From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #213 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Thursday, February 4 1999 Volume 02 : Number 213 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 99 12:22:50 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: In the Wilderness - 31 Jan 99 (fwd) On Jan 31, 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. ================================================================ HERE BE DRAGONS Who can predict the ultimate outcome of current events? It may have been fairly simple to predict that the Denver Broncos would win the Super Bowl (he wrote, with the game still being played), but who can say how events will play out surrounding, say, the approaching reckoning in Washington? Pundits and Democrats have been saying for months that without 67 Republicans in the Senate there would never be a guilty verdict in an impeachment trial. But before that they were saying there would never be an impeachment trial in the first place -- and before that, that there would never even be an impeachment, much less a trial. Who could have anticipated two years ago that a casual act of presidential perjury, committed in casual contempt of a citizen's civil rights, would lead to this decidedly un-casual point? Back then the buzz was about campaign corruption and abuse of executive orders to benefit Chinese and Indonesian interests at the expense of companies owned and run by U.S. citizens. Who could have guessed back then that a television network would elevate an impassioned and openly avowed pro-Clinton partisan to host two separate regular shows on which to defend the President? Who could have guessed back then that this same network would record, and then spike, an interview with a woman who claims that the President raped her when he was Arkansas' state attorney general? Who could have guessed that the sleaziest man alive would become the most visible defender of the President's morality -- by airing innuendoes against his critics? Who could ever have guessed two years ago that William Jefferson Clinton, then newly inaugurated as President after his 49-percent popular vote re-election victory (a record for him), would sink to such depths? Who among them would have been believed? Those who claim that Vince Foster was murdered, are frequently dismissed as paranoid conspiracy theorists. Those who circulate the lists of people close to Clinton who have died under mysterious circumstances, are laughed off as fanatic Clinton-haters taking a vacation from their surveillances of Area 51. And perhaps rightly so. But aside from those types of people, who would have foreseen the spectacle that Clinton 1999 would degenerate to? After all, these are the ones who have made the most noise about those purloined FBI files. These are the ones who have followed the Clinton scandal front since 1992, who believed Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones the instant their stories broke. And these are the people at whom Clinton's defenders point in this hour of desperation, to explain why they stay with him. As Andy Rooney put it, they like Clinton's friends more than they like his enemies. His enemies, therefore, cannot be allowed to be right, not even when the evidence actually comes down on their side of the story. It's as though Clinton called up all of his high-profile supporters in Hollywood and the media, and demanded, "Who are you gonna believe, me or a bunch of right-wing facts?" In their hyper-politicized world view, even truth has a political spin to it, and when the spin goes against their way of thinking, it has to be denied, disparaged, demolished and despised. To the rest of the world, truth and facts are neutral, and only the actions and words of men and women carry a spin. If the facts say that Clinton is a felon and unfit to hold office, the bad reflection is not on the facts, but on Clinton. And people to whom this is clear, have a hard time understanding those for whom politics, and especially Left-wing politics, is more important, and more pure, than the truth. The recent past, up to about this time last year, seems in hindsight to have been as easy to anticipate, seven years ago, as the outcome of today's football game. After his 90-percent post-Desert Storm approval ratings blew over, President Bush suffered from the more durable memory of his "no new taxes" betrayal, and from the unprecedented partisan spin of television news reporting surrounding the 1992 election campaign. Bush ran a lackluster campaign, and tried ineptly and belatedly to pander to his base -- which only played into the spin of the hostile media while offending the Right (which unlike the Left does NOT appreciate being pandered to). Meanwhile Clinton's character issues were passed off by the same media as being irrelevant to the campaign. Character didn't matter, we were told. Today these same media voices allow that maybe character does matter after all, while more die-hard Clinton partisans argue that policy lip-service matters more than the trustworthiness and mental stability of a man whose finger rests on the nuclear button. (Perhaps that button seems less dangerous today than ten years ago, but what of North Korea? What of Saddam Hussein? Can we afford to keep a President who makes Saddam look positively sedate and predictable?) But today, no one can guess what will happen tomorrow. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr has concluded, rightly I think, that he *can* indict a sitting president -- but he hasn't decided whether he will. The pundits having assured us that witnesses would never be examined in the impeachment trial, perhaps we could have guessed at what has proven to be the case: there will be witnesses. The Juanita Broaddrick story is said to have influenced wavering House members to vote for impeachment in December, and now it reposes like a powder keg on the shelf at NBC News. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Events of the past have been converging on this point, from long before the 1960s. Historical trends set in motion by occurrences before the Vietnam war, before the Kennedy assassination, before the birth of Billy J. Blythe, have developed a momentum that will contribute to an unfathomable crescendo some time between now and the end of the century -- and even lifelong observers of the political, cultural and social scene are at a loss as to what to expect. We are entering into *terra incognita*, where all the lessons of the past seem useless in preparing for what is to come. If there we find dragons, who will be surprised? - -30- January 31, 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: Mon, 1 Feb 99 12:23:35 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ This "FAQ" is auto-posted once a month via cron triggered script, and may be triggered off by hand from time to time in between if the info is requested by someone, such as when the House recently voted down the AW Ban and the Media threw a hissy fit. The purpose of this FAQ is to inform people what they can do about Media generated lies and misinformation. While the FCC only handles Broadcast Media, (TV and Radio), some of these techniques will work for magazines and newspapers too. If I've missed something, or you find errors, let me know and I'll add/fix it. 1.a. Send letters of complaint to the Station Manager every time it happens with all the time, details, other info, and your complaint(s). 1.b. Send an additional copy for their FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Public file. 1.c. Send an additional copy to the FCC itself, in case they don't put it in their Public file. 2.a. Send a letter of complaint to their Station Owner as per above, with copies as per above (1.b and 1.c). 3. Send copies of their replies to you along with yours to them to their FCC Public file, so that it gets nice and fat, again, with copies to the FCC itself. 4. If you can afford it, send all corespondence by Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested. Send a copy of the Return Receipt with everything that goes to the FCC itself, so that they will have additional evidence if the Station is cheating on their Public File. 5.a. Go to the Public Library and look up "Standard Rate and Data Services" (SRDS) "Directory of National Advertisers." It is found in many major Libraries (in the business/reference stacks), and lists EVERY current advertiser, who the players are at both the company and advertising agency(s), and the appropriate telephone and fax (and probably E-Mail by now) addresses. If your Library doesn't have it, it can be requested. Otherwise you can watch their commercials for a few days to a week, listing all their advertisers. There are other references that have the addresses for the nation's business headquarters too. look them all up and pass the addresses and phone/FAX numbers etc., around so that everyone can bitch to the sponsors. IF enough people do that, it'll get back to the Station. Tell them if the Station continues their nastiness you'll _consider_ changing to brand(X), (otherwise they'll just write you off as a loss). 5.b. The above, (5.a.), can be a lot easier and less time consuming if you're dealing with a newspaper's or a magazine's ads, as they are right in front of you for the listing. 6. If they put on something good or even just more reasonable, call and compliment them on it, but do _not_ send any kudos to their FCC file, or write to them about it. That way they have to keep it up and hope, as there is nothing good in the file or in writing that they can show the FCC to justify their Station's License. 7. Federal Communications Commission, Complaints and Compliance Division Room 6218, 2025 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 FAX: 202-653-9659 FCC Attn: Edythe Wise - -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | The _only_important_difference_ between Nazi-ism, Fascism, weapon in every | Communism, Communitarianism, Socialism and (Neo-)Liberalism hand = Freedom | is the _spelling_, and that the last group hasn't got the on every side! | Collective brains to figure it out. -- Bill Vance - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 99 23:46:28 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: EIA Communique - 2/1 (fwd) On Feb 1, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] - -----Original Message----- From: EducIntel@aol.com To: EducIntel@aol.com Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 12:14 PM Subject: EIA Communique - 2/1 The Education Intelligence Agency COMMUNIQU=C9 =97 February 1, 1999 + The Council for School Performance, a research agency funded by the St= ate of Georgia, released its annual report cards on the state's public school= s. The council generated the first standards for identifying "consistently l= ow- performing" public schools. Last week, the council was happy to inform reporters that 100 state schools failed to meet those standards =97 but r= efused to name the schools. "We are not a standard-setting body," said CSP resea= rch director Gary Henry. "We just thought the public needed to have the numbe= rs and the criteria." Why announce the existence of 100 failing schools, then force the public = to go through an arduous process to discover their identities? Well, both na= ture and EIA abhor a vacuum. The crack EIA "staff" spent two full days going o= ver the council's standards, examined its individual school report cards, one= by one, for the last three years, and released to most of the Georgia press = the names of the schools that failed to meet the standards. The information i= s available to interested parties in other states by contacting EIA. + In a widely covered press conference that featured basketball legend Michael Jordan, the National Foundation for the Improvement of Education announced a new partnership with Jordan Fundamentals to provide grants of $2,500 to teachers serving underprivileged students. NFIE is a nonprofit foundation wholly owned and operated by the National Education Associatio= n, while Jordan Fundamentals is wholly owned and operated by The Jordan Bran= d. "NEA members created NFIE," said NEA President Bob Chase, "and the men an= d women in our nation's public schools are proud to count Jordan Brand amon= g the corporations working hard to make things better for young people." A nice little story, right? But there's an entirely unexamined angle to this story. The Jordan Brand = is not a stand-alone corporation. Jordan is the CEO, but he has no money inv= ested in The Jordan Brand. The Jordan Brand is a division of Nike Inc., which h= as been excoriated by organized labor for years because of "sweatshop" pract= ices in Asian nations. Jordan himself has been mildly criticized by the left-w= ing, specifically the Rev. Jesse Jackson, for his seeming lack of interest in = the issue. The American Observer noted that "Nike's operations in Indonesia h= ave received a particularly large amount of scrutiny and criticism from labor groups because union organizing is a near impossibility in the country, u= nless it is authorized by the government." And it didn't take EIA long to find = an issue of Human Rights News, a publication of the American Federation of Teachers, in which Michael Jordan is called upon to "Do the Right Thing!" "Jordan is paid $20 million a year to endorse Nike products, including hi= s Air Jordan sneakers," reads the story. "Air Jordans are made by workers earning $2.23 a day. When Michael was approached with this issue, he said= , =91It's not my problem.' So, whose problem is it? Don't be like Mike. Hel= p stop worker abuse." The story then provides a sample protest letter for the Coalition of Labor Union Women to forward to Nike. Is it merely a coincid= ence that NFIE's press release does not mention Nike? The merits of the charges against Nike are certainly arguable. However, w= hen one of the nation's largest labor unions establishes a joint venture with= one of the nation's largest labor union foes, it should inspire a series of questions which currently are not being asked. + Three years ago, billionaire Walter H. Annenberg launched the Annenber= g Challenge, a huge national program to provide hundreds of millions of dol= lars to public schools in more than 30 states. Last year, Patrick Reilly of th= e Capital Research Center wrote an editorial in which he claimed the additi= onal money had produced no improvement in student achievement. Reilly was roya= lly lambasted by the establishment, most notably by officials running the Annenberg project. Last week, Annenberg program administrators for the Lo= s Angeles County schools admitted that the $53 million donated to 247 L.A. schools has had virtually no impact. When the grant money runs out in Jun= e of next year, the Los Angeles Annenberg officials want to turn the program i= nto an educational watchdog group. "Our hope is to commission research in key areas such as literacy and governance and issue reports and recommendatio= ns," said L.A. program president Maria Casillas. "We would expect to monitor performance of everyone from reading coaches to boards of education, even unions." Let's see... research... issue reports... monitor performance... even unions... The insights you can buy for $53 million are just amazing! What would be a good name for the group? I know, Education Information for Annenberg! + The 11/16/ 98 EIA communiqu=E9 told the story of 300 members of a dissi= dent local in Mexico's national teachers' union seizing control of the Mexican Senate, smashing windows and doors, and holding five senators hostage for several hours. Five teachers were arrested. The arrests sparked even larg= er demonstrations. Last week, some 9,000 teachers protested outside the resi= dence of President Ernesto Zedillo, calling for the immediate release of the fi= ve prisoners. In a related (?) story, striking teachers in Volgograd, Russian, locked t= wo city officials in their office for 12 hours, demanding back wages. The officials were ultimately released unharmed. International teachers have evidently found a response to the lock-out: the lock-in. + In Burgettstown, Pennsylvania, a student was suspended from school and charged by police with disorderly conduct for tossing a single french fry= in the cafeteria. New Jersey and South Carolina both reported increases in s= chool crime. Why? "The school districts are reporting every incident to us," sa= id South Carolina Education Superintendent Inez Tannenbaum, "incidents that = in years past, they may not have reported as school crime." The top two "cri= mes" listed are "disturbing school" and "possession of a pager." Meanwhile, in Columbia, Tennessee, a middle school resource officer was charged with four counts of rape of two 14-year-old male students. A Los Angeles Unified School District employee and a district retiree were arre= sted on bribery and embezzlement charges. In exchange for gifts such as vehicl= es and a boat, the two men approved payment for maintenance work that was ne= ver done. Zero tolerance policies for students are becoming more widespread, but sc= hool officials are surprisingly tolerant of their own ignorance of employee cr= ime. EIA's latest report, Rotten Apples: School Crime from a Different Angle, examines the anecdotal evidence, through newspaper stories, public docume= nts and other sources. Rotten Apples is available for free. Contact EIA at th= e numbers listed below. + The next communiqu=E9 will be published February 15. + Quote of the Week: "Thus far, the leading writers of the current schoo= l reform movement have shirked from a critical examination of teachers' uni= ons and collective bargaining. With very few exceptions, one will search in v= ain in the school reform literature for even the appearance of the word union= ." =97 Todd A. DeMitchell and Richard Fossey, from their book "The Limits of Law= - - Based School Reform." # # # The Education Intelligence Agency conducts public education research, ana= lysis and investigations. Director: Mike Antonucci. Ph: 916-422-4373. Fax: 916-392-1482. E-Mail: EducIntel@aol.com [------------------------- 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: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:10:42 -0600 (CST) From: Paul M Watson Subject: Why Republicans are not supporting your 2nd Amendment - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- MALAISE OF THE GOP -- IS THERE A CURE? by PATRICK J. BUCHANAN FEBRUARY 2, 1999 Not since the Roaring Twenties, when the Republican Party was still "America's Party," has the GOP controlled so many seats in the House and Senate and in governors' chairs. Yet, to many Republicans, this seems the very winter of their discontent. Inside the party, observers detect a near despair, which is reinforced by the polls, that the GOP has run out of great issues and indefinitely forfeited the vital center of politics to Bill Clinton. There is a malaise within the GOP. Among governors, it is seen in exasperation with a Congress focused on impeachment; among GOP senators, it is manifest in a desperate desire to be rid of the trial. House Republicans are openly nostalgic for the days of Reagan, when America was united behind their agenda, and it was the Democratic Party that seemed off-balance and out of touch. It is time to grow up. Ronald Reagan was a good man and a great president, but the Gipper is gone forever, and his time, like JFK's time, and FDR's, is gone forever. We cannot relive the past. The unacknowledged reason the GOP Establishment has failed to meet the challenge of Clinton is that, deep in its heart, it does not disagree with him on the issues that deeply roil Middle America. On trade, the GOP leadership is as pro-NAFTA, GATT and fast track as Al Gore. At last week's gathering of globalists at Davos, Switzerland, Republicans had a full complement. "Responsible Globality" was the theme at Davos, which is like posting a sign calling for "Safe Sex" on the door of a San Francisco bath house. On foreign policy, the GOP leadership is as enthusiastic as Clinton about expanding NATO from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Republicans provided the political cover for Clinton to move troops into Bosnia and Macedonia and are urging him to order air strikes on Serbia and put 5,000 U.S. troops into Kosovo. Most Americans oppose military intervention where vital U.S. interests are not at stake. But the GOP leadership cadres stand with Clinton. On foreign aid, the least popular of federal programs, Congress readily agreed to Clinton's request for expansion in 1998. Republicans believe in free markets, so they opposed a bailout of Orange County when it faced bankruptcy from failed investments. Yet Republican leaders backed the $41 billion bailout of a Jakarta regime that had robbed its own of billions and slaughtered 250,000 in East Timor, and supported the $41 billion bailout of a Brazilian government that is still running a deficit of 8 percent of gross domestic product. On both occasions, the GOP threw out free-market principles to stand beside Clinton and did so again when Clinton asked for $18 billion to continue the socialist bailouts ad infinitum. On NAFTA, GATT, fast track, surrender of sovereignty to the World Trade Organization, NATO expansion, intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, foreign aid and International Monetary Fund bailouts, the Republican elite is, with a few exceptions, remarkably close to Clinton- Gore. Eighty percent of Americans want reform of immigration laws under which 1.3 million legal and illegal aliens enter each year. Yet, terrified of being called xenophobes, Republicans are paralyzed. So, Clinton celebrates a coming century where immigration will turn America's white majority into a minority. In Tibet, massive immigration by Han Chinese is denounced as "cultural genocide." In the United States, an immigration invasion that will alter the ethnic character and Western culture of America forever, risking a breakup of the nation, is not even open for debate. Racial preferences are defeated everywhere they are put to a vote. Yet national Republicans recoil from the battle. The life issue and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms to protect their lives and families have powerful constituencies, but many in the GOP -- trained in the local obedience school run by the national press -- reflexively reject such issues as "divisive." There is no dearth of issues on which a party with a glint in its eye, fire in its belly and steel in its spine could confront this capital city. But taking them up means taking on a cultural-media elite that has no compunction about branding as sick, bigoted or extremist any who dare resist the fate that elite has in store for our republic. There is another factor inhibiting Republicans from risking an all-out confrontation with Clinton: dread of the loss of power. The GOP knows its hold on Congress is tenuous and narrow. Why risk it for causes in which they do not truly believe? Thus, the next great rebellion in U.S. politics is likely to come from without and not to distinguish between the Beltway parties. c 1999 Patrick J. Buchanan FOR MORE NEWS AND INFO VISIT OUR WEB SITE! http://www.theamericancause.org *********************************************** Please feel free to forward this email across the USA! *********************************************** Join our new "FTC" - FOR THE CAUSE - List!!! Send an email to: ftc-request@Majordomo.net In the body of your email type: subscribe *********************************************** The American Cause Internet Headquarters Web: http://www.theamericancause.org WebMaster - Linda Muller - linda@theamericancause.org Smail: 6862 Elm Street, Suite 210, McLean, VA 22101 Email: hq@theamericancause.org Tel:703.556.7737 Fax:703.827.0592 *********************************************** c NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 -- Any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml] *********************************************** - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 99 17:09:55 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: "An Elephant Never Forgets" (fwd) On Feb 3, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Which party's voters tend to have longer memories? Here's a hint: by and large, single issue voters tend to be disengaged from politics except during the final weeks of a campaign. Once they receive their single-issue voter guides and learn that Candidate A supports continued toenail fungus subsidies while Candidate B does not, their voting decisions are made. If, a year before the election, Candidate A also cast a whole series of votes that these single-issue voters found repugnant and outrageous, it makes no impact. A single-issue voter who supports continued toenail fungus subsidies will vote for any candidate, however reprehensible he might be on any other issue, who supports the toenail fungus subsidy program. It also doesn't matter if Candidate A is a proven liar, cheater, consorter with the nation's enemies, and sexual exploiter of girls who make less than minimum wage. Single-issue policy is all that matters. So which party's voters tend to have longer memories? Single-issue *activists* are an exception to this rule. They track the voting records of officeholders so they can mobilize their voters, and so will have somewhat longer memories than the rank-and-file single-issue voter. But because they are single-issue activists, they too tend to be unconcerned with other matters. These are the sorts of people who would cause to be known to the world a willingness on their part, for example, to orally service a sleazy President who defends current law on abortion. Generally, single-issue voters and activists tend to gravitate to the Democratic Party, because most single-issue advocacy focuses on the deliberate redistribution of poverty from specific favored groups to the taxpayers at large. The Omnibus Broadcasting System would have Americans believe that the GOP has the most single-issue constituencies; they focus on abortion and gun control. However, while pro-life single-issue voters in the Republican Party do outnumber the GOP's single-issue pro-choice voters -- both of them -- the vast m ajority of pro-life *and pro-choice* Republicans are not single-issue voters. Likewise those who hold strong opinions on gun control or other issues important to the GOP agenda. Most *single-issue* opponents of gun control are not all that serious about politics -- they're Libertarians, which tells you how many of *them* there are. Politicians who benefit from the votes cast by single-issue "gimme" types generally don't want to admit that their careers are based on a simple transaction of benefit -- it sounds too much like bribery, and it doesn't allow them to proclaim with due pomposity the superiority of whatever they have that passes for a philosophy. So they tend to overestimate their base. That by itself wouldn't be so bad. But when the other side begins to *underestimate* the intelligence of their own base, assuming that their voters won't remember a courageous stand taken, a risky but principled vote cast (or conversely, an unusually cowardly action), by the time the next election comes around -- then trouble develops. That's when you see Senators acting like they've undergone a surgical procedure to remove their spinal cords and viscera, and acting as though being spineless and gutless makes them better than those in the lower house. In particular, I think of the two Senators from Utah. One recently announced that there need be no witnesses examined in the impeachment trial (every trial I've ever seen had witnesses, but I suppose if the jurors had been Republican Senators from Utah things might have been different). The other has been casting about desperately for months to find a way to let himself and his colleagues off the hook of actually coming to a verdict in the trial (every trial I've ever seen also either came to a verdict, or ended in a hung jury -- usually followed by a RETRIAL). Messrs. Bennett and Hatch are by no means alone, but it would be salutary for the nation if Utah voters, at their next opportunity, found another pair of butts to occupy those two seats. I just hope they don't choose anyone who arranged bribes to IOC members. That would only confirm the low opinion Bennett and Hatch -- and increasingly the entire nation -- already have of them. Kevin McGehee Fairbanks/North Pole, AK mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Let any man who shrinks from his duty, retire now! [------------------------- 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, 3 Feb 99 23:13:51 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: The Constitution is not a menu (fwd) On Feb 3, JHill1776@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The Constitution is not a menu By Jim H. Hill Jr. After years of neglect and abuse, the Constitution has finally returned to our public discourse. The topic is presidential impeachment and the Constitution is the rulebook. In spite of all the evidence, the vote to remove Bill Clinton from office will, for some Senators, be the toughest vote of their entire careers. Yet, we as conservatives rightfully insist that our Senators stick to principle and uphold the Constitution. This has created a perplexing situation. If we demand that Congress obey the Constitution in this most difficult area, why do we not demand it on other occasions when the issues are less heated? Are we not practicing a double standard when we insist on constitutional purity during this impeachment process and then ignore the same document when debating other legislation? Daily, we allow the Federal government to extort money from Americans to maintain government's Social Security pyramid scheme, HUD, Planned Parenthood, Departments of Commerce, Energy, Education, etc. - none of which are authorized by the Constitution and all of which are outright violations of the 10th Amendment. Yet, we fail to raise even a murmur of protest over these gross acts which are far more destructive to the Constitution, and our everyday lives, than a lying president. The Constitution is not a menu from which we can pick and choose items according to our tastes, while ignoring other selections. It is a recipe for a full course meal that must be followed in its entirety, without omission, in order to savor the full experience. The Clinton trial will pass. Hopefully, the Clinton dynasty will pass with it. The question, however, is whether this short excursion into the Constitution will be "today's special" that temporarily gratifies our appetites for the moment - or the first step in the return to "a more perfect Union." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jim Hill can be reached at 8 W 3rd St., Suite 700, Winston-Salem, NC 27101; Tel: (336) 727-2597 x3043, or by email at: JHill1776@aol.com. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Call, write, or email if you have any questions or comments. Not copyrighted. Permission granted to edit, reproduce, and distribute as desired. Okay to publish name and email address. If this was sent to the wrong address or department, please forward or let me know. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For updates on Zachary Martin, send email to Michelle Moore at: Mdm1962@aol.com Zach's web site: http://www.nealstudio.com/zack/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Other editorials by Jim Hill: Education: http://capo.org/opeds/jhill312.html 2d Amendment: http://jhardin.home.mindspring.com/onerule.htm Legislating morality: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2320/art03.html Life/Abortion: http://w3.nai.net/~mpomerle/Pro-Life/Do_We_Hold_These_Truths_Today.htm A new breed is needed in the GOP: http://www.patriottrading.com/commentaries.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You can vote every day in the Internet polls: USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.htm MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com/news/op_front.asp CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Excited about Liddy Dole? Read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/09feb98/ponnuru020998.html Is GWB a conservative? You be the judge: http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/01-30-99/national_2.asp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ron Paul's Legislative Updates & Weekly Column: http://www.house.gov/paul/index.html Or listen to them toll free at: 1-888-322-1414 [------------------------- 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: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:17:06 -0600 (CST) From: Paul M Watson Subject: ACLU's Role in Planned Parenthool v. ACLA (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 01:41:16 -0500 From: Harvey Wysong To: Chris Sullivan Subject: ACLU's Role in Planned Parenthool v. ACLA Thursday, February 4, 1999 Atlanta, Georgia MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS Dear M R, Yesterday I broadcast the "Annotated AP story," in which I corrected a few of the mistatements of fact contained therein. Chris Sullivan re-mailed it and received an inquiry about the role of the ACLU in the case. He responded with this: >I haven't heard about the ACLU jumping into this with both feet on behalf >of free speech yet. I'm sure I just missed it. > >Actually I think the ACLU did side with the defendants, although I don't >know how vigorous they were. I may be wrong about this, but I'm sure [Harvey] >can correct me if so. > >Chris > ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< I'll be happy to, Chris. I apologize for neglecting this aspect of the story in the first place. In the case of Planned Parenthood et al. v. American Coalition of Life Activists et al., the ACLU file an amicus brief. The phrase derives from the Latin "amicus curiae" (friend of the court). The ACLU has long represented itself to be the guardian of free speech and, in this guise, it filed an amicus brief in PP v. ACLA. It represented to the defendants that it was filing the brief in support of the defendants, then eviscerated them by suggesting that this was a case unlike any that had preceeded it -- a case of first impression. In other words, the First Amendment didn't protect the speech of the pro-lifers. They failed to reveal to the court that the ACLU is, indeed, a partisan in the issue of abortion, strongly and vigorously supporting legalized abortion. This is a violation of legal ethics (pardon the oxymoron). But no censure or disbarment will issue in the case of the ACLU's attorneys. Rules are for your enemies. That was all the encouragement this judge needed. Instead of throwing the case out of court as a matter of law -- as he should have -- he jumped at the chance to step into the limelight for a while. He invited his friends and his wife to come to court and watch him preside in this historic "case of first impression." He even set aside one pew for "VIP seating." During the trial, he even invited the jury to step into the other courtroom to watch him impose sentence on criminal defendants. One was sentenced for issuing threats. He put a gag order on the participants during the trial, but allowed the press to sit in the trial and report all the irrelevant and prejudicial "evidence" in the newspapers of the Nation. The defendants were not allowed to talk to the reporters nor correct the record themselves through press releases. Part way through the trial, the defendants discovered that Judge Robert E. "Bobby" Jones was releasing some trial documents to the press. And what was he releasing? It was the Plaintiffs' attorney's summaries of the defendants' pre-trial depositions. Let me explain. Prior to the trial, the defendants were required to give sworn testimony to questions posed by the plaintiffs' attorneys (depositions). The depositions typically ran over 250 pages. In order to get this testimony admitted at trial "efficiently," the judge allowed the plaintiffs' attorneys to summarize the depositions of the defendants. The plaintiffs got to characterize the defendants' testimony to the jury!!! It was these statements that Judge Jones released to the press during the trial WITHOUT THE DEFENSE REBUTTALS. During the trial, I met a couple of Portland lawyers in the courthouse. After a while, they asked what I was doing in Portland. I explained. They knew nothing about the trial. They asked who the judge was, and I told them. Then I said I was trying to figure out whether he was stupid, ignorant of the law, or malevolent. They glanced at each other, then senior lawyer said, "All of the above." The younger one nodded assent. During and after this mockery of justice, the ACLU has remained curiously silent. Their role in the trial was to build and deploy a Trojan horse. Rituals of law do not constitute Justice. - -- Harvey Wysong - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #213 *************************