From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #210 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Saturday, January 23 1999 Volume 02 : Number 210 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 99 17:17:12 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: How to Argue in Defense of the Second Amendment (fwd) On Jan 19, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This has been around a while, but its merit is evident in that it's still making the rounds. A little blast from the past... Kevin McGehee Fairbanks/North Pole, AK mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Larry Flynt is the perfect moral voice for the Clinton Administration - -----Original Message----- From: Dave Williams To: David L. Williams Date: Tuesday, January 19, 1999 7:34 AM Subject: How to Argue in Defense of the Second Amendment >How to Argue in Defense of the Second Amendment -- and Win! > >For far too long, supporters of individual rights have let those who >favor state control define the terms of the argument. This a big mistake >and it is particularly evident in debate concerning the Second Amendment. > >Proponents of Second Amendment Rights have claim to the moral high >ground; it is bitter irony that, all too often, we cut our own throats in >our attempts to argumentatively defend them. > >by John Ross > >THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns." > >WE SAY: "You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." > >(FLAW: The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a >reasonable plan.). > >WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to institute a system where the weak and >elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the >gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that >citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better we should >require every citizen to carry a gun." > >THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't >need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer --- they're only for killing >people." > >WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a >large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer >rifle and I've never done anything to give my government reason not to >trust me blah blah blah." > >(FLAW: You have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with >no sporting use. And eventually they can replace your sporting arms with >arcade-game substitutes). > >WE SHOULD SAY: "your claim that 'they're only for killing people' is >imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing >people and these devices obviously serve different functions than guns. >To be precise, a high-capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed >for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the >most reliable, most durable, highest-capacity weapon possible. The only >thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is that they're >good practice. > >THEY SAY: "If we pass this concealed carry law, it will be like the Wild >West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender benders, in bars, etc. We >need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it >will be worth it." > >WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." > >(FLAW: You have implied that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more >heat-of-passion shootings, CCW should be illegal). > >WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you are >describing, that's not important. What IS important is our freedom. If >saving lives is more important than anything else, why don't we throw out >the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual >truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the criminals >and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the pas. How does that sound?" > >THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting >period." > >WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days. It's a >waste of resources blah blah blah." > >(FLAW: You have implied that if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they >would be a good idea)> > >WE SHOULD SAY: "How about a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government >review board before the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives >from being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? An the fact that this law >applies to people who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not about >crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want to live in a >free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as the chief nanny." > >THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these >deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have Atomic bombs." > >WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh..." > >WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue --- >it's in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same >guns as were the issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. >Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces >with exploding shells. In 1996, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc. >but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your >logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for >newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type. After >all, no one 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity, let alone TV and >satellite transmission." > >THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA screams >bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass >destruction." > >WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb. > >WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, whereas firearms >ownership is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that >aside for a moment. It's interesting you compared guns and vehicles. >Here in the U.S. you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many >motorcycles, cars, or trucks of any size as you want and you don't need >to do anything if you don't use them on public property. If you DO want >to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16. This >license is good in all 50 states. No waiting periods, no background >checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a fourteen-year-old could >go into any state and legally buy handguns, machine guns, cannons, >whatever, cash and carry and shoot them all with complete legality on >private property. And at age 16 he could get a state license good >anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property." > >FINAL COMMENT: Useful with most arguments: > >YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care abut your >grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than >anything." > >THEY SAY: "Huh?" > >YOU SAY: Well passing this proposal won't have a big immediate effect. >I mean, in the next couple of years neither Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich >is going to open up internment camps for Americans like Roosevelt did >fifty-odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political >leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control >here sometime in the next 30, 40, or 50 years, with 51 percent of the >Congress and 51 percent of the Senate behind him? If that does happen, >do you REALLY want your grandchildren to have been stripped of their >final guarantee of freedom? And do you really want them to have been >stripped of it BY YOU? > >These are the things we need to tell the control culture over and over >and over again. Many of them have lived all their lives under the false >impression that anything is acceptable if you can get 51 percent of the >voters or legislators to agree to it. It may take some time before they >are finally dragged, kicking and screaming, in front of the truth. > >Mr. Ross is the author of the novel Unintended Consequences which follows >several American families through decades of responsible gun ownership >all the way through to, and beyond, the day "our" government decided that >the Second Amendment no longer existed. > >Unintended Consequences can be ordered by contacting Jefferson Adams at >The Idaho Observer office. > >The only logical reason to take guns away from responsible people is to >give irresponsible people an edge in the perpetration of their crimes >against us. > >The Idaho Observer, Vol. 1, No. 2 February 1997 > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [------------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 07:44:21 -0600 (CST) From: Paul M Watson Subject: (fwd) IP: Fw: Making Government Immune from Law (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 03:24:10 -0600 From: schuetzen Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net To: texas-gun-owners@Mailing-List.net Subject: (fwd) IP: Fw: Making Government Immune from Law Posted to texas-gun-owners by chasm@insync.net (schuetzen) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:17:31 -0800, Jon Roland wrote: For other examples of abuse of this kind see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/ - ------------------------ Making Government Immune from Law Paul Craig Roberts January 14, 1999 If President Bill Clinton were being tried by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, he would be home free. In a horrendous ruling devastating for justice, fair play and the rule of law, the 10th Circuit has ruled (9-to-3) that the laws of the United States do not apply to officers and agents of the government unless Congress specifically designates that the law applies to the government. "Statutes of general purport do not apply to the United States unless Congress makes the application clear and indisputable," says the court, citing a 1873 case that "it is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." At dispute in the case, Singleton v. U.S., is the federal statute that specifies punishment for "whoever" promises anything of value to a witness in exchange for testimony for or against another person. Under the normal reading of the statute, prosecutors who promise defendants reduced sentences in exchange for testimony against others are violating the prohibition. According to the majority opinion, federal prosecutors are not bound by the law against bribing witnesses, because they serve as alter ego for the government and "the word 'whoever' connotes a being," whereas " the U.S. is an inanimate entity, not a being. The word 'whatever' is used commonly to refer to an inanimate object. Therefore, construing 'whoever' to include the government is semantically anomalous." In other words, "whoever" doesn't mean "whoever" if the "whoever" is an officer of the government. This Clintonesque word-play is necessary because, as the court acknowledges, "no practice is more ingrained in our criminal justice system" than convicting people with purchased testimony. Faced with an emptying of the prisons, the court ruled that the U.S. government is not a government accountable to law, but a "sovereign" above the law. Prosecutors have found that it is far easier to purchase with leniency the testimony of accomplices against their confederates than to build a case against the confederates. When this practice began it was aimed at known criminals against whom evidence was lacking. But once the practice began, it has taken on a life of its own. Today many innocents are ensnared by untrue accusations from criminal defendants seeking reduced charges by producing more fodder for prosecutors. Less and less does the criminal justice system work by police investigating a known crime and building a case. All too often, the first knowledge of the "crime" occurs when a defendant seeking reduced charges accuses others. In these cases, the accusation is the sole "evidence" of the crime, and prosecutors, who serve career instead of justice, are increasingly destroying innocents with purchased testimony. A recent example is Khem Batra of Burke, Va. Mr. Batra, married with two children, came to the U.S. in 1974 from New Delhi, India. He has been a U.S. citizen since 1981 and was successfully operating his own travel agency. His troubles began when the husband of one of his employees approached him for loans to enable him to purchase distressed properties at auction. Soon Mr. Batra found himself in partnership, pooling money to bid on properties. Unbeknownst to Mr. Batra, his sometime partner was illegally obtaining multiple mortgages on the same property. When the partner was apprehended, instead of being indicted, he was wired and promised leniency in exchange for implicating others. The partner managed to implicate some mortgage companies in technical infractions and apparently made an unsuccessful attempt to implicate the Burke and Herbert Bank in Alexandria, Va. Mr. Batra was never implicated in the illegal financing schemes, but his partner, desperate to earn his leniency, testified that his money-pooling partnership with Mr. Batra was a conspiracy to under-bid the properties. On the basis of his partner's plea-bargained testimony, Mr. Batra was convicted in federal court of one count of violating the Sherman Anti-trust Act. It is a definite sign of prosecutorial abuse when the Sherman Anti-trust Act, designed to bust up large monopolies, is applied to a small-time local partnership speculating in distressed properties sold at auctions where Mr. Batra and his partner comprised one of many bidders. Such a dubious interpretation of the anti-trust statute shows an extraordinary determination to convict. But justice is forfeited when, in addition, the conviction is obtained solely through the purchased testimony of a defendant who committed a real crime and is seeking to reduce his charges. Until the Glorious Revolution when Parliament established the supremacy of law over the sovereign, kings dealt with enemies by bribing or compelling witnesses to testify against them. Once law and not the king's government was supreme, Matthew Hale established the maxim that testimony purchased with reward has no standing in court. It is an abomination that the 10th Circuit has enabled unscrupulous prosecutors to resurrect the ancient practice of convicting defendants with paid testimony. COPYRIGHT 1999 PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. ? 1998, NewsMax.com Site Design by David Grumm/Luke Kelly - ---------------End of Original Message----------------- - ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 01/19/99 Time: 23:17:32 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **************************************************** - -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@mailing-list.net with the word help in the message body. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 99 13:32:07 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: In the Wilderness - 20 Jan 99 (Special Edition) (fwd) On Jan 20, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] IN THE WILDERNESS (c) 1999 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. ================================================================ THE STATE OF THE CIVILIZATION It's hard not to think malicious thoughts about some of the players in this impeachment business, but it's a temptation to be resisted at all costs. Everything we've tried in hopes of overcoming the cult of personality surrounding Bill Clinton, has failed. The Omnibus Broadcasting System -- with its subsidiaries ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN -- has made use of its influence over the passive majority in our country to keep his popularity high despite everything. Truth has made no impact on the people largely because it hasn't been told to them. And even if we had the means to reach them, they've been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they would refuse to listen to it, rejecting it as propaganda rather than truth. Clearly if there is to be a happy ending to all this, we're not capable of writing it into the script. We are faced with a test of forebearance, a lesson in the folly of pride. All through the century that is about to end, we as a civilization have convinced ourselves that we can understand all that needs to be understood -- that we can learn all that is to be known. We've decided that we can set our sights on any goal and achieve it through the determined application of will and know-how. And this is where it has gotten us. Having been warned that the Devil can quote Scripture to suit his purpose, we are nevertheless eager to debate him when he reminds us about turning the other cheek, judging not lest we be judged, and not casting stones if we are not without sin. We forget that Jesus also said, "Cast not your pearls before swine." How can we make sense of this without judging the character of those to whom He referred? The point of His comment was that there are some whose hearts we can never hope to turn with words, and that it would be a waste, not to say a sin of pride, to preach to them rather than to those whose hearts and minds are open. In our Information Age, words fly like bullets and bounce off the Kevlar that OBS has thoughtfully placed over the ears of the narcoleptic majority. Having placed our faith in The People, we find they have feet -- and heads -- of clay. Faced with such futility, we are tempted to give in to malice. That part of ourselves inherited from long-dead pagan ancestors whispers to us that if we can't persuade them, we must destroy them, or at least wish them ill. After all, the voice points out, we already are seeking to punish their leader. Why not also wish to punish those who support him, for their work in trying to shield him from justice? When the hogs trample the pearls into the mud, do we get angry at them? Do we blame all hogs everywhere, and campaign to have them all slaughtered? The matter is beyond our best powers of persuasion. We can't turn the hearts of those determined to avoid doing the right thing. God alone can move them, and if He chooses, He will. It's out of our hands. Maybe it always was. - -30- January 20, 1999 ================================================================ **Visit the IN THE WILDERNESS archives** http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/wilderness/ 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 99 07:10:35 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Bilderbergers' Secret Agenda Revealed (fwd) Here they go again..... On Jan 22, Omegamarc@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The secretive Bilderbergers held their 1997 meeting in Alanta, Ga. on June 12-15. A reliable correspondent has obtained files on what transpired at that meeting of 120 of the world's conspiratorial elite and has provided startling information to "Living Truth Ministries". The revealed material indicates that the Bilderbergers set forth six goals for their short-term agenda of global domination. These six goals severly inpact the future of the United States and it's people. Look what they have in store for us....... First goal.....It was decided that the US would promptly pay back it's so- called "black debt" of billions owed the United Nations. The US would also cough up billions more for tthe IMF (International Monetarty Fund). This money will be used to bribe the wealthy in Asia and South America to cooperate with the plotters' New World Order objectives. However, the international bankers will be the real profit-makers. Politicians from the US were instructed to make these payments to the UN and the IMF a top priority in the current session of Congress. Second goal....It was decided that NATO would be converted into a United Nations military force. However, to deceive the wary American public, the politicians and news media in the US must never reveal that NATO is an adjunct of the UN and it's New World Order. The term "NATO" must always be employed. The Bilderbergers reasoned that the American public are already propagandized to love NATO but most have come to distrust and dispise the UN. The American people will, therefore, unwittingly allow foreign commanders to be put in charge of US fighting forces as long as the deceptive term "NATO" is used as a cover. Third goal....The Bilderberger insiders decided that "Corporate Governance" would proceed at a rapid pace. A proposed multinational investment treaty will bring all the earth's corporations under a single global order,ending national sovereignty and terminating local control by nation-states over their own corporations. The giants of finance and industry-----AT&T, Lucent, Microsoft, McDonald-Douglas,IBM,Toshiba,Sony,Seiman,etc.----will be able to entirely avoid and to snub the laws and dictates of national governments, including that of the US. Thus, a global system of "Fascism" shall quickly emerge as the new millennium dawns. The new system will be pitched to the ignorant masses as "Democratic Capitalism" and will be embraced by people as free trade wisdom from the top brains and giants of the corporate world. Fourth goal....In the field of religion, an unprecedented "world ecumenical initiative" would be launched, culminating in a 200 AD global spectacle centered in Jerusalem. That city is to become the earth's spirtual center for all religions. Under the direction of the Illuminati, America's most famous- name Christian evangelist and charismatics, working closely with the Vatican, with Islamic "moderates", and with Jewish cheif rabbis and organizations, will meld together an unstoppable ecumenical juggernaut. Moreover, the Pope was to go to Cuba in 1998 and demonstrate the power of global religion,with former atheist, communist dictator Fidel Castro bowing to the Pontif's vaunted spirtual powers. The Bilderbergers also decreed that, in America, the politically powerful evengelical leaders----the Falwells, LaHayes, Robertsons, Dobsons, Colsons, Brights, Grahams,and others....would work together with the Christian charismatics, Jews, and Catholics to lobby for legislation creating a "Religious Czar." The Religious Czar, to be a puppet of the elitist organizations, such as the CFR, Freedom House, and the Jewish ADL, will be given vast 1984-styled law enforcement powers. This Czar will take the title of Director and head of a US federal agency to be called the "Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring" (ORPM). This agency will be given power by law to monitor, harass, control, and eventually "shut down" all fundamentalist religious groups and churches opposing the Illuminati's design for the global, ecumenical unity of all religions. As determined by the Illuminati and the Bilderberger insiders, the ultimate goal of the "World Ecumenical Initiative" is to cause all people of the world to accept a hazy, undefined "God" while suppressing attempts by fundalmentalists who advocate their unique deity. Bildeberger attendees were instructed that Christian and Islamic fundalmentalists are to be considered a grave threat to the world peace and order. They are to be branded by the ecumenicals and their friends in the world press both as ,"religious fanatics" and as a terrible menace to the advent of a tolerance-based, nonjudgmental "Faith Community" composed of all religions. Fifth goal....The Bilderbergers approved the Red Chinese model of economic development and administration to become the perferred model for the USA. Dissidents in America who oppose Red Chinese integration will be severely dealt with. President Bill Clinton and a pliant Congress will quickly implement Clinton's long cherished goals of a Marxist America to be set up according to what the elite know to be Red China's "CommuNazi" system. The CommuNazi ideology is the result of Hegelian synthesis. In practice, it is remarkably similar to the Illuminati's much desired, bureacratically structured, Fascist system of "Corporate Governance". Sixth goal....The Bilderberger elite made plans to insure that the police powers of all governments will be exponentially increased. Project L.U.C.I.D. will be imposed by Dec. 31, 2000 AD, with citizens in every nation being issued the controllers' Universal biometric ID Card. Funding for people of all nations to be administered this card will come from USA sources, specifically funneled into the foreign nations by the CIA. In turn, the CIA's secret "black budget" annually approved by Congress, will be greatly increased. Another item of police state business covered at the meeting had to do with Christian patriots' influence on the worldwide net. US delegates to the Bilderbergers conclave were warned about the internet troublemakers in America who are spreading "rumors, gossip, and other unfavorable information" on the Worldwide Web. The elite complained that the American dissidents are effectively exposing the elite's agenda. Thus, they must be snuffed out. It was generally acknowledged by the Bilderberger elite that it is Americas patriotic "conspiracy theorists" who almost single-handedly, are preventing the elitist's grand plan for global domination from becoming a reality. One Bilderberger leader complained: "The Pesky American resisters are very persuasive. They know too much. They have been able to convince citizens in England, Germany, Italy, Japan, and around the globe to reject our initiatives. Their use of the world computer net must be stifled before it is too late!" The fact that the six goals of the Bilderbergers' secret agenda have been executed so very neatly since the Atlanta meeting in 1997, gives us an astonishing picture of Antichrist type power being excercised on an unheralded, planetary scale. Everything is proceeding just as planned, except that, as fas as the Illuminati is concerned, there is one stubborn and irritating obstacle to their plan. The one fly in the ointment is tose menacing religious fundamentalists in America and their patriotic counterparts, the loathsome "conspiracy theorists". Especially troublesome, from the Illuminati's perspective, are the dogmatic Christians they label, "conspiracy-mongerers". People like Texe Marrs and readers of the Flashpoint Newsletter are labeled the enemy because we believe exclusively in Jesus Christ and refuse to bow and worship at the twin alters of money and power. Increasingly, the police powers can be expected to come against anyone telling the truth concerning the New World Order. Pray for them. My prayer is that God will give us all the strength and the courage to be overcomers for the Truth in this epic battle now shaping up between good and evil. May God, our deliverer, help us all as we strive for freedom and liberty in the name of Christ Jesus our Lord. "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith" (I John 5:4) There it is guys...Mary B [------------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 99 23:00:14 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: URGENT MESSAGE! Ok folks, it's coming down to the wire. Pass the following message around to every appropriate email list, newsgroup, and everyone you know. Tell them to phone/fax/mail/email the message to the Senate and House Prosecutors. Do this each day till Clinton gets the boot! Sorry, I don't have the Prosecutors list at this time. You can use the following email addresses for the Senate, or simply email them all at once from: http://www.in-search-of.com/frames/government/files/mail_by_demand.hts?7 email@murkowski.senate.gov, Senator_Stevens@stevens.senate.gov, senator@sessions.senate.gov, senator@shelby.senate.gov, Senator.Hutchinson@hutchinson.senate.gov, info@kyl.senate.gov, Senator_McCain@mccain.senate.gov, senator@boxer.senate.gov, senator@feinstein.senate.gov, senator_allard@exchange.senate.gov, administrator@campbell.senate.gov, senator_lieberman@lieberman.senate.gov, sen_dodd@dodd.senate.gov, senator@biden.senate.gov, comments@roth.senate.gov, connie@mack.senate.gov, bob_graham@graham.senate.gov, senator_max_cleland@cleland.senate.gov, senator_coverdell@coverdell.senate.gov, senator@akaka.senate.gov, senator@inouye.senate.gov, tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov, chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov, larry_craig@craig.senate.gov, senator_fitzgerald@fitzgerald.senate.gov, dick@durbin.senate.gov, senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov, pat_roberts@roberts.senate.gov, sam_brownback@brownback.senate.gov, jim_bunning@bunning.senate.gov, senator@mcconnell.senate.gov, senator@landrieu.senate.gov, senator@breaux.senate.gov, john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov, senator@kennedy.senate.gov, senator@mikulski.senate.gov, senator@sarbanes.senate.gov, senator@collins.senate.gov, Olympia@snowe.senate.gov, michigan@abraham.senate.gov, senator@levin.senate.gov, mail_grams@grams.senate.gov, senator@wellstone.senate.gov, john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov, kit_bond@bond.senate.gov, senatorlott@lott.senate.gov, senator@cochran.senate.gov, conrad_burns@burns.senate.gov, max@baucus.senate.gov, jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov, senator@dorgan.senate.gov, senator@conrad.senate.gov, chuck_hagel@hagel.senate.gov, qmail@kerrey-cms.senate.gov, mailbox@gregg.senate.gov, opinion@smith.senate.gov, senator@torricelli.senate.gov, Frank_Lautenberg@Lautenberg.senate.gov, Senator_Bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov, senator_domenici@domenici.senate.gov, senator@bryan.senate.gov, senator_reid@reid.senate.gov, senator@dpm.senate.gov, senator_voinovich@voinovich.senate.gov, senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov, administrator@inhofe.senate.gov, senator@nickles.senate.gov, Oregon@gsmith.senate.gov, senator@wyden.senate.gov, senator_specter@specter.senate.gov, jack@reed.senate.gov, senator_chafee@chafee.senate.gov, qmail@hollings-cms.senate.gov, senator@thurmond.senate.gov, tim@johnson.senate.gov, tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov, senator_frist@frist.senate.gov, senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov, senator@hutchison.senate.gov, administrator@gramm.senate.gov, senator@bennett.senate.gov, senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov, senator@robb.senate.gov, senator@warner.senate.gov, vermont@jeffords.senate.gov, senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov, senator_murray@murray.senate.gov, Senator_Gorton@gorton.senate.gov, russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov, senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov, senator@rockefeller.senate.gov, senator_byrd@byrd.senate.gov, senator@enzi.senate.gov, craig@thomas.senate.gov Subject: From a concerned Constituent To the Honorable United States Senate Honorable United States Senate United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Honorable Members of the United States Senate, When Senator Bumpers recently cited Madison's Criteria for Impeachment and Removal from Office, he locked you all into one course of action. You, and most especially those of you who have been calling for Censure, have, in the Censure Documents, cited Bill Clinton of being Guilty of _those_same_criteria_. As this is now a matter of Public Record, you _must_ now remove the President from Office, or go down to Posterity as being even bigger Liars and Hypocrites than Bill Clinton ever thought of being in his wildest dreams. Respectfully, Your name your address city, State ZipCode - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:58:50 -0600 From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Fwd: Claremont Institute Precepts: Reverence for the Constitution - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Claremont Institute--PRECEPTS | | January 19, 1999 Visit | | No. 141 The impeachment of the President poses a constitutional crisis, but not in the way commonly thought. Defenders of the President raise the specter of a constitutional crisis by referring to a "coup." They say that Republicans are obstructing the "business of the country" and are trying to "overturn an election." But--as we have mentioned before--if Mr. Clinton is removed from office it will be he, the president, who has overturned the election, because he has subverted the rule of law and betrayed the purposes for which he was elected. And of course a vice-president of his own party--not some Republican opponent--will succeed him. What is happening now is spelled out in the Constitution. It is, to be sure, a rare event; the present example being only the second in our history and the first in 130 years. And it is a grave thing, deserving of the solemnity that the Senate has demonstrated...so far. But the matter of impeachment and conviction, by itself, is not a constitutional crisis. There may prove to be a crisis of another sort, however. That is the state of public opinion and popular reverence for the Constitution. Polls show that the president remains popular, even as he faces the most serious of charges and the possibility of removal from office. The same polls show the impeachment process to be unpopular. Large majorities of people do not want Mr. Clinton removed and want the whole matter to end. Perhaps this can be explained by the good economy, or a reaction against the sexual harassment laws that Mr. Clinton first supported and then was sued for violating; or perhaps something else. In any case, the Senators are not bound to the polls but to the special oath they took, and to their larger constitutional duties. Yet constitutional duty is not without risk. Consider the case of Congressman James Rogan, one of the House managers, who won re-election in November with only 50.8% of the vote. He is a young man with a long future before him, in a district that voted heavily for Clinton's re-election. If Mr. Rogan and others in the House who voted for impeachment, and those in the Senate who may vote to convict, are punished at the polls, it will not mean the end of the country, or even of the Republican Party. It will, however, make it harder next time to cultivate, to call up, and to depend upon a sense of constitutional duty in the Congress. And it will become harder to resist the momentary passions of a majority, on matters small as well as great. Even graver, if resentment against the Congress, and against the impeachment proceeding, becomes resentment against the Constitution then we will have lost something too precious to be counted in votes. The alternative is that in the end the public will regard Congress' action as justified and appropriate. They will recall that the Constitution has a purpose and integrity of its own, and that its authority is greater than whatever the latest poll numbers--or even the latest election-- decree. Through their statements and conduct, the House managers, the Chief Justice, and the Senators can remind the people that the Constitution deserves our reverence, because it requires the equal application of the law, even when popular passion would exempt its chief enforcer. We have some reason to believe that this will be the case. As Mark Helprin has written in the _Wall Street Journal_, "the American sense of justice, which though at times slow to awake has, like the long gray line, never failed us." Senior Fellow Charles Kesler and Adjunct Fellow Arnold Steinberg explore different aspects of the current impeachment proceedings in recent articles. I urge you to read them at and , or go to our home page at . Sincerely, Larry P. Arnn President, The Claremont Institute - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1998 The Claremont Institute To subscribe to Precepts, go to: http://www.claremont.org/subscrib.cfm , or e-mail us at info@claremont.org . To be removed from this list, go to : http://www.claremont.org/remove_public.cfm , or e-mail us at info@claremont.org . For general correspondence or additional information about the Claremont Institute, e-mail : info@claremont.org , or visit our website at : http://www.claremont.org . Changing your e-mail address? Please let us know at : info@claremont.org . For press inquiries, contact Nazalee Topalian at topalian@msn.com or (909) 621-6825. The mission of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. The Claremont Institute | 250 West First Street | Suite 330 | Claremont, CA 91711 | Phone (909) 621-6825 | Fax (909) 626-8724 - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use Comment: Get public key from iQA/AwUBNqoNuu0M/FuXc0xJEQKMIgCfWWjRmpIPi4W/xolW7Y7m2YAbt0EAnilf QccSZf2tY2kV2BPf7XLbXjP7 =QIsD - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #210 *************************