From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Fw: C-NEWS: President Threatens Shutdown in Push for Illegal Census (fwd) Date: 02 Sep 1998 14:16:02 PST Anyone want to bet this won't be his odus operandi for everything else he wants, too? On Sep 2, Arlin H. Adams wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] -----Original Message----- >President Threatens Government Shutdown in Push for >Illegal Census Practice: Counting Process Questioned >as Unreliable, Potential Tool for Political Deceit > > >For Immediate Release >Contact: David W. Almasi (202) 543-1286 or >DAlmasi@nationalcenter.org > > >Despite a federal court ruling on August 24, 1998 prohibiting the use of >"sampling" in the 2000 census, the Clinton Administration is still >proceeding with plans to use this counting method in the next national >population survey. Furthermore, President Bill Clinton is threatening to >shut down the FBI, DEA and other Justice Department-related law >enforcement organizations as well as the State and Commerce Departments >unless Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives present him with >legislation providing full funding to implement this illegal process. > >Data from the census, the once-a-decade survey of the American >population, determines the number of U.S. representatives for each state, >how voting districts are drawn and how federal money is allocated. The >Clinton Administration is seeking to replace the traditional >person-by-person counting method of enumeration with a statistical >estimation process called sampling. While the Administration contends >sampling is the only fair way to count all Americans, critics say it >could produce erroneous population numbers and be manipulated for >political gain. > >The National Center for Public Policy Research's new National Policy >Analysis paper, "The Census: Sampling or a Straight Count?" provides >readers with: > >* The historical underpinnings of the census process. > >* A description of how the sampling process works. > >* Questions and answers regarding the legality and constitutionality of >sampling. > >* Criticisms of the use of sampling as a means of achieving an accurate >population count. > >* Suggestions for making the current enumeration process more effective. > >"Many believe the Clinton Administration might try to use sampling to >create population estimates that favor Democratic candidates," said >author David W. Almasi, director of publications and media relations for >The National Center for Public Policy Research. "Clinton's record of >politicizing government agencies like the IRS and FBI - added to the fact >that tests of sampling have raised serious concerns about its accuracy - >make Republican congressmen and others leery of giving the President >control over mapping Congress for the next ten years." > >The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, >non-profit education foundation. > >To arrange an interview, please contact David W. Almasi at (202) 543-1286 >or DAlmasi@nationalcenter.org. The paper can be accessed over the >Internet at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA210.html. > ># # # > >------- >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 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: Jack Perrine Subject: RE: Fratrum: Fw: C-NEWS: President Threatens Shutdown in Push for Illegal Census (fwd) Date: 02 Sep 1998 15:44:50 -0700 On Wednesday, September 02, 1998 3:16 PM, Bill Vance [SMTP:roc@xpresso.seaslug.org] wrote: > > Anyone want to bet this won't be his odus operandi for everything else he > wants, too? Well actually, I think those who plan Clinton's spin should look about and see that some very fundamental changes have been made in what determines Clinton's popularity and thus his ability to do as described below. It has been noticed that no matter what evil Clinton did the populace said: We could care less.....since our Stocks are up. Now, I realize that most of the press is on auto saying the economy is wonderful / could not be better and the populace is thus happy. However, before this weeks unpleasantaness things like the Russell 2000 were do nearly 30 percent for the year. And while the media picks out a very few stocks in averages and tells the people each day how much higher stocks are in the real world most have seen the value of their stocks decrease And it is only get to worse and worse thru the election: 1: There are several hundred billion dollars worth of stock bought were borrowed money. This is fine as long as the stocks go up enough to pay the interest rate charges. This is terrible when the person who borrowed to buy the stocks now has to find the money to pay the interest rate charges. I suspect there will be a lot of stock sold and also a lot of defaults on home equity loans and credit cards. I expect a lot of unpleasantness and I expect the populace will blame Clinton and all the rest of Congress for each penny they have lost 2: Over the last few years government at all level has gotten used to and spent the windfall instead of paying down debt from all the taxes generated as people generated capitol gains / stock option winnings. Government at all levels is about to see a 20 percent or so drop in tax revenue. That is one government worker at the state and local level is about to become redundant. I somehow suspect that those who have lost all their savings will be less that pleased with having government generate new taxes and will be quite forceful in bringing this view to politicians. Again lots of unpleasantness and great drop in the popularatity of Clinton and all the rest of Congress 3: It is true that while things are bad in Asia practically anyplace where an investment is made has a chance of being worth several times as much in a few years it is also true that as this greatest bubble of all time bursts in this country that any investment.....except for money has a high probability of being worth a small fraction in a few years of what it is now. I expect massive floods of money from our markets to elsewhere. I suspect this will make it very difficult to find the money to find the extra couple of hundred billion in new borrowing to make up for no longer existing stock market winnings. This will drive up interest rates and further increase the total lack of popularity the populace has for Clinton or any other politician I tend to think that as the election nears the politicians might well be interested in quickly undoing a lot of things.....but I could be wrong on this sentence. But for the most part Clinton's ability to do as he pleases has come to an end Jack > On Sep 2, Arlin H. Adams wrote: > > [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amy Ridenour > To: c-news@europe.std.com > Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 2:41 AM > Subject: C-NEWS: President Threatens Shutdown in Push for Illegal Census > > >President Threatens Government Shutdown in Push for > >Illegal Census Practice: Counting Process Questioned > >as Unreliable, Potential Tool for Political Deceit > > > > > >For Immediate Release > >Contact: David W. Almasi (202) 543-1286 or > >DAlmasi@nationalcenter.org > > > > > >Despite a federal court ruling on August 24, 1998 prohibiting the use of > >"sampling" in the 2000 census, the Clinton Administration is still > >proceeding with plans to use this counting method in the next national > >population survey. Furthermore, President Bill Clinton is threatening to > >shut down the FBI, DEA and other Justice Department-related law > >enforcement organizations as well as the State and Commerce Departments > >unless Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives present him with > >legislation providing full funding to implement this illegal process. > > > >Data from the census, the once-a-decade survey of the American > >population, determines the number of U.S. representatives for each state, > >how voting districts are drawn and how federal money is allocated. The > >Clinton Administration is seeking to replace the traditional > >person-by-person counting method of enumeration with a statistical > >estimation process called sampling. While the Administration contends > >sampling is the only fair way to count all Americans, critics say it > >could produce erroneous population numbers and be manipulated for > >political gain. > > > >The National Center for Public Policy Research's new National Policy > >Analysis paper, "The Census: Sampling or a Straight Count?" provides > >readers with: > > > >* The historical underpinnings of the census process. > > > >* A description of how the sampling process works. > > > >* Questions and answers regarding the legality and constitutionality of > >sampling. > > > >* Criticisms of the use of sampling as a means of achieving an accurate > >population count. > > > >* Suggestions for making the current enumeration process more effective. > > > >"Many believe the Clinton Administration might try to use sampling to > >create population estimates that favor Democratic candidates," said > >author David W. Almasi, director of publications and media relations for > >The National Center for Public Policy Research. "Clinton's record of > >politicizing government agencies like the IRS and FBI - added to the fact > >that tests of sampling have raised serious concerns about its accuracy - > >make Republican congressmen and others leery of giving the President > >control over mapping Congress for the next ten years." > > > >The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, > >non-profit education foundation. > > > >To arrange an interview, please contact David W. Almasi at (202) 543-1286 > >or DAlmasi@nationalcenter.org. The paper can be accessed over the > >Internet at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA210.html. > > > ># # # > > > >------- > >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 of forwarded message ------------------------] > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no > weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his > hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a > on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > > - > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: GTE to Gunowners "Up Yours" Date: 02 Sep 1998 17:48:50 PST This is a Prime Candidate for the, "Are you going to provide Armed Guards on site, and additional ones to walk us to/from our vehicles, or just be liable for any and all damage suits for fatal/injourious incidents incurred while going to/from your premisis", tactic, which has served us so well in the past. On Sep 2, globallaw@tidalwave.net wrote: >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > >--------------302346714521 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >RKBA Defenders, > >You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting that GTE >was now posting "no guns" on the doors of it's retail outlets. In due >course I sent them a letter questioning whether this was true, and if >so, that I was highly insulted. > >To further support my argument, I citied the Lott/Mustard/Kleck/Kates >figures showing that CCW holders were proven to be far safer than your >average citizen, that CCW saves lives and reduces crime and that guns >are used to stop crime 2.5 million times each year. > >This is GTE's response to us gunowners. Essentially: "Up Yours." > >I suggest we cut off our money supply to them and that we also send them >a note telling them that unless and until they respect our Second >Amendment rights, they will be getting cut off at the knees. > >Here it is guys and gals. Let 'em have it. > > online.customer.response@gte.com > >Rick V. > >--------------302346714521 >Content-Type: message/rfc822 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline > >Return-Path: >Received: from pooh.netops.gtefsd.com ([131.131.131.131]) > by mailprime.tidalwave.net (Netscape Messaging Server 3.52) > with ESMTP id 247 for ; > Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:19:45 -0400 >Received: from crs.UNIX.CHNT.GSC.GTE.Com (crs.unix.chnt.gsc.gte.com [131.131.222.248]) > by pooh.netops.gtefsd.com (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA11324 > for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:24:42 -0400 >Received: by crs.UNIX.CHNT.GSC.GTE.Com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id JAA17615; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:20:07 -0400 >Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:20:07 -0400 >Message-Id: <199809021320.JAA17615@crs.UNIX.CHNT.GSC.GTE.Com> >To: globallaw@tidalwave.net >From: online.customer.response@gte.com >Subject: New Message/CCW-Sharon Tracking Number: 980821-17-1 >Content-Type: text > > >Dear Mr. Vaughn: > >Thank you for your recent correspondence to the GTE Website regarding the ban on weapons from GTE Wireless business premises. Your letter was well researched and informative and we do not dispute the statistics you provided to us regardi >ng persons carrying concealed weapons with a permit. GTE Wireless respects your right to carry a concealed weapon with a permit, however, for the protection of our employees and c >ustomers we have chosen to take a more cautious approach and ban weapons from our business premises, a decision which is allowed under state law. GTE Wireless is not alone in this decision, for it is my understanding th >at numerous businesses have adopted such a policy. We certainly do not want you to interpret our policy as an attempt to infringe upon a person s constitutional rights, for that wa >s not our intent. After careful consideration of the rights of all individuals, GTE Wireless concluded that this policy best protects the safety and well being of all concern! >! >ed. > >Again, thank you for contacting the GTE Website and for sharing your beliefs in this forum. > >Sincerely, >Sharon O'Haver >GTE Internet Response Team > > > >= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = > >From: online.customer.response@gte.com > >Date: 1998-08-21 > >Subject: New Message/CCW-Sharon > > > >Dear GTE Wireless, > >Today I received some disturbing news regarding your retail outlet policies. The message stated in part that: > >>GTE Wireless (formerly Cellular One) posts >its retail stores against CCW permit holders. > >"CCW" refers to Concealed Carry of Weapons via state-issued permits. If this is true, you should know that, for the reasons listed below, I find this highly offensive and unwarranted. > >1) CCW holders have proven themselves to be more law-abiding than the average citizen. Moreover, in order to receive a CCW permit, most states require a thorough criminal history >check of the applicant; > >2) CCW holders have a safety record that surpasses police on the order of a magnitude. You stand a far greater chance of being shot by a policeman than by a CCW permittee; > >3) Smallarms in private hands are used to thwart murders, rapes and violent assaults 2,500,000 times each year. In contrast, there have been an estimated 31,000 gun-related deaths > last year, a majority attributable to intra-gang violence, suicide, and justifiable homicides [self-defense and police action]; > >4) All states that have enacted CCW-reform laws have seen violent crime drop sharply in every catagory of criminal statistics collected. In contrast, of the top six cities for murder rates, five have had long-stand >ing gun bans; > >5) The right to self-defense, thus the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is an inalienable right recognized in U.S. Constitution as applied to the States via the Supremacy Clause and th >e 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in many state Constitutions; > >6) By stating that no weapons are allowed into your stores, you are assuming strict liability for the safety of customers who would otherwise have been able to defend themselves; > >As the message cited to above has shown, the word is going out nationwide. Word of mouth natually goes along with this. Rather than select GTE for local, cellular, long distance or internet service, I will opt for a telephone service provider that hono > >Unless and until you honor the Rights recognized by our Consitution, I will see to it that you will get no further income from myself or other like-minded individuals. Please note > that there are an estimated eighty million gun owners in America - many of whom regularly communicate via the internet. > > >Very truly yours, > >Richard E. Vaughan, Esq. -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Fratrum: Fw: C-NEWS: President Threatens Shutdown in Push for Illegal Census (fwd) Date: 03 Sep 1998 09:50:31 -0400 (EDT) >Anyone want to bet this won't be his odus operandi for everything else he >wants, too? Yup, the last shutdown wreaked havoc on the Republicans, and Slick Willie is betting that he can do it again. Keep your fingers crossed that Starr comes up with some pretty convincing evidence of a pattern of obstruction of justice. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Fratrum: Fw: C-NEWS: President Threatens Shutdown in Push for Illegal Census (fwd) Date: 03 Sep 1998 10:02:14 -0400 (EDT) Jack, I don't neccessarily disagree with what you say, but I would like to add that the estimates I've seen (I like the dismal science at: www.dismal.com) are: A 20% decline in the stock market would result in a 1% decline in GDP. For 1999 the GDP growth estimate is 1.9%, a 1% decline would bring it below 1%. Not a recession, but not boom times. The mechanism for Stock Market -> GDP is the "wealth effect". People with even paper losses perceive themselves as less wealthy and curtail their spending. We've basically seen a 20%+ decline in most stocks, with the large-cap techs and the DJIA only just now capitulating. ciao, jcurtis (amateur stock watcher) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Perrine Subject: Re: Fratrum: Fw: C-NEWS: President Threatens Shutdown in Push Date: 03 Sep 1998 08:13:49 -0700 At 10:02 9/03/98 -0400, you wrote: > > > Jack, > > I don't neccessarily disagree with what you say, but I would like > to add that the estimates I've seen (I like the dismal science at: > www.dismal.com) are: > > A 20% decline in the stock market would result in a 1% decline in > GDP. For 1999 the GDP growth estimate is 1.9%, a 1% decline would > bring it below 1%. Not a recession, but not boom times. > > The mechanism for Stock Market -> GDP is the "wealth effect". > People with even paper losses perceive themselves as less > wealthy and curtail their spending. > > We've basically seen a 20%+ decline in most stocks, with the > large-cap techs and the DJIA only just now capitulating. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > > (amateur stock watcher) I have read similar numbers in BARRONS over the years I just do not happen to belive them. First off, I think very very economists understand leverage. And it may well be that their concept of a 1 percent drop in spending from wealth effects is a valid number if there are small drops in wealth. However, while I do not know the exact numbers and am guessing BARRONS has over the years had several articles on the vast amount of borrowing to buy stocks. Now, this is a fine way to keep bull markets moving AS LONG AS THE INCREASES IN THE BULL MARKET PAYS the interest charges on the borrowed money. But when you have half a trillion or more in stock bought with borrowed money and the average increase in stock prices just drops to zero ....let alone falling then there is a tremendous problem in holding all that stock off the market. Next, if one interviews people who have always had savings and the sum total of their savings drops as stock take a correction they may curtail spending as in the one percent figure you gave. On the other hand over the last few years many who never had any savings suddenly bought stocks ..,,,,and are using the proceeds to buy cars and houses. But wealth effect or not if the value of your pile of stocks is down by 20 percent or thirty percent then you can not buy the same house or car. Actually, I would not be at all surprized if a lot of home sales did not start dropping out of escrow due to the inability to get the loans put on the houses to buy stocks cleaned up with stock prices down so much Jack > >- > > Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-398-8620 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Marines Practicing... Date: 03 Sep 1998 12:03:31 -0700 My apologies if y'all have already seen this; I've been gone for a few days and haven't read all my email yet. But I just knew you'd want to know... ------- Maryland Sheriff Opposes U.S.M.C. House-To-House Confiscation Exercises Republic Radio Network Intercept Fax Report Sept. 1, 1998 Robert G. 'Bob' Wheaton Message: Ref: Shortwave Radio Intercept from Republic Radio Network, Intelligence Report, with John Stadtmueller(?) on WWCR 5.070 MHS, 19:10 CDST, 9-01-98. Subj: Maryland Sheriff opposes U.S.M.C. House-To-House weapons confiscation training set for Thursday, 3 Sept., at Hebron, Maryland. Sheriff Nelms, of Wicomico County, Maryland, in conversation by phone with Stadtmueller(?) today, expressed grave concerns over a planned U.S.M.C. Training Op this coming Thursday, in which 50-58 Marines will "invade" the small town of Hebron, Marland, for more "Anti-terrorist" training, ostensibly a house-to-house weapons confiscation search and seizure. Sheriff Nelms has vowed to halt the military operation in his county if it involves such a house-to-house weapons seizure operation -- training or real. Hebron is a small town of approximately 665 residents, 10 miles N.W. of Salisbury, the Wicomico County seat. It was reported Salisbury city officials had rejected the U.S.M.C. plan for ops in their city. However, Hebron has no police department and only a local mayor who apparently succumbed to promised monitary asssistance for his community and authorized the U.S.M.C.'s planned "Special Operations" training in the belief it's a patriotic endeavor and necessary for our safety in world hyped up over terrorism. Pray for both Sehriff Nelms and Hebron's mayor. We need some divine intervention for different reasons! Posted by: Eastbound (wallace@gilanet.com) * 09/02/98 02:14:09 EDT This is immensely disturbing! I am a Korean war jarhead vet who spent 5 years in the Corps. I understand the degree to which the Army and Navy have become worldwide jokes, but to think that even the Commandant of The Corps has turned into one of those fascist- supporting thugs nearly brings me to tears. Hearing about these kinds of excersizes by the Corps in other states didn't really sink in, but now that it is happening here in MD it surely does. Until that treasonous fascist pig was elected into the WH, Marines had one and only one job. That was to kill enemies of the U.S efficiently. Not to act as clintonista brown-shirts in citizen- suppression excersizes. We now know who the clintonistas think are the enemies of the U.S. If we (the Republic) have lost the Marine Corps, we have lost it all. My Father and Grandfather, both ex-marines as well, must be turning over in their graves. God help us all! - Monte Let the sea roar and its fulness, The world and those who dwell in it. Let the rivers clap their hands; Let the mountains sing together for joy before the Lord. For He is coming to judge the earth; He will judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with equity. - Psalm 98 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: International Conservative Group (fwd) Date: 03 Sep 1998 12:28:32 PST Looks like one to keep an eye on, though I think they should change, "DEMOCRACY", to, "REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT", which many, "Democracies", are but not all. We all know the weaknesses of, "DEMOCRACY", the members thereof becoming a, "Tyranny of the Majority", and voting themselves Public Largesse etc. Representative Governments have their weaknesses, too, but not so ones that are so blatent or hard to Legally combat. On Sep 3, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Looks good to me. Kevin McGehee North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ "The hard-core Clinton supporters who consider Clinton's dishonesty irrelevant to the enactment of their agenda, are themselves dishonest people -- and their agenda is built on that dishonesty. It is not merely a means to an end to them, it is the heart and soul of what they believe, and the source of nearly all our troubles today." -----Original Message----- >Here is an interesting site on the internet. It is the International >Conservative group, an organization that is trying to pull all >conservatives around the world together to share experiences and >discuss our common foe, socialism. This site can be found at >http://www.come.to/icg Please consider joining this group. >The statement below is a presentation of the EUROPEAN YOUNG >CONSERVATIVES >group and one that I think that we all could agree with......David > >1. THE NINE PILLARS OF CONSERVATISM >The European Young Conservatives shall have as its objective to >further the values and principles of Conservatism within the nations >of Europe and within international organisations. It understands >Conservatism to be built >upon the following pillars:- > >NATIONHOOD > >Representative democracy can only function when people feel enough in >common, one with another, to accept common government and laws. Every >nation should be free to form an independent and self-governing state. >The borders of a state should reflect as closely as possible the >wishes of the people living in the territory. The imposition of >supranational structures which are sovereign over their constituent >states, is both undemocratic and impractical. International >co-operation should rest upon free collaboration among independent >countries, not upon supranational institutions. > >DEMOCRACY > >Truly accountable democracy will flourish best in a pluralist civic >society in which decisions are made as closely as possible to those >affected by them. Power should be dispersed, both among the different >branches of government and among the various non-governmental organs >which are essential in a healthy society. Government should >acknowledge the important role played by non-governmental institutions >and refrain from acting in areas where government intervention is not >necessary. > >LIBERTY > >Individuals should be free, under the law, to act as they wish without >limiting the freedom of those around them. The freedoms which are >guaranteed must include: freedom of movement within one's country and >in leaving or re-entering it; freedom of religion and worship; freedom >of speech and publication; freedom of assembly and association; >freedom to join, or not to join a trade union or employers' >association; freedom to pursue any lawful trade or profession without >interference. Personal liberty also includes the right to own and >convey property, free from unnecessary or confiscatory taxation. >Individuals must be free to dispose as they wish of their labour and >their possessions. > >THE RULE OF LAW > >Freedom and justice in any society rely upon the firm maintenance of >the rule of law. Equality of access to and treatment before the law >must be maintained, and the law must be enforced by an independent >judiciary. The requirements of the written law should never be set >aside in the name of national interest or popular opinion. > >PROPERTY > >That which nobody owns, nobody will care for. Individuals must be free >to retain or transfer ownership without interference. Taxation should >be used only as a means of raising the revenues for government to >perform its necessary functions; it should not be used as a means of >social engineering. Wherever possible, private ownership should be >preferred to state ownership. > >TRADITION > >Justice and order in any society are founded in shared values and >customs. No society can ignore the inherited wisdom of former >generations. A country should accept and cherish its traditions, >whether secular or religious in origin. >Each generation should be aware of its debt to those who have gone >before and its duty to those who will come after. > >FAMILY > >The family is the cornerstone or society. It is the unit in which >basic values and moral standards should be taught. Government should >not seek to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed at >family level, nor should it intervene to subsidise those who reject >the traditional family structure. > >THE FREE MARKET > >A free market, without qualifying adjectives, means absolutely free >trade in goods, services and capital. Not only is a free market the >most effective way to marshal a society's resources, but it is the >only way to safeguard individual liberty. Restrictions of the right to >trade freely are therefore wrong on both practical and moral grounds. >The best way to maximise the prosperity of the world is to extend free >commerce to a global level. > >MORALITY > >Political structures should be based upon accepted standards of right >and wrong. At their most fundamental, these standards comprise respect >for life, truth and property. They are common to all religions and >moral philosophies in which civilisation is rooted. They are universal >and inflexible, and social order cannot exist without them. They >should be reflected in the legal and political institutions of the >state, and encouraged among citizens. > >Adopted by:- >THE 7TH EXECUTIVE MEETING OF E.Y.C., LISBON, PORTUGAL DATED THIS >TWENTY-NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1995 > >Ratified by:- >THE 3RD ANNUAL COUNCIL MEETING OF E.Y.C., COPENHAGEN, DENMARK DATED >THIS EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER 1995 > >EUROPEAN YOUNG CONSERVATIVES [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: What are 'high crimes and misdemeanors"? (fwd) Date: 04 Sep 1998 10:20:56 PST On Sep 4, Mike Riddle wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] What are "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Ann Coulter drops a hint: Clinton has committed them. High Time by: Ann Coulter (This article appears in the September 14 issue of National Review.) NOW that Bill "That-Allegation-Is-False" Clinton has admitted that he is a creep and a liar, the nation is anxiously waiting to see if he also has committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors." The day after President Clinton admitted that his finger-wagging, eye-squinting assurance in January ("I did not have sex with that woman -- Monica Lewinsky") was not quite accurate, the presidential flacks who had been shouting "allegedly, allegedly" for seven months are trying a new defense. On August 18, official Dissembler for the President Lanny Davis announced on Crossfire that "lying is not a high crime and misdemeanor." Even Sen. Orrin Hatch indicated that any impeachment hearings would be limited to "obstruction of justice" and other "serious felonies." Those, he said, "are high crimes." No, actually, those are "crimes." The "high crimes and misdemeanors" for which the President -- or any civil officer of the United States -- is to be impeached have nothing to do with the criminal law. There is, in fact, no such thing as a "high crime" or "high misdemeanor" in the criminal codes. For more than six hundred years, "high crimes and misdemeanors" has referred exclusively to conduct requiring impeachment. Though any serious felony will do, impeachment will not result in a prison sentence or beheading. An impeachment conviction in the Senate merely removes a statesman from his office of "honor, trust, or profit" with the United States. The criminal law is for personal punishment; impeachment is for keeping statesmen virtuous. Some history: The Framers borrowed the phrase from Britain, where it was first used in connection with an impeachment in 1380. There were several instances of its use during the colonial period: in 1666 Viscount John Mordaunt was impeached for the high crime and misdemeanor of making uncivil addresses to a woman; in 1680 Sir William Scroggs, lord chief justice of the King's Bench, was impeached on account of "his frequent and notorious excesses and debaucheries," bringing "the highest scandal on the public justice of the kingdom"; in 1701 Edward, Earl of Oxford, a member of the King's Council, was impeached for procuring an office for someone "known to be a person of ill fame and reputation." The list goes on. Notably, none of these are crimes -- or even misdemeanors -- under the criminal law. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in his great Commentaries on the Constitution, it is not only "crimes of a strictly legal character" that are impeachable offenses, but also political offenses, growing out of "personal misconduct . . . so various" that they "must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty." So, a "high misdemeanor" refers not, as it is commonly construed, to a criminal offense just short of a felony, but to simple misbehavior -- bad demeanor, if you will. As the Rodino Report during the Watergate investigation explained, "From the comments of the Framers and their contemporaries, the remarks of delegates to the state ratifying conventions, and the removal-power debate in the First Congress, it is apparent that the scope of impeachment was not viewed narrowly." Instead, impeachment has always been viewed as -- among other things -- a guarantee of the moral behavior of public officials. In the course of prosecuting one of the greatest impeachment trials in Anglo - American history -- that of Warren Hastings -- Edmund Burke said: "Other constitutions are satisfied with making good subjects; [impeachment] is a security for good governors." Burke meant "good" in the moral sense: "it is by this tribunal that statesmen [are tried] not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality." It is exactly this understanding of impeachment that underlies the phrase used in Article I of the Constitution. James Madison said the "first aim" of the Constitution was to ensure that men with the "most virtue" would become the nation's rulers. The Constitution's impeachment power was for "keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust." Or as Alexander Hamilton put it, "Men, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious to legal punishment." To be sure, there were differences in the practical application in Britain and the United States. Impeachments in Great Britain were often used as a weapon in the ongoing and turbulent power struggle between Parliament and the King. Consequently, impeachments tended to fall into ponderous, grand-sounding categories such as "abuse of power" or "encroachment on Parliament's prerogatives." These categories were expanded and reshuffled for use in a constitutional republic. Personal misconduct took on a larger role in impeachments, for example, and policy disputes were not areas of impeachable conduct. Having just fought a war to get rid of a king, the framers had "the perfidity of the chief magistrate" clearly in their sights when they included broad grounds for impeachment. They discussed the Constitution's impeachment power in terms of removing a President who "misbehaves" or "behave[s] amiss," as two of the delegates put it. Madison wrote that impeachment was meant to remove Presidents for "incapacity, negligence, or perfidity." What does such presidential misconduct look like? We, of course, have a recent template. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee adopted three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. The charges against him were neatly summarized near the bottom of the indictment: "In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." To say that Nixon was forced to resign, as so many commentators do, for acting in a manner "subversive of constitutional government" is meaningless without knowing what acts comprised that "subversion." Nixon's subversion consisted of: One presidential lie, one invocation of presidential privilege, and zero criminal offenses. One month after Nixon resigned, a prosecutor said of some of Nixon's alleged crimes, "none of these matters at the moment rises to the level of our ability to prove even a probable criminal violation by Mr. Nixon." As Nixon discovered, the President's obligations go far beyond the requirement that he not criminally obstruct justice. Nixon talked about political audits by the IRS, but no political audits were ever conducted (except of Nixon himself). Nixon invoked one privilege one time (and this was somewhat legitimate, since the Supreme Court did in fact recognize a brand new legal privilege). And Nixon permitted his subordinates to delay one investigation once -- for two weeks. What really did Nixon in was his long-running campaign of public deceit. The Watergate special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, said of Nixon's disgrace and resignation: "What sank him was his lying." Even President Nixon's most loyal defenders abandoned his cause when they found that he had lied. "The problem is not Watergate or the cover-up," Pat Buchanan told Julie Nixon. "It's that he hasn't been telling the truth to the American people. .. . . The tape makes it evident that he hasn't leveled with the country for probably eighteen months. And the President can't lead a country he has deliberately misled for a year and a half." What was true of Nixon, of course, is just as true of President Clinton. We at least know how Edmund Burke would vote. -- Miss Coulter is a lawyer with the Center for Individual Rights. This article is adapted from her new book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors (Regnery). --- [------------------------- 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: Free Corn (fwd) Date: 04 Sep 1998 19:55:28 PST On Sep 4, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] With thanks to David L. Williams of Goldstream Valley, Alaska for sending this to me: ============================= The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp Some years ago, about 1900, an old trapper from North Dakota hitched up some horses to his Studebaker wagon, packed a few possessions -- especially his traps -- and drove south. Several weeks later he stopped in a small town just north of the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia. It was a Saturday morning -- a lazy day -- when he walked into the general store. Sitting around the pot-bellied stove were seven or eight of the town's local citizens. The traveler spoke. "Gentlemen, could you direct me to the Okefenokee Swamp?" Some of the oldtimers looked at him like he was crazy. "You must be a stranger in these parts," they said. "I am. I'm from North Dakota," said the stranger. "In the Okefenokee Swamp are thousands of wild hogs." one old man explained. "A man who goes into the swamp by himself asks to die!" He lifted up his leg. "I lost half my leg here, to the pigs of the swamp." Another old fellow said, "Look at the cuts on me; look at my arm bit off!" "Those pigs have been free since the Revolution, eating snakes and rooting out roots and fending for themselves for over a hundred years. They're wild and they're dangerous. You can't trap them. No man dare go into the swamp by himself." Every man nodded his head in agreement. The old trapper said, "Thank you so much for the warning. Now could you direct me to the swamp?" They said, "Well, yeah, it's due south -- straight down the road." But they begged the stranger not to go, because they knew he'd meet a terrible fate. He said, "Sell me ten sacks of corn, and help me load it in the wagon." And they did. Then the old trapper bid them farewell and drove on down the road. The townsfolk thought they'd never see him again. Two weeks later the man came back. He pulled up to the general store, got down off the wagon, walked in and bought ten more sacks of corn. After loading it up he went back down the road toward the swamp. Two weeks later he returned and again bought ten sacks of corn. This went on for a month. And then two months, and three. Every week or two the old trapper would come into town on a Saturday morning, load up ten sacks of corn, and drive off south into the swamp. The stranger soon became a legend in the little village and the subject of much speculation. People wondered what kind of devil had possessed this man, that he could go into the Okefenokee by himself and not be consumed by the wild and free hogs. One morning the man came into town as usual. Everyone thought he wanted more corn. He got off the wagon and went into the store where the usual group of men were gathered around the stove. He took off his gloves. "Gentlemen," he said, "I need to hire about ten or fifteen wagons. I need twenty or thirty men." "I have six thousand hogs out in the swamp, penned up, and they're all hungry. I've got to get them to market right away." "You've WHAT in the swamp?" asked the storekeeper, incredulously. "I have six thousand hogs penned up. They haven't eaten for two or three days, and they'll starve if I don't get back there to feed and take care of them." One of the oldtimers said, "You mean you've captured the wild hogs of the Okefenokee?" "That's right." "How did you do that? What did you do?" the men urged, breathlessly. One of them exclaimed, "But I lost my arm!" "I lost my brother!" cried another. "I lost my leg to those wild boars!" chimed a third. The trapper said, "Well, the first week I went in there they were wild all right." "They hid in the undergrowth and wouldn't come out. I dared not get off the wagon." "So I spread corn along behind the wagon. Every day I'd spread a sack of corn." "The old pigs would have nothing to do with it." "But the younger pigs decided that it was easier to eat free corn than it was to root out roots and catch snakes. So the very young began to eat the corn first." "I did this every day. Pretty soon, even the old pigs decided that it was easier to eat free corn." "After all, they were all free; they were not penned up. They could run off in any direction they wanted at any time." "The next thing was to get them used to eating in the same place all the time. So I selected a clearing, and I started putting the corn in the clearing." "At first they wouldn't come to the clearing. It was too far. It was too open. It was a nuisance to them." "But the very young decided that it was easier to take the corn in the clearing than it was to root out roots and catch their own snakes. And not long thereafter, the older pigs also decided that it was easier to come to the clearing every day." "And so the pigs learned to come to the clearing every day to get their free corn." "They could still subsidize their diet with roots and snakes and whatever else they wanted. After all, they were all free. They could run in any direction at any time. There were no bounds upon them." "The next step was to get them used to fence posts." "So I put fence posts all the way around the clearing. I put them in the underbrush so that they wouldn't get suspicious or upset." "After all, they were just sticks sticking up out of the ground, like the trees and the brush. The corn was there every day. It was easy to walk in between the posts, get the corn, and walk back out." "This went on for a week or two. Shortly they became very used to walking into the clearing, getting the free corn, and walking back out through the fence posts." "The next step was to put one rail down at the bottom. I also left a few openings, so that the older, fatter pigs could walk through the openings and the younger pigs could easily jump over just one rail." "After all, it was no real threat to their freedom or independence. They could always jump over the rail and flee in any direction at any time." "Now I decided that I wouldn't feed them every day. I began to feed them every other day." "On the days I didn't feed them the pigs still gathered in the clearing. They squealed, and they grunted, and they begged and pleaded with me to feed them." "But I only fed them every other day. And I put a second rail around the posts." "Now the pigs became more and more desperate for food. Because now they were no longer used to going out and digging their own roots and finding their own food. They now needed me. They needed my corn every other day." "So I trained them that I would feed them every day if they came in through a gate. And I put up a third rail around the fence." "But it was still no great threat to their freedom, because there were several gates and they could run in and out at will." "Finally I put up the fourth rail." "Then I closed all the gates but one, and I fed them very, very well." "Yesterday I closed the last gate. And today I need you to help me take these pigs to market." -- end of story -- The price of free corn The allegory of the pigs has a serious moral lesson. This story is about federal money being used to bait, trap and enslave a once free and independent people. Federal welfare, in its myriad forms, has reduced not only individuals to a state of dependency. State and local governments are also on the fast track to elimination, due to their functions being subverted by the command and control structures of federal "revenue sharing" programs. Please copy this flyer and send it to all your state and local elected leaders and other concerned citizens. Tell them: "Just say NO to federal corn." The bacon you save may be your own. ============================= Kevin McGehee North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ [------------------------- 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: Pro-gun editorial (fwd) Date: 06 Sep 1998 00:48:46 PST On Sep 5, Bob Mueller wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] http://www.startext.net/news/doc/1047/1:LABBE/1:LABBE090398.html An excerpt: "According to the Department of Justice's proposed rule for the instant checks, the FBI has the "authority to establish, collect and retain fees for processing name checks for non-criminal justice purposes." Hold the phone right here. Why would we be doing this if it wasn't for the purposes of criminal justice? Sarah Brady, Handgun Control Inc. and other proponents of the Brady Act have long advocated that the law was meant to keep known bad people from doing unknown bad things with guns. If attempting to keep convicted felons from buying a gun is a non-criminal justice process, I'll be the first to quack like a duck. The clock is ticking on the public comments period on the proposed rule that will establish the gun tax. It's a bad rule; Congress should appropriate the money needed for law enforcement efforts and not tax a targeted group of citizens who are just trying to exercise their right under the Second Amendment. Anyone who shares that opinion should let the feds know, in writing, on or before Sept. 16." ______________________________________ Bob Mueller Second Amendment Research Network - http://www.infinet.com/~bmueller/Index.html D, 6/52 ADA Alumni Association Commander http://www.gather.com/d652ada/ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: GTE to CCW Holders - "Up Yours" - Input from 2d Amd Library (fwd) Date: 06 Sep 1998 00:45:29 PST On Sep 6, globallaw@tidalwave.net wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Recap: GTE (Now merging with Bell Atlantic if I understand their homepage correctly) has decided on a corporate policy of banning CCWs from their storefront outlets. We aim to change all that. Here's an excellent response from Mark Fuller from the Second Amendment Library. It appears they have had some success in addressing similar situations in the sunny state of Arizona. There's no reason why it shouldn't work for us as well. Mark has given me permission to forward his letter to the various RKBA listservs. In the meantime I have requested that he send us a few examples letters that have worked for him in the past. This is GTE's contact page Addresses, 1-800 numbers and e-mail. Dontcha love technology? http://www.gte.com/cgi-bin/feedback.cgi Regards, Rick V. --------------708725E82A3D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from smtp04.primenet.com ([206.165.6.134]) by mailprime.tidalwave.net (Netscape Messaging Server 3.52) with ESMTP id 357 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 23:41:25 -0400 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA13740 for ; Sat, 5 Sep 1998 20:45:12 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199809060345.UAA13740@smtp04.primenet.com> Received: from ip-22-034.phx.primenet.com(206.165.22.34), claiming to be "MFULLER" via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd013718; Sat Sep 5 20:45:04 1998 Reply-To: "Mark A. Fuller" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.00.1500) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I read your note about a ban at GTE. The best way to handle this is to get the names and addresses of regional directors, someone high on the food chain, and send them a certified return-reciept letter informing them of the problems with this ban and that hundreds of people will be watching for acts of violence and will turn this documentation over to the victim or her survivors for use in a civil suit. The problems you should mention should touch on how the stores have implemented a "honor system" policy, a system which gives the appearance that they don't permit weapons in the store, but absent any guards and checking of customers to ensure noone does. Obviously those with no criminal intent will be the ones to honor the signs, and those intent on criminal activity won't. And there'll be nobody admitting customers enforcing this so-called "rule". This is, in essense, a fraud and a false contract. It could be by ignorance, but upon sending the letter it will be willful and with knowlege. (be sure to mention that). The other problem builds upon the first. By disarming patrons and advertising their disarmed nature, GTE is effectively drawing predatory criminals to its customers with a big sign reading "easy pickings". The fact that they take no steps to provide for the security of their customers, even those in the parking lot, raises serious issues about GTE's culpability in any injuries that may occur. The parking lot raises even more serious questions. GTE is causing people to leave their weapons in unattended cars. If a criminal is looking to obtain a hot gun, such a parking lot would be a perfect place to break into cars. If a gun were stolen and used in violence, there would be scores of personal injury lawyers just waiting to sue deep pockets over their creating the condition for such irresponsible gun storage. And of course, you and your cohorts will have the documentation just waiting to give to one. We've done this in AZ and had pretty good luck with it except for government properties. Governments don't care if their sued because it's not their money. Small price to pay in getting across a social lesson. Few would say private businesses can't control behavior on their property. The problem with this scheme is that they aren't doing _anything_ to control the behavior they would like everyone to believe they are controlling. Everything about it is wreckless and endangering. (be sure to say this). If they wish to control behavior in a responsible manner, they should have an armed guard and lockers for people to store their weapons in upon entering the store. The problem with what they're doing is that, once you give the appearance of controlling behavior, you're on the hook for it. They should leave it alone and claim no responsibility, or they should make an honest effort. What they're doing is a sham which opens them up to severe liability on numerous fronts (especially outside the premises where they _know_ they have no chance of providing for your safety). By putting them on notice and retaining documentation of that notice, you've got them by the throat. You'll be holding a lottery ticket just waiting for a winner/loser. If this is what they want to do, then make them completely responsible. Make them demonstrate how devoted they are to this principle. Mark Second Amendment Law Library, recent legal scholarship at: http://www.2ndlawlib.org/ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: larry ball Subject: Test Date: 06 Sep 1998 07:55:04 -0500 This is a test - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: larry ball Subject: The Original Clinton Presidential Library Date: 06 Sep 1998 12:46:02 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------9FB12979145B139990D0532B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://members.aol.com/rhrongstad/history/originalclintonlibrary.htm --------------9FB12979145B139990D0532B Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="originalclintonlibrary.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="originalclintonlibrary.htm" Content-Base: "http://members.aol.com/rhrongstad/hist ory/originalclintonlibrary.htm" The Original Clinton Presidential Library

The Original Clinton Presidential Library

(c) 1998 Richard Rongstad

The Official Clinton Presidential Library should open soon for donations.
You can help. Donations Libraries of lesser presidents

Instructions:
(1) pour your beverage of choice
(2) contains serious material
(3) contains non-serious material
(4) securely seated or tied down
(5) national security and military content
(6) material is both real and surreal

This is a lot of fun!

There no doubt will be a Clinton Library, or libraries.

The library will be supported by grants, donations in cash, federal fat cat tax write-offs, tons and tons of money collected by the Internal Revenue Service, and/or donations in kind (books, papers, video tapes, phone-taps, etc.)

I am looking for suggestions. Please donate your suggestions!

Add to this list.

- Das Kapital
- Communist Manifesto
- Mandate for Change (PPI, Marshall and Schram)
- Putting People First (PPI, Clinton and Gore)
- Secret Health Care Hearings (Hillary R. Clinton)
- Mein Kampf (Alois Schicklegruber's grandson)
- My New Order (same author as above)
- New World Order (H.G. Wells)
- Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot (Al Franken)
- Al Franken is a buck-toothed moron
- Slick Willie (Floyd G. Brown)
- Al Gore, Jr.: Born to Lead (Hank Hillin)
- Bill Clinton's Agenda for America (Peter Navarro)
- State of the World Forum Annual Reports (1995-1998) Mikhail Gorbachev
- Pals* (Buddy Clinton, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin)
- The Best President Money Can Buy* (Screen Actors Guild)
- For Better or For Worse* (NOW)
- Why I should be protected by the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act* (Bill Clinton)
- Somalia: My Shining Moment* (Bill Clinton)
- Why the father of the Medal of Honor winner dissed me: The Real Story* (Bill Clinton)
- Filegate* (by Craig Livingstone, publisher, OfficeMax)
- My Country, My Right to Serve (Humphrey)
- It takes a village
- It takes a bathhouse* (Roberta Achtenberg)
- Rally 'round the Fag Boys* (FOB)
- Vince Foster Was a Friend of Mine* (Bill and Hillary Clinton)
- Ron BrownGate* (anonymous)
- Wag the Dog
- Waco: Responsibility not Accountability* (Janet Reno)
- Whitewater Rafting*
- Secret Services* (expose of PPA, the Presidential Procurement Agency)
- We Tried Our Best Bill* (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, New York Times, Washington Post)
- Chinagate: The Real Story (Al Gore, Jr.)*
- Chinagate: The Real, Real Story (Wun Hung Low)*
- Chinese Intelligence Operations (Nicholas Eftimiades) (mint condition)
- COSCO: From Chinatown to Chinastate* (by Duncan Hunter, Duke Cunningham and Bob Dornan, pub. by Xinhua)
- Monica: My Life with Bill* (William Ginsberg and Monica Lewinsky)
(Also proposed as My Two Bills, and I Can't Pay Bill because Bill Won't Pay Me)
- Me and Larry and Bill: Raising the dead* (by Shelia Lawrence)
- Fort Pinocchio: The White House* (title originally suggested by David Hackworth)
- The Ten Commandments Should Be the Ten Suggestions: The Wisdom of Ted Turner, Bill Clinton, and Madalyn Murray O'Hair* (Pat Robertson)
- Unabomber Manifesto (Ted)
- Special Prosecuter's Report (Starr report)

Clinton Humor Section:
(Will be one of the larger sections of the library) (If not the largest)

- Saving Clinton's Privates* (film, Steven Spielberg)

* = suggested title, author, publisher, etc. (c) 1998 Richard Rongstad
As far as is known, the other titles are are currently available.

You all have a good time!
I am.

Richard Rongstad Send e-mail suggestions to: rhrongstad@aol.com
State whether or not you want be responsible and have your name, etc. printed along with your suggestion, or just simply add the statement, "I am irresponsible" along with your social security number.

World Wide Web:

    Rongstad's Worldwide Military Links (2,600+)
      http://members.aol.com/rhrongstad/private/milinksr.htm

    Worldwide Military News Links (160+)

      http://members.aol.com/rhrongstad/news/milnews.htm

Phone: don't bother I'm on the computer.

Return to Richard Rongstad's Main Page

visitors.






















Other Presidential Libraries. (Ranked Below The
Bill Clinton Presidential Libraries)

(They are of lesser importance because the legacies of other Presidents simply cannot match what Bill Clinton has done in or out of office.)

  • Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum
  • Hoover Presidential Library
  • Ronald Wilson Reagan Presidential Library and Museum Bookstore
  • Ronald W. Reagan Presidential Library
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library Gopher
  • Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum
  • Presidential Portraits at the Library of Congress
  • George Bush Presidential Library
  • Dedication Coverage of the George Bush Presidential Library
  • Internet Publishing Technologies: George Bush Presidential Library
  • Jimmy Carter Presidential Library Museum
  • Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum
  • Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library [umich.edu]
  • Jimmy Carter Library
  • Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace Foundation
  • Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center

    Top of page






















    DONATIONS in the form of serious submissions for accession into the library database will be given fair consideration. Do not send cash. To send electronic editions of books, reports, articles, photographs etc., inquire first. I am only looking for a serious list of proposed items, satirical and otherwise, for all Clinton libraries,

    Top of page

    --------------9FB12979145B139990D0532B-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Harry E. Barnett" Subject: FREE: Federal Resources for Educational Excellence Date: 06 Sep 1998 19:33:00 -0700 The came to me by way of a nationwide "Education" mailing list. These people KNOW that the battle for the hearts and minds of the country will be won or lost through the young people, people who aren't even in the school systems yet. These people talk about "teachers, federal agencies...can begin forming 'partnerships'" as if it them most normal thing in the world. It is. In totalitarian states. If things aren't scary enough for you yet, check out your friendly doves (pigeons?) at the "CIA Kids Page (Central Intelligence Agency) " link on the page below. Go to the main page, then click on "More for Students". Propaganda anyone? ---------Enclosure begins------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL TEACHING AND LEARNING RESOURCES ONLINE A new Web site for teaching and learning resources, "Federal Resources for Educational Excellence," (http://www.ed.gov/free) offers quick access to hundreds of free teaching and learning resources across the federal government, a place where teachers, federal agencies and other organizations can begin forming partnerships to develop new resources for teaching and learning and information about an effort to support partnerships of federal agencies and teachers, as well as other organizations, to develop Internet-based learning resources and Internet-based learning communities. Kirk Winters, Peter Kickbush, Linda Roberts, Keith Stubbs, Cindy Balmuth U.S. Department of Education kirk_winters@ed.gov ------- Harry E. Barnett harryb@hbbse.com http://www.hbbse.com "Why is history important? Without history, many people have no idea how many of today's half-baked ideas have been tried, again and again - and have repeatedly led to disaster. Most of these ideas are not new. They are just being recycled with re-treaded rhetoric." --Thomas Sowell - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: IRS: Lucky Fan May Have to Pay (fwd) Date: 08 Sep 1998 12:31:32 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.abcnews.com/sections/sports/DailyNews/irsball980908.html By H. Josef Herbert The Associated Press W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 8 - Along with millions of baseball fans, the Internal Revenue Service also is watching for Mark McGwire to smack his historic 62nd home run. But what interests the IRS most is what happens to the baseball. According to the IRS, a fan who snags the record-setting ball and returns it to McGwire may be subject to a federal gift tax if the ball is determined to be worth more than $625,000. Thus the tax man would come even if the fan doesn't get any money for the ball. "The giver is responsible for paying any applicable tax on any large gift," IRS spokesman Steven Pyrek explained Monday. Until the ball leaves the playing field, it is owned by Major League Baseball. But once in the stands it becomes the property of any fan who catches it or comes up with it in what is likely to be a mad scramble. A person receiving a baseball or any other gift owes no taxes as long as he or she keeps it. But a gift tax applies to any property given away that is worth $10,000 or more and a person must pay tax on any profit made on property that is sold. It makes no difference to the IRS whether the item is cash, a piece of jewelry or a record-setting baseball shagged by a bleacher fan. No Such Thing as a Free...Ball Whoever catches McGwire's 62nd home run ball will have a number of options, all of which may have tax implications: - Keep the ball. The fan owes no tax immediately, but the ball will become part of his estate, and be taxable after death. - Sell the ball. The fan would owe taxes on any profit, likely putting him in the highest tax bracket, nearly 40 percent. If sold for $1 million-as some have said the historic ball might be worth - Uncle Sam would get about $400,000. - Give it away. The fan would face a 40 percent gift tax. While the first $625,000 would be exempt because of a lifetime gift tax credit, the fan as a result would lose the right to use that credit as part of his future estate settlement. For a $1 million ball, $375,000 would be subject to the tax. That would amount to $150,000 in taxes. The only way to avoid the IRS would be to give the ball to a charity, which under the tax codes would not have to pay a tax if it turned around and sold the ball for a profit. "One of the biggest problems would be coming up with the value of whatever is given," Pyrek said. He could not say how much-if anything-a fan would have to fork over to the IRS unless it can be determined how much the ball is worth. There's no assurance, of course, that McGwire will hit No. 62, but he has 19 games left to do it. On Monday, Mike Davidson, 28, came up with McGwire's 61st home run ball that tied Roger Maris' record and passed Babe Ruth. Davidson said he planned to return the ball to McGwire and wanted nothing in return. Some collectors have suggested the ball hit Monday could be worth as much as $100,000. Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Suspension of President Clinton's Security Clearances (fwd) Date: 08 Sep 1998 22:02:20 -0400 (EDT) Roc and Noban readers: Feel free to share this missive with your concerned U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators, especially those who serve on the U.S. House Intelligence Committee or U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee ... and who care deeply about protecting classified national security information from compromise. Best regards, Chris Ferris GO-NH NRA IDPA Nashua NH (moved west across the Merrimack River and not north to Maine!) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: cbass@hr.house.gov, mailbox@gregg.senate.gov, opinion@smith.senate.gov, directors@gonh.org, nh-conservatives@mainstream.net September 8, 1998 The Honorable William S. Cohen Secretary of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301-1000 Dear Secretary Cohen: As a fellow alumnus and a 1977 vintage U.S. Army ROTC distinguished military graduate of Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, I was truly pleased to see that you recently visited with soldiers of the Army's 10th Mountain Division to praise their patriotism. You have not forgotten that the foot soldiers of freedom are the brave infantrymen of the U.S. Army and U.S. Marines who lead the way, unto death if necessary, in defense of our revered Constitution and our rock-solid Republic. Today, however, I write to you about another matter of vital importance. With all due respect, Sir, I must remind you of your obligation to suspend any DoD security clearance (Confidential, Secret, Top Secret or Top Secret code word levels) of any government employee who engages in acts of moral turpitude, who engages in deception or deceit, who evidences possible emotional imbalance or psychological instability, or who engages in sexual acts which make him or her susceptible to blackmail, all of which behavior patterns potentially place national security information at extreme risk. Your colleagues at CIA and DOE have similar obligations when any government employee possessing sensitive CIA security clearances or DOE security clearances (relating to access to nuclear weapons-focused information) is suspected of engaging in misconduct which could compromise classified defense information. Mr. Secretary, President Clinton has lied to the nation, he has engaged in a seven month long campaign of brazen deception and deceit, he has engaged in sexual relations on a recurring basis with a volunteer female intern half his age, and he has given that uncleared intern access to tightly secured Presidential offices where printed, highly classified defense information must often be displayed in open view. Who is to know if Monica Lewinsky could have been an unwitting dupe used by a hostile foreign power's intelligence service? Who, indeed? Independent Counsel Ken Starr's investigation aside, it is time, Sir, for professional personnel security and counterintelligence officers within DoD, CIA and DOE to investigate whether or not President Clinton can be trusted to have continued access to national security information classified at any level. (For the time being, give the President a Rawlings pigskin, and ask the Vice President to watch over the nuclear "football" with the codes.) You are a man of real honor, Mr. Secretary. You and I graduated from the College from which Medal of Honor winner General Joshua L. Chamberlain departed to lead the 20th Maine to victory at Little Round Top during the Battle of Gettysburg and to which school he later returned as president. My great grandfather, William John Curtis, graduated from Bowdoin College during the 1870s while General Chamberlain was the College's president. Honor runs deep at Bowdoin College and within my family, as it does in yours. Bowdoin College alumni never hesitate to serve their Country and to do their duty when faced with daunting circumstances. You will do the right thing. You will make the right decision. Of that, I have no doubt whatsoever. Suspend President Clinton's security clearances without delay, pending initiation and completion of a full investigation of his fitness to have continued access to classified information. Then, at that time, make an objective, fair decision with regard to revocation or reinstatement of his security clearances. Remind your counterparts at CIA and DOE of their duty to act in an identical manner. As a former U.S. Army commissioned officer who served for over five years in Military Intelligence branch, I saw what happened to "cleared" personnel who behaved as President Clinton has behaved. Their security clearances were always suspended, pending results of investigations. President Clinton is subject to the same scrutiny as any cleared government employee who is suspected of engaging in misconduct which may compromise national security information. President Clinton is not above the law. DoD's strict policies regarding suspension of security clearances apply to the President of the United States just as they do to any other cleared federal government employee or cleared defense contractor. Mr. Secretary, you can certainly appreciate that this is a matter of grave consequence. I urge you to commence this important process of suspending the President's clearances and of investigating him without delay and to work with the Director of Central Intelligence, the Secretary of Energy and the Chairpersons of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee and the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee to find facts, then report back to Congress and, eventually, to the American people. Let the truth be known, Sir, and let our national security be preserved as a result of your attending well to your sworn duty as Secretary of Defense. I have forwarded copies of this correspondence to Congressman Charles Bass (R-NH), to Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) and to Senator Bob Smith (R-NH.) I am encouraging these gentlemen to share this critical information with their colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, on the intelligence committees of the U.S House of Representatives and of the U.S. Senate. Protecting classified information from compromise is an apolitical, non-partisan goal of major significance which merits the immediate attention of all members of Congress and all American citizens. The courtesy of a formal, written reply to this correspondence is requested. Thank you for affording me, as a concerned Bowdoin College alumnus, as a military veteran and as a patriotic American, this invaluable forum to present my reasoned opinion for your review and response. Sincerely, Christopher C. Ferris 186 Coburn Woods Nashua NH 03063-2860 ferriscc@mainstream.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Suspension of President Clinton's Security Clearances (fwd) Date: 08 Sep 1998 23:02:20 -0500 At 10:32 PM 9/8/98 -0400, Chris Ferris wrote: >Roc and Noban readers: > >Feel free to share this missive with your concerned U.S. Representatives and >U.S. Senators, especially those who serve on the U.S. House Intelligence >Committee or U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee ... and who care deeply >about protecting classified national security information from compromise. > >Best regards, Nice idea, but the President doesn't have a security clearance in the normal sense. Neither do Congressmen or Senators. Back when I was dealing with such stuff as an officer of the U.S. Air Force, Active and later Reserve, we were told that anything a Congressman asks for, they get, even Ron Dellums, back before he had enough seniority to be a signifigent commitee player, let alone once he became the number 2 majority member. This most assuredly does not apply to any appointed official, civilian, military, they must have a clearance to have access. > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 19:52:19 -0400 (EDT) >From: Chris Ferris >To: dpcintrn@osd.pentagon.mil >Cc: cbass@hr.house.gov, mailbox@gregg.senate.gov, opinion@smith.senate.gov, > directors@gonh.org, nh-conservatives@mainstream.net >Subject: Suspension of President Clinton's Security Clearances > . . . >Dear Secretary Cohen: > . . . >Today, however, I write to you about another matter of vital importance. >With all due respect, Sir, I must remind you of your obligation to suspend >any DoD security clearance (Confidential, Secret, Top Secret or Top >Secret code word levels) of any government employee who engages in acts >of moral turpitude, who engages in deception or deceit, who evidences >possible emotional imbalance or psychological instability, or who engages >in sexual acts which make him or her susceptible to blackmail, all of >which behavior patterns potentially place national security information at >extreme risk. Your colleagues at CIA and DOE have similar obligations when >any government employee possessing sensitive CIA security clearances or DOE >security clearances (relating to access to nuclear weapons-focused >information) is suspected of engaging in misconduct which could compromise >classified defense information. > >As a former U.S. Army commissioned officer who served for over five years >in Military Intelligence branch, I saw what happened to "cleared" personnel >who behaved as President Clinton has behaved. Their security clearances >were always suspended, pending results of investigations. President >Clinton is subject to the same scrutiny as any cleared government employee Oh , that he were so subject. >who is suspected of engaging in misconduct which may compromise national >security information. President Clinton is not above the law. DoD's >strict policies regarding suspension of security clearances apply to the >President of the United States just as they do to any other cleared federal >government employee or cleared defense contractor. No they don't. In this particular case, the President, along with the Congress Critters, *are* "above the law". Actually they are exceptions to it. It has to be this way if we are to maintain civilian control of the military by our *elected* officials. > >Mr. Secretary, you can certainly appreciate that this is a matter of grave >consequence. I urge you to commence this important process of suspending the >President's clearances and of investigating him without delay and to work >with the Director of Central Intelligence, the Secretary of Energy and the >Chairpersons of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee and the U.S. Senate >Intelligence Committee to find facts, then report back to Congress and, >eventually, to the American people. Let the truth be known, Sir, and let our >national security be preserved as a result of your attending well to your >sworn duty as Secretary of Defense. Hmm, I suspect upon a bill of impeachment being passed in the House, equivalent to a grand jury indictment, something could be worked out with the House Intelligence commitee., although it would be a bitch getting it past the Supreme Court. The President remains the Commander in Chief, until relieved. Now the cabinet and the Tree-Man, could declare the President to be incapacitated, per the 25th Amendment. But that will happen about the same time Hell freezes over. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: Resign list to date: Date: 09 Sep 1998 08:32:03 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 20:20:09 -0400 From: "Gregory" Subject: CAS: Fw: The LIST of US Congress Members Asking Clinton to Resign & Others..... !!! Updated ; As of 08 September 1998 ; 8:00 PM edt Resign / I. Tally List, as updated: A1) U.S. House of Reps. (Initiation Phase): Total : 028 of 218 (12.84 %) (needed 50+% of U.S. House =218 Reps.) 1) U.S. Rep. Dick Armey, (R-26 TX.) Majority LeaderU.S.House/Rep. 2) U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, (R-22 TX.) Maj. Whip U.S. House of Rep. 3) U.S. Rep. Paul McHale (D-15 PA.) 4) U.S. Rep. Bob Barr (R-7 GA.) 5) U.S. Rep. George Nethercutt (R-5 WA.) 6) U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-1 AZ.) 7) U.S. Rep. Vince Snowbarger (R-3 KS.) 8) U.S. Rep Charles "Chip" Pickering (R-3 MS) 9) U.S. Rep. Frank Riggs (R-1 CA.) 10) U.S. Rep Dan Burton (R-6 IN.) * CO-SPONSORS of HR 304 (Nov. 97):: 'A Res. directing the House Judiciary Committee to conduct a [Pres.] Impeachment Inquiry...' (Who would be FAIRLY committed to vote to impeach, I'd think !!) *11) U.S. Rep. Bob Stump (R-3 AZ.) *12) U.S. Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-1 WY.) *13) U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-3 S.C.) *14) U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-4 N.J.) *15) U.S. Rep. Sam Johnson (R-3 TX.) *16) U.S. Rep. Linda Smith (R-3 WA.) *17) U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-4 KS.) *18) U.S. Rep. Jack Metcalf (R-2 WA.) *19) U.S. Rep. Mark Souder (R-4 IN.) *20) U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-14 TX.) *21) U.S. Rep. Helen Chenowith (R-1 ID.) *22) U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-5 TX.) *23) U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-6 MD.) *24) U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-52 CA.) *25) U.S. Rep. John Doolittle (R-4 CA.) *26) U.S. Rep. John Mica (R-7 FL.) *27) U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-1 GA.) 28) U.S. Rep. James Moran (D-8 VA.) Note: That's 12.84 % "there" already !!! A2) ** U.S. House members "On the Fence": **29) U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-9 OH.) **30) U.S. Rep Gene Taylor (D-5 MS.) _____________________________________________ B1) U.S. Senate (Termination Phase): Total 05 of 66 needed 1) U.S. Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN.) 2) U.S. Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO.) 3) U.S. Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.) 4) U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) 5) U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX.) B2) ??? U.S. Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL.) ??? (Special Case[s]) C1- On the Fence ; C2 ; C3 - Probables; C4 - Honorable High Officeholders; and C5 - Other Notable Mentions: C1) On the Fence: 1) U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): "....badly shattered......" 2) U.S. Senator Joe Liebermann (D-CT) 3) U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) 4) U.S. Senator Robert Kerrey (D-NE) 5) U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 6) U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) C2) "Having A Real Hard Time About All This": 1) U.S. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun C3) Probables [18] (please input here as you see fit): 1) U.S. Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) 2) U.S. Senator Christopher 'Kit' Bond (R-MO) 3) U.S. Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) 4) U.S. Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS) 5) U.S. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) 6) U.S. Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) 7) U.S. Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) 8) U.S. Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) 9) U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) 10) U.S. Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) 11) U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) 12) U.S. Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) 13) U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) 14) U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) 15) U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) 16) U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) 17) U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) 18) U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) [Sen.Pres.Pro.Tem.] Current Senator Totals [above]: 31 out of 66 (46.969%) C4) High Officeholders: 1) MS. Governor Kirk Fordyce 2) TX. Governor George Bush Jr. C5) Honorable Mentions: Former U.S. Senator Nancy Kassebaum (R-KS) (1982-1996) Former U.S. Vice President of U.S. Dan Quayle (1989-1993) ??? Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA.) ??? (1972-1996) PA. (State?) Rep. Mike Veon ; Beaver County ; Chm.(Pa.House?) Dem.Pol.Comm. D) Very Important People Unlikely to Stand in the Way: U.S. Rep. Richard "Dick" Gephardt, Minority Leader U.S.House/Rep. ? U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle, U.S. Senate Minority Leader (D-S.D.) ?? - -- PLEASE !! CORRECT, EXPAND, and report as needed ... ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: ABC news Starr report just delivered to House (fwd) Date: 09 Sep 1998 16:53:38 PST On Sep 9, Paul M Watson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ABC radio just announced the Starr report just arrived at the House in a FBI van. [------------------------- 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: Here They Come-- Again (fwd) Date: 09 Sep 1998 21:42:22 PST On Sep 9, Douglas Davis wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Return-Path: >Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 17:54:31 -0400 >From: Gun Owners of America >Reply-To: Gun Owners of America >To: goamail@gunowners.org >Subject: Here They Come-- Again >X-Status: > >The Senate Just Won't Quit >-- Look out for Free Speech Ban and Hatch's Horror Bill > >by Gun Owners of America >8001 Forbes Place Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151, 703-321-8585 >http://www.gunowners.org > > >(Wednesday, September 9, 1998)-- Well, the holidays are over >and Congress is back to work. And while you were at those weekend >barbecues enjoying your vacation, legislators in Congress were >scheming to rob you of your cherished rights. > >Anti-gun legislation, that had previously been derailed thanks in >large part to your efforts, is back on track and could soon be voted on. > >For example, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) abruptly brought up >his Horror Bill for debate last week, but he could not get a Unanimous >Consent agreement that would have allowed a vote on the bill. > >Gun owners should remind their Senators that they do NOT want Hatch's >anti-gun crime bill (S. 10). This bill still applies RICO >(racketeering) penalties to minor gun infractions and would increase >penalties on gun owners who take their kids handgun shooting without >a written note of permission. > >In other news, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) promised >a vote on the Incumbent Protection Bill which would restrict >the free speech rights of citizens that organize together (like your >GOA) to influence legislative policy. While this legislation claims to >reform campaign finance laws, it would really prevent the ability of >groups like GOA to keep you informed on how your legislator is voting. >A vote on this bill is scheduled for tomorrow-- Thursday, September 10. > >HERE'S WHAT TO DO > > * Urge your Senators to oppose Hatch's Horror Bill (S. 10) and the > McCain-Feingold restrictions on free speech (so-called "campaign > finance reform"). Call 202-224-3121. > > * Fax, email or mail the bottom "postcard" to pro-gun Sen. Bob > Smith, asking him to object to any Unanimous Consent agreement > that would allow a vote on S. 10. > > Here's the contact information for Sen. Smith: > > Phone: 202-224-2841 > Email: opinion@smith.senate.gov > Fax: 202-224-1353 > Address: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510 > > >-----clip-n-send------- > >Dear Senator Smith: > >I want to thank you for your bold leadership in opposing the Hatch >Horror Bill (S. 10). I understand that your "hold letter" has had a >tremendous effect in slowing down this legislation, and I commend >you for your efforts. > >I have also learned that Senator Orrin Hatch tried to get a Unanimous >Consent agreement recently to debate this bill and vote on it. He was >unsuccessful. Regardless, I fear he may try again. If he does, I would >urge you to object to any Unanimous Consent agreement that would >bring up S. 10 for a vote. > >Among the many problems in S. 10, this bill still applies RICO >penalties to minor gun infractions and would increase penalties on gun >owners who take their kids handgun shooting without a written note of >permission. Thank you for supporting my gun rights! > >Sincerely, > >------------------------------------------------- > >Final note: Action on the Smith "Anti-Brady" amendment is expected >soon. We will of course keep you updated. > > >**************************************************************** >Did someone else forward this to you? To be certain of getting >up to date information, please consider subscribing directly to >the GOA E-Mail Alert Network. The service is totally free and >carries no obligation. Your e-mail address remains confidential, >and the volume is quite low, usually one or two messages per >week. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward this >notice) to goamail@gunowners.org and indicate your state of >residence in either the subject or the body. To unsubscribe, >reply to any alert and ask to be removed. > > > ****************** 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: Paul M Watson Subject: Dallas Congressman Pete Sessions says WWW site link to Star report Date: 10 Sep 1998 09:49:22 -0500 (CDT) Congressman Pete Sessions just said on WBAP Mark Davis talk show 9:35am that tomorrow Friday he will have a link by 1pm to the Star report at: www.house.gov/session Regards, Paul Watson - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: larry ball Subject: Impeach The President Date: 10 Sep 1998 19:25:43 -0500 info@rnc.org (Republican National Committee) EMAIL FEEDBACK: http://www.democrats.org/getactive/guestbook/ What are the two e-mail addresses for? It is for you and your freinds to send e-mails demanding the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, AND to demand tha Gore not give him amnesty. Do it tonight! and spread it arround. Thanks Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Fw: LONG BEACH DEAL DEAD - COSCO Out On National Security (fwd) Date: 10 Sep 1998 20:32:16 PST On Sep 10, Arlin H. Adams wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] -----Original Message----- >Legislators Kill Port Project > >Associated Press >9/9/98 AP writer > >LONG BEACH (AP) Citing national security concerns federal lawmakers have >agreed to kill a Chinese company's planned development on part of a >former U.S. Navy shipyard..... Fueled by fears of a rising Chinese >military threat, congressional conferees in Washington agreed to include >language in the annual defense authorization bill that would bar the >China Ocean Shipping Co. >from leasing space on the former Long Beach Naval Station, port >officials said Tuesday. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Fratrum: Polls (fwd) Date: 11 Sep 1998 22:34:08 PST On Sep 11, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This one is from AOL. I don't know if it's still going since I got it from someone else. - Ed In a Florida speech, President Clinton said, "I let my family down. I let this country down. I'm trying to make it right. I'm determined to never let anything like that happen again." Does this apology satisfy you? Yes 61803 35.7% No 111112 64.3% Total votes: 172915 President Clinton said he hopes people will feel good when their children say they want to grow up to be president. Is he a good role model for America's children? Yes 30041 17.5% No 141249 82.5% Total votes: 171290 Do you think that the House of Representatives should proceed with impeachment proceedings against President Clinton? Yes 100878 59.3% No 69356 40.7% Total votes: 170234 Many Democrats have criticized the president's behavior. Do you think it is right for Democrats to criticize the president at this time, or should they stand by their man? Yes, the right thing to do is to stand up and criticize the president's behavior 124912 73.3% No, Democrats should stand behind their president in his hour of difficulty 45453 26.7% Total votes: 170365 Do you approve of President Clinton? Yes 50402 29.4% No 121135 70.6% Total votes: 171537 Do you approve of the job President Clinton is doing? Yes 80597 46.8% No 91464 53.2% Total votes: 172061 I am Male 104612 60.8% Female 67520 39.2% Total votes: 172132 I am a Democrat 43483 25.3% a Republican 60368 35.1% unaffiliated with either major party 68068 39.6% Total votes: 171919 If you want to vote go here: Investigating the President Subject: [Fwd: Impeach Clinton online Petition] Date: 12 Sep 1998 12:11:02 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------33F5C5B458A56E6582FACC53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------33F5C5B458A56E6582FACC53 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from fs1.mainstream.net (smap@fs1.mainstream.net [206.97.102.4]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA17131 for ; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 10:10:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id LAA21167; Sat, 12 Sep 1998 11:08:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma020705; Sat Sep 12 11:06:23 1998 Message-Id: <35FA8990.BA96B36F@mo.net> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: voyager@mo.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Sorry for the mistake in the previous online petition site, it was incorrect. The correct one is below http://www.impeachclinton.org/impeach/petition.html --------------33F5C5B458A56E6582FACC53-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: larry ball Subject: What? Date: 12 Sep 1998 21:11:39 -0500 What one thing does Clinton's Monica gate have in common with Nixon's Watergate? Each had their "deep throat" Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Fwd: And The Winner Is: Due Process (By A Landslide) Date: 13 Sep 1998 08:38:54 -0400 >Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 19:41:00 -0500 >From: "Chris W. Stark" >Reply-To: "Chris W. Stark" >To: email-subscribers@GOA-Texas.org >Subject: And The Winner Is: Due Process (By A Landslide) >X-Mailer: Chris W. Stark's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng] > > ****GOA-Texas e-mail Alert!**** > > GUN OWNERS ALLIANCE > Chris W. Stark - Director > 915 Yacht Ct., P.O. Box 1924 > Crosby, Texas 77532-1924 > Ph. (713) 217-0649 Fax (281) 328-7505 > http://www.GOA-Texas.org > email: Director@GOA-Texas.org > > 09/12/98 > -------- > > > >Re: Russell Laing: [mailto:rlaing@usa.net] > >Various Litigation-- case involving PA Act 17 (1995) -- >Emergency mental health detention (aka "Section 302")by police >without a warrant equates to lifelong loss of right to own/posses >firearms. > > >All, > >I have already won my court case several weeks ago, and had >all of my 2nd amendment rights, including my CCW Liscense, >restored. Belatedly, my attorney received a formal ruling >(reproduced, below) today from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco >& Firearms about the Federal view of PA Act 17 and it's >declaration that a non-adjudicated Section 302 detention >constitutes an "involuntary mental health commitment" sufficient >to cause the forfeiture of all 2nd amendment rights permanently. > >I hope you will take time to read this brief letter from the >BATF, reproduced below. It states clearly and unequivocally >that a non-adjudicated Section 302 detention does NOT provide >due process protections, and therefore does NOT pass >constitutional-muster as a basis to deprive citizens of other >constitutional rights, namely: the right to keep and bear arms. > >There is a lesson here for all Pennsylvania legislators who >voted for Act 17, and the still innadequate due process "fix" >contained in Act 70 of 1998 (SB 543: Section 302 prohibition >also now requires the examining physician to separately "certify" >his belief that the detainee was mentally ill -- by typing up an >uncontested, unrebutted letter and mailing it to the PA State >Police!). PA Act 17 represents an unconstitutional law that >even the BATF has unequivocally ruled to be invalid in that it >absolutely denies the constitutionally guaranteed right to due >process under the law. And the last time I checked, the >Pennsylvania constitution has an even stronger construction >of the 2nd amendment language than is contained in the federal >version. > >How does any PA legislator justify their voting for a law which >says that a non-adjudicated accusation is sufficient to take away >important guaranteed rights under both the state and federal >constitution? > >How do these legislators justify the current rounding up of the >private medical records of ALL citizens (not just gunowners) that >contain these non-adjudicated accusations -- which will now be >used by the governmental authorities (and who knows who else) to >characterize these innocent individuals as dangerous and not to be >trusted. What kind of crazy, Nazi-esque, hysterical law-making is >this? > >You can be sure that all concerned citizens are now going to be >taking a roll-call from those legislators who passed laws that >trivialize the right to due process, the right of privacy for >medical records, and that treat the right to own firearms as a >minor privilege grudgingly conferred and easily withdrawn. > > >REPRODUCED BATF LETTER: > > >September 4, 1998 > >Dept of Treasury >Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms >US Custom House >2nd & Chestnut Streets >Philadelphia PA 19106 > >Mr. Jon Pushinsky, Esquire >1808 Law & Finance Building >429 Fourth Avenue >Pittsburgh, PA 15219 > >Dear Mr. Pushinsky: > >You had asked if a person who has been involuntarily detained for >an emergency mental health examination pursuant to 50 PA Cons STAT >Sect 7302 would be prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 USC >Sec 922(g)(4). You stated that you believe such a person would not >be prohibited. We agree. > >Title 18 USC Sec 922(g)(4) makes it unlawful for a person who has >been committed to a mental institution to possess a firearm. The >term "committed to a mental institution" is defined in 27 CFR Sec >178.11 as follows: > >" A FORMAL commitment of a person to a mental institution by a >court, board, or other lawful authority. The term includes a >commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term >includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. >It also includes commitments for other reasons such as drug use. >THE TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE A PERSON IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION FOR >OBSERVATION or a voluntary admission to a mental institution." > >An involuntary detention under Section 302 does NOT constitute a >commitment to a mental institution within the meaning of 27 CFR >Sec 178.11. Section 302 provides for temporary emergency measures >and as such falls short of the "formal commitment" described in Sec >178.11. Although Section 302 provides for the immediate medical >treatment of a person deemed by a physician to require it, the >apparent broader purpose of the statute is to enable the authorities >to observe the subject and determine their options within a 120 hour >period. One option is to make an application for extended involuntary >emergency treatment pursuant to 50 PA CONS STAT Section 303. > >Unlike a person detained pursuant to Section 302, a person facing >extended involuntary treatment (up to 20 days) puruant to Sec 303 >is afforded a variety of due process rights including the right to >counsel, notice, and hearing. Pennsylvania also provides for longer >periods of commitment pursuant to CONS STAT Sec 304 & 305. These >sections likewise provide a panoply of due process rights for persons >who might be subject to them. In the context of these provisions for >formal commitments, the distinction between a detention under Sec >302 and a commitment which would meet the definition in CFR 27 Sec >178.11 is clearer still. > >GIVEN THE LACK OF DUE PROCESS provisions afforded by 50 PA CONS >STAT Sec 302, the limited duration of a detention pursuant to it, >the fact that its primary purpose is to provide mental health >officials time to observe a detainee and make an assessment, and >the existance of more formal commitment procedures under >Pennsylvania law, we conclude that a detention under 50 PA CONS >STAT Section 302 does NOT constitute a commitment for the purpose >of 18 USC Sec 922(g)(4). > >If you have additional questions concerning this matter, please do >not hesitate to call ATF Attorney Kevin White at (215) 597-7183. > >Sincerely Yours, > >Lawrence L. Duchnowski >Special Agent in Charge > >END OF REPRODUCED LETTER > > >Instead of rounding up the private, non-adjudicated medical >records of citizens, I say we should round up the legislators >and ask them to declare whether or not they believe that >citizens of this state, and this country, have the right to >the protection of due process. The ones that fail to affirm >this fundamental right -- or fail back it up with action -- >will be sumarily dismissed in this next election. We shouldn't >have to make a belief in the constitutional right to due process >as a litmus test for our elected officials, but the past nightmare >that I've gone through is ample testimony to the terrific cost of >not being constantly vigilant. > >Russell G. Laing > > >***************************************************************** >Gun Owners Alliance >Chris W. Stark - Director >P.O. Box 1924 >Crosby, TX 77532-1924 >Voice: (713) 217-0649 > >EMAIL: Director@GOA-Texas.org > >Visit our Web Page at: http://www.GOA-Texas.org >***************************************************************** >The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views >of any other individual or organization, than Gun Owners Alliance. >***************************************************************** > TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: > > subscribe@GOA-Texas.org > >...and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". >***************************************************************** >We take great care in subscribing only those who wish to be on our >email list. If you feel that you have been subscribed to this list >in error, or if you do not wish to be on this list, I will be glad >to immediately remove your email address from this list. > > TO UN-SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: > > UN-subscribe@GOA-Texas.org > >..and in the body of the message, type the word "UN-subscribe". >***************************************************************** > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: AdvAM: CLINTON, William Jefferson (Blythe) (fwd) Date: 13 Sep 1998 13:33:19 PST On Sep 13, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The ADVANCE AMERICA Network (c) 1998 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 WITH FULL ATTRIBUTION. ================================================================ CLINTON, WILLIAM JEFFERSON (BLYTHE) (1946-2031) Forty-second and last President of the United States of America, serving from January 20, 1993 until July 4, 2013. He is widely regarded today as the savior of American democracy due to his abolition of the elitist Constitution of 1789, but the first years of his rule were uncertain and rife with danger for the nation and its people. Clinton entered office with unprecedented high support, but amid allegations that he had engaged in conduct which in that era was considered unacceptable in a national leader: marital infidelity, personal cowardice, coercive tactics toward opponents, and use of official power for personal self-enrichment. Also, the then-legal Republican Party staged a coup in the 1994 congressional elections, threatening to block Clinton's political agenda. Clinton managed to evade exposure on the morals charges until 1998, when it became public knowledge that he had carried on a sexual affair with a low-level White House employee in her 20s, and for several weeks it appeared that Clinton could be impeached and removed from office (a power which the 1789 Constitution had unwisely granted to Congress). However, many members of Congress rebelled against the anti-democratic plot by the Republicans to reverse the will of the American people as expressed in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections, both of which Clinton had won by unprecedented margins, and the effort at impeachment was blocked. Partly out of revulsion at what the Republicans had been about to attempt, and because they saw the injustice inherent in the corrupt Constitution of 1789, with which the Republican Party had identified itself in its impeachment campaign, the American people ousted the Republicans from their majority in both houses of Congress in that year's elections. Having only just dodged the schemes of his political enemies, Clinton was beset in late 1999 with the first ominous signs of what would come with the dawn of the year 2000: the collapse of the early electronic network systems that often controlled the basic services of contemporary civilization. When in January 2000 the full impact of the failure was felt, Clinton declared a state of national emergency and regretfully postponed that year's elections until the problem was resolved. In the meantime, he established Recovery USA, an omnibus agency under the management of his first wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, which undertook interim relief efforts in areas of economics, public administration, education and communications. Strict rationing, made necessary by shortages of nearly every commodity, was implemented as a temporary measure. The recovery project proved more intractable than expected for a number of reasons, ranging from bad weather to Republican sabotage (indeed, a Tribunal of Inquiry chaired by Mrs. Clinton in 2004 found that a nationwide and even international conspiracy of sabotage had been pursued by supporters of the 1789 Constitution; for more on this and the efforts to bring these saboteurs to justice, see article: BLUMENTHAL, Sidney), and in 2006 Recovery USA was reconfigured as a permanent agency of the United States government, overseeing such functions as commerce, transportation, defense, agriculture, health care, housing, and education. In 2007 National Security Commissioner Sidney Blumenthal recommended that the 1789 Constitution be formally abolished and replaced with a new Constitution that would ensure that far-reaching conspiracies like that against the Clinton administration could never recur. On August 17, 2007, President Clinton signed "Executive Order Alpha-Omega," abolishing the old constitution and forming "Constitution for the 21st Century," a task force whose purpose was to craft the replacement constitution. This mission was completed on July 4, 2013 with Clinton's proclamation of the new, present Constitution. (For continuation of this narrative, see article: WILLIAM I, Emperor of America) Related Articles: CLINTON, Hillary Rodham (1947-2013); TIFFANY, Empress of America (1995-2078); WILLIAM II, Emperor of America (2013-2101). (c) 2148, New Revised History of the American Empire; published in Clinton, D.C. ================================================================ **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: larry ball Subject: [Fwd: Secret Clinton Video] Date: 13 Sep 1998 19:52:11 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0C8E5111B18F62B5485E959C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Again? I hope, I hope Read on Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com --------------0C8E5111B18F62B5485E959C Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from phoenix.phonet.com (phoenix.phonet.com [209.186.36.2]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA28093 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 15:41:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from max1-15.phonet.com (max1-15.phonet.com [209.186.36.39]) by phoenix.phonet.com (NTMail 3.03.0017/4c.acm0) with ESMTP id ba171159 for ; Sun, 13 Sep 1998 15:42:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Reply-to: bsimon@phonet.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Message-Id: <20421618009814@phonet.com> DRUDGE REPORT By Matt Drudge SAT SEP 12 1998 16:46:56 ET x x x x x    VIDEO SHOWS CLINTON WITH MYSTERY WOMAN IN WHITE HOUSE   **World Exclusive** **Must Credit DRUDGE REPORT**  The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a shocking White House video that shows President Clinton sneaking into a private space just off the Oval Office -- the same space Monica Lewinsky serviced Clinton -- with a young mystery woman!   The tape runs slightly more than 10 minutes and was obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT in Washington late Friday on condition that its origin and owner not be disclosed.   The tape became the obsession of elite Washington on the eve of prosecutor Ken Starr's referral to Congress.   Its audio and video quality is excellent. The video will air Saturday and Sunday night exclusively on FOX NEWS CHANNEL'S DRUDGE [9:00 PM ET/6:00 PM PT].   The identity of the young woman captured on video in the Oval Office will not be revealed in this report.   It is not clear if the young woman was a regular White House intern, a volunteer, or a daughter of a White House staffer.   At one point on the tape, the young woman is seen tenderly toweling off the forehead of the president, in the Oval Office, after she and others accompanied Clinton on a jog.   After a photo-op with the group of joggers in the Oval Office, the president and the mystery woman are shown leaving via the private hallway near the Oval Office study.   In the shocking new White House video -- Clinton is seen propping the door open between the private hallway and the Oval Office before he invites the young woman to join him.   Monica Lewinsky testified to a grand jury that fear of discovery in the White House kept Clinton on edge.   Starr's report reads: "The president ordinarily kept the door between the private hallway and the Oval Office several inches ajar during their encounters, both so that he could hear if anyone approached and so that anyone who did approach would be less likely to suspect impropriety."   The final frames of the video show President Clinton asking an adviser what time his next meeting was scheduled for -- he's told 9:00 AM -- he then enters the private hallway with the young woman.   The private hall off the Oval office has been the subject of intense scrutiny for investigators. Grand Jury witness Kathleen Willey has testified how Clinton groped her in the hallway.   Starr's report on Monica Lewinsky reads: "One the first occasion, the president took Ms. Lewinsky back into the Oval Office study, and they kissed. One the second, she performed oral sex on the president in the hallway outside the Oval Office study."   There was no way to know what occurred between the mystery woman and the president after the video ends.   The White House refuses to comment on any DRUDGE REPORT.   --------------0C8E5111B18F62B5485E959C-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Clinton discussion Date: 16 Sep 1998 10:39:00 -0400 (EDT) Well, roc is strangely quiet. Here we are either on the verge of actually using some of the most little used gears and levers of the Constitution, or we are on the verge of apathy, fear and media bias allowing an uncommonly good liar to continue to serve as head of state. I've been obsessively watching the talking heads every other night for the past few nights. What is it going to be? The "man on the street" doesn't appear to know much about the rule of law or what is at stake. Perjury gets transmuted into lying, which gets transmuted into lying about sex, which is something that "everyone does". Whitewater, Filegate, Jim McDougal dying in solitary without his heart medication, "the miracle of the billing records" - has it all come down to this? Do people really believe the pap that the mainstream press is dishing out? The journalists and the lawyers don't. Rumors of additional indictments, including (can we hope?), the First Lady fly about. Salon magazine is threatening a sexual pecadillo Apocalypse. Bring it on. Maybe Orrin Hatch is on the list and that's why he is so eager to make a deal. Maybe they will publish sexual indiscretions found in the 900+ FBI files, bringing this full circle. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Re: Clinton discussion Date: 16 Sep 1998 22:14:50 -0500 John Curtis wrote: > > Well, roc is strangely quiet. > Sure is. Maybe everyone's still wading through the OIC's report. One thing I've noticed is that support on the left for the Clintons seems to be flagging badly. This past Sunday's lead editorial in _The_ (New Orleans)_Times_Picayune_ was entitled, "The President Should Resign." The T-P is the typical big-city rag, major Clinton & Democrat supporter, etc. Their informal poll of readers this past weekend showed about 70% in favor of resignation or impeachment. They're still running an on-line poll (URL is http://www.nolalive.com/), FWIW. Right now, about 55% think he should resign; 42% disagree. All is not lost! Also, some of my politicos have been speaking loudly against them: on tonight's WLOX-TV (Biloxi ABC affiliate, http://www.wlox.com/) local news page are the following items: "Mississippi's governor says President Clinton should resign...." "Fifth District Congressman Gene Taylor is also one of the people saying the president should be impeached....For several weeks now, Congressman Taylor has said the president should be impeached if he lied under sworn oath...." "We gave you the chance to voice your opinion yesterday on whether President Clinton should resign from office... The results show that 63 percent of you believe the president should resign, while 37 percent of the callers on the Coast say the president should stay in office...." We need to weigh the various options, though. What would happen if the president were to resign? Would the investigations stop in their tracks, or would they continue? Would he be open to further criminal and/or civil charges? What about timing--if Algore were to become president, he could be eligible for 2 full terms if he is sworn after some date (after the 1/2- way mark of the current term? Not sure, but something like that). OTOH, what are the most likely scenarios of an impeachment proceding? Would it reach a suitable conclusion, or would he weasle out of it? We all know how the media would handle it. Imagine if Clinton were a Republican--he'd have been run out of DC on a rail before February! Well, there are a few thoughts to ponder. I wish we could hear Lobo's words of wisdom; I bet he'd have a screenful! Adios for now, Bob in Mississippi - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: Such Hypocrisy! Clinton Proclamation on Citizenship Day, Date: 17 Sep 1998 07:35:13 -0400 He can start by repealing EO 13083! Tom At 11:06 PM 9/16/98 -0400, you wrote: >Source: US Newswire >http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0916-139.txt > >Clinton Proclamation on Citizenship Day, Constitution Week >U.S. Newswire >16 Sep 15:45 > > Clinton Proclamation on Citizenship Day and Constitution Week > To: National Desk > Contact: White House Press Office, 202-456-2100 > > WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released >today by the White House: > > CITIZENSHIP DAY AND CONSTITUTION WEEK, 1998 > - - - - - - - > BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA > A PROCLAMATION > > Two hundred eleven years ago, on September 17, 1787, our Nation's >Founders signed the Constitution that established our system of >government. This extraordinary document, the product of passionate >debate and grudging compromise, was crafted by a handful of >individuals in the late 18th century; yet it has safely charted >America's course through more than two centuries of enormous change >and growth and has served as the model for democratic governments >around the globe. > > The United States Constitution has endured in large part because >of its remarkable fairness and flexibility. It created an inspired >balance of powers and responsibilities among the executive, >legislative, and judicial branches of government and among the >Federal Government, the States, and individual citizens. It also >provided for a system of amendment that allows our democracy to >correct past errors and omissions and to respond to new challenges. >As we mark this anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, we >celebrate the effort, the dedication, and the wisdom of our Founders >and the blessings of liberty that resulted from their labors. > > We also celebrate those who have struggled to move America >closer to fulfilling the first and fundamental purpose expressed in >the Constitution: "...to form a more perfect Union." Among these >heroes were the thousands who fought and died during the Civil War to >keep our Nation united and to banish slavery from our land. The 13th >Amendment to the Constitution is the fruit of their sacrifice: >"Neither slavery nor involun-tary servi-tude...shall exist within >the United States." The courageous women and men who met at Seneca >Falls, New York, 150 years ago also set the highest standards of >citizenship. Recognizing that women, too, are entitled to share in >America's promise of equality, they began a crusade that resulted in >the ratification of the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing women the right >to vote. Likewise, we honor American citizens of our century, black >and white, who worked together, faced danger together, and sometimes >died together in the struggle to end racial injustice in our society >and move our Nation closer to the constitutional ideal of equality >under the law. The 24th Amendment, guaran-teeing all citizens the >right to vote, reflects their spirit and commitment to true >democracy. > > As we seek to form a more perfect union at home, we also bear the >responsibilities of citizenship in our world community. Throughout >our history, we have sought to secure the blessings of liberty not >only for ourselves, but for all people every-where. We remember the >Americans who fought two world wars against tyranny and oppression >and who triumphed in the Cold War through faith in the promise of >democracy. These men and women cared so intensely about our Nation >and their fellow human beings that they were willing to forego >their own comfort and sometimes even to sacrifice their own >lives for the ideal of freedom envisioned by our Founders. > > In commemoration of the signing of the Constitution and in >recognition of the importance of active, responsible citizen-ship in >preserving the Constitution's blessings for our Nation, the Congress, >by joint resolution of February 29, 1952 (36 U.S.C. 153), designated >September 17 as "Citizenship Day," and by joint resolution of August >2, 1956 (36 U.S.C. 159), requested that the President proclaim the >week beginning September 17 and ending September 23 of each year as >"Constitution Week." > > NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United >States of America, do hereby proclaim September 17, 1998, as >Citizenship Day and September 17 through September 23, 1998, as >Constitution Week. I call upon Federal, State, and local officials, >as well as leaders of civic, educational, and religious >organizations, to conduct meaningful ceremonies and programs in our >schools, houses of worship, and other community centers to foster a >greater understanding and appreciation of the Constitution and the >rights and duties of citizenship. > > IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixteenth day >of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and >ninety-eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America >the two hundred and twenty-third. > > WILLIAM J. CLINTON > > -0- > /U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ > 09/16 15:45 > >Copyright 1998, U.S. Newswire >-- >****************************************************************** > 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: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: more of same... (fwd) Date: 17 Sep 1998 09:30:37 PST On Sep 16, Arlin H. Adams wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] NEWS HILLARY'S NEXT IN STARR CROSS HAIRS By DICK MORRIS ---- YOU can be sure Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't much like Kenneth Starr's report to Congress. But the two sentences that she must have minded the most had nothing to do with sex, her husband or Monica Lewinsky. For her, the most ominous sentences in Starr's report to Congress are: Evidence is being gathered on ... the Rose Law Firm's representation of Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association ... All phases of the investigation are now nearing completion. Now, Hillary is waiting for the other shoe to drop. This reference in the Starr report is threateningly specific. It does not cite Whitewater or the Madison S&L in general. Instead, it specifically homes in on the role Hillary'slaw firm - and Hillary - played in representing Madison. Earlier in the report, while tracing the history of his probes, Starr mentions the scrutiny of legal work done by the Rose Law Firm, including the First Lady on the Castle Grande real-estate deal. One big reason Hillary is so vocal in defending her husband and attacking Starr is that she is likely to be next on the griddle. The published facts are that Hillary handled the legal work on a sham sale of land to Webster Hubbell's father-in-law. If Madison had bought the land, the S&L would have exceeded the proportion of its assets it was allowed to invest in real estate, so it needed a straw man and a compliant lawyer. The question is whether Hillary was just a lawyer on the deal, or was conscious of the deception - and helped to perpetrate it. To help resolve the question, Starr subpoenaed the billing records for Hillary's work on the deal, but they had mysteriously disappeared from the Rose Law Firm. For a time, then-Assistant Attorney General Hubbell hid them in his basement. The White House was unable to produce them in response to Starr's subpoena. Later, they turned up in the White House residence with Hillary's fingerprints on the cover page and on the page concerning her billings for the sham sale. If Starr finds Hillary did something wrong, there would appear to be no legal obstacle to stop him from indicting her. For Hillary, Monica is a sideshow. Castle Grande is the main event. The looming presence of the other shoe is a strong unspoken factor in the First Lady's actions these days. It's likely why she was so insistent that her husband excoriate Starr during the president's disastrous mea culpa speech of Aug. 17. Perhaps it is also why he gratuitously inserted language defending their actions in Whitewater, even though it had nothing to do with his grand-jury testimony. It probably has a lot to do with her decision to stand by her husband in the Monica mess. She's going to need all the help she can get, and shoring up her husband's popularity ratings is, for her, an act of self-defense. Without the other shoe dropping, President Clinton looks as if he can survive the current scandal. His ratings didn't take the expected nose-dive over the weekend. He seems to be getting a handle on what contrition is all about. Starr has shot his bolt, and Clinton is still standing. Congress isn't going to stay in session in October with the November elections ahead, and there are limits to what a lame-duck Congress can and will feel free to do with a new one waiting in the wings. The more the process is strung out, the closer it is to the end of Clinton's term, and the less likely impeachment is. Finally, there is no way a Republican Congress can afford to impeach and remove from office a Democratic president unless polls show that an overwhelming majority of the country agrees. Right now, the polls are running 2-to-1 against impeachment or resignation. Censure seems the administration's most attractive fallback option. That's probably why the White House is peddling the line to its journalistic mouthpieces - like Al Hunt of The Wall Street Journal - that censure would be a severe punishment. But there is another shoe there: the Castle Grande-Rose Law Firm investigation. What happens if Hillary is indicted? Does she fight it out in court? Does she admit wrongdoing and plead to a more minor offense to avoid prison? My bet is that she will want to fight it out in court. She is not going to let her reputation be destroyed without a vigorous fight. The line between legally representing wrongdoers as a lawyer and illegally covering up the wrongdoing is a tough one to establish. With high approval ratings, a popular husband as president, and public sympathy over Lewinsky, she might just tough it out and win. But what if she doesn't win? What if she is convicted? If she is facing a conviction and he is facing impeachment, and everything is going to hell, don't rule out the possibility that he might pardon her and then resign, knowing the jig is up. Bottom line: Bill Clinton would give up his presidency to save Hillary from prison. Bet on it. He isn't the most faithful husband, but he is one of the most loyal. MORE NEWS Copyright (c) 1998, N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of the New York Post is prohibited. [------------------------- 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: as the other shoe begins to fall... (fwd) Date: 17 Sep 1998 09:34:04 PST On Sep 16, Arlin H. Adams wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] International News Electronic Telegraph Wednesday 16 September 1998 Issue 1209 Starr team closes in on Hillary By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington ------------------------------------------------------------------------= Fate of Clinton tapes hangs in balance Democrats attack legal hair-splitting Congress censured earlier president Power of prayer invoked HILLARY Clinton is in imminent danger of indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice as the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, shifts = the focus of his four-year inquiry back to allegations of financial misconduc= t in Arkansas. Hillary Clinton: denials Persistent reports of charges gained credence when Dick Morris, Presiden= t Clinton's former confidant, said yesterday that the investigation was closing in fast. Mr Morris, who had to resign as an adviser to the President because of hi= s own sex scandal, said in an article in the New York Post that Mrs Clinton= 's actions in the Monica Lewinsky affair must be seen through the prism of h= er own troubles. He wrote: "If she is facing a conviction and he is facing impeachment and everything is going to hell, don't rule out the possibility that he might pardon her and then resign, knowing the jig is up. Bottom line: Bill Clin= ton would give up his presidency to save Hillary from prison. Bet on it. He isn't the most faithful husband, but he is one of the most loyal." Last week's impeachment referral on the Lewinsky scandal contained a "threateningly specific" statement suggesting that Mr Starr's inquiries i= nto possible fraud involving a bankrupt building society in Arkansas was comi= ng to a head. Mr Starr noted that "evidence is being gathered and evaluated on, among other things, events related to the Rose Law firm's representation of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association; events related to the firi= ngs in the White House travel office; and events related to the use of FBI files". He added the warning: "All phases of the investigation are now nearing completion." In each of these cases Mrs Clinton is at the centre of the alleged wrongdoing, but it is the Madison Guaranty inquiry that is most ominous f= or her. Mr Starr's reference to the "Rose Law firm's representation" of the bank is aimed directly at Mrs Clinton, who was a lawyer with the firm bef= ore moving to Washington. The Telegraph has learned that Mr Starr is examining Mrs Clinton's role i= n three episodes of possible financial impropriety in the mid 1980s: a $2,000-a-month retainer paid by Madison Guaranty; her alleged involvement= in a sham land deal called Castle Grande; and the possibility that she hid money from bank regulators in a deal involving Flowerwood Farms. In all the cases the statute of limitations for criminal activity has lon= g passed. But Mrs Clinton could be vulnerable if she testified falsely to investigators, or subsequently before a grand jury. An indictment of the First Lady would make for highly combustible politic= s in Washington. She has emerged as a figure of sympathy during the Lewinsk= y affair and is more popular now than at any stage of her husband's presidency. Mrs Clinton told government financial regulators that she and her husband had not solicited the $2,000 retainer and later repeated the denial befor= e a grand jury. But all the other participants tell a different story. They say that it was Mr Clinton who requested the retainer, virtually begging for the money when he called on Jim McDougal, the owner of Madiso= n Guaranty and the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater Corporation. The incident was recalled vividly because Mr Clinton, then governor of Arkans= as, had been jogging and left a puddle of sweat on Mr McDougal's light blue orthopaedic leather chair. When regulators said that Madison Guaranty should be closed because of insolvency, the Arkansas state government allowed it to remain open. This led to a $60 million loss guaranteed by the taxpayers. One of the questions is whether Mr Clinton, as governor, intervened to ke= ep the bank afloat while he and his wife benefited from Mr McDougal's fraudulent schemes to divert money from Madison Guaranty. In the case of Castle Grande, Mrs Clinton has sworn that she was not involved in the leg= al work. Invoices from the Rose Law firm could not be found when Mr Starr subpoena= ed them. They surfaced in the White House two years later, apparently with M= rs Clinton's fingerprints on them. They show that she had 14 meetings or conversations about Castle Grande. Mr Starr is being helped by a key witness, Jim Guy Tucker, a former gover= nor of Arkansas. A source said: "He has made it quite clear that he's not goi= ng down to save the Clintons' skins." 15 September 1998: 'The Lyin' King' heads for a mauling in the campaign jungle 11 September 1998: Noose of criminal inquiry tightens around First Lady 4 September 1998: First Lady triumphs on day of sorrow and smiles 27 April 1998: Five-hour 'grilling' for Hillary Clinton 3 May 1997: First Lady acts to keep notes secret 1 May 1997: First Lady takes critics to task 11 April 1997: Mrs Clinton hits back 7 February 1997: Clintons face D-day over Whitewater 1 May 1996: Clintons take fight to Whitewater prosecutor 30 April 1996: Whitewater blow for Mrs Clinton --- ---- Ambrose Evans-Pritchard articles on Clinton-related issues 27 August 1998: The Nixon spy who has Clinton taped 25 August 1998: Has the cookie crumbled for Bill Clinton? 22 August 1998: [etcetera] Has he got away with it? 30 July 1998: Clinton may yet survive 20 April 1998: Goodbye, good riddance 31 January 1998: Conspiracy theory proving practical 26 January 1998: Starr 'is more like a plump sheep than a rottweiler' 24 January 1998: The clerk who has Clinton by the throat 20 April 1997: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on Clinton and Whitewater-related issues 15 January 1996: Whatever happened to Hillary? --- ---- Next report: Invasion fear as Iran's troops mass on Afghan border --- ---- Front | UK | International | City | Sport | Crossword | Weather | Matt | Appointments | Classified | Connected | etcetera | A-Z | Search | Shoppin= g | Euronet =A9 Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1998. Terms & Conditions of reading. Information about Telegraph Group Limited and Electronic Telegraph. "Electronic Telegraph" and "The Daily Telegraph" are trademarks of Telegr= aph Group Limited. These marks may not be copied or used without permission. Information for webmasters linking to Electronic Telegraph. Email Electronic Telegraph. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Clinton discussion Date: 18 Sep 1998 09:57:02 -0400 (EDT) > >Well, there are a few thoughts to ponder. I wish we could hear Lobo's >words >of wisdom; I bet he'd have a screenful! > Amen to that. I believe that this is a very serious crux moment in our political history. Clinton lied, purjured himself, and counseled others to perjure themselves. What is at stake is the rule of law. Is the man subject to the same laws as all of us, or is he somehow a totally different class of citizen? The Constitution is pretty plain on this. The President is charged with upholding the laws of the Republic. He is held accountable through impeachment proceedings, as part of the balance of powers. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Radical Greens Using Churches For Globalism (fwd) Date: 20 Sep 1998 08:24:06 PST Hmmmm, seems those Greenie Wienie's are turning up all over like cooties at a foc'sl shakedown..... On Sep 19, Ed Wolfe wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Radical Greens Using Churches To Force Senate >Support Of The UN's Global Warming Treaty > > >URGENT! URGENT! URGENT! URGENT! > > > The National Council of Churches (NCC) is urging >churches nation-wide to enlist congregations in a >massive letter-writing campaign in support of the >UN's global warming treaty. > > > The Council's General Secretary, Rev. Joan Brown >Campbell says that the goal is to make global >warming "a litmus test for the faith community." >NCC has a long history of radical leftist activity. > > > The truth is, this effort by the NCC, along with >the U.S. Catholic Conference and the National >Association of Evangelicals, is part of a >nation-wide drive by radical greens to influence >American churches with green propaganda. > > > The assault is funded by the National Religious >Partnership for the Environment (NRPE), which is a >UN front group of anti-Christian, earth-worshipping >Pagans operating out of "The Gaia Institute" and the >"Temple of Understanding" located in New York City. > > > The NRPE is funded by massive grants from such >radical left foundations as PEW Charitable Trust, >the Turner Foundation and W. Alton Jones Foundation. > The real purpose of this green assault on the >churches is to break down the strongest bastion of >opposition to earth worship and the destruction of >morality in America. > > > > YOU MUST RESIST THIS ASSAULT ON YOUR CHURCH! > > > Action to Take: > > 1. Oppose any efforts made by your church to >participate in the NCC global warming letter-writing >campaign. > > 2. Be sure your pastor and congregation have the >facts. If you need more information, a packet about >the "Green Invasion of Christian Churches" is >available from the American Policy Center. You may >download this packet free of charge from the APC >website at www.americanpolicy.org. Unfortunately, >cost-demands require us to charge $10.00 for a >hard-copy of the packet (but feel free to make as >many copies as necessary). > > 3. COUNTER THE NCC EFFORTS BY CALLING YOUR STATE'S >TWO SENATORS TO VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION TO THE UN's >GLOBAL WARMING TREATY. America's economy and way of >life will be severely damaged if this monstrous >treaty is enforced. Call the U.S. Capitol >Switchboard at (202) 225-3121 and ask for your two >Senators by name. > > DO NOT LET ANTI-CHRISTIAN PAGANS STEAL YOUR >CHURCH FROM YOU! > > >================================================== >Powered by Webforums >Copyright 1998 Waveshift Inc. > >Arlene Brightbill >arleneb@bulldog.afsc.k12.ar.us >http://bulldog.afsc.k12.ar.us/~arleneb/ >ICQ #666114 [------------------------- 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: rkba-list: King County Judge oversteps authority? (fwd) Date: 20 Sep 1998 19:04:18 PST If you're up here in the People's Republic of Washatonia, feel free to drop in and raise hell, (politely of course).....:-) On Sep 19, Dave Workman wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Bill: Starting Monday, Sept,. 21, under order of Presiding Judge Bobbie Bridge, King County Superior Court, there will be NEW procedures regarding security screening at King County courts (downtown, RJC in Kent, Shoreline, etc) that continue to chip away at rights of citizens. The Superior Court already imposed rules that place magnetometers at the courthouse doors...in violation of state law passed in 1994..yet these restrictions have so far not been challenged in court to my knowledge. Reportedly, many courthouse employees are upset about the new rules, which allow confiscation of small pocket knives, Swiss Army knives, pepper spray; anything that might constitute a weapon under any applicable law." One insider has indicated that at least a couple of county council members are upset about this. Here are some suggestions: * Pickets outside the County Courthouse where there almost certainly will be media presence to check out the new, tighter procedures. * Inundate the Metro/County council, and Council Chair Louise Miller, with protest telephone calls starting at 8:30 a.m. Monday morning. Ditto, inundate the office of Presiding Judge Bobbie Bridge with protest calls, first thing Monday morning. In particular, call the office of Judge Faith Ireland, and notify her office that you will be voting for her opponent, attorney Jim Foley, for a position on the State Supreme Court, as a further protest. (Ireland is a liberal, and we DON'T need her on the Supreme Court, anyway! This just gives gun owners more incentive... and this vote can come from gun owners across the state in support of their brother and sister gun owners in King County. This ought to get their attention!) Further protest can be lodged with King County Sheriff's Sgt. Sally Mendel via e-mail at: Sally.Mendel@metrokc.gov Don't make threats, don't be ogres. Just be firm. Dave [------------------------- 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: rkba-list: King County Judge oversteps authority? (fwd) Date: 20 Sep 1998 22:21:14 -0700 (PDT) Some on Roc (certainly Bill : ) will remember this is a -long - time problem, some of the employees there seem to me almost proud of their irrational fears. Personally, I know of a shop near the court (westlake mall) that sells outrageous big jester hats, I'm thinking I'll drop by a few times sporting my new hat and a recently declared dangerous letter opener next week. "Hello, hello, I have a letter opener to declare! Need a lockbox here!" Boyd (pres. Council for Legislative Action, Washington) >If you're up here in the People's Republic of Washatonia, feel free to drop >in and raise hell, (politely of course).....:-) > >On Sep 19, Dave Workman wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >Bill: > > Starting Monday, Sept,. 21, under order of Presiding Judge Bobbie >Bridge, King County Superior Court, there will be NEW procedures regarding >security screening at King County courts (downtown, RJC in Kent, Shoreline, >etc) that continue to chip away at rights of citizens. > > The Superior Court already imposed rules that place magnetometers >at the courthouse doors...in violation of state law passed in 1994..yet >these restrictions have so far not been challenged in court to my >knowledge. > > Reportedly, many courthouse employees are upset about the new >rules, which allow confiscation of small pocket knives, Swiss Army knives, >pepper spray; anything that might constitute a weapon under any applicable >law." > > One insider has indicated that at least a couple of county council >members are upset about this. > > Here are some suggestions: > > * Pickets outside the County Courthouse where there almost >certainly will be media presence to check out the new, tighter procedures. > > * Inundate the Metro/County council, and Council Chair Louise >Miller, with protest telephone calls starting at 8:30 a.m. Monday morning. > > Ditto, inundate the office of Presiding Judge Bobbie Bridge with >protest calls, first thing Monday morning. > > In particular, call the office of Judge Faith Ireland, and notify >her office that you will be voting for her opponent, attorney Jim Foley, >for a position on the State Supreme Court, as a further protest. (Ireland >is a liberal, and we DON'T need her on the Supreme Court, anyway! This just >gives gun owners more incentive... and this vote can come from gun owners >across the state in support of their brother and sister gun owners in King >County. This ought to get their attention!) > > Further protest can be lodged with King County Sheriff's Sgt. Sally >Mendel via e-mail at: > > Sally.Mendel@metrokc.gov > > Don't make threats, don't be ogres. Just be firm. > > >Dave > >[------------------------- 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: rkba-list: King County Judge oversteps authority? (fwd) Date: 20 Sep 1998 22:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Bill, did you get this from PA list or the WAC list? I haven't been getting anything from them lately. (and dont remember seeing this beffore) -Boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: rkba-list: King County Judge oversteps authority? (fwd) Date: 21 Sep 1998 05:28:20 PST On Sep 20, Boyd wrote: >Bill, did you get this from PA list or the WAC list? I haven't been getting >anything from them lately. (and dont remember seeing this beffore) -Boyd I got it from dave workman, . He's the Journalist who did the research, and blew the whistle on the 29 Palms BS. I don't know about PA, haven't heard from them in a while, but I used to post to the Wac-list when I thought there was something of interest to Gun Show goers/ operators but it was made plain that it was _their_ list and people could put things on their web page instead. They didn't/don't have any mechanism for posters to get stuff on it, and as my browser is flakey I don't do much webbing. Maybe after I get my Linux box going. They said stuff could be posted to wac@halcyon.com, but for all the responce I get, it might be a /dev/null-black hole. Near as I can tell, the only Local list still operating is rkba-list@celestial.com, and that's been pretty quiet lately, too. I was talking to Bill Campbell the other day, and he was wondering if anyone still cared, and maybe it was time to expand the list out to other political stuff etc., instead of just Wash. State Gun stuff. Suits me, though I think we still need a Local list, there being scads of National ones. There are some Local lists/news groups over at eskimo.com, but I use them mostly for news, (usenet/nntp-xfer), at the moment. One thing I've noted, is that there seems to be a general drop off in email list/newsgroup posting lately. Maybe web publishing is up, but I can't tell at the moment. Could be it's the Fuzzy Bubba pimple coming to a boil that's got people busy or something. What do you 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: larry ball Subject: A Humor Bug Date: 22 Sep 1998 22:35:51 -0500 If you have access to Micro Soft Word make type "I want Clinton to resign." (Without the " ") Highlight the words and click on the Thesaurus. See what it says. Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" Subject: Re: A Humor Bug Date: 22 Sep 1998 23:44:27 -0400 >If you have access to Micro Soft Word make type "I want Clinton to >resign." (Without the " ") Highlight the words and click on the >Thesaurus. See what it says. > >Larry Ball >lball@inetnebr.com > > >- Larry What should it say? Mine says replace with I.D. ? 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. Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. *************** Macintosh: It Just Works ****************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacques Tucker Subject: Re: A Humor Bug Date: 22 Sep 1998 23:02:13 -0500 At 23:44 09/22/1998 -0400, you wrote: >>If you have access to Micro Soft Word make type "I want Clinton to >>resign." (Without the " ") Highlight the words and click on the >>Thesaurus. See what it says. >> >>Larry Ball >>lball@inetnebr.com >> >> >>- > > >Larry > >What should it say? Mine says replace with I.D. ? > >Chad > . . . and the word list? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 23 Sep 1998 11:42:26 -0400 (EDT) Drudge report (at drudgereport.com) shows that Jimmy Carter has weighed in with a prediction that the Judiciary Committee will recommend an impeachment inquiry and the House will vote to impeach. Clinton will survive the impeachment vote in the Senate, as its unlikely that the 2/3's majority can be mustered. Carter disavowed any insider knowledge on this, this is purely his political prediction. Go check it out. This is a pretty big drama being played out, for good or ill. I'm surprised that ROC is so quiet. Gore is being investigated for campaign finance illegalities in a 90-day window, with a possible independent counsel looming. Rumor has it that Filegate is still very much open. Starr has grand juries active in D.C. and in Arkansas. He's won 13 (or is it 15?) convictions. Why is ROC so silent? Do we only like obscure, grand-conspiracy like issues? This is the second potential impeachment in my lifetime, and all the drama is there. My personal guess is that its still a 50/50 proposition as to whether impeachment is voted by the House, but it could happen. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 23 Sep 1998 09:21:40 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, John Curtis wrote: > Why is ROC so silent? Perhaps it is because when people have nothing to say, they don't say it. :-) > Do we only like obscure, grand-conspiracy > like issues? What issues? The guy was a liar, a coward, a traitor, and whoremonger in before 1992, and was still that way in 1996, and is highly likely to be that way forevermore. Nothing new here. The American people have got what they want, and I hope they get it good and hard. If you want to talk issues about what is going to return us to the Constitutional Republic, bring up how to improve the prospects for the next generation, the under-20's, and their children. Spell that "E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N". That's where it will happen, if it is ever going to happen at all. This "impeachment" circus is 30-second sound bite, immediate gratification entertainment crap. It provides an opportunity to shake Slick Willie's Fellow Travelers out of the closet is all, so those that care can identify them. > This is the second potential impeachment in > my lifetime, and all the drama is there. During the first impeachment "drama", I was in the South China Sea, and I had a lot more important things to think about then. I find that even on "preferred shore duty", I still have more important things to think about. As for "drama", the same stuff has been on the boob tube every weekday afternoon for the last 40 years, under such titles as "As the Stomach Turns", etc. I don't watch those, either, and I rarely associate long with those that do. > > My personal guess is that its still a 50/50 proposition as to > whether impeachment is voted by the House, but it could happen. I think the best that can be said about the whole process is that at least as long as they are in Sodom-on-the-Potomac screwing each other, it occupies them too much to be screwing us, eh? So hopefully they will drag all this out for quite a while. > > ciao, > > jcurtis Nothing personal John. To me, it's a big yawn, nothing of lasting effect will happen. Regards, Harry harryb@eskimo.com The world is for thousands a freak show; the images flicker past and vanish; the impressions remain flat and unconnected in the soul. Thus they are easily led by the opinions of others, are content to let their impressions be shuffled and rearranged and evaluated differently. --Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 23 Sep 1998 09:23:04 -0700 (PDT) I'm pulling for the next Starr report(s) to be about something illegal and less tantalizing. Here in Seattle I see how easily Liberals dismiss "all that sex stuff" as "just political backbiting" and then shift to high speed weasel mode when I talk about lying (one more person tells me they want a president who can lie in international negotiations and I'm going to scream). Where is filegate?? Boyd > Drudge report (at drudgereport.com) shows that Jimmy Carter > has weighed in with a prediction that the Judiciary Committee > will recommend an impeachment inquiry and the House will > vote to impeach. > > Clinton will survive the impeachment vote in the Senate, as > its unlikely that the 2/3's majority can be mustered. > > Carter disavowed any insider knowledge on this, this is purely > his political prediction. > > Go check it out. > > This is a pretty big drama being played out, for good or ill. > I'm surprised that ROC is so quiet. Gore is being investigated > for campaign finance illegalities in a 90-day window, with a possible > independent counsel looming. Rumor has it that Filegate is > still very much open. Starr has grand juries active in D.C. and > in Arkansas. He's won 13 (or is it 15?) convictions. > > Why is ROC so silent? Do we only like obscure, grand-conspiracy > like issues? This is the second potential impeachment in > my lifetime, and all the drama is there. > > My personal guess is that its still a 50/50 proposition as to > whether impeachment is voted by the House, but it could happen. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > > >- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: larry ball Subject: Re: A Humor Bug Date: 23 Sep 1998 11:26:11 -0500 Mine (version 6.0) says "I'll drink to that" Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net wrote: > >If you have access to Micro Soft Word make type "I want Clinton to > >resign." (Without the " ") Highlight the words and click on the > >Thesaurus. See what it says. > > > >Larry Ball > >lball@inetnebr.com > > > > > >- > > Larry > > What should it say? Mine says replace with I.D. ? > > 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. > Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP > Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. > *************** Macintosh: It Just Works ****************** > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 23 Sep 1998 13:06:08 -0400 (EDT) > >> >> My personal guess is that its still a 50/50 proposition as to >> whether impeachment is voted by the House, but it could happen. > >I think the best that can be said about the whole process is that at >least as long as they are in Sodom-on-the-Potomac screwing each other, >it occupies them too much to be screwing us, eh? So hopefully they >will drag all this out for quite a while. > I think that this is an interesting watermark on the route either towards or away from returning us to a Constitutional Republic. So, I guess that Harry and I differ. Will the political process stand up to the current challenge? Can we pull on those creaky levers and spin those rusty gears to get the Constitution to do what it was designed to do? If we can, I'd say that is an improvement over the last six years. If we can't, its a bad sign - 'cause the man obviously committed perjury and papering that over with any kind of political process is not a good sign. We're always going to be a pretty wide republic with divergent political opinions. Can we collectively muster the ability to purge ourselves of a leader who subverts the rule of law by his actions? Will the Constitution (conceived almost 300 years ago by a bunch of brilliant political generalists) be enticed to function? I think these are interesting and important questions, 'cause we are still, at some level, an idealistic nation. Can that idealism be brought to bear in this situation - I don't know. we'll find out. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 23 Sep 1998 13:07:33 -0400 (EDT) > >I think the best that can be said about the whole process is that at >least as long as they are in Sodom-on-the-Potomac screwing each other, >it occupies them too much to be screwing us, eh? So hopefully they >will drag all this out for quite a while. > So you basically believe that, under the current set of elected leaders (House, Senate, Executive) the Constitution *won't* function. Is that more or less right? ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 23 Sep 1998 13:13:49 -0400 (EDT) > >I'm pulling for the next Starr report(s) to be about something illegal and >less tantalizing. Here in Seattle I see how easily Liberals dismiss "all >that sex stuff" as "just political backbiting" and then shift to high speed >weasel mode when I talk about lying (one more person tells me they want a >president who can lie in international negotiations and I'm going to >scream). Where is filegate?? >Boyd > I'm hoping for something substantial on either Filegate or obstruction of the Whitewater investigation (The Miracle of the Billings Records, maybe?). There are a couple of hints (those grand juries still cranking). But that is all I hear, hints and rumors. The Gore campaign finance thing could spawn an IC. My opinion is: as Clinton weakens, it loosens up the political process for more effective investigation of the various Gates. I, personally, think that Lippogate comes close to treason and is a great target. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 23 Sep 1998 13:27:23 -0400 >> >>I think the best that can be said about the whole process is that at >>least as long as they are in Sodom-on-the-Potomac screwing each other, >>it occupies them too much to be screwing us, eh? So hopefully they >>will drag all this out for quite a while. >> > > So you basically believe that, under the current set of > elected leaders (House, Senate, Executive) the Constitution > *won't* function. Is that more or less right? > It hasn't been functioning for years. The Constitution has been used for years to "approve" all sorts of things that it was not meant to be involved in: * gun control * abortion * entitlement programs to name a few. I am not wanting to debate gun control or abortion or whatever -- my point today is that these issues are either enti-constitutional or have nothing to do with the Constitution but that the Constitution has been used to either approve them (abortion, entitlements) or has been ignored (gun control) for a long time now. 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. Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. *************** Macintosh: It Just Works ****************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 23 Sep 1998 13:45:11 -0400 (EDT) > >The Constitution has been used for years to "approve" all sorts of things >that it was not meant to be involved in: > >* gun control >* abortion >* entitlement programs > I agree, 100%, that the Constitution hasn't effectively stopped the slow accretion of Federal power. The 2nd Amendment is ignored, and abortion and entitlement programs are both Statism run rampant. So, I take your point. I am, in essence, an anti-Statist. That's my politics, because that's the politics that seems neccessary this half-century. Parts of the Constitution still work, the transfer of power after elections is orderly, the 1st Amendment is taken seriously, there has been a seesawing of power back and forth between the three branches. The question right now is: if a man perjures himself (a felony) is he fit to continue to serve as President and if he isn't fit, can the Constitutional mechanisms for his removal be cranked up enough to remove him, or at least attempt to remove him? If we can't do that, then we have to add the impeachment process to the set of mechanisms considered faulty, probably broken completely. If its all media, polling, back room politicing, etc. and *no* respect for the law, then we have taken one giant step towards being Mexico. Crank up the offshore accounts, a wink and a nod will go a long way, and *nobody* will attempt to prosecute politically powerful people. ciao, jcurtis - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 23 Sep 1998 11:33:20 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, John Curtis wrote: > > > >I think the best that can be said about the whole process is that at > >least as long as they are in Sodom-on-the-Potomac screwing each other, > >it occupies them too much to be screwing us, eh? So hopefully they > >will drag all this out for quite a while. > > > > So you basically believe that, under the current set of > elected leaders (House, Senate, Executive) the Constitution > *won't* function. Is that more or less right? > > ciao, > > jcurtis I think they might go through all the motions, and pay lip service to the procedural aspects of things. Substance will be ignored. And even if impeached, it will only happen if there is a guarantee that he will be acquitted by the Senate. And I have Franklin that says THAT (acquittal) is a done deal. And as an aside, we're not supposed to have elected "leaders", as in "fuhrers". We're supposed to have elected "representatives", as in "constitutional republic". See, even you are making Freudian slips. In short, the Constitution will not function when its functionaries are corrupt, and the people whom it is supposed to protect are so morally bankrupt they don't know the difference between lying and telling the truth. The majority of the American adult people simply have no moral compass. Without that, the Constitution might as well be toilet paper for all the good it will do. It will take a child to point out they have no clothes on. Stay low, keep moving, watch your six. Harry "I don't think the son-of-a-bitch knows the difference between lying and telling the truth." Former President Harry Truman about Richard Nixon. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 23 Sep 1998 11:48:51 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, John Curtis wrote: > I think that this is an interesting watermark on the route either > towards or away from returning us to a Constitutional Republic. I think we passed that the first Tuesday in November, 1996. That was the watershed election. The 1994 elections slowed the downward slide. 1996 elections determined which way things were going to play out for this generation. This stuff is just the band on the afterdeck of the Titanic playing, "I'll Be Glad When You're Dead, You Rascal, You" as we continue listing to port. ----- Harry Barnett We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. --John Adams - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 23 Sep 1998 11:48:51 -0700 (PDT) On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, John Curtis wrote: > I think that this is an interesting watermark on the route either > towards or away from returning us to a Constitutional Republic. I think we passed that the first Tuesday in November, 1996. That was the watershed election. The 1994 elections slowed the downward slide. 1996 elections determined which way things were going to play out for this generation. This stuff is just the band on the afterdeck of the Titanic playing, "I'll Be Glad When You're Dead, You Rascal, You" as we continue listing to port. ----- Harry Barnett We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. --John Adams - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: The Konformist Screwed By George? (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1998 16:37:09 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I have yet to see the latest issue of George on the newsstands, but an article in it that highly profiled The Konformist was apparently killed. The article, from my understanding, was of conspiracy movers and shakers: it was to profile myself along with writer Alex Constantine, Richard Metzger of Disinformation, Adam Parfrey of Feral House, and Kenn Thomas of Steamshovel Press. In addition, pictures of Parfrey and myself were to be included. Among the theories that were supposed to be mentioned were JonBenet Ramsey's death being part of CIA mind kontrol experiments and blackmail operations, the nuclear industry's push for food irradiation, the L.A. riots being instigated by LAPD and CIA agent provacateur's, the connection of well-connected Mafia in the murders and frame-ups of the O.J. Simpson case, The Oklahoma City Bombing being a government job to scapegoat the Patriot movement, and the evidence of a ancient city on Mars. More perplexing, the article was written by Jon Vankin, about as excellent of a writer as you'll find on the planet. Vankin at his worst (which isn't often) is as good as George is normally at its best. He also is the premier conspiracy expert, and as the issue deals with con theory, an omission of an article by him is glaring. I don't have all the facts yet, but I will get them. As I said, I haven't even seen the issue. I called up the George article editor today, who wasn't in, but they said that Vankin had just called as well, which means he is as surprised by the development as I am. My personal hunch is George wimped out. I think the stuff that was being discussed went way over their heads. Considering John F. Kennedy Jr. is the Editor-In-Chief, that isn't saying much. In the meantime, I encourage you all not to by the issue. Even better, I encourage you to rip it off. Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Exicite/Harris Poll (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1998 17:24:01 PST On Sep 23, Richard Vaughan, Esq. wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Results from Harris Online Poll - swing by and add a nail to Clinton's coffin. Do You Think Clinton Can Remain Effective if He Serves out His Term? yes -- he's a strong leader, this scandal won't change that 38% => 2880 votes no -- Starr's investigation has humiliated Clinton and has undermined his authority and credibility 54% => 4090 votes unsure -- it will take time to see if the scandal "sticks" to Clinton or if it will fade from the people's minds 8% => 597 votes Current Vote Tally: 7567 http://nt.excite.com/poll/ -- Vote for Lorean Bobbitt for White House Intern! [------------------------- 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: AdvAM: What Should America Be? (second try) (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1998 17:23:23 PST On Sep 23, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The ADVANCE AMERICA Network (c) 1998 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 WITH FULL ATTRIBUTION. ================================================================ WHAT SHOULD AMERICA BE? Our nation was founded on some ideas that we take for granted, but which people 225 years ago thought were radical and revolutionary. Even today in most nations the fundamental concepts that formed the basis of our government are elusive dreams for some far-off future, completely unrealizable within the lifetimes of their citizens. One idea that was revolutionary for the colonists of the 1770s was the elimination of the hereditary ruler. To people whose ancestors had for generations sworn allegiance to a crowned head -- a living man or woman who personified the nation -- the prospect of owing their allegiance to a flag or a piece of parchment bearing a written Constitution was like walking across a glass bridge hundreds of feet above the ground. Intellectually they might know it would work, but viscerally they were certain that they were stepping out onto thin air, inviting disaster. Monarchy still exists in many countries, though in most the powers of government have been handed over to elected parliaments. Still, the crowned head in such a country is "by the grace of God" sovereign over the nation and the people. The forms by which laws are made do not exalt the people as the source of the law, but the Crown. In practical terms there's little difference, in principle they're worlds apart -- and if Australia follows through on its recent vote to become a republic, the people there will find they have some adjusting to do. But even in some nominal republics, the source of the law is the people only in name, while in practice the law issues from the top down. So-called "banana republics" are the most obvious of these, countries where the rulers maintain power by pandering to emotion, charming the masses, breeding a cult of personality -- yet governance is by decree, usually for the ruler's own reasons but sold to the masses through careful propagandizing. In a "banana republic" the masses are poorly educated, if not almost universally illiterate, so the propaganda is pretty straightforward. In wealthier, more sophisticated countries, a "banana republic" type of regime must be much more subtle. Clearly, the obvious difference between colonial America and the independent federal republic that arose on these shores after the revolution, isn't the *real* difference. In fact, many monarchies are nearly as stable and free as our republic, while many republics are unstable and decidedly unfree. The real differences have less to do with the forms than with the priorities. There is a book out recently, the title of which escapes me as I sit before my computer composing this, but it's the first-ever scholarly look at one of the most essential priorities for a stable, free society, whether ruled over by a figurehead monarch or a written Constitution: the right of property. It's been written up in *National Review* and I have yet to read the book, but if it lives up to its reviews it may deserve to be added to any list of required reading that includes the Federalist Papers, deTocqueville, and Blackstone. My apologies for not having the title or other information. I'll have to read it and do a review of my own for the Advance America Network. During "The Current Situation" I've typed out a few comments about the importance of the Rule of Law, and how it's being undermined. Like the right of property, the Rule of Law is something that has been so much taken for granted (and the need for it taken for granted) that little has been said until the last few years about it -- what it is, what it means, and why it's necessary. Both are principles that should be taught to youngsters from the earliest ages, because they help to explain so much of what makes America America, and why so much of the rest of the world wants to be just like America (or to come here, anyway). What the Rule of Law means is the absence of privilege. Only under the Rule of Law can TRUE equality -- equality before the law -- exist. If the Rule of Law is undermined or abolished, those who at that time hold the reins of government will be able to establish themselves as the Few Who Make the Rules, while the rest of us become the Many Who Must Obey. Human nature prescribes that there can only be two kinds of society: those governed by laws which apply to everyone, or those governed by a Few (or One) to whom no law applies. In England, the Magna Carta agreed to by King John established for the first time that even a man who was "by the grace of God King" could be held subject to the law. It was the colonists' fear that this principle might be rescinded by a King that led them to separate from Britain and establish our republic. If our head of state owed his office to the law rather than the grace of God, they reasoned, he would be more likely to uphold the law for his own sake if for no other. I chanced to have a conversation by e-mail with a friend who commented on the habitual lack of tolerance among members of what I have called the "infantile Left" -- people who, though they might be quite advanced in years, never matured enough to realize that certain rules of personal conduct are necessary and good. In composing a reply to my friend I had a very interesting insight: What the people on the "infantile Left" want is not so much to revise the standards of proper conduct to suit themselves, as to abolish them completely. They want to be free of any standards, while having the power to impose standards on everyone else. We can't disapprove, even privately, of what goes on between "consenting adults" no matter the public-health consequences of their conduct, but they can legislate against our petty vices, inveigh against our dietary preferences, and attack us personally in public for espousing our opinions. Is it any wonder they are so devoted to elected officials who hold the Rule of Law in contempt? To answer the question of the title, America should be what it was meant to be -- a nation ruled by laws, not personalities; a society where the one kind of equality that matters, equality before the law, is the one we revere and protect at all costs; a civilization that continues to be what it was 220 years ago: the uncontested leader in fostering real freedom, real dignity, and real prosperity. A republic, a promised land, America. We still have what it takes, if we will do what needs to be done. -30- September 22, 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: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 23 Sep 1998 21:51:44 -0700 In my political lifetime, we have had 3 increasingly dishonest presidents, the last two covered up by the press: Nixon, Kennedy and Clinton. Can't be sure the others just weren't caught 8) This seems to me to be evidence of serious instability. Heard some talking head saying how the president's impeachment/resignation would destabilize the political system. Seems to me backwards: unConstitutional behavior by the gov -> big gov -> bad gov -> no credability + instability. Big gov == corrupt gov, or at least corrupt on a scale large enough to do more than annoy the citizens. No human institutions can be designed to withstand the corrosive effects of big money flows, whether illegal (cocaine, gambling, ...) or re-directed taxes. Impeaching Clinton is merely the first step in cleaning the mess in DC up: Lots of gov people have helped Clinton in his criminality. Republicans haven't been too anxious to dig into the problems, so you have to expect a lot of them have been trying to match Clinton's ways. Lew -----Original Message----- > >> >>The Constitution has been used for years to "approve" all sorts of things >>that it was not meant to be involved in: >> >>* gun control >>* abortion >>* entitlement programs >> > I agree, 100%, that the Constitution hasn't effectively stopped > the slow accretion of Federal power. The 2nd Amendment is ignored, > and abortion and entitlement programs are both Statism run > rampant. So, I take your point. > > I am, in essence, an anti-Statist. That's my politics, because > that's the politics that seems neccessary this half-century. > Parts of the Constitution still work, the transfer of power after > elections is orderly, the 1st Amendment is taken seriously, there > has been a seesawing of power back and forth between the three > branches. The question right now is: if a man perjures himself > (a felony) is he fit to continue to serve as President and if he > isn't fit, can the Constitutional mechanisms for his removal be > cranked up enough to remove him, or at least attempt to remove > him? If we can't do that, then we have to add the impeachment > process to the set of mechanisms considered faulty, probably broken > completely. > > If its all media, polling, back room politicing, etc. and > *no* respect for the law, then we have taken one giant step > towards being Mexico. Crank up the offshore accounts, a > wink and a nod will go a long way, and *nobody* will attempt to > prosecute politically powerful people. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > >- > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: A Humor Bug Date: 23 Sep 1998 22:25:33 -0700 At 11:02 PM 9/22/98 -0500, you wrote: >At 23:44 09/22/1998 -0400, you wrote: >>>If you have access to Micro Soft Word make type "I want Clinton to >>>resign." (Without the " ") Highlight the words and click on the >>>Thesaurus. See what it says. >>> >> >>What should it say? Mine says replace with I.D. ? >> Close, but no cigar. I believe it only works in Word 97, and possibly, Word 98 for the Mac. Type "I'd like Clinton to resign", and the thesaurus suggests "I'll drink to that" as a possible replacement. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "George Washington said it as, 'Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.' Government must be restricted as much as possible to do as little as possible because unlike all other institutions, every task given to it is the occasion for the use of force. It is enough if government attempts to limit the evil actions that individuals commit against each other. If it does more, either in attempting to restrict the evils that individuals do to themselves, or if government attempts to use its force to engineer positive good, it increases occasions for the creation of power centers which can be captured by amoral or immoral persons who will corrupt such power to their own ends." J. Neil Schulman "Self Control, Not Gun Control" Founding Member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 24 Sep 1998 10:30:48 -0400 (EDT) > >Big gov == corrupt gov, or at least corrupt on a scale large enough to do >more than annoy the citizens. > >No human institutions can be designed to withstand the corrosive effects of >big money flows, whether illegal (cocaine, gambling, ...) or re-directed >taxes. > >Impeaching Clinton is merely the first step in cleaning the mess in DC up: >Lots of gov people have helped Clinton in his criminality. Republicans >haven't been too anxious to dig into the problems, so you have to expect a >lot of them have been trying to match Clinton's ways. > > I pretty much agree. Impeaching Clinton (even if he wasn't convicted) would be a positive step towards delineating what is unacceptable behavior. If we can't impeach him, that is a very bad sign. Some of the bad things (Mena, CIA drug involvement, etc.) are unlikely to see the light of day. We need another set of Church hearings to slap those guys down. If we could just make government 30-40% smaller, that would help right away. I don't really believe that the R's are going to do this, as they are moderate, mainstream, and just as mendacious as anybody else. ciao, jcurtis P.S. primary problem -> nearly total indifference on the part of the public. The media does its job well, it tells us what to think. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 24 Sep 1998 08:45:31 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, John Curtis wrote: > P.S. primary problem -> nearly total indifference on the part > of the public. The media does its job well, it > tells us what to think. I don't think there is anywhere near "total indifference" on the part of the public. A wild guess tells me maybe 20% are angered to the point of outrage. Maybe another 20% are very upset and concerned. It is impossible to get an accurate reading on this because for an accurate sense of the nationwide attitude we are dependent on the media to convey it to us. And the Media does NOT publish facts. So we really don't know what the story is out there outside of our own little circle of friends, acquaintances, family, and associates. What we do know as fact is that supposedly there existed a sufficient majority in November of 1996 to install Slick Willie and his Host of Whores in the Federal Government. That they are there is a fact. That they are LEGITIMATELY there is a stale issue. That whether they remain there is legitimate under the Constitution is the "Issue of the Day". Fretting and fussing and fuming over conjecture as to how events totally outside my power to control or affect will finally be resolved is not the way I choose to live my life. You can characterize it as "indifference" if you wish. I call it being realistic. OBTW, I live in Washington, where my Senators are Gorton (whose primary purpose in office is to ensure that Mariners do not leave Seattle), Murray (who doesn't want to lose her place in line to drop on her knees and unzip Slick Willie), an my Rep is Adam Smith (who talks out of any side of his mouth that he thinks you want to here, but always votes Socialist, while he is green with envy of Lewinsky). Trust me when I say that I KNOW that I am totally unrepresented in DC. I really don't know how many people out there feel strongly about the situation. I just know in my own itty-bitty little circle (compared to 250 million people) that their "profile of indifference" is radically different from that portrayed by the Media as that of the "majority". Thus I and my associates are marginalized as part of the "lunatic fringe", the "vast right-wing conspiracy". Because of the partitioning, "separation" it was called in the Nazi days, the marginalizing of any point of view other than the Socialist Party Line by the Media (and the NEA, incidentally, working hard at producing the next generation of Good Little Socialists) we are all splintered into little tribal fragments. There is no common sense of spirit, and faith that a sufficient number of others are in the Good Fight with us to succeed. The Founding Fathers pitched tea into the harbor. We need a similar meaningful public display of pitching newpapers, newsmagazines, and television sets into the harbor. At a minimum. Maybe it wouldn't do any good in the long run. But it would sure boost morale. ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Re: A Humor Bug Date: 24 Sep 1998 10:49:49 -0600 At 10:25 PM 9/23/98 -0700, you wrote: >At 11:02 PM 9/22/98 -0500, you wrote: >>At 23:44 09/22/1998 -0400, you wrote: >>>>If you have access to Micro Soft Word make type "I want Clinton to >>>>resign." (Without the " ") Highlight the words and click on the >>>>Thesaurus. See what it says. >>>> >>> >>>What should it say? Mine says replace with I.D. ? >>> > >Close, but no cigar. I believe it only works in Word 97, and possibly, Word >98 for the Mac. Type "I'd like Clinton to resign", and the thesaurus >suggests "I'll drink to that" as a possible replacement. Mine (Word 3.11) said to replace with I.D., too, but the first word on the word list was "hypocritcal." I'll drink to THAT, too. S. Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 24 Sep 1998 09:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Harry, I agree with you about the media not diseminating facts. But I think the one case where we really and truly see the spirit of the populace is in a vote. Our last vote here in Washington was almost a record low turnout, doesnt that argue for widespread apathy? boyd - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: The Linda Smith saga continues - she needs your help Date: 24 Sep 1998 10:20:31 -0700 Background. Washington State runs its primary elections much later than most states, in mid-September. That leaves very little time for the victorious primary election candidates to raise new money and campaign for the November general election. =20 A short campaign system is not all bad for the voters, but when several challengers are vying for the nomination to run against an established incumbent, the short time between the primary and general elections can make the difference between victory and defeat for a cash-poor challenger. =20 That=92s precisely the case now for an honest, tough-minded, highly principled and independent-thinking conservative Congresswoman named Linda Smith. No doubt you=92ve heard of her because of her refusal to sell her soul for campaign contributions from PACs, lobbyists and corporations.=20 She was the victor in the recent Republican primary senate race by a=20 2-to-1 landslide (more on this later), and will now try to unseat=20 ultra-liberal, big-government, =93Mom in tennis shoes=94 senator Patty Murray, who has been rated by the conservative media as the 4th dumbest =93dim bulb=94 (their words, not mine) in the senate. Murray=92s thinki= ng=20 is shallow, her ideas are silly (e.g., federal government hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class sizes across the nation, but no idea what it will cost and no proposal on how to pay for it), and her senate voting record reveals a =93whatever Bill Clinton and Senate Democratic leaders tell me to do=94 philosophy. I=92m sure she=92s an honest an= d sincere woman. She=92s just in over her head as a U.S. Senator, just=20 as her =93Mom in tennis shoes=94 campaign slogan implies.=20 Even so, Murray liberalism appeals to urban liberals in the Seattle-Puget Sound area and other urban centers across the state of WA. Murray got 46% of the vote statewide in the open primary election,=20 which leaves the door open for a conservative Linda Smith victory, but it=92s too close for comfort. There is clearly some serious and expensive campaigning to be done, and Linda is short of $. =20 But there is another story to be told here about Linda Smith=92s experience with the Republican leadership in this year's primary election cycle. =20 Republican leaders knew that Linda was not taking bribe money because she has made no secret of it. In fact, she=92s been pushing for=20 campaign finance reforms for everyone, as a member of the House of Representatives. When she first went to congress back in 1995, she became so disgusted with the attempted bribery implications of the lobbist and PAC activities, not to mention the out-of-control =93soft money=94 system, that she stopped taking this tainted money. She has refused to take a penny of this bribe money ever since, and she has=20 been quite vocal in her courageous philosophy that "Win or lose, I=20 will run my campaigns only with small contributions from individuals." This well-advertized policy, and her incessant calls for campaign finance reform have earned Linda Smith the wrath of Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate. But her supporters love her for it. According to the local paper, Linda raised nearly $2 million for her senate campaign, all in small contributions from more than 35,000 supporters. That=92s unprecedented!!! But that same newspaper report says she spent most of that on the contested primary election. Only $400,000 remains to start her campaign to unseat Senator Patty Murray, who had no primary election opponent, and has more than $1 million in her campaign warchest. =20 Based on the likelihood of her primary victory, Linda Smith shouldn=92t have had a primary election opponent either, except for the arm twisting by Senator Mitch McConnell, Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee to find another Republican to run against her. The problem was, Linda Smith is disliked nearly as much by the Republican leaders=20 in congress (for her high principles and tough-minded independence) as she is by the Democrats (for her unrelenting conservatism). =20 Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate simply DO NOT want Linda Smith=20 to win a senate seat, even if that means ultra-liberal Patty Murray stays. Not only is Linda too independent-minded for the senate=92s =93good ol=92 boys=92 club,=94 but for her to win a senate seat without t= aking bribe money would provoke an avalanche of unwelcome media attention on our corrupting campaign finance system. =20 Accordingly, Senator McConnell personally twisted the arms of other Republican congresscritters in WA to get them to run against Linda=20 Smith in the primary. And there was a unstated part to this strategy. Even if Linda won a contested primary, her campaign warchest (which depends entirely on small individual contributions, remember) would be depleted with too little time remaining before the general election to replenish it. Patty Murray would win. How=92s tha= t for =93Republican principle?=94 =20 But Senator McConnell ran into problems. Linda Smith is a superb campaigner with unbelievable energy, stamina and popular appeal, and=20 she has never lost an election. Since the other politicians from WA knew that, Senator McConnell=92s arm twisting didn=92t work so well. =20 Congressman George Nethercutt from Spokane (who took out Speaker Tom Foley in 1994) refused to run against Linda because he knew he=92d get whipped. Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn refused because she is in=20 line for leadership in the House of Representatives. It made no sense to her (or anyone else) to forego House leadership in order to become=20 a freshman senator. No other credible Repblican congresscritters were interested in losing an election for the Republican leadership either. =20 But McConnell finally found a sacrificial lamb to drain Linda=92s=20 warchest - Chris Bayley, a relatively unknown county prosecutor and former state legislator from the Puget Sound area. Bayley is also a $millionaire who was such a Republican loyalist that he was willing=20 to finance a losing primary campaign with his personal fortune if necessary. As it turned out, it cost him a cool $1 million. He=20 got only 3000 contributions to Linda Smith=92s 35,000, and lost the primary election by a 2-1 landslide. So much for the idea of=20 beating Linda Smith. =20 But Senator McConnell=92s anti-Smith strategy worked nicely on the financial side. Linda Smith now has only $400,000 left for her campaign against incumbent Patty Murray, who still has more than=20 $1 million, plus pledges of more from every liberal PAC as well as pledged support from the Democratic National Committee. Linda=20 Smith won=92t get any support from the Republican National Committee. They don't want her in the senate even if the people do. =20 Linda Smith must rebuild a million dollar warchest with small=20 individual contributions, and she must do it in 3-4 weeks. I=20 remember Linda telling me back in 1994 (after she won a history-making 3-week write-in primary campaign for congress) that she and her husband of 30 years were selling one of their cars and taking out a mortgage on their paid-off home to get her campaign started. That=92s commitment. That=92s Linda and Vern Smith. I suspect they=92ll be doing that again soon. (Incidentally, Vern is a railroad engineer - the real kind - a train driver). =20 With all that as background, I ask you to check out Linda=92s web page at . You=92ll find a long list of endorsers, including many that support the same hot-button issues that you and I support. =20 You=92ll also find a =93Contributions=94 section. Please use it. Lind= a needs $ help badly, and she needs it now. My check=92s in the mail. = =20 Linda Smith is as close as Independents can come to electing one of their own. She=92s hated by hard core Democrats and disliked by Republican leaders, but loved by the conservatives she represents. =20 She=92s a straight talker who says what she means, does what she says,=20 and calmly and honestly tells those who badger her over issues at her regular town meetings that they probably shouldn=92t vote for her. =20 In today=92s politics, it just doesn=92t get any better than that. =20 >From one who knows her well, we can=92t do better than Linda Smith. =20 She=92ll drive the good ol=92 boys in the U.S. Senate crazy and she could change that arrogant institution forever. And we just can=92t do worse than allowing Patty Murray to be reelected. =20 I=92m not on Linda=92s campaign staff. I=92m just one of her 35,000 sm= all contributors who is writing from the heart to ask you to join =93Linda=92= s Army.=94 We are out to prove that good candidates can win senate seats without selling their souls to PACs, lobbyists and corporations, and because we want at least one truly honest, courageous, principled and independent-thinking representative in the U.S. Senate. Won=92t you join us? =20 As indicated on Linda=92s web page, send contributions to: Committee to Elect Linda Smith PO BOX 65117 Vancouver, WA 98665 (Remember, FEC requires contributions over $200 to be accompanied by full information on yourself and your employment and employer) Thanks and best regards,=20 R. L. =93Skip=94 Leuschner, US Navy (Retired) Independent=20 Ridgefield, WA - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 24 Sep 1998 11:22:15 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Boyd wrote: > Harry, I agree with you about the media not diseminating facts. But I think > the one case where we really and truly see the spirit of the populace is in > a vote. Our last vote here in Washington was almost a record low turnout, > doesnt that argue for widespread apathy? boyd I can't speak to this directly because circumstances like making sure Mama and the Kids continue to sleep indoors and eat three meals a day have taken precednce over keeping up with current events in Washington. But generally speaking, how do we actually know it was a "low turnout"? Isn't this source of infoormation the Media? What makes their assertion that it was "a low turnout" believable when their credibility is so poor? Wasn't the last one, the turnout for that gun-grabbers' pipe dream, the "trigger locks" and "mandatory training" initiative pretty good? Wasn't it raining across the State of Washington on the 15th? That is the single factor which most determines low turnout at the polls (which is sign of apathy all by itself!), believe it or not. Another thing which drives low turnout is that people may care, but they just don't see their vote as making a difference, and they may be working 7/12's, too, for the same reasons I am. People do the things they think are important to them personally. How did the Libertarians do in WA, BTW? ----- Harry Barnett - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Safire column Date: 24 Sep 1998 14:52:23 -0400 (EDT) The following is an exerpt from William Safire's latest column. For the full thing, go to http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/24safi.html Maybe Lippogate isn't dead, after all. ciao, jcurtis Once the main stream of inquiry begins to flow, tributaries in related Congressional investigations will feed it. The Resolution of Inquiry should cover the long abuse of executive privilege in the House Oversight Committee's campaign finance investigation. Attorney General Reno's refusal to share more of the suppressed Freeh and La Bella memos may figure in the coming inquiry; this includes information that might help Congress tie the President to potentially illegal fund-raising with James Riady, John Huang and Charlie Trie. Also, the Judiciary Committee could put impeachment pressure into a demand for information Justice has about espionage connected to corrupt Commerce Department approvals of technology transfers to China, but refuses to divulge to the ultra-secret Chinagate select committee. The preceding convoluted paragraph has a bunch of reporting behind it and may be worth reading again, keeping in mind that Congress's impeachment power can overcome ordinary separation-of-power barriers to investigation. This has to go beyond Monica to show some pervasive pattern of abuse. For all the Clinton chickens coming home to roost, Congress must build a large coop. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Date: 24 Sep 1998 13:37:17 PST On Sep 24, Boyd wrote: >Harry, I agree with you about the media not diseminating facts. But I think >the one case where we really and truly see the spirit of the populace is in >a vote. Our last vote here in Washington was almost a record low turnout, >doesnt that argue for widespread apathy? boyd More like widespread disgust with the choices offered. -- ***** 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: The Linda Smith saga continues - she needs your help Date: 24 Sep 1998 19:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Lots of stuff I agree with snippted >From one who knows her well, we can=92t do better than Linda Smith. >She=92ll drive the good ol=92 boys in the U.S. Senate crazy and she could >change that arrogant institution forever. And we just can=92t do worse >than allowing Patty Murray to be reelected. > >I=92m not on Linda=92s campaign staff. I=92m just one of her 35,000 smal= l >contributors who is writing from the heart to ask you to join =93Linda=92s >Army.=94 We are out to prove that good candidates can win senate seats >without selling their souls to PACs, lobbyists and corporations, and >because we want at least one truly honest, courageous, principled and >independent-thinking representative in the U.S. Senate. Won=92t you >join us? DITTO! CLAW will be sending volunteers and contributions her way but she needs more help. Sending a small check not only helps unseat one of the most deserving-to-be-unseated reps but it will send a message that big donors need not control elections to every precinct and parish in the nation. Please, do anything you can. >As indicated on Linda=92s web page, send contributions to: > > Committee to Elect Linda Smith > PO BOX 65117 > Vancouver, WA 98665 > >(Remember, FEC requires contributions over $200 to be accompanied by >full information on yourself and your employment and employer) > >Thanks and best regards, > >R. L. =93Skip=94 Leuschner, US Navy (Retired) Boyd Kneeland, pres., Council for Legislative Action, Washington - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: The Meaning of Honor (and of Words) in Pre-Clinton Times Date: 25 Sep 1998 13:30:31 -0400 (EDT) September 25, 1998 The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton The White House Washington, D.C. 20050 Dear Mr. President: On May 6, 1943, in an era not so very long ago when honor still mattered, my late uncle, U.S. Army Second Lieutenant Geoffrey Cheney Ferris, a field artillery forward observer attached to an infantry battalion in the thick of combat on a dusty hill near Mateur, Tunisia, sent his fellow soldiers, his family, his friends, his fellow Americans back home and even enemy troops a crystal clear message about character and courage. Uncle Geoff took a position of cover, not behind White House spin doctors Mike McCurry and John Podesta, but behind some rocks, as Field Marshal Erwin Rommel's well trained and well equipped infantry advanced with rapidity to silence him, the one man who could call artillery fire upon them before they attacked U.S. Army infantry units. Having advanced well ahead of friendly lines with his driver and his radio-telephone operator to determine the exact location of enemy forces, Uncle Geoff quickly realized the danger involved and, without hesitation, he ordered his driver and his RTO to withdraw to safety while he remained behind, .30 caliber M-1 carbine and .45 ACP pistol in hand, to provide a withering hail of covering fire for his two comrades in arms. Uncle Geoff surely knew the feeling, "Death is approaching," as, alone, he checked his magazines, reloaded his two firearms, and continued to send a stream of bullets at his adversaries as they closed in to remove him as a threat. Unlike you, Mr. President, my Uncle Geoff did not have Attorneys Kendall or Bennett by his side, objecting to the speed of the enemy's advance, whispering sweet nothings in his ear, taking breaks to guzzle diet sodas, or calling the attacking Afrika Korps infantry "partisans working for Kenneth Starr" ... Nosiree. Uncle Geoff, alone, stood fast as whistling metal projectiles stitched the earth around him and eventually pierced his body, taking his life. But his sacrifice was not in vain. Mr. President, my uncle made a conscious decision to die so that others might live. He did not quibble. He did not equivocate. He did not prevaricate. He did not ask Rommel's Afrika Korps officers to "censure" him because, heck, he had "felt Rommel's pain", Clinton-style. He did not call Dick Morris to ask how his actions would play out in polls. Uncle Geoff remained, of his own volition, in the kind of real world, horrific battlefield crossfire that Clinton apologist and shill Bill Press could never imagine. As Uncle Geoff sensed, "Death is approaching," he was alone, one man against four times that number. But, in truth, Mr. President, he was never really alone. Uncle Geoff, as he fought and died so bravely, must have known that my late father, his older brother and a fellow Army field artillery officer who would wade ashore at Omaha Beach in 1944 and would engage in combat during the Battle of the Bulge in the European Theater of Operations, was there with him, in spirit. His mom and dad were there. His many friends were there. His good pals back at his former employer, Winchester Repeating Arms Company of New Haven, Connecticut, were with him, as were his fellow G.I.s who loved him in an honest way that you and Hillary, both power-crazed, could never understand. And God, too, was with him, ever prepared to gently take him into His arms and to lift him up to heaven with the grace and dignity befitting a nobly fallen veteran. Yes, I am referring to the same God whose name you invoke every time you bite your lower lip, send your "spin-ministers" onto TV shows to discuss the state of your soul and your latest contrition cell count, or walk from a church, your Bible angled so that media cameras will focus on it. A word of caution, Sir. God is quite experienced. He has been around a long, long time and He knows the difference between a man of honor and a dishonorable man. Throughout the ages, God has racked up a lot of miles on His odometer sitting in final judgment of people, good and bad. When you finally meet God, He will tell you just what you are and if you meet His standards. My sense is that God, a deity who has seen it all, probably does not ask focus groups if men of your type should be given a free pass for misdeeds done on terra firma. You will just have to wait and see. Oh, and don't bother asking Sidney Blumenthal to task your Magnum P.I.s to dig up any dirt on God and to pass it on to Salon magazine. God is clean, and He might be more offended than Henry Hyde by Sidney Blumenthal's low road tactics. Now, back to honor and the meaning of words. Before you high five your six figure attorneys because your performance on the grand jury videotape was, hey, "not half bad", based on the infamous polls, take a break late at night and walk slowly among the silent rows of polished granite headstones at Arlington National Cemetery. Read the names, the ranks, the branches of service and the combat decorations earned by thousands of brave soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen and coastguardsmen, honorable Americans who placed country before self. My Uncle Geoff was only one such man. He is joined by hundreds of thousands of others who, since our great nation was formed, have fallen willingly to preserve our Republic and our freedom. Stand quietly, Mr. President, and, if you listen carefully, you may just hear the hushed whispers of many valiant Americans who will urge you to reconsider the total adverse impact of your recurring misbehavior on the presidency and on our nation. The barely audible voices of the Arlington National Cemetery Caucus of Honor may quietly urge you to do the right thing by resigning ... resigning because protecting the best interests of America should matter more to you than should attending to your own ego. If you will not listen to principled Americans who have advised you, in all candor, that you no longer have the moral authority to lead this nation or to send our sons and daughters off to war, listen instead to my Uncle Geoff and to those valiant service members whose past sacrifices should not be stained by the dishonor of your continuing presence in office any longer than one more day. Resign. Now. Show that honor still matters. Even to you. Be remembered for acting honorably in your last action taken as President of the (great) United States of America. There is no shame in admitting that you can no longer lead and in turning the reins of government over to the Vice President. In fact, you might just find that many Americans would respect you for making just such a decision ... a decision requiring you to place country before self. The Arlington National Cemetery Caucus of Honor is watching ... and waiting. Along with the rest of America. Sir, the ball is in your court. Respectfully, Christopher C. Ferris 186 Coburn Woods Nashua NH 03063-2860 ferriscc@mainstream.net - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: The Linda Smith saga continues Date: 27 Sep 1998 13:02:47 -0700 FYI, another version of the Linda Smith saga I e-mailed last week. For info, Linda's web site is Regards, Skip. ***** Smith goes against Washington September 27, 1998 BY ARIANNA HUFFINGTON COMMENTARY This November, for only the third time in U.S. history, two women will face each other in a race for the Senate. It is a contest of great national significance, not because of its lamentable rarity, but because it presents voters in Washington state with a stark choice. Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, an Identikit member of the political class, will be facing Republican Rep. Linda Smith, one of only a handful of truly independent leaders in Congress. The main goal of the Smith campaign is to ``restore the confidence of Americans in their government.'' If you think that is just more pro forma political droning, you only have to look at her record. One of her first acts in Congress was to introduce legislation to clean up what she calls ``the sewer'' of special-interest money in politics and to topple the dominance of political action committees. She does not believe that politicians can hope to gain the public trust without changing the campaign fund-raising rules. To prove she means it, she has refused to take PAC money herself, thus taking the courageous step of putting her lack-of-money where her mouth is. Not surprisingly, the Republican archfoe of campaign finance reform, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, did all he could to undermine Smith in her primary race. He found the rock that her opponent, Christopher Bayley, lived under and raised it just high enough so he could crawl out. Bayley's main attraction, other than the fact that he outspent Smith 3-1, was that he opposed campaign finance reform and would gladly do the big boys' bidding-- something Smith never has done. I asked Smith if McConnell--who is, after all, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee overseeing Senate races- -had called to congratulate her on foiling his plan to return her to oblivion. ``No,'' she replied without any rancor, making it clear that you don't need the old boys' network to get ahead. Smith has been accused--by her fellow Republicans, no less--of being everything from ``a little kooky'' to ``unwilling to listen.'' ``She's got no eardrums,'' one Republican said, while another complained that ``you can't count on her for anything.'' The simple translation is that she is willing to take on the political class, including the leadership of her own party. Good for her, and tough for the GOP troglodytes. By contrast, when Murray was about to call on the president to resign, she was all too easily persuaded by Al Gore and other Democratic Party elders to refrain. Like a good little girl, she just said instead that his behavior was ``disappointing.'' A year and a half ago, when my column praised Smith as ``an unruly woman,'' she told me that she liked the moniker. ``It's good to be a team player,'' she said, ``but you also have to know the difference between all of us standing together and all of us jumping off the same cliff.'' She was one of the few courageous GOP souls-- nine, to be precise--who voted against Newt Gingrich for speaker. She even had the guts to vote against the balanced budget, which she considers ``a fraud perpetrated on the American people by robbing the Social Security trust fund to the tune of $500 billion.'' While toady Murray was crawling across China on her belly last year, Smith was voting against most favored nation status, even though she, too, comes from the state where Boeing has its international headquarters and employs 103,000 people. No wonder that Murray, who counts Boeing among her biggest contributors, has been dubbed the ``senator from Boeing''--a sobriquet once reserved for corporate functionary Scoop Jackson. Smith's position is diametrically different. ``Boeing has already moved a portion of the Kansas production line to China,'' she told me. ``All of the plane technology, except the wings, can be produced in China. How long will it be before jobs begin to leave Washington state, too? On top of it, this nation cannot afford to engage in trade without a conscience.'' Smith feels the same way about corporate welfare, which is why she voted against ethanol subsidies for Archer Daniels Midland (one of America's leading producers of political candidates and candidate- related products). Murray, of course, toed the bright line of the political industrial complex once again and voted for the $3 billion corporate subsidy. Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer and Carol Moseley-Braun--all holdovers from the Year of the Woman, are now vulnerable, with the momentum against them in the coming election. Perhaps 1992 should be renamed the year that proved that female politicians can be as lousy and worthless as men. Perhaps, too, Washington will lead the nation to greatness yet again. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: S L I C K #49 part 2 (fwd) Date: 27 Sep 1998 15:53:35 PST On Sep 26, RichSlick@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Earlier edition was an edited version. This is what you missed. SCORCHED EARTH POLICY I welcome the advent of the scorched earth policy. I think all pols and media types should participate. Bring it all out. Let the people decide. If a pol distributes flyers showing his happy traditional family, and he commits adultery, expose him/her. If a pol claims to be a practicing Christian, but only graces his church during let it be known to everyone. To let the pols get away with these lies is an immoral act. RichSlick sez: when they use their personal lives to garner votes, they become fair targets for scrutiny. IRS If the IRS can tax a baseball fan for catching a HR and returning it to the hitter, can they tax a terminally ill kid who is sent to Disney Land by the Make a Wish Founda- tion? Or what about all the ties etc the prez says he gives away, are they exempt? What's the difference? Shouldn't all those ties he claims he is giving away count v his lifetime gift allowance? If a $9 baseball hit by McGwire is worth a cool million, how much is a $10 tie worn by the prez worth? A gift is a gift. These absurd laws are unreal and have to go. FICA It sounds so good to say, no tax cut until you save FICA. Problem is the FICA can't save. If the whole $80 bil were given to the FICA by raising the current FICA flat tax from 15.4% to 20 or 25%, the net effect on "savings would be zero. By law, the SSA would receive $80 bil in special U.S. Treasury bonds, and the new tax would go the fedl govt to negate the cut in income taxes. ABORTION A mother/woman does not have the God-given authority to do anything she pleases with her body or her child's body. Think about this before responding. Is prostitution legal? How about incest? Why should the murder of children be legal? Received from loyal reader cburnett@interconnect.net TRADE DEFICIT Better late than never, the prez promises to fullfill his 1991 pledge to reduce the trade deficit with Japan. Bill Clinton is meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi to discuss new fiscal policies and banking reform as well as reduced trade barriers and open markets. RichSlick fears they won't open their markets, just our wallet. AN INTERESTING ITEM Overturning an Election. The most recent argument by visible Clintonoids against impeachment is that it will somehow overturn an election. As usual, there are a number of really fun responses to this assertion -- the first being that Bob Dole is not in the line of succession. We only need to return 25 years in the past -- where the removal of a sitting President, one that won nearly 60% of the vote and 49 states was not overturning an election. The fact that Nixon was about to be impeached was not viewed at the time as overturning an election. Perhaps it can only happen when the perpetrator is a democrat. More Interesting Items can be be found on Rod Martin's (no relation) "Vanguard" at www.theVanguard.org/gimarc/ KATHIE'S KORNER In two years, Californians may vote whether to define marriage in California as a legal relationship between one man and one woman. I will vote against such a law. In fact, pondering the issue has made me wonder why we allowed the government to concern itself with marriage, essentially a religious sacrament. We don't (yet) need a license to be baptized, to christen children, to receive last rites, to celebrate religious holidays. Why did we think we needed a govt. license for marriage? If there are legal advantages to marriage, they are wrong. I accept that there are social, spiritual and even physical advantages to marriage, but in a free society, the govt ought not to favor one class of people over another. Because while in the case of marriage I am on the "right side" to receive advantages, in the case of some of the other sacraments named above, I may be on the "wrong side." It should not be the business of government to divide us. Reply-to: fishrap@netdex.com * * * * * Subscribe to this Slick e-zine featuring Kathie's Korner, and receive absolutely free, a copy of Rich's Major Media Mailing List containing over 500 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. Anyone wishing to carry Slick at their WWW site should contact me by e-mail. Having the current Slick updated once or twice a week gives visitors a reason to come back soon. THE TRUTH IS... A. Powerful. C. In the eye of the beholder. B. Irrelevant. D. All of the above. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: RAPTUS: While you were "sleeping"... (fwd) Date: 27 Sep 1998 15:26:52 PST On Sep 26, Don Capps wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ...the collectivists were marching on! American Policy Center 13873 Park Center Rd. Suite 316 Herndon, VA 20171 (703) 925-0881 FAX: (703) 925-0991 www.americanpolicy.org=20 BEWARE LANDOWNERS: The Midnight Raid on Your=20 Liberties is About to Begin Like addicts hawking priceless heirlooms for a=20 one-time fix, Congress is recklessly exchanging our=20 liberties for election year pork and a pat on the=20 head from the radical environmentalists. They=92re doing this by signing on to the Omnibus=20 Parks Bill (HR 4570), an eclectic mix of last-minute=20 pork barrel requests and long-standing bad=20 legislation that stood no chance of passing on its=20 own merit. Included in the Omnibus Parks Bill are measures to=20 spend over $200 million to federalize (steal)=20 private land and establish more river schemes, more=20 heritage areas and more wild life preserves. Every=20 one robs property owners of the use of their land,=20 kills jobs and wastes millions of tax dollars. There=20 is so much garbage in this 500+ page bill (and still=20 growing), it=92s hard to award a blue ribbon to the=20 most outrageous porker. One close contender though,=20 would be the provision being driven by New Mexico=92s=20 two U.S. senators to spend $150 million bailing out=20 a wealthy oilman who needs to unload a 95,000-acre=20 ranch. The serious blow to the economy will be made=20 up through higher property taxes from other=20 homeowners. Although many Republicans recognize this bill to be=20 bad legislation, they=92ve pledged to vote for it=20 anyway because they=92ve added their own pet pork,=20 they don=92t see the land-grabbing provisions as=20 effecting their own districts, and it=92s an=20 opportunity to be seen as a good green Republican. Furthermore, an effort to kill the bill (which will=20 probably be voted on in the middle of the night=20 while you=92re sleeping!) can=92t be found because it=92s=20 being pushed by the Republican leadership in an=20 attempt to tie up loose ends before adjournment. The House Resources Committee, where the bill was=20 introduced last Wednesday, said it will probably=20 move to the Rules Committee by early next week. ACTION TO TAKE: 1. Call Newt Gingrich and tell him "NO" to the=20 Omnibus Parks Bill. Tell him all bills should be=20 debated in open session and pass or fail on their=20 own merit: 202-225-0600. 2. Call your Congressman. Tell him you will hold him=20 accountable on election day if he supports this=20 assault on your property rights and the federal=20 treasury. Tell him you demand a "recorded" vote --=20 not a "voice" vote. That=92s just a sneaky ploy!=20 Capitol Switchboard: 202-225-3121. American Lands Sovereignty and Protection Act Still=20 Stalled in Senate Committee Unless the heat is turned way up in the final few=20 weeks of the 105th Congress, the long-fought-for=20 American Lands Sovereignty and Protection Act (S.=20 2098) seems doomed to die in Senator Frank=20 Murkowski=92s Committee on Energy & Natural=20 Resources. Murkowski=92s office said Wednesday it hasn=92t seen=20 enough support to hold hearings.. The bill, passed by the House and now sponsored in=20 the Senate by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, will=20 forbid designation of U.S. land as UN World Heritage=20 Sites & Biosphere Reserves without Congress=92=20 approval. It would also return land-use decision=20 powers to the proper localities within the areas=20 already designated -- where the UN hasn=92t been shy=20 about exercising huge powers gained through=20 international treaties signed by the Clinton=20 Administration. "Surely you must support such a concept (to repeal=20 this UN encroachment)," said American Policy Center=20 (APC) President Tom DeWeese in a letter to=20 Murkowski. Accompanying the letter were 50,000=20 signed petitions in support of S. 2098. APC, its extensive grassroots support base and other=20 property rights advocates have fought long and hard=20 to get this bill through Congress. It=92s taken three=20 years to pass the House and then find a Senate=20 sponsor. If S. 2098 doesn=92t move through the Energy=20 and Natural Resource Committee before the end of=20 this session, the entire process will have to start=20 again in the House next year. DeWeese warned Murkowski that if no action was taken, the UN intends to name 71 more U.S. locations as=20 Heritage Sites. "This is a travesty that must be=20 corrected," DeWeese said. "You, sir, have the power=20 to do something about it." ACTION TO TAKE: 1. Generate other Congressional support for the=20 bill. Call your state=92s two Senators and ask them to=20 co-sponsor the bill. Capitol Switchboard:=20 202-224-2131. 2. Call Senator Murkowski=92s office: 202-224-6665 and=20 demand he hold hearings. Cheers For Senator Barbara Boxer? Who=92d have thought Senator Barbara Boxer would be=20 helping the property rights movement? Albeit for the=20 wrong reasons, Boxer=92s opposition to the Quincy=20 Library Group (QLG) Bill is helping to kill the=20 measure. Boxer was originally a co-sponsor of the=20 legislation, but later withdrew her support and=20 placed a hold on the bill after deciding it "didn=92t=20 have adequate environmental protections," explained=20 staff from her office Thursday. Please don=92t tell Senator Boxer, but the QLG Bill --=20 which is purported to be a compromise between =20 property rights advocates and environmentalists --=20 is anything but a compromise. It=92s really a wolf in=20 sheep=92s clothing written by greens and a few suckers=20 from the timber industry. It will kill the cattle=20 industry, eventually even kill the timber industry=20 and hand the greens an enormous victory. Those Republicans who still don=92t get it and are=20 pushing the bill, haven=92t made any progress in=20 negotiations with Boxer. "Senator Boxer=92s opposition remains firm," said=20 staff from Rep. Wally Herger=92s office, a proponent=20 of QLG. While it=92s likely the clock will run out on the=20 105th Congress and the QLG Bill will die a=20 much-deserved death, a breakthrough in negotiations=20 is entirely possible. Therefore it=92s important to=20 keep up the pressure. ACTION TO TAKE: 1. Call Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and voice=20 your opposition to the bill. 202-224-6253. 2. Call both your senators and voice your opposition=20 to them as well. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121. [------------------------- 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 Norgaard" Subject: Fw: State Legislators Date: 27 Sep 1998 22:32:28 -0700 Patriots.......here's the real world.....keep your powder dry.....C. ---------- > From: Committee to Restore the Constitution > To: Recipient List Suppressed:; > Subject: State Legislators > Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 3:30 PM > > STATE LEGISLATORS: REPOSITORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS * - Part 1 > > THE STATE LEGISLATORS > > If we define our terms and analyze just what the trouble is in the United > States with regard to restoring Constitutional Government we can see a > number of things. First of all, what we sometimes decry as supposed acts > are not acts at all, they are the attempted acts of special agents created > by the Constitution. There were three such agencies created in the first > three Articles of the Constitution; Number One dealing with the Congress; > Number Two dealing with the Executive Branch; and Number Three dealing with > the Courts; all of them special agencies, having limited powers. > > Therefore, these agencies have to look to that instrument and to that > instrument alone, for a specific enumeration of their powers. But somethng > has gone wrong, and we see that our State Legislators say, "We don't think > that Federal Courts ought to tell us how to apportion our State > Legislatures. We think that it is horrible for the Federal Courts to > undertake such Judicial Legislation". They call it "judicial legislation" > when in fact these State Legislatures THEMSELVES are the ones who are to > blame. Whether they know it or not, the States are, in law, the principals, > and it is through the State Legislatures that the State speaks in its > highest sovereign capacity. Therefore, the State Legislatures have a > responsibility which they are not discharging, and if Federal Agents come > along to enforce some ruling that the Legislators don't like, it is not the > act of the Federal Agent which is changing the Constitution, it is the > INACTION of the State. It is the State's act, or failure to respond to this > challenge that is causing the degradation of our Constitutional system. > > DELEGATED POWERS > > It is very difficult sometimes to talk to Legislators who have been > psychologized into thinking that (1) all great and good things come from > that Mecca in the Eastern part of our country and (2) that the States > somehow form some sort of satrapies, or provinces, that are dependent upon > the Federal agencies for their very existence. Indeed, even the term > 'States Rights' is something of a misnomer because the issue isn't a > question of States Rights. In using that term, we tend to think that the > States have certain Rights and if the Federal agencies will allow it, then > maybe the States can exercise those Rights. That isn't the case at all. > > The question is, what powers were DELEGATED to these special agencies. The > next succeeding question, of course, is what the State must do to correct > an excess of its agent. Many say, that if the State enforces the > Constitution it would be putting the Congress or the President or the > Supreme Court or some other Federal agency at defiance and therefore we > would end up with anarchy. But, it wasn't anarchy when Marshall in MARBURY > v. MADISON decided that the Congress had no authority to enact the Statute > that the Congress claimed to enact. Nor is it anarchy to enforce any of the > provisions of the Constitution. Quite the contrary, we are allowing > ourselves to fall into a condition of uncontrolled and uncontrollable > anarchy by our FAILURE to enforce the provisions of the United State > Constitution. > > One of our jobs is to get our State Legislators to lose their inferiority > complex. They have the idea that because a Federal Representative gets a > lot more money than a State Legislator does, that therefore the Congressman > has more authority. And, lawyers frequently share the view that the name > 'Supreme Court of the United States' means that this is the Court to which > all good legal beagles must turn and point to get the next signal as to > what new 'Statute' shall be conjured up by a majority of that group. This > is not the law, and it's unfortunate that lawyers are ham ignorant of the > principles upon which our Constitution was founded. It is not a question of > turning to the Supreme Court to find out what to do, because what the > Supreme Court shall do under the Constitution is what the Constitution says > it shall do. To get any change in their Commissions all Federal agencies > must reapply to their principals, the STATES. Merely because we have an > organization called the Supreme Court of the United States does not detract > from the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States is probably > (leaving out, let's say, our J.P. Courts) the Court of least jurisdiction > of any that we're likely to come in contact with. You take a case into the > Federal System and you have to show specifically how you get jurisdiction > to attach to that case. You have to allege a jurisdictional amount; you > have to make allegations of citizenship to show that it comes within the > specifically limited areas that the Federal Courts have any authority > whatever to act in. And, the Supreme Court of the United States is further > limited to act only with "such exceptions, and under such regulations as > the Congress shall make". The State Court is not so limited. Neither is a > State Legislature so limited. > > CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS > > The State Legislature can do anything it chooses, barring interdiction by > either the Federal or the State Constitutions. On the contrary, the Federal > Legislature may lawfully enact only in those specific areas where they are > specifically given authority. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the > Constitution are sometimes referred to as 'mere surplusage' - they add > nothing (they don 't hurt anything either). They were put in to make > abundantly clear a limitation that was already there in a manner in which > the Constitution was formed - by making a special agency in the first > place. The Constitution was clear that it was only those powers that were > delegated that could be exercised by those agencies, and putting in > specific Amendments spelling that out in express terms really adds nothing. > However, it does make it more difficult for usupers to deny that those > limitations are there. > > Usurpation is a bi-lateral act. It does not consist alone of an attempt to > exercise power by someone having no authority to exercise that power. It > consists of that in the first instance (someone trying to exercise the > power who has no authority to do so). But to complete that act, usurpation > consists of the person or the entity having lawful authority to exercise > that power, surrendering it or acquiescing in the exercise of that power by > the usurper. > > TO BE CONTINUED > ______________________________________ > > * Extract from an address, "State Action to Restore the Constitution", by > T. David Horton, Attorney, Counsel, Committee to Restore the Constitution. > Mr Horton, Post Office Box 2107, Carson City, Nevada, 89702, is a member > District of Columbia, Virginia and Nevada Bar; member US 9th Circuit Court > of Appeals, DC; expert witness before numerous Congressional Committees in > matters pertaining to Constitutional inquiries; Graduate Ohio State > University, American University, Washington, DC, Catholic University, > Washington, DC, and Hamilton College, New York. > ____________________________________________________________________________ __ > > Don't stand idle while others, for lack of knowledge, watch in helpless > despair, confiscation of their money and property by illegal stratagems of > a central government in Washington. > > Participate in the campaign to enforce basic principles originally embodied > in the Constitution of the United States. > > Begin your mission by sending your name and address. Ask for "Plan of > Operations" to oust regional government controls over your life, your > family and your community. Enclose $1.00 for postage. > > Packet you will receive includes 6-page 'operations manual' with list of > legal documents indicting the men and the system engaged in a conspiracy to > overthrow the Constitution and erect a United Nations 'new world order' on > ruins of the Republic. > > Shows you how to harness powers of County and State governments to your > mission and 'criminalize' regional government operations in your State. > > Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret, Director > COMMITTEE TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION, Inc. > Post Office Box 986 Fort Collins, Colorado USA 80522 > Website: http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc > Subject: "The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A Solution" > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chuck Norgaard" Subject: Fw: Special: THE VIETNAM WAR WON'T GO AWAY Date: 27 Sep 1998 22:52:29 -0700 Iv'e read somewhere if we don't stand for something we'll fall for anything and it seems as though many of us are when it comes to Clinton. ---------- > From: admin@hackworth.com > To: Recipient list suppressed > Subject: Special: THE VIETNAM WAR WON'T GO AWAY > Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 3:55 PM > > THE VIETNAM WAR WON'T GO AWAY > > Here is a powerful letter re: Agent Orange. When I visited Vietnam in > 1994, I saw anecdotal evidence of the effects of American use of Dioxin. > The Viets have tons of data, but unfortunately it has not been > scientifically gathered or correlated, and thus ain't much good when it > comes to being a legal exhibit A. > > Harris' letter really grabbed me. If it hits you the same way, you might > ask your congressperson, and whatever veteran's group you belong to, just > what the hell they're doing about this. > > HACK > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > The Honorable James Hansen > 2466 Rayburn House Office Building > Washington, DC 20515 > > Dear Congressman Hansen: > > I was killed in 1971 by the United States Government! I just didn't know > it until 1998, when I discovered that I had lung cancer. Unlike President > Clinton, I did inhale. Unfortunately for me, it was not marijuana I > inhaled; it was the deadly chemical Agent Orange. As lung cancer was > diagnosed, my doctors kept asking me if I smoked. They were very surprised > when I said no. I started doing research on the Internet to discover > alternative causes for my disease. I soon discovered "Agent Orange" and > "Cancer" were two words that went together. I determined the following: > > 1. Studies have been done on the relationship between Agent Orange and > disease. Nine diseases are presumed by the VA to be related to exposure to > Agent Orange and other herbicides. Lung cancer is one of the diseases. > > 2. I spent my first six months in Vietnam at Quang Tri, which was one of > the most concentrated spraying areas in Vietnam. > > 3. I am just one of many who are going to die prematurely, and have to > also endure the pain of loved ones who have to face a much less certain > future. As I read the many stories of people in similar situations, I wept. > The way my brothers in battle and their families have been treated is a > national disgrace. > > As I went through test after test, I was disheartened, as each test result > had an unfavorable outcome. My cancer has progressed to the final stage, > stage IV. I would have had a much better chance of survival had the cancer > been detected earlier. > > The government had an obligation to make me aware of the risks of cancer > that were caused by exposure to Agent Orange. I was never warned. Uncle Sam > was certainly able to find me when I was drafted! The fact that the > government has the knowledge of the risks of Agent Orange, and my life is > in jeopardy because the information was not provided to me, is > unforgivable. Death will be inevitable for the many who remain uninformed. > I cannot understand the irresponsibility! > > My situation was unnecessary, and could have been prevented by what > appears to be an indifferent government. If detected early, my cancer could > have been cured with surgery. > > In my opinion, Vietnam veterans have been short changed by the media > leading to an incorrect perception by the public. The combatants in World > War II were portrayed in movies as patriotic, brave, heroes of the nation. > Actors portraying the WWII participants were people like John Wayne, > Charlton Heston, and the like. In comparison, the Vietnam combatants were > portrayed as being psychotic, complicated, dangerous, near criminals. The > characters representing the Vietnam soldiers were often unknown actors who > didn't make it to the end of the film because they were killed while doing > a drug deal or robbing a bank. Would you want your daughter to marry Rambo? > No one welcomed us home. The Vietnam vet is often blamed for the unpopular > war. A vast majority of the veterans that I served with did not want to be > involved in the war. For the most part, our sacrifice and service has never > been truly recognized. It appears that many people, including our own > government, would just like us to disappear. > > This stereotype of the Vietnam vet is wrong. Most of the men that I served > with were honorable, patriotic, and very confused about the overall purpose > of the war. We trusted our leaders to do the right thing. We did not run to > Canada to avoid service. If the war was wrong, blame the leaders, not the > soldiers who acted with integrity and the best of intentions. It is past > time that the general public know this about the men that served. > > I have heard a great deal in recent months about the evils of the > cigarette manufacturers. Many ideas have been presented as to placing heavy > taxes on cigarettes, and placing heavy fines on the manufactures of > cigarettes, even though cigarette smokers have been advised for many years > by the Surgeon General that smoking may be hazardous to one's health. The > Government should be held at least to the same standard imposed on the > cigarette manufacturers, as their "consumers" were acting out of duty to > their country, rather than out of pursuit of personal pleasure. The United > States Government, by dumping millions of gallons of poison on the troops, > and not notifying us of the health hazards, has a much greater liability > and responsibility to those of us who were poisoned. > > Here are a few of the ways that I will be effected by Agent Orange: > > 1. I am going to miss about twenty years with my wife Karen, daughter > Angela, son Steven, and other loved ones. > > 2. Cancer is not the easiest way out of this life. > > 3. I am the primary breadwinner for our family. My family will have to > figure out how to come up with the $1,500,000 that I would have earned over > the next twenty years. > > 4. Karen has only a high school diploma, and suffers from constant > migraine headaches. The family will probably be forced to move, and will > have a very difficult time making it financially. > > 5. Karen has resigned from her job to take care of me. We will have > medical bills and her loss of income to deal with. > > 6. There are many things in our marriage partnership that I do that Karen > does not know how to do. > > It is time for the government to take responsibility for their actions in > a reasonable way. Here are some suggestions: > > 1. Notify all Vietnam veterans in writing about the potential danger of > Agent Orange. Many lives are at stake! > > 2. Aggressively get public service announcements in the media to inform > those affected. > > 3. Process VA claims within 30 days of submission, and provide benefits > from the start of the illness, not the date the claim form was submitted. I > have been told by the VA that they are not sure if I will be reimbursed for > my medical costs, which are substantial. Eliminate the technicalities in > the law. > > 4. Provide free cancer screening and treatment for Vietnam vets at the > location of their choice. This could be done through the Medicare Program, > by providing a special class of Medicare coverage for veterans that covers > specific illnesses, and requires no deductible or co-pays. > > 5. Provide free life insurance coverage for Agent Orange related deaths. > > 6. Provide fair compensation to survivors, that would insure that they > would not suffer financially from their present life style. The > compensation should cover at least lost wages over the average life > expectancy of American citizens. > > 7. Add the names of those lost to Agent Orange to "The Wall" and properly > recognize them as casualties of war. > > 8. Fund the above items, by taxing companies that produce goods that cause > cancer, such as cigarette companies and companies that produce chemicals > like Agent Orange. > > 9. Treat veterans' claims expediently with compassion, concern, and > competence. > > Unless the veterans are truly taken care of, the draft will never work > again. My situation is not unusual. > > Sincerely > > Lynn N. Harris - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Chuck Norgaard" Subject: Fw: State Legislators Your state pol's need this info........Chuck from Battle Ground Wash, & Battle Ground korea 24 inf. Div. Death to the NWO. Date: 27 Sep 1998 23:06:00 -0700 ---------- > From: Committee to Restore the Constitution > To: Recipient List Suppressed:; > Subject: State Legislators > Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 3:30 PM > > STATE LEGISLATORS: REPOSITORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS * - Part 1 > > THE STATE LEGISLATORS > > If we define our terms and analyze just what the trouble is in the United > States with regard to restoring Constitutional Government we can see a > number of things. First of all, what we sometimes decry as supposed acts > are not acts at all, they are the attempted acts of special agents created > by the Constitution. There were three such agencies created in the first > three Articles of the Constitution; Number One dealing with the Congress; > Number Two dealing with the Executive Branch; and Number Three dealing with > the Courts; all of them special agencies, having limited powers. > > Therefore, these agencies have to look to that instrument and to that > instrument alone, for a specific enumeration of their powers. But somethng > has gone wrong, and we see that our State Legislators say, "We don't think > that Federal Courts ought to tell us how to apportion our State > Legislatures. We think that it is horrible for the Federal Courts to > undertake such Judicial Legislation". They call it "judicial legislation" > when in fact these State Legislatures THEMSELVES are the ones who are to > blame. Whether they know it or not, the States are, in law, the principals, > and it is through the State Legislatures that the State speaks in its > highest sovereign capacity. Therefore, the State Legislatures have a > responsibility which they are not discharging, and if Federal Agents come > along to enforce some ruling that the Legislators don't like, it is not the > act of the Federal Agent which is changing the Constitution, it is the > INACTION of the State. It is the State's act, or failure to respond to this > challenge that is causing the degradation of our Constitutional system. > > DELEGATED POWERS > > It is very difficult sometimes to talk to Legislators who have been > psychologized into thinking that (1) all great and good things come from > that Mecca in the Eastern part of our country and (2) that the States > somehow form some sort of satrapies, or provinces, that are dependent upon > the Federal agencies for their very existence. Indeed, even the term > 'States Rights' is something of a misnomer because the issue isn't a > question of States Rights. In using that term, we tend to think that the > States have certain Rights and if the Federal agencies will allow it, then > maybe the States can exercise those Rights. That isn't the case at all. > > The question is, what powers were DELEGATED to these special agencies. The > next succeeding question, of course, is what the State must do to correct > an excess of its agent. Many say, that if the State enforces the > Constitution it would be putting the Congress or the President or the > Supreme Court or some other Federal agency at defiance and therefore we > would end up with anarchy. But, it wasn't anarchy when Marshall in MARBURY > v. MADISON decided that the Congress had no authority to enact the Statute > that the Congress claimed to enact. Nor is it anarchy to enforce any of the > provisions of the Constitution. Quite the contrary, we are allowing > ourselves to fall into a condition of uncontrolled and uncontrollable > anarchy by our FAILURE to enforce the provisions of the United State > Constitution. > > One of our jobs is to get our State Legislators to lose their inferiority > complex. They have the idea that because a Federal Representative gets a > lot more money than a State Legislator does, that therefore the Congressman > has more authority. And, lawyers frequently share the view that the name > 'Supreme Court of the United States' means that this is the Court to which > all good legal beagles must turn and point to get the next signal as to > what new 'Statute' shall be conjured up by a majority of that group. This > is not the law, and it's unfortunate that lawyers are ham ignorant of the > principles upon which our Constitution was founded. It is not a question of > turning to the Supreme Court to find out what to do, because what the > Supreme Court shall do under the Constitution is what the Constitution says > it shall do. To get any change in their Commissions all Federal agencies > must reapply to their principals, the STATES. Merely because we have an > organization called the Supreme Court of the United States does not detract > from the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States is probably > (leaving out, let's say, our J.P. Courts) the Court of least jurisdiction > of any that we're likely to come in contact with. You take a case into the > Federal System and you have to show specifically how you get jurisdiction > to attach to that case. You have to allege a jurisdictional amount; you > have to make allegations of citizenship to show that it comes within the > specifically limited areas that the Federal Courts have any authority > whatever to act in. And, the Supreme Court of the United States is further > limited to act only with "such exceptions, and under such regulations as > the Congress shall make". The State Court is not so limited. Neither is a > State Legislature so limited. > > CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS > > The State Legislature can do anything it chooses, barring interdiction by > either the Federal or the State Constitutions. On the contrary, the Federal > Legislature may lawfully enact only in those specific areas where they are > specifically given authority. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the > Constitution are sometimes referred to as 'mere surplusage' - they add > nothing (they don 't hurt anything either). They were put in to make > abundantly clear a limitation that was already there in a manner in which > the Constitution was formed - by making a special agency in the first > place. The Constitution was clear that it was only those powers that were > delegated that could be exercised by those agencies, and putting in > specific Amendments spelling that out in express terms really adds nothing. > However, it does make it more difficult for usupers to deny that those > limitations are there. > > Usurpation is a bi-lateral act. It does not consist alone of an attempt to > exercise power by someone having no authority to exercise that power. It > consists of that in the first instance (someone trying to exercise the > power who has no authority to do so). But to complete that act, usurpation > consists of the person or the entity having lawful authority to exercise > that power, surrendering it or acquiescing in the exercise of that power by > the usurper. > > TO BE CONTINUED > ______________________________________ > > * Extract from an address, "State Action to Restore the Constitution", by > T. David Horton, Attorney, Counsel, Committee to Restore the Constitution. > Mr Horton, Post Office Box 2107, Carson City, Nevada, 89702, is a member > District of Columbia, Virginia and Nevada Bar; member US 9th Circuit Court > of Appeals, DC; expert witness before numerous Congressional Committees in > matters pertaining to Constitutional inquiries; Graduate Ohio State > University, American University, Washington, DC, Catholic University, > Washington, DC, and Hamilton College, New York. > ____________________________________________________________________________ __ > > Don't stand idle while others, for lack of knowledge, watch in helpless > despair, confiscation of their money and property by illegal stratagems of > a central government in Washington. > > Participate in the campaign to enforce basic principles originally embodied > in the Constitution of the United States. > > Begin your mission by sending your name and address. Ask for "Plan of > Operations" to oust regional government controls over your life, your > family and your community. Enclose $1.00 for postage. > > Packet you will receive includes 6-page 'operations manual' with list of > legal documents indicting the men and the system engaged in a conspiracy to > overthrow the Constitution and erect a United Nations 'new world order' on > ruins of the Republic. > > Shows you how to harness powers of County and State governments to your > mission and 'criminalize' regional government operations in your State. > > Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret, Director > COMMITTEE TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION, Inc. > Post Office Box 986 Fort Collins, Colorado USA 80522 > Website: http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc > Subject: "The Silent Revolution of Federal Regionalism - A Solution" > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: Ltr. to Congress on Waco/Impeachment (fwd) Date: 28 Sep 1998 09:15:48 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- While I'm not optimistic that Congress will open any of these issues relevant to Bill Clinton's crimes against citizens and the Constitution, I think we have to keep telling Congress that the People know the truth, even if Congress isn't willing to deal with it. Please feel free to write/email/call your Congressional rep--especially if she/he is on the Judiciary Committee--and any other Congress reps you think might listen. Carol Moore in D.C. EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ON WACO Distributed by the Committee for Waco Justice Representative Bill McCollum September 22, 1998 House of Representatives Washington, D.C. Dear Representative McCollum: Mr. Bill Buckell sent me a copy of your July 17, 1998 letter to him regarding whether an independent counsel is justified in the Waco matter. You write, in part: "As discussed in House Report 104-749, the Subcommittee on Crime found that the President had no decision- making role in the activities of federal law enforcement officials toward the Davidians." As author of the book, The Davidian Massacre, and an ongoing "Waco" researcher, I would like to point out important evidence not only of decision-making by President Bill Clinton, but of outright obstruction of justiceBevidence that your committee overlooked or did not obtain for the 1995 House Waco hearings. (Hearings, which, you know so well, the White House did its best to disrupt!) I urge the whole House Judiciary Committee to look into these matters again or a-new in any impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. It would be absurd if ClintonBan obvious sexual predator--escaped impeachment after in depth questioning on sex charges, but was never asked about his complicity in mass murder!! 1. Evidence of President Clinton's possible foreknowledge of the initial BATF raid and/or cooperation with BATF obstruction of justice. One of the chief planners of the February 28, 1993 BATF raid on the Branch Davidians was Bill Clinton's personal friend William Buford, Special Agent in Charge of Little Rock BATF. According to a March 9, 1993, Wall Street Journal article, on March 1, the day after the February 28 raid, then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman visited the injured Buford in a Texas hospital. He reported back to Clinton about his visit on March 3. Committee members never asked Waco hearing witnesses Altman or Buford about what they discussed with each other or with President Clinton. Did President Bill Clinton have foreknowledge of, or involvement in, the Waco raid which has not been revealed? Did Buford make it clear to Clinton, through Altman or in some other way, that he wanted the Justice Department to obstruct evidence of BATF agents' crimes? (Specifically, illegal gunfire from the ground and helicopters that killed six Davidians and wounded several others.) If so, what kind of leverage did Arkansas resident Buford use to ensure Clinton complied with his demands? 2. Webster Hubbell-related evidence of Clinton's involvement in Waco decision-making and obstruction of justice. Confidential memoranda and handwritten notes presented during the 1995 House Waco hearings revealed that the Treasury Department, under pressure from the Justice Department and then-Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell, halted its post-February 28 shooting review investigation because agents' stories "did not add up." The Justice Department protested that the interviews were generating "exculpatory" material that could help the Davidian defendants at trial. The documents show that Webster Hubbell even threatened to go to his good friend President Bill Clinton if the Treasury Department did not cooperate in the suppression of such exculpatory evidence. Your Committee never asked witness Webster Hubbell about his role in squelching these interviews. The Committee also took Hubbell's word that during the siege he had only one conversation with his golfing partner Bill Clinton about Waco. And even though Hubbell promised to produce his personal "Waco files" to Congress, I did not see them in your final published transcripts of the hearing. 3. Evidence that on April 19th Clinton and Reno discussed the in-progress FBI tank attack. On April 19, 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno and Webster Hubbell sat in the FBI Operations Center in Washington, D.C. for four hours watching the tank attack on Mount Carmel. Reno mentioned during the April 28, 1993 house hearings that she talked to Clinton at 11:00 a.m. on April 19th, just before she left the Operations Center. Incredibly, Congress never asked her then, or during 1995 hearings, about the content of this conversation. Did Clinton tell her to press on with the attack? What instructions did he give her? Did he tell her to leave Webster Hubbell in charge? Was there any discussion of the evidence of BATF crimes that FBI tanks were destroying as they smashed apart the Davidians' home, Mount Carmel? The Committee took Reno's word when she said she was mistaken in asserting originally that Clinton had spoken to Hubbell on April 19th about the FBI assault. Might Hubbell have spoken to Clinton right after Reno spoke with him by phone at 11:00 a.m.? Reno did leave Hubbell in charge of the Operations Center during the remainder of the attack, but Committee members never asked either about Hubbell's role that day. 4 Evidence the White House suppressed or destroyed evidence about Vince Foster's involvement in--and distress over--Waco. An FBI report on White House counsel Vince Foster's suicide revealed that his wife, Lisa, told the FBI that Foster felt responsible for the deaths of the Davidians. During the House Waco hearings the White House released Foster's AWaco file. The White House asserted it included only one memorandum about a video tape. However, Foster's former executive assistant, Deborah Gorham, told the Senate Banking Committee in June, 1997, that Foster kept a file on the Waco incident locked in an office cabinet. Congress should ask her if it contained more than that one memorandum previously released to Congress. Foster intern Tom Castleton told the Senate committee that Foster had been working on a letter regarding Waco the day of his death. However, no such letter was presented to the House Waco hearing investigators. 5. Congress has never sought evidence from White House staff or attorneys. Former White House employee Linda Tripp was also a Foster aide. What could she, or Deborah Gorman, Tom Castleton, or other staffers, or White House attorneys, tell Congress and the American people about the White House's involvement decision-making and obstruction of justice regarding Waco? Congress has questioned White House staffers and attorneys on far lesser matters than the mass killing of civilians and the destruction of evidence of those killings. Why hasn't it done so in the far more important matter of the Waco massacre? President Clinton's possible involvement in, and obstruction of justice regarding, the massacre of 82 civilians at Waco is a far more heinous crime than than lying under oath about his sexual predations. Many Americans believe Congress has ignored such evidence in order to protect federal agents from prosecution for negligent or intentional homicide. Millions of such Americans have seen the video "Waco: the Rules of Engagement" which presents evidence BATF agents shot from helicopters and FBI agents shot on Mount Carmel during the fire. (The full text of my book, The Davidian Massacre, plus four years of "Waco Updates" covering other new evidence, are available at my web page: http://www.kreative.net/carolmoore/davidian-massacre.html) Congress already has discussed the possibility of imposing martial law should year 2000 computer problems prove sufficiently disruptive. Having seen federal agents slaughter 82 people because of allegations one individual had produced illegal weapons, Americans can only wonder how many civilians Congress will permit federal, state and local law enforcement to slaughter should they question or disobey martial law. Congress may have only fifteen more months to convince both law enforcement and citizens that it will permit no more "Wacos" in America. Carol Moore for Committee for Waco Justice 202-635-3739 202-797-9877 cc: Selected members of the House and Senate, the press and thousands of citizens via e-mail ====== FYI Members of the House Judiciary Committee Include: Republicans 1.Henry J. Hyde, IL, Chairman 2.F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., WI 3.Bill McCollum, FL 4.George W. Gekas, PA 5.Howard Coble, NC 6.Lamar S. Smith, TX 7.Elton Gallegly, C 8.Charles T. Canady, FL 9.Bob Inglis, SC 10.Bob Goodlatte, V 11.Stephen E. Buyer, IN 12.Ed Bryant, TN 13.Steve Chabot, OH 14.Bob Barr, GA 15.William L. Jenkins, TN 16.Asa Hutchinson, AR 17.Edward A. Pease, IN 18.Chris Cannon, UT 19.James E. Rogan, CA 20.Lindsey O. Graham, SC 21.Mary Bono, CA Democrats 1.John Conyers, Jr., MI 2.Barney Frank, MA 3.Charles E. Schumer, NY 4.Howard L. Berman, CA 5.Rick Boucher, VA 6.Jerrold Nadler, NY 7.Robert C. Scott, VA 8.Melvin L. Watt, NC 9.Zoe Lofgren, CA 10.Sheila Jackson-Lee, TX 11.Maxine Waters, CA 12.Martin T. Meehan, MA 13.William D. Delahunt, MA 14.Robert Wexler, FL 15.Steven R. Rothman, NJ 16.(empty) Tom Mooney, Chief Counsel House Judiciary Committee 2138 Rayburn Building Washington, D.C. 20515 225-3951 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Fw: State Legislators Date: 28 Sep 1998 11:00:58 -0700 Chuck Norgaard wrote: > > Patriots.......here's the real world.....keep your powder dry.....C. > Before condemning state legislatures you have to ask, "Who runs for state legislatures?" or more pertinent, "Who doesn't run for state legislatures?" The pertinent answer, and the real cause of the problem, is: "Guys like you and me, who know something about the Constitution, and CARE about protecting it, DON'T run for state office." We sit home and bitch on the internet, or call talk radio shows, or attend meetings of malcontents, but we leave the state legislature to coffee salesmen (Pennington), berry farmers (Boldt), school teachers (Carlson), do-gooder busy-body old women (Ogden) or men (Bauer), retired business men (Mielke), or religious zealots (Zarelli), all of whom have their own personal agenda, but none of whom know a damned thing about the Constitutional limits on federal government powers, and all of whom willingly roll over and play dead when someone tells them "The federal government won't let you do that." Every now and then we get a good one like Linda Smith or Don Benton, but for the most part, we leave the candidacies for state legislature to people who haven't done their homework on the constitution, and probably won't, while we sit home and bitch, and think about doing what we want done OUTSIDE the political process. No offense. Just wanted to place the blame where it belongs - on us and others like us - who'd rather see others assume the commitment to do what we should be doing ourselves - working within the political process to fix that foul but fixable system. Regards, Skip. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Perrine Subject: Wilson vetoes gun control bills Date: 29 Sep 1998 10:10:40 -0700 Tuesday, September 29, 1998 Wilson Vetoes Package of Gun Control Bills By CARL INGRAM, Times Staff Writers SACRAMENTO--Denouncing it as a "cynical effort to con the public," Gov. Pete Wilson on Monday vetoed legislation aimed at strengthening California's ban on military-style assault weapons. In a series of unusually stinging veto messages, the governor asserted that tougher penalties on gun-wielding criminals--not the enactment of new controls on firearms--are a proven remedy to reduce crime. Supporters of the bill, which narrowly cleared the Legislature last month, argued that the election-year legislation needed to be enacted because California's existing assault-gun law is in jeopardy of being struck down by the courts. The veto was a severe reversal for police chiefs, educators, gun-control activists and others who argued that violence in California would be curbed by imposing new restrictions on the availability of firearms. "If California suffers another assault-weapon massacre, Gov. Wilson will be remembered for his failure to get these deadly weapons off the street," said Luis Tolley of Handgun Control Inc. In addition to rejecting the Democratic-dominated Legislature's efforts to toughen the existing ban on high-capacity, rapid-fire assault guns, the governor also vetoed two other gun control bills. One, designed to rid the state of so-called Saturday night special handguns, would have subjected pistols and revolvers to a series of safety tests before they could be sold. The second would have required gun dealers to offer trigger-locks or other "use limitation" devices for sale when they became commercially available. The governor also signed several relatively noncontroversial gun bills, including a measure that would require a second criminal background check on handgun purchasers who failed to pick up their firearms within 30 days. Wilson, an expert marksman while in the Marine Corps, directed his heaviest fire at the assault gun bill (AB 2560) by Assemblyman Don Perata (D-Alameda). The bill was designed to eliminate copycat versions of about 75 guns that were outlawed by make and model under California's landmark 1989 assault gun law. The law was enacted in the wake of a massacre at a Stockton schoolyard by a man wielding a legal AK-47 assault rifle. Five children were killed and 29 others and a teacher were wounded. In the past nine years, some manufacturers have produced new guns that are virtual replicas of the outlawed weapons, except for cosmetic changes. The Perata bill would have added to the existing law a series of new definitions on what constitutes an illegal assault gun, and would have limited to 19 the number of bullets a semiautomatic weapon could accept from a single magazine. Additionally, a semiautomatic rifle would qualify as an assault gun if it contained generic military characteristics such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip or folding stock. But Wilson said the Perata bill, strongly supported by Handgun Control Inc., mixed the issues of firing capacity and cosmetic appearance. As a result, he said, it "may be more susceptible to constitutional attack than the law it seeks to replace." Offering an analogy, the governor said: "If this bill's focus were high-speed sports cars, it would first declare them ‘chariots of death' and then criminalize possession of Ramblers equipped with racing stripes and wire wheels." Taking personal aim at Perata, who the governor claimed refused to work out a compromise, Wilson criticized the bill as a "cynical effort to con the public about what kind of legislation actually will protect" Californians against gun violence. Wilson cited as an example of effective crime control legislation the three-strikes sentencing bill he signed in 1994, as well as other measures that require longer sentences for criminals who use firearms. Such laws, he said, have contributed to the decline of crime in California in the past four years. "That's how to deal with gun violence," Wilson said. Perata, who pursued an uphill battle to win passage of his bill during an election year, said he was disappointed but not surprised by the governor's veto, calling it "inaccurate and way off base." Assuming that the appellate courts strike down the existing assault gun ban, Perata said, the retiring two-term governor "will leave this state with no assault weapon ban. When he arrived, we had one." The veto also drew criticism from others, including Lt. Gov. Gray Davis, the Democratic nominee for governor, who promised that if he is elected, he would sign such legislation. "It's unfortunate that [state Atty. Gen. and Republican gubernatorial nominee] Dan Lungren and Pete Wilson were AWOL on the effort to ban assault weapons," Davis said. Lungren, whom Davis has charged with weak enforcement of the current law, declined to comment on the veto. Lungren had said that he had no position on the Perata bill because he is defending the current law against legal challenge. Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles) said the Legislature had worked to "tone down" the assault-gun and other gun control bills to compromise with Republicans. But he charged that Wilson's veto reflected the GOP's viewpoint, which he called "out of step with the electorate." The veto was welcomed, however, by the National Rifle Assn., a steadfast opponent of controls on gun ownership, which had criticized the Perata bill and other measures as "flawed." "I think what the governor has recognized is that these types of gun control bills have nothing to do with crime control," said Steve Helsley, California lobbyist for the NRA. "These are what I would call political buffoonery." Wilson's veto of the handgun bill was the second time in two years that he had struck down a measure designed to stop the making of Saturday night specials. The latest measure (SB 1500), by Sen. Richard G. Polanco (D-Los Angeles), would have required pistols and revolvers to pass safety tests before consumers could purchase them. But Wilson said that an "infinitely greater risk" to the public are criminals with guns. Replied Polanco: "Pete Wilson chose the gun lobby over public safety." Wilson also vetoed the trigger-lock bill, authored by Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles), arguing that it could allow local governments to enact ordinances that are more stringent than those allowed by state law. _ _ _ Times staff writers Mark Gladstone and Amy Pyle contributed to this report. Copyright Los Angeles Times Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-398-8620 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: AdvAM: "Get in Touch with Your Feelings!" (fwd) Date: 29 Sep 1998 10:23:11 PST On Sep 28, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The ADVANCE AMERICA Network (c) 1998 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 WITH FULL ATTRIBUTION. ================================================================ "GET IN TOUCH WITH YOUR FEELINGS!" If you remember that refrain, which used to accompany advice to men that it was unhealthy for them to be less expressive emotionally than women, you probably are in better touch with your feelings than anyone who actually took the advice. What the therapists and feminist propagandists actually meant when they said men needed to "get in touch" with their feelings, was that men needed to be more emotion-oriented and less fact-oriented. Women have complained for generations about men who are "always so logical about everything," when women have been burdened by the stereotype -- now long since embraced by today's feminists -- of being more emotional and less logical. Women (we're told these days) regard the world as a network of relationships between people who impact other people's feelings and therefore have to be accountable for how those around them feel at any given moment. Men, on the other hand, were too inclined to analyze issues, including those in a relationship, and overlook their emotional impact. Well, the thing about relationships is, no matter what anyone may believe or want to believe, there is ALWAYS a strong partner and a weak partner. There is no such thing as a truly equal relationship -- no way, nohow. And in emotion-based relationships, in most cases the stronger partner is the one who is least susceptible to emotional manipulation, whether deliberate or unintentional. In most male-female relationships this has traditionally been the male, largely because men had learned over time -- probably in self-defense -- to withdraw from emotional situations rather than take part. Instinctively or otherwise, men used to understand that "wearing your heart on your sleeve" leaves you vulnerable to forces that could make you do things you would later regret. After all, a man who flies off the handle over an imagined insult is even today perfectly capable of getting himself killed. Better to be cool and make sure it's really worth getting angry over before submitting to raw emotion. There were (and are) men who actually understand the nature of emotion and its usefulness as a weapon, but in the old days manipulating others' feelings was frowned upon among men as being, well, unmanly. Today we have a President who shamelessly uses emotional manipulation and gets away with it. Having mastered the art in today's feminized America of establishing fast-food-style emotional relationships with everyone he encounters, he preys upon others' emotional vulnerability -- those most susceptible to him have "gotten in touch with their feelings" by losing or giving up the ability to analyze their feelings -- to make himself the dominant partner in each case. Where the weaker partner is a familiar television face, Clinton can then ensure that he or she vouches for him to the millions of Americans who will never have the opportunity to meet him face to face. Since television news is all about relationships (even in the '60s with "Uncle Walter," "the most trusted man in America"), the result is virtually indistinguishable from an actual direct relationship. This is how Bill Clinton has achieved his political success, and how he has consistently thwarted those of us who are impervious to his charms. It also explains how he can pigeonhole all of his skeptics as "Clinton-haters." After all, by seeing through him we've proven that we're analytical, logical throwbacks to an era in which a charlatan like him could never succeed in national politics, and so we must (and frankly, DO) oppose him and all he represents. The most depressing fact about Clinton's collective relationship with his supporters is that it's almost universally dysfunctional. Collectively his supporters are the political equivalent of Edith Bunker, the quintessential TV "doormat" -- only more so. Archie never treated Edith as badly as Bill treats his followers, and if he had even Edith would have called it quits. The Clintonista rank-and-file that keeps Bill Clinton's popularity propped up is a massive, many-faced battered spouse, always ready to give in to any ultimatum, always happy to take the poor, contrite son of a bitch back no matter what, until he finally destroys her or himself -- or both. The feminist fringe of the late 1990s hasn't repudiated or denounced Bill Clinton because it CAN'T. This is the ideal man they said years ago they wanted, one who was able to feel things openly, who could wear something resembling a heart on his sleeve and be okay with it. Bill Clinton could only have reached his present place in history because of the feminization of America's men over the last couple of decades, and he is the perfectly adapted man to exploit the present circumstances for his own purposes. He's like the pro-choice twentysomething of the 1970s who talked the "women's rights" talk with all the right inflections, when what he really wanted was promiscuous sex without fetal consequences. Indeed, Bill Clinton probably got a great many of his own jollies thanks to *Roe v. Wade,* but I digress. If we're ever to overcome this beast, we need to get in touch, not with "our feelings," but with the nature of emotion and the art of emotional manipulation. Not to practice it against others as Clinton does, but to figure out how to inoculate America against his manipulations so that we can emerge from this nightmare and restore some rationality, some logic, to our society. Manhood is a good thing, and ought not to be wasted on mere sexual depredation by the likes of Bill Clinton. -30- September 28, 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: scanlanc@trebsys.com Subject: Blair - 'Third Way' is global path to renewal and progress Date: 29 Sep 1998 16:13:35 +500 The following ran in today's _Houston Chronicle_: September 28, 1998, 06:18 p.m. 'Third Way' is global path to renewal and progress By PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR THE Third Way is the route to renewal and success for modern social democracy. It is not simply a compromise between left and right. It seeks to take the essential values of the center and center-left and apply them to a world of fundamental social and economic change, and to do so free from outdated ideology. The challenge we face is formidable -- global markets, continued poverty and social exclusion, rising crime, family breakdown, the changing role of women, a revolution in technology and the world of work, popular hostility to politics and demands for deeper democratic reform, and a host of environmental and security issues requiring international action. People seek leadership. They want to know how to adapt and prosper, how to build stability and security in this changing world. They embrace the center-left's traditional values of solidarity, social justice, responsibility and opportunity. But they know we must move decisively beyond outdated ways of thinking -- beyond an old left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producers' interests and a new laissez-faire right championing narrow individualism and a belief that free markets are the answer to every problem. The 20th-century left has been dominated by two camps: a fundamentalist left, which saw state control as an end in itself, and a more-moderate left, which accepted this essential direction but favored compromise. The Third Way is a serious reappraisal. It draws vitality from uniting the two great streams of left-of-center thought -- democratic socialism and liberalism -- whose divorce in this century did so much to weaken progressive politics across the West. The old left and new right have taken -- and continue to take -- different forms across Europe. There is no single blueprint for the Third Way. But Europe's progressive parties share common values, and all of us are adapting to meet new challenges. For many years in opposition, the British Labor Party was seen -- however unfairly -- as the party of big government, nationalization, anti-enterprise, soft on crime, unconcerned with family life, gripped by pressure groups and favoring more tax and public spending across the board. We were also regarded as poor managers of public services, under the thumb of trade unions and producers' interests and too little concerned with choice and quality. The right was able to turn privatization and free markets into universal panaceas. A false opposition was set up between rights and responsibilities, between compassion and ambition, between the public and private sectors, between an enterprise economy and the attack on poverty and exclusion. New Labor has sought to move ahead and apply its values in a different way. In the economy, our approach is neither laissez-faire nor one of state interference. The government's role is to promote macroeconomic stability; develop tax and welfare policies that encourage independence, not dependence; to equip people for work by improving education and infrastructure; and to promote enterprise. We are proud to be supported by business leaders as well as trade unions. Education is a critical priority. Higher education standards are the key to international competitiveness and an inclusive society for the future. Significant new investment is driving radical school reform, backed by targets and strong intervention in the case of failing schools. In welfare and employment policy, the Third Way means reforming welfare to make it a pathway into work where possible. It promotes fair standards at work while making work pay by reducing the taxes and penalties that discourage work and the creation of jobs. The Third Way strives for a new balance between rights and duties -- not just in welfare but in a tough approach to youth crime and far-greater emphasis on the duties of parenthood. A new approach to family support is being forged to meet the needs of children and to help families -- particularly the most vulnerable -- balance work and home more effectively. The Third Way stands for democratic renewal and a restoration of faith in politics. New Labor has devolved power within the United Kingdom: Northern Ireland has an elected assembly; the first elections to a new Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly take place next year; and the election of a new mayor of London is one of many steps to renewing local government. Governments in the course of this century have been well equipped to regulate money, send out benefit checks, build houses, even fight wars and put men on the moon. Now they need to learn new skills: to work in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors; to share responsibility and answer to a much more demanding public; and to cooperate internationally in new ways. This is the Third Way. A new alliance between progress and justice. With courage, we can revere our history without living in it, and build dynamic social democratic societies for the 21st century. Blair is the British prime minister ============================================================ Now my .02: The third way appears to be no more than a repackaging of the, now pretty much discredited, socialism of the last 50 years - just with a prettier face on it. Blair writes that "now [Governments] need to learn new skills: to work in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors; to share responsibility and answer to a much more demanding public; and to cooperate internationally in new ways." Followed by the fact that they will now "build dynamic social democratic societies for the 21st century." How's it go? Something like "I remember the Social Democrats..." The State Uber Alles. A plan for the next 1000 years. I never cease to be amazed at the brits. And there are a lot of socialists (closet and otherwise) trumpeting these "new" ideas here for a Government near you. Chuck ============================================== Trebuchet Systems Inc. http://www.trebsys.com ============================================== - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Perrine Subject: Re: Blair - 'Third Way' is global path to renewal and progress Date: 29 Sep 1998 14:33:23 -0700 >============================================================ > >Now my .02: The third way appears to be no more than a repackaging >of the, now pretty much discredited, socialism of the last 50 >years - just with a prettier face on it. Blair writes that "now >[Governments] need to learn new skills: to work in partnership >with the private and voluntary sectors; to share responsibility >and answer to a much more demanding public; and to cooperate >internationally in new ways." Followed by the fact that they >will now "build dynamic social democratic societies for the 21st >century." This was in last night's ET (English Telegraph). It seems to imply that the third / new way is going to be much worse / infinitely more expensive than the mess we have now Jack CHANCELLOR Gordon Brown is to propose a worldwide welfare state at the meeting of the International Monetary Fund next week. He told the Labour party conference: "Because, for us, an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, the Labour Government will propose at the IMF meeting in Washington a new and pioneering global code of conduct for social policies to ensure that our obligations to the unemployed and the vulnerable are met in every part of the world." The Chancellor sees this initiative as one of the ways in which Britain, which holds the presidency of the G8 group of industrial countries, can export Labour's "policies for stability, growth and fairness" around the world. The Government has attempted to co-ordinate a global response to the Asian and Russian financial crises. However, ministers have not worked out the details on how a new international economic order would work. Mr Brown, who leaves for Washington today, said: "Let us work together, globally, on the priority reforms: to tackle destabilising international capital flows, proper financial supervision and control worldwide; to ensure openness and responsibility in monetary, fiscal and corporate governance and behaviour, enforceable codes of conduct that every country, rich and poor, should sign and uphold." > >How's it go? Something like "I remember the Social Democrats..." > >The State Uber Alles. A plan for the next 1000 years. > >I never cease to be amazed at the brits. And there are a lot >of socialists (closet and otherwise) trumpeting these "new" ideas >here for a Government near you. > >Chuck >============================================== > Trebuchet Systems Inc. > http://www.trebsys.com >============================================== > >- > > Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 -----------------| 1175 N Altadena Dr | -------------- Jack@Minerva.Com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-398-8620 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: Judicial Watch report on Impeachment of Clinton Date: 29 Sep 1998 17:16:17 -0500 (CDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ FOR RELEASE: September 28, 1998 CONTACT: Dan Michaelis (202) 646-5197 JUDICIAL WATCH SENDS INTERIM REPORT TO CONGRESS DETAILS IMPEACHABLE FILEGATE/CHINAGATE OFFENSES UNCOVERED IN JUDICIAL WATCH CASES On Monday, September 28, 1998, Judicial Watch will present its interim report to Congress, detailing substantial and credible evidence of impeachable offenses uncovered in its twenty lawsuits concerning the Clinton-Gore Administration. Specifically, the report deals with Clinton-Gore scandals commonly referred to as Filegate and Chinagate, and other matters, including the misuse of the Internal Revenue Service against perceived adversaries of the Administration. During the last week, officials of the Clinton-Gore Administration and their surrogates have boasted about how the Lewinsky scandal will not lead to the President's impeachment. As a result, they have tried to cut a deal with Congress. In fact, the Lewinsky scandal, however serious, is minor compared with the evidence of likely high crimes and misdemeanors which Judicial Watch has found in Filegate, Chinagate and related Clinton-Gore scandals. "After reading Judicial Watch's 145-page report, which is supported with over 2,000 pages of hard evidence, no longer will Clinton-Gore operatives be able to claim that the scandals only involve sex," stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman. JUDICIAL WATCH WILL HOLD A NEWS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS ITS REPORT AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE (COPIES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST). DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 TIME: 2:00 P.M. PLACE: STEPS OF RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BLDG. (INDEPENDENCE AVENUE ENTRANCE) NOTE: THE JUDICIAL WATCH INTERIM REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET AT 2:00 PM at WWW.JUDICIALWATCH.ORG. # # # - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul M Watson Subject: Jackson Stephens and BCCI (fwd) Date: 30 Sep 1998 08:22:56 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- September 29, 1998 Review & Outlook Review & Outlook BCCI: The Mystery Lingers Forget the old brain teaser about a tree falling in a forest not making any noise unless there's someone around to hear it. We know that the world's largest bank fraud can go almost unnoticed, except to Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. We refer, in case you've forgotten, to the Bank of Credit & Commerce International, which was back in the news in two jurisdictions last week. In Washington, Clark Clifford and Robert Altman agreed to give up $18.5 million in claims on stock and legal fees connected with First American Bankshares, the BCCI front they once headed in the nation's capital. In Luxembourg, BCCI auditors Price Waterhouse and Ernst & Young agreed to a payment of $125 million to the defunct bank's customers; the creditors will now recover more than half their money--more than quadruple the best estimates at the time BCCI went under. These people, many of them Pakistani nationals in Britain, will be mighty glad that Mr. Morgenthau pursued the case when the Bank of England, the Justice Department and various others ducked. Yet for all the smoke Mr. Morgenthau uncovered we have only glimmers of the fire that led to it all. There are still unresolved questions about the political patronage that has helped shield BCCI principals from a full reckoning, and in particular about how a crooked Pakistani-Arab bank got control of the largest bank in Washington, D.C. In this respect, the Altman-Clifford settlement is particularly striking. At issue has always been whether the two knew that BCCI was the real owner of First American, of which they were, respectively, president and chairman. Mr. Altman beat criminal charges of fraud and lying to banking regulators; Mr. Clifford was not charged because of his age and health. When the Federal Reserve Board settled civil fraud charges back in February, the two claimed that the central charges against them were "wholly untrue" and that the "remaining issues would have been resolved in their favor" had they gone to court. Maybe. But their checkbook said otherwise. In the Fed settlement, the two forked over $5 million in stock to compensate BCCI creditors. And last week they agreed to drop all claims to $18.5 million in stock and legal fees, in return for an end to remaining legal action against them. Yet the essential mystery remains. Doubtless that's just the way many would like to leave it, because the names that pop up read like some kind of Who's Who. There is, to begin with, a large Arkansas connection, since Little Rock investment giant Stephens Inc. assembled the bloc of First American stock for the BCCI front men. Assisting in these transactions was the now-famous Rose Law Firm, then headed by Joseph Giroir, more lately a representative of the Riady family of Indonesia and participant in the notorious September 13, 1995, Oval Office meeting at which John Huang was dispatched to his fund-raising tasks. Rose Attorney Hillary Rodham represented a Stephens subsidiary, the Systematics bank-data processing firm, in a related lawsuit. James Riady made his first appearance in Little Rock about the time these transactions took place, with his family ending up with a piece of the Stephens-dominated Worthen Bank. Another player was Bert Lance, Jimmy Carter's disgraced head of Office of Management and Budget, who apparently hoped to head First American himself. All of these people deny that they knew anything crooked was taking place, just a group of smart, well-connected Friends of Bill stunningly ignorant about the people they were doing business with. Yet since the mystery has never been cleared up, you can't blame those of us who followed it from remembering names as they turn up in today's news. Nicholas Katzenbach, for instance; the former Attorney General surfaced last week with two of Mr. Clinton's serial White House counsels, defending the President against impeachment in a New York Times op-ed. We remember that Mr. Katzenbach replaced Mr. Clifford when the latter resigned from First American in 1991. Ditto for John E. "Jack" Ryan, who ended up as head of the Resolution Trust Company and denied Rep. Jim Leach's request for documents relating to Madison Guaranty Trust, the Whitewater S&L. We remember that it was under Mr. Ryan's watch as head of bank supervision at the Fed that BCCI won approval to buy First American. For those who worry that a BCCI investigation might be too partisan, we also remember that it was Senator Orrin Hatch who delivered a floor speech praising BCCI for agreeing to a settlement when Tampa prosecutors first found evidence of the bank's involvement in drug running. As head of the Judiciary Committee, of course, Mr. Hatch, would play a key role if an impeachment ever reached the Senate. Finally, what do we make of the report that the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia has close links with the owner of the suspect pharmaceutical plant bombed in the controversial raid on Sudan. We remember that the bank was run by Khalid bin Mahfouz, one of the BCCI front men in their purchase of First American. Seven years after BCCI was shut down, the culpability (if any) of all these people remains unclear and unlikely ever to be resolved. What we do know, as Senator Kerry's 1992 report to the Foreign Relations Committee states, is that BCCI was not a good bank that went bad; from the beginning its criminality "was inherent in the bank's philosophy." And that a key component of BCCI's U.S. strategy was the "aggressive use of a series of prominent Americans" to lend "their names and their reputations to BCCI at critical moments." But of course none of these people understood the bank's nature; to believe that defense we must believe that the savviest, most well-connected players in Washington never understood what was going on before their eyes. ========================================================================== 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: Paul M Watson Subject: Vince Foster and Arkansas Aids tainted blood (fwd) Date: 30 Sep 1998 08:23:19 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Not for commercial use. For academic use in the virtual classroom. The Tainted Blood Mystery New York Post Sept. 25, 1998 Maggie Gallagher Can I tell you a little story? I warn you, I don't know how it ends yet. Maybe I never will. Once upon a time - in fact a day or two after Vince Foster died - a man called the White House Counsel's Office. "This was not a line that kooks typically rang us up on," my source told me. Lunatics call the main office number. This guy called one of Vince's assistants directly. The man said he had some information that might be important. Something had upset Vince Foster greatly just days before he died. Some thing about "tainted blood" that both Vince Foster and President Clinton knew about, this man said. "I'm only telling you this now because Vince Foster was very distressed about this only days before his death," the mysterious caller (whose name I am withholding) said. "I'm not saying this caused his suicide. I'm only saying it might have contributed to his distress and I thought someone should know." The White House Counsel's office didn't pay much attention. "Probably a kook', they agreed around the office. Probably. Except that when his computer name was typed into the computer log of phone calls for Vince, something strange happened. The computer flashed "password required" or some such phrase indicating a special code was needed to open that file. "Aw, probably just a computer glitch, "Bernie Nussbam, then chief White House Counsel, said at the time. And so the matter, as far as I know, was dropped. A strange little memory fragment, meaningless in itself, no? Until last week, when a story published in The Ottawa Citizen suddenly jogged it front and center. "HIV BLOOD CAME FROM ARKANSAS JAIL," the head line screamed. Then, The Ottawa Citizen reports, "A U.S. firm with links to President Clinton collected HIV-tainted blood from Arkansas prison inmates in the 1980's and shipped it to Canada, newly uncovered documents reveal... It is like several hundred, perhaps thousands, were infected by the tainted products." Seems the now defunct Health Management Associates, heade by an FOB named Leonard Dunn (who served as head of the Finance Committee in Clinton's 1990 gubernatorial election campaign, for instance) how a contract to offer medical care to and sell blood from Arkansas prisoners. By 1985 the AIDS crisis made it impossible to sell prisoners' blood in the United States or most other places. HMA found one willing blood broker in Montreal who retailed it to another Canadian company who didn't know it came from prisoners. Bingo! A few hundred Canadians infected with an incurable deadly disease. The Citizen says it has copies of internal Arkansas documents from police, who at this time were investigating rumors: Clinton appointees to the prison board had demanded bribes in exchange for renewing HMA's contract with the state of Arkansas in 1985. The matter was dropped after investigators decided to accept the prison board's explanation: Bill Clinton had been very concerned about reports of inadequate medical care; a mysterious $25,000 payment was actually a legitimate fee to obtain the services of an "ombudsman" for the prisoners, though no letter of agreement or other documentation could be found. According to the state trooper's note, HMA chief Leonard Dunn went out of his way to boast to them that he was a "friend of Gov. Clinton." Coincidence? Or a piece of the puzzle we didn't even know was there? I don't know. One thing I do know, Mr. Name Withheld, the conscientious guy who tried to inform the authorities about Vince Foster's distress over "tainted blood", your message didn't get through. if you contact me (Mgallagher@compuserv.com), I'll try to bring it to their attention. ========================================================================== 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: Paul M Watson Subject: Judge Starr part of Inslaw (fwd) Date: 30 Sep 1998 08:30:16 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Re: CAS: WP: Heavy Underwriter of Anti-Clinton Probes Appears Before Grand Jury At 12:57 AM 9/29/98 -0500, you wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1998-09/29/072r-092998-idx.html > > > >Heavy Underwriter of Anti-Clinton Probes Appears Before Grand Jury > >By John Mintz >Washington Post Staff Writer >Tuesday, September 29, 1998; Page A08 > >Conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife earlier this month >appeared before a federal grand jury in Fort Smith, Ark., investigating >whether a group of anti-Clinton researchers financed by Scaife tried to >influence the testimony of one of President Clinton's chief Whitewater >accusers with cash payments, informed sources said. > (snip) >The Arkansas grand jury was empaneled by Michael J. Shaheen, a former >Justice Department government ethics investigator who was retained by >Starr in June to examine the complex allegations. He hired several >assistant prosecutors and federal agents, and will report to a panel of >retired judges. > It should be noted that Kenneth Starr, while US solicitor General mysteriously recused himself from an investigation into whether the US violated proprietary software copyrights in the Inslaw case. There has never been a public record created as to why he did so. Michael Shaheen also recused himself from investigating the Inslaw matter while heading DoJ's so-called Office of Public Integrity. In both cases, these men turned over the decision to their subordinates, who predictably found the US government did no wrong in the Inslaw case. Bless'd be the ties that bind. Jim Norman ========================================================================== 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: Paul M Watson Subject: Fwd: Klinton's Klunkers (Smoking Gun? Probably) (fwd) Date: 30 Sep 1998 16:05:25 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by txjohn47@ix.netcom.com (John Johnson) ---- Begin Forwarded Message Smoking Gun? Probably =09In the early summer of 1995, I -- along with Charles Hatfield, owner/publisher of the Ellis County Press (ECP), and Clay Douglas, owner/publisher of the Free American Magazine -- smelled a strong odor emanating from Oklahoma City, with respect to the "federal investigation" being conducted about the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building.=20 =09After a short discussion I contacted Charles Key, John D. Cash, along with the Wilburn family, met them in Oklahoma City, and the ECP/Free American became involved in the investigation.=20 =09The discrepancies and malfeasances discovered in the federal investigation--found mostly by those persons in Oklahoma City--became so numerous a full scale fact finding effort was initiated by those previously named.=20 =09One of the areas, which continuously reared its ugly head, was the possibility several governmental agencies had, or should have had "prior knowledge" of the dastardly event. =20 =09Numerous individuals and agencies have stayed vigilant to prove "prior knowledge," and also to affirm certain governmental agencies have participated in a full-scale cover up of the "prior knowledge factor".=20 =09In November 1997, a survivor of the bombing, V. Z. Lawton (an employee of HUD=96who was on the eighth floor at 9:02 AM, April 19, 1995 when the bombs--notice the plurality [yes, Virginia, there were more than one]-- went off) was on a tour in Europe when he met a young lady=96later referred to as Witness A-- who probably has provided this citizenry with the "smoking gun of prior knowledge. " =09After a short discussion between Lawton and Witness A=96an employee of the U. S. Army's Walter Reed Army Institute of Research--Lawton revealed his whereabouts on that fateful day. =20 =09He told Witness A about the many theories about the investigation cover-up. He further pointed out his participation in the Oklahoma Bombing Commission Investigation Committee's (OKBIC) belief that there has been, is, and will continue to be a massive cover-up pursued by these same governmental agencies. That is until the American public demands congress conducts a thorough investigation of the incident. =09Witness A informed Lawton her Unit had been called two separate times, a day or two prior (later confirmed to be Monday before the Wednesday blast) to the bomb event, by an unknown caller. =20 =09Witness A, when interviewed, couldn't be sure who the person was, but the essence of the calls was two-fold: =09=09(1). The caller requested information concerning the treatment of blast injuries, and (2). The caller made reference to the fact someone who was part of a task force, or was working in liaison with someone in the office of the Governor of Oklahoma was involved with, or connected to the request for the information.=20 =09(She also confirmed--to Lawton--the FBI also made a call to the Unit that day, asking for the same type of information.) =09Cate McCauley, Executive Director of OKBIC, when queried about the calls said, "We don't know where the calls came from, but the fact they were made is indicative of the fact =91someone knew' and =91someone had previous knowledge' about the bombing." =09Lawton immediately contacted the OKBIC and that group's investigator, Roger G. Charles, began a thorough investigation into the content and the origin of the telephone calls. =20 =09What follows is the results of Mr. Charles' initial contacts with those persons, in the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research=96 Respiratory Research office, who received and talked to the person with respect to requested information.=20 =09Charles identifies himself as an investigator to Witness A. He asks her to recall the phone call (calls) which she received immediately before the bombing in Oklahoma City, and which later appeared to have a possible connection to that event. She related that the caller mentioned being with the Governor's office of the state of Oklahoma. =09The caller asked to speak to the chief of the department regarding expected injuries on victims of blast over-pressure, and medical treatment of same. Witness A told the caller the chief was not present that day and offered a return call, but the caller would not leave a number, and said he would call again.=20 =09Two other people from the Research Center were present when witness A answered the call. =09The call was discussed by all present and thought to be weird, especially after the bombing in Oklahoma City.=20 =09Witness A related to Charles that the call occurred either the day before, or two days before the bomb exploded in Oklahoma City.=20 =09On February 6, 1998, Mr. Charles interviewed Witness A again by telephone. The witness volunteered that her supervisor at the time of the telephone calls spoke to the caller the second time they called the Research Center.=20 =09The supervisor told Witness A the caller mentioned being with the liaison at the Pentagon to the office of the Governor of Oklahoma.=20 =09The supervisor told the caller that since they were not medical doctors, they really could not answer the questions.=20 =09Again, the caller was asked if the call could be returned and this offer was again declined and no number was left. Witness A and her supervisor said their office never heard from the callers again.=20 =09On this same date, Charles interviewed Witness B about the phone calls. Witness B said he thought the calls came in a few days earlier than remembered by A. He also remembered their being one call, with Witness A talking on the first part of the call and himself (B) taking the second part.=20 =09Witness B said he normally makes notes about calls when his supervisor is out, and offered to try to locate these notes if any. Witness B stated the caller also identified themselves as being from the Pentagon seeking expert information about treatment of blast=20 injuries.=20 =09On February 27, 1998, Charles interviewed Witness B again. He asked if the notes had been found. Witness B said no even though she had searched for them.=20 =09Then Witness B said he had sent information by email regarding the request for information on treatment of blast victims to the medical doctor in the section, Witness C, because Witness C knew about such treatment.=20 =09Witness B stated he would be seeing Witness C in a few days and would inquire as to what Witness C recalled of this event.=20 =09On March 9, 1998, Charles called Witness B at his office in the Walter Reed Army Institute. Charles asked Witness B if he had talked with Witness C.=20 =09He replied he had talked with Witness C, and Witness C recalled the incident, but could not recall from where he had been told the call into the Respiratory unit was originated.=20 =09On March 26,1998,Charles interviewed Witness C by telephone. He asked Witness C about his recollection of the telephone calls of interest. Witness C replied he had not been present at the time of the calls, but had been informed by his subordinates of the calls. =09Witness C recalled he was told the callers asked about treatment of blast injuries. He also said he remembered being told the callers left no phone number or name, and the office did not receive any subsequent calls. =20 =09Witness C did comment the circumstances surrounding the calls were "very interesting in light of later events" =09Many questions are still unanswered, such as =97from whence did the calls originate, =97who was the individual making the calls =97was this a put up deal from someone knowledgeable of the upcoming event? All valid questions without answers. =09There is, however, a couple of thoughts that have to be brought out; regardless of where the calls emanated, and regardless of who made the calls, they did occur. =09And they occurred two days prior to the bombing!!=09 -30- Fred Shannon, Senior Columnist, Ellis County (TX) Press Pat Kennedy, Contributing Writer --=20 John_Johnson TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com =A9 1998 All rights reserved -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.= net with the word help in the message body. -