From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #391 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Sunday, October 8 2000 Volume 02 : Number 391 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:48:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul Watson Subject: FW: HUGE VICTORY!!! CARA is almost gone! (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 04:34:36 -0700 From: Jack Perrine To: "Distribution List Suppressed (E-mail)" Subject: FW: HUGE VICTORY!!! CARA is almost gone! Actually some news that seems pleasant for a change Jack Jack Perrine | Athena Programming | 626-798-6574 _________________| 1175 N Altadena Dr | ____________ Jack@Minerva.com | Pasadena CA 91107 | FAX-398-8620 - -----Original Message----- From: LandRights Network [SMTP:alra@pacifier.com] Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 12:07 AM To: 'chuck-cushman-list@freedom.org' Subject: HUGE VICTORY!!! CARA is almost gone! American Land Rights Association - Land Rights Network PO Box 400 - Battle Ground WA 98604 Phone: 360-687-3087 - Fax: 360-687-2973 - Email: - http://www.landrights.org Legislative Office: Mike Hardiman - 508 First St SE - Washington DC 20003 Phone: 202-251-3473 - Fax: 202-543-7126 - Email: hardimanmike@aol.com HUGE VICTORY!!! CARA is almost gone! Yesterday, the House of Representatives moved CARA, the Condemnation and Relocation Act, within an inch of elimination. The crucial vote was whether to allow CARA to be considered as an amendment to the bill that finances the Department of Interior for Fiscal Year 2001. It is called a vote on the "rule," meaning approving a rule for debate which would not allow consideration of CARA. The House voted 354 to 65 IN FAVOR of the rule for debate, meaning IN FAVOR of burying CARA for the year!!! It looks like most of the Congressmen decided they had enough of the constant demands for pork barrel spending coming from Louisiana Rep. "Slick Willy" Tauzin and Alaska Rep. Don Young. Tauzin and Young SOLD OUT your property rights in exchange for millions in guaranteed trust fund cash for their home states. CARA includes the money for Louisiana and Alaska, along with over one billion dollars per year to condemn private property, as part of a deal they made with the big national environmental groups. The Greens would get cash to condemn land, while Tauzin and Young stuff their faces with pork barrel spending. Here is a comparison of CARA versus what was approved in the Interior Department Appropriations Bill provision called the Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Act (CPIA). CARA: *15 years. *Trust Fund - guaranteed spending. *$45 billion dollars. *approximately $16 to $18 billion for land acquisition. Appropriations bill: (CPIA) *6 years. *NOT a trust fund - Congress must appropriate the money each year. Congress will have oversight, there will be annual reviews. *12 billion dollars. *approximately $3 to $4 billion for land acquisition. What was approved means a substantial increase in land acquisition over current levels. However, as you can see, it is a hundred times better than the CARA Pork Barrel Land Grab. ****** IT'S NOT OVER YET ****** The enemies of private property and access to federal lands are not done yet. Here is what they had to say yesterday: "We lost a battle, but the war isn't over," said Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi reiterated that CARA "still could be added to another bill, perhaps an end-of-session spending bill." "This issue is not going away," said Representative Don Young of Alaska. Wednesday, Senator Mary Landrieu, D-La., began an informal filibuster in the Senate. It was intended to delay the Senate's consideration of a pending Interior Department appropriations bill until the advocates for CARA can develop a comeback strategy. YOU MUST DO AN ALL OUT PUSH THURSDAY AND FRIDAY. No matter what else you do, you must deluge Senator Trent Lott with calls and faxes as well as your own senators. - -----It is MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER that you call your Senators THURSDAY AND FRIDAY. There must be no CARA. There must be no dark-of-nite land grab. - -----The Interior Appropriations Bill will be voted on by the Senate shortly, perhaps Thursday. You must tell your Senators, No CARA!, No CARA!, No CARA! No dark-of-night land grab. - -----The Land Grabbers led by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott are looking for a bill to slip CARA on to. There are several other appropriations bills coming up and possibly a huge budget reconciliation bill. You must make sure your Senator understands you will hold him or her accountable if CARA is slipped into any bill period! - -----YOU MAY CALL ANY SENATOR AT the temporary FREE number (800) 648-3516 or the regular Capitol Switchboard number at (202) 224-3121. - -----YOU MUST CALL TRENT LOTT. THERE MUST BE AN ALL OUT CALL- IN TO HIS OFFICE. HIS PHONES MUST NOT STOP RINGING. ALSO SEND HIM A FAX. HERE ARE HIS NUMBERS: Majority Leaders Office: (202) 224-3135 FAX (202) 224-4639. Personal Office: (202) 224-6253 FAX (202) 224-2262. Some people are planning to call once every hour. - -----PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO YOUR ENTIRE E-MAIL LIST. _________________________________________________________________________ QUOTE OF THE DAY: Regula said the Interior appropriations bill "requires accountability" for how federal royalties are spent. "If we're disbursing federal dollars, we have the right to ask for accountability for that money," he said. Thank you, Congressman Regula. CARA, as a guaranteed trust fund, has NO accountability. Regula is a leading opponent of the CARA Land Grab. Some People Are Still Asking What Happened? Answer: The Appropriations Committee wrote new conservation legislation that provided enough money that it became a BACKFIRE that Appears Close To Heading Off the CARA FIRESTORM To enhance the chances of stopping CARA, the Appropriations Committee lite a legislative BACKFIRE to stop the CARA Fire storm by attaching a whole new Conservation bill to the Interior Appropriations Bill. They called it the Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Act (CPIA). No one is happy to use a backfire or prescriptive burn to burn their own ground. But landowners and firefighters have often used backfires to stop major fire storms. CARA IS A MONSTER FIRE STORM. It appears the appropriators used a major legislative BACKFIRE to stop CARA. And CARA is not stopped yet. The Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Act (CPIA) has some bad news for landowners. It does far less damage than CARA, but it does some damage. It looks larger than it is because the appropriators included a bunch of programs already in the budget like Forest Legacy. The Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Act (CPIA) makes more money available for land acquisition and grant money to the preservationists than exists today. But far less than CARA would. The CPIA keeps the money out of the hands of the bureaucrats unless the appropriations committee gives it to them. It puts the money in a place where you can have some influence over how it is spent. Control is better in the hands of elected Members of Congress on the Appropriations Committee than in an automatic trust fund entitlement that goes directly into the hands of the Federal bureaucrats and land agents. CARA would give far more money automatically to the bureaucrats where it would be very difficult to stop condemnations or fight to save your land. The CPIA provides much less money for acquisition than CARA. It keeps conservation funding similar to the existing Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). It makes land acquisition compete with other national priorities each year. So if changing national priorities means that other things become more important in the eyes of Congress, then there will be less appropriations for land acquisition. It is up to us to make sure Congress sees it that way. Landowners will have to be active getting the appropriators to put more money into maintenance and other priorities and less into driving unwilling sellers from their homes and farms. We can do that. With CARA, there was no place to stop it. There was no Congressional oversight. REMINDER: BE SURE TO FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. _________________________________________________________________________ **NOTE: Under Bill S. 1618 TITLE III, passed by the 105th U.S. Congress, political e-newsletters such as this cannot be considered spam as long as the sender includes contact information (above) and a method ofremoval. To be removed from future mailings just reply with REMOVE in the subject line. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 05:16:27 -0500 From: larry ball Subject: [Fwd: Fw: FBI might suspect you are an 'extremist' if ...] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------2995AFCE3B57800788B1D27B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please read the following. It is interesting and worthy of a follow-up complaint to the FBI. We might even ask them to print a retraction. Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com - --------------2995AFCE3B57800788B1D27B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: by pigeon (mbox lball) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.22 1998/04/11) Thu Oct 5 20:58:05 2000) X-From_: jon.roland@constitution.org Wed Oct 4 17:41:34 2000 Return-Path: Received: from unlinfo (unlinfo.unl.edu [129.93.1.11]) by pigeon.inebraska.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11288 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:41:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from spinnone.spinn.net (IDENT:root@[209.75.134.6]) by unlinfo (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16517 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:41:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from spinn.net.spinn.net (usr54-dialup229.mix1.Sacramento.cw.net [166.62.137.107]) by spinnone.spinn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id QAA31713; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 16:29:47 -0600 Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 15:27:55 -0800 From: Jon Roland Subject: Fw: FBI might suspect you are an 'extremist' if ... To: Paul Revere Network X-Mailer: Z-Mail Pro 6.2-beta, NetManage Inc. [ZM62_10] X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <4.3.1.2.20001004140532.00ba9910@mail.frii.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 - ------------------------ FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Smears "Pro-Gun, Anti-Government" Americans Who Might Also Flash The Constitution Or Bible Oct 4, 2000 by Larry Pratt Comedian Jeff Foxworthy has made a good living with his routines and book titled "You Might Be A Redneck If...." What he does is to list a series of things which, if true, mean you might, well, be a redneck. Much of what he says is hilarious and, for the most part, good clean fun. Following in the footsteps of what Foxworthy has done -- though unwittingly I'm sure -- the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin has given us its version of what this Southern comic has done. You might call what the Feds have done in this publication "You Might Be A Member Of An Extremist Group If...." The difference here, however, is that Foxworthy's humor is good-natured; the article in this "Bulletin" is definitely not funny and, arguably, slanders and smears a lot of decent, law-abiding, God-fearing Americans. The piece in question is titled "Vehicle Stops Involving Extremist Group Members." It appeared in the December 1999 issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Its author is identified as James Kobolt, director of the Institute For Public Safety at Lake Superior State University in Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan. The objectionable portions of this egregious article are as follows: "Members of extremist groups may reveal their affiliations in a number of ways.... Specifically, extremists' vehicles may sport bumper stickers with antigovernment or pro-gun sentiments.... The occupants of the vehicle may show other signs of extremist group involvement. Drivers who hold anti-government beliefs may... present handmade [driver's] licenses, a copy of the Constitution, a Bible, or political literature...." Well, now. So, how do you measure up? Do you pass or flunk the FBI test? Have you ever sported an "anti-government" or "pro-gun" bumper sticker? Have you ever showed a law enforcement officer a copy of the Constitution, a Bible, or "political literature" (whatever this means)? If you say "yes," then you might -- "may" -- be a member of an "extremist group." But, this is pernicious nonsense. Evidently, for the publishers of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, extremist rhetoric in pursuit of alleged extremists, is OK. When we interviewed John Ott, editor of the Bulletin to register a vigorous complaint re: the previously quoted outrageous assertions, here's the way it went: For openers, Ott readily agrees that the overwhelming majority of those with such bumper stickers are law-abiding citizens. He says the purpose of the Bulletin is "a forum for discussion" and "this is why when we edit the articles we make very sure that they use the words 'may' and 'possible' that these are signs of extremist activity and not literal or clear signs of actual extremist activity." Q: But these "extremists" may also be wearing Levis or Mohawk haircuts or be associated with a hundred other things. So, why single out pro-gun and/or anti-government sentiments on bumper stickers, or showing a cop a copy of the Constitution or a Bible? A: We're discussing officer safety during legitimate traffic stops in response to actual traffic violations. Any other traffic stops are clearly illegal. Q: But, why single out only what is mentioned as ways you 'may' encounter an 'extremist'? A: Because they have occurred and there have been incidents where this has happened. It's just a possibility." Q: But, as I say, there are, presumably, many other things associated with such extremists. So, why mention only what you mention? A: Those were just two examples. Q: But, why mention only these two? A: Because he was talking about right-wing supremacists, militia, primarily. Q: And showing a copy of the Constitution and/or Bible also makes one an extremist? A: A lot of the extremist groups believe some Millennial ideas. It's a possibility. That's all. It's a possibility. It's a suggestion for officers to be aware. Q: But, if we agree that the overwhelming majority of folks with pro-gun, anti-government bumper stickers -- and who show a copy of the Constitution and/or the Bible -- are law-abiding citizens and not extremists, how does it help a law enforcement officer to say that these things 'may' indicate an extremist? 'May' also means 'may not.' Well, says Ott, most officers know their area and groups in it. They have only a limited number of pages in the Bulletin. This is "a discussion. And I emphasize... that contributors' opinions and statements are not considered an endorsement by the FBI whatsoever." Q: I'm sorry you consider one an extremist who is anti-government. A: Not at all. Q: Not at all?! A: No, that article does not say that. These are all 'maybes' and 'possibles.' Things that officers should be aware of. Q: Our country was founded by folks who were anti-government, or at least anti-a-certain-government. A: Fine. I have no problem with that. I don't agree with all of what was in the article. But it opens a forum for discussion and gives some information for officers to look at. We didn't ask for this article. He simply submitted it. It wasn't written by an FBI employee. Q: But, it was approved by an FBI employee. A: No. Q: You're not an FBI employee? A: I am and approved it for publication. And it was approved by our Behavioral Science Unit. Q: Oh, my goodness! So, the shrinks said it was OK! So, where's this forum for discussion you keep mentioning? I see no letters-to-the-editor section. Also, the article uses the word 'extremist' as pejorative. But is being 'extreme' always bad, every time, about everything? A: It's a term that has been used in law enforcement and in other areas to describe the group of people we are talking about. And we didn't want to say rightwing conservatives. Q: But, you did say that in this conversation. A: I know. But we're more concerned with extremists, people who are involved in extreme activities. And that's obvious and that's why we used the term. Q: Right. Like people with pro-gun, anti-government bumper stickers. A: No. That's not what we're talking about. That's not even the gist of the article. Q: But the article specifically mentions these kinds of bumper stickers! And I still don't see how a cop is helped by being told that such bumper stickers may or may not indicate extremists. A: These are just clues that such people may have some views that may effect the process of the arrest. That's all. It's one tiny clue. He says we're picking on "some small parts of the article." Ott notes that he's a conservative and carries a Bible in his car. Ott says that what we're complaining about is only "a small portion" of the article "and the editing of it and the wording of it may be unfortunate..." Q: May be! There's that weasel-word again. A: And I can guarantee you that I may be more careful about editing these types of articles in the future because I am much more aware of the concerns of people like yourself because we've received about nine complaints like yours. Well, let's hope Mr. Ott will be more careful in the future. If you'd like to contact him, the address is: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, c/o Federal Bureau Of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20535-0001. - --- GOA --- [Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America located at 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151 and at http://www.gunowners.org on the web.] - ---------------End of Original Message----------------- =================================================================== Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 10/04/00 Time: 15:19:22 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org =================================================================== - --------------2995AFCE3B57800788B1D27B-- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Oct 00 08:28:08 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Gun debate rallies are full of surprises (fwd) On Oct 06, stevechr@ptd.net wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] So the leader of the Million Moms March in Bethlehem on 2 Oct 00 is a=20 convicted drunk driver! Seems to me there's a touch of irony here that=20 should be exploited to its fullest through the use of letters-to-the-editor= =20 (LTE's for all you newbies). So crank up your favorite word proccesor,=20 e-mail, or crayon and drop the Morning Call a couple of sentences on this=20 revelation. I guess it's a good thing she walked across the Bridge instead of=20 driving. Plus she had those concrete traffic barriers on the left and=20 right so she wouldn't wander off in the wrong direction. Sort of like a=20 billiard ball on a pool table. I guess she was just projecting her own inability to control her impulses=20 onto everyone else in the world. Since she knows she can't control=20 herself, she figures nobody else can either and therefore cannot be trusted= =20 with guns. What a twit. To e-mail an LTE to the Call use the following address: letters@mcall.com Or fax your LTE to 610-770-3720 If you want your LTE published, be sure to include a phone number where the= =20 editor can reach you to confirm that you wrote it and that you want it=20 published. >Headline: Gun debate rallies are full of surprises >Date: 10/06/00 > > >Not everything turns out the way it is planned. > >This week's First Monday 2000 rally in Bethlehem, we were told in advance,= =20 >was not for gun control. "It's just antiviolence," rally organizer Helen=20 >Ruch told me. > >That's not the way it turned out; the rally was largely devoted to antigun= =20 >rhetoric on signs and in speeches. > >Ruch had hoped 1,500 would join her, but 70 showed up to march across=20 >Bethlehem's Fahy Bridge. That dwindled to 40 for her postmarch rally at=20 >Moravian College. > >An anti-antigun turnout, on the other hand, surprised even the most ardent= =20 >National Rifle Association members. More than 1,000 foes of gun control=20 >lined one side of Fahy Bridge as Ruch's 70 demonstrators marched across on= =20 >the other side, then more than 2,000 showed up at Bethlehem's Rose Garden= =20 >for a rally to support the Second Amendment. > >Another surprise, given the passions on both sides, was that nearly all=20 >these people were very polite. > >At Moravian, following some truly dreadful music, Ruch hailed her "rally=20 >to attempt to end gun violence." She said there are conflicting numbers=20 >about how many people are killed by guns, but "one victim a day is too=20 >many.=85Our children do not feel safe and that's not fair." > >Then began the awfullest music you can imagine, so I bailed out to go see= =20 >how the other rally was doing. > >The pro-gun rally focused almost entirely on why gun control is bad. It=20 >was argued that crime increased after cities like New York, Washington and= =20 >Los Angeles imposed severe restrictions on citizens carrying guns, giving= =20 >criminals free rein. Other arguments were that things like gun locks and=20 >waiting periods similarly leave people defenseless. > >All that may be true, but it seems to me that if you have 2,000 zealots in= =20 >one spot, you should not waste time trying to convince them of what they=20 >already intractably believe. > >Instead, tell them how to gain political support, pool resources or=20 >persuade those not yet in your camp, including news media people, many of= =20 >whom unabashedly support those who seek to dilute the Bill of Rights. > >My sentiments have long been aligned against gun control, mainly because=20 >it abrogates part of the Bill of Rights, but also because much of the=20 >impetus comes from hysteria. > >Last year, I questioned the hysteria over gun violence in schools while=20 >there was far less outcry over violence caused by drunks. This week,=20 >figures supplied by Mothers Against Drunk Driving said drunken drivers=20 >killed 15,935 in 1998. Handgun Control, a Washington group that pushes gun= =20 >control, said there were 12,102 homicides by firearms in 1998. > >Neither figure is heartening, but the drunks are outdoing the gunslingers= =20 >when it comes to deadly violence. > >And that brings us back to Ruch and a final surprise. > >Noting her view that it's not fair for children to feel unsafe because of= =20 >guns, I asked her Thursday if she thinks it's also unfair that they feel=20 >unsafe because of the far more serious dangers from drunken drivers. > >"What does that have to do with anything?" she replied. > >I told her it has to do with her drunken driving charge. > >"I have no comment," she said. > >That's OK, because Lehigh County Court records commented plenty. > >They say Ruch was charged with public drunkenness (later dropped), driving= =20 >under the influence, and improper "emerging onto roadway" in 1996. "Driver= =20 >was given sobriety tests of balance and walking and failed all tests.=20 >Effects of alcohol were extreme," said an Allentown police report. The=20 >report said her breath test registered 0.162. > >The records say that in 1997, Ruch agreed to enter the Accelerated=20 >Rehabilitative Disposition program. Typically, when ARD is successfully=20 >completed, DUI records can be expunged. > >In any event, it seems to me that if those marching across Fahy Bridge=20 >genuinely want to curb deadly violence, they can start by demanding=20 >tougher sanctions for drunken drivers. > > > Contact Paul Carpenter > >610-820-6176 > >paul.carpenter@mcall.com > > >For more Lehigh Valley news & information, click here http://www.mcall.com >For this story, click=20 >http://www.mcall.com/html/columns/cpc/b_pg001_e15surprises.htm >(c) 2000 The Morning Call - may not be reproduced without written consent [------------------------- 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: Sat, 7 Oct 00 19:18:55 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [The Harbinger] Fw: Release: Supreme Court & Victimless Crimes (fwd) On Oct 6, John Fisher wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] From: "John M. Novak" Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 3:11 AM Subject: [The Harbinger] Fw: Release: Supreme Court & Victimless Crimes From: "Libertarian Party Announcements" Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 12:20 PM Subject: Release: Supreme Court & Victimless Crimes - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- =============================== NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org =============================== For release: October 5, 2000 =============================== For additional information: George Getz, Press Secretary Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org =============================== Should police have the power to handcuff and jail people who don't wear seatbelts? WASHINGTON, DC -- The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear five cases this session that involve the power of police to stop, search, and arrest you for drug and seatbelt violations -- proving that such "victimless crimes" are now the driving force behind the assault on our Constitutionally protected liberties, the Libertarian Party said today. "If police win the right to haul you off in handcuffs for not wearing a seatbelt, scan your house at whim with a thermal imaging gun, and set up random roadblocks so dogs can sniff your car for drugs then victimless crimes will be to blame," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "These are the issues the Supreme Court will decide this term - - - - and every one of these frightening expansions of police power is being justified by so-called crimes that have no victims. The War on Victimless Crimes has turned into an all-out War on the Bill of Rights." Starting this week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear five major cases to determine whether law enforcement has the right to stop, search, test, restrain, and arrest people to enforce drug and seatbelt laws. The cases include: * Indianapolis vs. Edmond, which will decide whether police can set up random roadblocks on public streets to question motorists and use drug-sniffing dogs to inspect their vehicles. * Ferguson vs. Charleston, which will decide whether hospitals can secretly test pregnant women for cocaine, and turn the results over to police. * Illinois vs. McArthur, which will decide whether police can restrain people from entering their homes while police are seeking a warrant to search the premises for drugs. * Atwater vs. Lago Vista, which will decide whether people can be handcuffed and hauled off to jail for not wearing a seatbelt. * Kyllo vs. United States, which will determine whether police can scan homes with a thermal imaging gun, searching for heat patterns that may indicate a marijuana-growing operation. What do all these cases have in common? They all seek a dramatic expansion of police power and they all involves "crimes" where there is no victim, noted Dasbach. "The criminal justice debate is no longer about what is permissible when catching violent criminals like murderers, rapists, and robbers -- it's now about how far law enforcement can go in violating the Fourth Amendment to catch people who harm no one but themselves," he said. The cases being heard by the Supreme Court are not an unexpected side-effect of victimless crime laws, but a natural consequence, said Dasbach. "There's a reason why police aren't setting up random roadblocks to find people who have been the victims of robbery or a violent crime," he said."In those kinds of cases, people go to the police to seek justice. But with drug and seatbelt laws, there is no victim to complain -- just people engaging in consensual behavior that harms no one but themselves. "As a result, law enforcement must engage in police-state behavior to catch the so-called criminals. To combat victimless crimes, police use sting operations, paid informers, anonymous tips, no-knock raids, warrantless searches, and high-tech surveillance. Their impulse is to always push the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment -- until they begin to routinely violate everyone's privacy and rights." It's that last aspect that should be most troubling to Americans, said Dasbach, even to people who don't use drugs or violate seatbelt laws. "When police set up a random roadblock, a hundred innocent people are inconvenienced and threatened for every one person who is arrested," he said. "Your Constitutional rights are violated, your freedom is limited, and your safety is diminished -- just so police can catch a few individuals who engage in peaceful behavior the government has criminalized." These five cases give the Supreme Court an opportunity to draw a "line in the sand" about how far law enforcement can go to fight victimless crimes, said Dasbach. "The Supreme Court has an opportunity to decide what kind of country we will live in," he said. "Will it be an America where any violation of the Bill of Rights is justified in the name of a War on Victimless Crimes? Or will it be an America where ordinary people can live in freedom, privacy, and safety, and where the Bill of Rights is respected? That's the real issue on this year's Supreme Court docket." - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBOdz9tNCSe1KnQG7RAQEzywP+KXapMGwKt859FCD0lLsGAYNikm2uKQmN otfQ1ufVqe+zrgZCvhUqhnYugF0nVCZpyAaggmMfCG2htsnDmOg/ijqqfxUtaSxE WIeRY+A9mtsd2GvEUD8Ef0m8CkzRygDo3MtUSBIG6AFOIkW1XgPcDB9Pz83uf5HN 7MCco3poANA= =tM8z - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008 Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072 - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at: http://www.lp.org/action/email.html Alternatively, you may also send a message to with just the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line. YOU can help contribute to the Harbinger just by clicking on my articles listed here: http://www.themestream.com/authors/72459.html You can also help by using the Harbinger Book Store for your book purchases. A percentage of each sale goes to us. http://www.cazekiel.org/bookstore/index.htm Thank you for your support. Visit the Harbinger website at http://www.cazekiel.org/harbinger/ [------------------------- 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: Sat, 7 Oct 00 19:20:24 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Urgent alert: Congress on verge of approving warrantless secret searches (fwd) On Oct 6, Michael Jones wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] From: David Kopel [mailto:davekopel@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 1:27 PM Subject: Urgent alert: Congress on verge of approving warrantless secret searches By Dave Kopel Independence Institute, http://i2i.org [Advance draft of article scheduled for publication in National Review Online, http://www.nationalreview.com] Please feel free to forward. No person s liberty is safe in the last week of Congress traditionally a time when civil liberties invasions such as wire-tapping, gun prohibitions, and the like are snuck through in the final frantic hours, with no opportunity for public opposition. This Congress is no exception. As soon as Tuesday, the House may vote on a bill, which has already passed the Senate, to drastically expand government power to conduct secret searches without judicial approval. The bill in question comes from Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). It is S. 2516, The Fugitive Apprehension Act. The bill allows the government to obtain any kind of document it wants, without first getting a search warrant or a subpoena from a court. These documents include any written or electronic document possessed by an individual or possessed by a third party (such as bank records, credit card records, telephone records, school records, or an Internet Service Provider s customer records). In other words, the bill guts the Fourth Amendment requirement that private documents should be searched only after a court issues a warrant based upon probable cause. Even worse, section 3(g) of the bill allows these document seizures to be conducted secretly, so that the individual might never be told that his bank records, Internet records, or other documents have been searched by the government. The bill currently applies to apprehension of fugitives, which include people who have been charged (not convicted) of a crime, at both the federal or state level. In other words, if your wife s second cousin never showed up in court for his drunk driving trial, the government could look at your bank records, telephone records, Internet records, and every other document about you without a court order, and without ever telling you. There is no law enforcement need for this provision. Under the All Writs Act, a United States Attorney can go to court, and present reasons why he needs access to private records. If the court agrees (it almost always does), the court issues a subpoena to obtain the records. This system is working well, and, notably, the United States Attorneys are not asking to change the law. Even so, there is a very strong chance that S. 2516 will become law next week, unless Congress hears of widespread opposition. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is leading the fight against the bill on Capitol Hill, is urging to citizens to contact their Representatives and their Senators over the weekend and on Tuesday morning, in every way possible: at town hall meetings, by calling DC and local Congressional offices, and by sending e-mail or faxes. Because House Speaker Dennis Hastert has great discretion over whether to bring S. 2516 to the House floor, King urges people all over the U.S. to call his office. The main Congressman opposing S. 2516 is Representative Bob Barr (R-Georgia). The very conservative Barr is a former United States Attorney, and one of the most prominent law and order Republicans in Congress as shown by his leadership in the effort to impeach President Clinton. While the ACLU is generally considered liberal, and Barr conservative, both agree that protecting the Fourth Amendment transcends party or ideology. Should S. 2516 become law, it would set a precedent for warrantless, secret searches on other subjects including firearms laws. This is one reason why Barr, one of the staunchest Second Amendment defenders in Congress, is opposing the bill. There is also a possibility that S. 2516 may be snuck through as an amendment to HR 3048, The Presidential Protection Act of 2000. Of course S. 2516 has nothing to do with Presidential Protection. Instead, the bill is about constitutional destruction. [------------------------- 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: Sat, 7 Oct 00 22:28:36 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: U.N. Standing Military Now Certain (fwd) On Oct 7, Steve Moser wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Message: 11 Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:01:18 EDT From: KnottyHEK@aol.com Subject: U.N. Standing Military Now Certain U.N. Standing Military Now Certain By Allen Quist On Thursday, September 7, the U.N. Security Council issued a press release highlighting what it determined to be a highly significant accomplishment of the U.N. Millennium Conference. This press release stated that the U.N. will now "obtain trained and properly equipped [military] personnel for peacekeeping operations." (Security Council Press Release SC/6919) That is, the U.N. will now create its own standing military. United Press International (UPI), on 9-9-2000, described the new standing military this way: "The 'Kofi doctrine' envisages battalion-size units of regular armies from major nations on permanent stand-by" that can be rushed "at the shortest notice into nations" whenever a violation of U.N. objectives "appears to be imminent." (http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/8/214857) UPI also said that: "Such units are to be trained by the elite, professional British army at a center that the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair has already agreed to set up." U.N. military operations have come a long way since the U.N.'s founding in 1945. No longer will U.N. troops be under the command of their own nation; now the U.N. military will be structured so the troops will be under U.N. command. No longer will U.N. troops be trained exclusively by their home country; now the troops will be trained by U.N. commanders. No longer does the U.N and its troops exist primarily to protect the national security of the nations of the world, now it exists largely for the purpose of intervention into the internal matters of the nations, including intervention to deal with what it calls "the root causes of conflict." One-World Government advocates have always said that a U.N. standing military was a key ingredient of their utopian dream-world. The One-Worlders know that if the U.N has its own military, and if it can intervene into the internal affairs of nations, then it is the U.N. that is sovereign, not the nations. Indeed, U.N. Secretary- General, Kofi Annan, has repeatedly said that national boundaries will no longer be considered a barrier for U.N. intervention. The One-Worlders have had their way -- and the unsuspecting American public has no idea of the enormous erosion of their freedom which has just taken place. Because One-World Government is now so far advanced, some Americans now say that we are beyond the point of no return. Our national freedom and sovereignty are now gone, they say. They may be right; but let us hope they are wrong. Clearly, national freedom versus One-World Government is the major battle of our time. Are there enough patriots left to save our experiment with freedom? That we don't know. We do know that the only candidates for high office worth supporting are those who are totally committed to national freedom. We also know that our nation was birthed by those who were willing to put everything on the line in order to create a nation that was free. Is anything less asked of us today? Allen Quist was a professor at Bethany Lutheran College from 1968 to 1982. He currently teaches World Politics at Bethany on a part- time basis. He was a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives from 1983 to 1989. He was the Republican-endorsed candidate for Governor of Minnesota in 1994. He is the author of three books, the most recent being, "The Seamless Web: Minnesota's New Education System." (1999 copyright). [------------------------- 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!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #391 *************************