or indirectly benefited or affected in anyway the individual in question or his immediate family during the preceding 36 (thirty-six) months, and all infractions of paragraph (e) of this section, occurring currently or during the preceding 36 (thirty-six) months. [PS] Currently this section applies to the following people: Wayne LaPierre, Woody Phillips, Creg Sandler, Tanya Metaksa, and Mary Rose Adkins (I'll use the acronym "WWFTM"). I find it extremely interesting that the other officers in the NRA and the other Division Directors are not mentioned. If the purpose of the Bylaw Amendment is "to better the organization," why doesn't the Amendment simply name ALL the Officers and Division Directors? As it is written, it certainly appears as if this section was written not "to better the organization," but to go after only the people-- "WWFTM"--named in my first sentence. Additionally (if I understand this section correctly), if person X = were to become a Director in either the NRA and/or an NRA-affiliated organization, and sometime during the last 3 years any of WWFTM paid for a cup of coffee (or even offered Director X a glass of water) while they were talking about firearms rights in their state, WWFTorM would have had to write it down or be held in violation of the Bylaw and subject to a hearing, or the loss of membership, or the loss of their job, or--in the case of Director X--risk losing the affiliation of his organization (Section a). If WWFTM were to ever say anything about a person, good or bad, or even make an offhand comment, and that person within 3 years became a Director of the NRA or an NRA affiliate, then WWFTM are required to write it down or be subject to some type of sanction. Another possible scenario might go like this: One of these people (WWFTorM) has an adult child that lives on their own. A son or = daughter gets a job with a vendor that does some business with one of NRA-affiliated organizations. The adult child works for the vendor, but the child and WWFTM are unaware that the child=B9s employer does business with the NRA affiliate; or WWFTM does not know the adult child is even working for the vendor. The child works there for several months and leaves the job for another career. If WWFT(or)M does not report this, they are in violation of the Bylaw. This could also be the case if the child merely helped without pay a friend who is employed by a vendor who does business with an affiliated organization. Remember, the Bylaw states, "other transactions," "whether paid or un-paid," "which directly or indirectly benefited or affected in = anyway the individual in question or his immediate family." As these people (WWFTM) interface with thousands and thousands of = people each year, I wonder how they will be able to remember everything they have said and done, minute by minute. I also wonder how they are going to know about everything that every affiliated organization does, and with whom these organizations work. For me, this segment is a plainly stupid idea that defies good common sense. [BL] (c) The Association Secretary shall compile all such statements into a single report and distribute it to every Director and every Director Elect no later than 5 (five) days preceding the beginning of each Annual Meeting of Members. The Board shall review the statements contained therein of any Officer candidate prior to the election of Officers. This report shall not be considered confidential. Within 10 (ten) days of receipt of a written request and payment the Association Secretary shall provide this report to any Member entitled to vote under the Bylaws for an amount no greater than the net cost to the Association of reproduction and delivery. [PS] The above segment mandates that the Secretary has only 15 days to compile all this information into a report--2 1/2 weeks before the annual meeting (which is the busiest time for the Secretary's entire office). Of course, the Secretary can probably request and receive the necessary budget adjustment to hire extra people to compile this report. But if these temporary people make a mistake because of their lack of understanding or experience, will the Secretary be held libel for these mistakes? Will the Secretary be required personally to review the packet page by page? Will this cause the Secretary to assign other work to these temporary people? Will the results of their work benefit or harm the NRA? [BL] (d) No Officer of the Association or Member of the Executive Council shall campaign, or allow his name or likeness to be used in any campaign for or against a Director in a Board election or in any matter to be voted upon by the Members. [PS] This segment of the Bylaw is especially disturbing. Our organization = is supposed to stand for protecting the Bill of Rights. We have been fighting campaign finance reform in the Congress because "reform" would eliminate the NRA's ability to tell its members where we stand on legislation and on candidates for elected office. Now we are being asked to vote for a Bylaw Amendment for our own organization that will make it a violation for our leaders to speak to us about matters that we will vote on. The Bylaw states, "No Officer of the Association or Member of the Executive Council shall campaign," (speaking for or against something to be voted on is campaigning) "in any matter to be voted upon by the Members." Who will be able to talk to us? The mainstream media? By itself, this single aspect alone is scary! Personally, I WANT to hear what our leaders have to say. For me, a leader=B9s opinion is a critical part = of the process of making an informed decision. After I have heard or read our leaders' advice, I can then look further and ask more informed questions, if I choose to do so. I am thus enabled to come to an independent decision using ALL available resources. [BL] (e) The Executive Vice President, Treasurer, Executive Director of General Operations, and Executive Director of National Rifle = Association Institute for Legislative Action shall ensure that the Association = does not conduct business with any vendor or subsidiary thereof for a period of 36 (thirty-six) months following any election in which such vendor, subsidiary thereof, or any employee or agent of such vendor, campaigned for or against any Director Nominee in a Board election or campaigned for or against any matter which has been or will be put before the Membership for vote either by mail or at any meeting of Members. Provided however, no existing contract, executed in compliance with Board policy, having a term of less than 12 (twelve) months remaining as of the date of the adoption of this Bylaw provision, shall become void solely by reason of this Bylaw provision. [PS] Please review my comments in the PS you just read above this one. Then imagine this scenario: You work for a company that is owned by a company that does business with the NRA. You are an active member of the NRA. But now you are prevented from speaking your mind concerning ANYTHING that will be voted on at either the Annual Meeting or by mail. You have just lost your First Amendment rights!--Or you must sacrifice a customer for your company's parent company. The Bylaw says, "vendor, subsidiary thereof, or any employee or agent of such vendor, campaigned for or against", "any matter which has been or will be put before the Membership for vote either by mail or at any meeting of Members." [BL] (f) Prior to engaging in any activity reportable under this section of the Bylaws, the individuals involved must fully disclose the matter to the Board of Directors. The activity may not commence without the prior authorization by a majority roll call vote of the Board of Directors in accordance with Article IV Section 3(d). Violation of this Section by an Officer or Member of the Executive Council shall be cause for removal by a majority vote of the Board of Directors present and voting at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors. Violation of this Section by a Director shall be cause for removal by a majority vote of the Members present and voting at an annual meeting of Members. [PS] If I understand this section correctly, it says that 3 years prior to anyone in the firearms rights movement becoming a Director in the NRA and/or one of it affiliates, Officers and Directors must keep a log of ANYTHING they say, or do, as it relates to the firearms movement. Additionally, all affected people (officers and Directors) must find out prior to talking to someone if that "someone" is considering becoming a board member of the NRA or one of its affiliates. These same affected people must also know what every member of their immediate family is doing and saying BEFORE they say or do it. Additionally, anything planned that has to do with anyone who might in 3 years become a Director, must wait until the board meets (3 times per year). If the meetings aren't soon enough, then the plan just can not be done no matter how important it is. NO EXCEPTIONS! There will never be a legislative matter, business dealing, or a political matter that is important enough to override this rule. I sincerely believe that this section of the Bylaw Amendment will cause projects not to get done, and will cause opportunities to be missed--because of uncertainty and fear of possible sanctions. [BL] (g) The Membership directs that the certificate of incorporation be amended as necessary to insure that this section of the Bylaws complies with all applicable law. The provisions of this Bylaw section control over any conflicting Bylaw and are in effect upon passage. The disclosure and reporting requirements of this Bylaw section shall be complied with prior to the 1998 Annual Meeting of Members. The provisions of this section are declared to be severable and the Membership hereby states that they would have adopted such provisions of Article IV, Section 5, which can be lawfully given effect regardless of the possible invalidity of any other provision. This Bylaw section may only be amended by mail by the Membership in accordance with Article XV, Sections 4 and 5. [PS] It is my interpretation that this segment will cause all the Directors and other affected persons to stop all the work they are currently doing and begin to compile the required list. Even if they finish a list, it will not be "complete" because it is NOT humanly possible to remember everyone they have come in contact with and what was said. Additionally, if the Bylaw Amendment passes, most of the officers of the NRA will be subject to the sanctions as described in section (f). While I do not believe this is legal because it makes something a violation that happened before the rule came into effect, I am not a lawyer. However, I have been in business long enough to know that if these officers are sanctioned, there is an excellent chance we will see some employment suits against the NRA. Perhaps you are now thinking that I have been overstating the case, or that I am just being slightly too picky. Keep in mind I am not the one who wrote and distributed this Bylaw Petition. I am only reporting on what I have read, and what I can see, and what it could mean if someone--anyone--decided to use this Bylaw Amendment in the same manner as the examples I have described for you. In summary, I will say again that this is one person's opinion--mine-- and that I am NOT an attorney. But if I am only half right, this Bylaw Amendment is something we do not need now--or at anytime. [end.] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: (fwd) Charton Heston -- The driver of the NRA Trojan Horse (fwd) Date: 08 Mar 1998 09:57:54 -0500 (EST) I don't get Knox's stuff directly, this came to me second-hand. I don't know if it's true or not but I'm guessing it is. No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up. It occurs to me that Charlton Heston has been a loyal Republican supporter since the Red Sea was parted. A cynic might suspect that his coronation was intended to keep the NRA functioning as a dedicated Republican support organization, not as the dedicated firearms-rights organization we'd like it to be. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Greetings GOA-Texas subscribers, This is quite interresting. The original accusations of Heston's anti-gun past are not even addressed! The NRA's official response entirely avoid the issue! What is it they have to hide? This is arrogance SUPREME! Here is the accusations: NEAL KNOX REPORT The Heston File By NEAL KNOX WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 2) -- The Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library in Austin today confirmed that NRA First Vice President Charlton Heston actively worked with the Johnson Administration in passing the 1968 Gun Control Act. Heston, who is in line to be elected NRA President in June if elected to the Board in the election now underway, has served as a public spokesman for NRA for several years. Heston's role in expanding the 1968 Safe Streets Act to prohibit the interstate sale or transfer of rifles and shotguns came to light about two weeks ago when the text of two LBJ Library documents began circulating on the Internet. The documents were so historically accurate that they refreshed memories of the fury of our battle against the Gun Control Act, but I didn't recall the huge Hollywood effort having included Heston. I worried that an enemy might have added Heston's name in an effort to torpedo his NRA fundraising. But 13 pages documenting Heston's gun control efforts are in the LBJ Library, White House Central Files "SP" and "LE," Boxes 5 and 80. On June 12, 1968, White House Deputy Special Counsel Larry Levinson sent a memo to a speech writer: "At the President's suggestion, Jack Valenti has agreed to hold a luncheon in Los Angeles ... June 17, at which a number of famous movie actors -- particularly those who play cowboys -- will speak out in favor of the President's gun control legislation. "For this luncheon, we need two pithy, one-page statements which will be read by two of the 'cowboys' (probably Charlton Heston ...), supporting the President's Gun Control Bill." That same day Levinson sent a telegram to Heston at his Beverly Hills home with a proposed statement that the Safe Streets Act "is only a half-way measure. It covers only handguns - -- but fails to include shotguns and rifles. ... As you know, a mail order rifle was used to assassinate President John F. Kennedy, and a rifle was used to kill Dr. Martin Luther King." On June 18, 1968 Levinson sent a memo to President Johnson: "Through Jack Valenti's good work, five movie actors will appear tonight on the Joey Bishop show ... to strongly support your gun control proposal. The actors involved are Gregory Peck, Charlton Heston, Hugh O'Brian [sic], James Stewart and Kirk Douglas. "They will read a very tough statement which we prepared here applauding your action in calling for strict gun curbs." Two days later, on June 20, Special Assistant to the President Joe Califano sent President Johnson a copy of a statement "which Hugh O'Brien read on the Joey Bishop Show last Tuesday. This was a statement subscribed to by Kirk Douglas, James Stewart, Gregory Peck and Charleton [sic] Heston and has been widely circulated throughout the country. "The statement was prepared by Levinson and Middleton and was 'slipped' to Hugh O'Brien through Jack Valenti." The statement reminded Joey Bishop's audience that "Two weeks ago, Robert F. Kennedy became one of thousands of Americans struck down by an assassin's bullet." It added: "The Congress has recently given us some protection against pistols in the wrong hands. But that's not enough ... not nearly enough. The carnage will not stop until there is effective control over sale of rifles and shotguns. "President John F. Kennedy was murdered by a rifle. "Martin Luther King was murdered by a rifle. "Medgar Evers was murdered by a rifle." On June 18 Hollywood public relations consultant Dick McKay wrote Califano that "Charlton, Gregory [Peck] and Hugh personally planted this statement with the bureau chiefs at AP and UPI. They were greeted warmly and ... (t)he AP also photographed the trio." Heston's gun control efforts are also found on Page 10 of the October 1968 American Rifleman. The head of a Hollywood anti-gun group had praised Heston as one of "little more than a handful" of "diehards" which included Warren Beatty, Candice [sic] Bergen, Marlon Brando, O'Brien and Jill St. John. These events put fresh light on Heston's May 6, 1997 statements about some guns being "inappropriate for private ownership." We now have a better understanding of what he means when he talks about bringing NRA into "the mainstream." And now I know why I've never seen a picture of him with anything other than a flintlock rifle or a double-barrel shotgun. Voters now have a clear choice in the election -- Heston's slate or the Second Amendment patriots he imperiously tells you to "Vote Against." Exact text from Page 10, October 1968 The American Rifleman Stars Fall From Anti-gun Bandwagon In the heat of summer and apparently in hot pursuit of publicity, scores of movie and television personalities hopped on the gun control bandwagon -- briefly. When the furor died down, they quit. Actor-Producer Tom Laughlin, chairman of a Hollywood anti-gun movement billed as "Ten Thousand Americans for Reasonable Gun Control", admitted defeat and dejection in a news report in "Film and Television Daily." Laughlin was quoted as terming the quitting actors "summer soldiers" and lamenting: "We'd put them all on network shows. We built the campaign, and then everyone just became uninterested. When the failure set in in Washington, when it was clear that there was a need for a sustained, organized effort, everyone became disinterested. "They were all hepped up for 2 weeks. The commitment couldn't last any longer than that. It's frightening to me." Laughlin cited as diehards who stuck with his anti-gun movement a "little more than a handful" including Producers Richard Zanuck and Robert Blumoffe, Producer-Director Robert Wise, and film stars Warren Beatty, Candice Bergen, Marlon Brando, CHARLTON HESTON, Hugh O'Brien, Jill St. John. (emphasis added) ---------------------- ******Here is the official NRA response****** --- START OF FORWARDED MESSAGE From: alerts@Mainstream.net (NRA Alerts) Date: 3/6/98, 8:39:48 PM President March 6, 1998 Charton Heston -- On the Record as NRA's First Vice President NOTE: A handful of dissidents have attempted to smear and impugn the integrity of NRA First Vice President Charlton Heston regarding the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights. As both friend and foe know, Mr. Heston has spent decades defending the Second Amendment civil rights of all law-abiding Americans. NRA members, gunowners, and even anti-gun groups and the national news media have long known of his very public political views and his very tireless work to promote our rights and political candidates who support those rights. In the interest of alleviating any confusion caused by a few minor dissidents, you are encouraged to review just a few of the public statements made by Mr. Heston in major television appearances, viewed by literally millions of Americans. Note that each of these directly quoted comments were made during the past year of Mr. Heston's term of service as your First Vice President. [etc.] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Fezell/NRA spat? Date: 08 Mar 1998 16:16:24 -0800 (PST) Just got an email purporting to be a copy of the most recent hearings transcript in this whole affair. NRA's counsel in my humble opinion came off poorly indeed. It would be nice to hear some comment from NRA leadership on this. Something beyond '...a small group of dissidents' seems warranted in a case where judges are talking about contempt (regarding the statement in the election magazine) and where NRA counsel pleads ignorance in what came close to an argument with the Judge. IMHO anyway. Boyd (all my opinion) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: California Gubernatorial Candidates Date: 08 Mar 1998 21:29:34 -0800 An Open Letter to Tanya Metsaka and the National Rifle Association: Last week, our far-left-wing newspaper the Sacramento Bee, ran a rather comprehensive article concerning the political stands of the four major-party candidates for Governor of California. For those of you who aren't here on the Left Coast, the players are: Democrat: Al Checci - Multi-millionaire president of Northwest Airlines Gray Davis - Lt. Governor of California Jane Harmon - Congressional Representative Republican: Dan Lundgren - Attorney General of California You might expect the three Democrats to be strongly in favor of gun control, and you'd be right. The surprising point might be that Dan Lundgren, the only Republican candidate, is equally rabidly anti-gun. A prime supporter of California's now-declared-unconstitutional ban on so-called "assault weapons", and continual foe of "shall-issue" CCW reform, Lundgren can't possibly earn any NRA grade better than an "F-". All four candidates strongly support Sen. Dianne Feinstein's numerous anti-gun measures, and all four support Sen. Barbara Boxer's proposed ban on "junk guns". All four are against CCW reform. But there is hope. There is ONE candidate in the California governor's race who has stated firmly that while he personally has never owned a firearm, he supports absolutely the rights of those who chose to do so. That candidate is Steve Kubby, the Libertarian candidate for Governor. The NRA has never before endorsed a Libertarian, preferring to endorse a marginal Republican in preference to an outstanding Libertarian, reasoning (if you can call it that) that the GOP candidate is electable and that maybe he won't screw us too badly if we support him. The Libertarian, on the other hand, can't possibly be elected, and if we abandon the GOP, they'll screw us over even worse than they normally do. In this case, however, the GOP candidate is definitely anti-gun to begin with. Nothing the NRA can do will change his mind. Steve Kubby, on the other hand, supports the Bill of Rights, and our rights as gun owners. Here's his statement about gun control, from his web site at http://www.alpworld.com/kubby98/: THE PROBLEM WITH GUN CONTROL Freedom isn't being able to do what you like, it's allowing someone else to do or say something you hate and supporting their right to do so. I don't own a gun, never have and never will, but I must defend gun owners if there is any logic or consistency to my position of opposing all forms of prohibition. The right to bear arms is clearly stated in the Second Amendment. We cannot deny those rights just because some lunatic goes on a rampage. Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens that deserve to be left alone by their government. As Governor, I will oppose all forms of gun control, because I know that crime is lower and citizens are safer in communities where guns have not been banned. (The final sentence is hyperlinked to http://www.nra.org/research/NRA-FFACT.html.) So, there it is. The NRA will lose ALL credibility if it endorses anybody other than Kubby, and is missing a great bet if they take the "easy" way out and endorse no one. The GOP will continue to screw us over with broken promises, new gun laws, and more restrictions if we keep on endorsing marginal Republicans, and will never care a fig for our concerns unless they know that the NRA can and will endorse a third party candidate who is better. Tanya, the Remocrats and Depublicans will never restore our gun rights; only the Libertarians will do that. Californians: Vote for Steve Kubby for Governor! Ken Mitchell NRA Life Member CSC5718F Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all - security, comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society, but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." Gibbons: "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" Proud member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" since 1992! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chuckrn@aone.com (Charles R. Norgaard) Subject: California Gubernatorial Candidates Date: 09 Mar 1998 09:01:42 -0800 >To: rok@xmission.com, >From: chuckrn@aone.com (Charles R. Norgaard) >Subject: California Gubernatorial Candidates > >>Return-Path: >>X-Sender: kmitchel@gvn.net >>Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 21:29:34 -0800 >>To: roc@xmission.com, tm@nra.org >>From: Kenneth Mitchell >>Subject: California Gubernatorial Candidates >>Sender: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com >>Precedence: bulk >>Reply-To: roc@lists.xmission.com >> >>An Open Letter to Tanya Metsaka and the National Rifle Association: >> >>Last week, our far-left-wing newspaper the Sacramento Bee, ran a rather >>comprehensive article concerning the political stands of the four >>major-party candidates for Governor of California. For those of you who >>aren't here on the Left Coast, the players are: >> >>Democrat: >> Al Checci - Multi-millionaire president of Northwest Airlines >> Gray Davis - Lt. Governor of California >> Jane Harmon - Congressional Representative >> >>Republican: >> Dan Lundgren - Attorney General of California >> >> >>You might expect the three Democrats to be strongly in favor of gun >>control, and you'd be right. The surprising point might be that Dan >>Lundgren, the only Republican candidate, is equally rabidly anti-gun. A >>prime supporter of California's now-declared-unconstitutional ban on >>so-called "assault weapons", and continual foe of "shall-issue" CCW reform, >> Lundgren can't possibly earn any NRA grade better than an "F-". >> >>All four candidates strongly support Sen. Dianne Feinstein's numerous >>anti-gun measures, and all four support Sen. Barbara Boxer's proposed ban >>on "junk guns". All four are against CCW reform. >> >>But there is hope. There is ONE candidate in the California governor's >>race who has stated firmly that while he personally has never owned a >>firearm, he supports absolutely the rights of those who chose to do so. >> >>That candidate is Steve Kubby, the Libertarian candidate for Governor. >> >>The NRA has never before endorsed a Libertarian, preferring to endorse a >>marginal Republican in preference to an outstanding Libertarian, reasoning >>(if you can call it that) that the GOP candidate is electable and that >>maybe he won't screw us too badly if we support him. The Libertarian, on >>the other hand, can't possibly be elected, and if we abandon the GOP, >>they'll screw us over even worse than they normally do. >> >>In this case, however, the GOP candidate is definitely anti-gun to begin >>with. Nothing the NRA can do will change his mind. >> >>Steve Kubby, on the other hand, supports the Bill of Rights, and our rights >>as gun owners. Here's his statement about gun control, from his web site >>at http://www.alpworld.com/kubby98/: >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>THE PROBLEM WITH GUN CONTROL >> >>Freedom isn't being able to do what you like, it's allowing someone else to >>do or say something you hate and supporting their right to do so. >> >>I don't own a gun, never have and never will, but I must defend gun owners >>if there is any logic or consistency to my position of opposing all forms >>of prohibition. The right to bear arms is clearly stated in the Second >>Amendment. We cannot deny those rights just because some lunatic goes on a >>rampage. Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens that deserve to be left >>alone by their government. >> """The key here is where he says";;"opposing all forms of prohibition". IF THERE WERE A WAY TO UNITE ALL THE PRO FIREARM PEOPLE ALONG WITH THE PRO MARIWANA"heh, heh,"PEOPLE,, WELL THIS MIGHT NOT REALLY BE IMPOSSIBLE. WEATHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, DRASTIC MEASURES ARE NEEDED... We are faced with the reality of a DRASTIC situation, this is desperation time people... Its time to pull out all,, and I do mean all THE STOPS... THE PROGRAM OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST PARTY OF 1928 is directly, and indirectly responsible for any ,and everything that has been detrimental to America,,, period. That includes all this New Age Goals Two Thousand educational crap that the tests results show where our kids are scoring LOW, LOW, LOW. To the so called war on drugs, that was lost before Bush declared the war, what was it ?? 1986??? Well where I come from WAR is all about killing people, and breaking things.... come to think of it were doing a pretty good job of that too...hmmm. If there are any one interested HELOWWWW,, OUT THERE... I almost feel like Paul Revere except im sitting here in comfort, and Paul Revere was riding like hell bent for leather to warn the patriots "THE ENEMY IS HERE, THEY ARE AMONG US" thats what Im saying, he said something about the British were coming,,well were in more danger now than we were in 1776....We are being attacked on all fronts, and if we dont take some drastic measures, and pull out all the stops, or as Skip might say "hit the afterburners",,,then were going to flame out...and crawsh. The place to start might be NORMAL of California , Thats the National Organization to Reform Mariwanna Laws.. Alliances hmmmmmm....strength in numbers. For information on "GLOBALISM THE PROGRAM" with Retired General Benton K.Partin ,call 913-478-1112. And the truth shall set you free. >>As Governor, I will oppose all forms of gun control, because I know that >>crime is lower and citizens are safer in communities where guns have not >>been banned. (The final sentence is hyperlinked to >>http://www.nra.org/research/NRA-FFACT.html.) >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>So, there it is. The NRA will lose ALL credibility if it endorses anybody >>other than Kubby, and is missing a great bet if they take the "easy" way >>out and endorse no one. The GOP will continue to screw us over with broken >>promises, new gun laws, and more restrictions if we keep on endorsing >>marginal Republicans, and will never care a fig for our concerns unless >>they know that the NRA can and will endorse a third party candidate who is >>better. >> >>Tanya, the Remocrats and Depublicans will never restore our gun rights; >>only the Libertarians will do that. Californians: Vote for Steve Kubby >>for Governor! >> >>Ken Mitchell >>NRA Life Member CSC5718F >>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net >>916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) >>--------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ >>"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. >>They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all - security, >>comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give >>to society, but for society to give to them, when the freedom they >>wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased >>to be free." Gibbons: "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Proud member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" since 1992! >> >>- >> > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: California Gubernatorial Candidates Date: 09 Mar 1998 09:16:48 PST roc@lists.xmission.com wrote : The surprising point might be that Dan >>>Lundgren, the only Republican candidate, is equally rabidly anti-gun. A >>>prime supporter of California's now-declared-unconstitutional ban on >>>so-called "assault weapons", and continual foe of "shall-issue" CCW reform, >>> Lundgren can't possibly earn any NRA grade better than an "F-". >>> And as a lifetime Republican I will add that Dan Lundgren is working overtime to irritate those who do not have guns. In particular while it is known that several hundred non-citizens voted in Orange County. Maybe not enough to undo the election.....but the fact that the state is not prosecuting each and every person who voted when they were not citizens is another major black mark against Republicans in General and Dan Lundgren in particular Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: This is too, ahem, dam funny... (fwd) Date: 09 Mar 1998 21:48:49 PST Forwarded without any, "dam", comment.....:-) On Mar 09, Ron Marsh wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Howdy, Folks, At the risk of offending the few, I simply must share this with the many. If you aren't ROFLOL by the time you finish this, I'll double your money back. I gotta tell you that I laughed so hard the tears were running down my leg!! ;) Enjoy! After all, these are *your* tax dollars at work! Ron -----Original Message----- STATE OF MICHIGAN Reply to: GRAND RAPIDS DISTRICT OFFICE STATE OFFICE BUILDING 6TH FLOOR 350 OTTAWA NW GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503-2341 JOHN ENGLER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY HOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANSING MI 48909-7973 INTERNET: < Subject: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 10 Mar 1998 17:50:21 -0500 >Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 19:59:43 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors > >Message forwarded from: bbright@eagleweb.net (Bright, James Barry) > >Take Back Kentucky >Information Alert >March 6, 1998 > >I must dare any and all to read the following article. It is soul >chilling. > > An Open Letter to My American Neighbors >by Susan > >** Editor's Note: This piece was found in Volume One, Issue Two of CGX >(August 1994). > >Like you, I woke up today, got dressed and settled down to a steaming >brew and the morning newspaper before heading out to work. Unlike you, I >read that dozens of my fellow citizens were arrested for carrying copies >of the Buffalo News. The newspaper contained information about a trial >here that the powers-that-be did not want us to read. It is that simple. > >It is now 11:15 p.m. Minutes ago, I turned on the Buffalo television >station, hoping to see on my TV what could not reach us through the >newspapers. I am now looking at a blank screen. We received about 10 >seconds of the trial controversy, and suddenly my screen went blank. A >message appeared on the screen explaining that because of the >contravention of a ban, the station was prohibiting broadcast of the >news. Along with the sign was a high-pitched whistle that sounded like >the air-raid sirens the British used during World War II. > >As I sit here alone, I realize that my blood is running cold at the >sound of that whistle. > >This could never happen here. > >Not in Canada. > >You must wonder about a country that would deny its own citizens the >freedom to read. As a Canadian, I have done a lot of hard thinking >about it. > >I guess the powers have their reasons for the ban. Censorship always >has its reasons, but, believe me, when you are on the receiving end of >government censorship, no reason amounts to a hill of beans - and that >is why I am writing to you. > >It is my hope that you will read this Canadian story and "wake up and >smell the coffee" - while you still have [something] to read along >with it. > >I have always loved the United States of America, and I know that you >are now making critical decisions about the role of government in your >lives. > >Many years ago, we in Canada were at a crossroads in our >decision-making that is similar to the one you are at now. I wish our >decisions back then had been very different. Then maybe I wouldn't be >sitting here looking at a blank screen. > >Some two decades ago, Canadians were concerned with how government >could best help its citizens. We looked around at countries with a >comprehensive social welfare system and envied them their cushions of >comfort for everything from universal medical care to national day >care. > >We were a country that held individual freedom in high esteem. Surely, >we thought, it was possible to take the best aspects of socialism and >weave them into the fabric of a free society. After all, this was >democratic Canada and not the Soviet Union. > >Over the next 20 years, we developed an extensive social support >network at both the federal and provincial levels of government. The >government spent money on every conceivable program. We spent and >spent. Still, no one was ever really satisfied. > >When you adopt an extensive government agenda, you soon discover that >all the entrenched programs and layers of bureaucracy become >impossible to budge. Much of the population works for the government; >about one of every four Canadians now draws a government paycheck. > >People learn to depend on government, and all governments, even those >whose leaders warn against this dependency, learn to love the power >that flows from it. > >As for the threat to individual liberty, newspaper censorship is, >frankly, the tip of the iceberg. Government intervenes in our lives >constantly, and individual liberties are abrogated in new and ever >more imaginative ways each day. > >Canadians who dare to get a haircut or a car tune-up across the border >are being photographed and prosecuted upon their return to Canada. Why? >Because they have secured these services without having to incur the 7 >percent goods and services tax slapped onto our ever-burgeoning >provincial taxes. Even insurance plans are now taxed. > >A black market has sprung up, mainly in liquor and cigarettes, which >carry the heaviest taxes. Don't think that the taxes will end there, >though. > >You will find that after a time, your state and federal governments - >even those of a different political stripe - will join forces to make >their task of tax collection easier. > >Our entire education system, up to university level, is governed by a >centralized bureaucracy called the Ministry of Education, which >dictates what can and cannot be taught in the schools and how it is to >be taught Universities are mainly government-funded. > >I realize that the issue of government-run programs is particularly >important to you now because of the state of your health-care system. >I sympathize with you completely. I cannot imagine a world where one >could be left bankrupt because of illness. > >I suggest that you look upon it as you do your police protection: a >guard in place for the physical and mental well- being of your >citizens. The real danger in socialized medicine is the attitude of >entitlement it engenders. > >The stories you have heard about us are largely true. It is not >uncommon to pick up a newspaper and read about "The frightening wait >for cancer therapy" here in Ontario, and the situation is no better in >the other provinces. There is a shortage of the most advanced >diagnostic technology. Thousands of the health cards that ensure >access to medical care have been issued erroneously. > >We do wait two hours for an appointment booked weeks in advance. >Despite our world-class doctors, many patients can't get treatment in >time because of overcrowding. When you are faced with a life- and-death >medical situation, you don't mind paying whatever it costs. Under the >government-dominated medical system, however, you can't even buy your >way in - unless, of course, you go to the United States. > >I am employed in administration at a prominent Ontario university that >has historically enjoyed a high degree of autonomy. Last summer, my >president wrote a letter to the staff explaining that the government had >expressed an intention to take a more active role in the management of >university affairs. He described this as an enormous threat to our >autonomy as a free-thinking institution, and in the end the government >retreated - for now. > >As I sit here tonight, it is simply beyond my comprehension that such >a well-intentioned and beloved country as my own could go so far >astray so quickly. And it is all the more remarkable that it has taken >place without grand conspiracies or intricate plots. > >Indeed, most Canadians are as offended by the images of totalitarian >government as you are. We shared your joy at the fall of the Berlin >Wall and the crumbling of the Soviet bloc; we value freedom. And yet >we have fallen into a trap where we are not free. > >As with that other well-known road, we traveled this one with the best >of intentions. > >To those who would dismiss me as an alarmist, I issue this invitation: > >Read our newspapers, watch our news broadcasts (what is left of them) >and see for yourselves. Prove me wrong. I wish you could. > >When you make critical decisions about the role of government in your >life, please think about me, about this letter and about Canada. > >Really think about what it could mean when you hear about a government >initiative that sounds too good to be true. Thank God for a free press, >even when you find yourself criticizing the media for >broadcasting stories that you would rather not hear about. The recent >publication ban is not the first one. There are others, and their >number is growing. > >Listen and learn, America. Cup your ear to the wind and hear the >blood-chilling wail of the siren whistle as it drifts down across your >border. > >If just one of you reads this letter and pauses, even for a moment, to >think about what unchecked government can do, then it has been worth the >writing. > >I have faith in you, America. Your road is tough and not perfect. >Nothing is. Your road will keep leading you to freedom - the freedom >to read and think and be exactly who and what you are - if you only >let it. Treasure that freedom, love it and resolve never, ever to let >it go. > > >****** >This was harvested off the Conservative Generation X website: >http://www.cgx.com/ >-- >****************************************************************** > E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group > P.O. Box 791 Eventline/Voicemail: (614) 823-8499 > Grove City, OH 43123 > >Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse > 3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.) > >http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib eplurib@infinet.com >****************************************************************** > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 13:09:35 -0700 Hi all, For all of you luck citizen/residents of the State(?) of Washington, have I got news for you. Our(?) liberal governor Locke has signed into law the new requirement, that citizens are now required to surrender their Social Security Number (SSN) to the state agents to receive a hunting, or fishing, or driving license. Yup! You guessed it, the bill that was shelved in committee, was resurected at the behest of REPUBLIKAN committee members - no less, is now law. OBTW, failure to provide that info is now a crime, at the time of application. If you apply and refuse to provide that number, not only will you not be give the license, but by federal law you are a criminal from that point on untill _you_ prove yourself innocent of not being guilty for non-support of a child. Yup, deadbeat dads-r-us! Ladies too! How did all this happen? (you ask) Well, Sen. Alex Deccio, R-Yakima, says this: "I understand what you are all saying, but it's a fight for another day. Why should we hold this hostage, when $600 million are at stake." There you are, folks, follow the money. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 13:09:35 -0700 Hi all, For all of you luck citizen/residents of the State(?) of Washington, have I got news for you. Our(?) liberal governor Locke has signed into law the new requirement, that citizens are now required to surrender their Social Security Number (SSN) to the state agents to receive a hunting, or fishing, or driving license. Yup! You guessed it, the bill that was shelved in committee, was resurected at the behest of REPUBLIKAN committee members - no less, is now law. OBTW, failure to provide that info is now a crime, at the time of application. If you apply and refuse to provide that number, not only will you not be give the license, but by federal law you are a criminal from that point on untill _you_ prove yourself innocent of not being guilty for non-support of a child. Yup, deadbeat dads-r-us! Ladies too! How did all this happen? (you ask) Well, Sen. Alex Deccio, R-Yakima, says this: "I understand what you are all saying, but it's a fight for another day. Why should we hold this hostage, when $600 million are at stake." There you are, folks, follow the money. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 13:31:02 -0700 Ya know I just haveve the -worst- memory for numbers. I carry this 3com palm pilot, I understand fairly abstract math concepts well (though I failed college algebra the first try). It's too bad really, with my academic history of borderline dyslexia I would -hate- to make a mistake when I get my Washington Drivers license renewed. Fortunately, I know the State would never contravene the clear intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act by further vicitimizing me with a "punishment" for committing an error on a form. -Boyd (Or whoever's spoofing his account today.) PS It is time to -replace- some Republicrats! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 13:31:02 -0700 Ya know I just haveve the -worst- memory for numbers. I carry this 3com palm pilot, I understand fairly abstract math concepts well (though I failed college algebra the first try). It's too bad really, with my academic history of borderline dyslexia I would -hate- to make a mistake when I get my Washington Drivers license renewed. Fortunately, I know the State would never contravene the clear intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act by further vicitimizing me with a "punishment" for committing an error on a form. -Boyd (Or whoever's spoofing his account today.) PS It is time to -replace- some Republicrats! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 16:37:43 -0500 (EST) >PS It is time to -replace- some Republicrats! You know it is really time to just vote some of these bastards out. Trent Lott wants to tax the damn Internet (he just doesn't get it). Gingrich thinks he's going to run for President, when even I have to admit he carries on like a loon sometimes. What's with this Puerto Rico Statehood deal? Its rigged so that the only result is Statehood or try again later. I'm nominally a Republican and there just seem to be fewer and fewer I'm willing to vote for. Its status quo from the Republican's or diluted leftism from the Democrats. Sorry about the rant. I can recomend the following books as interesting, well-researched, and definitely mind-opening: "The Strange Death of Vince Foster" - Christopher Ruddy "The Dark Side of Camelot" - Seymour Hersh I'm about to crack open "The Reawakening of the Beast", about rise of facist movements in U.S. and Europe. Check out the Hersh book, it is fascinating to read (a little dry) and *very* well researched. Everything you have heard about this book from mainstream sources is probably wrong. It is not a piece of lurid speculation, but a very convincing corrective to "the historical record". ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Scanland Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 15:57:57 -0600 At 04:37 PM 3/11/98 -0500, John Curtis wrote: > > I can recomend the following books as interesting, well-researched, > and definitely mind-opening: > > "The Strange Death of Vince Foster" - Christopher Ruddy > "The Dark Side of Camelot" - Seymour Hersh > > I'm about to crack open "The Reawakening of the Beast", > about rise of facist movements in U.S. and Europe. > > Check out the Hersh book, it is fascinating to read (a little > dry) and *very* well researched. Everything you have heard > about this book from mainstream sources is probably wrong. It is > not a piece of lurid speculation, but a very convincing corrective to > "the historical record". > > ciao, > > jcurtis > You're forgiven about the rant. Speaking of books: I'm about 3/4 through Evans-Pritchard's "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton." Although I've seen a lot of what he's written before, the book brings it all together. He puts the pieces in order and provides convincing documentation for much of it. All I can say is "Wow!" This is definitely a loaner for some of my less well informed associates. Highly recomended. Chuck - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 14:04:02 -0700 At 4:37 PM -0500 3/11/98, John Curtis wrote: >>PS It is time to -replace- some Republicrats! > > You know it is really time to just vote some of these > bastards out. Trent Lott wants to tax the damn snip > result is Statehood or try again later. I'm nominally > a Republican and there just seem to be fewer and fewer > I'm willing to vote for. > > Its status quo from the Republican's or diluted leftism from > the Democrats. > > Sorry about the rant. HA! I'll see that rant and -raise- ya one. I've been an area chair (minor functionary, not really a full appartchik ; ) in a Washington GOP district for years. I'm PCO now of the precinct I grew up in (high school and college years) and I'm as (or more) sick of 'em then you are. I always argue with people about not throwing out "rusty but repairable tools" (meaning, usually, NRA and GOP) but two months ago I started paying dues to the LP. I'm getting good and darned well ready to go buy me a new tool box. > I can recomend the following books as interesting, well-researched, > and definitely mind-opening: > > "The Strange Death of Vince Foster" - Christopher Ruddy > "The Dark Side of Camelot" - Seymour Hersh > I'm about to crack open "The Reawakening of the Beast", > about rise of facist movements in U.S. and Europe. > > Check out the Hersh book, it is fascinating to read (a little > dry) and *very* well researched. Everything you have heard > about this book from mainstream sources is probably wrong. It is > not a piece of lurid speculation, but a very convincing corrective to > "the historical record". Actually, it's gotten some good reviews. As well it should have (though half way through I had to stop temporarily to read Neil Smiths new novel : ) Don't know about you, but in the spot where he talks about a D.C. picture framing guy getting "large prints" to frame while Secret Service types watched I couldn't help but get hit with some pretty scary images. Nothing a little Pepto Bismol couldn't keep down though =: ( (eyuch!). Boyd > ciao, > > jcurtis > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 15:31:48 -0800 E.J. Totty wrote: > > Hi all, > > For all of you luck citizen/residents of the > State(?) of Washington, have I got news for you. > Our(?) liberal governor Locke has signed into > law the new requirement, that citizens are now > required to surrender their Social Security Number > (SSN) to the state agents to receive a hunting, or fishing, > or driving license. If it's any comfort to you ET, SSNs as the universal ID # is only new in WA. I first encountered it as a state policy in VA 2 decades ago, and frankly, I found it pretty convenient to remember just one number for all kinds of business. I suppose it's all in one's perspective. As a career military guy, my SSN was printed all over my service records for 25+ years for everyone to see and use in any unscrupulous way they cared to. No secrecy or privacy there. Skip. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 15:43:25 -0800 John Curtis wrote: > > Gingrich thinks he's > going to run for President, when even I have to admit > he carries on like a loon sometimes. I suggest we all write Newt, tell him we love him, and plead with him to run for Pres. His stated intent is to resign as Speaker of the House to run (following Dole's conclusion in 96 that no one can do both - campaign for Pres and manage legislation in either house of congress). Newt's departure is absolutely necessary for the House to get back to its reform pledges - no more "roll over and play dead" tricks for Clinton & Co. Whether they would do so or not remains to be seen, but it can't happen as long as Newt is in charge and in his "I want to live in the White House" mode. A coup has already been tried and failed, so the only way to get rid of Newt now is to con him into thinking he's got a lot of support as a Pres candidate. It doesn't bother me to lie to Newt. He started it. Skip. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 19:47:07 -0500 (EST) This is a hoot. I wonder if Newt planned it all? Help me run for prez so I'll get out of the House and stop annoying you there. Ho-ho-hee-hee, bd On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Skip Leuschner wrote: > I suggest we all write Newt, tell him we love him, and plead with > him to run for Pres. > > His stated intent is to resign as Speaker of the House to run > (following Dole's conclusion in 96 that no one can do both - > campaign for Pres and manage legislation in either house of congress). > Newt's departure is absolutely necessary for the House to get back to > its reform pledges - no more "roll over and play dead" tricks for > Clinton & Co. Whether they would do so or not remains to be seen, > but it can't happen as long as Newt is in charge and in his "I want > to live in the White House" mode. A coup has already been tried and > failed, so the only way to get rid of Newt now is to con him into > thinking he's got a lot of support as a Pres candidate. > > It doesn't bother me to lie to Newt. He started it. > > Skip. > > - > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 16:54:21 -0800 At 04:37 PM 3/11/98 -0500, you wrote: > >>PS It is time to -replace- some Republicrats! > > You know it is really time to just vote some of these > bastards out. Trent Lott wants to tax the damn > Internet (he just doesn't get it). Gingrich thinks he's > going to run for President, when even I have to admit > he carries on like a loon sometimes. What's with this > Puerto Rico Statehood deal? Its rigged so that the only > result is Statehood or try again later. I'm nominally > a Republican and there just seem to be fewer and fewer > I'm willing to vote for. > > Its status quo from the Republican's or diluted leftism from > the Democrats. Then you ought to be a Libertarian. The depublicans and the remocrats all want to use the power of the government to force you and everybody else to do certain things; they only differ on WHAT they want you to do. The Libertarians want government to leave you alone. If you want that too, then vote Libertarian. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all - security, comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society, but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." Gibbons: "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" Proud member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" since 1992! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 17:24:32 -0800 Brad wrote: > > This is a hoot. I wonder if Newt planned it all? Help me run for > prez so I'll get out of the House and stop annoying you there. > Is it my fate (as one trained to think strategy) to be misinterpreted 100% of the time? I didn't say help him run for Pres. I said con him into doing it so we'll be rid of him as speaker. Fully understanding the anti-Newt sentiments, it seemed unnecessary to state the obvious - that we'd jerk the rug out from under him once he commits - a just payback for his lack of followup on his high minded "visions" and his now-Clintonized reform promises. Skip - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 11 Mar 1998 18:49:23 PST Newt needs a de-coke to remind him of his _own_ history. You might recall that he tried to get elected 4 or 6 times as a Liberal before he finally succeeded running as a Conservative. Some people just need to be smacked up side the head more than once, but it could also be a matter of what's in all those FBI files in the Whitehouse basement.....:-/ On Mar 11, Skip Leuschner wrote: >Brad wrote: >> >> This is a hoot. I wonder if Newt planned it all? Help me run for >> prez so I'll get out of the House and stop annoying you there. >> > >Is it my fate (as one trained to think strategy) to be misinterpreted >100% of the time? > >I didn't say help him run for Pres. I said con him into doing >it so we'll be rid of him as speaker. Fully understanding the >anti-Newt sentiments, it seemed unnecessary to state the obvious - >that we'd jerk the rug out from under him once he commits - a just >payback for his lack of followup on his high minded "visions" and >his now-Clintonized reform promises. > >Skip -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 12 Mar 1998 00:34:12 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Skip Leuschner wrote: > Brad wrote: > > > > This is a hoot. I wonder if Newt planned it all? Help me run for > > prez so I'll get out of the House and stop annoying you there. > > > > Is it my fate (as one trained to think strategy) to be misinterpreted > 100% of the time? > > I didn't say help him run for Pres. I said con him into doing > it so we'll be rid of him as speaker. Fully understanding the > anti-Newt sentiments, it seemed unnecessary to state the obvious - > that we'd jerk the rug out from under him once he commits - a just > payback for his lack of followup on his high minded "visions" and > his now-Clintonized reform promises. Well I probably have a warped sense of humor but I think it would be amusing to let him run and go down in history as the biggest political disaster at least since his ideological fellow-traveller, George McGovern. bd > > Skip > > - > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 12 Mar 1998 10:01:05 -0500 (EST) > >I suggest we all write Newt, tell him we love him, and plead with >him to run for Pres. GOOD suggestion. More than one rampant ego has been removed by being promoted. He'd never win, and I don't trust the apparent front-runner in the GOP is G. Bush Jr., who is as big government as they come. I don't look to any of the Presidential aspirants to support any kind of reform. Forbes probably comes closest, don't know if "the American people" are ready for him. Let Newt self-destruct, he is clearly capable of it. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 12 Mar 1998 10:08:08 -0700 Skip, [...] A coup has already been tried and failed, so the only way to get rid of Newt now is to con him into thinking he's got a lot of support as a Pres candidate. [...] Sounds like a deal to me. Question is, who's going to be around to effectively challenge him - and win? ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 12 Mar 1998 09:38:40 -0700 Skip, [...] As a career military guy, my SSN was printed all over my service records for 25+ years for everyone to see and use in any unscrupulous way they cared to. No secrecy or privacy there. [...] Been there too, done that also, in the same branch as you, Skip. My beef? I am not a number. I refuse to be tracked as some kind of beef, of a government reservation. I am going to undo this heinous little trap of feral federalism, and set it upon its head. These people in office have stepped on one set of toes too many. This creeping socialistic fascism is just too far out of hand to grin and bear it anymore. As far as I'm concerned, the gong is rung. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 12 Mar 1998 12:50:45 -0700 I'm going to bury my lead with two points that may seem to some to argue against concern about this. If you end up thinking I've written that it's no big thing please reread and or email me. As a freedom loving, politically active, NRA recruiting kind of guy, I often run into people of similar ilk. Well, OK not nearly often enough, but I -do- find them. Frequently, when I ask them to sign up for some org. fighting collectively for their rights I get the answer "I don't want to be on a list". At this point my inner geek snorts "shyeah! as if!" silently and to itself, and I prattle off a little about the lists they're most likely on. Usually, it ends up that they're perfectly willing (they claim with a flourish) to put their lives on the line for freedom in just the most -dramatic- ways, but still "don't want to be on a list". Fair enough, say I. And me and my inner geek trundle off. 'Course, it's nothin but dirt stupid to think you're taking a stand on freedom but can't afford to get into some NRA/GOA/JPFO/ACLU/WHATEVER database but I understand that lot's of people have a different take on things then I (go figure : ) The SS number is a lot like that. I think if you talk to most people about being required to carry federally mandated papers on their person in order to travel they'll look at you like a freak straight outta the twilight zone and ask you something about "whattayathink we're in Nazi Germany?". Well, as I think those gathered here know, it's the first steps down the road that determine the journeys end and complying with federal Identification Requirements for work/travel is IMHO pretty obviously one of those steps. No, I don't think the good folks forced (and I do mean forced) to reveal their SS number are skinhead wannabes, far from it. But, if you move obediently to far down that road you're going to find it hard to turn back against the yoke. So what am I saying here? What I'm saying here is; simply because you've revealed your SS number in the past does not mean you always have to or that its to late to restore general respect for privacy. The change is not going to harm you. And, in the end it could end up doing everyone a LOT of good. Boyd "not a number either" Nkeeland All opinions expressed are mine alone. At 9:38 AM -0700 3/12/98, E.J. Totty wrote: > Skip, > > > [...] > As a career military guy, my SSN was printed >all over my service records for 25+ years for everyone to >see and use in any unscrupulous way they cared to. > No secrecy or privacy there. > [...] > > Been there too, done that also, in the >same branch as you, Skip. > > > My beef? I am not a number. I refuse to >be tracked as some kind of beef, of a government >reservation. > > I am going to undo this heinous little >trap of feral federalism, and set it upon its head. > These people in office have stepped on >one set of toes too many. > This creeping socialistic fascism is >just too far out of hand to grin and bear it anymore. > > As far as I'm concerned, the gong is rung. >ET > > > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 12 Mar 1998 15:54:58 -0500 (EST) [some deletions for brevity] > >As a freedom loving, politically active, NRA recruiting kind of guy, I >often run into people of similar ilk. Well, OK not nearly often enough, but >I -do- find them. Frequently, when I ask them to sign up for some org. >fighting collectively for their rights I get the answer "I don't want to be >on a list". At this point my inner geek snorts "shyeah! as if!" silently >and to itself, and I prattle off a little about the lists they're most >likely on. Usually, it ends up that they're perfectly willing (they claim >with a flourish) to put their lives on the line for freedom in just the >most -dramatic- ways, but still "don't want to be on a list". Fair enough, >say I. And me and my inner geek trundle off. 'Course, it's nothin but dirt >stupid to think you're taking a stand on freedom but can't afford to get >into some NRA/GOA/JPFO/ACLU/WHATEVER database but I understand that lot's >of people have a different take on things then I (go figure : ) > Boyd, I hear you. I personally don't care *what* lists I'm on. If it comes down to a matter of lists, I'm probably already on at least a few. Hell, If i were making lists, my computer would have caught me and put me on a couple of "maybe watch later" lists. In a real police state, approx. 1/2 the people are on lists and the other 1/2 are either scared stiff or informants. I don't really get excited about the SS thing, cause with good databases, you can correlate address, credit records, and every other damn thing and you don't *need* SS numbers to invade privacy. I think the leading edge in this battle is on the encryption front. Get it. Use it. Fight to keep it. Don't much believe the "when they come to take my blah, blah blah, I'll blah, blah, blah"... etcetera. crowd. When they come to take my blah blah blah, I will act polite, rollover, (and quietly switch gears). ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 12 Mar 1998 17:57:04 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Skip Leuschner wrote: > Is it my fate (as one trained to think strategy) to be misinterpreted > 100% of the time? This has its advantages. You can propose a strategy in the clear, and the enemy will misinterpret it and and prepare a defense on that basis. :-) ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" Subject: RC5-6 cracking challenge Date: 12 Mar 1998 22:04:50 -0500 Lend a hand! RSA has issued a challenge to crack the 64 bit RSA encryption. They are offering a $10000 prize to whomever cracks it. A group calling themselves distributed.net has set up a 'team' effort allowing people on the internet to use their spare "idle" CPU cycles to help in the cracking. They have servers set up which dispense blocks of keys to try and gather statistics. They have client software for almost all possible computers and OSes. You get ranked individually as well as the team you elect to join. You can join a "team" and have your stats get rolled into the team stats as well. There are several categories of teams including Political, Religious, OS/Platform Advocacy, Company, and others. I have joined a Libertarian team "Libertarians for Privacy". (team 1661) If and when distributed.net wins the money this is how they will divide it: the computer that cracks it gets $1000 (owner actually) the team of that person gets $1000 (or if no team computer owner gets $2000) distributed.net gets $2000 for upgrades to the systems for the next go around :-) a charity from their short list gets the $6000 left. The list includes EFF and other similar net oriented non-profits. This is an opportunity to help show that weaker encryption is too weak and also to help your favorite cause (advocacy) by joining a team Go to www.distributed.net I am running it on my Mac with MacOS, my Mac with Rhapsody, and my 2 NT boxes as well as on my FreeBSD box for my business (Shire.Net -- www.shire.net) and I have a login on my other ISP where I colocate and am using his time share unix box to run one (xmission.com). The thing uses only idle CPU time so you notice little or no performance hit on your computer. (Macs and non preemptive ones you can set up how much time it gets -- I am typing this on my Mac with almost no detriment to my use of the computer with the thing running in the background -- at night when I go home I up the priority of the process so that the Mac becomes sluggish but since I am home and not using it I don't care -- I reset it to make it more usable during the day when I am there -- still I am using the system 24hours a day to help crack the code. My NT boxes and unix boxes don't notice a thing with this running. I compile and debug all day on my NT box (even while playing Quake 2 it still computed a few) with it computing in the background. Anyway, lend a hand, help make a statement FOR STRONG encryption, and support you favorite advocay (political or otherwise -- Libertarians for Privacy is team 1661)! And it is fun to see how much your computer does (or could do) with all the spare cycles it has! 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. Low cost virtual servers. DB integration. Tango. Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: Re: The Killing of James McDougal (fwd) Date: 12 Mar 1998 23:36:54 -0500 (EST) I don't know the author of this post, but it all sounds credible to me. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- At 2:00 PM 3/12/98, somebody wrote: >No matter what the government does, the public can be made to accept >it if it is slowly leaked a bit at a time. > >First it is announced that Whitewater defendent James McDougal, who is >critically ill with heart disease, suffered cardiopulmonary arrest in >prison and was pronounced dead after attempts to rescussitate him >failed. > >Next it is announced that James McDougal was in solitary confinement, >or to use the politically correct term, "administrative detention," at >the time he suffered his collapse, because he "refused to take a drug >test." It is announced that people in administrative detention are >supposedly safer because they have more staff contact, and are checked >every half hour by guards. Having myself had the experience of 'administrative detention' in prison, I commend you for your insight, which is extremely rare. People should understand a few basic things about solitary confinement and the American prison system. First of all, the minute you go into solitary, your life is hanging on a thread: 1) You are kept inside a cell with only forced air to breathe. 2) You are removed from the general population so that there are few witnesses to abuse and no 'credible' ones (i.e., non-prisoners) who would testify on your behalf. 3) You are stigmatized and treated like shit - prisoners in the general population wear one color and those in solitary wear a different color and the guards treat these two populations entirely differently 4) You are systematically intimidated by guards and warned that things could easily go from bad to worse if you continue to be 'uncooperative' - guards threaten that your water may be shut off or the toilet may stop working, etc. if you cause 'trouble', such as filing a complaint about abuse with the warden, or 'refusing' to 'voluntarily submit' to blood, urine testing and so forth. When I was in solitary at a Pennsylvania state prison, after about 2 days I started to have trouble breathing. Then I noticed that other prisoners were also having athsma attacks constantly. In the middle of the night they would be screaming for a guard. Then, eventually a nurse would come and give them an inhaler and sedatives to 'calm them down'. I saw a pulminary specialist after getting out (I was only there for 5 days) who concluded that there was either chemical or biological contamination of the ventilation system. The fact is that the prison officials do not care. The purpose of solitary is intimidation and torture. Sorry to put it so bluntly. You may not believe me but I speak from experience. Although I was not beaten, I knew other prisoners who were. When I got out, I intended to file suit for these and many other abuses including robbery and other civil rights abuses but no lawyer wanted to touch the case unless I had bruises or cuts or something since it would by the word of me (and I was never convicted of a crime) against the police/guards, who all cover each others asses. Any lawyer who bucks the system is at a severe handicap trying to work within that system and his business will suffer, unless he specializes in going against the system and unless he only takes cases where physical evidence is enough to convince the idiot jurors and corrupt judges that they cannot look the other way in a particular case. This was my experience after only 5 days in prison and $6,000 in legal fees over a minor traffic incident - just the tip of the iceberg. Any lawyer, cop or judge who works within this so-called 'justice' system must know much, much more. My lawyer knew much more about the abuses but he didn't care. The judge didn't care. To these people you are just a piece of meat who is a 'billable unit' if you are in prison and a 'potential threat' if you know about their crimes and remain free. They are all just 'following orders' or 'doing their jobs' or 'sending their kids to college'. That's the American Way. >The last time McDougal couldn't produce urine for 2 hours, they threw >him in solitary for 7 days. > >So here we have a cardiac patient, with severe damage to his heart, >and synthetic replacements for both carotid arteries and his >descending aorta, on a large amount of medication, whose kidneys shut >down, who is thrown in a cell alone, where he later suffers cardiac >arrest, and no one sees him in time. > >I call that murder. Absolutely. They wanted to take my blood and, when I refused to sign the form saying I 'voluntarily' agreed to let them do it, they threatened me with more abuse and even threatened me with abuse if I were to even mention the abuse that I was undergoing. I could go on. You think torture only happens in places like Iraq or Burma? The USA has a higher rate of incarceration than any other country on this planet. Does anybody know the reality of the word 'prison' and what happens there? Either you are awake or dreaming. Whenever I see the term "law enforcement" it reminds me of the cop who stole my hundred dollar bill and the other cops who told me point blank that they "didn't give a damn about my rights" and that I had been "watching too much TV". When I see the words "law", "lawyer", "professor of law", "prosecutor" or "judge" I think about the sedated prisoners gasping for air in the middle of the night. And in most cases, there is not a single victim to their alleged 'crime'. Encryption is one tiny ray of hope that we have to protect ourselves against a system that is overwhelmingly evil. It really saddens me that anyone would believe somebody who assures us that the "legitimate needs of law enforcement" requires that the cops hold the keys to our communications and that we should trust them to "strictly abide by the rules of law", etc. Hopefully, as more people go to prison and experience what I did there will be fewer people who believe such lies. But if history is any guide, Americans probably needs to suffer a lot more economically before the tide will turn. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Schwartz, Cap" Subject: RE: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors Date: 13 Mar 1998 07:10:08 -0800 I'm lovin' it. caP > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyd Kneeland [SMTP:boyd@seanet.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 11:51 AM > To: roc@lists.xmission.com; Skip Leuschner > Cc: roc@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: An Open Letter to My American Neighbors > > > The change is not going to harm you. And, in > the end it could end up doing everyone a LOT of good. Boyd "not a > number > either" Nkeeland > All opinions expressed are mine alone. > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gfelbeck@wyoming.com (George T. Felbeck, Jr.) Subject: RSA address error? Date: 13 Mar 1998 12:43:34 -0600 Sir: Fri 3/13 12:30 MST I have tried several times to access the address for the RSA challenge that you gave in your message this morning: www.distributed.net and have been unable to access it. I get a "too many redirections" error message. Is that address correct or I have failed to add something else (other than the http://, of course.)? Many thanks for your assistance. George T. Felbeck, Jr. gfelbeck@wyoming.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: bye, bye posse C. Date: 13 Mar 1998 23:30:15 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Items from Drug Reform Coalition NET ---- 7. BILL IN OKLAHOMA WOULD ALLOW THE GOVERNOR TO CALL OUT THE GUARD IN DRUG CASES HB 2596 in Oklahoma would allow the governor to order the Oklahoma National Guard to assist law enforcement officers in drug matters. National guard members would have to volunteer for the duty, which could take them beyond Oklahoma's boundaries. Once assigned to duty under the bill, National Guard members would be on federally funded status and could be helping federal, state or local law enforcement agencies. The bill has passed the House and is awaiting committee assignment in the state Senate. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: contributions for Boundary County / (fwd) Date: 13 Mar 1998 23:39:19 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Finished my homework re. checking on the fund for the Boundary County (ID) Prosecutor's Office in the prosecution of the federal agents involved in the Weaver case. There is indeed such a fund and donations are being gratefully accepted. The prosecutor's office has not solicited public donations in this or any other case and will not ask for any. But their opponent has deep pockets (ours) and they do not, so every bit helps. Checks or money orders should be made payable to BOUNDARY COUNTY PROSECUTOR"S OFFICE and sent to: Boundary County Prosecutor's Office P.O. Box 1148 Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 I called the office at 208-267-7545 to verify this information, and had a very brief but cordial chat with the staffer who answered the phone. They are doing all of us a great and unappreciated legal service by going forward with this case, and they know it. I have heard of legal defense funds but never a prosecution assistance fund. We do indeed live in interesting times. Donations should be made ASAP as things are moving forward with this case. Please pass this along to anyone you know who might be willing to help. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: contributions for Boundary County / (fwd) Date: 13 Mar 1998 21:02:32 -0800 Brad, Thanks for forwarding the info. Check's in the mail. Regards, Skip. Brad wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Finished my homework re. checking on the fund for the Boundary County > (ID) Prosecutor's Office in the prosecution of the federal agents > involved in the Weaver case. There is indeed such a fund and donations > are being gratefully accepted. The prosecutor's office has not solicited > public donations in this or any other case and will not ask for any. But > their opponent has deep pockets (ours) and they do not, so every bit > helps. > > Checks or money orders should be made payable to BOUNDARY COUNTY > PROSECUTOR"S OFFICE and sent to: > > Boundary County Prosecutor's Office > P.O. Box 1148 > Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 > > I called the office at 208-267-7545 to verify this information, and had > a very brief but cordial chat with the staffer who answered the phone. > They are doing all of us a great and unappreciated legal service by > going forward with this case, and they know it. I have heard of legal > defense funds but never a prosecution assistance fund. We do indeed live > in interesting times. > > Donations should be made ASAP as things are moving forward with this > case. Please pass this along to anyone you know who might be willing to > help. > > - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: contributions for Boundary County / (fwd) Date: 14 Mar 1998 09:15:55 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Skip Leuschner wrote: > Subject: Re: contributions for Boundary County / (fwd) > > Brad, > > Thanks for forwarding the info. Check's in the mail. > > Regards, Skip. > Ditto. It took 20 years to get a successful prosecution of those responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. "Patience and perseverance accomplish all things." The name of the game is "How much justice can you afford?" The Feds will play the "pocketbook attrition" game, no doubt about it. Any contribution, of whatever size, will be an "attaboy" for the prosecution and will let them know the Grassroots back them up. Dig deep. Never quit. Regards, Harry > > Brad wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > Finished my homework re. checking on the fund for the Boundary County > > (ID) Prosecutor's Office in the prosecution of the federal agents > > involved in the Weaver case. There is indeed such a fund and donations > > are being gratefully accepted. The prosecutor's office has not solicited > > public donations in this or any other case and will not ask for any. But > > their opponent has deep pockets (ours) and they do not, so every bit > > helps. > > > > Checks or money orders should be made payable to BOUNDARY COUNTY > > PROSECUTOR"S OFFICE and sent to: > > > > Boundary County Prosecutor's Office > > P.O. Box 1148 > > Bonners Ferry, ID 83805 > > > > I called the office at 208-267-7545 to verify this information, and had > > a very brief but cordial chat with the staffer who answered the phone. > > They are doing all of us a great and unappreciated legal service by > > going forward with this case, and they know it. I have heard of legal > > defense funds but never a prosecution assistance fund. We do indeed live > > in interesting times. > > > > Donations should be made ASAP as things are moving forward with this > > case. Please pass this along to anyone you know who might be willing to > > help. > > > > - > > - > > ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: (fwd) Commemorate Qana Massacre (fwd) Date: 14 Mar 1998 13:10:40 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- COMMEMORATE QANA April 18, 1998, will mark the second anniversary of the Qana massacre, during which more than 100 civilians, including women and children, were killed by Israeli forces. The victims were seeking safe haven in a UN compound after fleeing Israeli attacks on their homes in southern Lebanon. As the anniversary of the Qana massacre approaches, chapters and activists in cities and campuses around the country are encouraged to hold commemorative events. A videotape produced by Lebanese filmmaker Seyed Kaado is available to be shown to the public from ADC. The half-hour documentary, entitled "Qana," includes interviews with survivors, families of the victims, and UN representatives. To obtain a copy of the videotape, please send a check made payable to ADC to: ADC, 4201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20008. Cost: $15.00, plus $5.00 shipping & handling. For more information, e-mail gkhouri@adc.org ________ ______ American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee /\ |_ ___ \ / ____| 4201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 300 / \ | | \ | | | Washington, D.C. 20008, U.S.A. / /\ \ | | | | | | Tel: (202) 244-2990, Fax: (202) 244-3196 / ____ \ _| |_ / | | |____ E-mail: adc@adc.org /_/ \_\________/ \______| Web : http://www.adc.org - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: Why I like conspiracy theory Date: 14 Mar 1998 15:28:21 -0500 (EST) Not to compare myself otherwise with him but, like Einstein, I don't believe in quantum mechanics. (Einstein said, "God does not play dice." ) However, I've made a nice living by pretending that I do believe. Similarly, I think there is useful information in much of the "conspiracy theory" floating about the net, even if I don't believe it all. It's often delightfully predictive of future events. Every now and then, somebody claims on the net that NWO lackeys are setting up "detention camps" or converting military bases to "concentration camps." Which of course is pooh-pooed. Well look what just showed up in my e-mail-box... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- NRA CrimeStrike's CrimeWatch Weekly Breaking news on critical crime-fighting issues, policies and legislation Vol. 4, No. 10 March 10, 1997 [...] Tents Figure In Alaska's Plan To Reduce Prison Crowding Superior Court Judge Karen Hunt is considering a plan to reduce Alaska's prison overcrowding by a combination of efforts that include sending 256 more inmates to a private prison in Arizona and lodging others in tents (CWW 2/17/98). State corrections officials, facing a court deadline, delivered the plan on Monday. Under a court agreement reached in the 1980s, the state is limited to 2,691 inmates in existing facilities, a limit that will be exceeded by nearly 600 sometime next month, according to Associated Press. Also contemplated in the plan are moving more prisoners into community residential centers or halfway houses, developing a secure halfway house for more dangerous offenders, and sending 60 prisoners to an as-yet uncompleted drug treatment center in Valdez. Another 125 inmates could lodged in tents this summer. While corrections officials grapple with the overflow, legislators are debating a proposal to convert Fort Greely, an Army base slated for decommissioning, into an 800-bed private prison. Gov. Tony Knowles' administration has proposed expansion of a regional jail and a state prison to solve the overcrowding problem. [...] [Yes, I know this proposal is to house "real criminals" on an Army base, but these days it's awfully easy to become a "real criminal." Just like it was in Nazi Germany. -bd] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #76 (fwd) Date: 15 Mar 1998 00:27:13 PST On Mar 15, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia March 15, 1998 #76 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html RETRIBUTION IS IN THE AIR The White House learned a few lessons last week. The presidents, and their minions, thought they were so much better and smarter than everyone else. Now they know that few in Washington (or the country) see them as they see themselves. As it turns out, very few Americans would want their children to emulate either Bill or Hillary Clinton -- or anyone else in this White House, for that matter. Hillary learned why it is not a very good idea for the target of a criminal investigation to attempt to publicly disgrace the prosecutor working on the case. The disinformation and propaganda campaign she has been running out of the back room of the White House was told, in no uncertain words, to shut up. Four previous United States Attorneys General publicly agreed, in unison, that Hillary's cabal had (probably) committed obstruction of justice. The four previous attorneys general politely called it, "influencing and impeding an ongoing criminal investigation and intimidating possible witnesses and even investigators." We agree, and suggest that the whole crew be arrested. In a piece last February 15 we added the word "conspiracy" to what the previous AG's said, and called Hillary's action an ongoing criminal enterprise. Anyway, evidently the previous AG's put Janet Reno between a rock and a hard place by publicly asking her to tell Hillary to stifle that nonsense. Bill Clinton got a little surprise, too. It seems that House Republicans have had about enough of the Clintons' shenanigans. It also seems the House leadership has been following the activities of Independent Council Kenneth Starr's investigation lately. But, it wasn't till the House actually budgeted $1.45-million to hire 18 new staff investigators for the impeachment hearings that the White House really took notice. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) explained the additional staff by saying they will be hired primarily to conduct the most thorough scrutiny of Justice Department programs in nearly 20 years. Other House members say they are for the impeachment inquiry. On top of all that, the Senate Government Affairs Committee report on illegal campaign finance was recently released. That can be found at: www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/ Unfortunately, the Thompson Committee missed a few prime perpetrators in the Democrat's campaign contribution crime wave. Most notably, the name of the co-chairman of the Democratic party during the last presidential campaign cycle is missing. Senator Christopher Dodd is ultimately responsible for everything that went on under his watch. A number of other senators, including Kennedy, Feinstein and Boxer, were also involved in one way or another. But it is Dodd who, as the elected official in charge at the DNC, must bear the brunt of the responsibility. On the other hand, the vice-president who knows "no controlling legal authority" for some campaign finance laws was taken to school too. Al Gore says the Senate report's political slant is "very obvious," because it concludes that he knew that an illegal 1996 Democratic Party fund-raiser held at a California Buddhist temple was a Democratic Party fund-raiser. And, as Gore told Scripps Howard News Service reporter James W. Brosnan, he does not believe the organizer of that event, Maria Hsia, is an agent for China as the Thompson Committee report charged. Gore also said that he was never given a briefing or warning by U.S. intelligence agencies or the FBI about Mrs. Hsia. Apparently, we are to believe that Gore spends his time wandering the halls of the White House never talking to anyone. Because, by that time, there were nearly 200 people around him who knew all about the communist Chinese government connections. As a matter of fact, Bill Clinton even invited some of the agents from Red China over to the White House for coffee on a few occasions. "I think the disappointment mostly felt about the report is that it didn't do what it was supposed to do, namely build a base of support for meaningful campaign- finance reform," Gore repeated from his well rehearsed list of White House talking points. "The report wasn't even produced until the debate on campaign-finance reform was over with." Yeah. And it's always interesting to hear how crooks think laws they intentionally violated should be changed. The Thompson Committee outlined some of how the communist Chinese government worked to subvert our election process and buy influence from two branches of government. Unfortunately, the Senate Committee also locked up all the juicy details under the guise of national security. Also missing is the fact that Bill Clinton inappropriately sent his campaign people to a foreign country to interfere in their election: Tony Blair. One of two things will happen, probably before mid-summer: Starr will dump the whole mess on Henry Hyde and his House Committee, and walk away from it all. Or, Starr is going to indict Hillary and a dozen others, with Bill as an unindicted coconspirator, and then stick around to aide the House with impeachment proceedings. Right now, the latter seems most appropriate. Retribution. JUDGES MUST OBEY THE RULE OF LAW Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, it is the obligation of State Courts to defend each and every clause of the U.S. Constitution. So says the United States Supreme Court. Repeatedly. Below is an excerpt from a very large book named: "Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States." The Constitutional case law was prepared by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and is available in Federal Bookstores for about $100. The text quoted immediately below can be found on the Internet at: www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/art6.html We removed the Court citations to save space, but they are all available at the address above. This is very important stuff, and we will explain exactly why shortly. First, the duty of State judges -- and, by extension, the duty all State elected and appointed officials taking the oath of office. The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution. Their obligation "is imperative upon the state judges, in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States -- 'the supreme law of the land'." State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court. While States need not specially create courts competent to hear federal claims or necessarily to give courts authority specially, it violates the supremacy clause for a state court to refuse to hear a category of federal claims when the court entertains state law actions of a similar nature. The existence of inferior federal courts sitting in the States and exercising often concurrent jurisdiction of subjects has created problems with regard to the degree to which state courts are bound by their rulings. Though the Supreme Court has directed and encouraged the lower federal courts to create a corpus of federal common law, it has not spoken to the effect of such lower court rulings on state courts. So, in the second paragraph above, we learn that "State courts are bound then to give effect to . . . the [United States] Constitution . . . as well as the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court." That could be a convenient quirk in the law, if we care to use it properly. For instance, in a 1992 opinion, New York vs. U.S. (91-543, 1992), the United States Supreme Court ordered: "Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the 'consent' of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached- upon Branch approves the encroachment. . . . The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the 'consent' of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States." . . . "States are not mere political subdivisions of the United States. State governments are neither regional offices nor administrative agencies of the Federal Government. The positions occupied by state officials appear nowhere on the Federal Government's most detailed organizational chart. The Constitution instead 'leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,' (The Federalist No. 39), reserved explicitly to the States by the Tenth Amendment." . . . "Whatever the outer limits of that sovereignty may be, one thing is clear: The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." In last year's Printz opinion (95-1478, 1997), the United States Supreme Court expanded on that order: "The Constitution's structure reveals a principle that controls these cases: the system of 'dual sovereignty.' 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." . . . "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." In Printz, the Supreme Court went beyond the case at hand a little and even mentioned federal regulatory programs imposed on States that are tied to grants and federal funds. And, while the Court did not exactly forbid these schemes by program name, it did clearly state that they do not conform to Constitutional tradition: "Even assuming they represent assertion of the very same congressional power challenged here, they are of such recent vintage that they are no more probative [proof -- ed.] than the statute before us of a constitutional tradition that lends meaning to the text. Their persuasive force is far outweighed by almost two centuries of apparent congressional avoidance of the practice." . . . So, as the Court summarizes, States are sovereign jurisdictions and not under the control of the federal government: "Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear 'formalistic' in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day." . . . "We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty." Putting this all together, we learn that we can go to a local State court for relief from any regulation the federal government forced, ordered or otherwise coerced the State government to enact or enforce. For instance, if the U.S. EPA is forcing your State EPA to enact regulations that require tail pipe emissions testing of automobiles, that would be forbidden under the U.S. Supreme Court opinions in New York and Printz. The federal bureaucracy may not (and must not) order State officials to do anything. Period. Compliance by a State official would then be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Any State judge must then toss the regulation out. Unfortunately, the federal government may then (sometimes) come back and do the regulating themselves. State officials, however, may not. THE DECLINE OF THE CONSTITUTION Twice, in as many weeks, I have received reports from readers saying they were very distressed by certain comments made to local groups by a Member of Congress. I have also heard similar statements personally, on occasion, so didn't immediately consider the significance in the grand scheme of things. The distressing off-the-cuff statement from the elected Lords and Ladies of the Hill usually is related in the form: 'I don't pay much attention to the Constitutional aspects of these bills. I'm more interested in the bottom line.' And that, dear reader, is exactly true! First, there is no way they have time to read all of those bills and continue the expected production of that law factory. So, they only read (if anything) the executive summaries. Second, there is $1.2-billion in lobbyist money spread around Washington every year. Some lobbyists give Members of Congress money, and other considerations, to effect their vote and other lobbyists give money, and whatever, as a reward for a favorable vote. The money given to Members of Congress is commonly called "campaign funds." However, the considerations can also include "fact finding" trips, fund-raising parties and cushy jobs for friends and family. For instance, how many Members of Congress paid for their overseas trips last year? Zero. Or, how many Members of Congress are visiting constituents on those paid trips to American cities beginning with the word Palm (as in Palm Beach and Palm Springs)? Two. Washington lobbyists spend $100-million a month just to influence legislation. We constituents cannot keep up with that type of cash outlay in "campaign contributions," of course. And, even if we could, we cannot be there to quiz our Congress member on the bill of interest. There's just no way they would give one or two of us the amount of time they give a lobbyist with deep pockets who has other lobbyist friends with deep pockets. Anyway, to mention Constitutional issues in a Congressional office is probably one of the quickest ways to end a meeting. It's always best to stick to a single issue with them, and never mention things like honoring one's oath of office or that hackneyed old concept once called "rule of law." Unfortunately, this is becoming true with the courts nowadays, too. Most judges hate Constitutional issues because they might actually have to make an important decision. And, chances are great that decision would be unpopular with one or another group of Americans -- especially the lawmakers and bureaucrats the judges associate with. So, judges tend to do anything in their power to insure such issues are not presented in their courts. Clearly, there is nothing we citizens can do about this treachery by judges, either. They know that. Only the Senate can remove a judge, and chances are great that the Senate approved of the law causing the Constitutional issue under question. So, it was very distressing to learn that some of this attitude has even migrated over to the United States Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia, whom we often agree with, recently let the cat out of the bag at an address to a leadership meeting of the American Medical Association. "It is not supposed to be our judgment as to what is the socially desirable answer to all of these questions. That's supposed to be the judgment of Congress, and we do our job correctly when we apply what Congress has written as basically and honestly as possible," Scalia reported. "In my Constitution, if you want the death penalty, pass a statute. If you don't want the death penalty, pass a statute the other way. You want a right to abortion, create it the way most rights are created in a democracy: pass a law. If you don't want it, pass a law the other way. And if you want a right to (physician- assisted) suicide, the same," Scalia told the AMA leaders. We, of course, disagree in part. One of the most basic functions of the United States Supreme Court is to insure to the people that the actions of the other two branches of government are within the boundaries set down within the Constitution. Before FDR intimidated the Court into approving socialism, the Supreme Court took that responsibility seriously. In some recent decisions, the Supreme Court indicated that it may again be steering a course back to the "original intent" of the Constitution. In many opinions, however, the Court has ruled totally and completely against the "original intent" of the Constitution's authors and in favor of womb to tomb control of the American people by the federal government. So, when Mr. Justice Scalia says; "Having the Constitution mean whatever five out of nine justices think it ought to mean these days is not flexibility but rigidity;" we respectfully disagree. We want and expect "rigidity" in government. There must again be bright lines drawn over which the federal government may not cross. For instance, the words "shall not" have very strong meaning to most Americans. That should signal rigidity. We see no reason these words should have any other meaning to the Court. NEWS ON COMPUTING Somehow, I was lucky enough to get on a newsletter list for a publication called "Edupage." Therefore, once or twice a week a short, very well written, newsletter is delivered full of information on computing that I never seem to see anywhere else. It is never a very long publication, but it is always interesting. So . . . I ripped off one section for Heads Up readers. Subscription information is included. THIRD WORLD PROTESTS TAX-FREE INTERNET A coalition of developing nations, led by Egypt, India and Pakistan, are protesting a World Trade Organization proposal for an Internet "free trade zone," saying that such a development would reinforce the dominance of North America and European countries in the online world. The coalition is proposing that no decisions regarding the creation of a tax-free Internet trading zone be made until the problem of Western dominance of the Internet is resolved. Trade officials predict that negotiations on creating the free-trade zone will begin next year at the earliest. Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: send mail to: listproc@educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage Ralph Ellison (if your name is Ralph Ellison; otherwise, substitute your own name). -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [FFNET V2N21] (FWD) Citizen Soldiers (fwd) Date: 15 Mar 1998 16:14:44 PST On Mar 15, Donald L. Cline wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ============================================================================= Volume 2 FREEDOM FIGHTER NET No. 21 ============================================================================= This is a manual list. If you want off, just e-mail me. March 15, 1998 Y2k: 1 year, 9 months, 2 weeks, and counting (to fiscal year 2000) [And about a year less than that before the sewage hits the ventilation] This is a forward from another list. Like the list owner who prefaces this message below, I foward it VERY without comment. ====================Forwarded Message Begins==================== Well, this should get some juices flowing. I know this is what MANY are saying privately -- some VERY privately. Here's someone who WROTE it, but isn't quite ready to sign it. Author requested to remain anonymous. Gee, I wonder why? I'm forwarding it without comment -- VERY without comment! ;-) ******************************* , If you decide to use this, please delete all sig and header ID. I am practicing more these days, for good reason. All the best- ************************************************************ I have just returned from a meeting with a true constitutionalist attorney here in town, one with past and quite recent important victories in the area of tax issues. His conclusions about the in IRS practice mirrors those of at least three other attorneys of similar caliber around the country, which I have met in the last four years. I thought I would sum up his position, and offer a conclusion of my own. Basically, he intimated we as Americans must finally realize there is no such thing as an unassailable constitutional protection in this republic anymore. Political expedient, corruption, cronyism, self-interest et al have replaced the iron clad guarantees of freedom from unlawful prosecution, and the unswerving strength of the courts to curtail inroads on our liberties. Face it, we're on our own; there is not and CAN NEVER BE any 'silver bullet.' So what's new, you ask? Check the endless well reasoned posts on this list, as well as the other lists many of you monitor. We know the law better than the DOJ, we have higher judicial scruples than the judges, and we're losing ground every day. In essence, we are fielding the GE College Bowl winners against the Gestapo. I have spent endless hours over the last five years studying and applying the law, contacting the IRS, my congressman, the General Counsel to the Secretary of the Treasury...and the only difference it has made is that I understand PERFECTLY the gargantuan fraud this government (sic) is perpetrating on it's citizens. The question arises: do I continue the futile? I think not. IMHO we should ALL be deciding on the level of civil disobedience we are willing to engage in. If this is the law, we should all become LAWBREAKERS, encourage others to become LAWBREAKERS, be steadfast on juries to free LAWBREAKERS, stand tall in the rightness of being LAWBREAKERS. As you well know, this is not just an IRS issue. Our gun rights, our religious rights, our free speech and association rights, contractual rights, privacy rights, rights against self-incrimination, all are under massive assault every day. We could work full time and not stanch 10% of the crap that passes for law coming out of Washington on a slow day. I would encourage everyone to think seriously about how you can make a difference, by yourself quietly without fanfare, by monkey wrenching, disinformation, shunning of government workers, and any and all LAWBREAKING which doesn't harm innocent people. Now, we should begin to rock the boat for those who have been getting to ride on top for so long. Think this idea stinks? What level of effort would it take to maintain a steady state against the massive government intrusion into our lives? Can you give that time, year in and year out, for the rest of your life? What level of moral atrocity and abrogation of your rights would it take to make you change your mind? By the time that level was reached, would resistance like this be futile? Are we morally right in our position, irrespective of our individual religious beliefs? If so, don't we have the unalterable RIGHT to do everything it takes to reverse this unbearable situation? ****************** distribute freely ****************** ====================Forwarded Message Ends==================== The first rule of an effective fight for freedom is this: When government says you have to do something because of some law, _look_ _the_ _damned_ _law_ _up_! 95% of the time the law they cite has little or nothing to do with what they are telling you to do, or if it does, it doesn't apply to you. -- Donald L. Cline Freedom Fighter Net "Do you have the right to free speech?" "Yes." "Do you own a gun?" "No." "Shut up." [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Scanland Subject: test, please ignore Date: 16 Mar 1998 07:21:58 -0600 3/16/98 0724 CST - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: For Health Freedom Fighters World Wide: Thomas Paine on Liberty Date: 16 Mar 1998 07:12:06 -0800 (PST) >Errors-To: >X-Sender: jham@pop3.concentric.net >Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:40:50 -0500 >To: "abrecher@arxc.com" >From: John Hammell >Subject: For Health Freedom Fighters World Wide: Thomas Paine on Liberty >X-UIDL: 93a4ec434b2a7e16608d307298d2b414 > > >I stumbled across this quote while surfing the net, and would like to send >it out to health freedom fighters world wide. Thomas Paine was a pretty >good rabble rouser in his day, and this quote has as much significance >today as we battle the tyranny of the multinational pharmaceutical industry >and the New World Order, as it did in Paine's time during the American >Revolution. > > >"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the >sunshine patriot will, in the crisis, shrink from the service of their >country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and >woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this >consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the >triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; 'tis dearness >only that gives everything it's value. Heaven knows how to put a proper >price on it's goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an >article as freedom should not be highly rated." > Thomas >Paine >****************************************** >Donations Needed- Need Help to Keep Helper On >International Advocates for Health Freedom >John C. Hammell, Legislative Advocate >2411 Monroe St.#2 Hollywood, FL 33020 USA >800-333-2553, 954-929-2905, FAX 954-929-0507, >FAX ON DEMAND 954-927-8795,jham@concentric.net >http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/hammell/index.html >HERBS ARE _NOT_ DRUGS! HELP PASS HR 2868 >THE CONSUMER HEALTH FREE SPEECH ACT!!! > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: test, please ignore Date: 16 Mar 1998 13:23:58 -0700 At 07:21 -0600 3/16/1998, Chuck Scanland wrote: >3/16/98 0724 CST > > > >- TEST, Please ignore? Ignore the test? Oh come on, Chuck, you know that I can't ignore a good test. So, tell me, what is the test all about? And, what kind of grading system are your using? Oh, wait! I get it, you want to see if we can ignore your test? That's it, ain't it? Did I pass? ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: AdvAM: Clinton Strategy Changes (fwd) Date: 16 Mar 1998 14:14:57 PST On Mar 16, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The ADVANCE AMERICA Network =A9 1997 KEVIN McGEHEE North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Permission granted to anyone wishing to forward, redistribute, or broadcast this article for NON-PROFIT purposes. Profit-making publications must have *express consent* to reprint any AdvAM materials. Thank you. CLINTON CHANGES TACK IN WAKE OF WILLEY INTERVIEW Maybe it just takes a Willey to catch a Willie. In the aftermath of Kathleen Willey's television interview on "60 Minutes= ," President Bill Clinton is saying he has *clear memories* of his Oval Offi= ce anteroom encounter with her, and that nothing happened that could be cons= trued as a sexual assault. After years and years of responding to allegations of misconduct with protestations of poor recollection, Bill Clinton's memory has suddenly im= proved remarkably. Whether his memories of Kathleen Willey will prove to be of the same qual= ity as his memories of racist church burnings in Arkansas during his childhood (reminder: they didn't happen), remains to be seen. Besides, Clinton's convenient recollection of things that didn't happen, has never before be= en brought forward as a defense against allegations. That marks a substantia= l change of strategy. Either that, or the only aspect of Clinton's presidency that has ever man= aged to lodge itself in his memory is the times when he's been alone with wome= n other than his own wife. (Hmm, well, that actually isn't so far-fetched..= .) I think the corner we all hoped had been turned when the Lewinsky affair surfaced, has now been turned for real. The standard defenses that have w= orked so well for the Clintonista Front won't work in this instance. Long a pol= itical ally of Clinton, Willey has seen what has happened to Gennifer Flowers, P= aula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky, and realized that the Clintonista Code of Sil= ence can't protect her as well as the truth can. The president, alias Bill Z. Bubba, is in trouble and knows it. If Kathle= en Willey is talking, how long can it be before Slick Willie is walking? -30- March 16, 1998 **Visit the AdvAM/AdvAK archives** http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/advance.htm The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s), and do not reflect those of any person or group with whom the author(s) may be affiliated, unless explicitly labelled as doing so. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fwd: C-NEWS: Encouragement from MSNBC? (fwd) Date: 16 Mar 1998 14:16:15 PST On Mar 16, Mike Riddle wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE================== >From: Bob Larimer >Subject: C-NEWS: Encouragement from MSNBC? To all who have been dismayed by the Commander in Cheek's approval ratings, here is a glimmer of light I found at the MSNBC "News Chat Question Of The Day" site: Do you believe the depositions released in the Paula Jones case show a pattern of harassment, or are they a pack of lies as Clinton's lawyer Robert Bennett asserts? * 3437 responses Pattern of harassment 84% Pack of lies 16% So what do you think? Are we cyberspace denizens simply more discerning, or is the tide finally starting to run out on the POTUS? Bob Larimer blarimer@e-z.net http://www.e-z.net/wtv P.S. You can cast your vote by going to: http://www.msnbc.com/news/OP_Front.asp and clicking on "Question of the day." ------- To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions. ===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE=================== [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: CCW posting at Phillips Petroleum (fwd) Date: 16 Mar 1998 14:17:36 PST On Mar 16, David Phillips wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] On Friday, March 13, I received email from the Safety Director of Phillips Petroleum, stating that he had just come from a meeting where the CCW signs were discussed. He told me that the signs would be removed! Thanks to all that called or wrote! (Now, check out their stations, and make sure the signs get removed.) -- David Phillips sasdvp@sas.com SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. Don't Tread on Me DVC 35* 47'N 78* 47'W [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Dam Beaver Sequel (fwd) Date: 17 Mar 1998 00:16:38 PST On Mar 16, Ron Marsh wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi, Jo, Here is the Dam sequel to the Dam Beaver story. Both the original and the sequel were sent to me by: Ron A Sequel - EPA Action Against the Beaver Dam Killed the Beaver State Official Admits Knowing It's a Beaver Dam, Threatens Tenant Anyway Editor's Note: After the Beaver Dam Story which appeared in Wednesday's Hot Topics, (http://www.reagan.com/HotTopics.main/HotMike/document-3.11.1998.3.html) in which a tenant was threatened for having a beaver dam on the property, we contacted the owner of the property, Stephen Tvedten of Marne, MI to get an update. As most people know, bureaucrats have little or no sense of humor. It turns out the Dept. of Environmental Quality Land & Water Management Div. bureaucrats were not amused by Stephen's December 17th letter and sent another letter in which they attempted to press the issue further. The Tvedtens wrote a letter to their assemblyman, who responded as follows: February 5, 1998 Dear Mr. Tvedten: Thank you for forwarding to me copies of correspondence between you and David Price of the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Grand Rapids Office concerning the beaver dam that is located on property that you own in Pierson, Michigan. I understand that the department initiated an investigation when a neighbor expressed concern that your tenant was maintaining the beaver dam without a permit. Apparently, individuals can maintain beaver dams only with a permit from the department. Mr. Price has advised me that, upon personally inspecting the property, he determined that the dam has not been maintained either by beavers or humans. As a result, the DEQ has closed its case. You should have been notified of the department's decision by letter dated January 23, 1998. Again, thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I would like to hear about other state matters that concern you. To that end, I invite you to join my Citizen Advisor group. Members periodically receive summaries of legislation that may generate a great deal of public interest, and register their opinion regarding the legislation on forms that are provided with the summaries. The group's input has helped me to better represent the constituents of the 89th house district. If you are interested in becoming a citizen advisor, please call my legislative aide, Joyce Rutt, at 1-800-JELLEMA, (1-800-535-5362). Sincerely, Jon Jellema State Representative 89th House District By this time, Stephen Tvedten was no longer amused. The State seemed determined to pretend that this ridiculous situation was not really a ridiculous situation and tried to justify their dubious actions involving beaver dams. Below is Stephen's second letter to Mr. David Price Stephen and Rosalind Tvedten 2530 Hayes Street Marne, MI 49435-9751 616-677-1261 616-677-1262 Fax steve@getipm.com January 29, 1998 David L. Price District Representative Dept. of Environmental Quality Land & Water Management Div. Grand Rapids Dist. Office State Office Building, 6th Floor 350 Ottawa, N.W. Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2341 Dear Mr. Price Re: DEQ File #97-59-0023, T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Pierson Township, Montcalm County Once again, as you have asked in writing, I will give prompt attention to your 1/23/98 letter that I just received today. First of all, I specifically (and initially) want to know who called you and supposedly observed and/or has alleged Mr. Ryan DeVries was ever actively and/or "artificially maintaining" these obvious beaver dams? I specifically want to know: (1) On what days all of this "activity" supposedly took place? (2) What equipment and what materials Mr. DeVries was supposedly using to "repair" the beaver dams? (3) How did these unnamed accusers determine it was Mr. DeVries? (4) From what distance were they observing all of this "activity" and for how long? (5) Was Mr. DeVries wearing scuba gear for the underwater repair? and exactly how was he supposedly doing all the other "artificial maintenance work"? Second, in all of your field inspections, did you ever find even one twig or any other evidence or material on either of the "abandoned" beaver dams that would indicate to you that any human had ever "artificially maintained" these beaver dams? If so, why do you now want to drop this matter? If not, how and/or why did you ever dare to write and/or suggest this ever happened? Third, how did you determine (in winter) these beaver are no longer active? Did the people who called you again trespass on my land and kill these beavers like they did last time? Last time they broke open the dam, set traps and when the beaver came to repair the dam, the beaver were killed! Would you be kind enough to explain to me why several beaver would work all summer building dams and gathering a winter food supply and then simply abandon all of their work so they could either starve or freeze or be taken by predators? What are you going to do about the illegal trapping of my beavers (past and/or present)? Fourth, I sincerely believe you should apologize in writing to Mr. DeVries and so should anyone and everyone else who has falsely accused him and/or tried to threaten and/or intimidate him into removing all of the "debris" he, obviously, did not put into the stream! For you to continue to even suggest in your latest letter to me that you still are giving any credibility to these false accusations, that Mr. Ryan DeVries was ever involved in any illegal, artificial or unauthorized activity does not, in my opinion, even begin to close this matter. Your verbal comments to me on 1/8/98 that this always looked like "abandoned" beaver dams to you, even on your first visit, fills me with wonder and anger; why did you ever accuse Mr. DeVries of personally constructing these "debris" dams and then demand he totally remove these "debris" dams, which you clearly and already knew were constructed by beavers? For you or anyone to continue to suggest my Tenant is still, or was ever, "guilty" of artificially and/or illegally working on these beaver dams is, in my opinion, slanderous! How, if you knew originally these were "abandoned" beaver dams, could you ever demand Mr. DeVries completely remove them? Why not limit him to removing only the "work" he did? It was my understanding that government employees work for the people, who pay their salaries with their taxes, and not the other way around! Your second field inspection showed "no further damming ability has occurred at the site;" are you really trying to suggest again Mr. DeVries has finally "stopped" his artificial maintaining of these beaver dams? I would respectfully submit that if this is really what you (or any other people) would like me and/or the Governor and others in this State to believe about Mr. Ryan DeVries, Mr. DeVries should contact a lawyer. It was my understanding one is innocent until proven "guilty", or is one automatically guilty in Michigan as soon as he is accused? Or are you simply trying to CYA at Mr. DeVries expense? Finally, as you can gather from the tone of this letter, I no longer find this matter at all funny. I want this type of bureaucratic harassment to completely cease. What are you going to do the next time some equine cloaca suggests "someone else" is again engaged in "illegal" and/or "artificial" activity? Threaten them again? Or will you take the time to treat them like human beings and get your facts straight first? Sincerely, Stephen L. Tvedten fc: Governor John Engler Ryan DeVries PETA Once again, Mr. Price, you have sent "carbon copies" to a lot of other people but have given me no addresses. Please send all the people to which you sent a carbon copy, a copy of my reply and your response also. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Security and the Clintons Date: 17 Mar 1998 09:15:03 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I have forwarded comments from a good friend who has to watch what he says due to his current clearance status. Regards, Barry Skaggs >Return-Path: *** >From: *** >Date: Mon, 16 Mar 98 09:21:45 -0500 >Subject: CAS: Secrets "WALK" Out Of State Dept. > >Barry, > >In reference to the article about people walking into the state dept. >and walking out with a fist full of secrets, I'm sure you read this >stuff with the same eye I do in full remembrance of the many security >forms and interviews you had to endure. With every burp in your credit >record (I remember the time at GE when some security nazi was harrassing >you over a ten dollar discrepancy), or every time someone like me had to >admit that, indeed, I did inhale once, we had to PROVE that WE WERE >WORTHY of a clearance. Now we have Chinese Communists and Nationals >granted clearances without the nuisance of a check, or even having to >fill out the forms. It really disgusts me personally, especially since >I recently had to fill out yet another series of SF86 interrogations in >which I had to admit to credit failure, and the subsequent likelihood of >not being able to regain my TS clearance because of it. I've been a >loyal American all of my life and have truly hated Communism and all >that it stands for, I may not be worthy of a clearance, and these >people, our sworn enemies, get full access to the very information we're >supposed to be protecting from THEM, gratis. To coin a phase, it pukes >me out... > >A further disgusting tidbit is that yesterday, we were watching one of >the Clinton cheering hours (either Meet the Repressed, or An Hour >Watching Sam wishing he were doing IT with Cokie) and they were talking >about how Linda Tripp had answered one of her security questionaire >questions in a non-truthful manner. Allegedly she had been charged with >misdemeanor fraud in 1969 and when asked on the form "Have you ever been >charged with an offense?" she answered "No." Frankly, this doesn't >bother me, what bothers me is two issues: The first is that this form is >supposed to be held strictly confidential. Nobody under any >circumstances except in execution of official duty in regards to >investigation of security clearances is supposed to even see this form. >This form can only be seen by individuals directly handling the >applicants case, and no one else, unless they get a court order to do >so. This information is not supposed to be leaked to the press, >particulary to besmirch somebody's reputation. The second issue is >related, and that is this particular question, as you will recall, is in >the so-called Privacy section. This is a section that contains >particulary sensitive information that nobody else is allowed to see. >This is where they ask you about your credit history, drug abuse, legal >problems, etc. When you fill out the form, your employer may review the >first section for completeness, but you are not required to let them see >the privacy section. You can send it in separately if you wish. Again, >its contents are certainly not supposed to be leaked to the press. The >fact that these allegations about her truthfulness on this form are >public without a formal charge having been made indicates that violation >of the privacy act of 1974 and other laws have been perpetrated by >someone in the FBI or NSA by revealing her personal and private >information that was disclosed on this form. Furthermore, it indicates >that someone in the administration is using taxpayers dollars to >investigate and intimidate witnesses in a federal investigation, and >this is obstruction of justice and abuse of power on a grand scale. >Personally, I'd like to see John Huang's SF86 form. I wonder if he >admitted to having close ties to the Chinese Communist Government in his >privacy section. No, because he didn't have to fill out the form!!!! >This is the real Bill Clinton. He's a thug, and he's put his thug >friends in places where that ilk doesn't belong. They use the trust and >privilege given them by the American People to subvert the Will of The >People and to divert attention from their own unseemliness and towards >the minor foibles of loyal citizens trying to bring to the light of >truth the dark and sinister workings of the most evil administration to >have ever held office... May the truth about these people be known, and >the Justice that is above all human Justice reign in Heaven and on >Earth.... Amen.... > >One more item: Slick Willy made Kate Willey touch Bent Willy; Ms. Willy >got the willies because slick willy wanted Ms. Willey to free Bent >willy, Ms. Willey recoiled from Bent Willy and freeing Bent Willy was >out of the question, much to Slick Willy's chagrin. When Ms. Willey told >everyone about Slick Willy's plans for her and Bent willy, Slick Willy >said Ms. Willey was wrong about him and Bent willy and wondered why Ms. >Willey would say these willy mean things...poor,poor slick willy, once >again the victim of mean spirited women who don't understand him... > > >tim > ========================================================================== 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 March 16, 1998 at 17:08:55 PST Democrat Fund-Raiser Pleads Guilty LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung, who has agreed to help prosecutors probing campaign finance abuses, pleaded guilty Monday to charges of funneling $20,000 in illegal contributions to the Clinton-Gore re-election bid. Chung also pleaded guilty to charges involving an $8,000 donation to the campaign of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., tax evasion and fraudulently obtaining a $157,500 loan on his home. Chung, 43, stood before U.S. District Judge Manuel Real and answered "Yes" repeatedly when asked if he was pleading guilty because he was indeed guilty. The judge scheduled sentencing for July 20 at the request of defense attorney Brian Sun, who cited sections of the plea agreement which remained sealed. The delay in sentencing was designed to allow prosecutors to continue questioning Chung and to perhaps to call him before a grand jury or other investigative body in connection with the campaign finance scandal. "Thank God, this is a new beginning of my life," Chung said later outside court. "I want to put all of this behind me as quickly as possible so my family and I can get on with our lives." His lawyer said Chung would cooperate in the investigation, and if asked to detail the operations of the Democratic National Committee, he would provide whatever information he could in that regard. The judge stressed that he was not promising Chung any specific sentence and that the plea agreement did not require him to grant leniency. Chung said he understood. Chung could face 37 years in prison and $1.45 million in fines, but plea bargains usually involve a request for substantially reduced penalties. The sentence usually is determined by how much useful information the defendant provides. The charges against Chung were substantially lower than those he could have faced given the extent of his contributions to Democratic causes. He actually donated some $400,000 to Democratic causes and candidates between 1994 and 1996. A Taiwan-born U.S. citizen, Chung was the fourth person charged in the campaign finance scandal but the first to agree to cooperate with investigators in an effort to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. In recent years Chung was a frequent visitor to the White House. Once he escorted Chinese businessmen who wanted to watch President Clinton deliver a radio address. He has said that in 1995 he was solicited for money by a White House staffer and delivered a $50,000 check to first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's office. Chung contributions were returned after questions arose about their legality. All contents copyright 1998 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ========================================================================== 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: Subject: China Spies target Corporate America Date: 17 Mar 1998 09:44:44 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Link for this Fortune story available on my web page: http://www.erols.com/jhofmann March 30, 1998 China's Spies Target Corporate America In the great game of economic espionage, China is emerging as a bold new player. Its primary mission: to get its hands on the world's most advanced technology. Edward A. Robinson Reporter Associate: Ann Harrington or China's all-powerful spy agency, the Ministry of State Security, Bin Wu was a chen di yu, a "fish at the bottom of the ocean"--a long-term agent operating under deep cover. The ministry had sent Wu, a 33-year-old former philosophy professor from Nanjing, to the U.S. to acquire technology and military items and export them back to China through an MSS-controlled front company in Hong Kong. A member of the pro-democracy movement, Wu had been told to spy or face arrest. So this reluctant agent approached the FBI's elite counterintelligence office in 1991 with an invaluable gift: a chance to use him as a telescope into the shadowy world of Chinese intelligence operations. Wu seemed the ideal double agent. He was motivated, smart, and articulate, and formed a strong bond with his FBI handler. And according to court records, no sooner had the bureau started running Wu (code name: Succor Delight) than he delivered the identities of his MSS handlers, their front companies, other Chinese agents operating in the U.S., and even information on a group of Yugoslavians who were trying to purchase Chinese rocket launchers. But in 1992, Wu's cover was blown, and today, instead of operating as an FBI "foreign national asset," Wu sits in a federal prison in western Pennsylvania serving a ten-year sentence for violating the Arms Export Control Act. In an interview with FORTUNE, he says that he has filed a petition to avoid the customary fate of freed foreign felons--being deported home after he is released in 2001. "I hope I can stay here after what I did for this country," Wu says in carefully phrased English. "There is no doubt in my mind that if the Chinese get their hands on me, I will die." As this disturbing episode suggests, China has for some time been spying on corporate America. What's only beginning to be understood is the scope and depth of its intelligence-gathering apparatus. "This is serious business," says Sen. Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "China is trying to make the great leap forward, technologically speaking, and it has great needs for information, especially in the high-tech field. This is going to be an ongoing challenge for both law enforcement and business." Indeed. Intelligence officials, members of Congress, corporate security directors, and former Chinese spies themselves tell FORTUNE that over the past several years Chinese-backed industrial spying has increased dramatically against U.S. business. In a soon-to-be-released survey of 1,300 major U.S. companies, the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS), an association for corporate-security types, found that America business now sees China as its No. 1 foreign economic-espionage threat. According to the experts, China's commercial spy apparatus has been targeting two fronts simultaneously: the U.S. government and corporate America. Suspicions that Beijing sought to pilfer classified economic reports from Washington are already creating a buzz on Capitol Hill. Senate Republicans investigating the Clinton campaign fundraising scandal have suggested that John Huang, formerly assigned to the Taiwan desk in the Commerce Department, may have passed secret economic and trade material to China. Democrats respond that the Republicans have no hard evidence to prove such a charge. Huang's lawyer denies the charge. But the evidence for a PRC assault on corporate America is stronger. Recent examples: Amgen discovered that a Chinese spy had infiltrated its organization and was trying to steal a vial of cell cultures for Epogen, now a $1.2-billion-a-year anemia drug. A Chinese spy in Hong Kong was recently caught using sophisticated telecommunications software to secretly listen in on sensitive phone conversations between American executives. A Chinese engineer working at a Boulder, Colo., software company allegedly stole proprietary source code and peddled it to a PRC company. As a result, the company went out of business. To be sure, China is not alone in this game. In January, FBI Director Louis Freeh testified to Congress that the companies or governments of 23 countries are currently involved in the illicit acquisition of U.S. trade secrets and that 12 of those have aggressively "targeted U.S. proprietary economic information and critical technologies." Before China emerged as a major new player in this old game, Japan and France clearly led the pack. In the 1980s, Hitachi was caught trying to steal secrets from IBM. More recently the Commerce Department warned American aerospace executives to watch out for spying by French intelligence at the Paris Air Show--Hughes Aircraft pulled out altogether. Of course, the U.S. itself is not above blame. Just last year Germany reportedly accused an American diplomat of committing economic espionage by trying to obtain information on high technology. It expelled the diplomat, who was believed to be a CIA officer operating undercover. And now, into this wilderness, steps China. Says Richard Heffernan, a corporate security consultant based in Branford, Conn.: "It is a naive company that thinks that just because it doesn't have a venture in China, it's not at risk of being penetrated here at home." Late last year a concerned Congress passed a law that requires the U.S. intelligence community to prepare a classified report specifically on Chinese intelligence activities, citing economic-espionage operations as one of its top priorities. On top of that, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office is insisting that the Chinese government take action against industrial espionage and product piracy as a condition of joining the World Trade Organization. The Chinese government flatly denies that it is involved in economic espionage. China does say that it is eager to absorb technology from around the world and sometimes uses its market might to get foreign companies to share their technology. Explains Yu Shuning, the press secretary at the Chinese Embassy: "For our modernization program we are trying hard to learn from others. But everything is done on a commercial basis for everyone's mutual benefit. When you sell your products to China, you earn a profit, and in this kind of deal we should benefit also, and sometimes that may be from technology transfer, but this is always done through lawful, normal means." Chinese industrial spying is believed to run the gamut from routine competitive intelligence gathering of company information on Websites and at trade shows to the theft of company trade secrets from offices and labs. No one really knows for sure the value of the secrets stolen or which industries have been hit the hardest--although computers, biotech, and defense probably top the list. As experts take a closer look at China's intelligence operation, they are also finding it difficult to determine how organized it is. Is Beijing using its spy services to direct an overarching program of industrial espionage in the U.S., or is Chinese spying driven primarily by independent black-marketers out to pocket illicit profits? Nicholas Eftimiades, an intelligence officer with the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency and author of the book Chinese Intelligence Operations, believes that Beijing's intelligence services have erected an extensive spy network in the U.S. that bears all the hallmarks of a John le Carre spy novel. Eftimiades says the network focuses as much on netting commercial secrets as on traditional military and political targets. According to Eftimiades, officials at the Ministry of State Security, which runs civilian intelligence activities domestically and abroad, "task" agents to acquire products or data requested by Chinese industry. "They request thousands of items from abroad every year," agrees Stanislav Lunev, a former colonel in the Soviet Union's military-intelligence branch, the GRU, who was stationed in Beijing. Some of those items might be off-the-shelf products like a fertilizer, a machine tool, or a compact-disk player, and the Chinese enterprise requesting the item might simply be seeking to harmlessly "reverse engineer" it. But many of the items sought are also trade secrets, says the former Russian spy, who defected to the U.S. in 1992. "Only now are American companies starting to open their eyes and see the level of Chinese espionage in their country," says the old cold warrior, with a wry smile. Both Eftimiades and Lunev say the MSS recruits professionals, college students, and scientists to be agents in the U.S. Some are instructed to ingrain themselves in companies, universities, and government, and provide a lifetime of service to their spymasters. Information funneled back to China could be as harmless as an annual report or as harmful as proprietary computer code developed after years of R&D spending. One such former Chinese agent, who fears for family members back home and has asked to remain anonymous, has told FORTUNE about a school in Nanjing that trains these spies. Over the past decade, this former agent has periodically recognized fellow graduates from the school working in companies from Silicon Valley to Massachusetts and even in the halls of government in Washington. Systematic as all this sounds, there is also evidence that a great deal of Chinese espionage is actually not so organized, but rather the work of freebooters. Though they might exploit connections to the Chinese state, most of these types are operating on their own for lucre, pure and simple. Take the case involving Amgen, the biotechnology firm based in Thousand Oaks, Calif. In 1993 the company's information-security director, William Boni, learned through an anonymous letter that an employee was poised to steal a vial of cell cultures for Epogen, a drug that helps kidney dialysis patients and that had generated $587 million in revenue for Amgen that year. Boni pulled the accused thief's phone records and saw that over the past few weeks the man had placed more than 70 personal telephone calls to China. Working with the Hong Kong office of Kroll Associates, the New York private-investigation firm, Boni learned that the employee was hunting for Epogen buyers in China and had, through intermediaries, made contact with Chinese government officials. Boni and his Kroll associates put the employee and his partner under surveillance. Then, on a Sunday evening, the spies entered Amgen's labs, and Boni's team pounced. Stunned, the employee confessed to the plot. Yet Amgen chose not to pursue any criminal action because Boni had stopped him before any real damage had been done. All the company did was fire the man. Chinese spy operations can run from the sublime to the ridiculous. In one episode that smacked more of Maxwell Smart than James Bond, members of a Chinese scientific delegation at a Paris trade show were seen dipping their neckties into a photo-processing solution made by Agfa, the German photography company. Apparently the delegates--much to the amusement of French security officials --hoped to analyze "specimens" of the solution taken from their ties. Yet other incidents reveal a high degree of sophistication. In one case three years ago, security consultant Heffernan exposed a Chinese spy in Hong Kong who was trying to learn an American high-tech company's secrets by manipulating a piece of telephone software known as executive override. That feature allows anyone to listen in on lines. The spy, however, had disabled the warning tone indicating the call is being monitored and had used the program to eavesdrop on sensitive conversations between executives. Fortunately, the spy left an obvious electronic fingerprint on his handiwork, and he was caught. Even though the company's top brass were furious, little was done, other than sending the exposed operative on his way. Why did Heffernan's clients let the guy go? Actually, this reaction is not uncommon. Companies victimized by espionage are concerned that going to the authorities will publicize the incident and leave the impression that they don't take their security seriously or are even incompetent. Such a disclosure can dampen a stock price, scare off customers, or in serious cases topple senior executives. "When a company gets hit by a spy, it's like it suddenly has a sexually transmitted disease," says Kevin D. Murray, a New Jersey-based specialist in electronic-surveillance detection. "Everyone wants something done to prevent it from spreading, but no one wants to talk about it, even though talking about it, sharing the experience, is the only way to make it safer for everyone to do business." Chinese espionage poses a special set of worries. The last thing U.S. firms want to do is antagonize Chinese officials, who hold the keys to a market with 1.2 billion people--something an embarrassing public accusation of spying is likely to do. James P. Chandler, president of the National Intellectual Property Law Institute in Washington, D.C., says scores of American companies are continually parrying Chinese penetration, both in ventures in China itself and at home in the U.S., but making little noise about it publicly. His latest message: Corporations should report incidents of spying to the authorities. Chandler argues that when a victim keeps a crime hushed up, it sends a dangerous message that it's okay to steal intellectual property. And that will encourage countries like China to keep on spying. "The gravity of what's involved here has not come home to a lot of U.S. industry, from lawyers on up to senior management," says Chandler. That said, Americans should be careful not to brand all Chinese businessmen as spies, especially at a time when U.S.-China relations are already strained. In fact, one can argue that there's a gray area between spying and good old-fashioned competitive intelligence. "We need to be very careful with these kinds of issues," says Evan Feigenbaum, a fellow with the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University and an expert on China. "People can be very incautious with the term 'espionage,' and the simple fact that the Chinese are interested in technology doesn't mean it's espionage." So there lies the dilemma. On the one hand, a CEO must protect his trade secrets. But he also doesn't want to create a suffocating, Orwellian culture that stifles the free flow of ideas--something that has become an increasingly vital ingredient in today's knowledge economy. The fact is, companies must strike a fine balance between protecting their intellectual property and encouraging open discourse with those outside their corporate walls. And with China's bold new entrance into the industrial spy game, that's not going to be easy. Where the Spies Are In a survey conducted by the American Society for Industrial Security, 1,300 American companies were asked to cite the foreign country that poses the greatest economic-espionage threat. Here is how they ranked (preliminary results): 1. China 2. Japan 3. France 4 . U.K. 5 . Canada - -------- jhofmann@erols.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: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 12:03:08 -0800 1911a1@gte.net wrote: > > * * PLEASE READ, DISTRIBUTE, DISSEMINATE WIDELY * * > > > > The Charlton Heston File - By NEAL KNOX > > WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 2) -- The Lyndon B. Johnson > Presidential Library in Austin today confirmed that NRA First Vice > President Charlton Heston actively worked with the Johnson > Administration in passing the 1968 Gun Control Act. > > Heston, who is in line to be elected NRA President in June if elected > to the Board in the election now underway, has served as a public > spokesman for NRA for several years. > > Heston's role in expanding the 1968 Safe Streets Act to prohibit the > interstate sale or transfer of rifles and shotguns came to light about > two weeks ago when the text of two LBJ Library documents began > circulating on the Internet. The documents were so historically > accurate that they refreshed memories of the fury of our battle > against the Gun Control Act, but I didn't recall the huge Hollywood > effort having included Heston. > Wisdom from Neal? No, I'd call it "political demagoguery from Neal." 1968 would be 30 years ago, right? 30 years ago I was a liberal do-gooder who wanted to save the world's downtrodden, all by myself if necessary - to hell with the cost in $ or infringements on the constitutional rights of anyone who didn't see "the truth" as I did. I'd heard of something called the Bill of Rights - back in high school civics class I think it was - but I'd never actually read it, and it never occurred to me that such "stuff" written so long ago could actually be relevant to modern life. Now I'm 30 years older and 30+ years smarter. I've studied the Bill of Rights and realized that it is the MOST important "stuff" ever written for those who value the American way of life (as the Founders intended it to be). I doubt that I'm the only one who's 30+ years smarter since 1968. I'll bet there are others right here on this ROC list - and Heston too. No offense, but anyone who hasn't changed their viewpoint in 30 years is either brain dead or is a mindlessly loyal Dem or Repub - the same thing as brain dead IMO. Instead of getting all excited about what Heston did in 1968, it might be a hell of a lot smarter and more objective to review where we stood in the political spectrum 30 years ago. I suspect we'll find that we've committed the same "sin" of changing our viewpoint since 1968. It's called "learning" and "maturing." And if I'm off base here, then "let he who is without 'sin' cast the first stone." Regards, Skip. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 12:03:08 -0800 1911a1@gte.net wrote: > > * * PLEASE READ, DISTRIBUTE, DISSEMINATE WIDELY * * > > > > The Charlton Heston File - By NEAL KNOX > > WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 2) -- The Lyndon B. Johnson > Presidential Library in Austin today confirmed that NRA First Vice > President Charlton Heston actively worked with the Johnson > Administration in passing the 1968 Gun Control Act. > > Heston, who is in line to be elected NRA President in June if elected > to the Board in the election now underway, has served as a public > spokesman for NRA for several years. > > Heston's role in expanding the 1968 Safe Streets Act to prohibit the > interstate sale or transfer of rifles and shotguns came to light about > two weeks ago when the text of two LBJ Library documents began > circulating on the Internet. The documents were so historically > accurate that they refreshed memories of the fury of our battle > against the Gun Control Act, but I didn't recall the huge Hollywood > effort having included Heston. > Wisdom from Neal? No, I'd call it "political demagoguery from Neal." 1968 would be 30 years ago, right? 30 years ago I was a liberal do-gooder who wanted to save the world's downtrodden, all by myself if necessary - to hell with the cost in $ or infringements on the constitutional rights of anyone who didn't see "the truth" as I did. I'd heard of something called the Bill of Rights - back in high school civics class I think it was - but I'd never actually read it, and it never occurred to me that such "stuff" written so long ago could actually be relevant to modern life. Now I'm 30 years older and 30+ years smarter. I've studied the Bill of Rights and realized that it is the MOST important "stuff" ever written for those who value the American way of life (as the Founders intended it to be). I doubt that I'm the only one who's 30+ years smarter since 1968. I'll bet there are others right here on this ROC list - and Heston too. No offense, but anyone who hasn't changed their viewpoint in 30 years is either brain dead or is a mindlessly loyal Dem or Repub - the same thing as brain dead IMO. Instead of getting all excited about what Heston did in 1968, it might be a hell of a lot smarter and more objective to review where we stood in the political spectrum 30 years ago. I suspect we'll find that we've committed the same "sin" of changing our viewpoint since 1968. It's called "learning" and "maturing." And if I'm off base here, then "let he who is without 'sin' cast the first stone." Regards, Skip. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 14:01:09 -0600 Skip Leuschner wrote in part: >> The Charlton Heston File - By NEAL KNOX >> >> [ ... Screed deleted ... ] >> > >Wisdom from Neal? No, I'd call it "political demagoguery from Neal." > >1968 would be 30 years ago, right? > >30 years ago I was a liberal do-gooder who wanted to save the >world's downtrodden, all by myself if necessary - to hell with >the cost in $ or infringements on the constitutional rights of >anyone who didn't see "the truth" as I did. [ ... Snip ... ] >Instead of getting all excited about what Heston did in 1968, it >might be a hell of a lot smarter and more objective to review where >we stood in the political spectrum 30 years ago. I suspect we'll >find that we've committed the same "sin" of changing our viewpoint >since 1968. It's called "learning" and "maturing." > >And if I'm off base here, then "let he who is without 'sin' cast >the first stone." WWhhiiiiizzzzz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . thunk . . OW! No, that's not me, Skip. That's all those you're about to hear from who were born with the wisdom of the ages wired into their brains, and who therefore never were obliged to alter their opinions by so much as a scintilla. I said about the same thing you did on NOBAN not long ago, which is how I happen to know. For what it's worth, you're absolutely correct about Charleton Heston. You're right about Mr. Knox as well. What possible good purpose could be served by dredging up that 30-year-old bit of "news?" None whatever. The purists will be the death of us. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 12:50:24 -0800 (PST) On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Skip Leuschner wrote: > I doubt that I'm the only one who's 30+ years smarter since 1968. > I'll bet there are others right here on this ROC list - and Heston > too. No offense, but anyone who hasn't changed their viewpoint > in 30 years is either brain dead or is a mindlessly loyal Dem or > Repub - the same thing as brain dead IMO. I will repeat the quote from Emerson that I sent out when this holier-than-thou stuff first came up: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored alike by little statesmen, philosophers, and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson Paraphrasing Eisenhower, "Just because I made a mistake once doesn't mean I have to keep repeating the mistake for my whole life." Admitting for the sake of argument that Heston made a mistake once, is he condemned to perpetuate the mistake? Does anything he has said recently indicate that he intends to make that mistake at this time? What the hell. Let's go hang Heston from a sour apple tree and get on with losing the war. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 12:54:56 -0800 At 02:01 PM 3/17/98 -0600, you wrote: >Skip Leuschner wrote in part: > >>> The Charlton Heston File - By NEAL KNOX >>> >>> [ ... Screed deleted ... ] >>> >> >>Wisdom from Neal? No, I'd call it "political demagoguery from Neal." >> >>1968 would be 30 years ago, right? >> >>30 years ago I was a liberal do-gooder who wanted to save the >>world's downtrodden, all by myself if necessary - to hell with >>the cost in $ or infringements on the constitutional rights of >>anyone who didn't see "the truth" as I did. > >No, that's not me, Skip. That's all those you're about to hear from >who were born with the wisdom of the ages wired into their brains, and >who therefore never were obliged to alter their opinions by so much >as a scintilla. I said about the same thing you did on NOBAN not long >ago, which is how I happen to know. > >For what it's worth, you're absolutely correct about Charleton Heston. >You're right about Mr. Knox as well. What possible good purpose could >be served by dredging up that 30-year-old bit of "news?" None whatever. Let's not forget that it was less than one year ago that Heston (for whom I have great respect) said on the radio that it was "inappropriate" for civilians to own AK-47's or similar firearms. Aside from the fact that I think that we all ought to own American weapons instead of ChiCom junk, I strongly disagree. Heston's views hardly qualify him for the presidency, or even the board, of the NRA. What's needed, I think, is for us handloaders to make some inert cartridges (bullet & casing, w/o primer or powder) in the following calibers: .50 BMG 30-06 (M-1 Garand) .308 (M-1A and countless hunting rifles) 7.62x39 (AK and SKS) .223 (M-16/AR-15) 9MM (Uzi and numerous ugly pistols) Maybe some really high-power rifle calibers as well. Mount them all on a board, and ask people which ones are fired from an "assault weapon". I'm sure that ignorant hangers-on to the gun ban movements will be astonished to learn that the smallest bullets are from "assault weapons", while the big ones like 30-06 and .306 are from "sporting rifles". Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all - security, comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society, but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." Gibbons: "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" Proud member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" since 1992! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Clinton's secret police strike again Date: 17 Mar 1998 13:13:35 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- What a bizzare observation at the end of this article that the use of "secret police" to intimidate, search out dirt, leak confidential information,and reward those who lie for the White house, are not the style of Bill Clinton. Good endings are always hard to come by in fiction. Real life is easier, since it is the truth that always works. Perhaps he believes that demons are behind the so-called "Nixon tactics" being used by Clinton. Or perhaps the tainted spirit of Nixon roams the halls of the White House. Anyway, I thought the article was "right on" until the last fairyland paragraph. Regards, Howard Ray Heizer wrote: > > BILL'S SECRET POLICE STRIKE AGAIN > > New York Post > March 17, 1998 Dick Morris > > No journalist questioned how Tripp's confidential file ended up in The > New Yorker. Instead, all the papers dutifully reported on her arrest and > her lack of candor in disclosing it. THE White House secret police have > struck again. Desperate to discredit Linda Tripp, President Clinton's > most damning accuser, the president's men are most likely the ones who > delved into confidential Pentagon files to dig up and dish out dirt on > Tripp. > > It was probably White House secret police operatives who visited > courthouses to unearth records of Tripp's arrest (later expunged) on > burglary charges when she was 19 and then ransacked Pentagon personnel > files to show that Tripp had denied ever having been arrested. > > Just because Tripp is everyone's worst nightmare, she is not and should > not be exempt from the Privacy Act and the protections given to all > other federal employees. She should not have to read her confidential > personnel file in the newspapers. > > Who but the White House could have done it? Round up the usual suspects. > Kenneth Starr? Why discredit his own witness? Monica Lewinsky? How could > her legal team get access to secret files? Some reporter? None could get > those files unless someone obligingly unlocked the door. > > That leaves the White House. > > But no journalist questioned how Tripp's confidential file ended up in > The New Yorker. Instead, all the papers dutifully reported on her arrest > and her lack of candor in disclosing it. But let's put the sins in > comparative perspective. What is more reprehensible, more dangerous to > our liberties? A junior Pentagon employee who omits mention of an arrest > decades ago which resulted in no conviction and which was expunged, or > the release of secret Pentagon files by unnamed operatives in an effort > to discredit one of the president's adversaries? > > Defense Secretary William Cohen was not alarmed at the leak of his > secret files, but sanctimoniously denounced the "seriousness" of Tripp's > omission on her job-application form. > > Today's Linda Tripp was yesterday's Daniel Ellsberg and could be > tomorrow's you and me. Constitutional and statutory protections of > privacy are for all of us. If we define freedom of speech as freedom to > say things we hate the most, then privacy protections should shelter the > people we dislike the most. Linda Tripp qualifies admirably. > > The release of the Tripp file lends a new credibility to the Republican > allegations that the White House's possession of confidential FBI files > on GOP leaders and potential adversaries was no "mistake," as the > president's men piously claimed. Is Linda Tripp the latest victim of a > file dump? > > The fire sale on confidential Pentagon records continued with > yesterday's story in Newsweek that Lewinsky attorney William Ginsburg > lied when he said he had been a captain in the Army (he had only been a > lieutenant). Could the White House have leaked this file too? Who has an > interest in intimidating Ginsburg to control Lewinsky's testimony? > > This mounting evidence of a secret police at the White House's beck and > call, with access to secret government files, must be disturbing to > friends and foes of the president. The Clinton operation's use of > private investigators began in 1992 when over $100,000 of federally > subsidized campaign funds wore used to pay sleuth Jack Palladino to > investigate women rumored to have had affairs with Clinton. His mission? > To intimidate them into silence. > > Was Palladino the one who visited the courthouses to discredit Tripp? He > refused to either confirm or deny to The Washington Post whether he is > still digging up dirt for Clinton's operatives. Was it Sydney Blumenthal > who gave the Tripp files to The New Yorker? Blumenthal worked for that > magazine before he joined the White House staff last year. > > Terry Lenzner, another Clinton detective, was reportedly hired in 1992 > to spy on former Gov. Mario Cuomo. The campaign or the party also hired > Lenzner in 1996 for as yet unrevealed investigative work. He now serves > the needs of the Clinton legal defense team. In between, Lenzner won a > no-bid contract, worth several hundred thousand dollars, to train police > in Haiti. > > The White House secret police also tried to intimidate Dolly Kyle > Browning, whose relationship with Clinton started in their teen-age > years. According to her affidavit. Clinton confidante Bruce Lindsay sent > Browning a message to warn her about her deposition. Browning describes > how Lindsay offered her a "deal" where he would not release damaging > information about her if she obliged by remaining silent about her > relationship with the president. Browning says she also received a > motion to quash the Jones subpoena and an affidavit denying any sexual > relationship with Clinton, both awaiting only her signature, helpfully > prepared by Clinton's attorneys. Sound familiar? > > The Clinton Legal Aid Society also provided Monica Lewinsky with a > motion to quash and an affidavit denying sex. Linda Tripp got talking > points, through Monica Lewinsky, on how to prepare an affidavit to call > Kathleen Willey a liar. > > The bad cops intimidate witnesses and Vernon Jordan, the good cop, finds > them jobs. The most recent beneficiary of the Jordan Job Corps may have > been David Watkins, former director of administration for the White > House. Watkins, whose memorandum on the Travel Office firings > embarrassed the White House and suggested extensive involvement by the > First Lady, got a job with the Callaway Golf Co., where Vernon Jordan > serves on the board. The Jordan Job Corps has now found employment for > Monica Lewinsky, Webb Hubbell, and possibly, Watkins. The job corps is a > new addition to the White House employee retirement plan. > > These seedy, seamy tactics turn one's stomach. They are not Bill > Clinton's style and remind one of Nixon at his worst. The president > needs to call off his dogs and stop the release of confidential security > information to intimidate witnesses. > > ========================================================================== > 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 - -- howardb3@ix.netcom.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: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 13:18:01 -0700 Neil, and Skip, [...] For what it's worth, you're absolutely correct about Charleton Heston. You're right about Mr. Knox as well. What possible good purpose could be served by dredging up that 30-year-old bit of "news?" None whatever. The purists will be the death of us. [...] <><><>Rhetorical Reply mode on <><><> Well, now I just want to say that before you two go any further, you aught consider that the 'Heston side of things' brought this whole sheebang down on themselves. Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" card to get his butt elected. All's fair in love and war? Perhaps. Okay, so what he did thirty some odd years ago ain't important to you now. Pardon me for saying it, but I find that position just a wee bit hypocritical, when neither of you two would so much as trust a former communist at the nuclear push bottons of America. What's next? Jane Fonda on the NRA board also? How about her ex Mr Hayden? Okay, I'm pushing the envelope. Those last two won't consider the job. Don't like my analog? What's the darned diff between a nuke war and the loss of our Right? As far as I'm concerned, if what you did thirty years ago won't fly in a government position in the U.S. of A, what the hey is the difference at the NRA??? Did we all of a sudden get a liberal line on things here? However, and as much as I respect the current office holders, the resort to calling the rest of us a bunch of extremists is unacceptable. I respect Neal Knox, and I do believe that his worth to the NRA as the 'bad cop' player has won us some places where we wouldn't have gotten otherwise. This whole bit of infighting is going to stink for a long time. And, yes, AND I've said it before, the only way Mr. H is going to impress the the living day lights out of me, is to shoulder an AK-47 or other 'heinous' and 'evil looking gun' and proclaim loud and long that the Right to keep and bear arms is all inclusive of those nasty FULL AUTO rock'n rollers. Anything short of that, and you can count on my continuous howl from now and untill he departs, either the NRA or this world. I want to see the veins stickout in your foreheads when he testifies before a Senate, and then House committe that anything more than a shotgun or BP arm aught to be outlawed. You guys are remind me of a pack of liberal woman, all you do is swoon over a handsome face and cum in your jeans. That Billy Clinton should be jealous. <><><> Rhetorical Reply mode off<><><> ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 16:40:41 -0500 (EST) O.K., I can't resist throwing in my two cents. My discontent with the NRA is cumulative. First an unending stream of letters begging for $25. Then a somewhat sporadic flow of information on pending legislation, most of which I'd already heard about. Then Mr. Heston's "extremist" remarks. Then the bruhaha about elections and possibly violating a court order in the AR advertisement. The overall impression is that the NRA is like any large organization with a diffuse membership and a lot of money and a lot of hangers-on. They are no different than the GOP in terms of mailings and overall measure of silliness. My bottom line: The NRA is big and slow and somewhat self-serving. Mr. Knox doesn't appear to be the cure. GOA *seems* to be a lot leaner and somewhat meaner, which suits me fine. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 16:45:37 -0600 "E.J. Totty" wrote: I wrote: > [...] > For what it's worth, you're absolutely >correct about Charleton Heston. You're right about >Mr. Knox as well. What possible good purpose could >be served by dredging up that 30-year-old bit of >"news?" > None whatever. > The purists will be the death of us. > [...] E.J. wrote: > <><><>Rhetorical Reply mode on <><><> > > Well, now I just want to say that before >you two go any further, you aught consider that the >'Heston side of things' brought this whole sheebang >down on themselves. We're all our own worst enemies. > Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" >card to get his butt elected. As is Mr. Knox, but I digress. > All's fair in love and war? Perhaps. > Okay, so what he did thirty some odd years >ago ain't important to you now. Pardon me for saying it, >but I find that position just a wee bit hypocritical, when >neither of you two would so much as trust a former >communist at the nuclear push bottons of America. I don't much care what Clinton did 30 years ago either. I care about what he is and wants to do *now*. Those are both sufficiently execrable that I opposed him absolutely before he was elected, oppose him absolutely now, and will do so for the forseeable future. It isn't necessary for me to examine his past, or crawl up his backside with tweezers, to discover that I don't care for his politics or find him to be a lying, amoral, wretch. The rest is all icing, if that's quite the word, on the cake. There's no hypocrisy there at all, and no justification for raising the issue. > What's next? Jane Fonda on the NRA board >also? How about her ex Mr Hayden? > Okay, I'm pushing the envelope. Those last >two won't consider the job. You're right, that's pushing the envelope. It's also a non sequitur. > Don't like my analog? It isn't appropriate, as I have shown. > What's the darned diff between a nuke war >and the loss of our Right? Again, a non sequitur. The fact that I'm willing to allow Mr. Heston a youthful indescretion, politically speaking, does not for an instant indicate that I advocate the abandonment of the Second Amendment -- not for a moment -- or that he does. I never have abandoned it, myself, though I admit to having been a good deal more liberal in my opinions on other subjects formerly than now. That doesn't mean that Mr. Heston takes his positions *now* with any less sincerity than I do. Insofar as Mr. Clinton may be as I have described, I point out that among all the accusations levelled at him *no-one* has ever suggested that he would start a nuclear war for trivial reasons. He wanted to bomb Iraq, true enough, but with conventional weapons, you recall. > As far as I'm concerned, if what you did thirty >years ago won't fly in a government position in the >U.S. of A, what the hey is the difference at the NRA??? > Did we all of a sudden get a liberal line on >things here? I don't understand your meaning in these two sentences. What Clinton did 30 years ago in Moscow obviously didn't keep him out of a government job, whatever one thinks of that. Just as obviously, what *I* think of that isn't particularly relevant. The fact is: There he is. Some of my acquaintences think I'm politically just to the right of Attila The Hun. The use of reason does not equate to liberalism, quite the contrary. > However, and as much as I respect the >current office holders, the resort to calling the rest >of us a bunch of extremists is unacceptable. Over on NOBAN some of the responses I got gloried in that modifier, and their authors eagerly applied it to themselves. I didn't use the word "extremist," by the way, it was "purist." I still think that applies. Further, I didn't apply the adjective specifically to you; you seem to have applied it to yourself. > I respect Neal Knox, and I do believe that >his worth to the NRA as the 'bad cop' player has won >us some places where we wouldn't have gotten otherwise. I'm not convinced of it, but you're welcome to your opinion of Mr. Knox. > This whole bit of infighting is going to stink >for a long time. On this we agree. > And, yes, AND I've said it before, the only >way Mr. H is going to impress the the living day lights >out of me, is to shoulder an AK-47 or other 'heinous' >and 'evil looking gun' and proclaim loud and long that >the Right to keep and bear arms is all inclusive of >those nasty FULL AUTO rock'n rollers. > Anything short of that, and you can count >on my continuous howl from now and untill he departs, >either the NRA or this world. Again, you're welcome to your opinion, but advocating unregulated private ownership of machineguns is probably one of the quickest routes to political oblivion that I can think of offhand. It's right next to repealing the vote for women, but I'm not sure whether it's the near or the far side. > I want to see the veins stickout in your >foreheads when he testifies before a Senate, and then >House committe that anything more than a shotgun or BP >arm aught to be outlawed. I don't anticipate anything like that happening, though if it does I have sufficient flexibility to change my mind. The NRA, according to its own publications, is working, or was working, to get Lungren's SKS-confiscation scheme derailed. If they have stopped, it's because the courts have struck down Roberti-Roos and removed the problem. It doesn't sound to me like they have adopted quite the position you suggest, and it therefore follows that I don't expect Mr. Heston to read the script you wrote for him. > You guys are remind me of a pack of liberal >woman, all you do is swoon over a handsome face and cum >in your jeans. > That Billy Clinton should be jealous. This is patently repulsive, even as a rhetorical response, and not worth further comment. > <><><> Rhetorical Reply mode off<><><> 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: SLAPP (fwd) Date: 17 Mar 1998 14:29:24 PST On 17 Mar, 1998, Tim Kuehn wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I got this from another mailing list and thought it would be of interest here. Tim Kuehn Status: OR GETTING SUED FOR EXERCISING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS: SLAPPs 1998 by Morse Mehrban, J. D. Upon attending the latest board meeting of the National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc., I was struck by two things: the selflessness of those who have dedicated their lives to something bigger than themselves, and the pervading fear among even the most dedicated activists of getting sued by those whom they criticize as part of their consumer advocacy activities. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. SLAPPs exemplify the dark side of consumer advocacy and public interest work. Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined. (Gordon v. Marrone (1992) 155 Misc. 2d 726, 736, 590 N.Y.S. 2d 649, 656). SLAPPs are designed to accomplish one or more of the following business interests: retaliation, silencing a vocal opponent, inflicting financial loss, detracting attention from the issues, warning others to keep quiet, or diverting resources away from a pending litigation. I hope this paper will fortify consumer advocates in the National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. by showing them that these suits are nothing of which they should be afraid. In fact, if the SLAPP victim plays his cards right, such a suit can serve as a vehicle for vindicating the social causes he was advocating in the first place. Hereinafter, I will be discussing the United States Constitution primarily. However, as the author practices law in California and the California legislature and the courts are old hands at SLAPPs, I will be making reference to cases and code sections in California. The U. S. Constitution is superior to and takes precedence over all other laws. Therefore, where there is a conflict as to local laws and the Constitution, the latter must prevail. The United States of America was founded upon several fundamental principles. Probably the most fundamental of those principles was and is freedom of speech. This is nothing new to the reader, but most of you will be surprised to hear how far the right of free speech extends to shield you and your activities. Free speech conjures thoughts of authorship, public speaking, criticizing, vocalizing objections, and other acts of oratory. These are all at the heart of the First Amendment, but the Constitution also protects what is called petitioning activities. These petitioning activities can give rise to SLAPPs, especially if the SLAPP plaintiff gets hold of an unethical attorney or an incompetent attorney not up on Constitutional law. The right of the people . . . to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is within the First Amendment s protection. The phrase you just read has been the subject of much litigation and dispute throughout the century. Its meaning is not crystal clear, but some things are now beyond dispute. 1. Right. The right to petition is a fundamental right of Constitutional magnitude. This means that all other rules, laws and procedures must give way to this right. No one can take this right away without violating the United States Constitution. 2. People. This word refers to each and every one of us, regardless of creed, color, race, sex, alienage, and citizenship. If we reside in the United States legally, we are protected. 3. Petition. What does petition mean? The dictionary meaning will not suffice here. It has been defined to include complaining to and filing complaints with officials (e.g., filing a complaint against a white collar criminal with the Attorney General s office), speaking out at public meetings (e.g., town meetings), filing public interest lawsuits (e.g., suing as a private attorney general to enjoin false advertising), testifying before government bodies, lobbying the legislature, speaking before administrative bodies, and circulating petitions. 4. Government. The right to petition extends to all branches (judicial, executive, and legislative) and levels (local, state, and federal) of government. 5. Redress of grievances. The petitioning party may seek any type of relief or remedy available under the law, including declaratory relief, injunctive relief, financial compensation, and restitution. The magnitude of the relief sought may be personal or social. You generally cannot be held legally liable for exercising your right of petition, regardless of the damages it may inflict upon a person or entity. The only exception is when (1) you had no probable cause for the petitioning, and (2) you petitioned with actual malice. This exception is almost never applicable to a public interest or consumer advocate. Here is what California s anti-SLAPP law says on the issue: The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly. A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 425.16). You are probably thinking to yourself, Fine and dandy, but I live in the real world. There are no guardians at the court gates preventing those whom I criticize from filing a SLAPP against me. Anyone with a couple of hundred dollars can file a lawsuit against me and that would mean I have to hire a lawyer and pay him lots of money to get the suit dismissed. I, too, live in the real world and have been SLAPPed myself. I do know the practical problems of invoking the Constitution in the trial courts where judges are more used to deciding auto accident cases. What do you do in practical terms when you get SLAPPed? First and foremost, relax. The Constitution is behind you and the odds are greatly in your favor. Second, immediately find yourself an attorney specializing in public interest law in your state. It would be preferable if the attorney also specializes in First Amendment law, but that is a tall order in the real world. Nevertheless, any competent public interest lawyer should grasp the serious Constitutional nature of the suit filed against you, and he can research the First Amendment issues. What if I can t afford a lawyer? No problem. Public interest attorneys know that most consumer advocates are not rich. So does the law. That is why these attorneys will often represent you on a contingency (percentage of recovery) basis. Wait a second. I m not suing anyone; I m the one being sued. How can a lawyer get a cut out of defending me? Good question. This is actually a question that the lawyer might pose to you, so here is what you tell him. There are various ways in which a SLAPP suit can become a money-making proposition for a defendant s attorney, and even for the defendant himself. The following is highly dependant on you state s laws, but the general principles should be applicable to most state laws. Some states have anti-SLAPP legislation allowing one who is sued for petitioning or free speech activity to recover attorney fees from the plaintiff upon the successful defense of the case. For instance, California s anti-SLAPP statute cited above provides that the court must award attorney fees to the successful defendant invoking it. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 425.16(c)). Some states have laws that allow an attorney advocating or defending rights of a Constitutional magnitude to recover attorney fees from the losing party. For instance, in California, the law states that attorney s fees are awarded to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if (a) a significant benefit, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 1021.5). All states allow a successful defendant to sue a losing plaintiff under a theory of malicious prosecution or abuse of process if certain elements can be shown, such as malice, lack of probable cause, and/or ulterior motive (such suits have been affectionately named SLAPP-backs). In such suits, substantial punitive (punishment) damages may be recoverable. For instance, one California SLAPP defendant successfully sued Shell Oil Company for malicious prosecution. The total verdict was over $5 million. (Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 547). What about all the stress I will have to go through? Wouldn t it be easier just to settle out with the plaintiff? Whatever you do, do not, under any circumstances, even consider settling with a SLAPP plaintiff, unless you get something for having been sued. Remember, as a SLAPP defendant, you are not merely defending yourself, but the United States Constitution. This is a privilege not often conferred on the ordinary citizen and you should savor it. You will gain an insight into the workings of our government as never before. Getting SLAPPed can be a semi-religious experience where you become the advocate for those hallowed principles that are the pillars of our great democracy. Finally, call me personally if you need to speak to me about a threatened or actual SLAPP against you. Even if you just need a shoulder to cry on, call me and tell me your story. The most important aspect of public interest activity is having others who believe in you as much as you believe in your cause. -- Law Offices of Morse Mehrban 3700 Wilshire Blvd Ste 480 Los Angeles CA 90010 213-382-3183 Fax: 213-382-3430 mehrban@earthlink.net home.earthlink.net/~mehrban [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 16:18:43 -0800 (PST) There is no "cure" for large organizations (other then working in them yourself for positive change). They are a unique type of tool. You wouldn't use a grinder to machine a valve stem, nor would you use a CNC machine to sharpen your pocket knife. You wouldn't use Solaris to play solitaire (well, ok not exclusively) nor would you use Win3.1 to control the high pressure flood valves on a regional nuclear plant. Boyd "the right tool for the right job" Kneeland > O.K., I can't resist throwing in my two cents. > > My discontent with the NRA is cumulative. First snip > The overall impression is that the NRA is like any large > organization with a diffuse membership and a lot of > money and a lot of hangers-on. They are no different > than the GOP in terms of mailings and overall measure of > silliness. > > My bottom line: The NRA is big and slow and somewhat self-serving. > Mr. Knox doesn't appear to be the cure. GOA *seems* to be > a lot leaner and somewhat meaner, which suits me fine. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 16:19:06 -0800 (PST) EJ; sit down, those of you with heart meds pop 'em if ya got 'em. I agree with EJ. When I first saw this my reaction was -exactly- what Neil said (except for the purists part -: ) As a newly (92) reformed Liberal myself I wondered why bring it up now, what does such an ancient thing matter anyway? But, just like with Liberalism I was wrong. And the key difference here is that I -admit- that right up front. Anyone who's been on roc (or before that noban) for any time has read detailed descriptions of my "see the light" experience, not because I'm comfortable with my mistakes (though frankly, being uncomfortable with making mistakes is a mighty serious impediment to learning) but because it was a seminal moment in my life. Where was Chucks? That's the big deal here, and that's what Knox is asking. If Charles Heston has had the fantastic turnaround on RKBA that it -appears- he has had, why haven't we heard about the turnaround part? As an active NRA volunteer, donater, and trainer wannabe I have a right, no an responsibility to ask that sort of question of the organizations that claim to speak for me. I can believe Mr. Heston has changed, I want to believe Mr. Heston has changed but why hasn't someone pointed it out before now? As it is the whole thing smells like something trying to crawl out from under the rug. It's best not to sweep things under there, but if it happens (and it does, lets be reasonable) it's better to air it out smartly rather then have some visitor point out the odiforous lump. Boyd Kneeland At 1:18 PM -0700 3/17/98, E.J. Totty wrote: > Neil, and Skip, > > [...] > For what it's worth, you're absolutely >correct about Charleton Heston. You're right about >Mr. Knox as well. What possible good purpose could >be served by dredging up that 30-year-old bit of >"news?" > None whatever. > The purists will be the death of us. > [...] > > <><><>Rhetorical Reply mode on <><><> > > Well, now I just want to say that before >you two go any further, you aught consider that the >'Heston side of things' brought this whole sheebang >down on themselves. > Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" >card to get his butt elected. > All's fair in love and war? Perhaps. > Okay, so what he did thirty some odd years >ago ain't important to you now. Pardon me for saying it, >but I find that position just a wee bit hypocritical, when >neither of you two would so much as trust a former >communist at the nuclear push bottons of America. > What's next? Jane Fonda on the NRA board >also? How about her ex Mr Hayden? > Okay, I'm pushing the envelope. Those last >two won't consider the job. > Don't like my analog? > What's the darned diff between a nuke war >and the loss of our Right? > As far as I'm concerned, if what you did thirty >years ago won't fly in a government position in the >U.S. of A, what the hey is the difference at the NRA??? > Did we all of a sudden get a liberal line on >things here? > > However, and as much as I respect the >current office holders, the resort to calling the rest >of us a bunch of extremists is unacceptable. > I respect Neal Knox, and I do believe that >his worth to the NRA as the 'bad cop' player has won >us some places where we wouldn't have gotten otherwise. > This whole bit of infighting is going to stink >for a long time. > > And, yes, AND I've said it before, the only >way Mr. H is going to impress the the living day lights >out of me, is to shoulder an AK-47 or other 'heinous' >and 'evil looking gun' and proclaim loud and long that >the Right to keep and bear arms is all inclusive of >those nasty FULL AUTO rock'n rollers. > Anything short of that, and you can count >on my continuous howl from now and untill he departs, >either the NRA or this world. > > I want to see the veins stickout in your >foreheads when he testifies before a Senate, and then >House committe that anything more than a shotgun or BP >arm aught to be outlawed. > > You guys are remind me of a pack of liberal >woman, all you do is swoon over a handsome face and cum >in your jeans. > That Billy Clinton should be jealous. > > <><><> Rhetorical Reply mode off<><><> > >ET > > > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 16:35:11 -0800 (PST) At 4:45 PM -0600 3/17/98, Neil Dickey wrote: >"E.J. Totty" wrote: > >I wrote: > >> [...] >> For what it's worth, you're absolutely >>correct about Charleton Heston. You're right about >>Mr. Knox as well. What possible good purpose could >>be served by dredging up that 30-year-old bit of >>"news?" >> None whatever. >> The purists will be the death of us. >> [...] > >E.J. wrote: > >> <><><>Rhetorical Reply mode on <><><> >> >> Well, now I just want to say that before >>you two go any further, you aught consider that the >>'Heston side of things' brought this whole sheebang >>down on themselves. > >We're all our own worst enemies. > >> Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" >>card to get his butt elected. > >As is Mr. Knox, but I digress. snip Where'd ya get that? Certainly it's a claim being made. But speaking as someone who's walked, talked and bought a diet coke for Mr. Knox (and Ms. Metaksa, and Mr. Heston, though I don't know that I got him a diet coke) I gotta tell you it's the most laughable part of this thing. Neil Knox is an "extremist" like I'm a 200lb Leprechaun. Hasn't happened, isn't happening and I'd wager won't ever happen. He is a kindly (I'd say "older" but I'm 36 still and I dont want to get all you list subscribers all in a tizzy ; ) gentleman who wears a tan sportcoat and likes to talk about his kids (all my age). The "E" word was getting used against all of us (any NRA/GOA/rkba activist) until this internal bickering broke out. Now we're using it on ourselves? Rediculous! If you're going to shoot at your own foot you owe it to yourself, and everyone around you, to at the very -least- hit the target. Tell me the head of Militia of Montana is an "extremist". Tell me the head of the KKK is an "extremist". Tell me Lenin was an "extremist", I'll quietly listen. But calling Mr. Knox that? I'm Laughing Out Loud. Boyd Kneeland, NRA. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Alpert <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: View from NRA Director Clark Date: 17 Mar 1998 18:39:29 CST * * Please read, circulate, disseminate widely * * The Future of NRA Weldon H. Clark Jr. NRA Director Like you, the members of the Second Amendment Action Committee care for, and worry about, the future of NRA. If we are to preserve our gun rights, and restore the rights that have been lost, only NRA can do it. If we are to expand the shooting sports, with more shooting and collecting activities and more places to shoot and hunt, only NRA can do it. That's the reason why we and countless other NRA members spend their time, money and energy working to improve NRA. What the present leaders of NRA have forgotten is that NRA is a member organization, one that should reflect the wishes of members like you, not the Washington, D.C. political establishment. They have forgotten that NRA is a service organization, not a fund-raising organization. They have forgotten that NRA is a shooting organization but also a rights organization; if we are to continue to have the right to own guns and use them, we MUST be involved in politics, or we'll have nothing to shoot. In 1968, when the Gun Control Act was passed, NRA did not have a single lobbyist, and no lobbying effort worthy of the name. Undergunned and underfinanced, NRA was overwhelmed by the all-out efforts of the press and the HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY -- including the present First Vice President, Mr. Charlton Heston (as documented in the Wisdom from Neal post). Heston is a wonderful spokesman for the Second Amendment when he's speaking from a script, but when he's speaking on his own it is often clear that his view of the Second Amendment does not square with that of most NRA members -- as when he said the private possession of AK-47's is "inappropriate." (ABC affiliate radio KGO on May 6, 1997) Heston and Wayne LaPierre have said they want to take NRA into the "mainstream." Liberty cannot be defended from the middle of the road. Instead of debating ideas and methods, the present leadership focuses its efforts on personal attacks upon those who question their stewardship of NRA and the Second Amendment. Look at their advertisements. Before their ads last year, had you ever been told to "Vote Against" a group of candidates? Do you like it? Fourteen incumbent Directors who have questions or constructively criticized the present leadership were not renominated by the Nominating Committee. Free debate and honest disagreements are not tolerated by the present leadership. Despite a Federal judge's written ruling, in FITZGERALD v. NRA, that officers may not use "corporate instrumentalities such as the American Rifleman to perpetuate themselves in office," the ballot issue of the NRA magazines was loaded with photos and articles designed to do just that. The direct cost to NRA members was at least $200,000 -- to be propagandized with their own money. When ten petition nominees realized management intended to publish the Nominating Committee Report next to the ballot, after being notified that it was a clear violation of Bylaws Article VIII, Sec. 3(e), they sued to prevent it. New York Supreme Court Justice Shainswit prohibited publication; NRA management appealed and lost. In retaliation, management published the names of those who asked the court to assure a fair election -- unfairly blackballing them. When Justice Shainswit saw that report, she said, on March 5, "I find that statement bordering very closely on contempt" of court adding "I think your organization is out of control." That is precisely the problem. NRA management has refused to be guided by the Board on legislative policy and on financial policy. Millions of dollars have been spent without written contracts, and without following the Board-established policy of requiring volunteer officers' approval on contracts over $100,000. Further, some NRA Directors are receiving significant unreported financial benefits -- including President Marion Hammer, whose Unified Sportsmen of Florida salary is paid from an NRA-ILA grant of over $120,000 per year (ten times as much as the next-largest on-going grant to a state group). Over 1,500 members petitioned a Bylaw amendment, which is on the ballot in the March issue, requiring full disclosure of NRA financial benefits to officers and directors. The paid staff's response has been to jump into the political fight, actively and openly campaigning against reform-minded directors. It is outrageous that paid staff would try to select who their bosses will be, but that is what is happening (and which the member-proposed bylaw would prohibit -- which is why NRA management calls it "Censorship"). It hasn't been easy telling you these things about the state of affairs in an organization that we both love, and which is critical to the preservation of our rights. I hope this will give you a better understanding of what is happening in NRA, and hope that you will vote for the reform slate of candidates. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen Michael J. Beko James A. Church William Dominguez Howard J. Fezell Daniel B. Fiora Arnold J. Gaunt Fred Griisser Wesley H. Grogan Jr. David M. Gross John Guest Fred Gustafson Don L. Henry William B. Hunt Phillip B. Journey Michael S. Kindberg Jeff Knox John C. Krull Robley T. Moore Larry R. Rankin Albert C. Ross Frank H. Sawberger Thomas L. Seefeldt Kim Stolfer John H. Trentes Glen I. Voorhees Jr. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the internet, b) to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) distribute this letter and list at gun shows, gun stores, and shooting ranges. Ask all NRA members you know to VOTE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES. Visit our web sites: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains Heston interview) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 21:54:24 -0600 Boyd wrote in part: >When I first saw this my reaction was -exactly- what Neil said (except for >the purists part -: ) As a newly (92) reformed Liberal myself I wondered >why bring it up now, what does such an ancient thing matter anyway? But, >just like with Liberalism I was wrong. And the key difference here is that >I -admit- that right up front. Anyone who's been on roc (or before that >noban) for any time has read detailed descriptions of my "see the light" >experience, not because I'm comfortable with my mistakes (though frankly, >being uncomfortable with making mistakes is a mighty serious impediment to >learning) but because it was a seminal moment in my life. >Where was Chucks? [ ... Snip ... ] The fact that you had something like a religious experience that changed your outlook doesn't mean that other people have to undergo the same process in order to have their new positions taken seriously. In my own case, abandonment of many liberal opinions occurred gradually, with experience. There was no sudden conversion. If that means to you that I can't seriously have changed my mind, then we'll just have to disagree. 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: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 17 Mar 1998 22:04:13 -0600 Boyd wrote: [ ... ] >>> Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" >>>card to get his butt elected. >> >>As is Mr. Knox, but I digress. >snip >Where'd ya get that? From the newsletter he publishes on the internet. >Certainly it's a claim being made. But speaking as >someone who's walked, talked and bought a diet coke for Mr. Knox (and Ms. >Metaksa, and Mr. Heston, though I don't know that I got him a diet coke) I >gotta tell you it's the most laughable part of this thing. I met him once too, years ago, in a meeting of a shooting club I belonged to then. I was not impressed with the way he conducted himself. He was definitely part of the problem and not part of the solution. >Neil Knox is an "extremist" like I'm a 200lb Leprechaun. Hasn't happened, >isn't happening and I'd wager won't ever happen. He is a kindly (I'd say >"older" but I'm 36 still and I dont want to get all you list subscribers >all in a tizzy ; ) gentleman who wears a tan sportcoat and likes to talk >about his kids (all my age). You have your impression, I have mine. For what it's worth, I have seen pictures of tyrants in tan sport coats cavorting with kids. Images nowadays are very carefully crafted. >The "E" word was getting used against all of us (any NRA/GOA/rkba activist) >until this internal bickering broke out. Now we're using it on ourselves? >Rediculous! If you're going to shoot at your own foot you owe it to >yourself, and everyone around you, to at the very -least- hit the target. >Tell me the head of Militia of Montana is an "extremist". Tell me the head >of the KKK is an "extremist". Tell me Lenin was an "extremist", I'll >quietly listen. But calling Mr. Knox that? I'm Laughing Out Loud. If you find it amusing, that's fine, but I hit the target I was aiming at. 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: Joe Sylvester Subject: National Guard To Fight Terrorists???? Date: 18 Mar 1998 00:17:55 -0600 Quoted under fair use. >National Guard To Fight Terrorists >By SUSANNE M. SCHAFER AP Military Writer >WASHINGTON (AP) -- The National Guard will play a role in helping local >authorities respond to potential terrorist attacks from chemical, >biological or even nuclear weapons, Defense Secretary William Cohen said >today. >The Guard will establish 10 units, each composed of 22 full-time members. >Cohen has asked Congress for $49.2 million in next year's budget to pay for >them. $49.2 Million /220 ~ $223,636 per unit member. >``These teams will arrive quickly, assess the scene and help ensure these >affected areas get the federal assistance'' they need, Cohen said in a >speech at the National Press Club. This is a role for the State Militia? Being a conduit for federal assitance. If they are going to use full time folks anyway, why not use regular military, or non military federal civilians with the necessary training? >A Pentagon statement said the units will help in ``providing early >assessment, initial detection, and technical advice to local commanders >during an incident involving weapons of mass destruction.'' > >The new units will be given additional training and equipment, and National >Guard and reserve forces could be deployed to handle reconnaissance and >decontamination. A new office will oversee coordination of the units with >existing ones. > >Barred by federal law from acting in a police capacity, the military units >will play a support role, the Pentagon said. Local authorities will retain >their jurisdiction and the Federal Emergency Management Agency will remain >the lead federal agency in handling disasters. This is of course not true. The regular military cannot be used as police. The National Guard can be. That's why they are called for riot duty after all. >The Pentagon did not say where the units would be based. Then their is the problem of 10 units and 50 states. Sure states can share undercooperative agreements, but isn't that something the states should be leading on, rather than being dictated to about? >Cohen also noted that the Pentagon has been involved in a program to help >train nearly 4,000 men and women in cities around the country who would >assist local authorities. Anybody have any more information on this "program"? >AP-NY-03-17-98 1946EST The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 05:55:41 -0500 (EST) While we're sharing our conversion experiences, I'd like to weigh in as someone who used to have knee-jerk conservative opinions when younger but who is drifting in the dreaded llllllllLiberal direction with age. There's a joke that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged and a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. I think there's a fair amount of truth to the joke. Certainly my opinions began shifting when the local "get tough on crime" policies resulted in a group of uniformed thugs breaking into my dad's apartment by mistake and beating him up when he objected. I kept a tenuous grip on my conservative leanings through the '94 elections, hoping that "conservatives" had some interest in limiting and controlling the powers of government to abuse its citizens. However, the conservatives have only expanded those powers. Digital wiretap bill, "Antiterrorism" bill, Habeas Corpus "reform," "Assault Weapon ban," ID-required-to-fly law, deadbeat-dad-database reporting requirements, big-brother-medical-databases, etc. As you all know. The main mainstream opposition to *most* of the above (certainly not the AW ban) has come from llllllLiberal organizations like the ACLU. So my support has been shifting in those directions. And I can't tell you how much it makes my flesh crawl every time I get an NRA "CrimeStrike" mailing full of hype for the latest plan to increase the powers of prosecutors or to decrease the rights of persons accused of crimes. Which is one of the reasons why I plan to vote against the current board majority. Another reason, as I've mentioned, is that conservative Oliver North is part of that board majority. I've never quite been able to understand why the conservative "get-tough-on-crime" policy didn't apply to North and his illegal arms-for-hostages/drug-money-for-Contra activities. Brad On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Neil Dickey wrote: > Boyd wrote in part: > > >When I first saw this my reaction was -exactly- what Neil said (except for > >the purists part -: ) As a newly (92) reformed Liberal ... > > [ ... Snip ... ] > > The fact that you had something like a religious experience that changed > your outlook doesn't mean that other people have to undergo the same > process in order to have their new positions taken seriously. In my own > case, abandonment of many liberal opinions occurred gradually, with > experience. There was no sudden conversion. If that means to you that > I can't seriously have changed my mind, then we'll just have to disagree. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Slick: YEAR 3, No. 6 (fwd) Date: 18 Mar 1998 07:36:36 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: Slick-L@Citadel.Net From the Desk of Rich Martin P O Box 123706 817 246-7544 Fort Worth, TX 76121 RichSlick@aol.com "We know what a person thinks not when he tells us what he thinks, but by his actions." Isaac Bashevis Singer __________________________________________________ Happy Spring, 1998 The prez sez he's bewitched, betwixt and bewildered by Mrs. Kathleen Willey accusation, and you know what, for the first time, I believe him. He hasn't got a clue where a woman like her is coming from. The govt puts together stats showing that 2/3 of all women are harrassed in the workplace and they conclude, women are too weak to stand up for their govt granted rights in fedl court. From their myopic point- of-view (they're from the govt and they're here to help us) they can't fathom why anyone woman wouldn't welcome their intervention. Hey, dummy, women are the fairer sex, not the weaker sex. Most women are quite capable of defending themselves from the sexual predators in the work place. They don't need the govt to help them; and they don't trust the govt to defend them. Often they don't even tell their husbands until much later, when it is too late to go postal. (I speak from experience.) If she felt Willey was "sexually assaulted" (Pat Ireland's words), why would she still write letters of praise to the prez and ask to work in his campaign? Could it be that she doesn't feel "assaulted". She encountered a baffoon unable to distinguish between sex and love. She didn't feel threatened. And besides, didn't someone make her debts "go away"? And when she was called into court and was asked about her experience, she answered reluctantly, but without perjurying herself. Bill clinton finds this beyond belief. As intelligent as he is, he can't process this. He's bewitched, betwixt and bewildered. How Slick is Slick? Last Sat the prez demanded that Congress pass his "emergency" spending bills "right now!", with no further natl discussion. His idea of an "emergency" includes money to settle the U.S. debt with the United Nations! HIDDEN TAX The IRS assessed tax payers $18 billion in 1996, proving the old adage, there is more than one way to skin a tax payer. But while congress feigns dismay over the size of these penalties, another one is about to take effect. On July 1 the IRS will start assessing a 10% penalty on employers who pay payroll taxes using IRS form 8106 thru their banks, rather than transmit them electronically. MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX If there's one thing that proves that the new majority in Congress doesn't value the role played by the traditional family any more than the old Dem majority did, it's the fact that despite a lot of lip service, the Marriage Penalty Tax is alive and well. Get out your 1040, and I'll show you how it works. Look at pg 2, line 35 (line 19 on 1040A) Standard deduction. A single person gets to deduct $4,150 and a married couple gets $6,900; so when two people marry, instead of getting $8,300 ($4,150 ea), they now get $6,900 combined. If they file separately, they get to deduct $3,450 instead of the $4,150 had they decided to live in sin. A single person making $20,000 pays $1,976,plus $3,060 on FICA/MediCare taxes. (Yes, I know half of that is called the employers coontribution.) A couple living in sin who each earn pay $20,000 each pay $1,976, or $3,952. But if they decide to marry, their tax goes up to $4,166. Not only do they penalize married couples, the reverse is true if they divorce. If they divorce the tax code rewards them by reducing their tax back down to $1,976. They financially punish people who marry, and reward people for getting a divorce! The tax code is riddled with such penalties against married people, including the new IRA laws passed in the last term. Instead of coming to an end, as Newt and Co promised, they have passed more anti-family legislation. MEDIA According to a CNN/USA Today poll, more people believe Kathleen Willey than believe him, and his popularity went up from 64 to 68%! Are we that dumb that we can't remember last week they were telling us his popularity was in the 70's. LINDA TRIPP The Friends of Slick are saying that Linda Tripp is in serious violation of the law by not mentioning a false allegation that occurred 20 years (1969) before White Water, which they've been saying is too old to be taken seriously. All this begs the question, what did Monica write on her hyper Top Secret Security application? How can they dig out this historical information, and are unable to identify who hired Craig Livingstone? He must have filled out a Security Clearance Application also, no? TALKING POINTS It is being reported that the prez has added 4 or 5 doz high-priced attorneys to defend him from his accusers. How many of these are being paid with tax payers dollars? And which one(s) wrote the infamous talking points that Monica gave to Linda Tripp? PAULA JONES Don't get your hopes up for Paula Jones chances when she finally gets to court May 27. It is hard to believe the fix isn't in with the judge, Susan Wright, a former student of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton III. You'd think a judge would recuse herself when she knows one of the litigants personally. There can only be one reason she didn't. My guess is the only thing they are waiting for is to make it as difficult as possible to appeal or resurrect the charges at a later date under a non-biased judge.. DOLLY KYLE BROWNING As if there weren't enough fires to put out, Dolly Browning testified [in the Paula Jones case] that she had a long sexual affair with Mr. Clinton, "and that she was contacted by agents of Mr. Clinton, including Bruce Lindsey, threatening to 'destroy her' if she told the truth, and later promising not to spread vicious lies about her in order to get her to downplay her disclosures." Source: The Drudge Report MUCKRAKER Altho the prez denies that he is hunting up dirt on his accusers, you don't hear Clinton supporters complaining that they aren't getting their $450/hr worth out of muck raker Bob Bennet. He claims that Willey is trying to get $300 K for a book deal. KATHIE'S KORNER Can't remember his name, but about a month ago I read that a would-be professional golfer won his case and will be allowed to ride his powered golf cart about the course while the rest of the pack is sweating off the pounds by striding the first nine and trudging the rest of the way. The golfer in the case is stride- & trudge-challenged. Reporters found a courageous few professional golfers who cried foul, who said the disabled chap should compete against other disabled golfers or be required to walk the course like everyone else. Not everyone, they said, is cut out to be a pro. I have a solution! It's easy!! Let the disabled golfer use a non-motorized wheelchair and wheel himself about the course. Offer the same option to everyone else in the game. Voila! a level playing field. Reply direct to: fishrap@netdex.com BOARD OF EDUCATION The FBI has accused a roof contractor and school inspector of bilking the Dallas P.S. out of $383,000, for work not done. That makes Yvonne look like a piker. AIDS Here's an odd stat for you. 43% of AIDS victims are black although they only make up 12% of the general population. The only places I've seen concentrations like that are in Africa and prison. ELLEN It is interesting to note, that despite the hoopla around Hollywood's favorite lesbian, it has now come out that last week her time slot had its biggest rating success since Ellen "came out". By coincidence, the time slot was filled by another program at the time. QUESTION FOR THIS ISSUE How many of these paragraphs are applicable to the opining quote at the top of the page? Make checks payable to: Shirley Allen Defense Fund And mail to: Shirley Allen Defense Fund c/o First Trust & Savings Bank P.O. Box 350 Taylorville, Illinois 62568 This is the only account known where Shirley can draw out these funds herself. Her SSN's on this account. * * * * * Subcribe to this Slick e-zine featuring Kathie's Korner, and receive absolutely free, a copy of Slick's Major Media Mailing List containing over 600 e-mail addresses. To subscribe, send your check for $12.50 to the address at the top of this message. Be sure to include your e-mail address. The Slick archive can be found on the World Wide Web. Goto: http://www.techmgmt.com/restore/restore.htm Page down till you come to Newsletters, Rich Martin If you want to place the Slick e-zine on your WWW, contact me. With one or more issues a week, it gives your visitors a reason to come back. Rich Martin, Editor THE TRUTH IS... A. Powerful. C. In the eye of the beholder. B. Irrelevant. D. All of the above. __________________________________________________________________ *** Attracting Your Market Niche *** Thinking of starting your own email discussion list, like this one? Then you're in luck! Get a full-year "maintenance free" list for only $85 and setup fees are waived! Find out why USA TODAY thinks we're a great business deal: =================================================================== To Join/Unsubscribe> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 09:19:09 -0600 Brad wrote in part, in response to me: >While we're sharing our conversion experiences, I'd like to weigh in as >someone who used to have knee-jerk conservative opinions when younger but >who is drifting in the dreaded llllllllLiberal direction with age. > >There's a joke that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged and a >liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. I think there's a fair >amount of truth to the joke. Certainly my opinions began shifting when >the local "get tough on crime" policies resulted in a group of uniformed >thugs breaking into my dad's apartment by mistake and beating him up when >he objected. Do you think, Brad, that what you've said here is that traditional labels like "liberal" and "conservative," at least in their commonly understood meanings, really don't work any more? I remember a thread on this or another list some years back which sought to establish a new set of labels, though without notable success. >I kept a tenuous grip on my conservative leanings through the '94 >elections, hoping that "conservatives" had some interest in limiting >and controlling the powers of government to abuse its citizens. However, >the conservatives have only expanded those powers. Digital wiretap bill, >"Antiterrorism" bill, Habeas Corpus "reform," "Assault Weapon ban," >ID-required-to-fly law, deadbeat-dad-database reporting requirements, >big-brother-medical-databases, etc. As you all know. As a geologist, trained to take the *long* view and having seen how tremendously successful species have become extinct in a geological moment, I tend to support efforts to preserve what's left of the old-growth forests. That's commonly understood to be a liberal position. I despise what some of the "tree-huggers" have done to further that end, but I quarrel with the means, not the goal. >The main mainstream opposition to *most* of the above (certainly not the >AW ban) has come from llllllLiberal organizations like the ACLU. So >my support has been shifting in those directions. If it weren't for their position on the Second Amendment, I would be much more interested in supporting them myself. "Freedom means letting other people do things you disapprove of." (Reference: Someone's sig line, I don't remember whose.) >And I can't tell you how much it makes my flesh crawl every time I get an >NRA "CrimeStrike" mailing full of hype for the latest plan to increase >the powers of prosecutors or to decrease the rights of persons accused >of crimes. Which is one of the reasons why I plan to vote against the >current board majority. That's right up there with seizure of private property and forfeiture of assets upon *suspicion* of criminal activity, not conviction, in my opinion. Reading de Tocqueville shows that this sort of thing has been tried before in our country, with the same results, and abandoned as too dangerous to liberty. >Another reason, as I've mentioned, is that conservative Oliver North is >part of that board majority. I've never quite been able to understand why >the conservative "get-tough-on-crime" policy didn't apply to North and his >illegal arms-for-hostages/drug-money-for-Contra activities. It's because he's cute. The most telling bit I have is the understanding that his former colleagues, the Marines, can't stand him. If there are any Marines on this list, I'd like to know what you think. 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: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 11:00:04 -0500 >Now I'm 30 years older and 30+ years smarter. I've studied the >Bill of Rights and realized that it is the MOST important "stuff" >ever written for those who value the American way of life (as the >Founders intended it to be). Skip: We all change. Just 12 years ago, I thought guns should be completely illegal. I was an idiot. The issue here isn't that people *can't* change. It's about being man enough (or woman enough) to admit the error of your past ways. I freely admit that before I even thought about the situation, I swallowed to HCI propaganda and believed that guns served no good purpose in life. But I freely admit that I was wrong back then, and I've re-evaluated the situation and used my gray matter to make an informed decision. Sounds like you went through the same thing. The question is: is Heston still that anti-gunner he was 30 years ago? Or has he seen the "error of his past ways"? If he has, why hasn't he spoken out about it? To put this issue to rest, all Heston needs to do is write a quickie editorial in AR/AH/AG about how he fought to get GCA '68 passed, and for the past 30 years saw nothing good come of it, and that's why he wants to be NRA president, because he's seen that Gun Control laws aren't worth the paper they've been printed on. We're all up in arms because he hasn't done that. At least, that's why *I'm* skeptical. Maybe he did write it and the printers chose not to print it? Maybe some editor thought it was too radical? Maybe he's still fighting for regulation, thinking that will fend off the wave of confiscation (foolish)? Who knows. But he's not going to get *anywhere* until he speaks out and makes his position clear. Rachel ************************************************************** * "Just when you think you've got me figured out * * The season's already changing..." -- Meredith Brooks * * mestetsr@post.drexel.edu * ************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 09:25:33 -0800 (PST) >Boyd wrote: > >[ ... ] > >>>> Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" >>>>card to get his butt elected. >>> >>>As is Mr. Knox, but I digress. >>snip >>Where'd ya get that? > >From the newsletter he publishes on the internet. Please elucidate this, at least till it's an answer. What -part- of hard corps report represents "extremism" in terms of restoring the constitution? Bear in mind that that -is- an "insiders" look, it's billed as such and the only people he sends it to are people who have said "we want to employ you as our lobbyist in..." per the instructions at the end. The target audience is "hard corps". He doesn't suggest handing it to your avg suburban soccer mom. > >>Certainly it's a claim being made. But speaking as >>someone who's walked, talked and bought a diet coke for Mr. Knox (and Ms. >>Metaksa, and Mr. Heston, though I don't know that I got him a diet coke) I >>gotta tell you it's the most laughable part of this thing. > >I met him once too, years ago, in a meeting of a shooting club I belonged >to then. I was not impressed with the way he conducted himself. He was >definitely part of the problem and not part of the solution. Please tell me -how- he "conducted himself". Was he in cammo swilling out of a bottle of jack (no offense intended to you liqeuor connoiseurs)? Perhaps, like Mr. Heston he to has changed with age. >>Neil Knox is an "extremist" like I'm a 200lb Leprechaun. Hasn't happened, >>isn't happening and I'd wager won't ever happen. He is a kindly (I'd say >>"older" but I'm 36 still and I dont want to get all you list subscribers >>all in a tizzy ; ) gentleman who wears a tan sportcoat and likes to talk >>about his kids (all my age). > >You have your impression, I have mine. For what it's worth, I have seen >pictures of tyrants in tan sport coats cavorting with kids. Images nowadays >are very carefully crafted. I'm sure your not saying that I'm presenting an "image" here that is carefully crafted. I've honestly shared my personal impression with the list, I am not a paid agent of any of the parties of this dispute. Nothing more. I've also been quite specific. >>The "E" word was getting used against all of us (any NRA/GOA/rkba activist) >>until this internal bickering broke out. Now we're using it on ourselves? >>Rediculous! If you're going to shoot at your own foot you owe it to >>yourself, and everyone around you, to at the very -least- hit the target. >>Tell me the head of Militia of Montana is an "extremist". Tell me the head >>of the KKK is an "extremist". Tell me Lenin was an "extremist", I'll >>quietly listen. But calling Mr. Knox that? I'm Laughing Out Loud. > >If you find it amusing, that's fine, but I hit the target I was aiming at. > >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: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 09:25:28 -0800 (PST) At 9:54 PM -0600 3/17/98, Neil Dickey wrote: >Boyd wrote in part: > >>When I first saw this my reaction was -exactly- what Neil said (except for >>the purists part -: ) As a newly (92) reformed Liberal myself I wondered >>why bring it up now, what does such an ancient thing matter anyway? But, >>just like with Liberalism I was wrong. And the key difference here is that >>I -admit- that right up front. Anyone who's been on roc (or before that >>noban) for any time has read detailed descriptions of my "see the light" >>experience, not because I'm comfortable with my mistakes (though frankly, >>being uncomfortable with making mistakes is a mighty serious impediment to >>learning) but because it was a seminal moment in my life. >>Where was Chucks? > >[ ... Snip ... ] > >The fact that you had something like a religious experience that changed >your outlook doesn't mean that other people have to undergo the same >process in order to have their new positions taken seriously. In my own >case, abandonment of many liberal opinions occurred gradually, with >experience. There was no sudden conversion. If that means to you that >I can't seriously have changed my mind, then we'll just have to disagree. > >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** | | >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >- My point was not a religious one. My point was that I enjoy talking about this radical change in my life and everyone I know who's done a 180 on an issue like this uses that change in their lives as an example in discussion. I have never implied that I don't take Mr. Heston's positions seriously. If the man has gone from fighting for GCA 68, to VP of NRA why would he not want to talk about it? That is -exactly- the change that each one of us needs to initiate in our fellow voters, we need that example. Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 09:25:36 -0800 (PST) >While we're sharing our conversion experiences, I'd like to weigh in as >someone who used to have knee-jerk conservative opinions when younger but >who is drifting in the dreaded llllllllLiberal direction with age. > >There's a joke that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged and a >liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. I think there's a fair >amount of truth to the joke. Certainly my opinions began shifting when >the local "get tough on crime" policies resulted in a group of uniformed >thugs breaking into my dad's apartment by mistake and beating him up when >he objected. > >I kept a tenuous grip on my conservative leanings through the '94 >elections, hoping that "conservatives" had some interest in limiting >and controlling the powers of government to abuse its citizens. However, >the conservatives have only expanded those powers. Digital wiretap bill, >"Antiterrorism" bill, Habeas Corpus "reform," "Assault Weapon ban," >ID-required-to-fly law, deadbeat-dad-database reporting requirements, >big-brother-medical-databases, etc. As you all know. > >The main mainstream opposition to *most* of the above (certainly not the >AW ban) has come from llllllLiberal organizations like the ACLU. So >my support has been shifting in those directions. > >And I can't tell you how much it makes my flesh crawl every time I get an >NRA "CrimeStrike" mailing full of hype for the latest plan to increase >the powers of prosecutors or to decrease the rights of persons accused >of crimes. Which is one of the reasons why I plan to vote against the >current board majority. > >Another reason, as I've mentioned, is that conservative Oliver North is >part of that board majority. I've never quite been able to understand why >the conservative "get-tough-on-crime" policy didn't apply to North and his >illegal arms-for-hostages/drug-money-for-Contra activities. > > >Brad Thanks for the good story. Unfortunately, you reflect societys widely held belief that politics is represented on a left to right / liberal to conservative spectrum. Unfortunate, because if it ever was true it certainly is not today. "Liberal" politicians of today do not notice your "rights" except as they may tend to infringe on their power, and Conservatives are -exactly- the same. I'm a republican, because that is the -only- political party in my neighborhood. And because Bill Clinton woke me up to the problem and I had hoped to return the favor by finding him fulfilling work in the private sector. But I am a Libertarian (and a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus) because that's where my heart and soul are. I hope you'll check out www.lp.org and take the "worlds smallest political quiz". While still a bit stumbly and in it's political infancy, the LP is the -only- political party who understands the effects of power as our founding fathers did. They know that power comes from the individuals of this country and they respect that in every way. Boyd Kneeland > On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Neil Dickey wrote: > >> Boyd wrote in part: >> >> >When I first saw this my reaction was -exactly- what Neil said (except for >> >the purists part -: ) As a newly (92) reformed Liberal ... >> >> [ ... Snip ... ] >> >> The fact that you had something like a religious experience that changed >> your outlook doesn't mean that other people have to undergo the same >> process in order to have their new positions taken seriously. In my own >> case, abandonment of many liberal opinions occurred gradually, with >> experience. There was no sudden conversion. If that means to you that >> I can't seriously have changed my mind, then we'll just have to disagree. > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 09:25:40 -0800 (PST) Wish I'd said it that well, thank you. Boyd >>Now I'm 30 years older and 30+ years smarter. I've studied the >>Bill of Rights and realized that it is the MOST important "stuff" >>ever written for those who value the American way of life (as the >>Founders intended it to be). > >Skip: > >We all change. Just 12 years ago, I thought guns should be completely >illegal. I was an idiot. The issue here isn't that people *can't* change. >It's about being man enough (or woman enough) to admit the error of your snip >Rachel - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 09:45:28 -0800 (PST) At 9:25 AM -0800 3/18/98, Boyd wrote: >>Boyd wrote: >> >>[ ... ] snip >>>Where'd ya get that? >> >>From the newsletter he publishes on the internet. > >Please elucidate this, at least till it's an answer. What -part- of hard (pardon the bad form for replying to myself here) Wow! That was snippy. Sorry Neil, I hope you ignored this. I do not want to come off as one of the cacaphony of strident-to-shrill voices here. Let me reiterate that I -do- respect Mr. Heston and that I am reserving judgement on this whole gca/vp thing here. My point is that I'd like to hear him talk about it. Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 10:35:11 -0800 mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu wrote: > The question is: > is Heston still that anti-gunner he was 30 years ago? Or has he seen the > "error of his past ways"? If he has, why hasn't he spoken out about it? > > To put this issue to rest, all Heston needs to do is write a quickie > editorial in AR/AH/AG about how he fought to get GCA '68 passed, and for > the past 30 years saw nothing good come of it, and that's why he wants to > be NRA president, because he's seen that Gun Control laws aren't worth the > paper they've been printed on. > > We're all up in arms because he hasn't done that. At least, that's why > *I'm* skeptical. Maybe he did write it and the printers chose not to print > it? Maybe some editor thought it was too radical? Maybe he's still > fighting for regulation, thinking that will fend off the wave of > confiscation (foolish)? Who knows. But he's not going to get *anywhere* > until he speaks out and makes his position clear. > > Rachel Rachel and others, I wasn't defending Heston in my little "thought grenade" yesterday. I was trying to point out just how silly it is to indict people today based on what they thought or did 30 years ago. I hope no one judges me that way, but if I enter public life, they surely will. As for Heston "owing" us an explanation, I disagree. He is "the man in the arena" who has put his name and reputation at risk by taking on the burden of responsibility. We are sideline observers who have nothing invested, nothing at risk, and no right to demand anything. No offense, just one man's opinion. But I will say from long experience that leadership is far more burden than glory, a fact which followers ought to understand better, but can't until they've been there. Regards, Skip. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cyrano Subject: Fwd: [Fw: Getting their attention (joke)] Date: 18 Mar 1998 11:31:41 -0800 WARNING: The following is offered for humorous purposes only. If you do this, be prepared to answer a lot of questions (or worse). Begin forwarded message: =========================================================== Operation Fed Fret- for April 19: 1. Get a group of several buddies. 2. Dress up in camos to look like stereotypical militia types. 3. Be sure not to have anything that could be considered a weapon of any type on your person. 4. Go to the local federal building. a. Walk around the grounds at first, taking measurements, clicking photos, writing down on notepads, etc. b. Communicate with each other via walkie-talkies. c. Go into lobby- continue writing down observations, measurements, etc. d. Ask lobby staff where ventilation system intake system is located, where structural supports are, if plans are available, what they can tell you about building security, etc. If asked why you want to know, or challenged, just respond that you are "interested taxpayers." e. Decline to identify yourself as anything other than an "interested taxpayer." f. Be prepared to witness (and record) any and all interactions, including harassment, threats, etc. g. Thank them for their time. Assure them you'll be back. =================================================================== End forwarded message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 09:58:26 -0700 Boyd, [...] Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" card to get his butt elected. As is Mr. Knox, but I digress. -snip- Where'd ya get that? [...] The reportage from the Seattle Convention center, during the NRA convention there, when Heston was being positioned for the VP slot. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 09:42:46 -0700 Neil, [...] Me: What's next? Jane Fonda on the NRA board also? How about her ex Mr Hayden? Okay, I'm pushing the envelope. Those last two won't consider the job. You: You're right, that's pushing the envelope. It's also a non sequitur. [...] Not so. It does follow: 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence. 2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it. Therefore, if Jane Fonda were to run for NRA board member, because she felt she could win, she would. It therefore follows that it is possible, and it follows the premise of what she did, is equivalent to what Heston did, ie., he spoke against firearms, she has spoken against the same. Therefore it follows. [...] Me: Don't like my analog? You: It isn't appropriate, as I have shown. [...] Snicker! Snort! [...] Me: What's the darned diff between a nuke war and the loss of our Right? You: Again, a non sequitur. [...] Guffaw! Come now, Neil, If we were all eliminated in one very large nuclear blast, we wouldn't have the need of Rights. If were all deprived of our Rights, the only way out is live free or die - that is, live free, or die fighting for them. If you die, what need have you of Rights? [...] You: Insofar as Mr. Clinton may be as . . . [...] WJC is a questionable character at best. You can't tell me for a second, that if he really felt that even 43 percent of the country backed him, that he _would not_ nuke Iraq - or anyplace else that he felt needed nuking. [...] Me: As far as I'm concerned, if what you did thirty years ago won't fly in a government position in the U.S. of A, what the hey is the difference at the NRA??? Did we all of a sudden get a liberal line on things here? You: I don't understand your meaning in these two sentences. What Clinton did 30 years ago in Moscow obviously didn't keep him out of a government job, whatever one thinks of that. Just as obviously, what *I* think of that isn't particularly relevant. The fact is: There he is. [...] Ya know, Neil? That's one of the neatest sidestep jobs I've seen in years! Are you sure you not related to some politician? Billy J was _elected_ to the job, not hired, not appointed, and not advanced to it. Tell me that he would have been allowed _any_ clearance to access classified data in _any_ military position, and I'll tell you that either the atmosphere for clearances has changed, or I need to reevaluate what the U.S. Government security manual has to say. [...] I didn't use the word "extremist," by the way, it was "purist." [...] I never said you did. I was referring to Mr. Heston's own remarks at the Seattle convention. Don't you remember them? Insofar as being one myself, I accept that others feel that way about me, in the consideration that I do not accept the current definition of liberty as what some bureaucrat says it is. I am vociferous in that regard, and while I'm neither proud of it, nor carrying my heart around on my sleeve, I do take advantage of every opportunity to assess others of our losses when the matters of liberty arise. [...] Again, you're welcome to your opinion, but advocating unregulated private ownership of machineguns is probably one of the quickest routes to political oblivion that I can think of offhand. It's right next to repealing the vote for women, but I'm not sure whether it's the near or the far side. [...] Well, Neil, then I guess your advocating of Constitutional liberties is nothing more than window dressing? Extremism is what defines the _limits_ of our community. Obviously you have fallen prey to the "kinder, gentler" message, ie., let's not be too difficult. The extremists are who got us into this current socialistic orgasm of liberties taking. If you can't be equally extreme in gaining them back, then you may as well, park your butt on a park bench and retire from the scene. Politicians understand only one thing: force. The forces that got them into office. The forces that flood their mail boxes with opinions. The forces that express rage over a lousy vote. The forces that will remove them from office, for having voted the wrong way. When the number of letters and phone calls that are in *extreme* opposition to his current leanings, are what causes him/her "to see the light", then the 'unseen forces' win the day. [...] This is patently repulsive, even as a rhetorical response, and not worth further comment. [...] And, here I thought you had a sense of humor . . . ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 12:43:51 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Skip Leuschner wrote: > I was trying to point out just how silly it is to indict people today > based on what they thought or did 30 years ago. I hope no one judges > me that way, but if I enter public life, they surely will. On this collateral point only I disagree. The nature of the acts, and the thoughts, regardless of when they occurred, should and must enter into any evaluation of someone as fit to hold office, IMO. For example, there is no way a rapist or a child molestor would get back on my good side, even though their acts might have occurred 30 years ago. They can please me by descending into the dust from which they sprung, unwept, unhonored, and unsung, no matter how long ago their offense occurred. This is an extreme example, but the difference is only in degree, not principle. And you can bet that a lot of people, if not most, are going to judge you on what you said and thought 30 years ago, if it comes to their attention. In general, I don't think it's silly. However, when honest inquiry degenerates to digging up the dirt and mud-slinging for ignoble motives, then it becomes not only dishonest, it's clearly counter-productive for people who are supposedly on the same side. What is "silly" is that the audience doesn't see it for what it is. I question the motives of the people harping on this particular part of Heston's past. The incident alleged may or may not have occurred, and may or may not have been shameful. I don't have the facts, really, to make a judgment one way or another. And even if I did, so what? I think what is resented here, and what is fomenting the demagoguery, is the fact that a "face" who hadn't "paid his dues" in the tight little set of cliques of NRA directorships has been jumped over people with "higher lineal numbers" and is suddenly found to be in the line to be the head of the NRA. This kind of petty backbiting and sniping and infighting is counter-productive, motivated by personal aggrandizement and agendas. So one clique is fighting another. The goal to move the power from the State back to the people from which it has been confiscated is not served by this behavior, but it serves achievement of the contrary goal quite well. The carping takes our eyes off the Prize. Could the cliques just not care? History is replete with well-documented examples of the terrible results of "cliques who did not care" about the end goal, just their personal agendas. Why should this clique be any different? For people who enjoy this sort of thing, this is just the sort of thing they enjoy. The chance to throw stones at Moses only comes along once every 3 or 4 millenia. After all, Moses was nothing but a Johnny-come-lately Jew who also hadn't "paid his dues" but who presumed to lead his people to the Promised Land. Why he probably had something to do with the Spear Control Act of 1468 B.C.! We mustn't miss out. However, when I contemplate what happened to the LAST set of Moses' detractors, the prospect loses its appeal. :-) Ya know what I mean? Regards, Harry ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 13:08:03 -0700 Harry, [...] After all, Moses was nothing but a Johnny-come-lately Jew who also hadn't "paid his dues" but who presumed to lead his people to the Promised Land. Why he probably had something to do with the Spear Control Act of 1468 B.C.! We mustn't miss out. [...] Well, hot damn! You know about the SCA too? Ya know? I can remember when a triple bladed, point 7 cubit bronze spear point was the real bees knees, know what I mean? As I said, Harry, when he totes an AK-47, only _then_ will he part any waters. In the meantime, about the only thing he's gonna part is his hair. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Fwd: [Fw: Getting their attention (joke)] Date: 18 Mar 1998 13:42:10 -0800 (PST) Sure glad you intended that as a joke. It certainly wouldn't help our battle to win the hearts and minds of the people. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 14:08:24 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, E.J. Totty wrote: > As I said, Harry, when he totes an > AK-47, only _then_ will he part any waters. > In the meantime, about the only > thing he's gonna part is his hair. > > ET All non-swims, fall out to the right. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 14:27:41 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Neil Dickey wrote: > The most telling bit I have is the understanding that his former colleagues, > the Marines, can't stand him. If there are any Marines on this list, I'd > like to know what you think. > > 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. Well, I'm certainly glad you cleared that up. Otherwise I might have thought you were expressing the opinions of some Marines about Oliver North. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 15:36:47 PST On Mar 18, Harry Barnett wrote: >On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Neil Dickey wrote: > >> The most telling bit I have is the understanding that his former colleagues, >> the Marines, can't stand him. If there are any Marines on this list, I'd >> like to know what you think. >> >> 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. > >Well, I'm certainly glad you cleared that up. Otherwise I might have >thought you were expressing the opinions of some Marines about Oliver >North. Couldn't say for sure, but when his show was still on KVI a month or two ago, I caught it from time to time, and most of the Marines I heard on it seemed pretty supportive..... -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 18:43:16 -0600 I combined all three of Boyd's last posts into one to reduce the clutter. His last post is first, for reasons that should be obvious. Boyd wrote: >>Please elucidate this, at least till it's an answer. What -part- of hard > >(pardon the bad form for replying to myself here) >Wow! That was snippy. Sorry Neil, I hope you ignored this. I do not want to >come off as one of the cacaphony of strident-to-shrill voices here. Let me >reiterate that I -do- respect Mr. Heston and that I am reserving judgement >on this whole gca/vp thing here. My point is that I'd like to hear him talk >about it. Thanks *very* much for writing this Boyd. No offense is or was taken. I appreciate beyond words your desire not to take this to a personal level, and wish that others would follow your example. Now that you put it this way, I agree with you completely. *I* would like to hear him say what got him to change his mind, but I'm not sure I ever will, and it's not *that* important for me to know how it happened. In thermodynamics there's a thing called a "state function." In dealing with such functions only the starting and ending points are significant; the infinite number of different paths which connect them are mathematically indistinguishable. For me, this is a similar matter. If he is a supporter of the Second Amendment now, that is what is important to me. If you need to know more to support him, that's fine. Boyd wrote in his first message: >>>>> Mr. Heston decided to use the "extremist" >>>>>card to get his butt elected. >>>> >>>>As is Mr. Knox, but I digress. >>>snip >>>Where'd ya get that? >> >>From the newsletter he publishes on the internet. > >Please elucidate this, at least till it's an answer. What -part- of hard >corps report represents "extremism" in terms of restoring the constitution? >Bear in mind that that -is- an "insiders" look, it's billed as such and the >only people he sends it to are people who have said "we want to employ you >as our lobbyist in..." per the instructions at the end. The target audience >is "hard corps". He doesn't suggest handing it to your avg suburban soccer >mom. A couple of points to be made here: One is that I never authorized him to be my lobbyist. I subscribed to it years ago, when it first came out, and was a newsletter having to do with legislative matters in the Capitol. Another point is that regardless of the intended audience, the newsletters I receive from him are tendered as a representation of his opinions. I do not differentiate between his public opinions and his more private ones. His reporting of matters going on within the NRA has been shrill (to use your word) in the extreme. The manner in which he has carried out his campaign has damaged the NRA considerably, in my opinion perhaps more so than the evils he says he wanted to expose. There are constructive ways of fixing problems and destructive ones. I man I knew once was having carburetor problems with his truck. He fiddled with it for a while, but without success, and finally smashed the carb with a hammer. Then he knew what the problem was. I don't regard that as a very constructive solution. Your citation of the Constitution is a canard, and had nothing to do with the point I have been trying to make. We were talking about Mr. Heston and the NRA. >>I met him once too [Knox], years ago, in a meeting of a shooting club I >>belonged to then. I was not impressed with the way he conducted himself. >>He was definitely part of the problem and not part of the solution. > >Please tell me -how- he "conducted himself". Was he in cammo swilling out >of a bottle of jack (no offense intended to you liqeuor connoiseurs)? >Perhaps, like Mr. Heston he to has changed with age. The performance I have seen of late in his newsletters mirrors what I saw then. The meeting I remember involved a group of black-powder enthusiasts who wanted to form a club, which would then use the facilities of a local sportsmen's club to hold its matches. Mr. Knox was there, and there was a bit of a stir when he was introduced because he was so well-known. At one point in the meeting (he was a guest, remember) he got up and offered advice, doing so on several more occasions. What was happening was that every time the group appeared to be near a solution or a consensus, he would throw down another obstacle -- whether he meant to do it or not. Because of his interference, the meeting ended in confusion, and the black-powder league went another year before it finally started shooting. It took that long for the effect of his prestige to wear off, and his advice to be ignored. He wasn't part of the solution. He was part of the problem. There are constructive ways of fixing things, and destructive ones. >>You have your impression, I have mine. For what it's worth, I have seen >>pictures of tyrants in tan sport coats cavorting with kids. Images nowadays >>are very carefully crafted. > >I'm sure your not saying that I'm presenting an "image" here that is >carefully crafted. I've honestly shared my personal impression with the >list, I am not a paid agent of any of the parties of this dispute. Nothing >more. I've also been quite specific. I was originally as specific as you were. Perhaps you could tell me more about what so won your confidence in him? I wasn't suggesting that you were carefully crafting an image, only that you may have been looking at one. First, last, and always, remember that Mr. Knox is after political power of a sort: He wants control of the NRA. Here beginneth Boyd's second message: >>The fact that you had something like a religious experience that changed >>your outlook doesn't mean that other people have to undergo the same >>process in order to have their new positions taken seriously. In my own >>case, abandonment of many liberal opinions occurred gradually, with >>experience. There was no sudden conversion. If that means to you that >>I can't seriously have changed my mind, then we'll just have to disagree. > >My point was not a religious one. My point was that I enjoy talking about >this radical change in my life and everyone I know who's done a 180 on an >issue like this uses that change in their lives as an example in >discussion. I have never implied that I don't take Mr. Heston's positions >seriously. My words were "something *like* a religious experience." The reference is to a sudden conversion, like that of Paul on the road to Damascus. >If the man has gone from fighting for GCA 68, to VP of NRA why would he not >want to talk about it? That is -exactly- the change that each one of us >needs to initiate in our fellow voters, we need that example. At the first and at the last we have gotten to the heart of it and discovered that we really don't disagree that much after all. I'd like to know myself, but if Mr. Heston doesn't tell me, that's his business. 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: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 17:39:43 PST With respect to the Knox/Heston debate, Knox is pretty much a known quantity whether you like him or not. I've seen some good points and bad points made and for what it's worth, he genreally manages to hold his own. While in some respects, the same could be said of Heston, I get the feeling that he's a, "Soup Kitchen Christian", (in it for the bucks). It's been some time since he last made any films, and he just might be feeling the pinch. At least this would explain the early/recent ambivalence towards 2nd Amendment issues. With that in mind, I think he needs to stay where he's at for a few more elections. If a little more seasoning is what's needed, that should handle it. If he's really not that much Pro-2nd, then the additional time should bring that out into the open. Either way, it beats hurrying to make a Clintonian grade mistake. I think that makes a fair appraisal, but I'm still listening. What do you all think? -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 18 Mar 1998 21:44:43 -0800 At 09:19 AM 3/18/98 -0600, you wrote: >Brad wrote in part, in response to me: > >>While we're sharing our conversion experiences, I'd like to weigh in as >>someone who used to have knee-jerk conservative opinions when younger but >>who is drifting in the dreaded llllllllLiberal direction with age. >> >Do you think, Brad, that what you've said here is that traditional labels >like "liberal" and "conservative," at least in their commonly understood >meanings, really don't work any more? I remember a thread on this or >another list some years back which sought to establish a new set of >labels, though without notable success. There's another fine label - "Libertarian". >As a geologist, trained to take the *long* view and having seen how >tremendously successful species have become extinct in a geological >moment, I tend to support efforts to preserve what's left of the >old-growth forests. That's commonly understood to be a liberal position. >I despise what some of the "tree-huggers" have done to further that >end, but I quarrel with the means, not the goal. Ditto. >>The main mainstream opposition to *most* of the above (certainly not the >>AW ban) has come from llllllLiberal organizations like the ACLU. So >>my support has been shifting in those directions. > >If it weren't for their position on the Second Amendment, I would be >much more interested in supporting them myself. "Freedom means letting >other people do things you disapprove of." (Reference: Someone's sig >line, I don't remember whose.) Actually, I believe it's from the Libertarian Party platform. I've seen several people use it as part of their sig; I did myself, for a while. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all - security, comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society, but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." Gibbons: "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" Proud member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" since 1992! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: IRS requests surveillance equipment Date: 19 Mar 1998 07:02:07 -0500 >Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:27:48 -0500 >From: E Pluribus Unum >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; U) >To: E Pluribus Unum Email Distribution Network >Subject: IRS requests surveillance equipment > >From: John Sterling >Subject: IRS requests surveillance equipment > >Here is a Requisition Order from the IRS for high tech surveillance >equipment disguised to look like a phone company transformer. >Low-light capability, covert viewing port, audio capability- just what >every Revenue Service needs, huh? > >John > > >http://cbdnet.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=167144045+34+0+ 0&WAISaction=retrieve&WAIShighlight=off > >[Commerce Business Daily: Posted June 9, 1997] >From the Commerce Business Daily Online via GPO >Access[cbdnet.access.gpo.gov] > >PART: U.S. GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENTS (MODIFICATION) >SUBPART: SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL >CLASSCOD: 58--Communication, Detection, and Coherent Radiation > Equipment >OFFADD: DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Internal Revenue Service, > (M:P), 6009 Oxon Hill Road, Suite 700, Oxon Hill, MD 20745 >SUBJECT: 58--SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS >SOL TIRNO97R00049 >DUE 073097 >POC Contract Specialist, Steve VanderLinden, FAX (202) 283-1514 >DESC: The Internal Revenue Service requires enclosed surveillance > systems configured as transformers for mounting on telephone > poles. Salient characteristics include but are not limited > to: 2 watt frequency agile transmitter operating between -20 > and +70 degrees Celsius; remote controlled power amplifier > increasing outpout to twelve watts and controlling both transmitter > and receiver; continuously steerable dual power (46 and 56 > dB) antenna; motorized zoom lens with remote control of focus, > zoom, pan (minimum of 270 degrees), and tilt (minimum of +5 > to -30 degrees), with dual DTMF motor driver for pan and tilt > to reduce speed when zoomed in on target; precision color camera; > low light intensifier; covert viewing port (maximum 2.2 by > 3.7 inches); and automatic heater for instant video transmission > at temperatures from -23 to 0 degrees Celsius. Requirement > is indefinite quantity with maximum of 20 units per year for > a base year and four one year options. This is a correction > to a synopsis published on May 12, 1997: The acquisition will > be conducted on a 100% small business set-aside basis. Note > 1 applies. No oral requests will be honored. 10312. Note 22 > applies. No oral requests will be honored. >CITE: (I-160 SN082056) > >_______________________________ > > >-- >****************************************************************** > E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group > P.O. Box 791 Eventline/Voicemail: (614) 823-8499 > Grove City, OH 43123 > >Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse > 3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.) > >http://www.infinet.com/~eplurib eplurib@infinet.com >****************************************************************** > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Fwd: Neal Knox Report (fwd) Date: 19 Mar 1998 08:04:01 -0600 (CST) 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. --1915762710-1786258450-890316241=:27571 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: <0_889457292@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- You never know who you will meet. At a Christmas party I was talking to my wife's company CaldwellBanker CPA and it turns out he is a big gun owner and member of the local shooting club up in Paris Texas. He has recruited several hunting friends to join the NRA. He also is thinking of running for the NRA board now that all his kids are off to college. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --1915762710-1786258450-890316241=:27571 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-ID: <0_889457292@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-Description: Return-Path: Received: from relay24.mail.aol.com (relay24.mail.aol.com [172.31.106.70]) by air19.mail.aol.com (v40.7) with SMTP; Sat, 07 Mar 1998 20:30:58 -0500 Received: from x4.boston.juno.com (x4.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.22]) by relay24.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id UAA02880 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:29:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from jwmparistx@juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id UQS26726; Sat, 07 Mar 1998 20:29:34 EST Message-ID: <19980307.192828.9759.0.JWMParisTX@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-45 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- Paul, I got your memo about Charlton Heston's participation in the 1968 gun control legislation promotion. I must say I was surprised and shocked! In general, I have been pleased with his performance and what he has said as a member of the NRA board. I recently received my 1998 ballot for the NRA board members. I am inclined to vote to continue Charlton Heston's board tenure. I do not subscribe to his philosophy, if the Knox report is accurate and continues to be true; however, I do think he is able spokesman for the organization. I respect him as an individual and admire his assumption of the gun rights promotion campaign. At his age and status in life, it has to be a large thankless responsibility to assume; especially, considering the daily flak and pot shots he has to take. Based on what I have heard him say, I believe his philosophy is acceptable. I will vote for him! I do intend to vote on my ballot to stack the board full of rebels, people the nominating committee have recommended against. After reading the materials, I am concerned about a top down philosophy instead of a bottom up (grassroots) approach. After reviewing their and the other nominee credentials, I find the rebels as well or better qualified than the nominating committee's list and in some cases superior. I also find their support of the by-laws ammendment forcing full disclosure of board member self-dealing with the NRA abolutely critical, and almost reason enough alone, to vote for them. I'm not sure how many of the rebels I will vote for but I suspect most of them. Thanks for passing this on! John --------- End forwarded message ---------- _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] --PAAAA05984.889304355/r2.boston.juno.com-- --------- End forwarded message ---------- _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] --1915762710-1786258450-890316241=:27571-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 19 Mar 1998 10:25:25 -0500 (EST) > >Boyd wrote: > >>>Please elucidate this, at least till it's an answer. What -part- of hard >> >>(pardon the bad form for replying to myself here) >>Wow! That was snippy. Sorry Neil, I hope you ignored this. I do not want to >>come off as one of the cacaphony of strident-to-shrill voices here. Let me >>reiterate that I -do- respect Mr. Heston and that I am reserving judgement >>on this whole gca/vp thing here. My point is that I'd like to hear him talk >>about it. > As a somewhat orthogonal view of this, my reluctance to get very enthusiastic about the NRA is based upon the view that the organization is showing all kinds of signs of late middle-age. The multiple copies of smiling Charlton Heston holding a blackpowder rifle aren't doing my house any good. The continuing stream of mass mailings are de-motivating for me. Using American Rifleman to fight for control over the board, etc. It all seems very tired. My strategy: baseline support for NRA (membership), more personal money and effort going to other organizations. I don't neccesarily believe that there is anything dark or sinister behind this, its kind of like hardening of the arteries, pretty much devoid of moral content, but debilitating nonetheless. jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 19 Mar 1998 09:35:44 -0600 Skip Leuschner wrote in part: >I was trying to point out just how silly it is to indict people today >based on what they thought or did 30 years ago. I hope no one judges >me that way, but if I enter public life, they surely will. > >[ ... ] > >No offense, just one man's opinion. But I will say from long experience >that leadership is far more burden than glory, a fact which followers >ought to understand better, but can't until they've been there. When I lived in Arizona, in a small mountain town, I was elected to be president of the local school board and clerk of the newly-formed fire district. I can tell you from bitter personal experience what it is to have ones best, most public-spirited, motives vilified, at full volume, in public, by persons whose intellects would be difficult to find if you put them all together in a demitasse, and who exhibit no interest whatever in understanding exactly what it is you were in fact trying to say or do. That's democracy, and it's why the Founders of our nation gave us a constitutional republic. It's somewhat like posting to a mailing list, but you have to win an election in order to have it happen to you. 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: Subject: Swing Date: 19 Mar 1998 08:33:41 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [01] [Thought] Swing!!! By Casey J. Lartigue Jr. Korea Times 03/15/98 Being abroad makes it very easy to lose contact with friends. So I was absolutely delighted when a college friend of mine recently tracked me down. After a few minutes of catching up on the latest news, he asked me if I had heard about Terri. Yeah, I had heard. Terri, the self-described "country girl from Pennsylvania," was a fantastic reporter on our college newspaper. As good a reporter as she was, she never had a legitimate shot at the top spot on the paper. She had cystic fibrosis. The senior editors on the paper were worried because she was often in bad health, missing days at a time. One day she asked me if I could teach her how to play softball. Softball was the sport that everyone on the paper could play. Except, that is, for Terri. She could barely run 10 yards without start to cough. Still, she wanted to play at least once. It was the end of the semester and we had not scheduled any more games. Terri and I tried to arrange to go down to the softball field together but never found a time when we were both free. I really regretted that the following autumn when I learned she had checked into the hospital for an extended stay. Several of us made the trip down to the hospital to see her, worried that she might be dying. She did not even seem to notice that she was in a hospital. Between the coughs, she assured us that she would be back soon. She had specifically asked if I would be coming to see her. I was the only one who enjoyed listening to her complain about PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the AMA (American Medical Association). She blamed both for the deaths of many of the ``invisible victims'' of diseases. She hated the animal rights groups because of their opposition to animal testing. A former poster child for Cystic Fibrosis, she had memorized the names of numerous diseases that had been cured as a result of animal testing. She hated the American Medical Organization because of its opposition to the selling of organs. She was convinced that many more people would be willing to donate their organs if recipients could pay burial expenses for donors. ``Those doctors are playing God, deciding who lives and who dies.'' She asked me if I would still teach her how to play softball. Some of our colleagues from the paper broke down then. There she was, sick in the hospital, and she wanted to play softball. I promised her that I would teach her when she got healthy. She returned a few weeks later. She was upset because she knew that her long stay in the hospital had ruined her chances for a top spot on the paper. She was even angrier because I was hesitant to play softball with her. She would not talk to me for more than a minute or two. Every conversation quickly turned to, ``will you (cough) teach me how to play?''``Nope.'' I was afraid she might die on the field. Spring came and it was softball season. Terri seemed to be much healthier. After the date was set for our first game, Terri and I tried to find time to practice. Finally, it was game day, and we hadn't practiced. But there she was, ready to play, trying to figure out how to hold the bat. Just before the game started, she came to me, nervous: ``Coach, quick, teach me how to play.'' We were up to bat first, and, unfortunately for her, we had a great inning. She took a couple of weak practice swings behind the batting cage. Suddenly, she was up next. She was frantic: ``What should I do?'' ``Swing.'' She was livid. ``That's it! Swing! That's what you call coaching?'' She walked up to the plate, yelling at me the whole time. ``You liar, you promised me you were going to teach me. I'll never believe you again.'' The pitcher tossed the world's slowest pitch right down the middle. Strike one. Another pitch, and a swing. If it had been a movie, she would have hit a home run or a triple. She hit a weak dribbler that dropped right in front of home plate. I had forgotten to teach her one more thing: ``RUN!'' Glaring at me and holding the bat the whole way, she lumbered down to first base. She was halfway there when the ball arrived. Out by a Pennsylvania mile. Instead of celebrating her first at-bat, the ingrate came at me, yelling and laughing hysterically. As I dodged her punches, I shouted more advice:``Practice makes perfect.'' She played in several other games, even getting a ``hit'' in an intra-squad game. She had managed to actually hit the ball past the pitcher and directly to me at shortstop. I must have tossed the ball at least 10 yards over the first baseman's head. Terri ended up with a double. I will never forget that big grin on her face as she stood there on second base, mocking me for making such a bad throw. ``Those who can, do. Those who can't, play shortstop.'' Anyway, who cared. We were playing softball to have fun, and it was fun. That is my best memory of my three years of working with her. About three years ago when I was in the States to visit family, I happened to see her picture as I was thumbing through the Boston Globe. Incredible! Was it really her? If it had been a movie, it would have been a wonderful story about her getting the lung transplant. There she was, in the obituary section. She had taken a leave of absence shortly after she had started working at the Boston Globe. She had gone to England in search of a lung transplant. She had spent most of her life silently waiting for a lung transplant; she finally gave up on America and decided to wait somewhere else. For some reason, she chose England. She died there. The writer is a resident of Pundang, Songnam City, Korea. =============================================== - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 19 Mar 1998 10:39:56 -0600 "E.J. Totty" wrote: > Not so. It does follow: > 1. An inference or conclusion that does not >follow from the premises or evidence. 2. A statement that >does not follow logically from what preceded it. > > Therefore, if Jane Fonda were to run for NRA board >member, because she felt she could win, she would. That's not the line of the syllogism I originally read . . . > It therefore follows that it is possible, and it follows >the premise of what she did, is equivalent to what Heston did, >ie., he spoke against firearms, she has spoken against the >same. Therefore it follows. . . . which was: Jane Fonda behaved like a treasonous commie wretch at one point in her life, and still apparently holds the same, or similar, views. Charleton Heston came out in favor of a gun-control measure 30 years ago, and has since changed his mind. Therefore it does not follow -- we *were* talking about Mr. Heston's conversion. If you didn't state your syllogism clearly, that's not my problem. > Me: > What's the darned diff between a nuke war >and the loss of our Right? > > You: > Again, a non sequitur. > [...] > > Guffaw! > > Come now, Neil, If we were all eliminated in >one very large nuclear blast, we wouldn't have the need >of Rights. No kidding. So what's your point? > If were all deprived of our Rights, the only way out >is live free or die - that is, live free, or die fighting for them. > If you die, what need have you of Rights? This is certainly a rather simplistic analysis. History demonstrates that there are any number of alternatives. The British and the Australians have been deprived of their rights in living memory, and have neither died in great numbers nor risen up in arms. I doubt that they ever shall. Guess what: If it happened in this country, and it well may, there won't be any significant rebellion either. Americans enjoy their comfort too much, and rebellion is far too uncomfortable an enterprise for us to undertake. If you go out to live free or die, you'll die in the company of a stunningly small group of people. You've set up a false dichotomy. > [...] > You: > Insofar as Mr. Clinton may be as . . . > [...] > > WJC is a questionable character at best. > You can't tell me for a second, that if he really >felt that even 43 percent of the country backed him, >that he _would not_ nuke Iraq - or anyplace else that he >felt needed nuking. I certainly could, and would. This country doesn't rule the world in some sort of political vacuum. As a matter of fact, it doesn't rule the world at all. What is more, there are restraints upon Mr. Clinton other than his moral code, such as it may be. There are more than a few other countries and their populations, not to mention the Congress, who would also have to be convinced it was a good idea. In any event, the country didn't back Clinton when he wanted to use *conventional* bombs on Iraq, why on earth would it back his use of nuclear weapons? Mr. Clinton is far too worried about his place in history to do something like that, even if he *did* have the backing of the nation. It just isn't going to happen. The next nuke that gets thrown will be from the inventory of some terrorist group, not from ours. > Me: > As far as I'm concerned, if what you did thirty >years ago won't fly in a government position in the >U.S. of A, what the hey is the difference at the NRA??? > Did we all of a sudden get a liberal line on >things here? > > You: > I don't understand your meaning in these two sentences. > What Clinton did 30 years ago in Moscow obviously didn't >keep him out of a government job, whatever one thinks of that. > Just as obviously, what *I* think of that isn't particularly >relevant. The fact is: There he is. > [...] > > Ya know, Neil? That's one of the neatest sidestep jobs >I've seen in years! Are you sure you not related to some politician? The fact that you wrote something incomprehensible makes me a politician? Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. > Billy J was _elected_ to the job, not hired, not appointed, >and not advanced to it. So? We, the people, interviewed him and then gave him a government job that comes with the highest security clearance in the land. > Tell me that he would have been allowed _any_ clearance >to access classified data in _any_ military position, and I'll tell you >that either the atmosphere for clearances has changed, or I need to >reevaluate what the U.S. Government security manual has to say. The requirements for clearance *have* changed. Lobbyists for China get them routinely now, without vetting. Hadn't you heard? > [...] > I didn't use the word "extremist," by the way, it was "purist." > [...] > > I never said you did. > I was referring to Mr. Heston's own remarks at the Seattle >convention. Don't you remember them? It wasn't at all clear from your text that you were referring to his remarks at the convention. > Insofar as being one myself, I accept that others feel that >way about me, in the consideration that I do not accept the current >definition of liberty as what some bureaucrat says it is. > I am vociferous in that regard, and while I'm neither proud >of it, nor carrying my heart around on my sleeve, I do take advantage >of every opportunity to assess others of our losses when the matters >of liberty arise. I will grant that you are vociferous. > [...] > Again, you're welcome to your opinion, but advocating >unregulated private ownership of machineguns is probably one of >the quickest routes to political oblivion that I can think of offhand. > It's right next to repealing the vote for women, but I'm not >sure whether it's the near or the far side. > [...] > > Well, Neil, then I guess your advocating of Constitutional >liberties is nothing more than window dressing? Do try not to be a twit. > Extremism is what defines the _limits_ of our >community. Obviously you have fallen prey to the "kinder, gentler" >message, ie., let's not be too difficult. You clearly have misunderstood. Based on the tenor of your discourse thus far I doubt that there is any point in trying to explain, but, briefly stated, my position is this: There is a huge gulf between what I would like to see done, and what is possible. At each step, I work to achieve the possible and then improve it at the next step. Kindly do not misrepresent me in the future. > The extremists are who got us into this current socialistic >orgasm of liberties taking. That's simply not true. The appeal was to that vast sea of middle-of- the-road people, who "just wanted to do something good." We got where we are because most of the people in the country wanted us to go this way, whether or not they really understood the implications. Most people simply don't care about the issues which mean so much to you. Al Salvi just won the Republican primary for Secretary of State in Illinois, and it wasn't close. > If you can't be equally extreme in gaining them back, then >you may as well, park your butt on a park bench and retire from the >scene. Another false dichotomy. One can be diligent, persistent *and* successful without being extreme. > Politicians understand only one thing: force. > The forces that got them into office. > The forces that flood their mail boxes with opinions. > The forces that express rage over a lousy vote. > The forces that will remove them from office, for >having voted the wrong way. > When the number of letters and phone calls that >are in *extreme* opposition to his current leanings, are what >causes him/her "to see the light", then the 'unseen forces' win >the day. Extreme opposition is dismissed out of hand because the majority of people aren't extreme and view extremists with considerable alarm. There is no possible way anyone could succeed with such an approach. The Libertarian Party is living proof that the method is doomed to failure. > [...] > This is patently repulsive, even as a rhetorical response, >and not worth further comment. > [...] > > And, here I thought you had a sense of humor . . . It stops short of the puerile. 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: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 19 Mar 1998 10:42:38 -0600 roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) wrote: [ ... Snip, my comment that I understand most Marines don't like Ollie North ... ] >Couldn't say for sure, but when his show was still on KVI a month or two >ago, I caught it from time to time, and most of the Marines I heard on it >seemed pretty supportive..... It could be. My information comes from some Marines I know out at my sportsmen's club. We're probably both seeing a biased population. 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: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 19 Mar 1998 10:45:23 -0600 roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) wrote in part: >With respect to the Knox/Heston debate, Knox is pretty much a known quantity >whether you like him or not. I've seen some good points and bad points made >and for what it's worth, he genreally manages to hold his own. While in >some respects, the same could be said of Heston, I get the feeling that he's >a, "Soup Kitchen Christian", (in it for the bucks). It's been some time >since he last made any films, and he just might be feeling the pinch. Just a quibble on that last sentence: He's made some specials for cable TV recently that I saw on the History Channel, and had a part in Kenneth Brannaugh's (sp?) recent production of "Hamlet." 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: Subject: London Times report on Wakefield Study (fwd) Date: 19 Mar 1998 10:20:49 -0600 (CST) My daughter has Autism. FYI Paul Watson ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I ran across this post and lots of others disscussing this new research thought you guys would be interest. Nagla Return-Path: >X-Sender: lwo@mail.airmail.net >Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 18:54:11 -0600 >Reply-To: SJU Autism and Developmental Disablities List > >Sender: SJU Autism and Developmental Disablities List > >From: Walter & Susan Owens >Subject: London Times report on Wakefield Study >To: AUTISM@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU > >>From the London Times: > >February 27 1998 > BRITAIN > > > > Disease discovery offers hope for damaged babies, writes Ian > Murray > > Measles vaccine's link with autism > studied > > A POSSIBLE link between autism and the multiple MMR vaccine > is to be investigated by an independent panel set up by the > Medical Research Council. > > The investigation has been agreed because of the publication in > The Lancet today of a study among 12 autistic children who > developed the condition soon after being given the vaccine > against measles, mumps and rubella. > > The authors of the report, from the Royal Free Hospital Medical > School in Hampstead, North London, admit that their study does > not prove there is a link. However, they say that they have > discovered a previously unknown bowel disease that can be > caused by the measles virus, which in turn can cause autism. > > All of the 13 researchers involved insist that measles > vaccinations must continue but some, led by Andy Wakefield, > reader in experimental gastroenterology who was in charge of the > study, think that the combined MMR vaccine should be > abandoned until research can prove it is safe. Instead he wants > vaccinations to be given separately for each of the three illnesses > over a year. "In all conscience I cannot support the idea of using > all three vaccines together," he said yesterday. > > Arie Zuckerman, Dean of the medical school, disagreed: "If this > were to precipitate a scare that reduced the rate of immunisation, > children will start dying from measles." > > The study found that all 12 children were suffering from a new > bowel infection similar to Crohn's disease and irritable bowel > syndrome, and there was research that showed both of these > conditions were caused by the measles virus. If the bowel is > damaged during a critical period of brain growth then it may be > unable to cope with the opiates formed in the intestine from foods > such as milk and wheat. These opiates can then get into the brain > where they may influence behaviour, stunt brain growth and > development. > > The first symptoms of autism usually occur in a child's second > year, at the same time MMR is normally given, so this may be a > false association. "Nonetheless, we are concerned that MMR > may give rise to this complication in a small number of children," > the reasearchers say. > > Whether the link is shown or not, the new bowel syndrome is the > first to be associated with autism and treating it could be an > important breakthrough in controlling this condition. > > An editorial in The Lancet advises treating the study with > caution. There has to be a proper system for distinguishing cause > and effect from medicines, it says. "Without such a system, > vaccine safety concerns may snowball into social tragedies when > the media and the public confuse association with causality and > shun immunisation." > > The Health Department said the report showed no satisfactory > evidence that the MMR vaccine caused autism or the bowel > disease. "MMR vaccine should continue to be used as > recommended." > > Dr Wakefield said that since preparing the paper last August his > team had seen 48 other children with behavioural problems that > started after an MMR vaccination. Of these, 46 had the new > bowel condition. "We were amazed there were so many," he said. > "We expected there to be only one or two." > > Inoculation given to a million babies a year > > A combined vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella - > known as MMR - was introduced in Britain in October 1988, after > being widely used for several years in America (Ian Murray > writes). > > In September 1992, after research linked a cluster of cases of > meningitis in Nottingham to batches of the mumps strain in the > vaccination, products made by two of the three manufacturers, > SmithKline Beecham and Merieux, were withdrawn. In 1994, these > two manufacturers supplied measles and rubella strains for a > double vaccination programme, called Operation Safeguard, > introduced by the Government. About seven million > schoolchildren were vaccinated, of whom 530 were said to have > suffered severe side-effects. > > Since 1992 all the triple vaccines have been produced by Merck > Sharpe and Dohme, with about a million babies a year being > immunised in this way. MMR is routinely offered to children in > their second year but can be given at any time after this. Those > who have not had it before can be given it at the same time as > their pre-school diphtheria, tetanus and polio boosters. In 1995 > the Royal Free Hospital published research in The Lancet linking > the inflammatory stomach condition, Crohn's disease, to the > vaccination. The publicity led to a 2 per cent drop in the number > of children being immunised. > > Separate vaccinations against all three diseases have been > available since the Second World War. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------ >Listmates: You can subscribe to the London Times on the web. It is a great >site, has free access and is well-indexed. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > (Walter & Susan Owens) > lwo@iadfw.net > Dallas, Texas USA > > Alvin Crofts II amc2@flash.net Visit the ASCC web page at http://www.flash.net/~amc2 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: The MMR Controversy (fwd) Date: 19 Mar 1998 10:23:11 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Return-Path: >Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:59:17 +0000 >Reply-To: "P.SHATTOCK" >Sender: SJU Autism and Developmental Disablities List > >From: "P.SHATTOCK" >Subject: The MMR Controversy >To: AUTISM@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU > >I apologise for stepping into this debate at such a late stage but I have >been following events from Madrid (en Espanol and via Satellite TV) and >have only just had the opportunity to read the papers and the debate on >the list. > >Perhaps some of the following comments have already been recorded here >but may, in any case, be worth repeating. > >As is well known, Andrew Wakefield is a paediatric gastro-enterologist of >repute. He was struck by the numbers of young children who were appearing >at his hospital with the symptoms of Crohn's Disease which had, until >recently, been a very unusual disorder in children. When he investigated the >bowels he found what looked like evidence of viral involvement and having >studied all the available texts came upon a number of possibilities and >measles was one of these. He (and his team) performed gut biopsies on a >number of these subjects and reported the presence of evidence of measles >infection. Since these cases had all arisen since the introduction of the >triple MMR he hypothesised that the measles element of this could be a >factor. > >This made the press and was spotted by a number of parents of children >with autism. A number of these are known to me and always been convinced >that the MMR triple vaccine precipitated the onset of symptoms and, in >particular, the loss of bowel function. They contacted Wakefield and >persuaded him to look at their children. At first he was not keen and >wondered whether or not it was ethical to examine children, from whom it >is difficult to get informed consent in this way. However, if these had >been asymptomatic children who had lost bowel function in this way then >they would have been examined. Is it right that children with >disabilities should be penalised by not having their symptoms thoroughly >investigated? (His point not mine) > >The first of the 5 papers came out last week after very severe scrutiny. >Normally papers are sent to 2 reviewers; this was sent to 4. It was >accompanied in the Lancet by a hostile editorial and a brief report >appearing to cast doubt on Wakefield's previous papers linking the MMR to >Crohn's (and IBS). What a coincidence! > >In fact, in spite of the fact that his data are actually quite good, >Wakefield's claims are comparatively understated. The bottom line is >"Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its >possible relation to this vaccine." > >I hope no-one would argue with that. > >Surely no-one thinks that these results should have been suppressed. I >know that the researchers went through a lot of soul searching on this >one. The results were not what they wanted or expected and they have, in >my opinion, acted totally correctly throughout. The parents of the >children who were studied also deserve credit for keeping quiet in spite >of various inducements from the press. > >I don't have any real quarrels with the editorial. There are some very >good points and some rather silly ones too but it would take a very big >effort to satisfy all the requirements of the editorial and make a 100% >watertight case. It requires a proper investigation of individual cases >and not just statistical manipulations of epidemiological data. > >The other article, by Afzal, Minor, Begley et al. and entitled "Absence >of measles-virus genome in inflammatory bowel disease" is a fascinating >piece of work in that it has been quoted as destroying the Wakefield >argument about the role of the MMR in Crohn's disease (and IBS etc) >whereas it actually does completely the opposite. It adds credence to it. >In the original Wakefield paper, he reported on children who had been >exposed to the MMR vaccine and measles particles had been found. Afzal >looked at a sample of people with Crohn's disease and, using a very >sensitive technique, did not find any evidence of measles of any sort in >the guts. > >Interestingly, the ages of Afzal's patients are not (as far as I can see) >quoted but there are clues in the text. Only "Five of the thirty patients >had a history of measles vaccination" and since all 30 had antibodies we >can assume they must have been exposed to wild measles strains at some >time. Since about 1988 we have had vaccination figures of around 90% (?) >with the MMR and before that for (and I am guessing here) we used the >monovalent measles vaccine. It seems most unlikely, therefore,that this >was a population of children. > >Therefore: Adults with Crohn's Disease (and no MMR) = No Measles in guts; > Children with Crohn's (and MMR) = Measles in guts. > >Their concluding sentence was "We concluded that with the best available >RT-PCR-nested PC technology, measles virus genome is not present in gut >mucosal biopsies from patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative >colitis." It seems a rather dogmatic statement compared to Wakefield's. > >This does not prove that the MMR caused the problem but it certainly does >not prove that it doesn't and yet that is how it is being used. > >No-one doubts that measles, mumps and rubella can be life threatening and >serious diseases. It may well be that vaccination is the best way to >control them but let's just be sure that the methods we use are as safe >as they possibly can be. > >Apologies for the length - congratulations on getting to the end. > >Paul Shattock > > Alvin Crofts II amc2@flash.net Visit the ASCC web page at http://www.flash.net/~amc2 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 19 Mar 1998 12:52:45 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Bill Vance wrote: > Either way, it beats hurrying to make a Clintonian grade mistake. I think > that makes a fair appraisal, but I'm still listening. What do you all > think? Well, since you asked... I think the Mission Statement of the NRA should be the preservation of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. To this end, they should support and defend it, and roll back the infringements on it as quickly as possible. In fact, without the Second Amendment as a foundation, the NRA loses it reason for existence, and once it goes, it will be but a few years before the organisation vanishes from drastic loss of membership, if it is not legislated out of existence first. However, self-preservation as an organizational entity doesn't play well in Peoria. You have to take the mission to the people and make it mean something to THEM. This means political action. By its very nature, this mission statement is political. To carry it out takes political action. I think this political action, if it is to remain peaceful, necessarily involves informing and persuading, "winning hearts and minds" so that the body politic subscribes to the mission statement. Persuading and informing is the business of Madison Avenue. Those guys don't work for nothing. It takes money. From whence cometh the saying, "Money is the Mother's Milk of politics." The NRA needs money to carry out their mission. How does the NRA raise money? Through two primary means: dues and donations. How do they increase the income from dues? By increasing dues, and by increasing membership. Income from an increase in dues is limited by the "crossover point". The "crossover point" is where income resulting from an increase in dues is matched by a corresponding loss in income due to a loss of membership as a result of people not getting "bang for their buck", or they can't afford it, and abandoning their membership. Once dues are at the crossover point, income from dues increases are maxxed out. OTOH, the income from membership numbers is limited only by the total population of potential members. You don't get new members from the ranks of the True Believers, you get them from the population who are non-members. Hold that thought. How do they increase the income from donations? By solicitations. This is limited by the "burn-out threshold" where donors being constantly dinged on for money start turning a deaf ear to pleas for more money. So the NRA needs to raise money by increasing membership, and increasing donations. A spokesman with favorable and widespread face-name recognition is just about the most sure-fire time-tested method for spreading the word, and increasing membership and donations. I think if you go to any bus stop with a picture of Charlton Heston and a picture of Neal Knox and take a straw poll, far more people will recognize Heston than recognize Knox. Whose name and face are more likely to increase membership (dues money)? Whose name and face are more likely to increase donations (donated money)? Far more people will be willing to part with their money for the face and name of Heston than for the face and name of Knox. Those Madison Avenue guys know this trait is their bread and butter. It's far easier to sell the NRA with Heston at the helm than it is to sell the NRA with Knox at the helm. Anyone who thinks this is an arguable point is seriously detached from reality. So the upshot of it is, no matter what you think of Heston, or whether he is "Puritan" enough to be at the head of the NRA, or whether he has "paid his dues" in the view of the holier-than-thou, his face and name will raise much more money and thus help accomplish the mission far more readily than will Knox's. Knox had his several years in the sun. It's now time for him to "put down the gavel" and support the mission, not his personal agenda. Wait and see? Why? While money and support flee and the mission becomes diffuse and incoherent? As someone said, the GOA and JPFO are looking better and better as a place to give 'til it hurts. You don't win a war with defense. You have to go on the offensive, and the sooner the better. We've already seen what Knox can do with the mission, with several years tenure at it. I seriously doubt that Heston and his staff will do worse. He might even do better. He would certainly do better if he doesn't have to keep scratching at flea bites. And anybody who thinks that one man is going to lead this 3,000,000 person organization where it doesn't want to go is seriously clueless about the fundamental nature of organizations. Heston has the face and name recognition to help the NRA, and I think it is highly doubtful that his ideological influence, whatever it is, is going to single-handedly redirect the NRA to any serious extent. That's what I think. I think it's time to fire McClellan and hire Grant. Translating the metaphor for my Conferate Brethren, it's time to fire Bragg and hire Forrest. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Swing Date: 19 Mar 1998 14:47:23 -0800 (PST) I am fortunate to work with the warmest, most professional, most intellectually curious (and politically wrong headed ; ) people in the world here at WRQ. When a colleague passed away a few years ago (from a congenital heart problem) I was shocked at the impact it had on my life. I had new understanding of the fragility of our stay here, and of the importance of making time for personal things. In a way, Hernan Delgado helped to prepare me (as much as anything could have) for the end of my Mom's battle with Juvenile diabetes in '96. So, a public thanks to Hernan, and mom and a loud and angry scream to the bastards of PETA. Sorry, but as the only son of a juvenile diabetic I can't put it diplomatically after reading Pauls post. I sincerely hope that whoever reads this will find a diplomatic way of correcting folks who think they are being "compassionate" when they talk about bans on medical research. It can be hard to push yourself to make a point that is so unpopular, but it's worth while. Boyd Kneeland PS, As I write this a grey hatchback sits in front of my office building in the sun. Two dogs locked inside and on the outside stickers saying "the more people i meet the more I like my dog" and "fur is pain". It's a confused world, fight to make it rational. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Swing Date: 19 Mar 1998 14:47:23 -0800 (PST) I am fortunate to work with the warmest, most professional, most intellectually curious (and politically wrong headed ; ) people in the world here at WRQ. When a colleague passed away a few years ago (from a congenital heart problem) I was shocked at the impact it had on my life. I had new understanding of the fragility of our stay here, and of the importance of making time for personal things. In a way, Hernan Delgado helped to prepare me (as much as anything could have) for the end of my Mom's battle with Juvenile diabetes in '96. So, a public thanks to Hernan, and mom and a loud and angry scream to the bastards of PETA. Sorry, but as the only son of a juvenile diabetic I can't put it diplomatically after reading Pauls post. I sincerely hope that whoever reads this will find a diplomatic way of correcting folks who think they are being "compassionate" when they talk about bans on medical research. It can be hard to push yourself to make a point that is so unpopular, but it's worth while. Boyd Kneeland PS, As I write this a grey hatchback sits in front of my office building in the sun. Two dogs locked inside and on the outside stickers saying "the more people i meet the more I like my dog" and "fur is pain". It's a confused world, fight to make it rational. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 19 Mar 1998 14:52:55 PST I'll see your points and raise you a quibble, (or whatever).....:-) FWIW, I still think Heston needs some seasoning, or perhaps some tutilage by the membership. As a thought for optimizing the results, how about putting Heston at the helm and Knox in Heston's current position? Surrounding Heston with, "the faithfull", so to speak, so as to give him appropriate feedback/info/attitudinal adjustment etc. Some folks might like someone other than Knox, but the idea seems sound. So far he, (Heston), shows good potential, but he's still a, "loose cannon"..... On Mar 19, Harry Barnett wrote: >On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Bill Vance wrote: > >> Either way, it beats hurrying to make a Clintonian grade mistake. I think >> that makes a fair appraisal, but I'm still listening. What do you all >> think? > >Well, since you asked... > >I think the Mission Statement of the NRA should be the preservation of >the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the individual >citizen's right to keep and bear arms. To this end, they should >support and defend it, and roll back the infringements on it as quickly >as possible. > >In fact, without the Second Amendment as a foundation, the NRA loses it >reason for existence, and once it goes, it will be but a few years >before the organisation vanishes from drastic loss of membership, if it >is not legislated out of existence first. However, self-preservation >as an organizational entity doesn't play well in Peoria. You have to >take the mission to the people and make it mean something to THEM. > >This means political action. By its very nature, this mission >statement is political. To carry it out takes political action. > >I think this political action, if it is to remain peaceful, necessarily >involves informing and persuading, "winning hearts and minds" so that >the body politic subscribes to the mission statement. > >Persuading and informing is the business of Madison Avenue. Those guys >don't work for nothing. It takes money. > >>From whence cometh the saying, "Money is the Mother's Milk of politics." > >The NRA needs money to carry out their mission. > >How does the NRA raise money? Through two primary means: dues and >donations. > >How do they increase the income from dues? By increasing dues, and by >increasing membership. > >Income from an increase in dues is limited by the "crossover point". >The "crossover point" is where income resulting from an increase in >dues is matched by a corresponding loss in income due to a loss of >membership as a result of people not getting "bang for their buck", or >they can't afford it, and abandoning their membership. Once dues are >at the crossover point, income from dues increases are maxxed out. > >OTOH, the income from membership numbers is limited only by the total >population of potential members. You don't get new members from the >ranks of the True Believers, you get them from the population who are >non-members. > >Hold that thought. > >How do they increase the income from donations? By solicitations. >This is limited by the "burn-out threshold" where donors being >constantly dinged on for money start turning a deaf ear to pleas for >more money. > >So the NRA needs to raise money by increasing membership, and >increasing donations. > >A spokesman with favorable and widespread face-name recognition is just >about the most sure-fire time-tested method for spreading the word, >and increasing membership and donations. > >I think if you go to any bus stop with a picture of Charlton Heston and >a picture of Neal Knox and take a straw poll, far more people will >recognize Heston than recognize Knox. Whose name and face are more >likely to increase membership (dues money)? Whose name and face are >more likely to increase donations (donated money)? > >Far more people will be willing to part with their money for the face >and name of Heston than for the face and name of Knox. Those Madison >Avenue guys know this trait is their bread and butter. It's far easier >to sell the NRA with Heston at the helm than it is to sell the NRA with >Knox at the helm. Anyone who thinks this is an arguable point is >seriously detached from reality. > >So the upshot of it is, no matter what you think of Heston, or whether >he is "Puritan" enough to be at the head of the NRA, or whether he has >"paid his dues" in the view of the holier-than-thou, his face and name >will raise much more money and thus help accomplish the mission far >more readily than will Knox's. > >Knox had his several years in the sun. It's now time for him to "put >down the gavel" and support the mission, not his personal agenda. > >Wait and see? Why? While money and support flee and the mission >becomes diffuse and incoherent? As someone said, the GOA and JPFO are >looking better and better as a place to give 'til it hurts. You don't >win a war with defense. You have to go on the offensive, and the >sooner the better. > >We've already seen what Knox can do with the mission, with several >years tenure at it. I seriously doubt that Heston and his staff will >do worse. He might even do better. He would certainly do better if he >doesn't have to keep scratching at flea bites. And anybody who thinks >that one man is going to lead this 3,000,000 person organization where >it doesn't want to go is seriously clueless about the fundamental >nature of organizations. Heston has the face and name recognition to >help the NRA, and I think it is highly doubtful that his ideological >influence, whatever it is, is going to single-handedly redirect the NRA >to any serious extent. > >That's what I think. I think it's time to fire McClellan and hire >Grant. Translating the metaphor for my Conferate Brethren, it's time to >fire Bragg and hire Forrest. > >----- >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 19 Mar 1998 15:11:59 -0700 Neil, We ain't done with this yet. There's a few questions you haven't answered, and theres's been one to many oblique statements made concerning the principals. <><><> Analytical Mode On <><><> I want to know how it is that you are so ready to knock Knox, while heightening Heston. It seems that while you have met Knox, and you personally found a character flaw in the man, we as individuals know him through his writings and his accomplishments. In the way of Knox, we at least have a known quantity and quality. We _know_ what he thinks, and we know him by his past actions. We have seen him and know he will _not_ compromise on the Right we are organized to defend. If a known quantity is available for your selection, why on earth are you so ready to make a choice that results in a situation that will continue to support our very enemies in whatever legislative venue they happen to appear? You _know_ what I'm speaking of here, I needn't cover those details. You are a subber to NOBAN, and you've seen the splash of news about what the NRA and its ICONs have done while we weren't looking. Yet, you and others are so very ready to dump on Knox, as well as just dump him, while a vociferous adversary who really _is_ a Johnny-come-lately, propounds a questionable, and at best dangerous new course for the organization of the NRA. At least Knox isn't afraid to speak about liberty and what needs to be done. He's not going to cozy-up to our enemies and make back room deals that essentially remove our Rights, and at least he won't lie to our faces about who's the real enemy. And he won't spend money - OUR MONEY - on our enemies, so that they can get to wizz in our faces, and laugh heartily about it. That you and others are so ready to choose Heston, I have to question. And as far as the remarks that he doesn't have to answer to why he hasn't explained his past behavior and reconsile it to the present, well, that's a frigging copout. If any other person were to be elected to the NRA, whatever questionable activity that person engaged in the past would be a real bone of contention, and Heston's copout is just that: an evasion. You know me by my past posts here, and I don't monkey around with words. I'm gonna call a spade a spade. Mr. Heston is damn mole. If you cannot see that you're willingly blind. I've had that gut feeling from the start. You mark my words here and now: If he gets relected with supporting majority, your 2A Rights won't exist much past 2001. You'll have but two choices: Turn'em in, or use'em. Count on it. I've never met either man, and I haven't the willingness to do so. But at least one of them is telling the truth, even if he does have a character flaw. None of us are perfect, but at least Knox isn't evading a questionable past, at least Knox has nothing to explain about, at least we know Knox. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 19 Mar 1998 15:27:04 -0800 (PST) On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Bill Vance wrote: > > I'll see your points and raise you a quibble, (or whatever).....:-) > > FWIW, I still think Heston needs some seasoning, or perhaps some tutilage by > the membership. As a thought for optimizing the results, how about putting > Heston at the helm and Knox in Heston's current position? Surrounding > Heston with, "the faithfull", so to speak, so as to give him appropriate > feedback/info/attitudinal adjustment etc. Some folks might like someone > other than Knox, but the idea seems sound. So far he, (Heston), shows good > potential, but he's still a, "loose cannon"..... > From personal preference (and personal experience) I would tend to lean the other way. Some people (some of whom you would never expect it of) have a very difficult time "putting down the gavel" and giving their replacement their unequivocal and full support when they stand relieved of command. Knox comes off to me as someone like that, more an more as the years go by. His recent actions do nothing to counter this impression. This doesn't make him a bad guy. Everybody is corrupted by power, one way or another. It's a curse of the situation, not a character flaw. I gratefully acknowledge his past service to the organization. Because of my impression, I would prefer Knox in a staff position, not in the line, where any tendency he had to behave like a sphincter muscle would be severely restricted and neutralized for the benefit of the mission, but where he could still make a positive contribution to The Cause. Hypothetically speaking, of course. This is not to say that Knox IS a sphincter muscle, or behaves like one, only that any TENDENCY to behave like one will be neutralized. From reports of others, I only know Knox to be an all-around fine fellow and a good judge of liquor, women, and horses. No character assassination is intended. Surely, if he has the interests of the mission at heart, he could not object? And the FNG deserves his chance. Baptism by fire is the best way to "season" someone I know. And being "unseasoned" can sometimes be a benefit: he is not yet convinced that success is impossible. Consider the film "Tunes of Glory" for an example of the phenomenon of having a second-in-command who sets out to thwart the CO to make him look bad, and in his cleverness, succeeds. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 19 Mar 1998 18:33:48 -0700 Neil, [...] A couple of points to be made here: One is that I never authorized him to be my lobbyist. -snip- [...] I never asked Wayne La Pierre, or Tanya Metaksa to be mine either. So, what's your point? Oh, wait, I see! He's not supposed to speak at all. Mum's the word, eh? [...] His reporting of matters going on within the NRA has been shrill (to use your word) in the extreme. The manner in which he has carried out his campaign has damaged the NRA considerably, . . . [...] He has? Would you please quantify that by explicit examples? Please provide the proofs of your assertions. Since you seemingly wish to destroy his reputation, and elevate Heston's perhaps you'd care to provide a likely scenario of just what Knox has done. It seems you are privy to such exalted knowledge - obviously way above the rest of us mere mortals . . . If your knowledge is so perfect, Neil, maybe you wouldn't mind sharing it with us, like say, 10 years ago? And in the case you get the inclination to think that I'm pushing one candidtate over another, you read that wrong too. I could care less who you vote for. My beef here is the you are so obviously pro Heston, that anytime some one opens up about his prime opponent, you fire off like a burning bush, proclaiming perfect knowledge. I'm not exactly a pro Knox, but I voted for him because I know his record. If there was another candidate that I thought was better, I would have placed my vote there. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 19 Mar 1998 18:15:51 -0700 Harry, [...] We've already seen what Knox can do with the mission, with several years tenure at it. I seriously doubt that Heston and his staff will do worse. He might even do better. He would certainly do better if he doesn't have to keep scratching at flea bites. And anybody who thinks that one man is going to lead this 3,000,000 person organization where it doesn't want to go is seriously clueless about the fundamental nature of organizations. Heston has the face and name recognition to help the NRA, and I think it is highly doubtful that his ideological influence, whatever it is, is going to single-handedly redirect the NRA to any serious extent. [...] I regards to your historian proclivities, may I entertain you with a bit NRA history? By the way, I did purchase all of the books of the Civil War that you suggested. Amazon.com is a veritable book well. Now, according to William Weir, the author of "A Well Regulated Militia, The Battle Over Gun Control", the Executive VP, Maj. Gen. Frank Orth testified before the congress, that "We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States." That statement was made in 1968, before the 1968 gun control act was passed into law. According to Weir, the NRA could not fire him, but they muzzled him, for the rest of his term. Then, in 1974, the "Old Guard" as the hard-liners referred to them, fired 74 employees who were not sympathetic to the Old Guard's line of thinking. The Cincinati Revolt cleaned out the Old Guard, and Harlon Carter was then at the helm. Carter's team started the "I'm the NRA" campaign, with bumper stickers and other items that brought many and varied people of great diversity to the organization. According to Wier, it was tough going from then on because of a very liberal controlled press, which refused any ad from the NRA. I won't bore you with more details, except to say that the book is quite available, and needs reading by anyone who wants to know the small details behind gun control. The relevance here? The NRA didn't see it coming when the Executive VP, Maj. Gen. Frank Orth spoke, sending any hope to kill that bill to the pit. Now, what makes you think that it won't happen with Heston? ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 19 Mar 1998 21:26:52 -0600 "E.J. Totty" wrote: [ ... Snip, personal attacks, snivelling, and other sorts of drivel ... ] E.J., when you grow up, write to me. Perhaps then we can have an intelligent conversation. Until that happens, no useful purpose would be served either for the list or for each other to continue this thread. I don't care to have anything further to do with your part of it. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal (fwd) Date: 20 Mar 1998 05:20:04 -0800 (PST) On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, E.J. Totty wrote: > The relevance here? The NRA didn't see it coming > when the Executive VP, Maj. Gen. Frank Orth spoke, sending > any hope to kill that bill to the pit. > Now, what makes you think that it won't happen > with Heston? If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. But it's not something I want to spend any time fretting about. Hey, you don't like the guy, go ahead and oppose him. We all have to find something to do to fill the time between birth and death. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Wisdom from Neal Date: 20 Mar 1998 05:22:03 -0700 At 21:26 -0600 3/19/1998, Neil Dickey wrote: >"E.J. Totty" wrote: > >[ ... Snip, personal attacks, snivelling, and other sorts of drivel ... ] > >E.J., when you grow up, write to me. Neil, Tsk, tsk, tsk. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #77 (fwd) Date: 22 Mar 1998 13:52:51 PST On Mar 21, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia March 22, 1998 #77 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html ORGANIZE FOR PRIVACY There was a time, a few decades ago, when=20 Americans respected each other's right to privacy. =20 Butting into someone else's business, back then, could=20 easily get one a swift punch in the nose. That applied to=20 federal agents as well. In fact, in some areas of the=20 country, back then, federal agents actually feared to=20 tread in their official capacity. They could come to=20 "visit." But, snooping around was most defiantly not=20 healthy. Since then, Americans gave up their right to=20 privacy. It all started very slowly, of course. The=20 hippies of the late 60's and early 70's caused such=20 problems that many adults thought it would be fine for the=20 police to stop and search them. Then it was all the drug=20 users and dealers, especially when they started shooting=20 at each other. Complicating everything was the federal=20 government's "Great Society" programs, which created=20 large urban slums and frequent urban unrest. And, heck,=20 the police really should constantly roust all "those"=20 people. Right? Maybe. But today, we are all "those" people! Today, the IRS has permission to scrutinize=20 every single monitory transaction Americans make. That's=20 so they can insure that we came by our money legally, you=20 see. The drug enforcement officers, Army Corps of=20 Engineers, EPA, BATF, and a series of other government=20 agencies feel free to trespass on our property at will. =20 No warrant is necessary anymore. We gave up that right. To be allowed to travel, Americans must have=20 their "papers" in order at airports and be willing to=20 submit to any search the nice officer feels is necessary. =20 Liberty and privacy is even suspended on the public=20 highways. Police regularly stop and question people at=20 "check points" for no reason whatsoever. And, if you own a business, all sorts of=20 government agents feel free to come in and snoop around=20 anytime. There is absolutely nothing government agents=20 cannot inspect, for any reason or no reason, in an=20 American business. Americans are beginning to believe things are=20 supposed to be this way. However, that is far from the=20 truth. The Fourth Amendment to the United States=20 Constitution was put there precisely because the Founding=20 Fathers had these very same problems with the agents of=20 King George. To insure there would be no=20 misunderstanding, they wrote the words of the Fourth=20 Amendment clearly: "The right of the people to be secure in their=20 persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable=20 searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no=20 Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported=20 by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the=20 place to be searched, and the persons or things to be=20 seized." That's it. There is nothing else to understand. =20 If the government agent does not have a warrant, signed by=20 a judge, which states exactly their reason for being=20 there, they are in violation of the Constitution. There=20 is no distinction made between "civil" and "criminal"=20 laws, or between laws, rules and regulations. And, most=20 assuredly, the Fourth Amendment was intended to include=20 the tax collector. We know that for a fact because one of=20 the reasons the Founding Fathers went to war was the=20 abuses of authority by the tax collectors. Now,=20 unfortunately, we have the exact same problems again. When James Madison proposed what we now call=20 the Fourth Amendment, he added another catch all=20 Amendment, today's Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in=20 the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed=20 to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The=20 Tenth Amendment then carries this thought on to its=20 logical end: "The powers not delegated to the United=20 States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the=20 States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the=20 people." So, our right to privacy is Constitutionally=20 protected in four separate ways. The body of the=20 Constitution gives the federal government almost no=20 authority to violate the privacy of the people. The=20 Fourth Amendment protects our privacy against arbitrary=20 police action. The Ninth Amendment instructs the federal=20 government that, even when a right or liberty is not=20 discussed in the Constitution, the people still have it. =20 And the Tenth Amendment instructs the federal government=20 that all powers not mentioned in the Constitution,=20 including our rights and liberties, belong to the States=20 respectively, or to the people individually. This ain't rocket science, folks! This is easy=20 stuff to understand. Our individual right to privacy was=20 protected by the Constitution in four different ways. =20 Still, we're acting like we gave it up. Why? Actually,=20 we cannot give up our right to privacy. It is an=20 unalienable right, which means that we cannot relinquish=20 or transfer it. In truth, we just do not protect it any=20 longer. The Constitution is the highest law of the=20 land. No law may supersede the Constitution. Only a=20 Constitutional amendment my change a Constitutional=20 right. Any violation of the Constitution must be,=20 therefore, a serious breach of the law -- a violation much=20 more serious than a breach of the laws passed by Congress. In fact, a law, executive order, rule or=20 regulation contrary to the Constitution cannot be a legal=20 "law." And, in The Federalist Papers No. 78, Alexander=20 Hamilton tells us exactly that: "There is no position which depends on clearer=20 principles than that every act of a delegated authority,=20 contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is=20 exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore,=20 contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this=20 would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his=20 principal; that the servant is above his master; that the=20 representatives of the people are superior to the people=20 themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do=20 not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they=20 forbid." One sentence there sums it up nicely: "No=20 legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution,=20 can be valid." When government violates the Constitution,=20 then, it becomes an illegal entity and relinquishes=20 Constitutional authority. This places the burden of=20 correction squarely on the shoulders of the people. To start, it is time that we demand our Fourth=20 Amendment rights -- our right to our own personal=20 privacy -- again be respected by all agencies of=20 government. There is no excuse for this wholesale=20 violation of the Constitution by government agents. This is an election year. Let's have at them. =20 Tell them: All government agents must respect the privacy=20 of all American citizens completely. There can be no=20 excuse for not putting this matter on "fast track." =20 Or -- and, this is the part the Lords and Ladies of the=20 Hill will understand best -- we will organize to defeat=20 their reelection to Congress. Even if they do this, it is time we organize for=20 some good old fashioned political action. OUR WORKERS ARE OUR BOSS Picture yourself owning a couple thousand=20 acres of nice woodland. And, while we're supposing here,=20 let's say that you are wealthy enough to hire a caretaker,=20 gardener and tree trimmer to keep the property shaped up=20 enough for your friends to enjoy as a park. What would=20 your position be, then, if your caretaker, gardener and=20 tree trimmer confronted you one day and said that they=20 flatly refuse to allow you or your friends to use vast=20 areas of your own property? Right . . . fire the bums! And, that is exactly=20 what we should do. Well, you do own vast amounts woodland, in=20 conjunction with the rest of the American people. All of=20 the so called "federal land" is actually our "public"=20 land. Much of it is under the care of the National Forest=20 Service, but it is not private property. Any property=20 that does not have a military base, fort or government=20 office on it is "public" land. That means, the land is=20 open for use by all American citizens equally. Yet, the=20 caretakers, gardeners and tree trimmers hired to work on=20 this "public" land want to close vast areas of it off from=20 its rightful owners, the American people. The Associated Press reported that they=20 obtained a 21 page memo titled, "Forest Service Natural=20 Resource Agenda." Among other things, the memo=20 recommends that Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck make=20 appearances at big forest fires this summer to push his=20 call for forest management reforms. The memo sets up a=20 plan, recommending that the agency should take every=20 opportunity this summer to tie its new forest policy --=20 including restrictions on road building in many forests --=20 to Vice President Al Gore's clean water initiative. =20 Republicans in Congress, however, are not pleased. "It is a sad day when the Forest Service ...=20 decides to use forest fires as a movie set for 'media=20 events' to highlight the vice president's presidential=20 campaign," said Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), chairman of=20 the House Resources Committee. "They are blatantly using this once proud=20 agency for political purposes," said Rep. Helen Chenoweth=20 (R-ID), chairman of the House Resources Subcommittee on=20 Forests. The Forest Service strategy proposes that=20 officials promote (read lobby) their natural resource=20 agenda in talks with members of Congress. Republican=20 critics say, 'hold on here!' There is a law prohibiting=20 members of the executive branch from lobbying Congress. =20 Never mind that the FBI, EPA, FDA, and others do it all=20 the time. That's another story. . . . It's still illegal. So, as per the Forest Service plan, from July 1=20 through Sept. 1, "we will take every opportunity to tie=20 with the Vice President's Clean Water Initiative and=20 indeed provide a media event for the VP to showcase the=20 initiative on national forest lands." Which means, they=20 will use Gore as an excuse to close land off to the=20 public. The memo said Dombeck should emphasize the=20 watershed protection aspects of the agenda, "especially=20 related to wildlife suppression, water quality and=20 watersheds. This should be highlighted by the chief=20 traveling to fires receiving high media coverage." Outwardly, the Forest Service planned a=20 moratorium on new logging roads and trails across millions=20 of acres of national forests. Secretly, bowing to=20 pressure from Gore's friends in the far left "green"=20 groups, the Forest Service actually plans to remove many=20 existing roads and trails from huge tracts of public land,=20 rendering vast areas inaccessible to the American public. Disclosure of the memo shows that agency=20 officials knew they would be vulnerable to complaints for=20 that action. And, now that the true extent of their real=20 scheme is known, perhaps there will be some changes. =20 Already, the Forest Service extended the public comment=20 period on the logging road proposal an additional 30=20 days -- to March 30. As American citizens, our reply to these forest=20 caretakers, gardeners and tree trimmers should be simple: =20 Get back into the woods, do your jobs and shut up! Else,=20 go find another job. We Americans must quit allowing the=20 help to boss the owners around on their own property. CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT If our television sets already had those built=20 in chips to automatically censor sexual subjects, nearly=20 one-quarter of the "news" broadcasts Americans receive=20 lately would be blacked out. And, most of that would be=20 news concerning the White House. Over the last couple=20 years, the news of the president and his wife went from=20 graft and corruption to the bent of the executive member. =20 Then, reports went to affairs in the White House, and back=20 to graft and corruption. Recently, the evening news=20 returned to other affairs in the White House, and then=20 settled on oral sex and improper groping for a while. That's our nightly news. Every night. For=20 family viewing, at dinner time. All this, and they=20 haven't even started on Hillary's peccadilloes yet. When=20 this stuff hits the Congressional Committee hearings, many=20 weeks of TV news will be considerably racier than the=20 afternoon soap operas. And, that's only the White House=20 news. There'll be trials, too. Congress noticed, but they really don't know=20 what to do about it. They must do their job and schedule=20 public hearings. But, that presents a very serious public=20 relations problem. Newt wants to soften the blow by tossing=20 the whole deal in the lap of a grandfatherly looking=20 figure in the person of Rep. Henry J. Hyde, (R-Ill.). =20 However, due to the make up of Hyde's House Judiciary=20 Committee, there's another major problem: Let's face it;=20 many Americans would laugh too much if some of the=20 characters on that Judiciary Committee were to question=20 anyone about sexual matters. Many of those clowns would=20 never, ever be taken seriously by the folks in middle=20 America. And this really is supposed to be a serious=20 subject, after all. . . . Henry Hyde says that, when it comes to=20 impeaching the president of the United States, he will=20 wait to see the results compiled by the office of the=20 independent counsel. On the other hand, the House=20 Republican leadership is not against peeking to get some=20 idea of what Starr has. Therefore, Newt and Henry Hyde=20 agreed to send a small delegation of House members over=20 to examine the independent council's evidence. Meanwhile, to freeze out some of the far-left=20 crazies on the House Judiciary Committee, the House is=20 discussing setting up a "select" committee to review the=20 looming impeachment problem. As it turns out, Henry Hyde=20 is afraid of some of the junior Republicans, too -- like=20 Bob Barr, probably -- which is a shame. Practically speaking, we think it would be=20 rather entertaining to watch the full Judiciary Committee=20 at work on the impeachment matter. These people are=20 actually allowed to vote on laws that affect all Americans=20 equally. The hearings will be watched by millions of=20 people. Therefore, it would be a very good exercise in=20 Democracy for America to see some of these people in=20 operation. A week or so of that and most of the country=20 will realize exactly what happened to the United States=20 government, how all those crazy laws got passed, and why=20 our Constitution is no longer in effect. Reports say that Henry Hyde received more=20 than 200,000 signed petitions in support of H.R. 304 --=20 the bill calling for the impeachment inquiry of President=20 Clinton. He should receive more. Rep. Hyde's address=20 is: 2110 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,=20 D.C. 20515-1315. His telephone number is: (202) 225-4561. We are told that Speaker of the House, Newt=20 Gingrich, has a 24 hour telephone service at:=20 (202) 225-0600 for voice and (202) 225-7733 for fax. And, on the theory that one picture is worth=20 a thousand words, the pictures at the two addresses below=20 may describe volumes. These are pictures of Bill's=20 excellent travel adventures: =20 http://www.mrc.org/news/camp92.html =20 http://www.parismatch.tm.fr/news/clinton3/1.html =20 See if you can guess how many of these people work(ed) in=20 the White House. At least one has been with the=20 administration for quite some time. Hint: watch the=20 animated picture. FEDERAL SEXUAL ABUSE LAW This is certainly not the type of law we normally=20 study around here. But, when G. Gordon Liddy mentioned it=20 on his radio program last Thursday, it caught our interest. The White House, of course, is federal property. =20 Therefore, all federal laws (should) apply there. This=20 one seems very timely, so here it is almost in its=20 entirety. This is 18 USC 2244. Most applicable at the present time is section=20 "b." However, the Internet address is provided at the end=20 because we have a feeling some of these other "sections"=20 may also become applicable before this is all over, and=20 the web page provides links to full explanations of the=20 other sections. =A7 2244. Abusive sexual contact:=20 (a) Sexual Conduct in Circumstances Where=20 Sexual Acts Are Punished by This Chapter. - Whoever, in=20 the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the=20 United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in=20 or causes sexual contact with or by another person, if so=20 to do would violate -=20 (1) section 2241 of this title had the=20 sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under=20 this title, imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;=20 (2) section 2242 of this title had the sexual=20 contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this title,=20 imprisoned not more than three years, or both;=20 (3) subsection (a) of section 2243 of this=20 title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be=20 fined under this title, imprisoned not more than two=20 years, or both; or=20 (4) subsection (b) of section 2243 of this=20 title had the sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be=20 fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six=20 months, or both.=20 (b) In Other Circumstances. - Whoever, in the=20 special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the=20 United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in=20 sexual contact with another person without that other=20 person's permission shall be fined under this title,=20 imprisoned not more than six months, or both. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2244.shtml TWEAKING THE MEDIA By: Craig Brown Not long ago, one of our local Television=20 stations aired a news report about the chaos caused by=20 the emissions testing currently imposed on the residents=20 of Hamilton County [Ohio]. Since the long lines, expense=20 and inconsistent testing results were just the effect of=20 the testing fiasco and not the cause, was it worth the=20 cost? Beyond that, were there valid reasons for all of=20 this? I decided to call the station News Director to=20 urge that they finish this story by answering those=20 questions for their viewers. He seemed put off by this=20 request and in order to get rid of me, suggested that I=20 write him a letter outlining my concerns. The following=20 is my subsequent letter. Dear News Director: As per our discussion on the telephone, I am=20 writing to you to urge a follow-up on your emissions=20 control story. For years, your station has taken the lead in=20 shedding light on matters of concern to your viewers. =20 This is evidenced recently by your stories about the=20 corruption in the offices of the building inspector and=20 Judge Executive of Boone County, [KY] and abuses by the=20 Cincinnati Bureau of Recreation. Now I see an opportunity=20 to further serve the community by examining the problems=20 surrounding emissions testing in Hamilton County, and if=20 there are valid reasons for this testing. As you may know, Kentucky is challenging in=20 court the right of a federal regulatory agency to subject=20 citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to just such=20 testing. That is why this testing isn't taking place in=20 Northern Kentucky and is unlikely to ever occur. This=20 doesn't mean that Kentuckians have more rights then our=20 neighbors in Ohio. It just means that we are demanding=20 our rights under the U.S. Constitution. And the U.S.=20 Supreme Court has made it clear that the individual states=20 aren't branch offices of the federal government. Three recent high court decisions, US vs.=20 Printz, US vs. Lopez and US vs. New York, underscore the=20 fact that federal regulations and even state laws=20 supporting such regulations cannot override the=20 Constitutional rights of citizens. It's the law of the=20 land for all of us, whether we live in Kentucky or Ohio. That is, in a thumbnail, the legal side of=20 emissions testing. And in Kentucky, a bill has been=20 introduced in the State Senate that will enable=20 individuals to challenge these regulations in the local=20 Circuit Courts for a fraction of the cost of taking such=20 suits to the higher courts. On the "greater good" sign of=20 the picture, the EPA has staked out for itself the moral=20 highground. With a propaganda machine second to none,=20 the EPA has filled the media with "studies" that have=20 shown the most grotesque consequences awaiting us if we=20 don't give up our way of life and go back to another age,=20 free of all the trappings that came from the industrial=20 revolution. When asked to support all these "studies"=20 with scientific evidence, they become vague. They cite=20 data that can't be revealed at this time and their=20 consensus of 2,500 "scientists" who support these=20 findings. On closer inspection, these "scientists"=20 consist of gynecologists, podiatrists, bankers, social=20 workers and less than 10 percent of their number having=20 anything close to a knowledge of atmospheric science. =20 On the other hand, true scientists familiar to the subject=20 reject the global warming theory, referring to it as "junk=20 science".=20 To cover the whole of EPA intrusions into our=20 lives, you could fill news hours from here to the end of=20 the year. A more practical approach to public service=20 would simply educate the public to ask questions of those=20 who would regulate our lives. One of the best questions=20 to ask, when the EPA man comes calling, is, "where's=20 your warrant?" Thank you for considering this request for more=20 information regarding emissions testing, where it came=20 from and where it leads. I will be happy to elaborate on=20 any aspect of this letter. If I don't have the answer, I=20 promise to get it for you quickly. =20 I look forward to hearing from you on this important=20 matter. Predictably, there was no reply to my letter. So=20 I called the News Director again. After some prompting,=20 he remembered having received the letter, but didn't know=20 what I thought he should do about it. When I suggested=20 that his station raise some questions as to why Ohioans=20 but not Kentuckians should be forced into emissions=20 testing and question whether such testing could be legally=20 enforced under the law, he seemed tired and told me that=20 maybe they would address it sometime in the future. I thanked him and hung up, wondering what=20 would happen if all of us had his driving curiosity. I=20 suppose that here in Kentucky, we can be thankful that our=20 media takes seriously their role as watchdogs for our=20 freedoms. The greatest enemy of tyranny is an enlightened=20 electorate. -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Asset Forfeiture Legislation (fwd) Date: 23 Mar 1998 07:42:50 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -- Texas State Rifle Association Email --- March 22, 1998 The House will soon consider asset forfeiture legislation. HR 1835 provides much needed reforms of existing laws to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected from government abuse. Unfortunately, the Clinton Justice Department is pushing another bill, HR 1965, that would give the government far-reaching power to seize the property and businesses of individuals merely suspected of wrongdoing. Please call your Congressman at 202-225-3121, and urge him/her to support HR 1835, true asset seizure reform legislation, and OPPOSE the Clinton Administration's power grabbing bill, HR1965. Please visit the Texas State Rifle Association website: http://www.tsra.com/ If you wish to no longer receive email from TSRA, please reply to this message. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Lawmakers Assail Clinton's "Back Door" Gun Ban (fwd) Date: 23 Mar 1998 07:48:31 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -- Texas State Rifle Association Email --- March 22, 1998 The Senate Republican Policy Committee, which develops and coordinates legislative policy making for the GOP in the Senate and is chaired by NRA Director Sen. Larry Craig (ID), sharply criticized the Clinton Administration's "back door" plan for a sweeping new ban on firearms. At issue: thousands of foreign-made firearms -- guns the Committee report accurately termed "legally importable under President Clinton's 1994 Semi-Auto Gun Ban and the 1968 'sporting purposes' import standard." The President's goal: banning guns by circumventing Congress and sing his power to halt imports. "While every firearm sold in the United States meets or exceeds the exact standard set forth in Clinton's Semi-Auto Gun Ban, the Administration is now attempting to justify further restrictions -- only now ignoring the role of Congress," the Committee report explained. The next salvo in the battle over the Bigger Clinton Gun Ban will be fired any day now, when the Treasury Department releases its review of the 1968 "sporting purposes" standard. NRA-ILA predicts that the Clinton Administration will misuse this unconstitutional standard and ban as many imported semiautomatic firearms as possible -- all guns legal under his own gun ban -- continuing the Clinton tradition of hypocrisy, abuse of power and elimination of Second Amendment rights by every means possible. Call the Senate Republican Policy Committee at 202-224-2946, compliment them for their document titled "Clinton's New Gun Ban" dated March 16, 1998, and request a copy so you can mail one to your elected representatives. You may also download a copy from the SRPC's website at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/pubindex98.htm Please visit the Texas State Rifle Association website: http://www.tsra.com/ If you wish to no longer receive email from TSRA, please reply to this message. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Anita Hill, Clinton is OK if he supports Women rights Date: 23 Mar 1998 08:26:38 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- So this is what it has come to? Psssttt... girls... Al Gore will support the same policies and he doesn't grope married women and interns. - --- Jim At 7:51 PM -0600 3/22/98, jqp@inxpress.net wrote: >At 05:42 PM 3/22/98 -0800, Ray Heizer wrote: >> >>[ This was untitled where I found it so I made up my own title ] >> >>By JIM ABRAMS Associated Press Writer >> >>WASHINGTON (AP) -- Anita Hill says her case against Clarence Thomas is >>different from charges made against President Clinton and urges women to >>consider the bigger issue of the administration's policies toward women >>before judging his personal behavior. >> > >Spoken like a true socialist. > > "What you bitchin about? So the man stuck his hand > in your crotch. Ain't you got better day care, bitch?" > >========================================================================== >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 At 07:51 PM 3/22/98 -0600, you wrote: >Feminists Break Ranks Over Clinton's Alleged Sexual >Advances > > By David G. Savage and Alan C. > Miller (c) 1998, Los Angeles > Times > > > In an opinion piece published in > Sunday's New York Times, > Steinem said the president may > have ``made a gross, dumb and > reckless pass at a supporter during > a low point in her life,'' but he is > ``not guilty of sexual harassment'' > because it happened only once > and he backed away when > rebuffed. > Cool! Gloria Steinem says I'm allowed to touch the genitals of whatever woman I want, as long as I don't rape her, and I don't try it again unless it was successful. ========================================================================== 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 ... The Sunday talk shows were infested With gals who were just interested In making excuses For Bill's sex abuses No matter who he has molested. We men owe the Prez quite a lot For the new workplace rights we have got. We've all got free passes To grab women's asses But remember you just get one shot. ========================================================================== 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: Subject: Dallas Morning Newspaper attacks movie about Waco (fwd) Date: 23 Mar 1998 13:13:47 -0600 (CST) Film on Branch Davidian standoff criticized The Dallas Morning News: Top story index Film on Branch Davidian standoff criticized Makers of Oscar-nominated documentary deny that it's biased and inaccurate 03/21/98 By <"mailto:lhancock@dallasnews.com">Lee Hancock The Dallas Morning News WACO - This is the Branch Davidian story according to Hollywood: Federal police attacked a religious sect as a publicity stunt, tormented members for 51 days after they fought back and finished them off with tear gas, machine guns and fire. The tale, told in "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," will be among five nominees contending for the 1998 Oscar for best documentary Monday. But there's a problem. The film didn't get many facts right, according to the massive public record on the incident and officials who investigated it from Waco to Washington. Information mischaracterized or ignored includes evidence and testimony from congressional hearings, a 1994 criminal trial of Branch Davidians, court opinions and U.S. Treasury and Justice Department reviews. Dan Gifford, whose Los Angeles production company funded the film, defends it as good journalism. "What you see in that film is my best judgment based on 25 years in news departments of what the public could handle, what they would be willing to see," said Mr. Gifford, a former TV reporter. The film's researcher, Michael McNulty, said he blamed the government for the film's weaknesses because its agencies wouldn't cooperate. "I don't claim that our film is the end-all, be-all truth about Waco," said Mr. McNulty, who also has been paid to investigate for the Branch Davidians' pending wrongful-death lawsuit against the government. "I do think it takes a very large step in the direction of telling the truth." Others say the film gives an inaccurate picture of the tragedy that took the lives of more than 80 Branch Davidians and four federal agents. A congressman who was chairman of the 1995 Waco hearings said he and colleagues reviewed the film and found no merit to its most explosive charge: that the FBI set the compound fire and shot Branch Davidians to keep them in the inferno. "Am I concerned that this encourages people to believe something that I think is patently untrue? Yes, I am concerned," said U.S. Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla. Even one of the sect members' defense lawyers said he was disturbed by the film's conclusions because they were unsupported. "I think that everybody really wants to put this horrible story on the government because they're dissatisfied with the government's performance in this. But the truth was bad enough. Why not tell the truth?" said Joe Turner of Austin. Justice Department, FBI and Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms officials said the film's charges were baseless. "Based on what I know, if there were an Oscar for truth, it wouldn't have been nominated," said Justice Department spokesman Bert Brandenberg. Mr. Gifford said he decided to make the film after talks with Mr. McNulty, a Colorado resident and former radio talk show host who began researching the standoff in 1993. Mr. McNulty's Waco work first got attention when he helped "Soldier of Fortune" magazine debunk a 1993 video contending that flame-throwing FBI tanks started the fire. The 1997 film begins by portraying the Branch Davidians as unorthodox but unthreatening and contends that the ATF targeted them for publicity. Not mentioned is the fact that the McLennan County Sheriff's Department asked the ATF to investigate because of evidence that the sect was amassing illegal weapons. The film doesn't mention reports of automatic gunfire, shots fired at passersby or trial testimony that sect leader David Koresh taught followers that they must be willing to kill for God. McLennan County Sheriff Jack Harwell, who appears in the film, said it appeared "slanted to make the federal people look bad. They did enough to hurt themselves without slanting it." The movie condemns the affidavit that the ATF used to justify searching the compound as sloppy and inflammatory. It doesn't say that sect defense lawyers never challenged its legality or mention its documentation of extensive purchases of guns, parts for making machine guns and explosives ingredients. Investigators eventually traced more than $242,000 in ordnance purchases. Grenades, silencers, more than 1 million bullets and 48 illegal machine guns were found in the burned compound. When the film explores the ATF's Feb. 28, 1993, raid, it embraces Branch Davidian allegations that the ATF started the shootout that left four agents and six sect members dead. The film includes some agents' statements that the sect fired first. But it doesn't mention that three journalists who watched the battle testified in the Branch Davidians' trial that the first shots came from the compound. Mr. Gifford said those accounts and other trial information were excluded because of time constraints. Though acquitted of conspiring to kill agents, eight sect members were convicted of voluntary manslaughter and weapons charges. The film doesn't mention the convictions. The movie doesn't mention trial and congressional testimony and Treasury Department review findings about what the sect did after being tipped 30 minutes before the raid. "They didn't give themselves up. They got ready for battle," said former Assistant Treasury Secretary Ronald Noble, who oversaw the treasury inquiry. "Don't the filmmakers have an obligation to check the record?" The film contends that three Texas National Guard helicopters strafed the compound and fatally shot an unarmed Branch Davidian on its tower. It doesn't mention ATF agents' trial testimony, confirmed by FBI ballistics tests, that the tower man was armed and was killed by an agent on the ground. It also doesn't mention three National Guard pilots' trial testimony and sworn statements in the con gressional record that no one fired from the helicopters. Mr. Gifford said he didn't trust the FBI lab and thinks the pilots didn't see what happened or are lying. He said he believes allegations by Mr. Koresh and his followers that the helicopters shot up the compound. "They just don't have the ring of people who are making things up," he said. The film dismisses the government's finding, endorsed by the House inquiry, that sect members started the fire that destroyed the compound. The fire erupted about noon on April 19, six hours after the FBI tanks began bashing holes in the compound and inserting tear gas. An FBI airplane using a heat-sensitive or infrared video camera captured the fire starting in three places in three minutes. Investigators determined that the blaze was fueled by flammable liquids found along with opened fuel containers throughout the co mpound wreckage. FBI transmitters picked up voices of compound occupants discussing pouring fuel and setting fires throughout that morning. The last transmission, recorded at 11:48 a.m. said, "Let's keep that fire going." The film doesn't include that or two surviving Branch Davidians' statements about hearing voices yelling about lighting fires. The film suggests that FBI tanks spread fuel by crushing fuel cans in the building and added more flammable vapors with a component of its tear gas. Not mentioned are testimony and letters to Congress from chemical experts stating that the cited tear gas component is a fire retardant. The film says the FBI started the fire, probably with an incendiary device. It states that the blaze jumped through the building in the form of two fireballs that two surviving Davidians said they saw. James Quintiere, a University of Maryland professor who led the arson investigation, said the fireball stories are scientifically impossible. The fireballs would have been detected by the FBI infrared camera, he said. Mr. Gifford said he thinks the fireballs moved too fast and failed to generate enough heat to be captured on the infrared video. The movie doesn't mention that 19 Branch Davidians had fatal gunshot wounds, many from close range. Four of the 17 children who perished died of gunshots, and a 3-year-old was stabbed, according to autopsy reports. The movie says someone outside the compound fired machine guns into the building to keep sect members inside as the fire broke out. It offers an analysis by a former Defense Department infrared expert who said the infrared video includes flashes that can only be machine-gun fire. The expert, physicist Edward Allard, said in an interview that he had never viewed or analyzed gunfire on infrared film before Mr. McNulty showed him the FBI's Waco video. But Mr. Allard said he was certain that its flashes were from hundreds of rounds of automatic gunfire. Government officials say the flashes were sunlight reflections. The Waco movie bolsters Mr. Allard's gunfire analysis by showing segments of a similar assessment written by an infrared expert for CBS' "60 Minutes." The film says that "fear . . . kept "60 Minutes" from informing the American people." "60 Minutes" producer Rome Hartman said he didn't pursue the story because other experts offered opposite opinions. He said the filmmakers never contacted "60 Minutes." "That makes me think I can't put much stock in their journalistic integrity," he said. In response to queries from "The Washington Post" last spring about the film's gunfire allegation, the Justice Department conducted an inquiry and concluded that there was no gunfire on the video or any government gunfire April 19, said department spokesman Brandenberg. The "Post" reported that other experts were divided on the issue. Mr. McNulty and Mr. Gifford say they have information that the flashes came from guns of secret military teams deployed at Waco. Neither would elaborate, but Mr. McNulty said he would deal with that allegation in a video sequel being financed by a Colorado entertainment company. Mr. McNulty said he thinks the truth was covered up because "the White House gave the order to eliminate the evidence and remove the witnesses, so that's what happened." "http://www.dallasnews.com/index/in-the-news-nf.htm "http://dmnweb.dallasnews.com/feedback" - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: A Real BraveHeart in D.C. (fwd) Date: 24 Mar 1998 14:08:24 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [A letter from Ron Paul.] Dear Friend: The other day, I made a huge "gaffe" on national TV: I told the truth about the crimes of the U.S. government. As you can imagine, the ceiling fell in, and a couple of walls too. Congressmen are supposed to support the government, I was told. Oh, it's okay to criticize around the edges, but there are certain subjects a member of the House of Representatives is not supposed to bring up. But I touched the real "third-rail" of American politics, and the sparks sure flew. I was interviewed on C-SPAN's morning "Washington Journal," and I used the opportunity, as I do all such media appearances, to point out how many of our liberties have been stolen by the federal government. We must take them back. The Constitution, after all, has a very limited role for Washington, D.C. If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited. That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us. Under liberty, we built the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most decent country on earth. It's no coincidence that the monstrous growth of the federal government has been accompanied by a sickening decline in living standards and moral standards. The feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill -- working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but otherwise entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and out-of-control leviathan that we call the federal government wants to run every single aspect of our lives. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not America. It's not what the Founders gave us. It's not the country you believe in. It's not the country I believe in. So, on that ,TV interview, I emphasized not only the attacks on our property, but also the decline of our civil liberties, at the hands of the federal police. There are not supposed to be any federal police, according to the Constitution. Then I really went over the line. I talked about the Waco massacre. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno claim those 81 church members, including 19 children, burned down their own church and killed themselves, and good riddance. So they put the few survivors on trial, and threw them in prison for 40 years. We're not supposed to remember that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms--talk about an unconstitutional agency--rather than arrest David Koresh on his regular morning jog, called in the 'IV stations for a big publicity bonanza, and sent a swat team in black masks and black uniforms to break down his front door, guns blazing. They also sent in a helicopter gunship, to shoot at the roof of a church full of innocents. The Branch Davidians resisted, and after a heartless siege of almost two months, and after cutting off food, water, and electricity, and playing horrible rock and roll through huge speakers 24 hours a day, the feds sent in the tanks to crush the walls of the church, and inject poisonous CS gas. Now, CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on Chemical Warfare. The U.S. could not use it in a war. But it could and did use it against American civilians. After the tanks did their work on the church, the place burst into flame, and all 81 people--men, women, children, and babies--were incinerated in a screaming horror. Did some feds set the fire? Did the flammable CS gas ignite, since without electricity, the parishioners were using lanterns? Did a tank knock over a lantern, striking one of the bales of hay being used against the thin walls as a "defense" against bullets? Or did the Davidians, as Clinton and Reno claim, kill themselves? A new documentary--Waco: The Rules of Engagement--may show, through FLIR infrared photography, FBI snipers killing the Davidians by shooting through the back of the church, where no media cameras were allowed. This film won a prize at the famed Sundance Film Festival. It was made by people who took the government's side, until they investigated. Whatever the truth, there's no question that an irresponsible federal government has innocent blood on its hands, and not only from Waco. And the refusal of corrupt and perverse liberals to admit it means nothing. In my r~ interview, in answer to a caller's question, I pointed out that Waco, and the federal murders at Ruby Ridge--especially the FBI sniper's shot that blasted apart the head of a young mother holding her baby--caused many Americans to live in fear of federal power. Then I uttered the sentiment that caused the media hysteria: I said that a lot of Americans fear that they too might be attacked by federal swat teams for exercising their constitutional rights, or merely for wanting to be left alone. Whoa! You've never seen anything like it. For days, in an all-out assault, I was attacked by Democrats, unions, big business, establishment Republicans, and--of course--the media, in Washington and my home state of Texas. Newspapers foamed at the mouth, calling me a "right-wing extremist." (Say, isn't that what George III called Thomas Jefferson?) I was even blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing! And by the way, I don't believe we've gotten the full truth on that either. All my many opponents were outraged that a Congressman would criticize big government. "If you don't like Washington, resign!" said a typical big-city newspaper editorial. But the media, as usual, were all wet. (Do they ever get anything right?) The average Congressman may go to Washington to wallow in power, and line his pockets with a big lobbying job for a special interest (so he can keep ripping-off the taxpayers). But that's not why I'm in Congress. It's not why I left my medical practice as a physician. It's not why I put up with all the abuse. It's not why I refuse a plush Congressional pension. I'm in this fight for a reason. I want to hand on to my children and grandchildren, and to you and your family, a great and free America, an America true to her Constitution, an America worthy of her history. I will not let the crooks and clowns and criminals have their way. I'm in Congress to represent the ideas of liberty, the ideas that you and I share, for the people of my district, for the people of Texas, for the people of America. That's why I'm working to stop federal abuses, and to cut the government: its taxes, its bureaucrats, its paramilitary police, its spending, its meddling overseas, and every single unconstitutional action it takes. And not with a pair of nail scissors, but with a hammer and chisel. Won't you help me do this work? Not much of the federal leviathan would be left, if I had my way. But you'd be able to keep the money you earn, your privacy would be secure, your dollar would be sound, your local school would be tops, and your kids wouldn't be sent off to some useless or vicious foreign war to fight for the UN. But Jefferson and the other Founders would recognize our government, and our descendants would bless us. By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing. Recently, I asked a famous Republican committee chairman--who's always talking about getting rid of the IRS--why he engineered a secret $580 million raise for the tax collectors. "They need it for their computers," this guy told me. So the IRS can't extract enough from us as it is! The National Taxpayers Union says I have the highest pro-taxpayer rating in Congressional history, that I am the top "Taxpayer's Best Friend." You know I won't play the Capitol Hill games with the Capitol Hill gang, denouncing the IRS while giving the Gestapo more of your money. Or figuring out some other federal tax for them to squeeze out of you. I also want to abolish the Federal Reserve, and send Alan Greenspan out to get a job. The value of our dollar and the level of our interest rates are not supposed to be manipulated by a few members of the power elite meeting secretly in a marble palace. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, pure and simple. The only Constitutional money is gold and silver, and notes redeemable in them. Not Fed funny money. Without the Federal Reserve, our money could not be inflated, at the behest of big government or big banks. Your income and savings would not lose their value. Just as important, we wouldn't have this endless string of booms and busts, recessions and depressions, with each bust getting worse. They aren't natural to the free market; they're caused by the schemers at the Fed. President Andrew Jackson called the 19th -century Fed "The Monster" because it was a vehicle for inflation and all sorts of special-interest corruption. Let me tell you, things haven't changed a bit. I also work to save our schools from D.C. interference. Thanks to the feds, new curriculums not only smear the Founders as "racist, slave-owning elitists," they seek to dumb down our students so they will all be equal. "Look-say" reading and the abolition of phonics has the same purpose, and so does the new "fuzzy" math, in which there are no right and no wrong answers. That must be what they use in the U.S. Treasury! It's certainly what they use in the U.S. Congress. But ever since the beginning of federal aid to education and accelerating with the establishment of the rotten Department of Education, SAT scores have been dropping. Schools, with few exceptions, are getting worse every year. To save our kids, we must get the sticky fingers of the feds off our local schools, and let parents rule. That's what the Constitution says, and the Bible too. And then there's my least favorite foreign topic, the UN. World government is obviously unconstitutional. It undermines our country's sovereignty in the worst way possible. That's why I want us out of the UN, and the UN itself taking a hike. After all, the UN is socialist and corrupt (many votes can be bought with a "blonde and a case of scotch," one UN ambassador once said). It costs many billions, and it puts our soldiers in UN uniforms under foreign commanders, and sends them off to unconstitutional, undeclared wars. When Michael New, one of the finest young men I've ever met, objected to wearing UN blue, he was kicked out of the American Army. What an outrage. Not one dime for the UN, and not one American soldier! Not in Haiti, not in Bosnia, not in Somalia, not in Rwanda. I know it's radical, but how about devoting American military efforts to defending America, and only America? Such ideas, said one newspaper reporter, make me a maverick who will never go far because he won't 'go along to get along.'" Darn right. What does "go far" mean? Get a big government job? The heck with that. And I won't sell my vote for pork either. When I walked through the U.S. Capitol this morning, I got angry. The building is filled with statues and paintings of Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founders. Those great men sacrificed everything to give us a free country, and a Constitution to keep it that way. When I was first elected, I placed my hand on the Bible and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's exactly what I'm fighting for. But such ideas drive the liberals crazy. That's why I badly need your help. I've been targeted nationally for defeat. The Democrats, the AFL-CIO, the teachers union, big business PACs, the trial lawyers, the big bankers, the foreign-aid lobbyists, the big media, and the establishment Republicans want to dance on my political grave. The Fed, the Education Department, and the UN are anxious to join in. They can't stand even one person telling the truth. And they're terrified when that truth gains the people's support. Right now, four well-funded Democrats are competing to try to beat me, and a Republican is rumored to have been offered money at a secret meeting in Mexico(!) if he would try to knock me off in a primary. Won't you help me stay up here to fight? Frankly, I'm in trouble if you don't. My Texas district has 22,000 square miles (not a misprint). I've got to travel all over it, set up small offices to be manned by volunteers, advertise, pay phone bills, and distribute video and audio tapes to the people to get around the big-media lies. As I know from my last election, which I won by the skin of my teeth, the media will carry any smear, repeat any libel, throw any piece of mud, no matter how untrue. In fact, the less true, the more they like it. They are determined to silence me. But you can help me overcome all this. Together, we can beat the bad guys arrayed against our country and our freedom. We can support the Constitution. We can win. Your generous contribution of $25 or $50 would be great. $100, $250, or even $500 or $1,000 would be magnificent. Of course, any amount would help, and in return, I will keep you up-to-date on this fight as a member of my "kitchen cabinet." What great men founded this country. What great people have carried on their fight. That fight is not lost, not if you will join it. Washington, D.C., is a loser, but among the people, our ideas are gaining every single day. Keep the tide turning in our direction. Please make your most generous contribution. Join this fight for the Constitution, and stop those who want to rip it up, and throw it in the Potomac. Together, we can join the Founders' fight. Together, we can make history. Sincerely, (sign) Ron Paul U.S. Congressman P.S. Without you, I may be lost, and they'll be breaking out the champagne in D.C. Please, don't let this fight for the Constitution and liberty falter. Help me win it. Congressman Ron Paul The Taxpayer's Best Friend Physician, author, and statesman, Dr. Ron Paul (Republican of Texas) is the nation's leading defender of free markets, sound money, and strong families. Elected to Congress in the seventies and eighties, and re-elected in 1996, he serves on the banking and education committees. Ron Paul works in Congress to defend the Constitution, cut taxes, curb the Federal Reserve, and end government meddling in our homes and schools. He is the recipient of the best rating in history from the National Taxpayers Union, and has also been praised for refusing to take part in the lavish Congressional pension scheme. Dr. Paul co-founded the U.S. Gold Commission with Jesse Helms, co-authored its Case for Gold, and brought about the first minting of gold coins since 1933. Ron Paul has also written hundreds of articles, and such books as Abortion and Liberty and Freedom Under Siege. He is the founder of two educational organizations, FREE and the National Endowment for Liberty, distinguished counselor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a trustee of the Foundation For Economic Education. A pro-life champion in Congress, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. Ron Paul and his wife of 40 years, Carol, make their home in Surfside, Texas. They are the parents of five children and the grandparents of 13. A former Air Force flight surgeon, Dr. Paul is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University Medical School. Committee to Re-elect Ron Paul .837 W. Plantation Clute, Texas 77531. 1-890-RON PAUL ========================================================================== money-ethics@uwsa.com is an unmoderated maillist about money and government. To join or leave send e-mail to majordomo@uwsa.com TO: majordomo@uwsa.com (un)subscribe money-ethics Visit http://www.moneymaker.com/frb/index.htm or http://www.uwsa.com Support UWSA.COM at http://www.uwsa.com/UWSACOMintro.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: TPDL 4-L032498 (fwd) Date: 24 Mar 1998 14:15:04 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE =A9 "THE Internet Clipping Service" 1079 Farroll Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420-4136 tpd@callamerica.net Vol 4-L032498 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Heard this on the radio the other day... The word POLITICS comes from the Greek words POLY,=20 meaning many, and TICS, meaning blood-suckers. Today's Quote: "Trade cannot be free if it must balance at national boundaries." -- George Gilder =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [01] Hillary May Use Executive Privilege=20 By JOHN SOLOMON Associated Press Writer [Editors Note: Please notice the bias in this headline. It more=20 properly should say, "Hillary trying to use [...]" or even, as they say=20 in Hawaii, more-better would be, "Hillary outrageously trying to=20 [.....]" However the way it is, it implies that there is nothing out of=20 the ordinary going on, when in fact, IMO, it is a stupid claim for no=20 other purpose than to stall.] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [03] Supreme Court rejects former prostitute's case Copyright =A9 1998 Nando.net Copyright =A9 1998 Agence France-Presse=20 [Editors Note: Interesting point I had not thought of before.] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [04] *****White House said to have urged withholding documents *****Copyright =A9 1998 Nando.net *****Copyright =A9 1998 The Associated Press=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [07] ATF Informant Appears at Grand Jury Again=20 03/24/1998=20 By Diana Baldwin The Oklahoman =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [08] Executive Privilege Claim Covers First Lady's Talks With Blumenthal By Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 24, 1998; Page A06=20 [Editors Note: Note this headline states as fact Hillary can claim it.=20 And so no one wastes their time, I do realize the writer does not=20 write the headline, so we shouldn't blame the writer, This is true, but=20 in many cases the headline is just extracted from the article although=20 it doesn't appear to be in this case.] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [09] *****Sale of Trade Mission Spots Alleged Brown Said White House Directed Scheme,=20 *****Ex-Partner Testifies *****By Edward Walsh and Peter Slevin *****Washington Post Staff Writers *****Tuesday, March 24, 1998; Page A06 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [10] Rancor grows over invoking privilege By Bill Sammon THE WASHINGTON TIMES =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [11] Hill abuzz over inaction By Sean Scully THE WASHINGTON TIMES =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [14] Commerce trips called fund-raisers By George Archibald THE WASHINGTON TIMES =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [15] Stephanopoulos cites 'journalist privilege'=20 Uncooperative attitude cited in Judicial Watch 'Filegate' suit=20 By Wesley Phelan =A9 Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =09=09=09FOR RENT =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D HOW TO SUBSCRIBE BELOW AT END =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [01] Hillary May Use Executive Privilege=20 By JOHN SOLOMON Associated Press Writer [Editors Note: Please notice the bias in this headline. It more=20 properly should say, "Hillary trying to use [...]" or even, as they say=20 in Hawaii, more-better would be, "Hillary outrageously trying to=20 [.....]" However the way it is, it implies that there is nothing out of=20 the ordinary going on, when in fact, IMO, it is a stupid claim for no=20 other purpose than to stall.] WASHINGTON--White House efforts to use executive privilege to keep prosecutors from getting testimony about some advice President Clinton got in the Monica Lewinsky case may be intended to also cover conversations first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton had with aides.=20 Sources familiar with the investigation said Monday the White House may rely on two court rulings to bolster its claims that Mrs. Clinton should be shielded.=20 Clinton said today in Uganda he didn't know anything about it.=20 One source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House has always maintained that Mrs. Clinton has been a frequent adviser to her husband, and "that is true here as well."=20 The Washington Post and MSNBC reported specifically that the White House is trying to extend a claim of executive privilege, the right of the president to keep secret certain communications with his aides, to cover conversations involving Mrs. Clinton.=20 One of Mrs. Clinton's advisers, Sidney Blumenthal, was among two presidential aides who have refused some of prosecutor's questions on executive privilege grounds. Sources have said the White House formally invoked the privilege in court filings last week, although the proceeding was under court seal.=20 White House officials declined comment late Monday on the reports involving Mrs. Clinton. Likewise, they have not confirmed on the record that executive privilege has been claimed in the case at all.=20 Clinton, in Uganda on an African tour, was asked today about invoking executive privilege and whether it would signal he has something to hide.=20 "That's a question that's being asked and answered back home by the people who are responsible for (it) and I don't believe I should be discussing that there," Clinton said.=20 Asked about executive privilege for Mrs. Clinton, the president said: "I saw an article about it in the paper today. I haven't discussed it with the lawyers. I don't know. You should ask someone who does."=20 Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni was at his side during the=20 exchange. In making the legal claim that the privilege should be=20 extended to cover any conversations in which the first lady was=20 present, the White House may stand on two court decision from=20 earlier Clinton controversies -one giving Mrs. Clinton government=20 status and the other that extended the privilege generically to=20 "presidential advisers."=20 In 1993, a federal judge ruled that Mrs. Clinton had to be=20 considered a "de facto official" of the federal government because=20 of her extensive role in overseeing the president's failed health care=20 initiative. Presidential lawyers also are likely to draw from an=20 appeals court decision unsealed last year involving Clinton's attempt=20 to shield the release of some information in the investigation of=20 former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy by claiming executive=20 privilege.=20 In that ruling, the court held that even conversations between two=20 presidential advisers, away from the president, could be covered by=20 executive privilege if the discussion involved formulating advice to=20 the president. "We believe, therefore, that the public interest is best=20 served by holding that communications made by presidential=20 advisers in the course of preparing advice for the president come=20 under the presidential communications privilege, even when these=20 communications are not made directly to the president," the court=20 ruled.=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [03] Supreme Court rejects former prostitute's case Copyright =A9 1998 Nando.net Copyright =A9 1998 Agence France-Presse=20 [Editors Note: Interesting point I had not thought of before.] WASHINGTON (March 23, 1998 10:36 p.m. EST http://www.nando.net) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down a former prostitute's bid to legalize the world's oldest profession by drawing a parallel between selling one's body and having an abortion. Without comment, the nine-member court refused to hear the case centering on whether a Florida mother of two's right to privacy extended to the sale of her body. In her suit originally filed in 1994, the ex-prostitute identified as "Jane Roe" turned to the historic abortion ruling "Roe v. Wade," which says that women have a fundamental right to privacy over their own bodies. "If an abortionist can enter a woman's womb ... with a cash transaction from the female to the abortionist and that's deemed a constitutional fundamental right, then how can a woman not have the right to use her own reproductive organs to give away sex or charge for it as she sees fit?" Roe asked in court documents. Roe's attorney, Elliott Shaw, on Monday called the judges "cowards" and "hypocrites" for rejecting the case. "This is a disaster," he said. "It's a fool's paradise to think we live in a free country. The state owns your body." =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [04] *****White House said to have urged withholding documents *****Copyright =A9 1998 Nando.net *****Copyright =A9 1998 The Associated Press=20 WASHINGTON (March 23, 1998 3:42 p.m. EST http://www.nando.net) -- A former business partner of the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown said Monday that Brown told her presidential aides instructed him to withhold documents proving the White House was selling U.S. trade mission slots for campaign donations. Appearing in federal court, Nolanda Hill said Brown raised the possibility of destroying a 1-inch-thick packet of Commerce Department letters she said linked donations and trade mission slots. She said she advised him not to destroy the documents, but never saw them again after their discussion. She said the discussion occurred shortly before Brown died in a plane crash in Croatia in April 1996. No such documents have been turned over to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which is suing the Commerce Department in an effort to determine if U.S. trade slots are being sold for political donations. Hill and Brown were in business together and she is under indictment for allegedly conspiring to divert hundreds of thousands of dollars from companies she controlled to her partner. Though not named in the indictment, Hill's partner in the company was Brown. In a three-page affidavit released at the start of a federal court hearing in which she testified, Hill said: "I became aware, through my discussions with Ron, that the trade missions were being used as a fund-raising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. "Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department," Hill's affidavit stated. "Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at the direction of the White House," she added. "I further learned through discussions with Ron that the White House, through Leon Panetta and John Podesta, had instructed him to delay the case by withholding the production of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way not to comply with the court's orders," Hill added. The White House denied the allegations. "Ms. Hill's allegations regarding Leon Panetta and John Podesta and the White House are false in every respect," White House spokesman James Kennedy said. Podesta commented, "The only thing accurate in Ms. Hill's affidavit with respect to me and my conduct is the spelling of my name." Hill said the five or six documents which she reviewed in the 1-inch-thick packet of papers were written by Commerce Department employee Melissa Moss of the Office of Business Liason. She said Brown used profanity in describing how Moss had written such letters, apparently without his knowledge. Under questioning by Judicial Watch attorneys before U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, Hill said that she was asked by Brown whether he could get rid of the documents and whether that would constitute obstruction of justice. "I said it looked to me like it would be" obstruction, Hill said she replied. "I pointed out to him that it was taking an awful big risk" in destroying the documents because copies of them existed elsewhere, Hill said on the witness stand in the lawsuit by Judicial Watch. Hill's affidavit outlining the alleged scheme was signed Jan. 17 and was publicly released Monday in open court. In it, Hill says that Moss "based on my knowledge, ... has not told the truth in response" to "a number of questions concerning Commerce Department trade missions, as well as other representations she has made under oath. Attempts Monday to locate Moss for comment were unsuccessful. Hill said that she is concerned that "the Clinton administration, and more particularly its Justice Department, will try to retaliate against me" and she asked that the affidavit be kept under seal. She said she had "a fear for my personal and my family's well-being and safety." By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [07] ATF Informant Appears at Grand Jury Again=20 03/24/1998=20 By Diana Baldwin The Oklahoman Testimony before the Oklahoma County grand jury investigating the Oklahoma City bombing once again Monday apparently focused on a former undercover informant for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Conflicting stories by former ATF informant Carol Howe are at the center of some claims that the government had prior knowledge about the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Howe contends she warned her ATF supervisor, Angela Graham, about talk of bombing a federal building by residents of Elohim City, a white separatist community in eastern Oklahoma. The government says Howe's information was not specific enough to act on. Tulsa attorney Clark Brewster told The Oklahoman he hopes the grand jury gets to the truth surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing. Although, he said ''a lot was left unsaid'' Monday when his client Dave Roberts, the former agent-in-charge of the Tulsa ATF office, testified. Brewster also represented Howe before the grand jury twice and during a federal trial where she was acquitted on unrelated bombing charges. He denied there was any conflict in representing both Roberts and Howe. ''Carol Howe told the truth. Dave Roberts told the truth,'' Brewster said. ''I don't believe their testimony contradicted in any manner.'' He refused to be specific on his clients' testimony. Brewster and attorney Sam Cox appeared with Roberts before the grand jury for about two hours. Roberts, now assigned to the Dallas ATF office, had no comment. Roberts supervised Graham, who was assigned to Howe when she worked for the bureau from August 1994 to March 1995. Howe was deactivated because of mental instability, agency officials have said. Graham made her second appearance Monday before the grand jury investigating a broader conspiracy in the April 19, 1995, bombing. The explosion resulted in the deaths of 168 people. Richard O'Carroll, Graham's attorney, reiterated his earlier statement that Howe's stories are ''damnable lies.'' ''Elohim City and the Murrah Building are not related -- never have been related,'' O'Carroll said Monday. Brewster said Graham testified twice that Howe had given her information about blowing up federal buildings. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [08] Executive Privilege Claim Covers First Lady's Talks With Blumenthal By Susan Schmidt Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 24, 1998; Page A06=20 [Editors Note: Note this headline states as fact Hillary can claim it.=20 And so no one wastes their time, I do realize the writer does not=20 write the headline, so we shouldn't blame the writer, This is true, but=20 in many cases the headline is just extracted from the article although=20 it doesn't appear to be in this case.] President Clinton's claim of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation is intended in part to prevent prosecutors from inquiring about conversations that White House aide Sidney Blumenthal had with first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, sources familiar with the matter said yesterday. Clinton has invoked executive privilege in an effort to block Blumenthal and White House lawyer Bruce R. Lindsey from having to answer certain questions before the grand jury examining whether the president engaged in perjury or obstruction of justice in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. Clinton is also asserting attorney-client privilege to bar Lindsey from being required to answer some questions presented by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. The central question in the dispute between Starr and the White House concerns the scope of a president's ability to protect the confidentiality of communications within his administration. Yet the involvement of Hillary Clinton also raises the side issue of how the quasi-official role of first lady fits into the constitutional framework, a problem that has arisen regularly since she moved into the White House in 1993 with plans to restructure the nation's health care system. Her emergence in the executive privilege fight -- which was the subject of closed-door oral arguments last week -- also underscores the extent to which Hillary Clinton has been involved in White House efforts to contain any political and legal damage from the allegations that her husband engaged in sexual relations with Lewinsky and other women. The White House apparently maintained that Blumenthal's talks with her were protected from prosecutors under the same principle that covers discussions among White House officials talking about how to advise the president. An appeals court ruled last year in a case involving Mike Espy, the former agriculture secretary who has since been indicted on corruption charges, that executive privilege extends not just to communications involving the president himself but also to those of senior advisers. The question now may be whether the first lady counts as such an adviser in a legal sense. "The reality is first ladies are part of the policy-making process of the White House even though they don't have the official capacity," said Mark J. Rozell, a political scientist at American University who has written a book on executive privilege. "Conceivably a case can be made that a first lady could be privy to conversations of a confidential nature." However, Rozell added that, as a general matter, Clinton's assertion of privilege in the Lewinsky investigation is on weak ground and including the first lady "could be a stretch, quite frankly." The White House filed a brief formally invoking executive privilege last Wednesday after Starr filed papers attempting to force Lindsey and Blumenthal to respond to the questions they declined to answer in their grand jury testimony last month, according to a source close to the case, which remains under seal.=20 Starr and Neil Eggleston, an outside lawyer hired by the White House after the Justice Department declined to handle the case, presented arguments behind closed doors Friday to U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who observers expect to rule within several weeks and whose decision could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. A claim of executive privilege involving Hillary Clinton's conversations with others in the White House was advanced once before but quickly abandoned. In 1996, Starr's office sought notes taken by White House lawyers in conversations with the first lady about long-subpoenaed billing records from her law firm that were eventually discovered in the White House residence. The White House argued then that its lawyers were gathering information from Hillary Clinton to prepare advice for the president, but in the end it dropped the executive privilege claim and argued instead that the notes should be protected under the doctrine of attorney-client privilege. The case went to the Supreme Court, which sided with Starr last June. Sources said yesterday that a significant portion of the arguments on both sides presented to Johnson Friday concerned the question of whether the communications Starr wants to question Lindsey and Blumenthal about can be rightly claimed as subject to executive privilege. The resolution of this dispute also could cover planned testimony by two other aides: deputy chief of staff John D. Podesta, whose scheduled appearance before the grand jury today has been postponed, and deputy counsel Lanny A. Breuer, who has been subpoenaed but has not yet appeared. Since Blumenthal is not a lawyer, Clinton cannot assert an attorney-client privilege claim over conversations he had with Hillary Clinton after the Lewinsky story erupted in January. One area Starr is investigating concerns the extent to which Blumenthal and others in the White House sought to disrupt the investigation by disseminating negative information about Starr and his staff. While declining to testify about internal discussions before the grand jury, Blumenthal has said he answered all questions about his contacts with reporters regarding the independent counsel's office.=20 Blumenthal is a proponent within the White House of a theory that Starr is part of what Hillary Clinton called a "vast right-wing conspiracy" determined to bring down the president.=20 The claim of executive privilege in this case raises the constitutional question of whether its use extends beyond cases involving the national interest to the president's personal interest. Three areas traditionally considered protected are: law enforcement matters, military or diplomatic affairs, and information that goes to the "deliberative process" of making public policy.=20 In a 1994 memo, then-White House counsel Lloyd N. Cutler said that "in circumstances involving communications relating to investigations of personal wrongdoing by government officials, it is our practice not to assert executive privilege, either in judicial proceedings or in congressional investigations."=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [09] *****Sale of Trade Mission Spots Alleged Brown Said White House Directed Scheme,=20 *****Ex-Partner Testifies *****By Edward Walsh and Peter Slevin *****Washington Post Staff Writers *****Tuesday, March 24, 1998; Page A06 An indicted woman who was a business partner of the late commerce secretary Ronald H. Brown testified in federal court yesterday that Brown complained to her about what he described as a White House-directed scheme to offer U.S. businesses places in overseas trade missions sponsored by the department in exchange for campaign contributions to President Clinton and the Democratic Party. Nolanda B. Hill -- who on March 13 was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges that she diverted more than $200,000 from companies she controlled to finance her shopping sprees -- made that assertion in an affidavit and testimony in a civil suit against the Commerce Department by Judicial Watch, a conservative group that is seeking to establish a link between the trade missions and campaign contributions. "Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department," Hill said in the Jan. 17 affidavit that was unsealed yesterday. "Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been, and was, being perverted at the direction of the White House." Hill also asserted that Brown told her he had been instructed by former White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta and current deputy chief of staff John Podesta to delay production of documents sought in the Judicial Watch lawsuit until after the 1996 election and not to comply with court orders in the case. White House spokesman Jim Kennedy said, "Ms. Hill's allegations regarding Leon Panetta and John Podesta and the White House are false in every respect." Kennedy quoted Podesta as saying, "The only thing accurate in Ms. Hill's affidavit with respect to me and my conduct is the spelling of my name." Reached at his home in California, Panetta said of Hill's allegations, "It's crazy. It's absolutely false." Brown, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, was killed in a plane crash in Croatia in 1996 while leading a Commerce Department trade mission. The trade missions are highly valued by many U.S. business firms as a means to help them improve access to foreign markets. Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit to force the Commerce Department to produce documents on how participation in the trade missions was decided. Hill was a close friend of Brown and in her affidavit described herself as his "close personal confidant for over seven years." She testified that in early 1996 Brown showed her a stack of documents and that the top five or six were letters to trade mission participants from Melissa Moss, a former DNC official then with the Commerce Department's Office of Business Liaison. Each letter "specifically referenced a substantial financial contribution to the Democratic National Committee," Hill said. Yesterday's testimony did not include the names of any businesses that Hill said were asked for contributions in return for a trade mission spot. But it did include excerpts from a videotaped deposition of Moss in which she denied using DNC donor lists in putting together the trade missions. Hill said in her affidavit that Moss "has not told the truth in response to a number of questions concerning Commerce Department trade missions." In her deposition, Moss said she left Commerce in March 1996 and is now in private business. According to Hill, Brown told her that first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was the driving force behind the efforts to raise as much money as possible for President Clinton's reelection and the DNC. She quoted Brown as saying he was "just doing my chores" for the first lady in the fund-raising efforts. Assistant U.S. Attorney Bruce R. Hegyi said at the hearing that Hill's allegations should be referred to the Justice Department's public integrity section for investigation. On Friday, government lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth to end the case in Judicial Watch's favor. In an expanded version of a proposal made last August, the government offered to pay the group's legal fees and undertake a comprehensive search for documents. The suggestion was opposed by lawyers for Judicial Watch and Lambert did not rule immediately.=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [10] Rancor grows over invoking privilege By Bill Sammon THE WASHINGTON TIMES President Clinton's refusal to say whether he has invoked executive privilege to shield his wife and aides in the White House sex-and-lies probe is an unprecedented maneuver that adds a new level of secrecy to an already shrouded scandal. Although sources close to the administration have said Mr. Clinton has decided to formally invoke the refuge, the White House yesterday refused to confirm that the president has actually signed a document asserting privilege for first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and aides such as Bruce Lindsey, Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta. The attempt to shield Mrs. Clinton, first reported yesterday by NBC News, was immediately savaged by=20 Rep. Bob Barr, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and an early advocate of impeachment proceedings. "This claim is absolutely ridiculous," said Mr. Barr, Georgia Republican. "There is simply no other word for it. Despite what she may think, the first lady is not an elected official. Hillary Clinton has not been elected or appointed to represent one single American voter and has absolutely no basis upon which to claim executive privilege." Former federal prosecutor Victoria Toensing added: "I don't remember her being on the ballot. Who's next --Socks?" Meanwhile, Monica Lewinsky's father said yesterday that executive privilege will only prolong his daughter's isolation. "The longer this delays, the more difficult it becomes," Dr. Bernard Lewinsky told the Associated Press. White House spokesman James Kennedy defended Mr. Clinton's decision to stay mum about whether he has invoked the privilege to conceal conversations about the scandal from independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. "Our position is that the sealed nature of the proceeding precludes us from commenting in any way on it," Mr. Kennedy said. But legal scholars said the secrecy ordered by U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, who is overseeing the grand jury, does not prevent Mr. Clinton from publicly revealing whether he has formally invoked the privilege. "The mere stating that you have invoked it does not violate any of the rules surrounding grand jury proceedings," said Robert Alt, adjunct fellow at the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University in Ohio. "There's no way the judge would have told him to be silent on this question. "But in addition, I think it's a true disservice to the public not to make them aware of this fact," said Mr. Alt, who writes on legal issues for the center. "If the president is trying to cover up that he is invoking executive privilege, this truly raises some ugly specters: What is it that he's trying to pull? What is he trying to carry out behind closed doors here?" Aside from the inevitable comparisons to Richard Nixon, who invoked executive privilege in a failed bid to prevent release of the Watergate tapes, there is another reason why Mr. Clinton might be leery of admitting he has resorted to the politically charged defense: It would lead to more scrutiny of the claim's merits. Many legal experts doubt that conversations about the sex-and-lies scandal would be covered by a claim of executive privilege, which historically has been reserved for the administration of federal law and the formulation of federal policy. "The White House itself recognizes that this is an extraordinary stretch and that it is embarrassing to try and defend the indefensible," said Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, who headed the Justice Department=B4s office of legal counsel during the Reagan administration. "To suggest that you are duty-bound not to talk about an invalid privilege claim is to just lay error upon error and to extend an illegitimate claim to even greater levels of illegitimacy," Mr. Kmiec said. "It is entirely unprecedented. There is no established presidential practice of secrecy about asserting secrecy." University of Pittsburgh law dean Peter Shane, an expert on presidential power, said Mr. Clinton's reported attempt to shield his wife behind executive privilege could open up a new legal battleground. Mrs. Clinton is believed to be playing a key role in directing damage control in the scandal. "It may be that what [Mr. Clinton] wants to do is make sure, for at least these purposes, Hillary counts as an aide," Mr. Shane said. While private conversations between the president and his wife would likely be protected by spousal privilege, Mrs. Clinton's talks with aides such as Mr. Lindsey might be fair game for Mr. Starr unless the White House can successfully argue that Mrs. Clinton functions as another presidential aide. Failure of that argument might result in even more evidence for Mr. Starr. If Mrs. Clinton is ruled to be a private citizen, any third-party participation she might have had in talks with her husband and his aides would invalidate claims of executive privilege that might otherwise apply if she had not been present, Mr. Shane suggested. The White House has hired a private attorney, Neil Eggleston, to handle the executive privilege aspect of Mr. Clinton's defense. Some say this demonstrates the weakness of the president's claim of executive privilege, which would normally be handled by Attorney General Janet Reno. "Even Attorney General Reno, it seems to me, has caught up on this question," Mr. Kmiec said. "For a long time, she was being brought into privilege assertions after the fact to kind of ratify decisions made by [then White House Counsel] Jack Quinn or others in the Clinton administration. "But she's dropped out of this one altogether," Mr. Kmiec said. "She's basically told the White House, 'If you want to assert executive privilege, you better go get private counsel.' And that in itself is a dramatic illustration of how the interests of the United States government are not implicated by this assertion of privilege. "Because if, in fact, the interests of the office of the presidency were at stake, it would be outrageous for the attorney general not to supply counsel and not to be aggressively defending the assertion of privilege. But because it relates to a private, personal concern, dealing with personal malfeasance, the only lawyer available to them is a criminal defense lawyer." =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [11] Hill abuzz over inaction By Sean Scully THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Democrats -- not the Republican leadership -- are creating the "do nothing" atmosphere on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said yesterday. "Democrats filibuster every bill that comes up," the Mississippi Republican said in his weekly news conference. "They delay every bill," he said, and cause "the schedule to be shoved off." The president and some Democrats have tried to tag the Republicans with the do-nothing label in advance of the November elections. They say the Congress has set an unusually short session for this year and has managed to accomplish little of note so far. High-profile issues, such as NATO expansion, IRS reform, a mammoth deal with the tobacco industry and emergency help for the cash-strapped International Monetary Fund have not yet come to a vote. But Mr. Lott said he is trying to move as quickly as possible. He said he had hoped to deal with NATO expansion before the Easter recess, but bills dealing with the budget, disaster relief and decertification of Mexico as a full partner in the drug war must come first. Democrats have stalled "to the point where now we are running out of time, and we've got emergencies," he said. He said he has called 31 "cloture" votes, the way the Senate cuts off filibusters, during the 105th Congress so far -- most of them to cut off Democratic filibusters. He had 49 cloture votes in the 104th Congress. Mr. Lott conceded that one major item is stalled because of Republicans: The Senate Finance Committee has not finished work on an IRS-reform bill, making it unlikely the Senate will act before April 15, as GOP leaders had hoped. "Until the committee acts, I can't just call up something out of whole cloth," he said. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, could not be reached for comment. House leaders dispute the do-nothing tag as well, saying they are moving forward aggressively. "The Democrats made up the do-nothing label," said Michele Davis, spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican. "They're going to choke on it." Indeed, the American public doesn't seem to mind the relatively quiet pace on Capitol Hill. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll early this month found 57 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the best score in a decade. House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, Missouri Democrat, has been reluctant to call the Republicans do-nothings, but he often reminds the leadership that there is still much on the agenda. In other matters yesterday, Mr. Lott said he thought the Senate would pass emergency funding for the IMF, but only with conditions to ensure reforms. "I think it's very important that we take steps to try to protect American taxpayers' dollars at IMF," he said, "[and] make sure we know how these funds are being spent by the IMF." He also said he supports expansion of NATO beyond the three nations now proposed for admission: Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic. He opposes plans to put a three- or five-year moratorium on further expansion. "I think that time will be required before any others would really be ready ... [but] to put an arbitrary moratorium on it, I don't think would be the wise way to go," he said. Newly admitted nations should enjoy the protection of American nuclear weapons, he said. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [14] Commerce trips called fund-raisers By George Archibald THE WASHINGTON TIMES The late Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown's former business partner testified yesterday that first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to use administration trade missions to raise Democratic political donations. Nolanda B. Hill, 53, also said in U.S. District Court that the White House orchestrated a department cover-up of documents linking Commerce trade missions to political donations to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Mrs. Hill, indicted last week for fraud and tax evasion, testified in a lawsuit brought by the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch that Mr. Brown gave her departmental letters only weeks before his April 1996 death that showed business executives were being asked to pay a minimum of $50,000 for seats on foreign trade missions. Mrs. Hill said he told her he was under orders from the White House to withhold documentary evidence "prior to the 1996 elections" that seats on administration-organized trade missions were bought with political donations. And in an affidavit unsealed yesterday by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, Mrs. Hill said Mr. Brown's White House instructions came "through [former Chief of Staff] Leon Panetta and [Cabinet Secretary] John Podesta ... to devise a way not to comply with the court's orders" in the lawsuit. White House spokesman James Kennedy called Mrs. Hill's assertions "false in every respect." Mr. Podesta issued a statement saying Mrs. Hill was accurate only in the spelling of his name. Mr. Panetta could not be reached for comment. Judge Lamberth promised Mrs. Hill protection. She has said she feared Justice Department retaliation for her testimony. She gave her affidavit in the case Jan. 17. After her affidavit was filed with the court, she was indicted on charges of conspiring to divert more than $500,000 to Mr. Brown from her Corridor Broadcasting Corp., and $232,000 to her own use from unpaid loans amounting to $21 million from now-defunct Sunbelt Savings Association. The former owner of two television stations in Dallas faces nine felony counts of defrauding the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Internal Revenue Service. In her affidavit, Mrs. Hill said, "I am concerned ... that if I [testify], the Clinton administration, and more particularly its Justice Department, will try to retaliate against me." Judge Lamberth said he asked Mrs. Hill's criminal attorney, Stephan Charles, to help her plan her testimony. The judge intervened after being informed by Judicial Watch in a sealed motion that Mrs. Hill was being represented by Washington attorney Courtney Simmons Elwood, who also represents Terry F. Lenzner, a private investigator hired by President Clinton's attorneys in the White House sex-and-lies scandal. Mr. Charles told Judge Lamberth he was unaware until last week that she was even a target in an ongoing criminal investigation that evolved from a closed independent counsel probe of Mr. Brown's business activities with Mrs. Hill before his death. During day-long testimony, Mrs. Hill said Mr. Brown showed her "an inch-thick" set of Commerce Department documents linking trade missions and political contributions, which he carried in an ostrich-skin portfolio. During a meeting at the Watergate Hotel about three weeks before he was killed in the plane crash in Croatia, Mrs. Hill said, she read "fou= r or five on top" and saw letters on Commerce Department stationery detailing how businesses paid the Democratic National Committee $50,000 each for seats on overseas business delegations headed by Mr. Brown. One letter said, "'Glad you've agreed to $50,000 to the DNC,' or something like that," she said, while a second said, "The DNC has not got their $50,000 yet." "Ron told me these documents came from Commerce Department files," she said. "He wanted to destroy them" because his business dealings with Mrs. Hill were then under investigation by an independent counsel, she said. "I felt like he was asking for trouble. I pointed out to him that he would be taking an awful risk about obstruction [of justice] because surely they existed someplace else," she said. Mrs. Hill said the letters seeking donations were written by Melissa Moss, Commerce's business liaison, who was at the DNC as a fund-raiser when Mr. Brown was DNC chairman. In a videotaped deposition, Miss Moss "absolutely, categorically" denied linking trade missions to DNC contributions. Under cross-examination by Justice Department attorney Bruce Hegyi, Mrs. Hill said she does not know what happened to the documents, which were not produced by Commerce officials in response to subpoenas in Judicial Watch's lawsuit. Mrs. Hill said she talked to Mr. Brown "every day, sometimes several times a day" after he was named commerce secretary. They were partners before the election in a company called First International, formed when Mr. Brown was DNC chairman, and had long been close friends. She said Mr. Brown first resisted pressure to use the trade missions for Democratic political donations, but Mrs. Clinton and White House officials overrode his objections after the Republican sweep of Congress in 1994. "He thought he was worth more than $50,000 a pop," Mrs. Hill said. "He knew it was not right. ... The purpose was perverted at the direction of the White House." Mr. Brown believed Mrs. Clinton was "very instrumental" in the decision. The secretary told her, "'I'm doing my chores for Hillary Rodham Clinton' -- he felt that way," Mrs. Hill testified. She said Mr. Brown told her that Mrs. Clinton took the lead over the president in such matters at the White House. "He thought she was the stronger of the two in terms of political workings." =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [15] Stephanopoulos cites 'journalist privilege'=20 Uncooperative attitude cited in Judicial Watch 'Filegate' suit=20 By Wesley Phelan =A9 Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com=20 Larry Klayman's Judicial Watch will be asking the court to sanction former White House aide George Stephanopoulos for his uncooperative and mocking attitude during a deposition in the group's "Filegate" lawsuit.=20 In spite of Stephanopoulos' ridicule of the proceedings, Klayman was able to establish several important facts. First, Stephanopoulos did not search his files for documents pursuant to the subpoena. Judicial Watch will be seeking court sanctions for that failure. Second, Stephanopoulos confirmed the accuracy of his statement on the ABC program "This Week" Feb. 8, that White House allies were talking about a long-term "Ellen Rometsch strategy." The statement referred to former East German spy Ellen Rometsch, with whom John F. Kennedy reportedly had an affair.=20 When members of Congress considered investigating the matter, FBI Director Hoover threatened to destroy their reputations by using information contained in their FBI files. The implication of Stephanopoulos' statement was that the White House and its allies will attempt to destroy the reputation of anyone perceived to be a threat to the survival of the Clinton administration. Judicial Watch is seeking to determine if the White House and its allies are using confidential FBI files in furtherance of that strategy.=20 Stephanopoulos defined what he meant by "White House ally" generally, but he refused to define it in the context of his statement on ABC. In refusing to answer he cited a journalistic privilege which, Judicial Watch will argue, has no basis in law, and would not apply to him if it did. Stephanopoulos left the administration to accept a position as a commentator for ABC News.=20 James Carville was a somewhat more cooperative witness than Stephanopoulos. Before the deposition, Carville and his attorney told the court he had made reservations to fly to South America on March 15, the day before the deposition was scheduled. But the tickets he submitted in evidence showed that the flight was, in fact, scheduled for the evening of March 16. The court said in response, "Carville (and his attorney) sought to mislead the court from the outset and to delay this deposition." Following that reprimand Carville apparently thought it best to cooperate.=20 Carville brought his own videographer to record the deposition. About two hours into the proceedings Klayman discovered that the videographer had the camera trained on him and his notes, instead of the deponent. Klayman suspected that the tape revealed the work product of his client, which turned out to be the case. Judicial Watch will be seeking sanctions for this invasion of privacy, which, ironically, occurred within the context of an invasion of privacy lawsuit. Klayman was able to establish during the deposition that Carville has a file on Judicial Watch, and that he had talked to people in the White House about Judicial Watch.=20 "It's obvious that Carville and others are doing research on any entity they consider to be an adversary of this administration," said Klayman.=20 Judicial Watch, the government watchdog organization headed by Larry Klayman, is representing several White House employees of the Reagan and Bush administrations whose confidential FBI files were improperly obtained by the White House. The White House and FBI are being sued under the federal Privacy Act, while the individual defendants -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernard Nussbaum, Craig Livingstone, and Anthony Marceca -- are being sued for the common law tort of invasion of privacy. The federal suit, which is currently in the discovery phase, seeks $90 million in damages.=20 To prevail in the suit, Judicial Watch must prove that the files were turned over in a grossly negligent fashion and/or intentionally.=20 George Stephanopoulos began his deposition with the comment, "Unbelievable." The tone of his comments became more derisive and supercilious from there. On page nine of the deposition Klayman stated, "Let the record reflect that apparently there is a lot of laughing around the table. I didn't mean to be funny." Stephanopoulos replied, "You don't have to try." A bit later Stephanopoulos stated that Klayman's actions in bringing the case and deposing him were "frivolous, partisan and prejudicial," and that Klayman was, in his opinion, "not an honorable attorney, (but) a partisan attorney . . . looking to raise money for your organization."=20 Stephanopoulos offered various other opinions on Klayman, including a conjecture that he was unable to read, that he was wasting everyone's time, and finally "you just don't listen, do you?"=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The POLITICAL DIGEST is essentially an Internet "Clipping=20 Service." We gather many "Political News Articles" and "Political=20 Columns and Editorials" that are on the Internet and combine them into=20 one text file, just as a "Clipping Service" does for people with=20 "Hard Copies" of newspapers. We do NOT charge for the material.=20 NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes= =2E TPD (THE POLITICAL DIGEST) which contains political=20 articles only and will average about 200 K. Cost is $90.00 per year. TPDL (THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE) which will average=20 about 50 K and will be selected articles out of the TPD & TPDP.=20 TPDP (THE POLITICAL DIGEST PLUS) which is all=20 Commentary's and Editorials from all over the nation, plus selected=20 other articles that we find interesting. This will average about=20 250K. TPDP costs $90.00 per year. TPDXTRA (THE POLITICAL DIGEST XTRA) which is FREE=20 but sent out on an infrequent basis. It contains things too large=20 for TPDL and doesn't fit into TPD & TPDP very well.=20 Usually TPDXTRA will contain only one item.=20 To subscribe to TPD and/or TPDP mail Cash, Check, or money=20 order to: Wayne Mann 1079 Farroll Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420-4136 To receive THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE=20 just send an e-mail message with the word subscribe TPDL=20 in the subject line to tpd@callamerica.net.=20 To stop receiving the TPDL just send an e-mail message with=20 Unsubscribe TPDL or in the subject line to tpd@callamerica.net.=20 Thank you. No Charge, it's FREE. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D \\/ayne //\annn "'Liar' is just as ugly a word as "thief", because it implies the presence= =20 of just as ugly a sin in one case as in the other. If a man lies under oat= h=20 or procures the lie of another under oath; if he perjures himself or suborn= s=20 perjury, he is guilty under the statute law. - Under the higher law, under= =20 the great law of morality and righteousness, he is precisely as guilty if,= =20 instead of lying in a court, he lies in a newspaper or on the stump; and in= =20 all probability, the evil effects of his conduct are infinitely more widespread=20 and more pernicious." -- Theodore Roosevelt - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: New evidence revealed in King assassinatin (fwd) Date: 24 Mar 1998 14:15:45 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Tuesday March 24 11:07 AM EST New Evidence Revealed in King Assassination ATLANTA (Reuters) - A former FBI agent who investigated the 1968 assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was to present on Tuesday what he claimed was evidence never before disclosed in the case. Donald Wilson, who left the FBI in 1987, was one of two agents who on April 10, 1968, impounded a white Ford Mustang belonging to James Earl Ray, who confessed to the killing but later recanted, saying the case was a conspiracy involving federal agents. Wilson said Monday he found and kept two slips of paper from the car, which was found in Atlanta's Capitol Homes housing project, that may support Ray's claim of a government conspiracy in the April 4, 1968, assassination. "This is very significant," King's son, Dexter King, told The Atlanta Constitution. "The evidence that he has will go a long way toward disputing the official story." Ray, 70, was sentenced to life in prison for killing King He has been diagnosed with liver cancer. The King family said it supports his request for a new trial. Wilson said he did not reveal the evidence earlier because he did not trust some of the investigators in the case. He said he also feared for his family. He said he contacted the King family after hearing the slain civil rights leader's wife Coretta Scott King ask Tennessee officials in 1997 to let Ray's case go to trial. Wilson, who heads a career management company, was to present the evidence to Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard because the documents were found in Atlanta and Howard has jurisdiction. ^REUTERS@ _________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ___________ Help _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: Oscar Glory Provides Vindication for 'Titanic' Next Story: Albright Asks Vatican to Help Cuban Prisoners _________________________________________________________________ [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited Questions or Comments - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: JPFO info (fwd) Date: 24 Mar 1998 15:15:14 PST On Mar 24, Josh Amos wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I am on the JPFO's mailing list, and thought I'd pass this on to my fellow fappers as well. Josh > ****JPFO e-mail Alert!**** > > Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. > Aaron Zelman - Executive Director > 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. > Milwaukee, WI 53207 > Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 > http://www.JPFO.org > email: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org > > 03/24/98 > -------- > > >This e-mail concludes our 5 part series, to show you, the JPFO >member and e-mail subscriber, what tools that JPFO has provided >to help you in destroying "gun control", and how to use them. >I sincerely urge you to MAKE TIME and read this important >information. As well, go to the links provided for additional >study. There will be another tool available in the *near* future, >but I am not at liberty to reveal this just yet. > >If you missed Part I of this series, go to: > >http://www.jpfo.org/antigen1.htm > >If you missed Part II of this series, go to: > >http://www.jpfo.org/antigen2.htm > >If you missed Part III of this series, go to: > >http://www.jpfo.org/antigen3.htm > >If you missed Part IV of this series, go to: > >http://www.jpfo.org/antigen4.htm > > >If you have studied this material before, refresh yourself with >this series, then please forward this material to someone who >could benefit from this series. Time is running out to use this >proven material. Make use of it while there is still enough >freedom left, to use it!! > >Thanks for your time, > >Chris W. Stark > >JPFO Director of Electronic Communications > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > GRAN'PA JACK TELLS HOW A JURY CAN PROTECT YOUR RIGHT > TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE > > > Gran'pa Jack #2 - "Can you get a Fair Trial in America?" > > > > >Dear JPFO Member & e-mail subscriber, > > >Imagine you are arrested for a "technical" firearms law violation >for the "crime" of trying to defend your life with a firearm. You >may face a felony conviction and jail. This tragic fate is suffered >every year by thousands of peacefull gun owners JUST LIKE YOU. > >JPFO, in conjunction with the Lawyers Second Amendment Society >has created "Can you get a fair trial in America?" Gran'pa Jack >#2 gives you a solid understanding of the power of a fully >informed jury - a jury that may keep you or your loved ones out >of jail in the future for having committed the "crime" of >self-defense. > >"Can you get a fair trial in America?" was written to educate >Americans that no jury need convict a law-abiding citizen of the >"crime" of self-defense. No matter what a judge or or prosecutor >says. > >You need to use this intellectual "firepower" regarding your >rights today, as explained in Gran'pa Jack #2. > >This sequel to "Gun Control" Kills Kids (100,000 copies in print) >is a Second Amendment double play. It not only tells the story >of the fully informed jury, but it also shows how carrying >weapons is in the public interest. > > >Action Items: > > >1) Read "Can you get a fair trial?" at once. Then give a copy to >every friend, gun club, police officer, city councl, city attorney, >district attorney, your local media.....and dont forget your >legislators. With this booklet in wide distribution, it will get >harder and harder for gun prohibitionists to use the court system >to harass and convict peacefull gun-owners like you! > > >2) Time is short. Take action today to safeguard the future of >firearms ownership. Your future, and that of your kids, is in >your hands. Please, go to http://www.jpfo.org/books.htm >and order a bundle of Gran'pa Jack booklets to give out! > > >3) To become a JPFO member, go to: http://www.jpfo.org/member.htm >There you will see a printable member application, along with >info on membership. If you wish, you can become a member using >our on-line application as well. Membership IS open to ALL Law >abiding citizens. > > >************************************************************** >Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership >Chris W. Stark - JPFO Director of Electronic Communications >2874 So. Wentworth Ave. >Milwaukee, WI 53207 >Ph. (414) 769-0760 >Fax (414) 483-8435 >e-mail: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org > >Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org > >MEMBERSHIP IS OPEN TO ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. > >"America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership." >************************************************************** > TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: > > subscribe@JPFO.org > >...and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". >************************************************************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 25 Mar 1998 10:43:00 -0800 >March 25, 1998 > >This may be the long way around to getting to the point of WHY >Clinton is in Africa, but this is how I found out the "Why" behind >Clinton's visit to Africa. Some of what I'm writing about happened in >1997 before the Asian financial collapse. > >A number of months ago when the Oregon Legislature was in session >I discovered several bills which had been sponsored in the Oregon >Legislature which, if passed into law (as they later were), would >establish an Oregon trade office in Shanghai, China. The argument >which was being used at the Oregon Capitol by State Senator Mae Yih >and State Senator John Lim - the sponsors of these bills - was that >if Oregon opened up a trade office in Shanghai it would be easier >for Oregon businesses to make contacts in Shanghai for exporting >Oregon made goods to that city. > >It might be worth noting here that Senator Mae Yih was born in >Shanghai, China in 1928. Senator John Lim was born in South >Korea in 1935. > >A couple of months passed. I kept watch on those "trade office" >bills and reported on their progress via The Cure Network Fidonet >conference. That conference is on the Fidonet backbone if anyone >is interested. > >As time passed, and as I kept watch on these bills reporting back >to folks what was happening in the Oregon Legislature as far as these, >and other bills were concerned, I happened to notice that a new >bill had been introduced by Senator Mae Yih and Seator John Lim. > >This new revised Senate bill was not only written for the purpose >of establishing a Oregon trade office in Shanghai, China, but a >new country and NEW Oregon trade office had been added to the bill. >This new bill - Senate Bill 916 - was written so that an Oregon >trade office could be established in Africa with Oregon taxpayer >dollars. > >WHY on earth would two Oregon State Senators want to have Oregon >taxpayers pay for an Oregon trade office in Africa? This one I >couldn't figure. What I did next was to buy just about every >newspaper I could find looking for news about Africa. It took >a while. Then one day when my search was rewarded. > >I found a news report which discussed the economic standing of >various nations and regions of the world. One part of this >article stated that while various countries and regions of the >world were moving ahead economically ONE are of the world was >actually moving BACKWARD economically - Africa. > >The article related how the nations of the world had ignored >Africa as a trading partner. It also related a dismal picture >of people moving backward instead of forward toward a better >standard of living. > >When I read that the old light bulb clicked on. > >What apparently was going on was that two Senatorial Globalists >in the Oregon legislature had noted Africa's economic decline and >decided to do what they could do to make access to Africa's cheap >labor pool easier for Oregon businesses. > >Of course, the argument was ALWAYS that they wanted to open up >a trade office in Africa so Oregon companies could sell their >goods in Africa, but then we already know where jobs have gone to >when trade had opened up between the U.S. and some cheap third >world country. This was simply another screw job by two Oregon >Senators who were working to make it much easier for Oregon >businesses to move their base of operations TO Africa so as to >take advantage the dirt poor labor "pool" over there. > >Once the trade office was set up in Africa and operating, Oregon >(and U.S.) jobs would be going to Africa and inexpensively >manufactured goods would be shipped TO Oregon and the rest of >the U.S. so a few at the top of the corporate ladder can become >even fatter and more bloated as they swam in their billions of >dollars of profits. > >So now, out of the clear blue - or so it seems - Clinton takes a >sudden liking to Africa. > >Now we know why. Comrade Clinton is headed over there to create >"friendship links" between that country and America so U.S. >corporations can move EVEN MORE U.S. jobs out of this country. > >Only now, the job sucking sound is going to be coming from Africa. > >Clinton gives America the shaft once again. > > > Les Lemke > >* Origin: Stargate Oregon - North Bend, Oregon USA (1:356/3) - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Fwd: [mom-l] MOM Press Release Date: 25 Mar 1998 10:43:50 -0800 > In a message dated 98-03-24 17:54:58 EST, nox2128@montana.com writes: > > > If you would like to voice your dissent over the cancellation of this > >show, please call WGTG at: 706-492-5944. > > > > > ***************************************************************** > > >>> FOLKS, WE NEED TO CALL RADIO STATION WGTG. I heard the first >show and it was excellent. I have a great deal of respect for John >Trochmann, and I think we need to get behind him 1,000 percent. > > Thanks in advance for taking a few minutes to call WGTG to protest >their yanking Ghost Riders. > > > > ----------------- > Forwarded Message: > Subj: [mom-l] MOM Press Release > Date: 98-03-24 17:54:58 EST > From: nox2128@montana.com (Randy L. Trochmann) > Sender: owner-mom-l@logoplex.com > Reply-to: nox2128@montana.com > To: mom-l@logoplex.com > CC: piml@mars.galstar.com > > MILITIA OF MONTANA > P.O. Box 1486, Noxon, MT 59853 > 406-847-2735 Tel. > 406-847-2246 Fax > mom@logoplex.com > http://www.logoplex.com/resources/mom > > PRESS RELEASE / 03-24-98 > > The "Ghost Riders" show -- hosted by John Trochmann of the Militia of > Montana and Keith Johnsen of UAIC -- was unexpectedly yanked from the > airwaves last night by radio station WGTG, Georgia. At approximately > 11:40 pm (Eastern Time) -- 40 minutes into the scheduled broadcast -- > the Ghost Riders "lost a shoe off the horse" when the short-wave station > manager substituted easy-listening music for the regularly scheduled > program with absolutely no warning. > Later, Republic Radio was contacted by WGTG's Frantz and was instructed > that the "Ghost Riders" show was simply "too militia." > Minutes before the Ghost Rider "derailment", hosts had announced that > Daniel Hopsicker would be a guest on tomorrow night's show. Hopsicker > is the producer of an explosive two-hour video entitled, "Conspiracy: > the Secret History; Episode One: The Secret Heartbeat of America". This > important video documentary asks the question, "How will YOU feel when > you DISCOVER that the biggest drug smuggler in the country...is the > country?" and now can be ordered through MOM (406-847-2735). Was this > guest one of the reasons "Ghost Riders" was censored? You betcha. For > those satellite listeners out there, you can still catch the interview > with producer Daniel Hopsicker at 11 pm (e.s.t.) tonight (March 24th). > Please tune in. > Another very likely reason the show was yanked from the air was when > special guests came on the show to expose three agent provocateurs > within the Patriot Movement. Those exposed, by the special guests, as > provocateurs were Dave Rydell and Art Bean of the United States Theater > Command, and Tom Wayne, former 2nd in command of the Michigan Militia > Wolverines. All three are from Michigan. The guests claimed that two of > the three (Rydell and Bean) have been attempting to create a > confrontation between militia members and law enforcement authorities. > The provocateurs went so far as to claim that a Pennsylvania militia > member had been killed and it was time for the militia to take action, > one of the guests stated. (Nobody had been killed). The other exposed > provocateur (Wayne) admitted to providing information to the > Anti-Defamation League, stated another guest of the show. The guests > provided other detailed information, which is to lengthy to list here. > The "Ghost Riders" radio show blazed new trails during its first 5 days > of broadcast. The radio show hosts were no "fence sitters", and it > quickly became the leading edge for patriot talk shows. "Ghost riders" > offered an opportunity for America to talk about ALL issues important to > this country. Formerly, many of these subjects were the "unspeakable". > If you would like to voice your dissent over the cancellation of this > show, please call WGTG at: 706-492-5944. > > "We are riding hard to catch the herd; but we ain't caught 'em yet." > > --- end --- > - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 25 Mar 1998 13:57:25 -0500 >>March 25, 1998 big sniparoo >> >>Now we know why. Comrade Clinton is headed over there to create >>"friendship links" between that country and America so U.S. >>corporations can move EVEN MORE U.S. jobs out of this country. >> >>Only now, the job sucking sound is going to be coming from Africa. >> >>Clinton gives America the shaft once again. >> >> >> Les Lemke >> >>* Origin: Stargate Oregon - North Bend, Oregon USA (1:356/3) > > >- Monte > This is crap. 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. Low cost virtual servers. DB integration. Tango. Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 25 Mar 1998 13:49:49 -0700 Chad, I just, I really hate to see you beat around the bush like this ; ) Boyd Kneeland. Visit www.distributed.net/rc5 and join team 1661! At 1:57 PM -0500 3/25/98, Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net wrote: >>>March 25, 1998 > >big sniparoo > >>> >>>Now we know why. Comrade Clinton is headed over there to create >>>"friendship links" between that country and America so U.S. >>>corporations can move EVEN MORE U.S. jobs out of this country. >>> >>>Only now, the job sucking sound is going to be coming from Africa. >>> >>>Clinton gives America the shaft once again. >>> >>> >>> Les Lemke >>> >>>* Origin: Stargate Oregon - North Bend, Oregon USA (1:356/3) >> >> >>- Monte >> > > >This is crap. > >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. >Low cost virtual servers. DB integration. Tango. >Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP >Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. >--------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 25 Mar 1998 17:07:12 -0500 >Chad, I just, I really hate to see you beat around the bush like this ; ) > I am stupid. Spell it out. thanks Chad >Boyd Kneeland. Visit www.distributed.net/rc5 and join team 1661! > >At 1:57 PM -0500 3/25/98, Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net >wrote: >>>>March 25, 1998 >> >>big sniparoo >> >>>> >>>>Now we know why. Comrade Clinton is headed over there to create >>>>"friendship links" between that country and America so U.S. >>>>corporations can move EVEN MORE U.S. jobs out of this country. >>>> >>>>Only now, the job sucking sound is going to be coming from Africa. >>>> >>>>Clinton gives America the shaft once again. >>>> >>>> >>>> Les Lemke >>>> >>>>* Origin: Stargate Oregon - North Bend, Oregon USA (1:356/3) >>> >>> >>>- Monte >>> >> >> >>This is crap. >> >>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. >>Low cost virtual servers. DB integration. Tango. >>Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP >>Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. >>--------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >>- > > > > >- 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. Low cost virtual servers. DB integration. Tango. Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 25 Mar 1998 17:14:11 -0500 (EST) > >I am stupid. Spell it out. > >thanks >Chad > No, Chad you aren't stupid. Clinton isn't visiting Africa to somehow screw the American public. He's there to save his bacon and re-establish some credentials as a foreign policy kinda guy. I agree with Chad. The original posting is crap. If anyone is afraid of the gov. be afraid of tangible things, like the 50% of your income they take to do some wildly inefficient stuff with. If the people of Subsaharan Africa make you afraid, because they will build things for $2.00 a day, here is some advice: Go learn how to do things that they can't do, and aren't likely to be able to do anytime soon, and the market needs. If you do that, then you will be able to look after yourself regardless of what trade policy is with Africa. You might also develop a clear eyed view of what ails the guv, and how it impacts you. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Oklahoma Rally (fwd) Date: 25 Mar 1998 16:49:20 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- mlindste@clandjop.com, jeffs@gr.cns.net, pwatson@utdallas.edu, Shiloh1@airmail.net, nox2128@montana.com ***************************** BILL OF ATTAINDER PROJECT ***************************** Press Release: "War On Drugs" WILL FOSTER RALLY APRIL 20TH, 4:00 p.m ON THE STEPS OF THE STATE CAPITAL Oklahoma City . Political Activists from all over the nation will gather together to protest the "War On Drugs" and plead for the freedom of Will Foster. Foster is currently serving over 90 years for growing his own medical marijuana. Currently not only is he being denied legal medicine, and medical care, your rights are dying with his. Most Americans do not realize that the "War On Drugs" is about much more than just drugs. The Bill Of Attainder Project, NORML, The Libertarian Party of Oklahoma, The Reform Party of Oklahoma, Oklahoma UCLA, Drug Reform Coordination Network, and many other organizations will be in Oklahoma City to tell the truth about the "War On Drugs." The keynote speaker will be Adam J. Smith. Do you know the truth about what the government is really spending? Do you suspect the government lies, and misrepresents the facts? Did you know their 'War' against a culture is illegal? Come meet the people doing something about it. Several members of the Oklahoma media will be present along with a diverse group of political activists. All are invited. Along with the rally a documentary of the event will be made which will include interviews with major voices in the "Drug War." If you can help or would like to attend the event you may contact OKNORML in Oklahoma City at: (405) 366-8058. Bill Of Attainder Project http://www.isc-durant.com/to/billofattainder - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 25 Mar 1998 15:19:00 -0700 In case what chad was seeking elucidation on was my comment, I want to be clear that I was being sarcastic. Chads comment was succinct, clear and to the point in a way that I see very little in most of the lists I'm on. That's refreshing, I just wanted to humorously reinforce that sort of thing. Evidently intent didn't meet implementation. So, maybe others around the country can tell me if "beat around the bush" is a regional colloquialism? It's the opposite of what Chad did, it's evading the point. Does this sound to others like something I just made up? (it's not). Boyd "verbosity on request" Kneeland At 5:14 PM -0500 3/25/98, John Curtis wrote: >> >>I am stupid. Spell it out. >> >>thanks >>Chad >> > No, Chad you aren't stupid. > > Clinton isn't visiting Africa to somehow screw the American > public. He's there to save his bacon and re-establish some > credentials as a foreign policy kinda guy. > > I agree with Chad. The original posting is crap. > > If anyone is afraid of the gov. be afraid of tangible things, > like the 50% of your income they take to do some wildly > inefficient stuff with. > > If the people of Subsaharan Africa make you afraid, because > they will build things for $2.00 a day, here is some advice: > Go learn how to do things that they can't do, and aren't likely > to be able to do anytime soon, and the market needs. > > If you do that, then you will be able to look after yourself > regardless of what trade policy is with Africa. You might also > develop a clear eyed view of what ails the guv, and how it > impacts you. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 25 Mar 1998 18:34:09 -0500 >In case what chad was seeking elucidation on was my comment, I want to be >clear that I was being sarcastic. Chads comment was succinct, clear and to >the point in a way that I see very little in most of the lists I'm on. >That's refreshing, I just wanted to humorously reinforce that sort of >thing. Evidently intent didn't meet implementation. Now that I read Boyds original post again it makes much more sense. I guess my original problem was not understanding if it was pro or con what I said. I now can read and understand his original comment. I also agree fully with John Curtis' comments. In most cases, in manufacturing, "you gets what your pays for" Chad also on team 1661 at www.distributed.net > >So, maybe others around the country can tell me if "beat around the bush" >is a regional colloquialism? It's the opposite of what Chad did, it's >evading the point. Does this sound to others like something I just made up? >(it's not). >Boyd "verbosity on request" Kneeland > >At 5:14 PM -0500 3/25/98, John Curtis wrote: >>> >>>I am stupid. Spell it out. >>> >>>thanks >>>Chad >>> >> No, Chad you aren't stupid. >> >> Clinton isn't visiting Africa to somehow screw the American >> public. He's there to save his bacon and re-establish some >> credentials as a foreign policy kinda guy. >> >> I agree with Chad. The original posting is crap. >> >> If anyone is afraid of the gov. be afraid of tangible things, >> like the 50% of your income they take to do some wildly >> inefficient stuff with. >> >> If the people of Subsaharan Africa make you afraid, because >> they will build things for $2.00 a day, here is some advice: >> Go learn how to do things that they can't do, and aren't likely >> to be able to do anytime soon, and the market needs. >> >> If you do that, then you will be able to look after yourself >> regardless of what trade policy is with Africa. You might also >> develop a clear eyed view of what ails the guv, and how it >> impacts you. >> >> ciao, >> >> jcurtis >> >>- > > > > >- 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. Low cost virtual servers. DB integration. Tango. Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 25 Mar 1998 15:58:29 -0800 >big sniparoo > >>> >>>Now we know why. Comrade Clinton is headed over there to create >>>"friendship links" between that country and America so U.S. >>>corporations can move EVEN MORE U.S. jobs out of this country. >>> >>>Only now, the job sucking sound is going to be coming from Africa. >>> >>>Clinton gives America the shaft once again. >>> >>> >>> Les Lemke >>> >>>* Origin: Stargate Oregon - North Bend, Oregon USA (1:356/3) >> >> >>- Monte >> >This is crap. > >Chad Well, you surely were brief in your "analysis;" care to offer any more? - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 25 Mar 1998 16:25:39 -0700 Boyd, [...] If the people of Subsaharan Africa make you afraid, because`they will build things for $2.00 a day, here is some advice: Go learn how to do things that they can't do, and aren't likely to be able to do anytime soon, and the market needs. [...] Cute, really cute. Good point too. But, I fear the original poster was trying to make a different point, one which was lost in all of self-congratulations, and that is, that citizen's money is being used to screw them. So, yeah, it's good to be able to go get yourself an education, and prepare for the worst. But, and a big but it is, if you are already on the low end of the wage scale, what help is there for you? If you were formerly a logger, and are say about 50 years old, who the blazes is going to hire you after 4 years of college? Try it sometime. I've seen the best educated men and women getting closed doors everyday, because they are too old. So, Boyd? Try attacking this from the other side of the coin, where you are just managing to make ends meet, and the friggers in your state are making deals with _your_ competition, using _your_ money. Tell me _your_ arse ain't sore when the screwjob's done. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: CS: Pol-BBC Poll Date: 25 Mar 1998 16:30:59 -0700 >Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:01:21 -0500 >From: Steven Kendrick/UK >Subject: CS: Pol-BBC Poll >To: CyberShooters >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Sender: owner-cybershooters@mail-it.com >Precedence: bulk > >From: Jim Pullen, INTERNET:pullen@erols.com > >The BBC are having a poll "Should handguns be banned in America?" > >Who gave the BBC the moral right to foist their socialist anti-gun >views on another country? > > > >Can we massage the figures a bit? > >Jim >-- >Probably. I fail to understand the rationale of the BBC given that >the shootings in Arkansas were accomplished with bolt-action hunting >rifles. > >Steve. > > ---------[advertisement]----------- > > We can't all sue the Government, but we can give money to > people who are making the attempt: > > Justice for Shooters, PO Box 705, Bourne End, Bucks, SL8 5FS. > http://home.rednet.co.uk/homepages/markg/index.html > > David Steed Fighting Fund, c/o Howell-Jones & Partners, 75 > Surbiton Road, Kingston-upon-Thames. > > NPA Fighting Fund, c/o BM NPA, London, WC1N 3XX. > > "A pound a day keeps the gun-grabbers away" > > ----------[subscription info]---------- > > To subscribe (or unsubscribe), send email to > majordomo@mail-it.com with no subject and the text: > > subscribe cybershooters (or unsubscribe cybershooters) > > as the first and only line in the message body. For further > information, please refer to the Cybershooters FAQ at > http://www.tsra.demon.co.uk/csfaq.htm > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 25 Mar 1998 19:59:19 -0500 > Boyd, > > [...] > If the people of Subsaharan Africa make you afraid, >because`they will build things for $2.00 a day, here is some >advice: > Go learn how to do things that they can't do, and >aren't likely to be able to do anytime soon, and the market needs. > [...] > > Cute, really cute. > Good point too. > > But, I fear the original poster was trying to make >a different point, one which was lost in all of self-congratulations, >and that is, that citizen's money is being used to screw them. Well, we've already established that the citizens are not getting screwed (above and beyond the direct wasted money for running such an "office"). (Ie, if the Africans are now going to be building widget X at $2/day, how many jobs are being sent there -- not many -- the total number of jobs that could ever be affected by making widget X or whatever is very small). So, the only screwing of the citizens is the tax money to run the office. Jack Curtis, who wrote the stuff below (not Boyd) made a more important point -- instead of trying to find a bogeyman in every little dumb thing, get up in arms about the 50% of your income that is being taken by the gov. for everything else! All the "woe is us -- our jobs are going overseas" folks cannot do the math on the real (negligble) effect that has on our country. All of use get screwed by the government on a daily basis in a much bigger way (taxes etc). And lastly, the government does not owe you or anyone else a job and have NO RIGHT to make legislation that punishes the rest of us so you can keep your job. And I have to laugh at the premise of the original article that this was all being done to fatten someones pockets. Companies are not welfare agencies. They need to make the best decisions they can to run their businesses. If they cannot run a profitable business in the UNited STates because of all the governmental hassles and controls and regulations as well as high taxes they have to put up with then they will move. Everytime a company moves overseas we should be yelling at the government for making the US uncompetitive. When you pay someone in Africa 2$/day you get about 2$ a day in effort. This is an economic truth. You do not get the same output (productivity) you get from an American or European worker. However, the government artificially raises the cost of doing business in the US with all sorts of extra regulations, paper work, and taxes and stuff so that you may get a higher relative productivity in Africa because more of the 2$ you pay there goes to productivity than the 24$/hour you pay here (eg, lets say that you get 10 productivity units per dollar spent minus whatever government overhead you have. In africa you may get 19 units of productivity for your 2$ you spend there per worker or 95% productive. In the US where you spend 24$/hour you may get 1440 units of production per worker for an 8 hour day but that is only 75% (24 x 8 x 7.5 -- 2.5 was the government overhead -- these numbers made up but show the principle). So in Africa the cost per productivity unit is cheaper but in the US you get almost 75 times more productivity per worker. The goal should then be to get the cost of production down in the US to more closely match it overseas. Anyway, what this all means is that the "woe is us" crowd, besides not being able to do math, is barking up the wrong tree. They need to demand less government intrusion into business so that companies can increase their productivity output per $ spent. > So, yeah, it's good to be able to go get yourself an >education, and prepare for the worst. > But, and a big but it is, if you are already on the low >end of the wage scale, what help is there for you? > > If you were formerly a logger, and are say about 50 >years old, who the blazes is going to hire you after 4 years of >college? Try it sometime. I've seen the best educated men and >women getting closed doors everyday, because they are too old. My dad took early retirement as an engineer and went and tried to find another job. It has been hard but he has managed to get work. He is now 62 and teaching some computer classes at a local college and also working part time for the phone company. People need to realize that there is no RIGHT to a job. They need to fend the best they can the same as every one else. It is not the governments jpb to subsidize uncompetitive industries. NOR is it their job to stand in the way like they seem to do but no one of the "woe is me" types worries about that. > > So, Boyd? Try attacking this from the other side of the >coin, where you are just managing to make ends meet, and the >friggers in your state are making deals with _your_ competition, >using _your_ money. That is not what the article described. The article offered no proof that anything of this sort was happening. Just some paranoid "woe is me" type trying to put 2 + 2 together from reading the paper and tracking his legislature and reading into their actions... Sorry for the long winded reply. "This is crap" should have been enough. best Chad > Tell me _your_ arse ain't sore when the screwjob's done. > >ET > > > >- 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. Low cost virtual servers. DB integration. Tango. 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: Incumbent Protection Back Again (fwd) Date: 25 Mar 1998 20:44:58 PST On Mar 25, Douglas Davis wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Return-Path: >Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 16:55:41 -0500 >From: Gun Owners of America >Reply-To: Gun Owners of America >To: goamail@gunowners.org >Subject: Incumbent Protection Back Again > > Republican Leaders Resurrect Problematic Bill > > by Gun Owners of America > 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151, > (703)321-8585, http://www.gunowners.org > (Wednesday, March 25, 1998) > >Incumbent Protection Bill revived in the House > > Having died in the Senate, the Incumbent Protection Bill has >now been resurrected in the House. This new draft, like its >predecessors in the House and the Senate, would severely regulate >-- or "chill" -- the free speech of groups like GOA by limiting >their ability to report on incumbents' records during the >election season. This, of course, would benefit the anti-gun >media and incumbents, who would not be limited in their ability >to publicize (and distort) their own records or viewpoints. > > For example, on page 7 of this new bill (H.R. 3485), GOA >"political activity" that would be heavily regulated (and >prohibited in many cases) would be "any activity carried out for >the purpose of influencing (in whole or in part) any election for >Federal office, influencing the consideration or outcome of any >Federal legislation or the issuance or outcome of any Federal >regulation, or educating individuals about candidates . . . " > > When debating the Senate bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) >summarized this issue quite well: > > The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear . . . > [that] spending is speech and the first amendment applies > to individuals, groups, candidates and parties, as well as > applying to the press. . . . [The press doesn't] like it. > They would like to have more power, not less. They would > like to control our campaigns, control the discourse in the > course of the campaign that goes on, and control the > outcome with their editorial endorsement. But the first > amendment doesn't allow them to control the political > process. It also doesn't allow the Government, through > some statute we passed here, to be put in charge of > regulating either the quality or the quantity of political > speech. (Source: Congressional Record, 2/26/98.) > > ACTION: Gun owners should urge their Representatives to >oppose any bill (like H.R. 3485) that would not only restrict >your First Amendment rights, but the free speech rights of those >groups (like GOA) that represent you. A vote on the House bill >is scheduled for this week. > > To contact Capitol Hill, call 202-225-3121, or use the toll >free number at 1-800-522-6721. Individual office numbers, fax >numbers, and e-mail addresses can be found at the GOA website. > > >GOA spokesmen counter gun grabbers in aftermath of Jonesboro >shooting > > From Fox Cable Network to MSNBC and other media outlets, >spokesmen from Gun Owners of America have been called on today to >counter Chuck Schumer and his fellow gun grabbers in the >aftermath of yesterday's tragic shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas. > > Not surprisingly, the shooting has led to the familiar cries >for more gun control on today's talk shows. As if reading off >the same page, many pundits have trotted out the same old, >worn-out argument that the "availability of guns" is the problem. > > Of course, what these gun grabbers miss is that the young >thugs broke several laws already (murder, no guns allowed within >1,000 feet of a school, possession with intent to commit a crime, >etc.). Moreover, the anti-gun zealots completely ignore the >biggest evidence that their "availability of guns causes crime" >mentality is pure myth. Consider that in the 1950's, when there >were far fewer gun control laws on the books, there was not a >problem with illegal guns in schools. There was no Brady law, no >semi-auto ban, no Gun Free Zones Ban. Guns were more "available" >in the 1950's and yet there was no "gun problem" in the schools! > > So what has changed? Well, the lax punishment of criminal >juveniles and the imitation of T.V. violence are just two of many >reasons. But clearly, guns are LESS AVAILABLE today than they >were 40 years ago. As you contact your elected officials, make >sure they don't buy into this "availability of guns is the >problem" myth. > >*********************************************************** >Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of >getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider >joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service >is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume >is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week >indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward >this notice) to goamail@gunowners.org and include your >state of residence in either the subject line or the body. > ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net ******************** [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 26 Mar 1998 09:58:12 -0700 At 4:25 PM -0700 3/25/98, E.J. Totty wrote: > Boyd, > > [...] > If the people of Subsaharan Africa make you afraid, >because`they will build things for $2.00 a day, here is some >advice: > Go learn how to do things that they can't do, and >aren't likely to be able to do anytime soon, and the market needs. > [...] > > Cute, really cute. > Good point too. Well, dang, that makes me doubly wish I could take credit : ) but I didnt' say that. Wasn't it Chad? Anyway I agree that it's a good point. > But, I fear the original poster was trying to make >a different point, one which was lost in all of self-congratulations, >and that is, that citizen's money is being used to screw them. > So, yeah, it's good to be able to go get yourself an >education, and prepare for the worst. Yeah, well just for the record I'm not to keen on Oregonians paying for their politicians to junket and make "extended dance junket" offices like this either. > But, and a big but it is, if you are already on the low >end of the wage scale, what help is there for you? Great question. Actually, I work here in Liberal Seattle one door down from a lady raising a family in Shelton (rural Central Western) Washington. She worked in the cold room of a national logging/paper company for more then 10 years, the same company her dad and about 90% of that town had worked for when they closed their local operation, Information Technology Center and all. She got a grant to go through a community colleges Data Processing program and started here 1 or 2 weeks after I did (we trained together). She's in our fee service program and was the companies first test case on work from home (WRQ is very big on corp. culture and was/is reticent to do work at home). WRQ installed ISDN to her home, battling USWest to do it (can't imagine the horror) and now she only has to commute for two hours twice a week : ) OK, none of this is to say that such opportunities are falling off trees (or, actually that I necessarily support socialized re education) but rather to say "dang, don't I work for the coolest company" : ) > If you were formerly a logger, and are say about 50 >years old, who the blazes is going to hire you after 4 years of >college? Try it sometime. I've seen the best educated men and >women getting closed doors everyday, because they are too old. > > So, Boyd? Try attacking this from the other side of the >coin, where you are just managing to make ends meet, and the >friggers in your state are making deals with _your_ competition, >using _your_ money. That would suck, can't imagine anyone wanting that to happen. You don't think I would want that to happen, do you? Because I certainly don't. Dad was a Boeing journeyman tool and die maker, I know about re training problems. > Tell me _your_ arse ain't sore when the screwjob's done. > >ET Boyd "Never pick up the soap" Kneeland - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 26 Mar 1998 13:23:09 -0500 (EST) Deleted most of Chad's reply. I like his analysis of African productivity vs. U.S. productivity. > >My dad took early retirement as an engineer and went and tried to find >another job. It has been hard but he has managed to get work. He is now >62 and teaching some computer classes at a local college and also working >part time for the phone company. > >People need to realize that there is no RIGHT to a job. They need to fend >the best they can the same as every one else. It is not the governments >jpb to subsidize uncompetitive industries. NOR is it their job to stand in >the way like they seem to do but no one of the "woe is me" types worries >about that. > Amen. America is a land that is *exceptional* in its support of capitalism and individual opportunity. If you don't think so, ask someone who has lived in England, or elsewhere in Europe, and come here to work. The 50 year old logger has my sympathy. Maybe he needs to look around and find out the best area to work in in the country and the best fit for his skills and go for it. If he has spent 30 years working in an industry that demands hard physical labor, maybe he ought to have looked around and noticed that there weren't many 50+ year old men working with him and make alternate plans. I once interviewed a young guy (mech. engineer) who moved his family up from Texas in the middle of a high tech recession. He was running out of savings, and working at McD's to stretch things out, living in a bad section of town to reduce living costs and *busting his ass to get a job*. We didn't have a job directly, but my boss and I spent a couple of hours making phone calls and got this guy a job at Wang Labs. He didn't get the job on skills, he got it on guts. I'm middle-aged myself, so I realize its easier for a young man to relocate (and maybe to have guts). Look to yourself. Don't look to the (shudder) U.S. Senate to do it for you. regards, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cyrano Subject: [Fwd: AB23 VOTE TODAY!!!!!!] Date: 26 Mar 1998 11:29:42 -0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------30731019B83025EAB3911DF3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Steve Silver Proud Member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy & Vice President, The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329, Encino, CA 91316 * (818) 734-3066 For a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, "The Liberty Pole," e-mail your snail-mail address to: LSAS3@aol.com The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation * * * Self defense is not a crime. Firearms: They save lives. --------------30731019B83025EAB3911DF3 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from bulk.starnine.com (bulk.starnine.com [198.211.93.99]) by ixmail6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.7-s-4/8.8.7/(NETCOM v1.01)) with ESMTP id KAA21586; ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mikeh.starnine.com (mikeh.starnine.com [198.211.93.36]) by bulk.starnine.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA11091; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:46:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mikeh.starnine.com with ADMIN;26 Mar 1998 10:46:56 -0800 Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6]) by starnine.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA02196 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:45:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA23149 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 12:42:02 -0600 (CST) Received: from lax-ca39-08.ix.netcom.com(205.184.226.136) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023099; Thu Mar 26 12:41:35 1998 Message-ID: <351AA201.FD95C0D8@ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please Cross-post to all California internet boards!!!!!!!! Just learned that AB-23 has been brought to the floor. They are trying to push this through NOW because of what happened with the kids yesterday. MELT THE PHONES!!!!!!!!!! Joel Friedman Pasadena/Foothills --------------30731019B83025EAB3911DF3-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 26 Mar 1998 07:15:54 -0700 Chad, [...] That is not what the article described. The article offered no proof that anything of this sort was happening. Just some paranoid "woe is me" type trying to put 2 + 2 together from reading the paper and tracking his legislature and reading into their actions... Sorry for the long winded reply. "This is crap" should have been enough. [...] Well, I think you know that I'm as Libertarian as your can get, and I do agree with your statement that nobody owes anybody else a job. And I certainly wouldn't keep someone from making an honest income. But, Chad, there is an undercurrent here, that you either don't see, or are just ignoring. Many of the people who's jobs might end up elsewhere are the low end jobs to begin with. Many of those same people are in rural areas where just hanging on is getting to be a fight for your life. In the matter of taxation, many people are loosing their homes, and families are at risk, merely because some greedy GDSOB can take his production facilities to a third world nation where there are no - or very few - restrictions regarding environmental or other aspects that are comon here, and then bring the same product back into the country and expect us to pay premium for what was otherwise a cheap product at a low price to begin with. Case in point: Sneakers The fact of the matter here, is that the rich _are_ becoming richer, while the rest of us are bleeding to death. Right here in Washington State, the property taxes are going through the roofs of most older people, who can no longer afford their one and two bedroom houses. The rich bastard lawyers and other low life forms are buying those houses at very low rates and renting them out to slightly lesser stressed families at a high rent rate. Ultimately, the rich _will_ own every damn thing there is, while us Americans will be renters in our own country, co-opted by the filthy rich who take serious and unfair advantage of the situation, by inviting every tax increase they can get their hands on, to force us out. That's not Libertarian - that totalitarianism of the elite. Unless, and untill the tax situation is inverted, we - you and I, Chad, will end up in a damn bread line, working for slave wages. I see those poor suckers who have just lost a job, walking the street, and I can't help but think that my ass is just one step from that happening. All Boeing has to do is move to some third world nation, and I don't care how much knowledge I have, how many degrees I have, I am just as precariously perched as the guys in the rural communities. The bottom line isn't that God almighty dollar, its the people. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: (fwd) WHY Is Clinton Visiting Africa, You Ask? Date: 26 Mar 1998 12:54:36 -0800 (PST) On Thu, 26 Mar 1998, E.J. Totty wrote: > The bottom line isn't that God almighty dollar, its the people. These same "people" elected Slick Willie and his Host of Whores because they thought he and his had the most effective program to appropriate the wealth of others to their benefit without compensating those it was appropriated from. So now they find out that what goes around, comes around. The Law of Natural Consequences. Works for me. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 26 Mar 1998 15:58:07 -0600 (CST) Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism=20 By Patrick J. Buchanan=20 UNDER JIMMY CARTER, unemployment hit 7 percent, inflation 13 percent and interest rates 21 percent, setting the stage for the Reagan Revolution. And when Reagan's tax cuts took hold, the Eagle soared as it had not done in peacetime since the Roaring =9120s.=20 Europe had laughed at "the cowboy" the Americans had elected. But now, Europe sat bolt upright. The cowboy had begun creating jobs at a rate of 250,000 a month, for seven long years, while Europe was not creating a single new job.=20 With the collapse of communism, the future seemed set. It was the End of History. Most nations had embraced Reaganism, and all seemed ready to do so, even, mirabile dictu, Russia!=20 But was Reagan's victory forever? Or did our revolution, too, carry within it the seeds of its own destruction? John Gray, an ex-Thatcherite in England, believes it does. He argues his case in "False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism."=20 Reaganism and Thatcherism, says Gray, have in common deep tax cuts, the slashing of safety nets and welfare benefits, and global free trade. These unleash the powerful engines of capitalism that go on a tear. Factories and businesses open and close with startling speed, in that "creative destruction" so beloved of think-tank scholars. As companies merge, downsize and disappear, the labor force must always be ready to pick up and move on.=20 The benefits come in huge returns on capital, reflected in the stock market. The cost is paid in social upheaval and family breakdown, as even women with toddlers enter the labor force to keep up the family's standard of living. Deserted factories mean gutted neighborhoods, ghost towns, ravaged communities and regions that go from boom to bust to boom again, like the Rust Belt.=20 Reaganism and its twin sister, Thatcherism, create fortunes among the highly educated, but in the middle and working classes, they generate anxiety, insecurity and disparities in income. Since these classes seek stability, security and order from their political systems, above all else, Thatcherism and Reaganism thus undermine the very social structure on which they were built.=20 What is the evidence of Gray's thesis? Unfortunately, it is mounting. In England, Thatcher's party appears done. The attempt to impose Reaganomics in Europe has also brought backlash, as the jobless rate has risen above 12 percent. Conservative parties have been ousted in Canada, Britain, France and the United States, and the German conservatives are now running behind the socialists.=20 In Asia, Reaganism was always paid lip service as the giants, China and Japan, embraced nationalism. Asia's tigers grew fat by feeding on the U.S. market, while protecting their own. Their reward: a U.S. merchandise trade deficit running in January at $225 billion a year. U.S. capital is pouring out. Yet, even in the Asian crisis, with the IMF offering $40 billion and $50 billion bribes, Malaysia and Indonesia are balking at U.S. dictates.=20 Last weekend, Japan's prime minister told the U.S. Treasury to stuff its demand that Japan cut taxes by 2 percent of gross domestic product. With Tokyo running a deficit near 6 percent of GDP, what the United States is asking Ryutaro Hashimoto to do is comparable to Hashimoto coming to a United States that was running a deficit of $480 billion to demand that we run it up to $640 billion to soak up Asian imports.=20 Hashimoto responded as any red-blooded American would.=20 Even in Congress, the Vatican of the Reagan Revolution, heresy is rampant. Since 1995, Congress had gone along with new social spending, and federal taxes are over 20 percent of GDP, a record. A party that boasted it would shut down the departments of Education, Energy and Commerce cannot even close the Endowment for the Arts. If revolution is moribund on the hill, where is it alive?=20 What Gray describes, what is happening in America, is that conservatism is being confronted with its own contradictions.=20 Unbridled capitalism is an awesome force that creates new factories, wealth and opportunities that go first to society's risk takers and holders of capital. But unbridled capitalism is also an awesome destructive force. It makes men and women obsolete as rapidly as it does the products they produce and the plants that employ them. And the people made obsolete and insecure are workers, employees, "Reagan Democrats," rooted people, conservative people who want to live their lives and raise their families in the same neighborhoods they grew up in.=20 Unbridled capitalism tells them they cannot. Conservatism is thus at a crossroads. And if social conservatism is at war with unfettered capitalism, whose side are we on? A reluctance to choose lies behind the conservative crackup.=20 Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 26 Mar 1998 14:50:15 -0700 At 3:58 PM -0600 3/26/98, wrote: >Subject: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism > >Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism >By Patrick J. Buchanan > > > UNDER JIMMY CARTER, unemployment hit 7 percent, snip >John Gray, an > ex-Thatcherite in England, believes it does. He argues his case in > "False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism." > Reaganism and Thatcherism, says Gray, have in common deep tax > cuts, the slashing of safety nets and welfare benefits, This never happened. Reagan allowed the tax cut through because of an understanding with the oppositions leadership that spending would be cut. The cut in the rate of growth of spending wasn't even a fraction of that promised. > The benefits come in huge returns on capital, reflected in the stock > market. The cost is paid in social upheaval and family breakdown, as > even women with toddlers enter the labor force to keep up the > family's standard of living. Anybody with a whit of information about the demographics knows that it was the tax increases under Nixon and before him that drove us to two family incomes. Women entered the workforce -long- before Reagans time. > in the middle and working classes, they > generate anxiety, insecurity and disparities in income. Since these > classes seek stability, security and order from their political systems, > above all else, Thatcherism and Reaganism thus undermine the very > social structure on which they were built. Wow, this is almost verbatim out of Das Kapital, this is precisely how Marx describes the -working- class; as timid and fearfull. And it's how he introduces his idea of inherent instability of capitalism. Of course, it's also wrong. > What is the evidence of Gray's thesis? Unfortunately, it is mounting. > In England, Thatcher's party appears done. Causation? Is this guy related to Dr. Kellerman? > The attempt to impose > Reaganomics in Europe has also brought backlash, as the jobless rate > has risen above 12 percent. And, again, Reaganomics -never-happened. The spending cuts never came so the private sector never needed to adopt aggressive stances on creating private safety nets and we grew the deficit despite fantastic economic growth. No country (except possibly Chile) has had serious supply side economic theory implemented in my lifetime. >Conservative parties have been ousted in > Canada, Britain, France and the United States, and the German > conservatives are now running behind the socialists. Yes, in Germany, where Eastern Europe let go a -torrent- of badly undereducated refugees that makes Niagra look like my bathtubs leaking spigot. This goes back to the question of causation. Mr. Gray holds this up as "evidence" of the failure of reagonmics but doesn't say how that is. > In Asia, Reaganism was always paid lip service as the giants, China > and Japan, embraced nationalism. Asia's tigers grew fat by feeding on > the U.S. market, while protecting their own. Their reward: a U.S. > merchandise trade deficit running in January at $225 billion a year. > U.S. capital is pouring out. Yet, even in the Asian crisis, with the IMF > offering $40 billion and $50 billion bribes, Malaysia and Indonesia are > balking at U.S. dictates. This is evidence of the utter -lack- of free trade. We do not nor have we ever lived under free trade. You cannot have a free system when money taken from citizens by force is used to bail out other countries. This isn't free trade. > Last weekend, Japan's prime minister told the U.S. Treasury to > stuff its demand that Japan cut taxes by 2 percent of gross domestic > product. With Tokyo running a deficit near 6 percent of GDP, what > the United States is asking Ryutaro Hashimoto to do is comparable to > Hashimoto coming to a United States that was running a deficit of > $480 billion to demand that we run it up to $640 billion to soak up > Asian imports. > Hashimoto responded as any red-blooded American would. > Even in Congress, the Vatican of the Reagan Revolution, heresy is > rampant. Since 1995, Congress had gone along with new social > spending, and federal taxes are over 20 percent of GDP, a record. A > party that boasted it would shut down the departments of Education, > Energy and Commerce cannot even close the Endowment for the > Arts. If revolution is moribund on the hill, where is it alive? > What Gray describes, what is happening in America, is that > conservatism is being confronted with its own contradictions. There is no contradiction. The republicans lied to get into congress (or, perhaps the freshman really thought the leadership would let them get away with it). This problem is not economic, it's political. > Unbridled capitalism is an awesome force that creates new > factories, wealth and opportunities that go first to society's risk takers > and holders of capital. Wich is....? Largely the so called Middle class that Mr. Grays "Class-speak" seeks to turn into a marxist herd. The people in this country who get returns from the stock market are people precisely like you and I (or at least around 70% of them). I am a lower middle class technical worker, I make right around what my dad made at my age designing tools to build aircraft. Dad put a little aside every month just like I do and when the stock market goes up or down I see that on my 401k statements (Dad had to do the math himself.) > But unbridled capitalism is also an awesome > destructive force. It makes men and women obsolete as rapidly as it > does the products they produce and the plants that employ them. And > the people made obsolete and insecure are workers, employees, > "Reagan Democrats," rooted people, conservative people who want to > live their lives and raise their families in the same neighborhoods they > grew up in. > Unbridled capitalism tells them they cannot. Conservatism is thus at > a crossroads. And if social conservatism is at war with unfettered > capitalism, whose side are we on? A reluctance to choose lies behind > the conservative crackup. Think about the phrase "unfettered capitalism". ... What system works -better- when you "fetter" it??? Would socialism be more efficient with ankle manacles? Would fascism turn the trick? Life -is- cruel, but are we going to make it kinder and gentler by polishing up capitalism with fine patina of socialism like all of Grays -other- economies do? France, Germany, Brittain, all of these -are- "social democracies" They -have- "safety nets" of the kind being lauded here and those safety nets are not crumbling because of Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. Europe has imploded! What did people think the falling of the wall would produce?? These people have led lives sheltered from harsh reality by the tender loving bosom of the State and rather then admit abject failure that state took down the walls encouraging their most suffering victims to flee. And NOW, we here MARXIST rhetoric using the inevitable economic result of that tragety against the only system standing up and providing jobs and currency and the other vital infrastructure of an economy? Ludicrous! Laughable! It is the capitalist foundations of the European social democracies that allow them to stand at all. We will not end our problems by centralizing even more economic power into the hands of our politicians. We must free it, distribute it as widely as possible not under the thumb of big government programs but presented in the open hand of the free market! How else can it possibly be done? There is -no- -other- economic system -compatible- with the freedom we are born to live. Shining up capitalism with a little dose of socialism is like spritzing silver with muriatic acid. It's like -fettering- the worlds most powerfull economic engine with the bones of the weakest that it benefits. All IMHO. Sorry if I seem a bit strident here, I feel passionately about this but that doesnt mean I dont want to hear other views. Boyd PS I'm gonna lay off email for a day so I can keep my capitalist position here. If anybody cares I'll reply to other messages tomorrow. > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 26 Mar 1998 14:50:15 -0700 At 3:58 PM -0600 3/26/98, wrote: >Subject: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism > >Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism >By Patrick J. Buchanan > > > UNDER JIMMY CARTER, unemployment hit 7 percent, snip >John Gray, an > ex-Thatcherite in England, believes it does. He argues his case in > "False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism." > Reaganism and Thatcherism, says Gray, have in common deep tax > cuts, the slashing of safety nets and welfare benefits, This never happened. Reagan allowed the tax cut through because of an understanding with the oppositions leadership that spending would be cut. The cut in the rate of growth of spending wasn't even a fraction of that promised. > The benefits come in huge returns on capital, reflected in the stock > market. The cost is paid in social upheaval and family breakdown, as > even women with toddlers enter the labor force to keep up the > family's standard of living. Anybody with a whit of information about the demographics knows that it was the tax increases under Nixon and before him that drove us to two family incomes. Women entered the workforce -long- before Reagans time. > in the middle and working classes, they > generate anxiety, insecurity and disparities in income. Since these > classes seek stability, security and order from their political systems, > above all else, Thatcherism and Reaganism thus undermine the very > social structure on which they were built. Wow, this is almost verbatim out of Das Kapital, this is precisely how Marx describes the -working- class; as timid and fearfull. And it's how he introduces his idea of inherent instability of capitalism. Of course, it's also wrong. > What is the evidence of Gray's thesis? Unfortunately, it is mounting. > In England, Thatcher's party appears done. Causation? Is this guy related to Dr. Kellerman? > The attempt to impose > Reaganomics in Europe has also brought backlash, as the jobless rate > has risen above 12 percent. And, again, Reaganomics -never-happened. The spending cuts never came so the private sector never needed to adopt aggressive stances on creating private safety nets and we grew the deficit despite fantastic economic growth. No country (except possibly Chile) has had serious supply side economic theory implemented in my lifetime. >Conservative parties have been ousted in > Canada, Britain, France and the United States, and the German > conservatives are now running behind the socialists. Yes, in Germany, where Eastern Europe let go a -torrent- of badly undereducated refugees that makes Niagra look like my bathtubs leaking spigot. This goes back to the question of causation. Mr. Gray holds this up as "evidence" of the failure of reagonmics but doesn't say how that is. > In Asia, Reaganism was always paid lip service as the giants, China > and Japan, embraced nationalism. Asia's tigers grew fat by feeding on > the U.S. market, while protecting their own. Their reward: a U.S. > merchandise trade deficit running in January at $225 billion a year. > U.S. capital is pouring out. Yet, even in the Asian crisis, with the IMF > offering $40 billion and $50 billion bribes, Malaysia and Indonesia are > balking at U.S. dictates. This is evidence of the utter -lack- of free trade. We do not nor have we ever lived under free trade. You cannot have a free system when money taken from citizens by force is used to bail out other countries. This isn't free trade. > Last weekend, Japan's prime minister told the U.S. Treasury to > stuff its demand that Japan cut taxes by 2 percent of gross domestic > product. With Tokyo running a deficit near 6 percent of GDP, what > the United States is asking Ryutaro Hashimoto to do is comparable to > Hashimoto coming to a United States that was running a deficit of > $480 billion to demand that we run it up to $640 billion to soak up > Asian imports. > Hashimoto responded as any red-blooded American would. > Even in Congress, the Vatican of the Reagan Revolution, heresy is > rampant. Since 1995, Congress had gone along with new social > spending, and federal taxes are over 20 percent of GDP, a record. A > party that boasted it would shut down the departments of Education, > Energy and Commerce cannot even close the Endowment for the > Arts. If revolution is moribund on the hill, where is it alive? > What Gray describes, what is happening in America, is that > conservatism is being confronted with its own contradictions. There is no contradiction. The republicans lied to get into congress (or, perhaps the freshman really thought the leadership would let them get away with it). This problem is not economic, it's political. > Unbridled capitalism is an awesome force that creates new > factories, wealth and opportunities that go first to society's risk takers > and holders of capital. Wich is....? Largely the so called Middle class that Mr. Grays "Class-speak" seeks to turn into a marxist herd. The people in this country who get returns from the stock market are people precisely like you and I (or at least around 70% of them). I am a lower middle class technical worker, I make right around what my dad made at my age designing tools to build aircraft. Dad put a little aside every month just like I do and when the stock market goes up or down I see that on my 401k statements (Dad had to do the math himself.) > But unbridled capitalism is also an awesome > destructive force. It makes men and women obsolete as rapidly as it > does the products they produce and the plants that employ them. And > the people made obsolete and insecure are workers, employees, > "Reagan Democrats," rooted people, conservative people who want to > live their lives and raise their families in the same neighborhoods they > grew up in. > Unbridled capitalism tells them they cannot. Conservatism is thus at > a crossroads. And if social conservatism is at war with unfettered > capitalism, whose side are we on? A reluctance to choose lies behind > the conservative crackup. Think about the phrase "unfettered capitalism". ... What system works -better- when you "fetter" it??? Would socialism be more efficient with ankle manacles? Would fascism turn the trick? Life -is- cruel, but are we going to make it kinder and gentler by polishing up capitalism with fine patina of socialism like all of Grays -other- economies do? France, Germany, Brittain, all of these -are- "social democracies" They -have- "safety nets" of the kind being lauded here and those safety nets are not crumbling because of Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. Europe has imploded! What did people think the falling of the wall would produce?? These people have led lives sheltered from harsh reality by the tender loving bosom of the State and rather then admit abject failure that state took down the walls encouraging their most suffering victims to flee. And NOW, we here MARXIST rhetoric using the inevitable economic result of that tragety against the only system standing up and providing jobs and currency and the other vital infrastructure of an economy? Ludicrous! Laughable! It is the capitalist foundations of the European social democracies that allow them to stand at all. We will not end our problems by centralizing even more economic power into the hands of our politicians. We must free it, distribute it as widely as possible not under the thumb of big government programs but presented in the open hand of the free market! How else can it possibly be done? There is -no- -other- economic system -compatible- with the freedom we are born to live. Shining up capitalism with a little dose of socialism is like spritzing silver with muriatic acid. It's like -fettering- the worlds most powerfull economic engine with the bones of the weakest that it benefits. All IMHO. Sorry if I seem a bit strident here, I feel passionately about this but that doesnt mean I dont want to hear other views. Boyd PS I'm gonna lay off email for a day so I can keep my capitalist position here. If anybody cares I'll reply to other messages tomorrow. > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: FBI stopped looking for John Doe #2 Date: 26 Mar 1998 16:48:25 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Transcript Source: KTOK Afternoon News March 26, 1998 - 4 p.m. JERRY BOHNEN (News Director): KTOK News has learned the search for John Doe 2 came to an unexplained halt just two weeks after the bombing. An FBI Air-Tel message from May 3rd of 1995 states, quote, "The Oklahoma Command Post has directed all offices to hold Unknown Subject No. 2 leads in advance..." meaning, the John Doe No. 2 leads were not actively pursued. An FBI spokesman couildn't comment on why the leads were held in advance, but says those leads could be re-opened at any time. Now, the bombing judge might expect the federal government is still investigating, but State Representative Charles Key tells us Judge Richard Matsch is wrong. CHARLES KEY (State Representative): Those in the federal government that represent the FBI and the Justice Department both have said numerous times over the past few months that they have no one on this case any more. JERRY BOHNEN: And he feels that perhaps in some way his call for the County Grand Jury investigation has been validated. But did the judge overstep his boundaries? KTOK's Nate Webb has more. NATE WEBB (Reporter): Until now, the way in which federal Judge Richard Matsch has conducted the two Oklahoma City bombing trials has received little criticism. That changed yesterday during a pre-sentencing hearing when the judge suggested to bombing co-conspiratory Terry Nichols he might receive a lighter sentence if he answered lingering questions surrounding the bombing. Oklahoma County District Attorney Bob Macy is among those who thinks the judge went too far. BOB MACY (OK County D.A.): Plea negotiations are normally a matter between the defense attorney and the prosecutor with the judge simply coming in to approve or disapprove. NATE WEBB: Ironically, Macy also finds himself in agreement with Nichols' attorneys who say any additional comments from their client might be used against him in any local prosecution. I'm Nate Webb, KTOK News. [End] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 26 Mar 1998 17:03:19 -0600 (CST) > trade. These unleash the powerful engines of capitalism that go on a > tear. Factories and businesses open and close with startling speed, in > that "creative destruction" so beloved of think-tank scholars. As > companies merge, downsize and disappear, the labor force must > always be ready to pick up and move on. I have been saying this for the last 5 years. I like 80% of the ideas of the Libertarian party except for the idea of global free trade. There is what we call a bell curve: Dumb 30%--Average 40%--Smart 30%. This has held most likely by genetics for all of history as far as I can tell. If we do not provide some kind of "American Dream" standard of living opportunity for the average and lower population they are ripe for revolution. As you can see from the numbers this provides up to 60% that can easily side with a movement. The movement can be the American 1900 Progressives that became the Socialist and later the FDR Big deal. It can be the Hitler NAZI party. It can be the Russian Communist, Chinese Communist. Or it can be Europe's Socialist party, or it can be Clinton and the era of big government. Having lots of factory jobs that payed the blue collar people with high school or less, middle class wages is far better than welfare and government work projects to replace them. In todays global economy these people are forced to compete with Red Chinese slave labor and Malaysia 12 year old kids working 70 hours a week and living in cardboard houses. Its great for the stockholders but sucks for the low end producers. Not all people can be "A" students and computer programmers. Currently many of these people have taken service jobs paying at todays rates 1980 wages. The majority of these people have taken a 20 year cut in pay to inflation. Unless we do something to share with these people a little more of the wealth the socialist will be glad to do it for us with government. These are the seeds of war and conflict and what the whole "Robber Barron" Monopoly era of the 1890's was all about. The unbridled Predatory Capitalism of merger mania, buy outs, hostile takeovers, and no company or employee loyalty has resulted in a me for me society. Is this what we want? I do not think so. Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats all fail to come up with a society that provides the American dream standard of living and personal Liberty. If you eliminate the big government like Libertarians want you just lost 50% of the jobs in America. If you implement all the Government that Democrats want you have no one to make money and pay taxes to support it. If you do what the Republicans want, well, I am not sure what they want these days, I think they want good Washington DC press and Poll data. Notice I did not say we need complete protectionism either. What we need is something other than any one extreme shift that leaves out the lower class in the short run. What we need is small government, lots of liberty and lots of small business and few monopoly or oligarchy or multi national corporations. Big anything whether its a church, school system, government or multi-national corporation soon forget what ever they were formed for and focus on self preservation at the expense of society. Regards, Paul Watson - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 26 Mar 1998 15:48:47 PST roc@lists.xmission.com wrote : >At 3:58 PM -0600 3/26/98, wrote: >>Subject: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism >> >>Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism >>By Patrick J. Buchanan >> >> >> UNDER JIMMY CARTER, unemployment hit 7 percent, >snip >>John Gray, an >> ex-Thatcherite in England, believes it does. He argues his case in >> "False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism." >> Reaganism and Thatcherism, says Gray, have in common deep tax >> cuts, the slashing of safety nets and welfare benefits, > >This never happened. Reagan allowed the tax cut through because of an >understanding with the oppositions leadership that spending would be cut. >The cut in the rate of growth of spending wasn't even a fraction of that >promised. > >> The benefits come in huge returns on capital, reflected in the stock >> market. The cost is paid in social upheaval and family breakdown, as >> even women with toddlers enter the labor force to keep up the >> family's standard of living. > >Anybody with a whit of information about the demographics knows that it was >the tax increases under Nixon and before him that drove us to two family >incomes. Women entered the workforce -long- before Reagans time. Well in the real world I strongly suspect that what drove so many to work was the %%$$%% inflation that happened before Reagan took office. One of the great amazements to me is why so few are not ballistic that the greatest contributor to increasing the cost of living: TAXES are not included in the CPI. So, when you go to the late 80's one finds that the CPI was up 10 percent and most people got a 10 percent cost of living increase....how ever taxes took back half of the COLA leaving the households of the US to survive a 10 percent increase in the cost of living with a 5 percent increase in income. Year one one makes 100 dollars and spends 100 dollars living: 50 dollars for taxes and 50 dollars for other things. Cost of other things increase 5 dollars and taxes increase by 2.50. So, in year 2 the houshold has 105 dollars to spend: 52.50 for taxes and 52.50 to cover the cost of 55 dollars worth of essentials. It does not take many years of nonsense like this before women are driven to leave kids in day care to try and make enough to pay the rent / food. However, the worst part was that Taxes were not / are not considered in the cost of living. Amazing as it sounds they are considered a value improvement .....like useless air bags. So, if the cost of a car increases by a 1000 dollars for an unwanted air bag the cost of living does not increase one penny since the BLS says the consumers have increased value....even if unwanted instead of increased cost. Taxes are considered to be increased value and so no matter how much they increase there is no inflation / no increase in the cost of living.....and this is true even if those who pay taxes get nearly zilch benefit and those who pay no taxes get nearly all the benefit thru rich benefits. But if one goes back to the late 50s and early 60's when the total tax bite for Federal / State / Local was 20 percent or so of income and compare it with the present rate of close to 50 percent then one sees that if there was a 100 dollars of income in 1960 and 25 dollars of it went to taxes then by now one needs 25 percent more to have the same living standard.....but that if one manages to get a better job / two jobs and made the extra 25 dollars 12.5o was taken back in taxes.....and much worse this fantastic increase in taxes in sitting in much higher prices for everything....and yet all the increase due to higher taxes never appears in the cost of living or inflation figures. To gain file cabinet space I have imaging and copying to CDs much of the stuff I saved from the 50s and 60s. It is awe inspiring to see how cheap everything was then: 19 cent a gallon gasoline / a hospital visit for ten dollars. The most outrageous thing is to compare the cost of a years subscription to the WSJ on a year by basis and see how fast it goes up while its pages are filled every day with the news that there is no inflation But if you want to see why everyone is forced to work around the clock compare the costs of various essentials with wages and the immense increase in taxes on a year by year basis since the end of the second world war .......but even so there was no compelling need for all to work until the inflation of the late 80's and the government taking back half of all cost of living increases in extra taxes Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 626-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Cyrano Subject: [Fwd: AB23 PULLED, COMING BACK!!!!] Date: 26 Mar 1998 16:57:25 -0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------AA101EA3E8E9A43E1EBE6741 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- Steve Silver Proud Member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy & Vice President, The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329, Encino, CA 91316 * (818) 734-3066 For a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, "The Liberty Pole," e-mail your snail-mail address to: LSAS3@aol.com The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation * * * Self defense is not a crime. Firearms: They save lives. --------------AA101EA3E8E9A43E1EBE6741 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from bulk.starnine.com (bulk.starnine.com [198.211.93.99]) by ixmail9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.7-s-4/8.8.7/(NETCOM v1.01)) with ESMTP id LAA20516; ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:44:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mikeh.starnine.com (mikeh.starnine.com [198.211.93.36]) by bulk.starnine.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA11882; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:43:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mikeh.starnine.com with ADMIN;26 Mar 1998 11:44:13 -0800 Received: from dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.10]) by starnine.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA04582 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:42:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA11018; Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:39:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from lax-ca21-02.ix.netcom.com(204.31.253.98) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma010984; Thu Mar 26 13:38:49 1998 Message-ID: <351AAF6C.EC5C482C@ix.netcom.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit PLEASE CROSS-POST TO EVERYONE YOU HAVE POSTED THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO !!!!!!!!!!!1 Just learned that AB23 was pulled for lack of support. Think this was a test of who stands where. Now the other side will arm twist those who are weak. This means they put back on the floor anytime today or tomorrow. KEEP MELTING THE PHONES!!!!! Joel Friedman Pasadena/Foothills MC --------------AA101EA3E8E9A43E1EBE6741-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: "Globalism: Dictatorship of the Capital" (A book review of "False Dawn" by John Gray - TiM GW Bulletin 98/3-9, 3/26/98) (fwd) Date: 27 Mar 1998 08:23:59 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: act@efn.org False Dawn" by John Gray - TiM GW Bulletin 98/3-9, 3/26/98) FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 98/3-9 26-Mar-98 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic: GLOBAL AFFAIRS A Review of a New Book, "False Dawn," by John Gray, an Oxford University=20 Professor, Who Debunks Some Myths of Free Market/Free Trade Aficionados=20 GLOBALISM: DICTATORSHIP OF THE CAPITAL Free Markets and Free Trade Will Lead Wars and Impoverishment of Millions - ------------- PHOENIX - Democracy and free trade are rivals, not allies, says John Gray, an Oxford University professor, in his new book, "False Dawn," which has just been published in Great Britain by Granta Publications. Ergo, "democratic capitalism," the globalists' rallying cry, is an oxymoron designed to fool the designated victim - the world's taxpayer and patriot. So exporting "democratic capitalism" around the world is like claiming to be a "benevolent terrorist" (our analogy, not that of the author).=20 The preceding is one of the myths which this refreshingly candid book seeks to debunk. Another is that there is something really new in the so-called New World Order (NWO) of the 1990s. A scholar who has read history as well as politics, Gray explains how the world's first and the only experiment with free markets, free trade and laissez-faire economics in mid-19th century Great Britain ended up in defeat and led to World War I. =20 The free market that existed in England from the 1840s to the 1870s was one of boom in the strictly economic terms of rising productivity and national wealth. But it was a boom whose social costs were politically insupportable=85 "Today's regime of global laissez-faire will be briefer th= an even the belle =E9poque of 1870 to 1914, which ended in the trenches of the Great War," Gray predicts confidently. Why then can't today's global "social engineers," the Wall Street financial elite, learn from history and thus avoid making the old mistakes? =20 One reason is that they don't view themselves as "social engineers." Social consequences of the free markets and globalism are ignored by today's policies of the materialistic NWO plutocrats. The second reason is that they are driven by the same lust for money and power as the British bankers and businessmen were in Victorian time. The third reason is that people like that rarely pay attention to lessons of history. Which is why they are doomed to repeat it, often at their peril. "Those who imagine that great errors of policy are not repeated in history have not learnt is chief lesson - that nothing is ever learnt for long," Gray dishes out an ominous summation. "We are at present in the midst of an experiment in utopian social engineering whose outcome we can know in advance." Ethnic conflicts. Mass poverty. World war! =09=09=09Dictatorship of Capital Which is why Gray warns that the attempt to impose on the world the Anglo-American style free market philosophy will create a disaster on the scale of Soviet Communism. It will cause wars, worsen ethnic conflicts, and impoverish millions. Not everything can be traded, nor should be, he says. =20 Such as a kaleidoscope of world cultures, for example. America, the supposed flagship of the new civilization, is doomed to moral and social disintegration, Gray predicts. For, "the U.S. will lose ground to other cultures which have never forgotten that the market works best when it is embedded in society." And he notes that the free market philosophy is impoverishing the American bourgeois civilization [i.e., the middle class - TiM Ed.] just we had reported earlier this year - see TiM GW Bulletins 98/1-1, 1/01/98 and 98/1-2, 1/02/98]. Okay, so free markets and free trade have already caused many problems around the world. But "a disaster on the scale of Soviet Communism?" Surely that must be an exaggeration? Only to those brainwashed by the NWO establishment media. This is where another lesson of history comes to the aid of the open-minded. =09"In an almost inevitable irony this Smithian theory of economic=20 =09modernization had much in common with the Marxian theories on=20 =09which Soviet institutions had been based. 'Karl Marx' theory of=20 =09historical inevitability has been taken up by a new breed of social=20 =09engineers, ensconced in the International Monetary Fund, the US=20 =09State Department, Western European governments and the editorial=20 =09offices of most western newspapers." In other words, today's free market globalism is merely another mutation of Marxism. It's a "red" sheep in a wolf's clothing. Communism was a dictatorship of the proletariat. Globalism is a dictatorship of the capital. But both are dictatorships! And both ideologies have been hatched and crafted in the same mints - the boardrooms of the world's top bankers.=20 At the start of the century, it was Lenin and his Bolsheviks who destroyed an ancient culture and millions of human lives ostensibly in the name of communism. Today, it is the transnational corporations (TNCs) that are the ruthless soldiers of globalism. =20 =09=09=09Western Deadly "Experiments" in Russia Russia has been the site of two experiments in western utopianism during this century. The first was Bolshevism... the second was shock therapy, Gray observes. Both Utopian experiments had enormous human costs. Both were failed modernizations guided by western theories or models that had little relevance to Russia's history and circumstances. Shock therapy aimed to construct a free market in post-communist Russia. "It produced instead a species of mafia-dominated anarcho-capitalism," the author says. "Only an extraordinary blindness to history permitted western advisers such as (Jeffrey) Sachs to imagine that the question of Russia's European or Asiatic identity, unresolved since Peter the Great, could be settled by a few years of market reform," Gray argues. =20 It is possible, in fact probable, that Sachs was indeed merely a blind soldier of the NWO globalists. But there is no question that those who picked him for the job; those who financed the "Destruction of Russia II"-project, carried out by the "reformers" who tried to suck the lifeblood out of this vast country, had a 20/20 vision. The same greed and hatred of the predominantly Orthodox Christian Russia motivated the western bankers who financed Lenin and his communist revolution in 1917. Which is why, what Professor Gray benevolently calls "two experiments in western utopianism," seems to us more like two deliberate acts of malice against the predominantly Orthodox Christian Russia. Now, why would the western bankers do a fool thing like that? "False Dawn" provides a partial answer. Ironically for a book which is attacking the blind materialism and defending cultural diversity, its answer is in the economic (i.e., materialistic) sphere. =20 =09"In the late 19th century, Russia entered a period of racing economic=20 =09growth comparable to that of early 19th century Britain, 1870s America,= =20 =09or China today. In 1880-1917 Russia laid more miles of railway track=20 =09than any country in the world at that time; its industrial production= =20 =09grew at an annual rate of 5.7 % over the whole period, accelerating in= =20 =09the four years before World War I to 8%. Late Tsarism was an era not=20 =09of stagnation but of swiftly advancing modernization." So the West Side Gang inflicted Russia with its own invention - the communist virus - to eliminate a tough competitor, seems to be an implication. Okay, but why would these supposedly civilized Westerners be accomplices to murder of so many millions of Russians, especially the bourgeois (the middle class), the "kulaks" (wealthy peasants), and the Orthodox Christian clergy? Gray provides a hint, though not a full answer: =09"Russian traits, such as the hostility to commercial self-enrichment=20 =09and the sense of country's messianic role that have always been a=20 =09feature of Russian Orthodox Christianity." It is because of that role - as a leader of the Eastern Orthodox Christianity which rejects the supremacy of the things materials over matters spiritual - that Russia, "the third Rome," has been under attack by the West for the last two centuries. In the 19th century, the "High Cabal's" (read the British Crown's and its affiliated European aristocracy's) backers were the powerful bankers from the "Empire of the City (of London)," operating as the Merchant Bankers of the Bank of England. They included the Warburgs, Rothschilds, Barings, Brown-Shipley, Schroeders, Morgan-Grenfels, Lazard Fr=E8res, etc. with outposts in New Yor= k, Paris, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Switzerland, etc., according to a March 1995 report by the A-albionic Research Weekly. Today, the 19th century New York "outposts" have become Wall Street's global head offices. This second reason for continued repression of Russia is one of the areas in which the "False Dawn's" candor is less than resplendent. Yet, the preceding could offer a clue as to why Boris Yeltsin has just fired his entire cabinet. Himself a loyal servant of the NWO elite's interests until recently, perhaps Russia's ailing president has had some second thoughts about the kind of legacy he will be leaving behind when he is gone? His upcoming meeting with President Chirac of France and Chancellor Kohl of Germany is being built in Moscow as a budding anti-Anglo-American tripartite European alliance, according to today's (Mar. 26) Daily Telegraph, a London paper. There was one other time in European history when Britain (and the U.S.) were left out in the cold, just as the above summit implies. It was also at a moment of a supreme triumph of the British Crown. In 1815, as Napoleon escaped from Elba, raised an army, just to be defeated for a final time at Waterloo, a "Holy (Christian) Alliance" was formed. It included the Vatican, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and Spain. Years later, France also joined it. The French-German-Russian 1998 summit may not amount to much more than the Holy Alliance did in stopping the Perfidious Albion and its Wall Street successor. That's because all western leaders' loyalty seems to lie first with the with the Almighty Dollar, rather than with the interests of their people. But the tripartite summit is an example of saber-rattling by the NWO serfs. Speaking of which, Gray's "False Dawn" reminds the reader that, Russia abolished serfdom in 1861, a year before slavery was abolished in the United States. And that by 20th century standards, "the late Tsarist Russia was not especially repressive." In 1895, for example, the Okhrana, the Tsarist secret police, had only 161 full-time employees, supported by a Corp of Gendarmes of less than 10,000 men. By 1921, the Bolshevik secret police, the Cheka, accounted for over a quarter of a million men, not counting Red Army, NKVD, and militiamen." =09=09=09Author's Anti-Americanism Detracts from Real Issues Yet, Gray never mentioned the enormous numbers of law-enforcement people on western government payrolls today, ramming the New World Order medicines down our collective throats. Except when he pointed out the U.S. world leadership in one infamous category - incarcerations of its citizens. "In the United States free markets have contributed to social breakdown on a scale unknown in any other developed country," he writes. "Families are weaker in America than in any other country. At the same time, social order has been propped up by a policy of mass incarceration." =20 =09"All estimates of America's employment record must take into account=20 =09America's incarceration rates: Over a million people who would be=20 =09seeking work if American penal policies resembled those of any other=20 =09western country are behind bars in the US..." By contrast, in Great Britain, fewer than one in a thousand people are incarcerated, the author say, while the comparable figure in America is approaching one in a hundred. "Once this larger context is taken into consideration the American superiority in job-creation looks slight, perhaps even illusory," he concludes. Fair enough, so far. But the author's anti-American attitude begins to show in his subsequent arguments.=20 For example, Gray claims that the "US productivity has been low-around half that of most European countries." And that that was the reason the U.S. unemployment figures looked better than the European ones. Wonder what productivity measurements the author considered before making such a vague declaration? According to CIA's "The World Factbook 1997," the U.S. was No. 1 in terms of GDP per employed person, followed by France, Germany, the U.K. and Japan, among the developed countries. The U.S. was also No. 1 in the world in terms of GDP per capita, according to CIA's "The World Factbook 1995." =20 So it would appear that the "False Dawn's" author was FLAT WRONG in this assertion. Which is too bad, because it cheapens his other arguments and distracts from some really important issues. Such as how "un-American" the NWO-sponsored U.S. government really is. Whenever Gray used the term the "United States government" in a derogatory sense, he might have considered referring to a variant of the NWO, Wall Street or Washington elite. Just as is today's British, or any other western government - alienated from the people which "elected" it. After all, Gray did recognize that, "America today is a society in which an affluent majority looks on with complacent disdain at an underclass mired hopelessly in poverty and exclusion." And that, "America is no longer a bourgeois society. It has become a divided society, in which an anxious majority is wedged between an underclass that has no hope and an overclass that denies any civic obligations." So why then burden all Americans with the sins of NWO-corrupted Washington, given that our "middle classes are rediscovering the condition of assetless economic insecurity that afflicted the nineteenth-century proletariat?" And considering that the TNCs, the NWO "Princes of the 20th Century," as we have dubbed them, carry no nation's passports. Also, Prof. Gray, please spare us the British pity: "Most Americans now live in conditions of chronic acute insecurity," the author laments. =20 This may seem like news to this British scholar, but America was built on "acute insecurity!" "Necessity is a mother of invention," is one of our proverbs. What sort of security did the early immigrants to America enjoy? We don't need more security; we need MORE FREEDOM which the early American immigrants had. And which the Wall Street NWO crowd has been trying to take away from us. Another one of Gray's fallacies about America is that, in his words, "the ascendancy of the free market=85 has made liberalism [in today's modern context. TiM Ed.] illegitimate in American public culture. To be perceived as a liberal is a political liability. Liberal opinion in the United States today is the voice of a besieged minority=85" Really? What about the Democratic "liberals" stacked up top-to-bottom in the Clinton administration's White House, Treasury, Commerce, State, and Defense departments? Not to mention the (un-American) liberals in the National Security Agency, the CIA, the USIA and a bunch of other less prominent Washington initials? Yet, Gray CORRECTLY argues that "genuine conservative philosophy no longer exists... conservatives have become ranting evangelists for global capitalism." So is it possible that he used the term "liberal" in its original, positive 18th century sense, rather than in the current, corrupted "neo-liberal," materialistic and nihilistic meaning? For, as the TiM readers worldwide know, there is no such thing as Left and Right in the American politics anymore. Only Top and Bottom. Both the "liberals" and the "conservatives" have become the "ranting evangelists for global capitalism," to borrow the "False Dawn" author's own words. Just consider how the Republican leaders (Gingrich, Trent) sided with Clinton on the matter of the (now defeated) "fast track" legislation last fall. Or how Gingrich and Dole did the same in 1995 regarding the Wall Street bailout in Mexico using the U.S. taxpayers' money. =09=09=09=09SUMMARY Despite its (few) warts, Professor Gray's "False Dawn" signals a new dawn in discovery of the enormous crime which the global bankers have perpetrated upon the peoples of the world. Such awareness may help eradicate future crimes against humanity before the "High Cabal" destroy more humanity than they already have in the 20th century - 200 million people and counting, according to R.J. Rummell, a University if Hawaii professor. But don't take our word for it. If you don't believe us - buy the "False Dawn" book! (=A317.99, Granta Publications, ISBN 1-86207-023-7). And then judge it for yourself. ------------ ---- Bob Djurdjevic=20 TRUTH IN MEDIA=20 Phoenix, Arizona=20 e-mail: bobdj@djurdjevic.com=20 Truth in Media Web page: http://www.beograd.com/truth - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Date: 27 Mar 1998 09:59:23 -0500 (EST) act@efn.org In-reply-to: (message from Boyd Kneeland on Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:50:15 -0700) (fwd) Boyd, Nice post. I can't help myself, I have to add something. >> The attempt to impose >> Reaganomics in Europe has also brought backlash, as the jobless rate >> has risen above 12 percent. > >And, again, Reaganomics -never-happened. The spending cuts never came so >the private sector never needed to adopt aggressive stances on creating >private safety nets and we grew the deficit despite fantastic economic >growth. >No country (except possibly Chile) has had serious supply side economic >theory implemented in my lifetime. > Reaganomics is Europe? Is the original writer mad, or just a good propagandist? >>Conservative parties have been ousted in >> Canada, Britain, France and the United States, and the German >> conservatives are now running behind the socialists. > Yup, surprise, surprise. Socialists rule in Canada, Britain, and France. Wow, they tried Reagonmics, huh. The French are trying a mandatory 35 hour work week, that'll really bootstrap the economy, won't it. This shows how pathetic European politics is. Let 'em spend the next 15 years flailing around with socialist solutions. it won't work. guaranteed. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: RE: "Globalism: Dictatorship of the Capital" (A book review of Date: 27 Mar 1998 09:20:37 -0700 At 8:23 AM -0600 3/27/98, wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:31:36 -0700 >From: Bob Djurdjevic >Reply-To: act@efn.org >To: timed@djurdjevic.com >Subject: RE: "Globalism: Dictatorship of the Capital" (A book review of >"False Dawn" by John Gray - TiM GW Bulletin 98/3-9, 3/26/98) > >>FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 98/3-9 26-Mar-98 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Topic: GLOBAL AFFAIRS I want it to be very clear, that while I strongly disagree with what Mr. Gray is saying here (and Pauls agreement with him) this isn't any sort of personal thing. If I get to strident, somebody tell me. I enjoy seeing posts like this. >A Review of a New Book, "False Dawn," by John Gray, an Oxford University >Professor, Who Debunks Some Myths of Free Market/Free Trade Aficionados > >GLOBALISM: DICTATORSHIP OF THE CAPITAL This is personification. Capital is a thing it can't dictate anything. What Mr. Grays really saying is that the owners of capital can form a dictatorship. Wich would be true if capital weren't something that any one of us can go out to www.schwab.com and buy. It points out the underyling classist (and therefore IMHO Marxist) mindset about capitalist elitists (another Marxist term). There -are- elites in this country, but their control of political power is -much- more dire a problem imho then their control of capital. (Take fore instance ADM, -please- ; ) >Free Markets and Free Trade Will Lead Wars and Impoverishment of Millions >---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - >------------- > >PHOENIX - Democracy and free trade are rivals, not allies, says John Gray, >an Oxford University professor, in his new book, "False Dawn," which has >just been published in Great Britain by Granta Publications. Ergo, >"democratic capitalism," the globalists' rallying cry, is an oxymoron >designed to fool the designated victim - the world's taxpayer and patriot. >So exporting "democratic capitalism" around the world is like claiming to >be a "benevolent terrorist" (our analogy, not that of the author). > >The preceding is one of the myths which this refreshingly candid book seeks >to debunk. Another is that there is something really new in the so-called >New World Order (NWO) of the 1990s. A scholar who has read history as well >as politics, Gray explains how the world's first and the only experiment >with free markets, free trade and laissez-faire economics in mid-19th >century Great Britain ended up in defeat and led to World War I. Great Britain is a monarchy, and was even more then. One of the causes of World War I IMHO was the hangers on of the monarchy (who were granted -enormous- economic power). In pre WWI England the climber got knighthood -first- then became a banker or was given political control of a sector of the empire from wich they could wring capital. >The free market that existed in England from the 1840s to the 1870s was one >of boom in the strictly economic terms of rising productivity and national >wealth. But it was a boom whose social costs were politically >insupportable=D6 "Today's regime of global laissez-faire will be briefer th= an >even the belle =C8poque of 1870 to 1914, which ended in the trenches of the >Great War," Gray predicts confidently. > >Why then can't today's global "social engineers," the Wall Street financial >elite, learn from history and thus avoid making the old mistakes? > >One reason is that they don't view themselves as "social engineers." >Social consequences of the free markets and globalism are ignored by >today's policies of the materialistic NWO plutocrats. The second reason is >that they are driven by the same lust for money and power as the British >bankers and businessmen were in Victorian time. The third reason is that >people like that rarely pay attention to lessons of history. Which is why >they are doomed to repeat it, often at their peril. > >"Those who imagine that great errors of policy are not repeated in history >have not learnt is chief lesson - that nothing is ever learnt for long," >Gray dishes out an ominous summation. "We are at present in the midst of >an experiment in utopian social engineering whose outcome we can know in >advance." Ethnic conflicts. Mass poverty. World war! > > Dictatorship of Capital > >Which is why Gray warns that the attempt to impose on the world the >Anglo-American style free market philosophy will create a disaster on the >scale of Soviet Communism. It will cause wars, worsen ethnic conflicts, >and impoverish millions. Not everything can be traded, nor should be, he >says. > >Such as a kaleidoscope of world cultures, for example. America, the >supposed flagship of the new civilization, is doomed to moral and social >disintegration, Gray predicts. For, "the U.S. will lose ground to other >cultures which have never forgotten that the market works best when it is >embedded in society." And he notes that the free market philosophy is >impoverishing the American bourgeois civilization [i.e., the middle class - >TiM Ed.] just we had reported earlier this year - see TiM GW Bulletins >98/1-1, 1/01/98 and 98/1-2, 1/02/98]. > >Okay, so free markets and free trade have already caused many problems >around the world. But "a disaster on the scale of Soviet Communism?" >Surely that must be an exaggeration? Only to those brainwashed by the NWO >establishment media. This is where another lesson of history comes to the >aid of the open-minded. > > "In an almost inevitable irony this Smithian theory of economic > modernization had much in common with the Marxian theories on > which Soviet institutions had been based. 'Karl Marx' theory of > historical inevitability has been taken up by a new breed of social > engineers, ensconced in the International Monetary Fund, the US > State Department, Western European governments and the editorial > offices of most western newspapers." I gotta say, I resent being called (by implication) closed minded simply for disagreeing with someone. I am still hoping that paul or whoever penned this review will refute what I wrote. I will bow to superior clear logic because my mind is open. However, resorting to implied poison pen like this reflects poorly on the authors confidence in his logic. If he thought the case was compelling enough there would be no need to add the excess typing. BTW Smith is not -my- icon of free markets. And nobody I know claims the IMF is anything to do with FREE markets. Like I said in my last post, it and it's bailouts indicate how far we are from free markets. They forcibly take -your- money and give it to others who not only haven't earned it but have proven their incapacity for competition. >In other words, today's free market globalism is merely another mutation of >Marxism. It's a "red" sheep in a wolf's clothing. Communism was a >dictatorship of the proletariat. Globalism is a dictatorship of the >capital. But both are dictatorships! And both ideologies have been >hatched and crafted in the same mints - the boardrooms of the world's top >bankers. Dictatorship of the proletariat (another marxian fairey tale) my fat hairy middle classed butt. It was an oligarchy that pigs like Lenin and castro occaisionally converted to monarchys. One of the central arguments between Marx and his capitalist opponents was wether capitalism lead inevitably to monopoly and hence to boom and ultimately total bust, or wether free markets naturally broke up monopolies. Well, we haven't tried free markets, but I suggest that the evidence against Marx at this point, well, is fairly conclusive. Socialism does not work (sorry, to shock you all ; ) I say, lets give free markets a try. (And yes, that would involve changes to how corporations do business) >At the start of the century, it was Lenin and his Bolsheviks who destroyed >an ancient culture and millions of human lives ostensibly in the name of >communism. Today, it is the transnational corporations (TNCs) that are the >ruthless soldiers of globalism. TNCs as they exist now are IMHO naturally exclusive of free enterprise. They purchase political powers in the large fun pack size and they warp our legal system to escape liability. Why do we let them? Will they be used to turn us toward socialism? I hope not. > Western Deadly "Experiments" in Russia > >Russia has been the site of two experiments in western utopianism during >this century. The first was Bolshevism... the second was shock therapy, >Gray observes. Both Utopian experiments had enormous human costs. Both >were failed modernizations guided by western theories or models that had >little relevance to Russia's history and circumstances. And both happened far far less under the relative political freedom available in the west. No coincidence that the west was more capitalistic. As has been said before, capitalism, where the individual -chooses- where and what he will work, is the only economic system compatible with political freedom. >Shock therapy aimed to construct a free market in post-communist Russia. >"It produced instead a species of mafia-dominated anarcho-capitalism," the >author says. This after, what, five years? How long has russia -really- pursued capitalism? It didn't start the day the wall fell. Remember, these people had a generation or more to breed out (and in some cases, that is meant -literally-, lenin did in fact move to eliminate traits of freedom from his peoples gene pool) any entrepreneureal (no sp) spirit. They have been indoctinate for more then a generation with the belief that seeking their own good is evil. Well kids, the middle east didn't build market economies in five, ten or even fifteen years. The russians have a hard row to tow ahead of them. Let's not use their example to start fitting ourselves for the yoke of a centrally planned economy. > "Only an extraordinary blindness to history permitted western >advisers such as (Jeffrey) Sachs to imagine that the question of Russia's >European or Asiatic identity, unresolved since Peter the Great, could be >settled by a few years of market reform," Gray argues. Huh? What's he saying? What does racial makeup have to do with modern politics or economics? >It is possible, in fact probable, that Sachs was indeed merely a blind >soldier of the NWO globalists. But there is no question that those who >picked him for the job; those who financed the "Destruction of Russia >II"-project, carried out by the "reformers" who tried to suck the lifeblood >out of this vast country, had a 20/20 vision. The same greed and hatred of >the predominantly Orthodox Christian Russia motivated the western bankers >who financed Lenin and his communist revolution in 1917. I have no idea what any of this is about. Someone please explain it. >Which is why, what Professor Gray benevolently calls "two experiments in >western utopianism," seems to us more like two deliberate acts of malice >against the predominantly Orthodox Christian Russia. Now, why would the >western bankers do a fool thing like that? > >"False Dawn" provides a partial answer. Ironically for a book which is >attacking the blind materialism and defending cultural diversity, its >answer is in the economic (i.e., materialistic) sphere. > > "In the late 19th century, Russia entered a period of racing economic > growth comparable to that of early 19th century Britain, 1870s >America, > or China today. In 1880-1917 Russia laid more miles of railway track > than any country in the world at that time; its industrial production > grew at an annual rate of 5.7 % over the whole period, accelerating in > the four years before World War I to 8%. Late Tsarism was an era not > of stagnation but of swiftly advancing modernization." > >So the West Side Gang inflicted Russia with its own invention - the >communist virus - to eliminate a tough competitor, seems to be an >implication. Okay, but why would these supposedly civilized Westerners be >accomplices to murder of so many millions of Russians, especially the >bourgeois (the middle class), the "kulaks" (wealthy peasants), and the >Orthodox Christian clergy? Gray provides a hint, though not a full answer: > > "Russian traits, such as the hostility to commercial self-enrichment > and the sense of country's messianic role that have always been a > feature of Russian Orthodox Christianity." > >It is because of that role - as a leader of the Eastern Orthodox >Christianity which rejects the supremacy of the things materials over >matters spiritual - that Russia, "the third Rome," has been under attack by >the West for the last two centuries. In the 19th century, the "High >Cabal's" (read the British Crown's and its affiliated European snip Wow, I have NO idea what that bit was about. Someone please explain it to me= =2E >the Tsarist secret police, had only 161 full-time employees, supported by a >Corp of Gendarmes of less than 10,000 men. By 1921, the Bolshevik secret >police, the Cheka, accounted for over a quarter of a million men, not >counting Red Army, NKVD, and militiamen." > > Author's Anti-Americanism Detracts from Real Issues > >Yet, Gray never mentioned the enormous numbers of law-enforcement people on >western government payrolls today, ramming the New World Order medicines >down our collective throats. Except when he pointed out the U.S. world >leadership in one infamous category - incarcerations of its citizens. > >"In the United States free markets have contributed to social breakdown on >a scale unknown in any other developed country," he writes. "Families are >weaker in America than in any other country. At the same time, social order >has been propped up by a policy of mass incarceration." This is patently rediculous. Is Gray claiming that in Serbia families are stronger then in the US? In the former eastern republics of USSR? People in these countries are dying at record rates, but they're families are "stronger" then ours?? Strength like that we can do with less of, I say we export it : ) > "All estimates of America's employment record must take into account > America's incarceration rates: Over a million people who would be > seeking work if American penal policies resembled those of any other > western country are behind bars in the US..." OK, I'm a pro at run on sentences. But that last one up there makes me hold my head. We have a -slightly- higher incarceration rate then other western countries (brittain, sweden, etc) -very- slightly largely because they do not imprison drug users. Without delving into the Libertarian Parties second most controversial stand, I'll just say, ... , boy I wish I knew what the heck that sentence meant. >By contrast, in Great Britain, fewer than one in a thousand people are >incarcerated, the author say, while the comparable figure in America is >approaching one in a hundred. "Once this larger context is taken into >consideration the American superiority in job-creation looks slight, >perhaps even illusory," he concludes. I don't beleive that. >Fair enough, so far. But the author's anti-American attitude begins to >show in his subsequent arguments. No, actually. >For example, Gray claims that the "US productivity has been low-around half >that of most European countries." And that that was the reason the U.S. >unemployment figures looked better than the European ones. We have the highest productivity rate in the world. Was this written in 90? The Germans used to have a higher rate then us before the wall (and subsequent migration) fell on them. But, um, no I have no idea how an -economist- could get something this basic wrong. >Wonder what productivity measurements the author considered before making >such a vague declaration? According to CIA's "The World Factbook 1997," >the U.S. was No. 1 in terms of GDP per employed person, followed by France, >Germany, the U.K. and Japan, among the developed countries. The U.S. was >also No. 1 in the world in terms of GDP per capita, according to CIA's "The >World Factbook 1995." Damn right. >So it would appear that the "False Dawn's" author was FLAT WRONG in this >assertion. Which is too bad, because it cheapens his other arguments and >distracts from some really important issues. Such as how "un-American" the >NWO-sponsored U.S. government really is. It certainly does cheapen his other arguments. >Whenever Gray used the term the "United States government" in a derogatory >sense, he might have considered referring to a variant of the NWO, Wall >Street or Washington elite. Just as is today's British, or any other >western government - alienated from the people which "elected" it. > Rest of review where author flatly disagrees with every single point Gray makes, deleted. To bad the author couldn't have disagreed with the socialism thing and spared us the whole review ; ) > SUMMARY > >Despite its (few) warts, Professor Gray's "False Dawn" signals a new dawn >in discovery of the enormous crime which the global bankers have >perpetrated upon the peoples of the world. Such awareness may help >eradicate future crimes against humanity before the "High Cabal" destroy >more humanity than they already have in the 20th century - 200 million >people and counting, according to R.J. Rummell, a University if Hawaii >professor. Let me re iterate, that the IMF -and- the Federal Reserve wich is held up for scorn by Mr. Djurdjevic is also just as equally scorned by free market economists. IMF, GATT, and the Fed are indicators of the central planning still in our economy. -----> They are the -antithesis- of what free markets are about. <----- >But don't take our word for it. If you don't believe us - buy the "False >Dawn" book! (=A317.99, Granta Publications, ISBN 1-86207-023-7). And then >judge it for yourself. Not a chance, but I certainly will read it as soon as I get a loaner or the Seattle Library gets a copy : )> > >---- >Bob Djurdjevic >TRUTH IN MEDIA >Phoenix, Arizona >e-mail: bobdj@djurdjevic.com > > Truth in Media Web page: http://www.beograd.com/truth Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: RE: "Globalism: Dictatorship of the Capital" (A book review of Date: 27 Mar 1998 09:20:37 -0700 At 8:23 AM -0600 3/27/98, wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:31:36 -0700 >From: Bob Djurdjevic >Reply-To: act@efn.org >To: timed@djurdjevic.com >Subject: RE: "Globalism: Dictatorship of the Capital" (A book review of >"False Dawn" by John Gray - TiM GW Bulletin 98/3-9, 3/26/98) > >>FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Truth in Media's GLOBAL WATCH Bulletin 98/3-9 26-Mar-98 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Topic: GLOBAL AFFAIRS I want it to be very clear, that while I strongly disagree with what Mr. Gray is saying here (and Pauls agreement with him) this isn't any sort of personal thing. If I get to strident, somebody tell me. I enjoy seeing posts like this. >A Review of a New Book, "False Dawn," by John Gray, an Oxford University >Professor, Who Debunks Some Myths of Free Market/Free Trade Aficionados > >GLOBALISM: DICTATORSHIP OF THE CAPITAL This is personification. Capital is a thing it can't dictate anything. What Mr. Grays really saying is that the owners of capital can form a dictatorship. Wich would be true if capital weren't something that any one of us can go out to www.schwab.com and buy. It points out the underyling classist (and therefore IMHO Marxist) mindset about capitalist elitists (another Marxist term). There -are- elites in this country, but their control of political power is -much- more dire a problem imho then their control of capital. (Take fore instance ADM, -please- ; ) >Free Markets and Free Trade Will Lead Wars and Impoverishment of Millions >---------------------------------------------------------------------------= - >------------- > >PHOENIX - Democracy and free trade are rivals, not allies, says John Gray, >an Oxford University professor, in his new book, "False Dawn," which has >just been published in Great Britain by Granta Publications. Ergo, >"democratic capitalism," the globalists' rallying cry, is an oxymoron >designed to fool the designated victim - the world's taxpayer and patriot. >So exporting "democratic capitalism" around the world is like claiming to >be a "benevolent terrorist" (our analogy, not that of the author). > >The preceding is one of the myths which this refreshingly candid book seeks >to debunk. Another is that there is something really new in the so-called >New World Order (NWO) of the 1990s. A scholar who has read history as well >as politics, Gray explains how the world's first and the only experiment >with free markets, free trade and laissez-faire economics in mid-19th >century Great Britain ended up in defeat and led to World War I. Great Britain is a monarchy, and was even more then. One of the causes of World War I IMHO was the hangers on of the monarchy (who were granted -enormous- economic power). In pre WWI England the climber got knighthood -first- then became a banker or was given political control of a sector of the empire from wich they could wring capital. >The free market that existed in England from the 1840s to the 1870s was one >of boom in the strictly economic terms of rising productivity and national >wealth. But it was a boom whose social costs were politically >insupportable=D6 "Today's regime of global laissez-faire will be briefer th= an >even the belle =C8poque of 1870 to 1914, which ended in the trenches of the >Great War," Gray predicts confidently. > >Why then can't today's global "social engineers," the Wall Street financial >elite, learn from history and thus avoid making the old mistakes? > >One reason is that they don't view themselves as "social engineers." >Social consequences of the free markets and globalism are ignored by >today's policies of the materialistic NWO plutocrats. The second reason is >that they are driven by the same lust for money and power as the British >bankers and businessmen were in Victorian time. The third reason is that >people like that rarely pay attention to lessons of history. Which is why >they are doomed to repeat it, often at their peril. > >"Those who imagine that great errors of policy are not repeated in history >have not learnt is chief lesson - that nothing is ever learnt for long," >Gray dishes out an ominous summation. "We are at present in the midst of >an experiment in utopian social engineering whose outcome we can know in >advance." Ethnic conflicts. Mass poverty. World war! > > Dictatorship of Capital > >Which is why Gray warns that the attempt to impose on the world the >Anglo-American style free market philosophy will create a disaster on the >scale of Soviet Communism. It will cause wars, worsen ethnic conflicts, >and impoverish millions. Not everything can be traded, nor should be, he >says. > >Such as a kaleidoscope of world cultures, for example. America, the >supposed flagship of the new civilization, is doomed to moral and social >disintegration, Gray predicts. For, "the U.S. will lose ground to other >cultures which have never forgotten that the market works best when it is >embedded in society." And he notes that the free market philosophy is >impoverishing the American bourgeois civilization [i.e., the middle class - >TiM Ed.] just we had reported earlier this year - see TiM GW Bulletins >98/1-1, 1/01/98 and 98/1-2, 1/02/98]. > >Okay, so free markets and free trade have already caused many problems >around the world. But "a disaster on the scale of Soviet Communism?" >Surely that must be an exaggeration? Only to those brainwashed by the NWO >establishment media. This is where another lesson of history comes to the >aid of the open-minded. > > "In an almost inevitable irony this Smithian theory of economic > modernization had much in common with the Marxian theories on > which Soviet institutions had been based. 'Karl Marx' theory of > historical inevitability has been taken up by a new breed of social > engineers, ensconced in the International Monetary Fund, the US > State Department, Western European governments and the editorial > offices of most western newspapers." I gotta say, I resent being called (by implication) closed minded simply for disagreeing with someone. I am still hoping that paul or whoever penned this review will refute what I wrote. I will bow to superior clear logic because my mind is open. However, resorting to implied poison pen like this reflects poorly on the authors confidence in his logic. If he thought the case was compelling enough there would be no need to add the excess typing. BTW Smith is not -my- icon of free markets. And nobody I know claims the IMF is anything to do with FREE markets. Like I said in my last post, it and it's bailouts indicate how far we are from free markets. They forcibly take -your- money and give it to others who not only haven't earned it but have proven their incapacity for competition. >In other words, today's free market globalism is merely another mutation of >Marxism. It's a "red" sheep in a wolf's clothing. Communism was a >dictatorship of the proletariat. Globalism is a dictatorship of the >capital. But both are dictatorships! And both ideologies have been >hatched and crafted in the same mints - the boardrooms of the world's top >bankers. Dictatorship of the proletariat (another marxian fairey tale) my fat hairy middle classed butt. It was an oligarchy that pigs like Lenin and castro occaisionally converted to monarchys. One of the central arguments between Marx and his capitalist opponents was wether capitalism lead inevitably to monopoly and hence to boom and ultimately total bust, or wether free markets naturally broke up monopolies. Well, we haven't tried free markets, but I suggest that the evidence against Marx at this point, well, is fairly conclusive. Socialism does not work (sorry, to shock you all ; ) I say, lets give free markets a try. (And yes, that would involve changes to how corporations do business) >At the start of the century, it was Lenin and his Bolsheviks who destroyed >an ancient culture and millions of human lives ostensibly in the name of >communism. Today, it is the transnational corporations (TNCs) that are the >ruthless soldiers of globalism. TNCs as they exist now are IMHO naturally exclusive of free enterprise. They purchase political powers in the large fun pack size and they warp our legal system to escape liability. Why do we let them? Will they be used to turn us toward socialism? I hope not. > Western Deadly "Experiments" in Russia > >Russia has been the site of two experiments in western utopianism during >this century. The first was Bolshevism... the second was shock therapy, >Gray observes. Both Utopian experiments had enormous human costs. Both >were failed modernizations guided by western theories or models that had >little relevance to Russia's history and circumstances. And both happened far far less under the relative political freedom available in the west. No coincidence that the west was more capitalistic. As has been said before, capitalism, where the individual -chooses- where and what he will work, is the only economic system compatible with political freedom. >Shock therapy aimed to construct a free market in post-communist Russia. >"It produced instead a species of mafia-dominated anarcho-capitalism," the >author says. This after, what, five years? How long has russia -really- pursued capitalism? It didn't start the day the wall fell. Remember, these people had a generation or more to breed out (and in some cases, that is meant -literally-, lenin did in fact move to eliminate traits of freedom from his peoples gene pool) any entrepreneureal (no sp) spirit. They have been indoctinate for more then a generation with the belief that seeking their own good is evil. Well kids, the middle east didn't build market economies in five, ten or even fifteen years. The russians have a hard row to tow ahead of them. Let's not use their example to start fitting ourselves for the yoke of a centrally planned economy. > "Only an extraordinary blindness to history permitted western >advisers such as (Jeffrey) Sachs to imagine that the question of Russia's >European or Asiatic identity, unresolved since Peter the Great, could be >settled by a few years of market reform," Gray argues. Huh? What's he saying? What does racial makeup have to do with modern politics or economics? >It is possible, in fact probable, that Sachs was indeed merely a blind >soldier of the NWO globalists. But there is no question that those who >picked him for the job; those who financed the "Destruction of Russia >II"-project, carried out by the "reformers" who tried to suck the lifeblood >out of this vast country, had a 20/20 vision. The same greed and hatred of >the predominantly Orthodox Christian Russia motivated the western bankers >who financed Lenin and his communist revolution in 1917. I have no idea what any of this is about. Someone please explain it. >Which is why, what Professor Gray benevolently calls "two experiments in >western utopianism," seems to us more like two deliberate acts of malice >against the predominantly Orthodox Christian Russia. Now, why would the >western bankers do a fool thing like that? > >"False Dawn" provides a partial answer. Ironically for a book which is >attacking the blind materialism and defending cultural diversity, its >answer is in the economic (i.e., materialistic) sphere. > > "In the late 19th century, Russia entered a period of racing economic > growth comparable to that of early 19th century Britain, 1870s >America, > or China today. In 1880-1917 Russia laid more miles of railway track > than any country in the world at that time; its industrial production > grew at an annual rate of 5.7 % over the whole period, accelerating in > the four years before World War I to 8%. Late Tsarism was an era not > of stagnation but of swiftly advancing modernization." > >So the West Side Gang inflicted Russia with its own invention - the >communist virus - to eliminate a tough competitor, seems to be an >implication. Okay, but why would these supposedly civilized Westerners be >accomplices to murder of so many millions of Russians, especially the >bourgeois (the middle class), the "kulaks" (wealthy peasants), and the >Orthodox Christian clergy? Gray provides a hint, though not a full answer: > > "Russian traits, such as the hostility to commercial self-enrichment > and the sense of country's messianic role that have always been a > feature of Russian Orthodox Christianity." > >It is because of that role - as a leader of the Eastern Orthodox >Christianity which rejects the supremacy of the things materials over >matters spiritual - that Russia, "the third Rome," has been under attack by >the West for the last two centuries. In the 19th century, the "High >Cabal's" (read the British Crown's and its affiliated European snip Wow, I have NO idea what that bit was about. Someone please explain it to me= =2E >the Tsarist secret police, had only 161 full-time employees, supported by a >Corp of Gendarmes of less than 10,000 men. By 1921, the Bolshevik secret >police, the Cheka, accounted for over a quarter of a million men, not >counting Red Army, NKVD, and militiamen." > > Author's Anti-Americanism Detracts from Real Issues > >Yet, Gray never mentioned the enormous numbers of law-enforcement people on >western government payrolls today, ramming the New World Order medicines >down our collective throats. Except when he pointed out the U.S. world >leadership in one infamous category - incarcerations of its citizens. > >"In the United States free markets have contributed to social breakdown on >a scale unknown in any other developed country," he writes. "Families are >weaker in America than in any other country. At the same time, social order >has been propped up by a policy of mass incarceration." This is patently rediculous. Is Gray claiming that in Serbia families are stronger then in the US? In the former eastern republics of USSR? People in these countries are dying at record rates, but they're families are "stronger" then ours?? Strength like that we can do with less of, I say we export it : ) > "All estimates of America's employment record must take into account > America's incarceration rates: Over a million people who would be > seeking work if American penal policies resembled those of any other > western country are behind bars in the US..." OK, I'm a pro at run on sentences. But that last one up there makes me hold my head. We have a -slightly- higher incarceration rate then other western countries (brittain, sweden, etc) -very- slightly largely because they do not imprison drug users. Without delving into the Libertarian Parties second most controversial stand, I'll just say, ... , boy I wish I knew what the heck that sentence meant. >By contrast, in Great Britain, fewer than one in a thousand people are >incarcerated, the author say, while the comparable figure in America is >approaching one in a hundred. "Once this larger context is taken into >consideration the American superiority in job-creation looks slight, >perhaps even illusory," he concludes. I don't beleive that. >Fair enough, so far. But the author's anti-American attitude begins to >show in his subsequent arguments. No, actually. >For example, Gray claims that the "US productivity has been low-around half >that of most European countries." And that that was the reason the U.S. >unemployment figures looked better than the European ones. We have the highest productivity rate in the world. Was this written in 90? The Germans used to have a higher rate then us before the wall (and subsequent migration) fell on them. But, um, no I have no idea how an -economist- could get something this basic wrong. >Wonder what productivity measurements the author considered before making >such a vague declaration? According to CIA's "The World Factbook 1997," >the U.S. was No. 1 in terms of GDP per employed person, followed by France, >Germany, the U.K. and Japan, among the developed countries. The U.S. was >also No. 1 in the world in terms of GDP per capita, according to CIA's "The >World Factbook 1995." Damn right. >So it would appear that the "False Dawn's" author was FLAT WRONG in this >assertion. Which is too bad, because it cheapens his other arguments and >distracts from some really important issues. Such as how "un-American" the >NWO-sponsored U.S. government really is. It certainly does cheapen his other arguments. >Whenever Gray used the term the "United States government" in a derogatory >sense, he might have considered referring to a variant of the NWO, Wall >Street or Washington elite. Just as is today's British, or any other >western government - alienated from the people which "elected" it. > Rest of review where author flatly disagrees with every single point Gray makes, deleted. To bad the author couldn't have disagreed with the socialism thing and spared us the whole review ; ) > SUMMARY > >Despite its (few) warts, Professor Gray's "False Dawn" signals a new dawn >in discovery of the enormous crime which the global bankers have >perpetrated upon the peoples of the world. Such awareness may help >eradicate future crimes against humanity before the "High Cabal" destroy >more humanity than they already have in the 20th century - 200 million >people and counting, according to R.J. Rummell, a University if Hawaii >professor. Let me re iterate, that the IMF -and- the Federal Reserve wich is held up for scorn by Mr. Djurdjevic is also just as equally scorned by free market economists. IMF, GATT, and the Fed are indicators of the central planning still in our economy. -----> They are the -antithesis- of what free markets are about. <----- >But don't take our word for it. If you don't believe us - buy the "False >Dawn" book! (=A317.99, Granta Publications, ISBN 1-86207-023-7). And then >judge it for yourself. Not a chance, but I certainly will read it as soon as I get a loaner or the Seattle Library gets a copy : )> > >---- >Bob Djurdjevic >TRUTH IN MEDIA >Phoenix, Arizona >e-mail: bobdj@djurdjevic.com > > Truth in Media Web page: http://www.beograd.com/truth Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Off topic ALERT (fwd) Date: 27 Mar 1998 13:32:26 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by stevens@iglobal.net I know this doesn't DIRECTLY affect gunowners. Yet. ============================= Law Enforcement Seizures subject of Congressional battle A major battle between the Department of Justice and House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde over a bill for civil asset forfeiture reform may occur before the Easter recess. Last June, after four years of work on the issue, Hyde introduced H.R. 1835, which would have given those who have their assets seized by government agencies more protections against abuse and improper seizure. Government estimates indicate that one out of every ten seizures is conducted against an innocent party. In committee, however, the 19-page bill was gutted of all its protections and replaced by a 65-page Department of Justice version, H.R. 1965, which would give law enforcement even greater powers to seize assets of those not charged or convicted of crimes. The need for substantive asset seizure reform is desperately needed. As Jarrett Wollstein writes in his book, The Looting of America, "If government agents seize your property under civil asset forfeiture, you can forget about being innocent until proven guilty, due process of law, the right to an attorney, or even the right to a trial. All of those rights only exist if you are charged with a criminal offense; that is, with an offense which could result in your imprisonment. If you (or your property) are accused of a civil offense, the Supreme Court has ruled that you have no presumption of innocence, no right to an attorney, and no protection from double jeopardy." He continues: "Asset forfeiture was virtually unheard of until 1984, when Congress overhauled the federal forfeiture laws to give the government incredible advantages over property owners, and began expanding the list of offenses which could trigger forfeiture. Now there are more than two hundred federal offenses which trigger forfeiture, with more being added every day. But the most terrifying aspect of the legislative scheme in the 1984 crime bill was that it allows the seizing police agency to keep the proceeds of property they seize and forfeit. This inherent conflict of interest has lead to greater and greater abuses as the profits generated have risen - to close to a billion dollars a year for the federal government alone." To make matters worse, most state legislatures are tripping over themselves expanding state forfeiture powers and creating draconian procedures that mirror the federal laws. Massive police lobbying organizations, many of which contribute substantial sums to campaign coffers, vigorously supports these forfeiture expansion bills. Chairman Hyde is concerned enough about the impact of H.R. 1965, that he has offered the text of his original bill, H.R. 1835, to amend the entirety of the current bill. But apart from the showdown with DOJ over the bill, Hyde also faces Rules Committee Chairman Gerry Solomon, who has vowed that "my conscience cannot allow me to release this bill from Rules (committee)". With opposition from both Rep. Solomon and the DOJ, Hyde's efforts to protect Americans from unconstitutional seizures may languish in the House. Read the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution: http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.html Read H.R. 1965 from THOMAS: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR01965:@@@L Read Hyde's original bill, H.R. 1835, from THOMAS: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR01835:@@@L -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 27 Mar 1998 16:49:03 -0500 (EST) Re: E.J. Totty's recent post. "needed killings"? Tread carefully here, as this is nothing I agree with and a borderline area of possible criminality. "demand a decent wage" - depends upon how. If you demand it with a rifle (or a pitchfork) you can certainly count me out. If you demand it at a wage negotiation, fine. "I think we all pretty much agree that the one main ingredients needed in any community of people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." - at what cost? You seem to be entertaining means and methods that I don't agree with. When in the entire life of the nation has daily life been predictable? This group is Restore Our Constitution not screw the capitalists. Demanding that a corporation provide jobs in a legal contract negotiation or negotiation of special tax benefits, etc. is fine. Stay within willing contracts. I don't think that anyone owes you a job. If you think that providing jobs is so damned easy, try doing it. Go start a business and make a payroll, pay the taxes and obeys the regulations. You might find a little more sympathy for capitalists and some realistic insight into what inspires people to move jobs outside the U.S. jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 27 Mar 1998 16:12:08 -0600 (CST) On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, John Curtis wrote: > > > Re: E.J. Totty's recent post. Ok folks, lots of pent up emotion and frustration. Its still a place for civil discussion. I like both your points of view like we were sitting around drinking a few beers and solving the worlds problems on a camp out. Just don't let it get to personal. There is room for discussion and debate among us. There is a open difference between the people like me and the Libertarians and our views on trade, corporate responsibility, and community responsibility. I have been through 16 layoffs, been laid off 3 times, taken a 40% cut in pay and still have friends and relatives who have taken cuts or lost pay over time. It has been a very trying time and I still get post traumatic stress syndrome when I see or hear a layoff close to family and friends. I also have a 11 year old daughter with Autism I would like to see in society some day holding down a job and paying taxes like many of the people who are not so smart on the bell curve that I "feel" we have a cultural, social and religious responsibility to see sharing part of the "American Dream". I am not looking with out my own baggage and bias that affects my judgement and views on these issues. That is why I value your debate because it helps me see my own baggage and learn and study other view points. Thanks, Paul Watson - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Gender Studies Lecture Series (fwd) Date: 27 Mar 1998 16:27:56 -0600 (CST) This should make my blood pressure boil: Here is a lecture coming up at my university: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Please join on for next week's Gender Studies Lecture Series "Gender, Globalization and Governance: Gender Relations of the New Network Economies" Brigitte Young, Associate Professor, Freie Universitat Berlin Monday, March 30, 7:00-9:45 pm Student Union Galaxy Room 2.602B - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 27 Mar 1998 15:27:54 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, John Curtis wrote: > "needed killings"? Tread carefully here, as this is > nothing I agree with and a borderline area of possible > criminality. War has never been a friend of liberty. There has never been a war in which the people did not lose power and control over their lives to the State. This applies to both "winners" and "losers". > "I think we all pretty much agree > that the one main ingredients needed in any community of > people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." - at > what cost? You seem to be entertaining means and methods > that I don't agree with. When in the entire life of the > nation has daily life been predictable? Oh, come on now, John. Surely you can understand that the indigenous population of Arlington, Gettysburg, or any other cemetary have entirely predictable daily lives? Slaves have pretty predictable daily lives. Prison life is pretty predictable. Concentration camp life is pretty predictable. Submit to oppression and you've got predictability. Turn over control of your life to the State, and life is predictable. OTOH, liberty by definition is a lack of externally imposed order. Thus the constant cry for a Fuhrer, a strong man, a dictator, to "restore law and order", particularly the "order" part. The straight-forward solution to achieve predictability, is for those that want it to die. This is within the realm of their own control. And life (such as it is) will be completely predictable for them. > > This group is Restore Our Constitution not screw the > capitalists. It is a simple law of human nature that they provide for their wishes, wants, and needs with the least possible effort. Anybody, Capital or Labor, who gets access to the State's mechanisms of coercion will use them to their benefit and to the detriment of those they wish to steal from. Adopting a moral code which embraces creation and exchange of wealth entails significantly more effort than the alternative: the appropriation without compensation of the wealth of others. Denomination of the victim as Capital or Labor makes no difference. > Demanding that a corporation provide jobs... The language used, "demand", tells you from whence it derives and where it's all going: Use of force or compulsion to achieve results. A "free exchange" and "demand" are fundamentally different things. "Demand" implies the use, or the threat of use, of force. Hardly a Libertarian principle. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 27 Mar 1998 15:19:08 -0700 John, [...] "needed killings"? Tread carefully here, as this is nothing I agree with and a borderline area of possible criminality. [...] In the context of revolution, where the "people" are endevoring to retrieve their Rights, any death in that endevor is a needed killing. The only criminality is where one attacks a defenseless person. [...] "demand a decent wage" - depends upon how. If you demand it with a rifle (or a pitchfork) you can certainly count me out. If you demand it at a wage negotiation, fine. [...] Negotiation is the only acceptable method in a lawful community. [...] This group is Restore Our Constitution not screw the capitalists. [...] There are 'capitalists', and then there are 'capitalists'. The former are honourable men and women who seek to gain advantage in whatever market they pursue, and then there are the rapists, the raiders and the despoilers, who could not give a diddly iota about their fellows. The latter is of whom I speak. Therefore, restoring the Constitution has everything to do with restoring Rights - everyone's Rights, and not just 'capitalists'. And, in the case you wonder, we do have the Right not to be taken advantage of by monied interests, with an ulterior motive of acquiring the essence of your liberty, and the land under your feet. Tell me just how much liberty you will have when the entire continent is owned by a couple of very rich 'capitalists'. I'd really love to hear the answer to that, John. [...] Demanding that a corporation provide jobs in a legal contract negotiation or negotiation of special tax benefits, etc. is fine. Stay within willing contracts. [...] There is no demanding that _anyone_ provide any jobs, and I'm sure you understood that. But if you are going to provide a job, there is the honesty of ascertaining that the job will (reasonably) be around next week or whenever. Dishonesty is the implied point I made. Hire today - fire tomorrow to rake-in those max profits. Yup, don't we just love our fellow Americans? Bend'em over the barrel every chance we get! [...] I don't think that anyone owes you a job. If you think that providing jobs is so damned easy, try doing it. [...] I never said - or implied that they did. Putting words where they never were isn't like you, John. I suggest you reread my comments. [...] Go start a business and make a payroll, pay the taxes and obeys the regulations. You might find a little more sympathy for capitalists and some realistic insight into what inspires people to move jobs outside the U.S. [...] See my comment above, concerning 'capitalists' vs 'capitalists'. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 27 Mar 1998 15:38:45 -0700 Harry, If you're gonna eaves drop, pay attention. You are attributing to John, my quotes. Of course, if your are gonna start yelling, why just keep doing it at John, cuz I don't like wearing spittle - it's hell to see with all those dots on the glasses! I'll get back tomorrow on this. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 27 Mar 1998 16:26:17 -0700 At 4:49 PM -0500 3/27/98, John Curtis wrote: > Re: E.J. Totty's recent post. > > "needed killings"? Tread carefully here, as this is > nothing I agree with and a borderline area of possible > criminality. > > "demand a decent wage" - depends upon how. If you demand > it with a rifle (or a pitchfork) you can certainly count > me out. If you demand it at a wage negotiation, fine. Well said, & this is exactly how a free labor market would deal with the inequities so rampant world wide today. All of us who've seen that Labor unions may have helped stop some troubles in our country in the past should be aware that that is where places like Mexico and India are right now. While I don't know that I have much use for unions here, now (at least not in fields I have direct experience with). I know that I wish the AFL CIO nothing but the best in raising the standard of living of Mexican workers through (-voluntary-) combined negotiation. My opinion anyway. > "I think we all pretty much agree > that the one main ingredients needed in any community of > people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." - at > what cost? You seem to be entertaining means and methods > that I don't agree with. When in the entire life of the > nation has daily life been predictable? snip > jcurtis I'm rethinking sending a reply I composed earlier that includes a pretty detailed bio of my last decade. I'm sure I've had it easier then some on the list, and certainly harder then others (that whole bell curve thing) but at least speaking for myself, the growth I've gone through that got me where I am today was -largely- if not exclusively do to uncomfortable learning I got at the boot tip of lifes changes. Uncertainty is hard, I'm not claiming it isn't but it is also often the energizing force behind growth. Paul, I'm sorry if uncertainty and change has dealt a hard hand to friends or family of yours. Sincerely, I hope that one day soon everyone you know in a position like that will be able to look back at the hard times. Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 27 Mar 1998 16:57:24 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, E.J. Totty wrote: > If you're gonna eaves drop, pay attention. > You are attributing to John, my quotes. Uhhhhh, no. John quoted you, and put what you said in quotes. Then he commented on what you said. I commented on what John said, or added to what he said. Interesting characterization: you get on a soapbox and demand attention, then try to tar me with the bias word "eavesdrop" for paying attention, and assert I'm not "paying attention". Interesting approach to debate. Intellectually dishonest, but interesting, nonetheless. > > Of course, if your are gonna start yelling, > why just keep doing it at John, cuz I don't like wearing > spittle - it's hell to see with all those dots on the glasses! "Yelling?" Apparently it's hard to see satire directed at a demand for predictability even without dots on the glasses. Try to be logically consistent. Then we can work on your premises. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 28 Mar 1998 00:53:33 -0500 (EST) On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, John Curtis wrote: > > > I don't think that anyone owes you a job. If you think > that providing jobs is so damned easy, try doing it. > > Go start a business and make a payroll, pay the taxes and > obeys the regulations. You might find a little more > sympathy for capitalists and some realistic insight into > what inspires people to move jobs outside the U.S. > > jcurtis Anybody wants to move his factory or whatever to Mexico, Indonesia or wherever, hey, that's ok with me. I just have a little trouble understanding why my blue-collar neighbors and I should pay for a bailout every time something goes wrong and - most especially - why we should have to go get our butts shot at if the locals start making trouble. I supsect Citibank and Intel and the rest would be more careful about deploying assets overseas if they weren't confident that we would always be here to provide bailouts and bodies. bd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: Nice Paul Craig Roberts essay re. Waco Date: 28 Mar 1998 01:25:58 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Washington Times February 28, 1998 Liberals Back On Task THE JACKPOT NEWS WEEKLY By Paul Craig Roberts Creators Syndicate Historically, liberals drew their moral stature from their willingness to hold the high and mighty accountable. Although there have been exceptions, generally speaking, liberals were not willing parties to cover-ups for "the good of the country" or to protect the reputation of law enforcement or a prominent person's reputation. The liberals' insistence on justice often clashed with the conservatives' instinct to protect the public's confidence in the established order. In our own time, as liberals themselves became the established order,their demand for accountability became selective. When conservative instincts and liberal interests coincide, government escapes from accountability. When government feels it is beyond accountability, it does terrible things. Consider Waco, for example. Many ordinary people are still disturbed by the federal government's gratuitous destruction of the Branch Davidian religious sect. How can a warrant to inspect some firearms result in the death of 85 men, women and children? How can we bomb Saddam Hussein in Iraq for harboring banned chemical weapons that the FBI used against women and children in Waco, Texas? Americans never got an answer to that question "Why Waco?" They got a cover-up. People who disputed the government's lies were branded "militia types"and "religious kooks." The affair was on its way down the memory hole when two liberals, Dan and Amy Gifford, found their conscience, pointed the Zolan finger and said: "I accuse." Their accusation is as powerful as the one Emile Zola penned when he accused the French military establishment of intentionally framing Captain Dreyfus for treason. Dreyfus was a goner, but Zola's demand for accountability began a stirring of the conscience that in the end forced the French military establishment to admit its wrongdoing. If the American public still has a moral conscience, the Gifford's documentary movie, "Waco: The Rules of Engagement," directed by William Gazecki,will force accountability on the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the FBI, the Department of Justice and the government officials who intentionally lied to Congress and the American People in order to cover their criminal deeds. One thing is certain: The film is not going away. It has been nominated for an Oscar. The film has become a staple at American Civil Liberties Union fund-raisers. It has been shown in movie theaters and received rave reviews from major newspapers. The BBC has acquired broadcast rights for Great Britain. A large percentage of the liberal elite will have watched this film, and unless the government is held accountable for Waco, the elite are going to lose their confidence in the U.S. government. This film is a careful documentary, not a screed. It presents the unadulterated evidence. The evidence - from eyewitnesses including the FBI's own crime scene photographer, from the governments own infrared film (FLIR) footage of the attack on the compound, from impeccable and dispassionate experts, and from government documents makes it clear beyond any doubt that the federal government murdered the Branch Davidians. It was an American Holocaust. Why were they murdered? An explanation that can be inferred from the film is as follows: The FBI exterminated the Davidians and quickly destroyed the evidence of the crime scene in order to cover up a criminal act by another federal agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. A discredited agency, BATF planned the initial attack on the Davidians compound on order to boost its standing with the American public by capturing a "dangerous" weapons cache and rescuing children from alleged sexual abuse by alleged religious perverts. There was no evidence that the Davidians had violated any law. BATF used made-up information to obtain a warrant from a careless magistrate. Instead of knocking on the door and serving the warrant, as required by law, BATF assembled a combat team that shipped out to a U.S. military base for assault training. BATF's publicity agent informed the media prior to the assault and made certain that the TV cameras were in place to film the staged gun-control and child rescue operation. But BATF's armed assault was beaten off with loss of life on both sides. BATF limped away, and the federal government, fearful of the implications of such a terrible abuse of power, killed the Davidians and destroyed the compound in order to avoid acountability for BATF's illegal use of deadly force. The government knew that it could rely on the liberal media's own biases to portray the Davidians as the cause of it all. The film's footage of the congressional hearings make it clear that the Republicans knew what had happened but were too fearful of the implications for "law and order" to take any meaningful action. Afraid of unleashing the criminal in the street, they left in place the criminals in the FBI, BATF, and Department of Justice. This was a serious mistake because it has compromised the Republican's integrity as well as that of federal law enforcement. 1998 The Washington Times - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 28 Mar 1998 07:27:39 -0700 Harry, Now the fun begins . . . [...] War has never been a friend of liberty. There has never been a war in which the people did not lose power and control over their lives to the State. This applies to both "winners" and "losers". [...] Can't see how that is possible for the Brits, since they got their pants kicked, and we got our Constitution _and_ a Bill of Rights out of it. So, your statement has limited application. [...] Oh, come on now, (ET). Surely you can understand that the indigenous population of Arlington, Gettysburg, or any other cemetary have entirely predictable daily lives? Slaves have pretty predictable daily lives. Prison life is pretty predictable. Concentration camp life is pretty predictable. Submit to oppression and you've got predictability. Turn over control of your life to the State, and life is predictable. [...] Well now, Harry, that is just about the most specious statement you've made yet. I know that _you_ know what _I_ was talking about, and you know that I know that you know that I know. First - and most obviously - dead people don't have a life. Slaves and prisoners have yet to get a life. So, your statement is essentially facetious, and you know that I know that - too. I'm psychotic, I can read minds - especially yours. Moving on, [...] OTOH, liberty by definition is a lack of externally imposed order. Thus the constant cry for a Fuhrer, a strong man, a dictator, to "restore law and order", particularly the "order" part. [...] Harry, you forgot the "El Supremo", El Numero Uno parts. You're getting slow, and forgetful too. [...] The straight-forward solution to achieve predictability, is for those that want it to die. This is within the realm of their own control. And life (such as it is) will be completely predictable for them. [...] Well, Thomas Jefferson spoke of "domestic tranquility", several times, and I'm sure he wasn't talking about a bunch of citizens on qualudes, or tyrants in tights pushing a certain way of life on the rest of us. [...] It is a simple law of human nature that they provide for their wishes, wants, and needs with the least possible effort. Anybody, Capital or Labor, who gets access to the State's mechanisms of coercion will use them to their benefit and to the detriment of those they wish to steal from. Adopting a moral code which embraces creation and exchange of wealth entails significantly more effort than the alternative: the appropriation without compensation of the wealth of others. Denomination of the victim as Capital or Labor makes no difference. [...] Well, yeah. But I have never anticipated that anyone would deprive anoyone else of their just ownership of anything. My beef as I have stated it, is that there are people who have dominated our community of late, who's sole purpose in life is to acquire as much power and wealth as they can. To them it matters not whose life they destroy doing it, or how many people they can make miserable while it happens. If there must be ethics in government and law, then there must also be ethics in the daily business of conducting the business of business. [...] The language used, "demand", tells you from whence it derives and where it's all going: Use of force or compulsion to achieve results. A "free exchange" and "demand" are fundamentally different things. "Demand" implies the use, or the threat of use, of force. [...] And hardly what I said either. Taking things out of context is getting to be a habit with you, Harry. [...] Hardly a Libertarian principle. [...] I couldn't agree more. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Alpert <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: NRA Silent on Proposed BATF Regs Date: 28 Mar 1998 10:48:24 CST * * READ, DISTRIBUTE, DISSEMINATE WIDELY * * NRA Silent about BATF Regs The enclosed column from Neal Knox discusses BATF's proposed regulations for the Brady Act "instant check." As Knox discloses, these regs, as written, could shut down gun show sales as well as impose significant fees for every firearms transfer. Why has the "Winning Team" been so silent on this? (Remember, it was an ILA deal that got the instant check shoved into the Brady Act in the first place.) The enclosed column will be appearing in Shotgun News. Chris BeHanna wrote and is responsible for everything above this line. NEAL KNOX REPORT 'Instant Check' Regs Absurd By NEAL KNOX WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 20) -- BATF's proposed regulations for the permanent phase of the Brady Act, which is to go into effect Nov. 30, will substitute an "Instant Check" on all firearms buyers for the present five-working-day waiting period on handgun purchasers. The proposed regulations say the Justice Department will run a records check on every gun buyer -- which can take up to three business days -- even if the state has its own "Instant Check" system. That provision could be used to shut down gun show sales, which are typically held when state offices are closed. An FBI spokesman recently said the fee for the check will be $13 to $16 -- a considerable chunk on a used $50 .22 rifle. One of the cuter proposed regulations is an "optional" request for the buyer's Social Security number -- which supposedly would help the buyer by eliminating rejections due to the computer finding a felon with similar name and birth date. The all-important question of how those Federal records are kept, and whether the "instant check" is used to create a national firearms registration system, isn't addressed in the proposed BATF regulations -- which may be publicly commented on until May 20, 1998. BATF says security of the lists will strictly be up to the Justice Department, which doesn't have BATF's long-standing prohibition against using appropriated funds to maintain a computerized database of gun owners or gun buyers. The law itself prohibits using dealer records to create a national registration system, but the Justice Department has developed devious ways to get around such provisions by encouraging states to set up the registration system, so Federal agencies can "access" local purchaser lists. Despite the Brady Act's prohibitions, every time the Justice computers are checked, a record of the name and reason for the check is kept -- supposedly to prevent abuse of privacy, but destroying gun purchasing privacy. Some local and state agencies have been keeping records of purchasers, such as in Ohio, where every gun buyer checked was being permanently kept with a "B" for Brady -- until the legislature stopped it. BATF says the new regulations don't have to be justified as to effectiveness or usefulness because they don't constitute "a significant regulatory action." Right! By BATF's official estimate, the regulations will "only" affect 10,273,851 firearms purchasers each year, and completion will "only" require 199,357 hours -- at their estimate of 1 1/4 minutes worth of record-keeping and delay. Ridiculous! Comment before May 20 to: Chief, Regulations Division; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; PO Box 50221; Washington, DC 20091-0221; ATTN: Notice No. 857. Don't bother protesting about the checks being extended to rifle and shotgun buyers -- make that protest to your Congressman and Senator, and insist they at least knock out the long gun requirement in the Instant Check law. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'SECOND CINCINNATI' Major issues affecting the future of NRA, including whether the 76-member Board of Directors should be cut to "no more than 24," will be decided on the floor of the members' meeting at Philadelphia June 6. The number of Directors, broader reporting of financial relationships with NRA (opposed by a majority of the Board), and even term limits will be debated as amendments to the Articles of Incorporation, which corporate law says can only be amended at the annual meeting. Although Bylaws Article XVI requires publication of proposed amendments to the corporate charter if received by Dec. 1, the leadership notified three voting members who submitted amendments that they would not be published and couldn't be brought up at Philadelphia. That decision was reversed last week after NRA management was required by a New York court to follow the letter of a bylaw prohibiting their publication of the method of nomination of candidates. (Because NRA subsequently published the names of the obviously petition candidates who challenged publication of the Nominating Committee list, the judge has ordered NRA to "show cause" why it should not be held in contempt of court, and why a new election should not be required.) Given the background of member anger over excessive fundraising letters, concerns for the financial condition of NRA, and dismay over evidence that NRA First Vice President Charlton Heston worked with President Lyndon Johnson to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968, it may be the most lively meeting since the Cincinnati Member Revolt in 1977. ----- End Neal Knox column ----- 1. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen David M. Gross* Robley T. Moore Michael J. Beko* John Guest Larry R. Rankin James A. Church Fred Gustafson Albert C. Ross* William Dominguez Don L. Henry* Frank H. Sawberger Howard J. Fezell* William B. Hunt Thomas L. Seefeldt Daniel B. Fiora Phillip B. Journey* Kim Stolfer Arnold J. Gaunt Michael S. Kindberg* John H. Trentes Fred Griisser Jeff Knox Glen I. Voorhees Jr.* Wesley H. Grogan Jr.* John C. Krull Those with an asterisk have been deliberately targeted to be PURGED as "extremists." What's "extreme" about demanding your rights? Help NRA help you and support these candidates! 2. Visit their web sites for further information: http://www.2ndamendment.net (contains candidate statements) http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) U.S. mail point-of-contact: Second Amendment Action, 100 Heathwood Drive, Liberty, S.C. 29657 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 28 Mar 1998 10:38:30 -0800 (PST) On Sat, 28 Mar 1998, E.J. Totty wrote: > Harry, > > Now the fun begins . . . > > [...] > War has never been a friend of liberty. > There has never been a war in which the > people did not lose power and control over their > lives to the State. > This applies to both "winners" and "losers". > [...] > > Can't see how that is possible for the Brits, > since they got their pants kicked, and we got our > Constitution _and_ a Bill of Rights out of it. > So, your statement has limited application. Uhhh. No. We got the somewhat peaceful application of the Articles of Confederation out of it, and even those restricted the individual freedoms envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The Articles allowed people in one State to economically screw the people in another State with relative impunity, but still moved power from the lower subdivisions of the State (ultimately from the individual) to a broader, more centralized authority. The Constitution was a railroad job to create a powerful central government to enable creditors to collect money from debtors, and facilitate picking the pockets of the populace to pay off Hamilton's speculator buddies' Revolutionary War scrip at face value. The "Bill of Rights" was a sop to get a couple of the former colonies to go along and "placate the masses". The Federalists got what they wanted: strong central governemnt at the expense of republican democracy. The Constitution and Bill of Rights resulted in less individual liberty than people had before it existed, and the Revolutionary War resulted in a restriction of the liberty envisioned by Jefferson, et al. Why else did Shay's Rebellion come to pass? And after the Constitution, why else did the Whiskey Rebellion come to pass? I argue that the results would have probably been far better for individual liberty if the "Revolution in Ideas" had remained just that, and the Colonies had been allowed to peacefully separate from Great Britain instead of engaging in a War. The Revolutionary War just set up a scenario where a bunch of "boys with toys" got a chance to continue with their thuggery, and depredations upon the citizenry, just exchanging the King's Governor's for home-grown ones. (I mean that in only the kindest possible way.) It doesn't matter whether or not it was a "just" war, or a "necessary" war; the end result was a diminishing of individual liberty from what would have been possible without it. What we got was better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick but not as good for individual liberty as it could have been without the violence of the War. As for the Brits, King George still had expenses to pay, without the tax income from the colonies to get it from. Did he cut back on expenses to make ends meet? Are you kidding? He just upped the taxes on the remaining British citizens! The citizens had less "disposable income", which is a codeword for the amount that the State permits you to keep after it steals the limit of what it can get from you without precipitating rebellion. The "subjects" in Britain and the "citizens" in the new "United States" had less of their Time, Talents, and Treasure to exert on their own behalf. Sure sounds like less personal liberty to me. YMMV, depending upon whether your point of view is the pocket-picker, or pocket-pickee. > > > [...] > Oh, come on now, (ET). Surely you can understand This is outrageous. Please don't edit what I say and attribute your edited results to me. What I said was "Oh, come on now, John. Surely you can understand..." I said "John", I meant "John". Another interesting, but somewhat common, logical trick: change what people say to what you wish they had said, and then launch into a strawman argument of your own making. Just another sample of intellectual dishonesty. You're a fine one to be piously accusing others of putting words in people's mouths, or quoting out of context! Do try to keep up and quote fairly. > that the indigenous population of Arlington, Gettysburg, or > any other cemetary have entirely predictable daily lives? > Slaves have pretty predictable daily lives. > Prison life is pretty predictable. > Concentration camp life is pretty predictable. > Submit to oppression and you've got predictability. > Turn over control of your life to the State, and life > is predictable. > [...] > > Well now, Harry, that is just about the most specious > statement you've made yet. > I know that _you_ know what _I_ was talking about, > and you know that I know that you know that I know. > First - and most obviously - dead people don't have > a life. Slaves and prisoners have yet to get a life. > So, your statement is essentially facetious, and > you know that I know that - too. > I'm psychotic, I can read minds - especially yours. As to being psychotic, I will take you at your word. As to the second part, no. What you know about what I know wouldn't fill a thimble. Even so, it would be helpful if you would try to work with the words, not your fantasies. Where there is only a distinction in degree, you fail to establish a distinction in substance. > > Moving on, > [...] > OTOH, liberty by definition is a lack of externally > imposed order. Thus the constant cry for a Fuhrer, a strong > man, a dictator, to "restore law and order", particularly the > "order" part. > [...] > > Harry, you forgot the "El Supremo", El Numero Uno > parts. You're getting slow, and forgetful too. I truly don't have a clue what you're talking about here. So it well deserves forgetting. What was that we were talking about? > > [...] > The straight-forward solution to achieve predictability, > is for those that want it to die. This is within the realm of > their own control. And life (such as it is) will be completely > predictable for them. > [...] > > Well, Thomas Jefferson spoke of "domestic tranquility", > several times, and I'm sure he wasn't talking about a bunch of > citizens on qualudes, or tyrants in tights pushing a certain way > of life on the rest of us. Jefferson also advocated throwing out the Constitution every 20 years and creating a new one. He was not silly enough to believe that the "order" or "predictability" of affairs the year before a Constitutional Convention would be the same the year after. Jefferson was in fact VERY concerned about the possibility of "tyrants in tights" pushing "domestic tranquility" on the citizenry, while Hamilton was fearful of the "citizens on quaaludes" creating chaos in the streets and voting themselves "hits" from the public treasury. Hamilton and the Federalists prevailed, and got the Constitution: the most famous use of the words "domestic tranquility" are in the Preamble to the Constitution, and Hamilton sure as hell wanted the elite few to be in charge of "ensuring domestic tranquility". Jefferson was in Paris and came back startled to find his vision of "domestic tranquility" so perverted, perceived the threat to individual liberty, and became the arch-foe of the Federalists' goals. > > [...] > It is a simple law of human nature that they provide > for their wishes, wants, and needs with the least possible effort. > Anybody, Capital or Labor, who gets access to the State's > mechanisms of coercion will use them to their benefit and to the > detriment of those they wish to steal from. Adopting a moral code > which embraces creation and exchange of wealth entails significantly > more effort than the alternative: the appropriation without > compensation of the wealth of others. Denomination of the victim > as Capital or Labor makes no difference. > [...] > > Well, yeah. But I have never anticipated that anyone > would deprive anoyone else of their just ownership of anything. Hey. Pollyanna. Get out, get around, meet some people. As an egregious and contemporary example, Slick and his Host of Whores have been in DC for nearly 6 years now. Pull your head out of whatever kitty litter you've had it buried in. > My beef as I have stated it, is that there are people > who have dominated our community of late, who's sole purpose in > life is to acquire as much power and wealth as they can. To them > it matters not whose life they destroy doing it, or how many people > they can make miserable while it happens. You will get no argument about this point from me. We agree! Red Letter Day on the calendar! Commemorate another Paid Holiday! Paid by whom? Hell, it doesn't matter. > > If there must be ethics in government and law, then there > must also be ethics in the daily business of conducting the business > of business. Ah, good. I was sure you would give us an example of the true meaning of "specious". > > [...] > The language used, "demand", tells you from whence it > derives and where it's all going: Use of force or compulsion to > achieve results. A "free exchange" and "demand" are fundamentally > different things. "Demand" implies the use, or the threat of use, of force. > [...] > > And hardly what I said either. Taking things out of context > is getting to be a habit with you, Harry. Apparently you deny that you were "demanding". Do you? Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, in spite of claims by the hypocrite to be " taking things out of context". And you can't predict my habits any better than you can read my mind. > > [...] > Hardly a Libertarian principle. > [...] > > I couldn't agree more. > > ET Which says exactly nothing about your degree of agreement. Do try to eschew obfuscation. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 28 Mar 1998 13:11:43 -0700 Harry, [...] "I think we all pretty much agree > that the one main ingredients needed in any community of > people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." - at > what cost? You seem to be entertaining means and methods > that I don't agree with. When in the entire life of the > nation has daily life been predictable? Oh, come on now, John. Surely you can understand that the indigenous population of Arlington, Gettysburg, or any other cemetary have entirely predictable daily lives? Slaves have pretty predictable daily lives. Prison life is pretty predictable. Concentration camp life is pretty predictable. Submit to oppression and you've got predictability. Turn over control of your life to the State, and life is predictable. [...] The first part of that quote is mine, to wit: "I think we all pretty much agree > that the one main ingredients needed in any community of > people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." Then you replied: [...] [...] > Oh, come on now, (ET). Surely you can understand This is outrageous. Please don't edit what I say and attribute your edited results to me. What I said was "Oh, come on now, John. Surely you can understand..." I said "John", I meant "John". [...] And, as I said, Harry, if you're going to eves drop, pay attention. And then there is this little gem: [...] You're a fine one to be piously accusing others of putting words in people's mouths, or quoting out of context! [...] Please, if you would, quailify that last statement with your proof. I'm waiting . . . And, oh yes! This: [...] As to being psychotic, I will take you at your word. As to the second part, no. What you know about what I know wouldn't fill a thimble. [...] My! Such arrogance! Popery even. Do tell, Harry, do you profess absolute knowledge too? [...] Even so, it would be helpful if you would try to work with the words, not your fantasies. Where there is only a distinction in degree, you fail to establish a distinction in substance. [...] Really? [...] Hamilton and the Federalists prevailed, and got the Constitution: the most famous use of the words "domestic tranquility" are in the Preamble to the Constitution, and Hamilton sure as hell wanted the elite few to be in charge of "ensuring domestic tranquility". Jefferson was in Paris and came back startled to find his vision of "domestic tranquility" so perverted, perceived the threat to individual liberty, and became the arch-foe of the Federalists' goals. [...] My point precisely. [...] Hey. Pollyanna. Get out, get around, meet some people. As an egregious and contemporary example, Slick and his Host of Whores have been in DC for nearly 6 years now. Pull your head out of whatever kitty litter you've had it buried in. [...] That was a most undeserved remark. Obviously, you have a real problem treating others to just a modicum of respect. Not once, Harry, did I attack you. The above BullShit is just that, and it stinks as such. If you can't remark in a decently respectable fashion, maybe you shouldn't remark at all. [...] Do try to eschew obfuscation. [...] Yes, please do. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 28 Mar 1998 15:45:45 -0800 (PST) On Sat, 28 Mar 1998, E.J. Totty wrote: > Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:11:43 -0700 > From: "E.J. Totty" > Reply-To: roc@lists.xmission.com > To: roc@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) > > Harry, > > [...] > "I think we all pretty much agree > > that the one main ingredients needed in any community of > > people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." - at > > what cost? You seem to be entertaining means and methods > > that I don't agree with. When in the entire life of the > > nation has daily life been predictable? > > Oh, come on now, John. Surely you can understand that the indigenous > population of Arlington, Gettysburg, or any other cemetary have > entirely predictable daily lives? Slaves have pretty predictable daily > lives. Prison life is pretty predictable. Concentration camp life is > pretty predictable. Submit to oppression and you've got > predictability. Turn over control of your life to the State, and life > is predictable. > [...] > > The first part of that quote is mine, to wit: > "I think we all pretty much agree > > that the one main ingredients needed in any community of > > people is the aspect of predictability in daily lives." > > Then you replied: > [...] > [...] > > Oh, come on now, (ET). Surely you can understand > This is outrageous. > Please don't edit what I say and attribute your edited > results to me. What I said was "Oh, come on now, John. > Surely you can understand..." > > I said "John", I meant "John". > [...] > > And, as I said, Harry, if you're going to eves drop, > pay attention. Hell, you can't even pay attention and get it wrong a second time. John, as you quote above, quite clearly said: "When in the entire life of the nation has daily life been predictable?" I answered John's question with examples. Apparently sardonicism is beyond your ken. Sheesh. > > > And then there is this little gem: > [...] > You're a fine one to be piously accusing others of > putting words in people's mouths, or quoting out of context! > [...] > > Please, if you would, quailify that last statement > with your proof. > I'm waiting . . . As to the "quoting out of context", you accused me of it in the very posting I replied to. You have in the recent past, alleged that others put words in your mouth. I neither kept the posting, nor really give a damn about your demand for proof. All in the audience know of it. > > > And, oh yes! This: > [...] > As to being psychotic, I will take you at your word. > As to the second part, no. What you know about what > I know wouldn't fill a thimble. > [...] > > My! Such arrogance! Popery even. > Do tell, Harry, do you profess absolute knowledge too? Oh, no, I never claimed to profess absolute knowledge. In that respect, I'm clearly not in your league. I just simply repeat: "What you know about what I know wouldn't fill a thimble." How you get from that statement to whatever you think is "popery" is clearly beyond my meager knowledge. > > > [...] > Even so, it would be helpful if you would try to work > with the words, not your fantasies. Where there is only a > distinction in degree, you fail to establish a distinction in substance. > [...] > > Really? > > [...] > Hamilton and the Federalists prevailed, and got the > Constitution: the most famous use of the words "domestic > tranquility" are in the Preamble to the Constitution, and > Hamilton sure as hell wanted the elite few to be in charge of > "ensuring domestic tranquility". Jefferson was in > Paris and came back startled to find his vision of "domestic > tranquility" so perverted, perceived the threat to individual liberty, > and became the arch-foe of the Federalists' goals. > [...] > > My point precisely. I doubt it. Precisely. > > [...] > Hey. Pollyanna. Get out, get around, meet some people. > > As an egregious and contemporary example, Slick and his Host of Whores > have been in DC for nearly 6 years now. Pull your head out of whatever > kitty litter you've had it buried in. > [...] > > That was a most undeserved remark. Undeserved? Anybody that reaches adulthood and can seriously say with a straight face, "But I have never anticipated that anyone would deprive anoyone else of their just ownership of anything," as you did, is living proof that the good Lord protects drunks and fools. Do you have liquor on your breath? > Obviously, you have a real problem treating others to > just a modicum of respect. Tolerance you deserve, within limits. Respect you have to earn. Speak as to your own experience and don't generalize. "Others" disagree. You sow what you reap. Don't like it? Tough. Learn to live with it. At some point in this thread, a point which I no longer have, you claimed to be an advocate/adherent of Libertarianism, then embarked within the same posting on emotional arguments/demands for High Tariff and Protectionism, without reconciling the hypocrisy. Somehow, respect for such a contradictory position is beyond my capability to respect. You are either a hypocrite, or you are stringing words together without a clue as to what they mean. If you did not do either of these, then I have mistaken you for someone else, and I sincerely apologize for confusing you with whoever did do that. > > Not once, Harry, did I attack you. Oh? You sure fooled me. > If you can't remark in a decently respectable fashion, maybe you > shouldn't remark at all. said Caiphas. So I have gone from being the omniscient Pope to being a disrespectful Knave? My, my. Life sure is unpredictable, isn't it? I will say what I please. Deal with it, or not, as you please. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 29 Mar 1998 06:51:20 -0700 Harry, [...] Undeserved? Anybody that reaches adulthood and can seriously say with a straight face, "But I have never anticipated that anyone would deprive anoyone else of their just ownership of anything," as you did, is living proof that the good Lord protects drunks and fools. Do you have liquor on your breath? [...] I can't believe this. I make an honest statement that I (myself) would never anticipate depriving someone else that which is justly theirs, and you have the fucking nerve to make your retort? Where the hell do you get off at? If there are any fools - or drunks, on this list, Harry, quite obviously you occupy both slots. And as far as what anyone else thinks about my comments, let _them_ speak for themselves. So far the "audience" has been quiet. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Yet Another Gun Control Poll (Please Vote) (fwd) Date: 29 Mar 1998 14:04:58 PST On Mar 29, David Wisniewski wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Guns in America: Should Americans have the right to keep and bear (concealed) arms? http://www.VOTELINK.COM/test/questions/politics/monday5_vot.html As of 3/29 @ 2:50pm EST Yes: 63% Uncertain: 2% No: 33: Out of 223 votes As Billy C. says, vote early, vote often. -- David Wisniewski **FOR SALE: EGW 38 Super Caspian IPSC Open w/ 8 mags** davidwiz@erols.com USPSA/IPSC A-28835 http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/9884/index.html Dillon Blue Press Articles: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/9884/bp_Index.html What is past is prologue [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #78 (fwd) Date: 29 Mar 1998 14:04:14 PST On Mar 29, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia March 29, 1998 #78 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html FOR A MORE PERFECT POLICE STATE For those of us interested in the growth of=20 police powers and how they are used by government to=20 achieve strict social and political control, authoritative=20 information is now available. We were recently provided=20 a very enlightening report titled: "An Appraisal of=20 Technologies of Political Control." The report discusses some very sensitive=20 topics, such as the growth of policing powers,=20 militarization of the police, worldwide convergence of=20 nearly all technologies of political control, new arrest=20 and restraint methods, surveillance devices, and human=20 recognition and tracking devices. There is also a very=20 interesting section on the chemical, kinetic and=20 electrical devices used for crowd control. And, rounding=20 out the report is a section on the use of more powerful=20 restraint, torture, killing and execution, and the role of=20 privatized enterprise in promoting it. This is very scary stuff! Unfortunately=20 though, an American reader will quickly realize this is=20 not science fiction, but rather that most of it represents=20 the present "state of the art" law enforcement practice=20 within the United States. The report is published by the European=20 Parliament, Directorate General for Research, Directorate=20 B, The STOA (Scientific and Technological Options=20 Assessment) Programme, and is directed to Members of the=20 European Parliament. But, don't let that fool you. Most=20 of the equipment and techniques described in the report=20 were developed right here, in the United States. Much of=20 this stuff was developed via military contract, by=20 direction of our Department of Justice. One major benefit=20 of this report is that it identifies the exact origin of=20 all equipment and techniques described, as well as their=20 effectiveness in actual field use. Below is the official abstract of the report. =20 British spelling was not changed. We should also note=20 that the words "political control," as used herein, mean=20 people control by the use of force: The objectives of this report are fourfold: =20 (i) to provide Members of the European Parliament with a=20 guide to recent advances in the technology of political=20 control; (ii) to identify, analyse and describe the=20 current state of the art of the most salient developments; =20 (iii) to present members with an account of current=20 trends, both in Europe and Worldwide; and (iv) to develop=20 policy recommendations covering regulatory strategies for=20 their management and future control. The report contains seven substantive sections=20 which cover respectively: (i) The role and function of the technology of=20 political control; (ii) Recent trends and innovations (including=20 the implications of globalisation, militarisation of=20 police equipment, convergence of control systems deployed=20 worldwide and the implications of increasing technology=20 and decision drift); (iii) Developments in surveillance technology=20 (including the emergence of new forms of local, national=20 and international communications interceptions networks=20 and the creation of human recognition and tracking=20 devices); (iv) Innovations in crowd control weapons=20 (including the evolution of a 2nd. generation of so called=20 'less-lethal weapons' from nuclear labs in the USA). (v) The emergence of prisoner control as a=20 privatised industry, whilst state prisons face increasing=20 pressure to substitute technology for staff in cost=20 cutting exercises and the social and political=20 implications of replacing policies of rehabilitation with=20 strategies of human warehousing. (v) The use of science and technology to=20 devise new efficient mark-free interrogation and torture=20 technologies and their proliferation from the US & Europe. (vi) The implications of vertical and=20 horizontal proliferation of this technology and the need=20 for an adequate political response by the EU, to ensure=20 it neither threatens civil liberties in Europe, nor=20 reaches the hands of tyrants. The report makes a series of policy=20 recommendations including the need for appropriate codes=20 of practice. It ends by proposing specific areas where=20 further research is needed to make such regulatory=20 controls effective. The report includes a comprehensive=20 bibliographical survey of some of the most relevant=20 literature. Taken as a whole, the report accurately=20 describes a phenomena we find throughout the United=20 States: the proliferation of paramilitary assault teams=20 used for everyday police work. "It is argued that one=20 impact of this process is the militarization of the police=20 and the para-militarization of the army as their roles,=20 equipment and procedures begin to overlap," the report=20 states. And, as rogue segments of our U.S. Army practice=20 live-fire attacks on our civilian population, we see that=20 to be exactly true. Furthermore, they found that 46% of American=20 SWAT team members are prior military. We might also=20 add that many others received military training after=20 joining SWAT teams. SWAT teams are, therefore, military=20 assault teams -- albeit, not usually active, on-duty=20 members of the armed forces, per se. This report is must reading for anyone still=20 believing in our United States Constitution, the rule of=20 law, and those things we once called the "American way" of=20 life. Because, if we do not quickly put a stop to this=20 "political control" of the people by brute force of arms,=20 all freedom is lost. We will have developed into little=20 more than a very efficient police state. The full report can be found at: =20 http://jya.com/stoa-atpc.htm =20 KILLING WITHOUT COMPULSION Here come the sniveling socialists, like=20 Chuck Schumer, out of the woodwork to again blame a class=20 of inanimate objects for the actions of amoral humans. =20 What they conveniently discount is how the actions of=20 their ilk have worked to pollute the minds of some of=20 America's young. When I was young, there were gunfights in=20 movies and (later) on television. It just took the drama=20 of half of the program to set it up. Nowadays, they=20 sometimes kill off 20 people in the advertisement of a=20 movie or TV program. How did all this carnage become=20 acceptable as entertainment? Unfortunately, I remember=20 all too well how it started becoming acceptable. When I was discharged from the Army, I was=20 unbelievably overjoyed about getting back to the real=20 world. I was also happy to get home with all my body=20 parts still attached, as I knew a few who were not quite=20 so lucky. Big man that I was, I thought I was shockproof=20 back then. We saw it all, I thought. Nothing would=20 bother me again; and so on, and so on, and so on. . . . I was so very, very wrong! One day, a couple weeks after doing all the=20 family and friends tour, drinking up a storm, and=20 otherwise carrying on, I started settling down. And, with=20 that, I caught a bit of television. There they were. My comrades in arms. Right=20 there, on the damn television! Then, I saw that the NBC=20 cameraman was doing his best to show dead, mangled and=20 otherwise damaged American military personal. Right=20 there! On my new 21 inch color television. Right on the=20 evening news! For all to see, at dinnertime. I was stunned! Outraged! And I damn near shot=20 my new television. As I later learned, this had been going on for=20 quite some time. And, it continued for a few more years. =20 Dead and damaged people, body counts (all lies), every=20 night at dinnertime. Not just NBC, but ABC and CBS, too. America was not necessarily traumatized from=20 that. Rather, a whole segment of America became=20 desensitized, and used to seeing it every night at=20 dinnertime. Mothers, fathers and children watched napalm=20 and other bombs in action. They learned the body counts,=20 saw the dead bodies and the wounded, and they all=20 continued right on eating dinner. Those children are now today's parents. And=20 still today, the evening news producers attempt to show=20 the worst possible carnage they can find anywhere in the=20 world, in living color, at dinnertime, even though they=20 know the kids are watching. They cannot say that people=20 were killed without showing dead bodies -- the more the=20 better. And it's no surprise that many of today's parents=20 have no compulsion about allowing their children to watch=20 this stuff on the evening news; they grew up with worse. Many of today's parents would not want their=20 child to view an attractive human body that was unclothed. =20 But for some reason, allowing youngsters to see humans=20 mangled and/or killed by unnatural acts seems to be=20 acceptable news programming. There is a point to all this, and it is a very simple=20 point: We (all of us) have allowed the progressive- socialists among us to dictate much of what we see and=20 hear as acceptable. Natural acts should be acceptable,=20 even though all natural acts should not be dwelled upon=20 by youngsters. However, murder, maiming, assault and=20 battery, and other crimes against people, should never be=20 depicted as normal behavior to our young. So, OK, the news media does not show crimes=20 against people as acceptable. They do, however, purposely=20 depict all the gory details as common, everyday sights. =20 Night after night, for the past 30 years, the news media=20 has consistently played all the blood and guts it could=20 get. The children of 30 years ago saw it every night, and=20 so do the children of today. And, that's just on the news=20 at dinnertime. Forget the movies and the music videos. Children are continuously in a learning mode. =20 They try new things, which normally tries the nerves of=20 adults. When children try a dangerous or disrespectful=20 thing, it requires swift correction from an adult. =20 Liberals, however, try to tell us that youngsters are to=20 find their own way by trial and error. Well, if you're a=20 parent, think about that for a while. That's stupid! For instance, I have trained dozens of children=20 on the proper care and use of firearms. And, there was=20 never any doubt by any child that, if they ever pointed a=20 weapon in an inappropriate manner, they would quickly get=20 smacked by me. Some got smacked, but never more than=20 twice. To teach shooting requires a lot more than=20 just how to hit a target. As we see by the news, a few=20 of today's young people think that anything that moves is=20 a good target. Including people. They were taught to=20 shoot. But, they didn't learn respect. Now, instead of=20 getting smacked up side the head a couple times, they'll=20 get prison. This presents a problem in today's world. =20 Liberals do not wish us to discipline children anymore. =20 Therefore, some schools border on anarchy. The "board=20 of education" is no longer applied where appropriate. =20 Hence, we often see the results of a lack of respect and a=20 decline of honor. Was the killing of children and teachers the=20 fault of the guns the amoral kids in Arkansas ripped off=20 from grampa? No! Of course not. It does, however,=20 relate to our desensitized outlook on carnage. And it=20 most certainly is related to our propensity for treating=20 young adults as if they were well trained adults. In the United States, a gun is a mode of self=20 defense. Any person using it differently (hunting game=20 excepted), should receive a significant "smack" upside the=20 head by anyone around. Not teaching young people the=20 proper respect for both the tool in hand and the people=20 nearby is purely and simply negligence. No person in the United States has a license=20 to shoot humans. If they think they do, they are no=20 better than these kids in Arkansas: amoral killers. And,=20 that is exactly why Ruby Ridge and Waco must be revisited=20 by the justice system -- as soon as we get one that works. REAL STRAIGHT TALK The weekly column, "Texas Straight Talk," by=20 Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) cannot be published during the=20 campaign season. However, as we indicated earlier,=20 because we neither know Rep. Paul nor live in his=20 district, that rule does not apply to us. Had the "Texas Straight Talk" been able to=20 publish, the text below would have been included in the=20 March 23, 1998 issue. It's not often that Members of Congress have=20 the opportunity to take a vote which clearly states the=20 intent of the Congress to either follow or not follow the=20 Constitution. A vote which is not tethered to pork-barrel=20 spending, special-interest giveaways or political land=20 mines. Such a vote came up last week. Of course, when one sees the results of such a=20 vote -- when it finally comes around -- it is enough to=20 make a decent American blush, and then get very angry=20 at the immorality of our elected officials. Casting votes on the basis of constitutionality=20 is not about a political ideology, it is about basic=20 morality. The moral choice is between following the rule=20 of law or the whims of man. The rule of law gives us=20 liberty, freedom and civilized society, while the whims of=20 man gives us holocausts, confiscatory economic policies=20 and pointless wars. Sadly, though, our representatives and senators,=20 and our presidents, seem intent on following something=20 other than the rule of law. They hide behind pragmatism,=20 behind political expediency, behind the claim to be doing=20 the "will of the people." But the rule of law is about=20 doing what is right and moral, not about what the mob --=20 even if it is a mob of one with the government guns behind=20 it -- might desire at the moment. Of course, the law -- the Constitution -- is=20 inconvenient for those who want to use taxpayer dollars=20 to expand their pet causes or political ambitions. The=20 politics of unconstitutionality knows no partisan=20 boundaries in Washington, which accounts for the=20 continuing upward trend of taxes, regulations, spending=20 and, of course, pork. And so last week there came before Congress=20 legislation stating that Congress and Congress alone has=20 the power to declare war and commit troops into situations=20 of hostility -- as defined and clearly stated in the=20 Constitution. It further stated that if troops are to=20 remain in Bosnia, then Congress should take a vote=20 declaring a state of war. Absent a declaration of war,=20 according to this legislation if it had passed, the troops=20 should be home in 60 days. This was a vote on whether or not this=20 Congress, was going to vote in support of what the=20 Constitution specifically mandates on the issue of=20 military action and commitment of American troops to=20 hostile environments. No policies would change, just a=20 statement of principle upholding the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on this and=20 every other subject. The Constitution, the highest law of=20 the land, defines what the federal government, and the=20 three branches of the federal government, can and cannot=20 do. Everything else, according to the law, the=20 Constitution, is "reserved" to the states and the people. At the core, every vote is a constitutional vote. =20 US Representative and, later, Texas Alamo hero David=20 Crockett, once quoted a constituent, saying, "The=20 Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred,=20 and rigidly observed in all its provisions=85 The people=20 have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the=20 power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized=20 to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. =20 Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of=20 the Constitution=85 It is a precedent fraught with danger=20 to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch=20 its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is=20 no limit to it, and no security for the people." Sadly, 225 Members of Congress chose to=20 ignore the Constitution and forfeit their constitutional- required role in foreign affairs. They had the=20 opportunity to vote in accordance with the most basic,=20 most clearly defined section of the Constitution to which=20 they pledged an oath to uphold, and yet 225 of the 435=20 representatives chose to not follow the rule of law, but=20 to allow the whims of man to prevail. When Congress so clearly votes against the=20 Constitution a dangerous precedent is indeed set, and as=20 Mr. Crockett warned, nothing is safe from the grasp of=20 the politicians. Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas=20 in the United States House. He can be contacted at his=20 Washington office, 203 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515,=20 or at his web site (www.house.gov/paul/). It appears that Ron Paul is about to have=20 another tough race. Not because the people don't like=20 him. They do. It's the political establishment that is=20 lining up against him. Simply put, most politicians do=20 not want a Member of Congress who supports our=20 Constitution. Do you? If so, do something. CHANGING NAFTA We have all heard of many problems with=20 NAFTA. Yet, the administration and most of their=20 sycophants in the national media keep telling us the=20 agreement is just great for business. And, NAFTA may=20 actually be good for business. But, only if you happen to=20 be a multi-billion dollar milti-national business. The=20 problem is, most American businesses do not fall into that=20 catagory. So, it was with great interest that we read the=20 "findings" section of a new bill titled the "NAFTA=20 Accountability Act" -- HR-978. The bill was introduced=20 in the House by Rep Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and currently=20 has 91 cosponsors. Sec. 2. Findings. The Congress makes the following findings: (1) EXPANDED MARKETS- One of the purposes=20 of NAFTA, as stated in its preamble, is to 'create an=20 expanded and secure market' for United States goods and=20 services. Instead, NAFTA has resulted in an enormous=20 increase in imports to the United States from Mexico and=20 Canada and a spiraling trade deficit with Mexico and=20 Canada that has exceeded $30,000,000,000 in both 1995 and=20 1996. Before NAFTA, the United States had a $1,700,000,000=20 trade surplus with Mexico. Rather than harmonious=20 development and expansion in all 3 NAFTA countries as=20 envisioned, NAFTA has resulted in United States trade=20 deficits which are draining $2,500,000,000 a month from=20 the United States economy and causing greater economic=20 instability in Mexico. (2) CURRENCY STABILITY- One of the=20 purposes of NAFTA, as stated in its preamble, is to=20 'ensure a predictable commercial framework for business=20 planning and investment'. However, NAFTA contains no=20 safeguards to minimize the negative economic impacts of=20 severe shifts in currency exchange rates among the NAFTA=20 Parties. Mexico's sudden devaluation of its peso in=20 December 1994 has more than offset tariff reductions and=20 other trade benefits the United States expected to achieve=20 from the agreement. The dollar-peso exchange rate when=20 NAFTA passed was 1:3.5. It is now approximately 1:8 and=20 is not expected to return to its previous value. Indeed,=20 economic experts are stating that conditions are building=20 for another severe Mexican currency crisis. (3) JOBS, WAGES, AND LIVING STANDARDS - =20 One of the purposes of NAFTA, as stated in its preamble, is=20 to 'create new employment opportunities and improve=20 working conditions and living standards' in the respective=20 territories of the NAFTA Parties. Instead, there has been=20 a substantial loss of a half million high paying jobs in=20 the United States. A survey of United States companies=20 conducted 3 years after the implementation of NAFTA found=20 that 90 percent of the companies that had anticipated=20 creating United States jobs through NAFTA have, in fact,=20 not created jobs because of NAFTA. In the first 3 years=20 of NAFTA's implementation, United States workers have seen=20 steady drops in real hourly wages. In Mexico employment=20 in the border Maquiladora zone has increased by more than=20 46 percent under NAFTA. However, Mexico has seen much=20 greater job losses in the agricultural, small retail, and=20 small industrial sectors. Thus, more than 2,000,000=20 workers have become unemployed in Mexico since the=20 implementation of NAFTA, and real wages of Mexican=20 workers have been slashed 50 percent. (4) MANUFACTURING BASE- One of the purposes=20 of NAFTA is to enhance the competitiveness of firms in the=20 global market. However, rather than increase the ability=20 of the manufacturing sector in the United States to=20 compete in the world market, NAFTA has facilitated the=20 movement of United States manufacturing facilities and=20 jobs to Mexico. NAFTA has contributed to a net loss of=20 approximately 400,000 manufacturing jobs in the United=20 States and an unprecedented flood of imports of=20 manufactured goods into the United States. (5) HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT- Other=20 purposes of NAFTA, as stated in its preamble, are 'to=20 safeguard the public welfare' and 'to strengthen the=20 development and enforcement of environmental laws and=20 regulations'. Yet, since the implementation of NAFTA, the=20 public welfare has been undermined by increased imports=20 of food products that do not meet United States health=20 standards. In addition, NAFTA has accelerated the=20 relocation of United States manufacturing facilities to=20 the United States-Mexico border zone. Without adequate=20 environmental safeguards, the uncontrolled industrial and=20 population growth in the border zone has aggravated=20 pollution and health hazards, increasing the incidence of=20 infectious diseases and human exposure to toxins. We cannot find anything to disagree with there. =20 We can, however, add a couple things. For instance, about=20 half of those thousands of large trucks entering the=20 United States every day from Mexico do not even come close=20 to meeting our safety standards -- nor do many of the=20 drivers. How many Americans need get killed on our=20 highways before that is changed? Few of the trucks entering the United States=20 from Mexico are inspected for anything, let alone safety. =20 So, Mexico's largest industry is now illegal drugs. =20 Illegal drugs which, of course, are all shipped here for=20 sale on our streets. -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: Yet Another Gun Control Poll (Please Vote) (fwd) Date: 29 Mar 1998 19:29:48 -0500 Just checked and it's 93% yes, vs 5% no out of 1396 votes. Keep it up! Tom At 02:04 PM 3/29/98 PST, you wrote: >On Mar 29, David Wisniewski wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >Guns in America: Should Americans have the right to keep and bear (concealed) arms? > >http://www.VOTELINK.COM/test/questions/politics/monday5_vot.html > >As of 3/29 @ 2:50pm EST >Yes: 63% >Uncertain: 2% >No: 33: >Out of 223 votes > >As Billy C. says, vote early, vote often. > >-- >David Wisniewski **FOR SALE: EGW 38 Super Caspian IPSC Open w/ 8 mags** >davidwiz@erols.com USPSA/IPSC A-28835 > >http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/9884/index.html > >Dillon Blue Press Articles: >http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/9884/bp_Index.html > > What is past is prologue > >[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** >----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- >An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no >weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his >hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a >on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ >----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > >- > > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Yet Another Gun Control Poll (Please Vote) (fwd) Date: 29 Mar 1998 17:18:52 -0800 At 02:04 PM 3/29/98 PST, you wrote: >On Mar 29, David Wisniewski wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >Guns in America: Should Americans have the right to keep and bear (concealed) arms? > >http://www.VOTELINK.COM/test/questions/politics/monday5_vot.html > >As of 3/29 @ 2:50pm EST >Yes: 63% >Uncertain: 2% >No: 33: >Out of 223 votes There are some other interesting votes at the same site. Here's another one: Should the two Arkansas school-yard killers, ages 11 and 13, be tried as adults or children? http://www.votelink.com/test/questions/Teen/monday5_vot.html Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "President Clinton is lucky most Americans lack the time to don hip waders and trudge through the hundreds of pages of sworn testimony in the Paula Jones case. They'd learn the case is about sex only in the sense that "Titanic" is about an iceberg. What's really scary is the progression from sex to thuggery." Wall Street Journal Editorial - March 27, 1998 Proud member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" since 1992! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FLC - Why Drinking and Driving Should not be a Crime: Version 2 (fwd) Date: 29 Mar 1998 17:52:20 PST Some interesting points about Prior Restraint and Freedom, with some application here, from Britain's Arch Libertarian. On Mar 30, Sean Gabb wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Free Life Commentary Editor: Sean Gabb Issue Number Fifteen 28th March 1998 ========================== "Over himself, over his own mind and body, the individual is sovereign" (J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859) ========================== Why Drinking and Driving Should not be a Crime: Version 2 by Sean Gabb Introduction Last December, I devoted issue number seven of Free Life Commentary to explaining why drinking and driving should not be a crime. I am now returning to this theme. I do so not because I am short of material. Being a libertarian activist in modern England is rather like getting to the top level in one of the more violent computer games: you are running low on ammunition and energy, and the enemy is rushing at you from all directions in greatly increased numbers. My reason is that I seem to be winning this argument. For the past three years, I have been the only person in the country willing to go on air and oppose the general hysteria over drinking and driving. My media database records 25 appearances since November 1994, most of them against spokesmen from the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving. This is a movement run by people for whom I have much respect. Unlike the sordid liars of the anti-tobacco lobby, men like Ron Jessup and Graham Buxton believe what they are saying. In various ways, they have been made to suffer by drunken drivers, and their object is to reduce the chances that others will suffer as they have. For this reason, I am always polite to them. With the exception of someone called Harry Capes, who fell to insulting me last Wednesday evening on a BBC Radio programme called Late Night North, they are polite to me. And they are losing. During the past few months, they have been less confident in their arguments than they used to be. Sensing this, the programme hosts have started putting difficult questions of their own. Of course, winning an argument does not lead immediately to changes in the law. If it did, drugs would have been relegalised a long time ago, and handguns would never have been banned in the first place. Where drinking and driving is concerned, there are too many vested interests to overcome, and too great a mass of prejudice built up in the public mind. Even so, unless the argument is won, there can be no prospect of changes in the law. Being just one person, without any burning commitment in the issue, and without a penny of funding, I think I can be proud of what I have done. For this reason, I feel inclined to share my latest thoughts on drinking and driving with the thousand direct subscribers to Free Life Commentary and with the further but unknown thousands who read me on the newsgroups and discussion lists. Drinking and Driving: What I Believe I do not approve of drinking and driving. A motor car in careless hands is a very dangerous thing; and though I doubt some claims about the degree of impairment, I do accept that drivers who drink beyond a certain level become careless. I never drink and drive. Those drivers who lack my sense of responsibility earn my contempt. Those who go on to cause damage to the lives and property of others earn my utter condemnation. My disagreement with the established point of view lies not in whether drinking and driving ought to be deterred. It lies instead over the means by which deterrence ought to be achieved. Deterrence by Prior Restraint For at least the past 30 years, deterrence has lain in prior restraint - in the setting and enforcing of strict upper limits on how much alcohol someone may drink before getting into a car. The present limit - pardon the metricism - is 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, or about two English pints of beer at normal strength. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Police have the right to test any driver who has been lawfully stopped. This obviously covers drivers who have been involved in an accident. It also covers those who have been stopped on suspicion of any offence. Turning to punishments, the normal penalty for driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of drink or drugs is six months imprisonment, or a fine up to level 5, or both. Disqualification and endorsement are obligatory unless "special reasons" are adduced in court. And the vehicle may be forfeited. For being in charge of a vehicle while over the limit - this may mean having been caught at the wheel of a stationary car with the keys in the ignition - the maximum penalty is three months imprisonment, or a fine, or both. Deterrence by Punishment I disagree with this entire approach. If I had my way, drinking and driving would not in itself be a crime. It would be possible for a person to drink a bottle of whisky, get into a car and drive away - and the authorities would have no power to stop this. Punishment would only come if an accident was caused. But it would then be very severe punishment. There would be no more of those cases we read about in the newspapers, where a driver kills three children on a zebra crossing, tests at three times above the legal limit, and gets away with a one year driving ban and a suspended sentence. I want to see the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 applied to traffic accidents. Causing death by dangerous driving would then not carry a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment plus fine, as it now does. it would instead be classified as negligent homicide, or manslaughter, the maximum penalty for which is imprisonment for life. Where sufficiently gross negligence could be proved, I would see the offence classified as murder, for which imprisonment for life is now the mandatory punishment - and for which I would like to see the death penalty restored. In this scheme of deterrence, drivers would still be tested for alcohol after an accident. But they would be tested only after an accident, and a positive result could only be used as evidence in a prosecution for crimes against life or property to prove the degree of negligence, and therefore to determine the level of punishment. The Success of Prior Restraint It may be asked what benefit would be gained from substituting my scheme for the one already in place. After all, prior restraint does appear to have worked. I have before me the Drinking and Driving Statistics issued in September 1997 by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. These show that in 1979, there were 1,643 "fatal casualties in accidents where one driver or rider was over the legal limit". By 1985, this number had fallen to 1,040, by 1990 to 760, and by 1996 to 540. Since then, it has almost certainly fallen again. Some of this reduction may be due to the public awareness campaigns. Much of it, though, must be due to the fear of punishment if caught over the limit in charge of a car. The Costs of Prior Restraint The answer is that criminal laws are not to be judged simply in terms of the benefits derived from them. We need also to look at the costs they impose. Laws that on first inspection seem beneficial often turn out on balance to be far less so. This is the case with prior restraint in drinking and driving. It has succeeded in forcing down the number of alcohol-related road deaths. But it has done so at costs that are both exorbitant and unnecessary. Consider: First, the present law is in itself a breach of this country's liberal traditions, and is conducive to further breaches. To be stopped, on no probable cause, and forced to explain ourselves to the authorities - and even sometimes to provide specimens from our own bodies for inspection and recording -is a violation of our liberty. Until a time still within living memory, the Common Law was emphatic in its prohibition of searches and seizures, except by judicial warrant and on evidence of some specific criminal behaviour. The Road Traffic Acts abolish this prohibition partly by defining as crimes behaviour that is not an attack on life or property, and partly by encouraging indiscriminate searches to uncover such behaviour. The Acts may disallow drivers from being stopped without probable cause. Plainly, however, drivers are so stopped. Of the 781,000 breath tests administered in England and Wales during 1996, 87 per cent - that is, 680,000 - were negative. The overwhelming majority of these must have been victims of some unofficial policy to stop every tenth car, or every blue car, or every car with a number place ending in a vowel, or whatever. And this is an unavoidable consequence of the law. At the present alcohol limit, there is seldom any visible impairment of driving ability - indeed, most drink-related accidents are caused by drivers far in excess of the limit. For the law to be effectively enforced, the Police must stop drivers virtually at random. If the limit is lowered - as the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving is now demanding - the number of tests and the number proving negative must both rise still further. Moreover, once set, despotic precedents are always extended. The present law puts us to the authorities as a child is to its guardian. No matter how friendly, or efficient, or honest the enforcement may be, the law breaks us into the notion that we have a duty of accountability to the authorities, and that this is for our own good. But to be obliged to stop our cars and provide a specimen is no different in principle from being made to carry identity cards and produce them on demand, or having to provide a set of our house keys to the Police, so they can more easily check us from time to time to see if we are receiving stolen goods or hiding bodies under the floorboards - or from being electronically tagged, so the authorities can see where we are at any given time. In spite of having much reduced the number of alcohol-related road deaths, the present law is flatly in contradiction to a thousand years of English constitutional development. It is instead the mark of a police state. Second, the law involves a waste of the tax payers' money. Of those 680,000 negative tests in 1996, let us suppose that each one cost 10 of Police time. That brings a direct cost to the tax payers of nearly 7 million. Turning to waste less easily quantified, every officer assigned to looking for drivers over the limit is one officer fewer to catch real criminals. This is specially the case at Christmas, which has lately become carnival a time for burglars and muggers. There are fewer officers around to deter them, and fewer to go looking for them after the event. Third, the law has a double agenda, one open, the other hidden; and pursuit of the latter compromises pursuit of the former. Years of propaganda about the horrors of drinking and driving have tended to obscure the fact that alcohol is not the only cause of driving impairment. Rather as I have, most people have come to attach notions of extreme immorality to drinking before driving. Few such notions are attached to driving while tired or stressed, or after drinking lots of tea or coffee, or while in desperate need of a pee. Yet these are often at least as dangerous as driving slightly above the legal alcohol limit. And they are ignored. Even if some of these causes of accidents are naturally hard to measure, some effort could be made at least to acknowledge their existence. None is made. The spokesman for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions thought at first I was joking when I called last week to ask for statistics on caffeine-related road deaths. Then, after I had insisted, he came back with an explanation that no such statistics were gathered, and that there were no plans to start gathering them. This indicates that much of the propaganda against drinking and driving has nothing to do with reducing injuries to life and property, and everything to do with making it harder to enjoy a drink in good company. Macaulay once said of the 17th century puritans that they hated bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. His epigram applies equally well to the modern puritans, who bray about the horrors of driving after half a pint of lager while refusing even to consider the effects of half a gallon of black coffee. Now, if these were the unavoidable costs of preventing thousands of road deaths, there might be a case for the present law. Though it is not a case that I would accept, I could understand the willingness of others to accept it. But this is not so. People who reply to my talk about civil liberties with talk about the civil liberty to stay alive are missing the point. By returning to our old tradition of deterrence by punishment, exactly the same legitimate object could be achieved - of ensuring that drivers only took to the roads while in a reasonably fit state to drive. It could be done without turning the Police into a British Gestapo, and without stopping seven sober drivers in order to find one who is slightly over the limit - and without letting entirely just concerns about road safety be hijacked by closet prohibitionists. Objections I never get time to say all the above on air. That is the nature of broadcasting. But I usually do get the main points across. If they are not accepted, it is most often for two reasons: First, people often doubt if punishment after the event can have as much deterring power as prior restraint. I cannot say for sure that it would; and I am at a disadvantage in arguing against a scheme of deterrence that does work in spite of what I see as its high costs. Sometimes, I reply that people generally do avoid breaking laws where obedience does not involve going against fundamental desires or principles, and where the punishment is sufficiently heavy. Let causing death by dangerous driving be treated as manslaughter, and there would be no need of breathalysers and intoximeters. More often, I make the point indirectly. Whenever I do a call-in programme, there is always at least one tearful caller lined up to say: "I lost my sixteen year old daughter to a drunken driver. She was coming home after celebrating her exam results. What do you have to say about that?" My response is to ask what punishment this foul beast received. The answer commonly involves something about a 500 fine. My answer to this is to explain how under my scheme of deterrence, that driver would still be rotting in prison - or might even be rotting underground if I had my way with the restoration of the death penalty for murder. This always silences further questions of the same kind. I suspect it also satisfies most listeners. Second, many people cannot see the point in laws that only come into action after something terrible has already happened. As an extreme example, take Harry Capes of the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving. He came on air against me the other evening, and spent the last minute of the programme insisting over and over that I was "provoking" criminal acts with my view of what the law ought to be. He seemed genuinely outraged that I was denying any place for prior restraint. However, that is what the law must be like in a free country. It must be essentially passive. It must leave people to go about their business, free of inspection and control, and do nothing even when it is plain that some of them are up to no good. It must act only after a crime has been committed against life or property, and must then hit out very severely - so far as possible deterring the lawbreakers from misbehaving again by the weight of punishment, and deterring others from similar misbehaviour by the example of punishment. This is not terribly efficient, I grant. But the reason for that lies in the limited value of law. It is not a magic wand, able to solve whatever problem it is waved over. It is the immaterial equivalent of a baseball bat - effective, though best used not very often. To demand otherwise of the law - to insist on a role for it in preventing crimes - is to think like the citizen of a slave state. I have spent more time in waiting rooms and VIP lounges with spokesmen from the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving than I have in studios. In this time, I have discovered that they are not professional health fascists interested in advancing an agenda of control. They are ordinary people brought into public life by extraordinary misfortunes. One of them even shares my dislike of the European Union and its assault on our native traditions. This being so, I want to end by calling on the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving to continue its work by more British means. Instead of pressing for lower alcohol limits, let it seek an improvement in road safety by pressing for the recovery of freedom and responsibility. Instead of demanding "unfettered discretion" for the Police to enforce the commands of a European-style police state, let it demand a return to our old system of real punishments for real crimes in a free country. ========================== Free Life Commentary is an independent journal of comment, published on the Internet. To receive regular issues, send e-mail to Sean Gabb at old.whig@virgin.net Issues are archived at Contact Address: 25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London, SW1P 4NN; Telephone: 0181 858 0841 If you like Free Life Commentary, you may also care to subscribe to my longer, hard copy journal, Free Life, subscription details for which can be obtained by writing to me at the above address. ========================== Legal Notice: Though using the name Free Life, this journal is owned by me and not by the Libertarian Alliance, which in consequence bears no liability of whatever kind for the contents. -- Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own | E-mail: old.whig@virgin.net | mind and body, the individual| | is sovereign" | Mobile Number: 0956 472199 | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 | [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Subject: FLC - Why Drinking and Driving Should not be a Crime: Version 2 (fwd) Date: 29 Mar 1998 23:52:47 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Free Life Commentary =20 Editor: Sean Gabb Issue Number Fifteen 28th March 1998 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D "Over himself, over his own mind and body,=20 the individual is sovereign" (J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Why Drinking and Driving Should not be a Crime: Version 2 by Sean Gabb Introduction Last December, I devoted issue number seven of Free Life Commentary to explaining why drinking and driving should not be a crime. I am now returning to this theme. I do so not because I am short of material. Being a libertarian activist in modern England is rather like getting to the top level in one of the more violent computer games: you are running low on ammunition and energy, and the enemy is rushing at you from all directions in greatly increased numbers. My reason is that I seem to be winning this argument. For the past three years, I have been the only person in the country willing to go on air and oppose the general hysteria over drinking and driving. My media database records 25 appearances since November 1994, most of them against spokesmen from the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving. This is a movement run by people for whom I have much respect. Unlike the sordid liars of the anti-tobacco lobby, men like Ron Jessup and Graham Buxton believe what they are saying. In various ways, they have been made to suffer by drunken drivers, and their object is to reduce the chances that others will suffer as they have. For this reason, I am always polite to them. With the exception of someone called Harry Capes, who fell to insulting me last Wednesday evening on a BBC Radio programme called Late Night North, they are polite to me. And they are losing. During the past few months, they have been less confident in their arguments than they used to be. Sensing this, the programme hosts have started putting difficult questions of their own. Of course, winning an argument does not lead immediately to changes in the law. If it did, drugs would have been relegalised a long time ago, and handguns would never have been banned in the first place. Where drinking and driving is concerned, there are too many vested interests to overcome, and too great a mass of prejudice built up in the public mind. Even so, unless the argument is won, there can be no prospect of changes in the law. Being just one person, without any burning commitment in the issue, and without a penny of funding, I think I can be proud of what I have done. For this reason, I feel inclined to share my latest thoughts on drinking and driving with the thousand direct subscribers to Free Life Commentary and with the further but unknown thousands who read me on the newsgroups and discussion lists. Drinking and Driving: What I Believe I do not approve of drinking and driving. A motor car in careless hands is a very dangerous thing; and though I doubt some claims about the degree of impairment, I do accept that drivers who drink beyond a certain level become careless. I never drink and drive. Those drivers who lack my sense of responsibility earn my contempt. Those who go on to cause damage to the lives and property of others earn my utter condemnation. My disagreement with the established point of view lies not in whether drinking and driving ought to be deterred. It lies instead over the means by which deterrence ought to be achieved. Deterrence by Prior Restraint For at least the past 30 years, deterrence has lain in prior restraint - in the setting and enforcing of strict upper limits on how much alcohol someone may drink before getting into a car. The present limit - pardon the metricism - is 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, or about two English pints of beer at normal strength. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Police have the right to test any driver who has been lawfully stopped. This obviously covers drivers who have been involved in an accident. It also covers those who have been stopped on suspicion of any offence. Turning to punishments, the normal penalty for driving or attempting to drive while under the influence of drink or drugs is six months imprisonment, or a fine up to level 5, or both. Disqualification and endorsement are obligatory unless "special reasons" are adduced in court. And the vehicle may be forfeited. For being in charge of a vehicle while over the limit - this may mean having been caught at the wheel of a stationary car with the keys in the ignition - the maximum penalty is three months imprisonment, or a fine, or both. Deterrence by Punishment I disagree with this entire approach. If I had my way, drinking and driving would not in itself be a crime. It would be possible for a person to drink a bottle of whisky, get into a car and drive away - and the authorities would have no power to stop this. Punishment would only come if an accident was caused. But it would then be very severe punishment. There would be no more of those cases we read about in the newspapers, where a driver kills three children on a zebra crossing, tests at three times above the legal limit, and gets away with a one year driving ban and a suspended sentence. I want to see the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 applied to traffic accidents. Causing death by dangerous driving would then not carry a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment plus fine, as it now does. it would instead be classified as negligent homicide, or manslaughter, the maximum penalty for which is imprisonment for life. Where sufficiently gross negligence could be proved, I would see the offence classified as murder, for which imprisonment for life is now the mandatory punishment - and for which I would like to see the death penalty restored. In this scheme of deterrence, drivers would still be tested for alcohol after an accident. But they would be tested only after an accident, and a positive result could only be used as evidence in a prosecution for crimes against life or property to prove the degree of negligence, and therefore to determine the level of punishment. The Success of Prior Restraint It may be asked what benefit would be gained from substituting my scheme for the one already in place. After all, prior restraint does appear to have worked. I have before me the Drinking and Driving Statistics issued in September 1997 by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. These show that in 1979, there were 1,643 "fatal casualties in accidents where one driver or rider was over the legal limit". By 1985, this number had fallen to 1,040, by 1990 to 760, and by 1996 to 540. Since then, it has almost certainly fallen again. Some of this reduction may be due to the public awareness campaigns. Much of it, though, must be due to the fear of punishment if caught over the limit in charge of a car. The Costs of Prior Restraint The answer is that criminal laws are not to be judged simply in terms of the benefits derived from them. We need also to look at the costs they impose. Laws that on first inspection seem beneficial often turn out on balance to be far less so. This is the case with prior restraint in drinking and driving. It has succeeded in forcing down the number of alcohol-related road deaths. But it has done so at costs that are both exorbitant and unnecessary. Consider: First, the present law is in itself a breach of this country's liberal traditions, and is conducive to further breaches. To be stopped, on no probable cause, and forced to explain ourselves to the authorities - and even sometimes to provide specimens from our own bodies for inspection and recording -is a violation of our liberty. Until a time still within living memory, the Common Law was emphatic in its prohibition of searches and seizures, except by judicial warrant and on evidence of some specific criminal behaviour. The Road Traffic Acts abolish this prohibition partly by defining as crimes behaviour that is not an attack on life or property, and partly by encouraging indiscriminate searches to uncover such behaviour. The Acts may disallow drivers from being stopped without probable cause. Plainly, however, drivers are so stopped. Of the 781,000 breath tests administered in England and Wales during 1996, 87 per cent - that is, 680,000 - were negative. The overwhelming majority of these must have been victims of some unofficial policy to stop every tenth car, or every blue car, or every car with a number place ending in a vowel, or whatever. And this is an unavoidable consequence of the law. At the present alcohol limit, there is seldom any visible impairment of driving ability - indeed, most drink-related accidents are caused by drivers far in excess of the limit. For the law to be effectively enforced, the Police must stop drivers virtually at random. If the limit is lowered - as the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving is now demanding - the number of tests and the number proving negative must both rise still further. Moreover, once set, despotic precedents are always extended. The present law puts us to the authorities as a child is to its guardian. No matter how friendly, or efficient, or honest the enforcement may be, the law breaks us into the notion that we have a duty of accountability to the authorities, and that this is for our own good. But to be obliged to stop our cars and provide a specimen is no different in principle from being made to carry identity cards and produce them on demand, or having to provide a set of our house keys to the Police, so they can more easily check us from time to time to see if we are receiving stolen goods or hiding bodies under the floorboards - or from being electronically tagged, so the authorities can see where we are at any given time. In spite of having much reduced the number of alcohol-related road deaths, the present law is flatly in contradiction to a thousand years of English constitutional development. It is instead the mark of a police state. Second, the law involves a waste of the tax payers' money. Of those 680,000 negative tests in 1996, let us suppose that each one cost =9C10 of Police time. That brings a direct cost to the tax payers of nearly =9C7 million. Turning to waste less easily quantified, every officer assigned to looking for drivers over the limit is one officer fewer to catch real criminals. This is specially the case at Christmas, which has lately become carnival a time for burglars and muggers. There are fewer officers around to deter them, and fewer to go looking for them after the event. Third, the law has a double agenda, one open, the other hidden; and pursuit of the latter compromises pursuit of the former. Years of propaganda about the horrors of drinking and driving have tended to obscure the fact that alcohol is not the only cause of driving impairment. Rather as I have, most people have come to attach notions of extreme immorality to drinking before driving. Few such notions are attached to driving while tired or stressed, or after drinking lots of tea or coffee, or while in desperate need of a pee. Yet these are often at least as dangerous as driving slightly above the legal alcohol limit. And they are ignored. Even if some of these causes of accidents are naturally hard to measure, some effort could be made at least to acknowledge their existence. None is made. The spokesman for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions thought at first I was joking when I called last week to ask for statistics on caffeine-related road deaths. Then, after I had insisted, he came back with an explanation that no such statistics were gathered, and that there were no plans to start gathering them. This indicates that much of the propaganda against drinking and driving has nothing to do with reducing injuries to life and property, and everything to do with making it harder to enjoy a drink in good company. Macaulay once said of the 17th century puritans that they hated bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. His epigram applies equally well to the modern puritans, who bray about the horrors of driving after half a pint of lager while refusing even to consider the effects of half a gallon of black coffee. Now, if these were the unavoidable costs of preventing thousands of road deaths, there might be a case for the present law. Though it is not a case that I would accept, I could understand the willingness of others to accept it. But this is not so. People who reply to my talk about civil liberties with talk about the civil liberty to stay alive are missing the point. By returning to our old tradition of deterrence by punishment, exactly the same legitimate object could be achieved - of ensuring that drivers only took to the roads while in a reasonably fit state to drive. It could be done without turning the Police into a British Gestapo, and without stopping seven sober drivers in order to find one who is slightly over the limit - and without letting entirely just concerns about road safety be hijacked by closet prohibitionists. Objections I never get time to say all the above on air. That is the nature of broadcasting. But I usually do get the main points across. If they are not accepted, it is most often for two reasons: First, people often doubt if punishment after the event can have as much deterring power as prior restraint. I cannot say for sure that it would; and I am at a disadvantage in arguing against a scheme of deterrence that does work in spite of what I see as its high costs. Sometimes, I reply that people generally do avoid breaking laws where obedience does not involve going against fundamental desires or principles, and where the punishment is sufficiently heavy. Let causing death by dangerous driving be treated as manslaughter, and there would be no need of breathalysers and intoximeters. More often, I make the point indirectly. Whenever I do a call-in programme, there is always at least one tearful caller lined up to say: "I lost my sixteen year old daughter to a drunken driver. She was coming home after celebrating her exam results. What do you have to say about that?" My response is to ask what punishment this foul beast received. The answer commonly involves something about a =9C500 fine. My answer to this is to explain how under my scheme of deterrence, that driver would still be rotting in prison - or might even be rotting underground if I had my way with the restoration of the death penalty for murder. This always silences further questions of the same kind. I suspect it also satisfies most listeners. Second, many people cannot see the point in laws that only come into action after something terrible has already happened. As an extreme example, take Harry Capes of the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving. He came on air against me the other evening, and spent the last minute of the programme insisting over and over that I was "provoking" criminal acts with my view of what the law ought to be. He seemed genuinely outraged that I was denying any place for prior restraint. However, that is what the law must be like in a free country. It must be essentially passive. It must leave people to go about their business, free of inspection and control, and do nothing even when it is plain that some of them are up to no good. It must act only after a crime has been committed against life or property, and must then hit out very severely - so far as possible deterring the lawbreakers from misbehaving again by the weight of punishment, and deterring others from similar misbehaviour by the example of punishment. This is not terribly efficient, I grant. But the reason for that lies in the limited value of law. It is not a magic wand, able to solve whatever problem it is waved over. It is the immaterial equivalent of a baseball bat - effective, though best used not very often. To demand otherwise of the law - to insist on a role for it in preventing crimes - is to think like the citizen of a slave state. I have spent more time in waiting rooms and VIP lounges with spokesmen from the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving than I have in studios. In this time, I have discovered that they are not professional health fascists interested in advancing an agenda of control. They are ordinary people brought into public life by extraordinary misfortunes. One of them even shares my dislike of the European Union and its assault on our native traditions. This being so, I want to end by calling on the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving to continue its work by more British means. Instead of pressing for lower alcohol limits, let it seek an improvement in road safety by pressing for the recovery of freedom and responsibility. Instead of demanding "unfettered discretion" for the Police to enforce the commands of a European-style police state, let it demand a return to our old system of real punishments for real crimes in a free country. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Free Life Commentary is an independent journal of comment, published on the Internet. To receive regular issues, send=20 e-mail to Sean Gabb at old.whig@virgin.net Issues are archived at Contact Address: 25 Chapter Chambers,=20 Esterbrooke Street,=20 London, SW1P 4NN;=20 Telephone: 0181 858 0841 If you like Free Life Commentary, you may also care to subscribe to my longer, hard copy journal, Free Life, subscription details for which can be obtained by writing to me at the above address. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Legal Notice: Though using the name Free Life, this journal is owned by me and not by the Libertarian Alliance, which in consequence bears no liability of whatever kind for the contents. --=20 Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own | E-mail: old.whig@virgin.net | mind and body, the individual|=20 | is sovereign" | Mobile Number: 0956 472199 | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: TWA800: Major Meyer Speaks (fwd) Date: 30 Mar 1998 08:15:06 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Major Fred Meyer is a TWA 800 "missile witness" and veteran military pilot who says that the streak that he saw ended in an explosion that he says "was military ordnance." About TWA 800, he says in no uncertain terms: "somebody shot this aircraft down." At the following webpage you will find the transcript (thanks to Mike Hull) of a speech that Major Meyer gave to the Granada Forum: http://members.aol.com/bardonia/meyer.htm **************************************************************** VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________ TWA-800 CASE CORE --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm ________________________________________________________________ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 30 Mar 1998 10:08:11 -0500 (EST) >> Demanding that a corporation provide jobs... > >The language used, "demand", tells you from whence it derives and where >it's all going: Use of force or compulsion to achieve results. A >"free exchange" and "demand" are fundamentally different things. >"Demand" implies the use, or the threat of use, of force. > >Hardly a Libertarian principle. Yup, if you want predictability, and a placid existence, dead is the way to go. Of course, an out of control State is really the most reliable way of filling graveyards, at least by the evidence of this century. As a firm in-the-closet Libertarian, I don't think that hijacking the U.S. mechanism of State coercion (<- my new prefered language, it's crisp, it's precise, and its cuts out a lot of obfuscating bullshit) in order to guarantee everybody a job is a good deal. In fact, its a rotten deal, as it just adds more power to a guv that is already out of control and controlling record levels of private production. My real opinion is that the fact that self-described freedom lovers are asking for job protection is a measure of how deeply the pro-statist unspoken ideology has penetrated into our society. My grandfather was living in a simple frame house on the prairie, plowing fields with animal power. His father built a sod hut and lived in that for four years. Now we have an explosion of material goods. I know "poor" people with t.v.'s, cars, jobs, and apartments. I don't understand all the changes in attitude, it sure seems like difference in "opportunity" isn't really part of the equation. jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 30 Mar 1998 10:24:14 -0500 (EST) Mr Toty: I guess you have some secret method of distinquishing capitalists from capitalists who are pillaging, or whatever you regard as What really got me going was the phrase "needed killings". Like you're going to go out and decide who to kill, based upon your idea of what is and is not "good capitalism". This whole unbridled capitalism debate has been going on for a while and will probably go on forever. I don't know any hire today, fire tommorrow employers (except to some guy picking up wetbacks to go tend his lawn). My job is dependent upon the whim of my employer. People can and do get fired and laid off. Earth to E.J.: there isn't going to be a revolution! There might be some random violence, but the "revolutionaries" are about 15% Federal agents and 15% informers. Best case for the "revolution" is that it will be the L.A. riots in a redneck version. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 30 Mar 1998 10:29:22 -0500 (EST) Brad wrote: > >Anybody wants to move his factory or whatever to Mexico, Indonesia or >wherever, hey, that's ok with me. I just have a little trouble >understanding why my blue-collar neighbors and I should pay for a bailout >every time something goes wrong and - most especially - why we should have >to go get our butts shot at if the locals start making trouble. I supsect >Citibank and Intel and the rest would be more careful about deploying >assets overseas if they weren't confident that we would always be here to >provide bailouts and bodies. I agree 100%. "Too big to fail" is bullshit. Bailing out investors in Mexico - ditto. Chrysler - ditto. This is the flip side to unbridled capitalism. I think you should be focused on the taxes you're paying, as they are the simplest, most honest measure of how much government is oppressing you. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Re: Yet Another Gun Control Poll (Please Vote) (fwd) Date: 30 Mar 1998 11:29:42 -0500 >Guns in America: Should Americans have the right to keep and bear >(concealed) arms? > >http://www.VOTELINK.COM/test/questions/politics/monday5_vot.html > >As of 3/29 @ 2:50pm EST >Yes: 63% >Uncertain: 2% >No: 33: >Out of 223 votes I just voted. As of 3/30, 11:28am Yes: 95% No: 4% Uncertain: 0% Votes tallied: 2124. I know it doesn't add up to 100%. I'm just reading what it spit out. Rachel *************************************************************************** * Windows 95: n. 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit * * patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit * * microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of * * competition. Rachel.D@Drexel.edu * *************************************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E.J. Totty" Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 30 Mar 1998 09:14:32 -0700 Mr. Curtis, and a few others . . . [...] Mr Toty: etc. . . [...] The name has two 't's, not one. Its known well in internet circles, that the first step in displaying your displeasure with someone is to purposely misspell their name. Sort of like an infantile insult. But in your case as with others, it is more of the nature or arrogance. Arrogance suits you well. Don't wrap yourself too tightly in your flag, it may stifle even you. Obviously you find what I have to say not suitable to your liking. I certainly would not have taken umbrage with any comment of yours, even had the initial statement been taken as crass as you took mine. There are two ways to communicate, one of them does _not_ consist of attacking the author, but instead the idea. But obviously your style is to censor everything you either don't understand or don't like. But be that as it may. You are welcome to your opinions. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 30 Mar 1998 12:44:29 -0500 (EST) > > Mr. Curtis, > and a few others . . . > > [...] > Mr Toty: > etc. . . > [...] > > The name has two 't's, not one. > Its known well in internet circles, that the >first step in displaying your displeasure with someone >is to purposely misspell their name. Inadvertent error. I apologize, as no insult was intended. > Sort of like an infantile insult. But in your case as >with others, it is more of the nature or arrogance. > Arrogance suits you well. > Don't wrap yourself too tightly in your flag, it may stifle >even you. I have posted nothing that can be construed as wrapping myself in the flag, I am very concerned that a non-workable, liberty destroying agenda is going to come to us wrapped in the flag. > Obviously you find what I have to say not suitable >to your liking. I certainly would not have taken umbrage with >any comment of yours, even had the initial statement been >taken as crass as you took mine. You started talking revolution and "needed killings", with the implicit threat that some flavor of capitalist was the ones that needed killing. I don't think you have any kind of firm ground to stand on when you then take umbrage at a misspelling of your name. > There are two ways to communicate, one of them >does _not_ consist of attacking the author, but instead the idea. > But obviously your style is to censor everything you >either don't understand or don't like. > I believe that I have consistently tried to show what is erroneous in your ideas. If you feel that I have made an ad hominem attack, then please quote the relevant piece of my writing back to me. > But be that as it may. > You are welcome to your opinions. > >ET > You're correct on that last statement. jcurtis P.S. the closest thing I wrote to an ad hominem attack was "Earth to E.J.:". I believe that sarcasm is well within the toolkit of rhetorical tools that I may use. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 30 Mar 1998 10:56:46 -0700 At 10:29 AM -0500 3/30/98, John Curtis wrote: >Brad wrote: >> >>Anybody wants to move his factory or whatever to Mexico, Indonesia or >>wherever, hey, that's ok with me. I just have a little trouble >>understanding why my blue-collar neighbors and I should pay for a bailout >>every time something goes wrong and - most especially - why we should have >>to go get our butts shot at if the locals start making trouble. I supsect >>Citibank and Intel and the rest would be more careful about deploying >>assets overseas if they weren't confident that we would always be here to >>provide bailouts and bodies. > > I agree 100%. "Too big to fail" is bullshit. Ask Ford, even after welfare handouts they're profits are -way- down and last year they sucked 50% of the funds our of their "satisfaction" accounts. Ask IBM in the early 80's ask Apple in the late 80's. Ask ADM, you don't burn alcohol in your gas because they produce it, you burn it because your government spends your money forcing EPA to mandate and ADM to make it. Large, in capitalism is far and away most synonymous with "inflexible" wich normally (in the absence of wacky Federal interference, like with ADM) leads to "failing". > > Bailing out investors in Mexico - ditto. Chrysler - ditto. > > This is the flip side to unbridled capitalism. Ditto. Brad, have you read my contributions to this thread? I don't think a single post has gone out on this topic from me without deriding the IMF, GATT and similar Welfare agencies. -Freedom-, means freedom. People who understand that know that it applies to employees (not having their taxes spent on bailouts) just as much as it should to employers ( largely not being told where/how to do business). Every one of my posts has consistently reflected that, I suspect jcurtis didn't as much because I had so much. > I think you should be focused on the taxes you're paying, as > they are the simplest, most honest measure of how much government > is oppressing you. > > ciao, > > jcurtis Yeah, try not paying those taxes. My Aunt Alice, well known in Seattle as an opponent to Scoop Jackson and a War tax resistor did that and fell into the lucky group: IRS waited until she died to decimate her finances. Most people end up taking a ride with unfriendly armed people to places where no one picks up the soap. Has the power we've given government so far (most people pay 50-70% of their income in federal, state and local taxes) been used wisely? Should we put -more- power into government? Because that's what you're talking about when you talk about regulating TNC's. Perhaps we could slow the biggest TNCs more effectively by not buying their product, and getting the US Federal Government out of the busines of -creating- them. All IMHO -Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism Date: 30 Mar 1998 14:37:55 -0500 (EST) Boyd writes: > > Has the power we've given government so far (most people pay 50-70% of >their income in federal, state and local taxes) been used wisely? Should we >put -more- power into government? Because that's what you're talking about >when you talk about regulating TNC's. > I agree. For me, this is a simple yardstick. "Does measure XYZ put more or less power in the hands of government?". I pretty much don't have to know anything but that to know where I stand on an issue. IMF? I'm on the fence, not really sure they are competent to actually prevent a bad global economic event. Its taxpayer money going to bail out u.s.banks and shore up foreign bankers. Senator McCain's campaign finance reform? Definitely against, the last thing we need is to add a level of guv bureaucracy handing out campaign money, violate the 1st Amendment. I think we need to be talking in terms of cutting Federal spending in real dollar terms and limiting Federal intrusion into private industry. Large corporations don't scare me, they employee me. Large government does scare me, they are already hitting me for a large tax bill, and no party seems capable of reducing it. "Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism" is a good title. This is a classic debate between economic and libertarian conservatives and cultural conservatives. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Michael New & the Supreme Court Date: 30 Mar 1998 17:28:22 -0800 StencilPlease repost
TO: Americans RE: Supreme Court 30 March 1998 The Supreme Court today, in a one sentence message, denied the writ of certoriari filed by Attys. Mike Farris and Herb Titus on behalf of Army Specialist Michael New. This writ was a request that the higher court order the Federal Court of Appeals to hear the case. The Court of Appeals had denied Michael New a hearing on the merits of the case last November, arguing that they have no jurisdiction. The next step is the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, meeting in Falls Church, Virginia on 28 May. The Army has already filed its brief, in which they will tell the judges that this case is "non-justiciable," in the military courts. (Which means that THEY have no jurisdiction!) This will not be a hearing open to the public. If the ACCA agrees with the Pentagon, and they are expected to do so, then we will be witness to an American citizen-soldier who has been ex-patriated, stripped of his legal protection by both civilian and military courts, forced out from under the umbrella of the legal protections provided in the Constitution. This government is moving perilously close to the position of declaring, in effect, that the Constitution does not apply because it has been rendered irrelevant by treaties, by an activist judiciary, and by a spineless Congress more interested in re-election than in doing what they took an oath to do. Can a government FORCE a citizen, to whom it guarantees "freedom of religion," to serve in a foreign military capacity under an anti-Christian, un-elected, anti-American United Nations military? Can a Christian, or anyone for that matter, be legally required to serve two masters? The implications are staggering. Yes, you have suspected it all along. The awkwardness of their position is that none of them want to admit it, because it can radically change the way Americans view this "New, Improved State." Where does a citizen appeal, when stripped of legal protection by both military and civilian courts? Under what courts can SPC Michael New find justice? The Hague? We don't think so! Well, there is still Congress, there is still the Court of Public Opinion, and there is still a merciful and just Judge of the Universe, in Whom we believe, in Whom the Founders believed, but in Whom the current rulers do not believe. We are confident in that position. Faith and Obedience to God is the most dangerous thing in the world to Tyrants. Daniel New Michael New Action Fund 3333,3333,ffff 0000,0000,fefehttp://www.mikenew.com cccc,0000,0000The Sovereignty of all countries is endangered cccc,0000,0000when the USA concedes any degree of its own cccc,0000,0000sovereignty.
- Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: New death (from Imus in the morning) Date: 31 Mar 1998 11:27:09 -0500 (EST) My wife heard the Imus radio show discussing the death of someone in a car accident. This may be a somewhat garbled account, as I have not heard the report. - the guy who discovered the boxes full of Whitewater records and cancelled checks in the trunk of a car was killed in a auto accident. He was apparently speeding, lost control, and struck a utility pole. - Imus and crew were making quips about "oh yeah, just another accident". Has anyone heard confirming information about this? ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: RE: [Fwd: Foster's last weekend, and the Landow connection] (fwd) Date: 31 Mar 1998 11:51:01 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: act@efn.org Democratic Power Broker Under New Press Scrutiny By Christopher Ruddy FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW March 29, 1998 WASHINGTON - Who did Vincent Foster and Webster Hubbell meet the weekend before Foster's death in July 1993? Nathan Landow. Landow, a real estate mogul, has been a Democratic party power broker for decades. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter nominated him for an ambassadorship to the Netherlands, but Landow withdrew in the wake of press reports linking him to organized crime figures. Landow has been thrust front and center in the current Zippergate scandal involving President Bill Clinton. Press reports say Kathleen Willey, who dramatically told "60 Minutes" her story of an improper sexual advance by the president, alleges Landow pressured her to keep quiet about the matter. Willey alleges Landow last fall had her flown on a chartered jet to his coastal estate in Easton, Md., where he requested that she simply deny anything improper had taken place. Landow, while acknowledging he met Willey at his estate, has denied he tried to persuade her not to tell the truth. This is not the first time Landow's close ties to the Clinton White House have come under press scrutiny. A year ago, the Washington Post reported that Landow and Peter Knight, another confidant of Vice President Al Gore, had pressured two Indian tribes to pay lobbying fees to them in the tribes' efforts to regain lands from the federal government. The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt also reported that Landow had sought to involve Webster Hubbell, then under investigation in the Whitewater case, in a money-making real estate deal. Starr's office has been investigating whether Clinton administration supporters swayed contracts and fees to Hubbell in order to buy his silence during Starr's Whitewater probe. In a letter to the Journal dated March 20, 1997, Landow denied Hunt's report. "I barely know Mr. Hubbell and have never had a discussion with him concerning business of any kind, nor have I participated in any group that has done so," Landow declared. Landow's letter didn't mention at least one contact with Hubbell. Hubbell, Foster and their wives spent part of the weekend before Foster's death at Landow's Maryland estate, along with Landow's daughter and son-in-law, Harolyn and Michael Cardozo. Foster's widow, Lisa, told FBI investigators probing his death that the weekend trip was nothing more than a rare opportunity for the couple to take a break. In fact, it was their first weekend together since Foster moved to Washington, and going into it the pair had no set agenda and no plans to see the Hubbells. The Fosters received a call from Hubbell's wife that Saturday inviting them to join the Cardozos at Landow's house. The Fosters did so, and Hubbell initially described the weekend to the FBI as not having anything to do with Foster's concerns about White House matters. "Foster spent his time reading the paper, boating, hitting some golf balls and being introduced to eating fresh crab," Hubbell's 1994 statement to the FBI reads. The Fosters' invitation seems to have been hastily arranged. On Saturday morning, Hubbell was at the Justice Department for a meeting with Attorney General Janet Reno, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum and FBI Director William Sessions. Reno, Hubbell and Nussbaum demanded that Sessions resign as FBI director; he refused to do so. After the meeting, Hubbell and his wife left for the Maryland shore and arrived there during the mid-afternoon. Apparently, one of the Hubbells' first orders of business upon beginning their belated weekend was to call Foster. Their invitation probably didn't spring from loneliness. The Hubbells already had the company of the Cardozos and Landow himself. Cardozo, a Washington lawyer and power broker in his own right, later went on to head up Clinton's first legal defense fund. Hubbell later told a Senate committee and wrote in his book, "Friends in High Places," that the weekend getaway occurred while administration colleagues were concerned about Foster, the deputy White House counsel. Hubbell testified at the Senate hearing that Foster feared his phones were tapped. In Maryland, Foster indicated to Hubbell that "we really need to talk" but suggested they do so in a "park somewhere" when they returned to Washington. Hubbell also acknowledged that upon arriving at the White House the Monday after the weekend he first reported to Chief of Staff Mac McLarty. According to Hubbell, McLarty's first queries were about Foster. "A lot of us are worried about Vince," Hubbell quoted McLarty as saying. Hubbell and the official reports of Foster's death remain fuzzy as to why White House officials including McLarty were so concerned about Foster, especially after he told Hubbell he had an enjoyable weekend. Independent Counsel Robert Fiske and Starr, his successor, developed detailed reports on Foster's state of mind and the factors they concluded led to his death in Fort Marcy Park. There is no public record that they interviewed the Cardozos or Landow about Foster's last weekend to ascertain whether the get-together had any hidden purpose. -- "People have not yet discovered they have been disenfranchised. Even lawyers can't stand to admit it. In any nation in which people's rights have been subordinated to the rights of the few, in any totalitarian nation, the first institution to be dismantled is the jury. I was, I am, afraid." -- Gerry Spence "The more a power departs from God's law, the more impotent it becomes in coping with real offenses, and the more severe it becomes with trifling offenses or with meaningless infractions of empty statutes which seek to govern without moral authority and without reason".-- From The Institutes of Biblical Law, R.J. Rushdoony, Chalcedon Foundation timr@efn.org (541) 895-4417 voice (541) 895-4681 fax - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Amerika, Amerika (fwd) Date: 31 Mar 1998 11:30:37 PST Sorry about including html, but there's only a little at the start and finish..... On Mar 31, Josh Amos wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I saw this article and found that it covers many of the very topics that we have discussed on FAP. It's long so take heed. Josh >>>> <<<<<<<< >>>> Topic: White Water Amerika, Amerika Zola Times Posted 03/31/98 by Claire Wolfe=20
=20
7373,0000,0000 <<#Anchor-58500>Jump to Forum =20 <Go to Graphic Version=20 =20 =20 =20 Amerika, Amerika =20 by Claire Wolfe =20 =20 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.=20 =20 1. A national database of employed people.=20 =20 2. 100 pages of new "health care crimes," for which the penalty is (among other things) seizure of assets from both doctors and patients.=20 =20 3. Confiscation of assets from any American who establishes foreign citizenship.=20 =20 4. The largest gun confiscation act in U.S. history - which is also an unconstitutional ex postfacto law and the first law ever to remove people's constitutional rights for committing a misdemeanor.=20 =20 5. A law banning guns in ill-defined school zones; random roadblocks may be used for enforcement; gun-bearing residents could become federal criminals just by stepping outside their doors or getting into vehicles.=20 =20 6. Increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, an agency infamous for its brutality, dishonesty and ineptitude.=20 =20 7. A law enabling the executive branch to declare various groups "Terrorists" - 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.=20 =20 8. A law authorizing secret trials with secret evidence for certain classes of people.=20 =20 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 with a verified Social Security number and 'security features']."=20 =20 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.=20 =20 All of the above items are the law of the land. Federal law. What else do they have in common?=20 =20 Well, when I ask this question to audiences, I usually get the answer, "They're all unconstitutional."=20 =20 True.=20 =20 My favorite answer came from an eloquent college student who blurted, "They all SUUUCK!" Also true.=20 =20 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."=20
=20 BURYING TIME BOMBS
=20 All of the above became law by being buried in larger bills. In many cases, they are hidden sneak attacks upon individual liberties 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).=20 =20 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.=20 =20 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.=20 =20 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.=20 =20 I have even heard (though I cannot verify) that stealth provisions were 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.=20 =20 And who's to know? If congress people 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:=20 =20 The Constitution, your legislator's oath to it, and your inalienable rights (which precede 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, Congress people turned right around and got back to the dirty old business of practicing all the anti-freedom stealth they were capable of.=20
=20 STEALTH ATTACKS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT
=20 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 congress people voted for them including many who claim to be ardent protectors of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Why?=20 =20 Well, in the case of my wrapped-in-the-flag, allegedly pro- gun, Republican congressperson: "Bill Clinton made me do it!"=20 =20 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 1994. 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!=20
=20 HOW SNEAK ATTACKS ARE JUSTIFIED
=20 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.=20 =20 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 congress people 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".=20 =20 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?=20
=20 BILLS AS WINDOW DRESSING FOR AN UGLY AGENDA
=20 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.=20 =20 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.)=20 =20 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.=20 =20 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.=20
=20 CONTROL REIGNS
=20 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.=20 =20 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 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.=20 =20 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."=20 =20 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.=20
=20 STOPPING RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT
=20 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.)=20 =20 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?=20 =20 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 congress people 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 the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and part of that vigilance has been, traditionally, keeping a watchful eye on laws and on lawbreaking lawmakers.=20 =20 ---------- =20 =20 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 begin. Why throw your life away on a futile effort?=20 =20 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.=20 =20 (Unlike congress people, 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.=20 =20 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.=20 =20 Whatever we do, though, we must remember that we are all, already, outlaws. Not one of us can be certain of going 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 consequences 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.=20 =20 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."=20 =20 =20 ---------- =20 =20 NOTES on the laws listed above:=20 =20 1. (employee database) Welfare Reform Bill, HR 3734; became public law 104-193 on 8/22196; see section 453A.=20 =20 2. (health care crimes) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, HR 3103; became public law 104-191 on 8/21/96.=20 =20 3. (asset confiscation for citizenship change) Same law as #2; see; sections 511-513.=20 =20 4., 5., and 6. (anti-gun laws) Omnibus Appropriations Act, HR 3610; became public law 104-208 on 9/30/96.=20 =20 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 Tide IV, specifically sections 401, 501, 502 and 503.=20 =20 9. (de facto national ID card) Began life in the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996, sections III, II 8, 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.=20 =20 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.=20 =20 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=20 =20 Copyrighted by Claire Wolfe. Permission to reprint freely granted, provided the article is reprinted in full and that any reprint is accompanied by this copyright statement=20
=20
-30-=20 =20 =20 =20 <Back to Home Page =20 <Quick Menu=20 =20 <Visit the Button Shop=20 =20 =20 ---------- adad,0000,0000Interactive Forum =20 Amerika, Amerika =20 =20 =20 <E-mail the Editor =20 =20 =20 Posted by: Jim Robinson < (jimrob@psnw.com) * 03/31/98 05:24:34 EST =20 ---------- To: Jim Robinson Damn, this is about as frightening as it gets. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Jim. From: JCG= < (jayceegee@bigfoot.com) * 03/31/98 06:22:09 EST =20 ---------- To: Jim Robinson & EVERYBODY Thank you for this post Jim. It brings some scary truths= to light. Be sure to click on the button [View All Comments] at the end= of the article. The [Add Your Comment] button works too.=20 From: rw4site= < (rw4site@tyler.net ) * 03/31/98 06:42:44 EST =20 ---------- To: Jim Robinson Jim, I hope you will repost this at least once a week.= Like the article points out, we are all already outlaws to some extent. Now= it becomes just a matter of Degree. From: NDCORUP= < (eNDCORUPtion@aol.com) * 03/31/98 08:08:42 EST =20 ---------- To: Jim Robinson This is a fine post, JimRob.... it should be brought to= the top of the list DAILY.... if for no other reason than to show how the= sheeple are being fleeced by their "friendly" elected officials.=20 From: Invictus= < (invictus@pcpros.net) * 03/31/98 10:12:36 EST =20 ---------- < www.FreeRepublic.com =20 <<<<<<<< [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Another Clinton death Date: 31 Mar 1998 14:13:55 -0600 (CST) March 31, 1998 5:04amET NBC radio news is reporting that the garage operator and the owner of the 1980 Mercury Marquis, formerly owned by Madison Guaranty S&L employee Henry Floyd, in which found a cashier's check for more than=20 $20,000 payable to Bill Clinton was found in the trunk, was killed=20 in a high speed crash last evening. Nothing on the wires yet. I believe I heard it was the garage owner, not Henry Floyd. No word whether he was trying to ditch a pursuing vehicle.=20 ====================================================================== Tornado Reveals Whitewater Evidence=20 By Pete Yost=20 Wednesday, November 5, 1997; 5:44 p.m. EST=20 LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- In a bizarre Whitewater discovery, a repair shop owner opened the trunk of a tornado-damaged car and found a cashier's check for more than $20,000 payable to Bill Clinton from his former partner's savings and loan, grand jury witnesses say. The discovery this spring of the 1982 check and thousands of other documents missing for a decade has opened a new line of inquiry by prosecutors into whether Clinton testified accurately about his relationship with James and Susan McDougal and their failed Arkansas S&L, the witnesses said. The president swore under oath last year that he ``never borrowed any money'' from the McDougals' failing Madison Guaranty S&L.=20 Witnesses say markings on the cashier's check, which bears no Clinton endorsement, suggest that the source of the funds was McDougal's S&L, and that the proceeds may have been deposited in one of two Arkansas banks where the Clintons did business. The president's private lawyer scoffed at the discovery on Wednesday. ``Documents found in the trunk of an old and long-abandoned used car may have the authenticity and credibility of a newly discovered and freshly written Elvis autobiography,'' attorney David Kendall said.=20 Declaring that prosecutors are conducting ``an interminable, leak-ridden inquisition,'' Kendall suggested the check may have been used for a 1982 repayment of a loan taken out by James McDougal at another of his banks for the Whitewater land development. ``Neither the president nor Mrs.=20 Clinton had signed for this loan,'' he said. Kendall's statement, however, offered no explanation why a check for such a loan would have been made out to Clinton. The check was projected onto a screen recently inside the courtroom where witnesses have been brought to testify in secret before the grand jury gathering evidence in the Whitewater investigation. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr obtained a six-month extension for that grand jury last week. Deborah Gershman, a spokeswoman for his office, declined to comment Wednesday. The documents were found by a car repair shop operator in the trunk of a 1979 or 1980 Mercury Marquis -- its paint peeled and windows blown out - -- that was damaged when tornadoes swept across Arkansas last March, according to the garage operator and the car's owner. The papers had been given a decade ago to a Madison S&L employee to be delivered to a warehouse for storage.=20 That employee, Henry Floyd, acknowledged in an interview with The Associated Press he was supposed to deliver the documents in 1988 but went first to have his car repaired. The documents never got delivered because Floyd didn't retrieve the auto following a payment dispute. ``I kind of lost interest in the car and never picked it up,'' Floyd explained. ``I just forgot the Madison documents were in the trunk.''=20 Floyd said the car, which had 55,000 miles on it, had been bought for him by James McDougal's mother and ``I used to drive her around in it on weekends. I just didn't think about the Madison documents.'' The car, documents inside, sat unnoticed in a storage yard until the tornado.=20 ``There was so much in the trunk that the back was weighted down,'' said the garage owner, who would speak only on condition of anonymity. ``There were cashier's checks just lying there. I come to one that has Bill Clinton's name on it; I saw McDougal's name, Jim Guy Tucker's name and I thought this might be something they (prosecutors) are looking for,'' the owner added. Tucker, who succeeded Clinton as Arkansas governor, resigned last year after being convicted of fraud and conspiracy in the Whitewater case.=20 The garage operator said he talked to one of his relatives, who contacted the FBI. The check and other documents found in the car trunk have emerged as a new area of inquiry, say three people familiar with Starr's investigation.=20 None is in the prosecutor's office. At the time the check was written, Clinton was seeking a second term as governor after having been defeated in a 1980 bid for re-election.=20 Floyd said he believes the cashier's check to Clinton was for $27,000, while another person who has seen the check said the amount was ``definitely in the 20s'' and possibly $27,000.=20 According to one individual who has seen the check, the back is stamped for deposit with the names of two Arkansas banks: - -- Madison Bank & Trust Co. in Kingston, Ark., which was owned by the McDougals and where Hillary Rodham Clinton had a $30,000 Whitewater-related loan in the early 1980s, - --Union National Bank in Little Rock where the Clintons and McDougals in the late 1970s had a joint $20,000 loan related to Whitewater.=20 In addition to Mrs. Clinton's loan, the loan that Kendall cited as the possible reason for the check also came from Madison Bank and Trust.=20 Floyd said that after the FBI was notified of the documents, ``an investigator from Mr. Starr's office came in, pulled out a subpoena, showed me pictures of my car with the trunk opened and said they'd found some important evidence.'' The prosecutors asked ``whether I was told to destroy evidence and I forgot to get rid of it or whether I was told to hide evidence for anyone,'' Floyd said. ``I told them nobody told me to do anything as far as hiding or destroying evidence.'' =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=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =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 is the man who found the checks in the tornado-wrecked car. =20 They said it was a car wreck. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D JOHNNY FRANKLIN LAWHON, JR., 29, of Mabelvale, passed away Sunday,=20 March 29, 1998. He was a manager of Johnny's Transmission. He is=20 survived by his parents, Johnny and Glenda Lawhon of Mabelvale; one=20 brother, James Hoyette Lawhon of Mabelvale and his grandmother,=20 Mary Josile Lawhon of Ft. Worth, Texas. Funeral services will be 2 p.m. Thursday, April 2, 1998 at Cornerstone Church of the Nazarene=20 by Huson Funeral Home, 6400 Mabelvale Pike, Little Rock with Rev.=20 Ron Willard officiating. Burial will follow at Redfield City Cemetery.=20 Visitation will be Wednesday, 6 p.m.-8 p.m. at the funeral home. In=20 lieu of flowers, memorials may be made to Cornerstone Church of the=20 Nazarene. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Arkansas Democrat-Gazette November 7, 1997 McDougal: With Clinton check came 'heat'=20 By JOE STUMPE Whitewater felon James McDougal wouldn't say Thursday why a cashier's check for $27,600 was written from his savings and loan to Bill Clinton, who says he never borrowed money from the institution. McDougal suggested the 15-year-old check's discovery -- in the trunk of a junked car in south Little Rock -- has caused him trouble with his jailers.=20 "Immediately concurrent'' with the check being found, McDougal said, "I started getting a lot of heat" in the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas, where he is serving a three-year sentence.=20 "I am a prisoner of the executive branch," said McDougal, who is cooperating with Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr's investigation into President Clinton's business dealings in Arkansas during the 1980s. McDougal did not explain why the administration would want to pressure him.=20 According to McDougal and others, Starr has presented witnesses who testified about the check to the Whitewater grand jury.=20 Clinton swore under oath last year that he "never borrowed any money" from McDougal's Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association. McDougal and his former wife, Susan, were partners with Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton in Whitewater Development Corp.=20 Thursday, Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, quoted from a 1995 Resolution Trust Corp. report in denying any wrongdoing by the president. In 1989, the Resolution Trust Corp. took over Madison Guaranty, which failed at a cost to taxpayers of about $65 million.=20 The Resolution Trust Corp. report found that McDougal borrowed $30,000 from the Madison Bank in Kingston for Whitewater Development Corp. in 1981. McDougal also owned the Kingston bank.=20 The Clintons did not sign the loan agreement.=20 In 1982, the Resolution Trust Corp. report found, the unpaid portion of the loan was retired with a $27,600 payment. The source of the payment was not recorded in Madison Bank records.=20 "If authentic, this alleged check appears simply to represent the payment to Madison Bank of Whitewater Development Company's $30,000 loan obtained by Jim McDougal," Kendall said.=20 Kendall declined to comment on why the check was made out to Clinton.=20 "I can't comment on a document I haven't seen, but the president certainly had nothing to do with this," Kendall said.=20 The Resolution Trust Corp. report also concluded that the loan's retirement "indirectly benefited" the Clintons by reducing Whitewater's debt.=20 Johnny Lawhon, who found the check this spring, refused to talk about it at Johnny's Transmission in south Little Rock.=20 Earlier this year, Lawhon confirmed that he had happened upon Whitewater-related materials, but he declined to elaborate. Lawhon=20 runs the repair shop, which is owned by his retired father.=20 "He [Clinton] is the most powerful man in the world," Lawhon said Thursday.=20 According to one person who saw the check, Lawhon found it among a trunk full of documents in a car that had been left at the shop in a payment dispute about 10 years ago.=20 Lawhon was preparing to have the car, which had been damaged in the March 1 tornadoes, destroyed.=20 "It just looked like a bunch of checks," the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said.=20 Henry Floyd, who as a messenger for Madison Guaranty, told The Associated Press that he was supposed to deliver the documents for=20 storage in 1988 but went to have the car repaired.=20 Floyd never retrieved the car after a payment dispute and forgot=20 about the documents in its trunk.=20 Floyd appeared before the grand jury on Aug. 6 but declined to talk=20 to reporters at the time.=20 The Associated Press reported that an individual who has seen the check says its back is stamped with the names of two Arkansas banks: Madison=20 Bank in Kingston, where Mrs. Clinton also had a $30,000 loan in the=20 early 1980s; and Union National Bank in Little Rock, where the Clintons=20 and McDougals had a joint $20,000 loan related to Whitewater. McDougal=20 had other loans at Union National.=20 There was also at least one check among the documents made out to former Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, who was convicted along with McDougal and=20 Susan McDougal last year.=20 Lawhorn turned the documents over to federal investigators.=20 McDougal said he knew that Floyd testified before the grand jury about the check, which he described as being of obvious interest to Starr's office.=20 "Immediately after they found it they were pretty excited," McDougal said.=20 About the same time, McDougal said, prison officials threatened to extend his sentence by a month and cut off media interviews for two=20 months in a dispute over a urine test.=20 - - -----------------------------------------------------------------------= - Information for this article was contributed by Bill Simmons of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.=20 Copyright 1997, Little Rock Newspapers, Inc.=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =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: Subject: scandal_12.html (fwd) Date: 31 Mar 1998 12:11:41 -0600 (CST) Reuters New Media Tuesday March 31 10:59 AM EST More Testimony as Actress Linked to Clinton WASHINGTON (Reuters) - White House aide Nancy Hernreich returned to testify before the grand jury investigating President Clinton on Tuesday as a former Miss America told a newspaper that she had consensual sex with Clinton in 1982. Hernreich, a long-time friend of Clinton who is now director of Oval Office operations, went before the same panel last week, presumably to answer questions about Monica Lewinsky's work history in Washington. Lewinsky, a former White House intern, has denied allegations that she had an 18-month affair with the president, and Clinton has repeatedly denied having a sexual relationship with her. He also has denied pressuring her to lie. This is Hernreich's fourth time before the grand jury convened by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Another White House staff member, Marsha Scott, was also expected to testify Tuesday. A friend of Clinton's from his days in Arkansas, Scott is now White House personnel chief. Meanwhile, television actress Elizabeth Ward Gracen, whose testimony is sought by lawyers in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, said she had sex with Clinton when he was Arkansas governor but it was consensual, the New York Daily News reported Tuesday. The newspaper quoted Gracen as saying she had come forward to deny allegations by a former friend that Clinton forced her into sex in the back of a limousine in 1982. Gracen, 37, who plays the role of an immortal warrior on the TV series "Highlander," previously denied any sexual liaison with Clinton, the Daily News said. "The lies gain credibility every day that I don't address them," Gracen was quoted as saying in the newspaper. "I had to put a stop to it. It's become a three-ring circus. This is something I don't want to talk about at all. It's no one's business at all." Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, has alleged that Clinton exposed himself to her and asked her for oral sex inside a Little Rock hotel room in 1991, when Clinton was governor. Clinton has denied her accusations. Gracen's former friend Judy Stokes has given a sworn deposition in the Jones case, saying Gracen tearfully told her in the mid-1980s that Clinton forced her into sex in 1982. "That never happened. It's completely false," Gracen told the Daily News. Gracen said she met Clinton at an apartment in Little Rock. They had previously met socially. They were both married and it was the year after Gracen's reign as Miss America. "I was never a government employee, he never acted improperly, he never asked me to lie, he never gave me a job," Gracen said. She said her sexual encounter with Clinton was "a very bad error in judgment" and added, "You think you can get away with these things but they always come back down the road." ^REUTERS@ _________________________________________________________________ Earlier Related Stories * White House Aide Returns to Clinton Grand Jury - Tue Mar 31 10:08 am * Analysts: White House Sex Scandal Taking Toll - Tue Mar 31 6:59 am * Clinton's Lawyer Denies Obstruction Claim - Mon Mar 30 10:55 pm _________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ___________ Help _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: Envoy: Mideast Peace Deadlock Reduces Hope Next Story: Public Memorial Service Today in Jonesboro _________________________________________________________________ [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited Questions or Comments - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Drink dark beer Date: 31 Mar 1998 12:13:00 -0600 (CST) Reuters New Media Monday March 30 7:05 PM EST Purple Grape Juice Good for Hearts - Expert ATLANTA (Reuters) - An aspirin a day may keep the doctor away, but it may do the job better if downed with purple grape juice or a mug of dark beer, a researcher said Monday. John Folts, director of the Coronary Thrombosis Research Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin Medical School, said studies of flavonoids - substances that cause dark colors in some beers, red wines and purple grape juice - suggest those beverages may keep heart-damaging blood clots from forming. "People should take their aspirin with a glass of juice or one or two beers, not eight or 10," Folts told Reuters. He said aspirin is "very good at turning platelets down," making them less sticky so they do not form clots. The effect of aspirin, however, is negated when adrenalin kicks in while exercising or under stress, he said. "The adrenalin overcomes the effects of aspirin," Folts said, "but with flavonoids the adrenalin has no effect so the flavonoids keep on working." The study involved only 10 people who repeated earlier tests on laboratory mice, and Folts said patients on aspirin should not discontinue that treatment. "I do recommend no one stop their aspirin and go to something else, because so far this is unproven. It may be 20 years from now doctors will recommend flavonoids instead of aspirin, but we're not there yet," he said. Folts said flavonoids are found "in dark beer but not light beer, in tea but not in coffee, in purple grape juice but not in lighter grape juices that people give to babies, in red wines but not in white wines." The study, presented to doctors attending an American College of Cardiology meeting in Atlanta, was funded by the Oscar Rennenbohm Foundation, the Nutricia Research Foundation and Welch Foods Inc., one of the leading producers of grape juice. Folts said the Welch money had no bearing on the test results. "I just picked up a can out of my refrigerator at home," he said. "My wife does the shopping and that just happens to be the brand she bought, but it would work the same with any other brand." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Feinstein & Co. at it again (fwd) Date: 31 Mar 1998 08:49:12 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by John Wallace Tuesday, March 31, 1998 Feinstein Seeks to Close Loophole in Gun Law Firearms: Legislators cite Jonesboro, Ark., schoolyard shootings in effort to ban high-capacity magazines. By STEVE BERRY, JEFF BRAZIL, Times Staff Writers esponding to concerns arising from the Jonesboro, Ark., killings, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and a group of Democratic and Republican legislators will file a bill today that would ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and plug a major loophole in the federal assault weapons law. The U.S. Senate bill would prohibit the distribution, importation or manufacture of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) will file a companion bill in the House. Such a law would outlaw the sale of the type of magazine used in last week's shootings in Arkansas, where four girls and a teacher died in a schoolyard ambush, Feinstein said Monday. Feinstein and DeGette said local and state authorities in Arkansas have confirmed that most of the 24 bullets allegedly fired by two boys came from a 15-round magazine and a .30-caliber firearm based on the M-1 carbine. Feinstein said the two suspects--ages 11 and 13--also had two 30-round magazines, but did not use them. "The tragic shooting in Jonesboro last week is a horrifying example of why high-capacity ammunition clips were designed for military combat, not for recognized sport," Feinstein said. DeGette agreed, adding: "No one thinks this would have prevented Jonesboro . . . but it will stop people who are angry or emotionally disturbed from legally buying them." The bills are sure to face strong opposition from the gun lobby. "Industrywide, we are not going to sit still for such a bill," said Jack Adkins, a spokesman for the American Shooting Sports Council in Atlanta. If passed, proponents say, the legislation would close one of the biggest loopholes in the 1994 federal assault weapons law. That landmark legislation, which Feinstein wrote, restricted possession of assault weapons, specifically those that accept a detachable ammunition magazine and have at least two military features such as a pistol grip or bayonet mount. One key provision banned manufacture and distribution of ammunition magazines that carry more than 10 rounds and were manufactured after September 1994. But the legislation did not apply to magazines made before that date or to foreign-made magazines. In a series of stories last fall, The Times reported that manufacturers stockpiled millions of high-capacity magazines just before the law went into effect. At the same time, importers continued bringing thousands more into the country--including at least 160,000 between June 1996 and April 1997. As a result, gun makers have continued making thousands of weapons that are similar to illegal assault guns and can accept high-capacity magazines that were made before the 1994. * * * The new bill would amend the existing law to ban further manufacture or importation of the magazines. People could keep what they already own, but owners would be forbidden to sell them or give them away. DeGette said such a law might have prevented the death of a Denver police officer who was ambushed last year by a group of skinheads using a Chinese-made SKS assault rifle equipped with an American-made 30-round magazine. "He was shot 15 times," she said. Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Assn., denounced Feinstein's timing. "This should be a time for mourning and grieving, and not a time to make political hay out of this tragedy," he said. Calling the bill unenforceable, LaPierre said: "She might as well ban sheet metal and springs because that's all a magazine is made of. "What would make a bigger impact on problems like what happened in Jonesboro is for Sen. Feinstein to talk to the entertainment industry in her backyard about stopping the showing of gratuitous violence without consequences. "That's what people in stores, gas stations and shopping malls all over the country are saying about Jonesboro," he said. "No one has said 'Gee, we need another magazine ban.' " The co-sponsors of the bill include Democratic Sens. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Robert Toricelli and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, and Richard Durbin of Illinois. In the House, co-sponsors include Democrats Joseph Kennedy of Massachusetts, Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, Ed Towns of New York, Bill Pascrell Jr. of New Jersey and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Republicans Connie Morella of Maryland and Christopher Shays of Connecticut. Search the archives of the Los Angeles Times for similar stories. You will not be charged to look for stories, only to retrieve one. Copyright Los Angeles Times -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 31 Mar 1998 13:06:25 -0800 (PST) On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, John Curtis wrote: > "Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism" is > a good title. This is a classic debate between economic and > libertarian conservatives and cultural conservatives. I think it is a misleading title, and this is why. "Conservatism" is a political creed which has as its object the maintenance of the status quo, whatever that status quo might be. It is naturally in opposition to "liberalism" which is a creed which has as its object the improvement of the human condition. (Note that I refer to "classical liberalism", not contemporary "Liberalism" which merely co-opts the idea for nefarious purposes.) Improvement necessarily implies change. Conservatism opposes change while liberalism promotes change. Thus we can speak of "conservatives" in the Kremlin, in Peking, and "Bob Dole" style "conservatives" and such a refernce is consistent, it makes sense. All these "conservatives" strive to maintain their particular brand of status quo. By its nature, conservatism never knows when it is at a "crossroads" because it is irrelevant to it. The nature of conservatism is reactionary. It reacts to any change by pulling in the opposite direction (or at least what it THINKS is the opposite direction). It doesn't recognize a crossroads because it is going to oppose the movement in any direction regardless, although it has no choice in the direction. The choice of direction is determined by the forces which are trying to change the status quo. Conservatism is to the theory of politics what Drag is to the theory of flight. Thus we can say, "Conservatism is at the Crossroads" and be correct, but so what? The framer of this title wishes the reader to draw an inference that "conservatism" is at a decision making point in time. This is quite impossible, because conservatism doesn't "decide", it reacts to the decision of others. Whichever direction change goes, it trails the heelmarks of conservatism in the road behind it. "Unbridled Capitalism" has never existed, does not exist now, anywhere, and I contend it never will exist. In the first place, laissez-faire capitalism contains by its very nature its own bridle: the free market. In the second place, "capitalism" as currently practiced is simply the Welfare State. Corporate Welfare, Business Welfare, Labor Welfare, Privileged Elite welfare, whatever. It all boils down to moving wealth from the "Outs" to the "Ins", where "Ins" refers to those in control of the mechanism of State coercion, and "Outs" refers to those who are not in control of it. The only sense in which which the author of that piece intends the economic system of capitalism to be understood is pejorative, as evil incarnate. It uses bias words in a biased way, fully intending to associate capitalism with evil. "Evil" is a moral concept, not an economic one. Thus, a shift has been made: "unbridled capitalism" is to be considered in the context of a "moral" issue, not an economic issue. I contend that an economic practice is evil when it results in the uncompensated appropriation of the wealth of others. Whether it is styled as "captalism", "socialism", "fascism", or "communism", or "progressivism", or "welfare statism" makes no difference. The practical means by which this practice is implemented is by the mechanism of State coercion. This is why it is impossible to distinguish between "Liberals" and Conservatives" in Washington, D.C. Both the "Ins" and the "Outs" are simply loosely aligned groups trying to get their hands on the mechnism of State coercion so they can use it to their advantage. What one of the players can be labelled at any particular time depends on whether they want to maintain the status quo, or change the status quo. This title does indeed convey a lot of information. It indicates that it was probably chosen by a mind which lives in a world where words mean exactly what they want them to mean, no more, no less, at any given point in time, and where anything can be made to mean anything, depending upon the point in time chosen, and the pre-ordained goal they want to reach. Any resemblance to a lawyer is not coincidental. In this case, the title indicates that the tract to follow will be, without a doubt, collectivist propaganda. And indeed it was. I think a more lucid definition of the "classic debate" is between the desirability of a free-market economy versus the desirability of a State controlled economy. And, FWIW, a "Conservative Libertarian" at this point in time is an oxymoron, because the Libertarian philosophy necessarily desires change from the status quo. Perhaps, in the distant future, when the societies of mankind have achieved the Libertarian social ideal and it has become the status quo, it would be reasonable to refer to a "Conservative Libertarian", but not now. No way. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 31 Mar 1998 16:57:48 -0500 (EST) Harry, Great post, I agree with your basic premise that the language of the title is distorting, I think this is tied in with some basic intentional misunderstanding of the reasoning and motives of some people who fall under the rubric "conservative". I'd like to respond with my personal sketch of the various subspecies of the American political scene. don't have the time this evening. ciao, jcurtis P.S. we don't have anything near "unbridled capitalism", we do have some widely different ideologies under the same tent. I find some of the verbal distinctions made by the Libertarians to be very useful in cutting through the clutter. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Conservatism Is at Crossroads Due to Unbridled Capitalism (fwd) Date: 31 Mar 1998 14:05:35 -0800 (PST) On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, John Curtis wrote: > I think you should be focused on the taxes you're paying, as > they are the simplest, most honest measure of how much government > is oppressing you. Here is an excerpt which relates to this, as well as another thread. It kind of puts things in the "tax" context mentioned. This is an excerpt from an "ezine" which is destributed by the South African Embassy. The entire 'ezine', called the "Daily News Bulletin" consists of daily extractions and condensations of articles in various SA newspapers. X> 1b. CLINTON UNVEILS FIVE-POINT AFRICA PLAN: BUSINESS REPORT, 98O330, X> P.1 - Bill Clinton, the US president, has announced an $800m five-point X> plan to improve bilateral trade and investment with Africa. He also X> promised to raise US aid to its former levels and said he would work X> with Congress to write off $1,6bn in African debt. He said he had X> already asked for an additional $30m for technical assistance and X> support programmes. Clinton said US trade with Africa was worth 20% X> more than that of the entire former USSR and that it supported 100 000 X> jobs in America. He said the average rate of return on investments in X> Africa was 30%. Here is your Fuhrer, giving away $2.4 BILLIONs of your tax money. That means that Slick is indenturing every family of four in the U.S. to the tune of nearly $4000. By what authority given him by the Constitution does he do that? But so what? It's only money. Right? I am REALLY interested in what the "100,000 jobs in America" are. Anybody wanta bet they are public payroll bureaucrats also funded by tax dollars? 30% rate of return? Ludicrous on its face, unless the "capitalist" who is getting that rate of return is crossing the palms of the tin-pot terrorist dictators with sufficent bribes to maintain the mechanism of State coercion, as practiced in African states, in his hip-pocket. "Creation and exchange of wealth" is not in the economic vocabulary of any African nation, AFAIK. What does government do for you? Whatever it can get away with. OBTW, Mandela told Slick to go pack sand, because the bribe had to come no strings attached. Clearly, he doesn't understand the Anglo-American concept of a "bribe". A bribe ALWAYS has strings attached. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Moral Society (fwd) Date: 31 Mar 1998 16:29:48 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- My earlier mailing to you called "PARENTAL EXAMPLE CALLED KEY TO RAISING MORAL KIDS" was nice in the secular sense. The writer was careful to avoid the "G-word" or, heaven forbid, the dreaded "J-word". This article is not that shy. Likewise, it is that much more on target. -Lyle ----- Begin Included Message ----- JONESBORO 30 March 1998 Copyright 1998, Rod D. Martin "Vanguard of the Revolution" http://members.aol.com/RodDMartin/vanguard.htm If you're looking for comfort, don't read this column. In fact, if you're looking for standard political commentary of any sort, you won't find it here. This essay goes beyond that. It cuts to the truth. Some readers will be offended. You have been warned. First, the reason why. The shock and horror we all feel is perfectly normal -- as Governor Huckabee rightly said, may the day never come when we are not shocked by such as this -- but in reality, it is foolishness. As the killings in Pine Bluff the very same week and the ceaseless murders in our cities insistently prove, there is a certain percentage of the population who simply have no qualms about -- even enjoy -- killing. And therein lies the problem. Post-Christian America revolves around precisely one of the inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence: the pursuit of happiness. Some might attribute this to John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, or even to Enlightenment Humanism, but in fact it is a far older phenomenon. It's roots are in the Garden, at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. There, Eve made a choice: a choice not merely to rebel against the true and only God, but a choice also to set herself up as her own god. It has been thus ever since: man is forever in rebellion, forever seeking his own self-interest. Self-interest, of course, is not always bad, and in fact when disciplined and constrained by God's law can be excellent. But the evolutionists do not lie when they say that man apart from God is an animal. By his nature he seeks only what gratifies himself all the day long. And what usually gratifies him most is that which will deviate most from any authority placed over him. When the deviation becomes too great, the humanist claims that the deviant is insane: this is the legacy of Freud, and necessary if the humanist is to confine dangerous people while still pretending there is no absolute right or wrong. But the depraved man is not insane; he is merely normal. He does whatever he wants, exactly like a peace-loving flower child. He, like every rebel, recognizes no legitimate authority above himself, so who may say what he should want? The Founders of the nation understood this all too well, and wrote about it ceaselessly. John Adams wrote: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." His generation agreed. About the same time, the Duke of Wellington wrote what Jonesboro proved: "Educate men without religion, and you make them but clever devils." Our age worships ceaselessly at the idol of humanist, "values-neutral" education in the false and unrealizable hope that "if people just know more," somehow, some way they will become "more enlightened." Liberalism has made the schools its state religion, and their new faith continues to fail them for precisely the reason they worship it: they seek license to repudiate God -- to forever do each and every one what is right in their own eyes -- and then marvel when some wish to do things the group disapproves. The Founders understood what public policy could do to restrain evil. Though they rebelled against tyranny, they also believed in the necessity of the state. Their line: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." They saw perfectly well that the swift, sure execution of fair and impartial justice would restrain evil, and they were right: until our system began to fly apart in the 1960s, Jonesboros were simply inconceivable. But the Founders also understood that the greatest bastion of public order was not law, but rather the ongoing maintenance of certain behaviors as "socially unacceptable." Decades of degradation of the family and the individual through easy divorce, easy drugs, easy sex, and above all easy abortion produced Jonesboro. Why should anyone respect post-born life when 37 million preborn lives have been sluffed off as so much medical waste? Where will children learn the values we call "decency" if not in a functioning home? A civilization has all but dissolved in the last thirty years. As a result, we have met the barbarians, and they are us. When America returns to Rudyard Kipling's "Gods of the Copybook Headings" -- and more to the point, when America submits to the standards required by Jesus Christ -- there will be peace. But apart from the Prince of Peace, there is no peace. As the prophets of Baal discovered on Carmel, there is only destruction for the rebel. If thirty years of constantly eroding schools and continually escalating violence haven't shown us that, there is little more hope for the Republic. Copyright: Rod D. Martin, 30 March 1998 ====================================================================== To receive Vanguard of the Revolution via email send a note to RodColumn@aol.com with the subject heading: subscribe vanguard your name WWW: http://members.aol.com/roddmartin/vanguard.htm For Syndication Information please contact: Email: RodDMartin@aol.com FAX: (870) 246-4727 Smail: Rod D. Martin Vanguard of the Revolution P. O. Box 55947 Little Rock, AR 72215-5947 ====================================================================== ----- End Included Message ----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: Drink dark beer Date: 31 Mar 1998 14:38:17 -0700 > Reuters New Media > > Monday March 30 7:05 PM EST > >Purple Grape Juice Good for Hearts - Expert > > > > ATLANTA (Reuters) - An aspirin a day may keep the doctor away, but it > may do the job better if downed with purple grape juice or a mug of > dark beer, a researcher said Monday. I want to be on the record as emphatically agreeing with Paul here ; ) Normally, I wouldn't want to induce the sort of shock this may have, but I know he's probably already following this good advice and hence immune to the cardio pulmonary effects my agreement may have on him : ) My favorite homebrew jumping off point: www.westfork.com/homebrew - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [Fwd: (fwd) Another Gun Poll.] (fwd) Date: 31 Mar 1998 14:15:32 PST On Mar 31, larry ball wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by chasm@insync.net (schuetzen) On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:26:39 -0600, "James D. Nicholson" wrote: The Ft. Worth Star Telegram is polling this time. Only 418 votes cast so far, but 81% are against further gun control in the wake of the Arkansas shootings. So far we have swamped the ABC, BBC, and USA Today polls. If you have a minute to vote, the URL is: http://www.startext.net/starvote-cgi/starvote today - 3/31 is about curtailing violence in movies, etc as of 3/31 0955cst Vote Totals: Yes=20 (77 %) No=4 (15 %) Not Sure= 2 (8 %) take a minute and vote. chas Charles L Hamilton, chasm@insync.net Houston, TX [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Drink dark beer Date: 31 Mar 1998 17:19:14 -0800 >> Reuters New Media >> >> Monday March 30 7:05 PM EST >> >>Purple Grape Juice Good for Hearts - Expert >> >> >> >> ATLANTA (Reuters) - An aspirin a day may keep the doctor away, but it >> may do the job better if downed with purple grape juice or a mug of >> dark beer, a researcher said Monday. > >I want to be on the record as emphatically agreeing with Paul here ; ) >Normally, I wouldn't want to induce the sort of shock this may have, but I >know he's probably already following this good advice and hence immune to >the cardio pulmonary effects my agreement may have on him : ) > >My favorite homebrew jumping off point: >www.westfork.com/homebrew I've long said "I don't trust a beer I can see through." - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer -