From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #348 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, May 31 2000 Volume 02 : Number 348 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:32:54 -0700 From: boyd@seanet.com Subject: Re: Gas Shortage Ahead? -- Precautionary Measures Indicated (fwd) Um, I'm not familiar with whats happening with Marathon and all of this - -could- be true. That said, all of the gas stations not owned by refining companies (like Chevron, BP, Exxon -owned- corporate stations) -never- have a "guarantee" that a truck will show up -ever-. Their "guarantee" is the open market for refined products, something you can track in your copy of any national paper. Turning to the financial pages, you can find the spot price for heating oil or gas pretty easily. And add up for yourself what it would cost you to open up an independent gas station (sorta) and have a "guarantee" of fuel deliveries. Now, that price -has- gone up. It ALWAYS goes up memorial day weekend because 1) Anticipated increased demand of drivers that weekend (wich has always turned true) and 2) Suppliers know your not gonna stay home that weekend if prices go up a few cents. They like money just like you do. If the sky were -really- falling, we could find independent verifiable sources of it, really. Boyd (I have enough stored to drive to work for a week regardless of "alerts") Kneeland Bill Vance wrote: > > On May 29, Huck wrote: > > [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > Anyone heard of this? > > Huck > > Norm Olson wrote: > > > To all Patriots: > > > > Having heard from three different sources in the past two > > days that gas stations may begin to close as early as Thursday > > due to a shortage, appropriate action may be necessary. > > > > One source said that the source's large Marathon station > > is playing it "day-by-day" and has no guarantee of fuel tankers > > this week-end. > > > > It may be good to begin asking questions of your local > > station managers. If a fuel shortage is coming (soaring > > prices it may indicate supply/demand problems) it would > > be good to top off and replenish reserves within the > > next 48 hours. > > > > Don't expect a media announcement or anything from the > > federal or state emergency managers. I'm topping off my > > Y2K barrels and tanks tonight, even at $1.76 per gallon. > > It's expensive, but I am genuinely concerned. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Norm Olson, Commander > > Northern Michigan Regional Militia > > [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > 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 > ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- > > Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 00 11:52:18 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Congress nulification of Fourth Amendment Rights... (fwd) On May 30, bg wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] special-memorialday(Thanks to Chester for passing this along...) PLEASE DISTRIBUTE AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE. WE ARE LOSING IT FOLKS. Senate approves police searches and seizures without warrants. Compiled by Dana Davis The United States Congress is on the verge of passing a Republican sponsored bill that would eradicate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Article IV of the Bill of Rights states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." In addition, this bill extends its authority to impede upon the First Amendment Right of "Freedom of Speech." The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, "To provide for the punishment of methamphetamine laboratory operators, provide additional resources to combat methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse in the United States, and for other purposes," has already passed through the Senate and was being deliberated by the House of Representatives as of press time. In effect, what the provision does is empower the Federal Government, State Government and local law enforcement agencies, to enter private property - homes, businesses, automobiles, etc. for any "criminal searches" without a warrant and without any legal obligation to inform the private property owner that a search and seizure was conducted until months later, if at all. If the bill becomes law, then it would grant the Federal Government power to obtain "intangible" evidence -- hard-drive data, photographs or copies made of any documents or family or personal belongings, diaries, etc. - without ever having to inform the owner that their property was searched. If physical evidence was taken then the government could wait up to 90 days later, before having to notify the owner that a secret search of their property ever occurred. David Kopel, director of research for the Independence Institute, a Colorado think tank focusing on Constitutional issues, said the bill was aimed especially at computer hard drives, which could be copied in an owner' absence and examined without the owner's knowledge. The Senate's version of the bill (S. 486) was sponsored by Senator John Ashcroft (R-Missouri). The House Bill (H.R. 2987) was sponsored by U.S. Representative Chris Cannon (R-Utah). It's primary initiative is to increase criminal penalties for the sale, production and distribution of methamphetamines, appropriate funds to crack down on "meth labs" where the drug is processed, and fund methamphetamine treatment programs. However, tucked away deep inside the legal jargon of the bill are two provisions which go far beyond the realm of methamphetamine anti-proliferation or even the war on drugs. One measure pertains to police search and seizure, while the other attempts to dictate Internet communication. Under present law, a property owner must be notified immediately of any possession seized in a criminal search, but the "Notice and Clarification" section of the methamphetamine bill (S. section 301, H.R. section 6) amends U.S. Code by stating, "Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `With respect to any issuance under this section or any other provision of law (including section 3117 and any rule), any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed pursuant to the standards, terms, and conditions set forth in section 2705, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute.' A source within the Senate Judiciary committee, speaking on condition of anonymity, admitted that the language in the search and seizure provision "slipped by everybody" in the Senate. "(Hatch and the Justice Department) buried it deep in the bill, and nobody noticed until the thing had already passed." "The Secret Searches measure is so outrageous that it would have no chance of being enacted as a bill on its own, when subjected to public scrutiny and debate," Kopel asserted. "So instead, the DOJ has nestled the Secret Search item deep inside a long bill dealing with methamphetamines." Jeanne Lapatto, spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee and its chairman, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), said she was unaware of the specific provisions in question, but defended the goals of the bill. "This is a bipartisan bill," Lapatto said. "During hearings, no one had any problems with the overall goal of the bill, which is curbing the horrible problem of methamphetamines." Another approach the bill takes to "curbing" methamphetamine usage is by making it a crime to create a hypertext link on the Internet to any site that "directly or indirectly advertises" drug paraphernalia, or distributes information about the processing or purchase of drugs (S. section 203, H.R. section 3). Under the provisions of the act, an Internet service provider, who is notified by a district attorney or representative of the Drug Enforcement Agency, that one of their hosted sites is in violation, would be required to remove the site within 48 hours or face federal criminal penalties. On top of that, another provision of the bill would make it punishable by up to ten years in prison, "To teach or demonstrate. or to distribute by any means of information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of a controlled substance." U.S. Representative Bob Barr (R-Georgia), member of the House Judiciary Committee, is leading the fight against this bill in the House. Barr asserts that the search and seizure provisions of the bill, "Have nothing to do with methamphetamines," and he believes that had the search and seizure provision been introduced as a separate bill, its chances for passage, "Would be very, very problematic." "These are not minor changes," Barr added. "These are substantive and far-reaching changes to the criminal law on search and seizure. It's unconscionable that someone would try to sneak these provisions into an unrelated bill." A spokesperson for the Justice Department, which supports the provisions, declined to comment directly, but did release a recent letter from Assistant Attorney General Robert Ruben to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Illinois). In his letter, Ruben praised the bill for providing, "Important and necessary tools for deterring the spread of methamphetamine manufacturing and abuse in our nation." Speaking on behalf of House sponsor, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah), legislative director Chris MacKay said the no-notice provision was necessary for, "Police to perform their job effectively." According to MacKay, the provision was designed to allow police to search with minimum risk to their safety and without suspects destroying evidence before they arrive, adding, "Anything we can do to win the war on drugs is worth doing." Tribune Combined Report, using with permission, amongst other sources, information compiled and written by Justin Torres of CNSNews.com and David Kopel of the Independence Institute. Send your comments to tribune@ioa.com. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 May 00 21:43:41 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fw: Fog Horn (fwd) On May 30, The McGehee Zone wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] From: "David L. Williams" To: "Dave Williams" Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 1:46 PM Subject: Fog Horn Arkansas Democrat-Gazette May 30, 2000 Editorial The conspiracy grows Vaster and vaster . . . AND SO it begins. You can almost hear the War Room gearing up, the e-mail flying, the charges being test-marketed on line. Here is the word from Charles Schumer, freshman senator and senior Clinton apologist from the First Couple's latest home state: As for that disciplinary committee in Arkansas that recommended disbarment for the president, Senator Schumer tells the New York Times, it's just "a kangaroo court" unworthy of respect. Isn't this the same Charles Schumer who, during the president's impeachment, explained that the defendant's offenses--if any--could be safely left to the judicial system? But now that it's beginning to act, the senator is outraged. Why are we not surprised? No matter how they voted in these closed proceedings, the members of this disciplinary committee will now get the familiar treatment: They'll be labeled Clinton-haters, their impartiality will be doubted, their professional credentials dismissed, and in general they'll be painted as suspect characters, and soon enough as villains darker than Guy Fawkes or even ... Kenneth Starr! Already the comparisons to that Devil Incarnate have begun. Listen to Jay Bradford, president pro tem of Arkansas' state Senate, that fortress of virtue, as he explains why a heretofore respected committee of citizens would recommend disbarment for this particular attorney and president: "It's kind of like a continuation of the special prosecutor's effort. It's an extreme right-wing group getting more out of the publicity of trying to get the president's law license." That vast right-wing conspiracy seems to be getting vaster all the time. After all, it wasn't just the Southeastern Legal Foundation that brought this complaint to the attention of the state's Supreme Court, but The Hon. (and honorable) Susan Webber Wright. Is she in on this plot, too? We would never have guessed it. Her disguise was perfect: As a federal judge, she'd ruled in the president's favor (more than once) before she found out he had given false testimony in her court. And now the conspiracy has spread to other outwardly respectable citizens: Sue Winter of Little Rock, a retired schoolteacher. And lawyers like Ken Reeves of Harrison; John Rush and Win Trafford of Pine Bluff; and Jacqueline J. Cravens and James M. Cogbill of Fort Smith. This kangaroo court doubtless meets in a cellar somewhere every Wednesday night to plot their mischief against an innocent president and American hero. AFTER ALL the fog has cleared away, and all the lawyerspeak spoken, the question facing the court in the matter of William J. Clinton, Esq., will be simple enough: Should someone who has intentionally, deliberately, repeatedly given false testimony, and obstructed the judicial process, be allowed to practice law in the State of Arkansas? To ask the question, in a society with standards, is to answer it. It may be a single case, but what is at stake in this small but highly revealing matter is a lot bigger than Bill Clinton. (So many things are.) At stake is the dignity of the law. It is whether someone in high office should be held to high standards. It is whether lawyers have a special obligation to uphold the law. To succeed, as it has succeeded year after year in complicating the simple, the fog machine must obscure any considerations so basic as the simple truth. The fog will surely grow thicker. The president himself now contends that the testimony he gave was not legally false, as if truth and falsehood become something else in a courtroom. His defenders argue that this case doesn't concern anything really important like money -- even though, after his falsehoods were revealed, the president would settle the case for $850,000. No, it concerns only petty matters like contempt of court and the integrity of the judicial process. Anyway, the president was just giving a deposition, rather than testifying in a real trial, so any oath he might have taken didn't count. King's X! Almost every day, depositions are taken in this country, and somebody holds up his right hand and swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Suppose there is no real punishment for lying a little, or a lot? For swearing falsely and undermining justice? Suppose lawyers are given a signal in a high-profile case, one that will be cited as a precedent and maybe even taught in law schools, that they won't risk anything serious -- like their license -- by a little falsifying under oath, a little obstruction of the judicial process? A precedent, and a low one at that, will be set. The law is a great teacher -- not just for good but for ill. But we haven't mentioned our favorite piece of spin so far: The president wasn't acting as a lawyer when he misled the court but testifying as a litigant. It's an interesting distinction, this flimsy one between lawyer and litigant. It is grounded on the assumption that, when a lawyer raises his hand and swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he should be held to a lower standard than he ordinarily would. Interesting. A lawyer's obligation to tell the truth, once under oath, grows lesser rather than greater. For he ceases to be a lawyer and officer of the court when he takes the stand. Yes, interesting. But not convincing. This argument may sound even stranger to those of us who have had to watch, again and again, the unbearable tape of Bill Clinton's lip-biting testimony that awful day. It is clear that he was thinking every minute as a lawyer, and only as a lawyer -- a sleazy one -- rather than as a man who has sworn to tell the truth, on his soul. Surely only someone learned in the law could have shown such smooth contempt for it. Just as only someone with supreme confidence in his boyish charm and proven appeal could have been so sure he could get away with it. (Remember how he paused and pondered, as if sincerely trying to remember whether he'd ever been alone with Monica?) HOW DID we come to this pass, to all these interesting but in the end appalling distinctions that say less about the subject under discussion than about the attitudes of those drawing them? When did we start thinking like this? Answer: When the law became a game instead of a discipline. When truth in the courtroom became something different from truth outside. When the law became a technically deft trade, like auto body repair or counterfeiting, rather than a light. When law was separated from other disciplines -- philosophy, theology, the social sciences, and, when necessary, reason itself -- and became the stuff of talk-show shouting matches and too-clever briefs. We began thinking this way when the law became something to use, not to guide us. When the adversarial process ceased to be a part of the law and metastasized into all of it. And when what came to count with us, no matter how we had to shift and trim and evade and duck and dodge, was to win. And so lose all. That is how we reached this sorry point, and why even now judges and lawyers and an occasional retired schoolteacher are heard from, reminding us of some home truths, and cutting through the fog. Even now, strangely enough, there are those in authority who are unafraid to see the obvious, and what needs to be done: disbar the shyster. This article was published on Tuesday, May 30, 2000 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 00 08:38:11 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [newsucanuse] VIN -- questions for politicians (fwd) On May 31, SlickEditor@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'Hi, what is the purpose of government?' Recently, the editor of the newspaper sent around a memo to the Opinion staff, advising us: "We need to send a questionnaire to candidates. Please give me ideas for questions. ..." I replied: # # # 1) Can lawmakers enact legislation for any purpose "in the public interest," or are they limited to those functions for which they've been delegated specific powers? Can you name some areas where government could probably do some good, but where it has no delegated power to act? If you can't name any such areas, is it still accurate to say Americans have a "government of limited powers"? Does this matter? 2) Can you name any departments or programs not specifically authorized in the state's (or the nation's) founding documents? Should someone who has sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, but who then votes to allocate tax funds to programs or departments not authorized by that Constitution, be punished? If not, why not? 3) Can you name a current tax that you would repeal? A fee? 4) Are residents of our state free to engage in any business they choose? Is operating any local business for profit a privilege, for which a citizen should apply for a permit, paying a fee or tax? Would you favor any changes in this regard? 5) Do residents of this state have a right to buy and keep machine guns? Why or why not? 6) Do residents of this state have a right to carry handguns openly on their hips without applying for or receiving a "permit"? Why or why not? Would you change current law enforcement in this area? In what way? 7) Should judges tell jurors they have a right to decide whether the law in question is constitutional? Is it a fair trial if the judge tells the jurors they do NOT have a right to decide the constitutionality of the law? Should judges be allowed to prevent defendants from presenting any defense they choose? If not, what is the proper recourse in the case of a judge who refuses to let the defendant do so? 8) Should judges exclude prospective jurors after questioning them and determining they do not favor the law which the prosecution seeks to enforce? If so, why do we still call them "random juries"? Does that mean the John Peter Zenger jury should have been stacked with crown sympathizers? Should juries have been stacked in the 1850s to guarantee convictions under the Fugitive Slave Act? Should judges be punished for thus excluding jurors based on "voir dire" questioning? Alfred the Great summarily executed judges who replaced jurors who refused to convict. Would this be a good solution for us to adopt, today? Why not? 9) Should it be legal for police to search automobiles without a warrant? Is it OK for police to tell drivers they have to consent to such a search? If a police officer searches a car without a warrant, should the police officer be arrested and put on trial? If not, why not? 10) If a police officer stops a car in which the driver is carrying a legal pistol, with a permit, should the officer disarm the driver before proceeding to write a ticket? Why or why not? 11) If police serve a search warrant which does not list any firearms, but they find firearms in the house being searched, is it OK for them to seize the firearms anyway? Why or why not? Would you favor a law to alter current practice in this regard? If so, specify. 12) Do we need more "gun control" (victim disarmament) laws? If so, name one new "gun control" law you would favor. If not, can you name a current "gun control" law you would repeal? 13) Can a tax rate be so high that it's not acceptable? If so, name a tax rate so high that citizens would be under no moral obligation to pay it. If you can't name such a rate, are you saying the government has a right to take 100 percent of what we earn and what we own? 14) Is the war on drugs succeeding? Can it succeed? Should all drugs be legalized? If not, why not? Should recreational drug users be committed for psychiatric treatment? 15) Whose powers are limited by the 10th Amendment? Can you think of any ways to improve enforcement of the 10th Amendment? No, you can't look it up. # # # Perhaps a few of these questions will make the final list. If so, I'll let you know how our current crop of local office-seekers fare. In the meantime, if you get a chance to chat with one of your local politicians at a picnic in your hometown this summer, don't fall into the old trap of asking "What are you going to do to get more funding for (insert your favorite government program here)?" Instead, try one or two of the questions above. If you still believe this is the "land of the free," the answers you hear -- or the look of horror that flashes briefly across that face before he or she spots someone across the way he just has to go see -- may shock you. Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available at 1-800-244-2224. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * * To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 00 08:35:19 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Gun control poll (fwd) On May 29, Doug Spittler wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Another poll at http://www.elections.excite.com [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 00 08:36:40 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Poll re gun control and parenting issues (fwd) On May 31, Nramancpe@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] From: "JohnBrantuk" Subject: Fw: Poll re gun control and parenting issues Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:49:19 -0700 From: To: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 9:37 AM Subject: Poll re gun control and parenting issues A parenting web site is featuring a pro-gun control poll. Thus far they have only had 18 responses, and the majority are in favor of banning handguns. We could make an impact by answering the questions ourselves, at: http://www.offspringmag.com/tools/poll/index.cfm?story=npapoll [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 00 10:43:29 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [harpazo] Something to think about (fwd) On May 30, BaBette Z. Bechtold wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I hope this will not upset you the way it did me.....read on....Deanna > With No Obligation to Educate, Schools Turn to Thought Control > By Linda Gorman > > In case you were ever in doubt, the Colorado Court of Appeals has > just > made it official. Colorado public schools have no legally enforceable > obligation to educate children. According to the court, parents and > students cannot sue school districts because they are not private > students > enrolled in a private vocational school but, instead, consist of the > general public. They have not individually bargained with the school > district, nor individually paid for specific educational services. As a > result, they cannot assert legal claims for the alleged failure to > provide > those unbargained-for services.[1] > > The Court found that the contention that the quality of education > provided by the school district is inadequate is not a matter to be > properly resolved by the courts. Had various courts not already found > legal excuses for taking control of almost every other aspect of school > operations, its restraint would be refreshing. > > In other words, the state may require that children attend school > and that everyone pay school taxes. In return, citizens get to vote for > one of the slates of school board candidates offered by the teachers > union. > > Though government entities are free to compel people to pay for > lousy services over which they have little control, private entities are > not. Private vocational schools failing to offer promised classes or > hours of instruction can be sued. > > Having mastered the art of pretending to educate those required to > attend it and having been freed of any responsibility to do otherwise, > the > Denver Public School System (DPS) is apparently planning to expand into > pretending to provide mental, medical, and behavioral health services. > To this end, the Center for Human Investment Policy at the University of > Colorado Denver was asked to develop a health/behavioral health needs > assessment survey to gather broader input to determine if principals, > nurses, psychologists, social workers, teachers and parents are in > agreement about these issues.[2] > > Judging from the loaded questions, DPS officials want the power to > pass judgment on the physical, mental, emotional, and social health of > individual children and to treat those problems as they see fit. > > What level of health and behavioral health care do you believe your > school should provide? asks question number 7. In addition to Dont know, > one may pick Basic Care, which includes referral for assessment and > treatment, Intermediate Care, which adds counseling and care for chronic > health problems, or Full Care which includes treatment for general > medical > and mental health problems and referral to specialists. There is no space > for telling DPS elites to stay out of health care delivery until they > have > mastered the art of delivering reading, writing, and arithmetic. > > Note also that mental health and behavioral problems are lumped with > medical ones despite the fact that medicine has a scientific basis and > most mental and behavioral health assessments consist of little more > than someones opinion. The potential for abuse, for drugging the rebels > and brainwashing those who disagree, is huge and already beginning to be > realized. > > According to Jon E. Dougherty writing in WorldNetDaily, Derek > Loutzenheiser, a 12-year-old student with an exemplary record in Holland, > Michigan, was labeled a potential violence risk when he suggested, in a > Social Studies class discussion, that one way to prevent school shootings > would be to arm instructors. School officials told his parents that they > would not have to involve Social Services if Derek was separated from > other students and forced to enter the schools Mentor program so that an > adult supervisor could monitor his thought processes.[3] > > Recall that Social Service bureaucrats have the power to declare > parents guilty of child abuse until proven innocent, and to take their > child from them until parents prove their innocence. > > School officials noted that Derek had violated the schools policy of > non-violence by fighting back when attacked by three older students and > had often spoken favorably about the First and Second Amendments. His > parents noted that Derek had refused to sign a Red Letter vow of peace > written by the principal that asked students to take a oath to turn in > their friends for suspicious activity and to never defend themselves if > attacked. > > In short, Derek had refused to parrot the party line and was judged > behaviorally unhealthy. The Soviets pioneered this model by declaring > those who disagreed with the government mentally aberrant and imprisoning > them in mental institutions until their thinking could be adjusted by > psychological conditioning or drugs. As DPS puts it, schools are where > one finds children, so it [sic] is the best place to offer > health/behavioral health services, children need good health to learn, so > health/behavioral health is a valid school concern, and children with > health/behavioral health challenges need medical attention in schools to > reach their potential.[4] > > DPS has a point. Judging from his behavior, Derek has already > assimilated the independence and respect for truth characteristic of > outstanding Americans. Without medical attention, he never will realize > his full potential as a good little citizen in the new world order. > > Notes: > > [[1]]Denver Parents Association et al. v. Denver Board of Education; > 98CA1309, Colorado Court of Appeals. February 3, 2000. As posted on the > Colorado Bar Associations > web site, http://www.cobar.org/coappcts/ca2000/ct02036.htm, on 10 May > 2000. > > [2] Denver Public School Health and Behavioral Health Needs Assessment > Survey. 1 May 2000. The Center for Human Investment Policy, University > of Colorado, Denver. > > [3] Jon E. Dougherty. 30 March 2000. Sixth grader targeted for pro-gun > remarks, A student defends 2nd Amendment, flagged as violence risk. > WorldNetDaily, > > > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty/200000330_xnjdo_sixth_grad.sh > tml > > as posted on the web on 9 May 2000. > > [4] Denver Public School Health and Behavioral Health Needs Assessment > Survey. 1 May 2000. The Center for Human Investment Policy, University > of Colorado, Denver. Questions 15 [2], 15 [4], and 15 [5] all of which > required an agree or disagree answer. Note that agreeing that schools > should be concerned about health does not imply that they should deliver > it. > > Linda Gorman is a Senior Fellow with the Independence Institute, a > free-market think tank in Golden, Colorado, http://i2i.org. This article > originally appeared in the Colorado Daily (Boulder), for which Linda > Gorman is a regular columnist. > > > Rebecca Kruc and associates > Mommy to many and friend to all :- ) > > Wife to Michael, mother for Jacintha, Stephen, Joshua, Marilyn, Philip, > Bethany and ??? [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- 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 - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 10:46:23 -0700 From: "Steven A. Silver" Subject: [Fwd: A "Million Mom March" of Days Gone By] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------0358D2823BCD8724108C869D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - -- Steve Silver Attorney at Law: http://www.silver-legal.com/ The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society: http://www.thelsas.org/ Citizens of America (fighting back): http://citizensofamerica.org/ Get the TRUTH About Guns: http://www.guntruths.com/ - --------------0358D2823BCD8724108C869D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.121.49]) by mail06.dfw.mindspring.net (Mindspring/Netcom Mail Service) with ESMTP id sj8sat.319.33qs88a Tue, 30 May 2000 21:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from david (pool0852.cvx29-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.179.137.87]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA14513; Tue, 30 May 2000 18:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000501bfcaa2$57e4fa40$5789b3d1@david> From: "David Codrea" To: Subject: A "Million Mom March" of Days Gone By Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 18:48:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 GunTruths.com presents a pictorial account from a "Million Mom March" of days gone by. To see it, click on the provided link (or paste into browser if it wraps). http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/Posters/1st_million_mom_march.htm WARNING: this poster presents graphic violence. It is not intended for children. If you agree that the message of this poster needs to be seen and understood, please forward this message. Please see our other posters at: http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/Posters/posters_and_other_stuff_you_can_.h tm David Codrea http://www.guntruths.com/ http://www.citizensofamerica.org/ - --------------0358D2823BCD8724108C869D-- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #348 *************************