From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 Sep 1996 00:58:22 PST 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'll have additional evidence if the Station is cheating on their Public File. 5.a. Watch their commercials for a few days to a week, listing all their advertisers. Go to the Public Library and ask them for help in locating those books that have the addresses for the nation's business headquarters, 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). 5.b. The above, (5.a.), is a lot easier and less time consuming if you're dealing with a newspaper's or a magazine's ads. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: U.S. Environmental agency begins armed raids... Date: 01 Sep 1996 01:17:27 -0700 (PDT) >Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 22:55:06 -0400 >X-Sender: plcoffr@alpha.wcoil.com >To: gdoty@earthlink.net >From: plcoffr@alpha.wcoil.com (Scott) >Subject: U.S. Environmental agency begins armed raids... >X-UIDL: de7152f0cde883d53b70bc8a58e95b60 > >>Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 15:29:34 -0400 (EDT) >>X-Sender: jwhitley@inforamp.net >>From: jwhitley@inforamp.net (John K. Whitley) >>Subject: U.S. Environmental agency begins armed raids... >>Apparently-To: >>X-UIDL: 841546002.000 >> >>This, as recipients of this list may already be aware, is beginning >>to form a warning pattern. >> >>Under the guise of "protecting the environment", property rights >>are being steadily stripped away and the Draconian Wildlands >>Project [which aims to return 50% of North America to "wilderness", >>cramming the human population into restricted "human settlement >>zones"] is being implemented steadily by a combination of >>fiat regulations by government agencies and energetic grassroots >>work by immensely-powerful environmental organizations. An article >>in a forthcoming issue of THE NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE >>will give you the full and chilling details on this secretive >>plan to re-orient society around environmental and large >>mammal [especially carnivore] needs instead of around human >>requirements and goals. >> >>Coupled with this "reorientation" of society will be strict >>restrictions on travel between zones [all roads which currently >>go through or cross wildness reserves, buffer zones or their >>intricate network of continent-wide connecting "corridors" >>will be ripped up - unless animals find them useful for >>passage through difficult terrain] and a return to subsistence >> - sorry, "sustainable" - economies in the human settlement >>zones. In other words, if you can't make it locally, you >>won't be able to ship it in - but you *will* be able to >>experience 17th or 18th century standards of living firsthand. >>All of which will, of course, help to massively and quickly >>reduce the population - another goal of these "eco-warrior" >>social engineers. >> >>For a fascinating insight into the *ultimate* goals of the >>elite-backed environmental movement, read the page >>entitled "environmentalism" on THE NEW WORLD ORDER >>INTELLIGENCE UPDATE Web site at: >> http://www.inforamp.net/~jwhitley >> >>This re-post is a clear indication of more similar >>incidents to come, as the "enviromental social control" >>agenda is backed up at the local level with the intimidating >>firepower of state and federal agencies. >> >>And soon, if you'll forgive the expression in this context, >>raids like this will seem "so natural" and justifiable to >>a population steadily brainwashed with the virtues of the >>environmental movement and the sanctity of "Gaia" - the >>new Goddess Earth. >> >> John Whitley, Editor >> NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE >> >>_____________________forwarded message______________________ >>Return-path: >>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 02:59 -0500 (EST) >>From: lindat@iquest.NET (Linda Thompson) >>Subject: NJ State worker suspended for criticising armed raid >>X-Sender: lindat@pop.iquest.net >>To: lindat@iquest.NET >> >>AEN News >>New Jersey State employee suspended for criticizing armed raid >>from: >> >> I am an employee of the New Jersey Department of Environmental >>Protection (DEP) who was outraged when I read in the newspaper >>that my Department had conducted an ARMED RAID on a man's HOME to >>seize TURTLES!!! I typed the newspaper article into my PC and >>uploaded it to an Internet list server. Another State employee >>saw the post and complained to the Director of the Division of >>Fish, Game and Wildlife, Bob McDowell. Mr. McDowell was highly >>offended that anyone would dare criticize his Division's armed >>assault. McDowell stormed into the Commissioner's office and >>demanded that I be disciplined. The Bureau Chief of the Bureau of >>Air Monitoring (my Bureau) was pressured into calling for an >>official reprimand to be placed in my file. However this did not >>satisfy McDowell. He bullied the Office of Employee Relations >>into giving me a three month suspension. It's ironic that this is >>exactly the same punishment given to three DEP employees for >>circulating racist and sexist jokes through e-mail. The precedent >>is that criticism of public "servants" is equivalent to racism >>and sexism. >> I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. McDowell at my preliminary >>hearing on July 17. He clearly suffers from "Napoleon complex"; >>that is he feels he has to make up for his short, scrawny stature >>with a bitter, mean and nasty disposition. Other employees of the >>Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife have confirmed that he is a >>tyrant wannabee. Of course this management style fits in >>perfectly with the new eco-fascism. >> The official disciplinary notice, sent to me by certified >>mail, states; "On April 1, 1996 you posted a message on the >>Internet. The subject of the message was 'Environmental Police >>State.' This message was highly derogatory to the Department of >>Environmental Protection and the Division of Fish, Game and >>Wildlife. Also, the message defamed the Commissioner of the >>Department of Environmental Protection and the Director of the >>Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife." >> Anyone who saw the original post knows it contained nothing >>defamatory or derogatory, except for insulting the Judge who >>presided over this case by stating he has "cabbage for brains." >>Of course I'm sure that Mr. McDowell does not like to be referred >>to as a "public servant." >> If you didn't see the original post titled "Environmental >>Police State," let me know and I'll send it. The bulk of the >>message was the newspaper account of the armed raid on Douglas >>Albert's home. Mr. Albert's crime was getting an endangered >>species of turtle to reproduce in captivity. Apparently the eco- >>fascists want to make sure endangered species stay endangered. >>This is how they justify their existence. If an endangered >>species recovers, the land use restrictions they want cannot be >>justified. This is totally unacceptable to the eco-fascists who >>seek to abolish all property rights. Mr. Albert had to be stopped >>under any pretext they could fabricate. So Mr. Albert's years of >>painstaking research was destroyed in one day by the jack-booted >>government thugs of DEP's Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife and >>armed, flak vested agents from the Bureau of Law Enforcement, New >>Jersey's mini-version of the BATF. >> McDowell was also irritated because I included his fax number >>and E-mail address. This is public information. I got them from >>DEP's own BBS. Here they are again: >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection >>Robert C. Shinn, Jr., Commissioner >>401 East State Street, CN-402 >>Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 >> >> Voice: 609-292-2885 >> Fax: 609-292-7695 >>E-mail: >> >>New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection >>Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife >>Bob McDowell, Director >>501 East State Street, CN-400 >>Trenton, NJ 08625-0400 >> >> Voice: 609-292-9410 >> Fax: 609-984-1414 >>E-mail: >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Note: If you send e-mail, you now get a message stating that the >>address is no longer valid. However, I know they are still >>receiving the messages. A friend of mine sent e-mail and told me >>about the "invalid address" message. The next day I saw a copy of >>the message laying on my Bureau Chief's desk. This must be a >>trick to discourage spam. Don't be discouraged. >> >> This is not an isolated case. There's a pattern of abuse at >>this Department, in other states as well as at the federal level. >>The environmental agencies of government have been coopted by >>eco-fascists. They have no regard for the U.S. Constitution and >>seek to abolish all property rights. The Endangered Species Act >>is just a means to this end. These dangerous subversives must be >>exposed. They are the WATERMELON GANG, cloaked in tree hugging >>green, they are really communist red on the inside. I >>currently have no way to separate organizations that support >>common sense environmental protection and those which promote a >>radical communist and globalist political agenda. I encourage >>everyone to actively oppose all environmentalist organizations >>until you can determine their true intentions. Instead, support >>the property rights movement and demand the restoration of >>government as defined by the Constitution of the United States of >>America. Don't surrender any of your God-given rights to a >>tyrannical government, whether state or federal, and oppose the >>establishment of a one-world government. Join the fight for >>freedom. The inalienable rights our Founding Fathers fought for >>are more important than any environmental issue. >> >>Consider the following: >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of >>land to public purposes" >> >>-- First plank of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx >> >>"We reject the idea of private property" >> >>-- Peter Berle, President, National Audubon Society >> >>To Mr. Berle: I REJECT YOU. You are a TRAITOR! Get out of my >>country! >> >>"In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate >>350,000 people per day." >> >>-- Dr. Jacques Cousteau >> >>To Dr. Cousteau: You can start by eliminating yourself!!! >> >>"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrial >>civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring it >>about?" >> >>-- Maurice Strong, Chairman, Rio Earth Summit >> >>To Mr. Strong: Are you the REAL Unibomber? Or did you forget to >>take your medication that day? >> >>"Endangered Species is the wedge for imposing a new land ethic >>that compares land ownership to slaves and involves discarding >>that concept of property and trying to find a different >>understanding of the landscape" >> >>-- Bruce Babbit, Secretary of the Interior >> >>To Mr. Ba-Ba-Babbit: It's YOU we need to discard. >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>My fellow patriots: >> >>Get informed. If you are informed, inform others. Here are some >>sources of additional information: >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Video: Unfriendly Fire (2 hrs 40 min) >> >>Shows the real truth behind Rio and Bio-Diversity. Astounding >>U.N. documentation to prove the real intent. Shows huge land grab >>maps done secretly by our government. >> >>$24.95 >>Best Video Productions >>P.O. Box 69 >>Wheeler, WI 54772 >>1-800-257-2672 (orders) >>1-715-632-2316 (info) >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Video: Behind the Green Curtain (90 min) >> >>The dark reality of the environmentalist movement. It reveals the >>hidden agenda of power, control, and the elimination of private >>property. >> >>$29.95 + $3.00 S/H >>Tree Top Fulfillment >>P.O. Box 5326 >>Evansville, IN 47716 >>1-800-618-7772 (orders) >>1-812-477-8628 (info) >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Video: Mad As Hell >> >>by Hollywood producer Aaron Russo (The Rose, Trading Places) >> >>Covers property seizures, warrantless searches, suppression of >>non-traditional cancer treatment, expansion of government >>wiretapping, public schools brainwashing children, the coming >>national ID and more. >> >>Mad As Hell >>P.O. Box 27740 >>Las Vegas, Nevada 89126 >>1-310-289-4633 >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>I'll continue to keep you posted as more information becomes >>available. >> >>Regards, >> >>W. David Kuehne >> >>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >> >>"In the beginning of change, the Patriot is a scarce man; hated >>and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join >>him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." >> >>-- Mark Twain >> >>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >> >> >> >>Kind regards, >> >>******************** V *************************** >> DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER. >>*************************************************** >> >>Linda Thompson >> >>Dr. Linda Thompson >>American Justice Federation >>Internet: lindat@iquest.net >> >>**************************************************** >> Remember Waco. Remember Oklahoma. >> The Murderers are still free and >> running OUR country. >>**************************************************** >> PATRIOT and PROUD. >>**************************************************** >>Patriot. n. a person who loves his native country and will >>do all he can for it. >> >>The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English >>Language, 1991 Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition. >> >>The next time you see the media whores claim someone is >>a "self-styled patriot" tell them that is redundant and they >>are showing their ignorance. >>____________________________________________________________ >> >>Visit THE NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE Web page at: >> http://www.inforamp.net/~jwhitley >> >> WOULD YOU LIKE US TO SPEAK ON YOUR LOCAL TALK-RADIO SHOW? >> >>Talk-radio is one of the fastest and most effective ways of >>waking up large numbers of our fellow-citizens to the truth! >>The Editor of the NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE has >>recently been interviewed concerning the Bilderbergers, the >>New World Order, the elite's plans for global government, >>the draconian Wildlands Project, the attack on property rights, >>the link between environmentalism and the NWO, and the coming >>global famine in one- and two-hour talk-radio shows on KGNW, >>Seattle; WOAI, San Antonio; KVET, Austin; Radio Liberty, >>California; the 100-station Derry Brownfield network, and other >>stations. Listener response through call-ins and letters has >>been tremendous. If you are a radio talk show host and you'd >>like to introduce these current and critical topics to your >>listening audience, call [416-481 4868], fax us [416-322 7238 >>or 322 3686], or e-mail us [jwhitley@inforam.net]. If the >>scheduling is mutually convenient, we'll be glad to provide you >>with a knowledgeable and interesting interviewee. Or if you're >>an informed listener and you'd like to suggest that your favourite >>local talk-show host call us, we'd be glad to work with him or her >>on this. >> >>You can obtain a Review Copy of THE NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE >>UPDATE [each issue is typically 30-50 pages of small but clear type] >>by sending Can$12, US$10, Overseas Can$14, or Australian$18 to: >>NEW WORLD ORDER INTELLIGENCE UPDATE, 651 Mount Pleasant Road, >>Toronto, Canada M4S 2N2. Visa or Mastercard orders may be phoned or >>faxed to the numbers shown above, or e-mailed to us. >> >>For a copy of our meticulously-researched, best-selling Special >>Report on THE PLANNED U.S. AND CANADIAN CONCENTRATION CAMP PROGRAM, >>send Can$12 or US$10 to cover printing and postage costs. >>____________________________________________________________________ >> >> [this item may be re-posted] >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Poll: Scandal Cost Clinton Date: 01 Sep 1996 08:11:17 -0500 >>supporters, 6 percent said the resignation made them less likely >>to vote for the president. >Oh wow, this means that less than 3% of all voters, and if all of them went >over to Dole, he would still be behind in the polls. A more interesting >number would be the fraction of the previously uncommitted who were now less >likely to vote for Clinton, because of the "scandal". ----- That confused me at first too because it seemed to contradict the earlier statement about "nearly 25 percent...". But then I looked carefully at the text and made the distinction between "nearly a quarter of U.S. voters surveyed" and "of those describing themselves as Clinton supporters" As I interpret this (full text below), the distinction is between those who *might* vote for klintoon vs. those who definitely *would* vote for klintoon. Based on the last election result (and polls up until the time Morris came in), klintoon's support was about 40% of the vote (I know - it's hard to believe that many people have their head up their arse. But don't blame me - I didn't give women the right to vote!). The rest of the those putting klintoon way ahead recently (above the 40% hard core klintoon supporters) came from the vast undecided middle. And this poll seems to indicate that a sizeable fraction of *them* have gone back to where they were before Morris created that klintoon-the-centrist caricature. The Marxist Media will do anything to confuse people whenever there is anything negative about their BillyBoy, including polls. But if my interpretation of this confusing report is correct, klintoon has lost a sizeable part of the newly gained "middle" that he won over by looking more centrist. And as someone commented, with Morris gone klintoon will snap back to the FarLeft like a broken bungie cord. When will the FarLeft ever learn: You just can't fool all of the people all of the time. Bob Knauer +++++++++ Nearly a quarter of U.S. voters surveyed said they were less likely to vote for President Clinton following the resignation of his top campaign adviser Dick Morris, a poll released today said. Morris quit the campaign this week after a sensationalist supermarket tabloid reported he had a year-long affair with a prostitute who claimed he confided White House secrets to her. The Newsweek poll conducted on Thursday found 24 percent of 401 respondents ``less likely'' to vote for Clinton because of the Morris resignation. Of those describing themselves as Clinton supporters, 6 percent said the resignation made them less likely to vote for the president. ++++++++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: US=USSR! First it was labor permits, now it's travel permits! Date: 01 Sep 1996 10:12:38 -0400 (EDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Washington Post, August 31, 1996, pp. A1, A4, A6. New Airport Bomb Plan Considered Computer Profiles, High-Tech Detectors Central to System By Roberto Suro A presidential commission on aviation security is considering a bomb detection plan that would require U.S. airlines to scrutinize all passengers at U.S. airports using massive computer files to identify potential terrorists or other suspicious individuals, according to senior federal officials. If the plan is enacted, the federal government would require creation of a computer profiling system that would examine passengers' bill-paying records, flying habits and much other data to determine which checked baggage should undergo examination by sophisticated explosives detection equipment. Passengers would become aware of the new procedure only if a machine suggested a bomb were present in their baggage, and it had to be opened for a physical check. Numerous legal issues still need to be resolved, including thorny civil liberties questions such as whether the airlines would be given access to information from government computer systems like those containing criminal records. Nevertheless, a plan combining computerized profiling and high-tech detection devices is the chief option being presented to the commission by federal agencies and White House staff, according to senior officials involved in the deliberations. The commission was created by President Clinton in the wake of the suspicious July 17 explosion of Trans World Airlines Flight 800, which killed 230 people. The panel, headed by Vice President Gore, is due to recommend a plan on Sept. 9 for installing a nationwide explosives detection system. Under the proposal, the Federal Aviation Administration would establish the criteria for passenger profile databases, but they would be operated by the airlines, probably in connection with reservation systems. Officials said that in addition to the civil liberties concerns, a key technical challenge is to create a profiling method that would recognize potential threats with a high degree of certainty. "This is something that if you didn't have a bit of an ulcer about it initially, it is because you don't understand the problem," said Cathal L. Flynn, associate FAA administrator for civil aviation security. The chief advantage of computerized profiling is that it allows authorities to determine that a large majority of passengers are not suspicious, thus greatly reducing the number of bags requiring examination. In turn that resolves a problem that has bedeviled airport security officials around the world for years: the kind of equipment sensitive enough to detect most bombs operates too slowly and is too expensive to use on every suitcase checked on an airplane without creating unacceptable delays. "Anyone who has thought this through realizes that [passenger] profiling has to be part of the way we resolve the dilemmas inherent in creating an explosive detection system," said Elaine Kamarck, a senior policy adviser to Gore. His 18-member commission is made up primarily of current and former government officials and technical experts. Kamarck, who is directing staff work for the commission, noted the U.S. Customs Service has made extensive use of computerized profiling to improve efficiency of baggage and cargo inspection procedures at Miami International Airport as part of Gore's government re-engineering initiative. Rather than screen all bags and cargo as in the past, Customs officials in Miami now use profiling to identify the majority of material that does not merit close scrutiny, such as cargo from regular, well-known shippers. That has allowed a concentration of resources on suspicious travelers and cargoes and, as a result, drug seizures have increased, Customs officials say. In the wake of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, Congress passed a law in 1990 requiring installation of a nationwide airport bomb detection system, but a variety of factors has stymied the effort. Clinton, in his acceptance speech to the Democratic National Convention Thursday night, reiterated his commitment to quick deployment of such a system. So far, only one device has been proposed for certification under the strict requirements for explosives detection developed by the FAA in conjunction with law enforcement and scientific agencies under mandates established in the 1990 law. That device, certified in December 1994, is the CTX-5000 manufactured by InVision Technologies Inc. of Foster City, Calif. The CTX-5000 uses a combination of rapid computing capacity, X-rays and CAT scans of the sort used in medical diagnosis to locate suspicious objects and then analyze its mass and density. However, in extensive field trials the machine has proved too slow to handle the full flow of a major airport baggage-handling system, according to federal officials. Computerized profiling would identify most passengers as families on vacation, frequent business travelers or some other category of person unlikely to pose a threat. The remaining baggage, belonging to anyone not easily cleared, would be subjected to inspection by a sensitive device, like the CTX-5000. Such a plan is not the only solution to the challenge of finding bombs in checked baggage. The United Kingdom, Belgium and several other European countries have developed systems that rely on several layers of detection devices. In these systems a cruder but quicker detection device, like a high powered X-ray, checks baggage first. It allows most bags to be passed on to the aircraft but diverts some deemed suspicious to a closer check by slower and more thorough devices, like the CTX-5000. Israel uses a combination of profiling and intensive interviewing of passengers in a process that also winnows down the number of people and bags that require closer scrutiny. Israeli airports also use detection equipment, including the CTX-5000, to examine suspect baggage. The European system, relies on an initial look by devices less sensitive than those mandated under U.S. standards, has been judged by U.S. officials as potentially unreliable, particularly for unusual or hard-to-detect explosives. Computerized profiling, as it will be presented to the Gore commission, would look at a wide range of information about passengers, according to Flynn. "They'll need to be able to determine that you are who you say you are, that you are of fixed abode, that you are traveling with family, that you have so many miles flying recently with that airline, that you have been paying and receiving bills at a certain address," Flynn said. "There are those fields and many, many more others that will go into determining who get selected for detection." Flynn emphasized the objective of computerized profiling is not to catch potential wrongdoers of any sort. Rather, the goal is to identify all the people among those boarding a plane whose baggage might justify further scrutiny. "We are going to err on a whole lot of people whose bags are going to be screened and who are innocent, and that error in favor of screening innocent baggage will be by a factor of several million to one" over luggage of guilty parties, Flynn said. U.S. airlines mow use several types of profiling under heightened security measures mandated by the FAA over the past year. For example, someone who pays cash for a ticket and is traveling alone will undergo more detailed questioning at the check-in counter than other travelers. In the past, airlines had been expected to assume the multimillion-dollar costs of acquiring and installing an explosive detection system, but since the TWA 800 crash the Clinton administration has indicated it will propose government funding for a substantial part of the initial expense. The FAA has supported research and development work on computerized profiling since February 1994, and is now funding a development project with Northwest Airlines. Virtually the entire federal law enforcement and intelligence establishment has participated in developing the criteria for a database, Flynn said. Since the TWA crash "we have been accelerating the hell out of it," Flynn said, predicting development work could be completed within months. But even then, he said, "there are a whole variety of constitutional and legal questions that will still have to be resolved before this can go forward." Would the airlines store information on individuals? Would they go out and seek information from credit bureaus and other private sources? An important factor in favor of the plan, he argued, is that by moving toward deployment with profiling and the CTX-5000 the government will create incentives for high-tech industries to enter the field more aggressively. "We can show that it can be done," Flynn said, "and that is going to cause boards and heads of engineering departments to say, 'Don't tell me it cannot be done. Let's do it cheaper, faster and better.' " Such equipment emerging from private laboratories might lessen reliance on profiling, Flynn said, but, in the meantime, he acknowledged the Gore commission will have to wrestle with the unknowns of a system that relies on computerized judgments on human personalities and a detection device that is still undergoing field trials. ----- FOR MORE INFORMATION: To learn what criteria the FAA uses to assess security at foreign airports, click on the above symbol [a monitor] on the front page of The Post's site on the World Wide Web at http//www.washingtonpost.com [End] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Poll: Scandal Cost Clinton Date: 01 Sep 1996 10:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Anybody who has followed my postings here should know I'm no Democrat and no Clinton booster. That said, I think Clinton is going to win - and probably win big. He just happens to be the beneficiary of an historical accident: that the Democrat party used to have a reputation as being for working people and against "Big Money." Contrary to all media hype, I believe there has been a steady drop over the last decade in the standard of living of ordinary working people, who are growing ever more fearful and more angry. Neither party really gives a rodent's rear, of course, but I think the Democrat party will benefit from its historical position as voters toss a coin and pull a lever. Just my opinion of course ... bd On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > >>supporters, 6 percent said the resignation made them less likely > >>to vote for the president. > > >Oh wow, this means that less than 3% of all voters, and if all of them went > >over to Dole, he would still be behind in the polls. A more interesting > >number would be the fraction of the previously uncommitted who were now less > >likely to vote for Clinton, because of the "scandal". > > ----- > > That confused me at first too because it seemed to contradict the earlier > statement about "nearly 25 percent...". But then I looked carefully at the > text and made the distinction between "nearly a quarter of U.S. voters > surveyed" and "of those describing themselves as Clinton supporters" > > As I interpret this (full text below), the distinction is between those who > *might* vote for klintoon vs. those who definitely *would* vote for > klintoon. Based on the last election result (and polls up until the time > Morris came in), klintoon's support was about 40% of the vote (I know - it's > hard to believe that many people have their head up their arse. But don't > blame me - I didn't give women the right to vote!). > > The rest of the those putting klintoon way ahead recently (above the 40% > hard core klintoon supporters) came from the vast undecided middle. And this > poll seems to indicate that a sizeable fraction of *them* have gone back to > where they were before Morris created that klintoon-the-centrist caricature. > > The Marxist Media will do anything to confuse people whenever there is > anything negative about their BillyBoy, including polls. But if my > interpretation of this confusing report is correct, klintoon has lost a > sizeable part of the newly gained "middle" that he won over by looking more > centrist. And as someone commented, with Morris gone klintoon will snap back > to the FarLeft like a broken bungie cord. > > When will the FarLeft ever learn: You just can't fool all of the people all > of the time. > > Bob Knauer > > +++++++++ > > Nearly a quarter of U.S. voters surveyed said they were less > likely to vote for President Clinton following the resignation > of his top campaign adviser Dick Morris, a poll released today > said. Morris quit the campaign this week after a sensationalist > supermarket tabloid reported he had a year-long affair with a > prostitute who claimed he confided White House secrets to her. > The Newsweek poll conducted on Thursday found 24 percent of 401 > respondents ``less likely'' to vote for Clinton because of the > Morris resignation. Of those describing themselves as Clinton > supporters, 6 percent said the resignation made them less likely > to vote for the president. > > ++++++++++ > > -- > > ************************************************** > A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing > Corporation World Wide Web Publishing > > http://www.aimtec.com/ > ************************************************** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fwd: LSAS presses 2nd Amendment case (Contributions Needed) (fwd) Date: 01 Sep 1996 14:23:01 PST On Sep 1, C L Hamilton wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] X-No-Archive: Yes Needed) Posted to texas-gun-owners by Joe Sylvester At 07:33 PM 9/1/96 GMT, you wrote: > >why isn't the NRA supporting this? What does the NRA say about this? >Where do they stand? > >we, the members, want to know what we are getting for our money - and >I think that we, the members, would want the NRA to support this. >If I knew the NRA's email address, I would send all of this on to >them. > >thanks >chas > >chasm@phoenix.net Agent .99e.16 >Houston, TX >X-No-Archive: Yes Their homepage is: http://www.nra.org You you may find more email addresses there. Tanya Metaska, head of the NRA/ILA is : tm@nra.org, however she is known to read the noban list, (noban@mainstream.net) and you might repost there. ===================== Organization: Southwest Desert Rats LSAS presses 2nd Amendment case This can also be viewed on http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/law9strk.html ====== The Ninth Circuit Attacks Another Personal Freedom A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit recently held in Hickman v. Sherman Block, et al. (96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3934) that the Second Amendment is an anachronism intended only to protect states' "right" to maintain militias. This means that, despite what you think, and what the Second Amendment says, you really do not have a right to own firearms. The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society has contacted many of the most notable constitutional scholars. Although there is a "down side" to appealing this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, there appears to be a general consensus that now is the time, and this is the case. I. Why Hickman should be appealed. Over the years, many in the gun-owning community have debated the wisdom of bringing a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court. The concern has been that the Court may rule once and for all that the Second Amendment guarantees a state's right, rather than a right which may be exercised by individual Americans. This is a justified concern. The Court has had several opportunities to consider whether the Amendment guarantees a personal right, but it has failed to do so. Most notably, in Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove (1982), the Supreme Court refused to hear a case in which the trial and appellate courts both upheld a township's ban on handgun ownership. The result: the ban remained law. However, we must know where the Court stands. If it rules against us, then we will have to let the Court know we do not recognize its authority to eliminate an enumerated right. It will then be incumbent upon us to champion yet another of our essential civil rights. This may call for nonviolent civil disobedience. It may require all of us to face the personal risks of speaking out. On the other hand, while we have been waiting for the "right case" to bring before the Supreme Court, anti-gunners rammed the so-called "assault weapon" ban and 10-round magazine limit through Congress, they enacted the Brady law, and countless new and onerous state and local anti-gun laws are on the books. It will not end until, and if, the Supreme Court finally acknowledges the Second Amendment means what it says; namely, that individual Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will become to prevail. The LSAS thinks the Hickman case is the "right" case to bring before the Court. As explained below, the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in the case is dubious at best, and the case is fraught with factual mistakes. This will make it all the more difficult for the Supreme Court to uphold the decision. Hickman directly confronts the personal right issue -- the Ninth Circuit said there isn't one. But with gun control looming as one of the primary issues of the 1990s, the LSAS believes the Supreme Court cannot run from this issue forever. it will eventually have to confront it head on. II. The Hickman case. In Hickman, Douglas Hickman brought an action against various Southern California cities after his applications for a permit to carry a concealed weapon were denied. Hickman argued the denials of his applications were a violation of his right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for the defendants on the grounds Hickman did not have "standing" under the Second Amendment. The Court held, "...the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." On a superficial level, this seems to make sense because the Amendment refers to a "well regulated Militia." But after further consideration, which is obviously necessary when Americans' rights hang in the balance, it becomes clear the decision is wrong. III. State's don't have "rights." People do. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the Amendment does not say states may keep and bear arms. Rather, it refers to "people." In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court recently held the term "people" used in the Bill of Rights means that "class of persons who are part of the national community...." Since the "class of persons who are part of the national community" simply means American citizens, the Second Amendment can be clarified as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of American citizens to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This simple exercise makes it abundantly clear individual American citizens -- and not the states -- have the right to keep and bear arms. States are not living beings. They cannot enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under Article I of U.S. Constitution, and the 10th Amendment, states merely exercise "powers." By contrast, only individuals can exercise the fundamental qualities of life called "rights." Thus, a "collective" or "state's" right is not a right, but a "power." Since the Second Amendment guarantees a "right," by definition, that right may be exercised only by individuals. The 10th Amendment also tells us the Framers said "state" when they meant "state," and "people" when they meant "people." It is ludicrous to suggest the Framers had such poor command of the English language they could not distinguish between "people" and "states." If true, the Court's suggestion in Hickman that the Second Amendment was intended only to provide for state militias is a well-kept secret, because not a single shred of evidence from the Constitutional Convention betrays this intent. By contrast, there is a plethora of evidence which makes it abundantly clear the Framers intended a personal right. Indeed, a ruling such as Hickman would have been unthinkable, almost treasonous, in the 1780s. Indeed, the Framers were themselves armed with state-of-the-art military weapons. And we know what happened to the British on their way to Concord to seize the American colonialists' weapons and powder: the British confronted the local militia in Lexington and touched off the Revolution. Virtually all academic research regarding the Second Amendment has concluded the Amendment was intended to recognize an individual right. Even the American Bar Association acknowledged in its 1965 article, "The Lost Amendment," that the Amendment guaranteed an individual right (although, bowing to political pressure, the ABA now espouses the "states' right" theory). Nonetheless, the Court in Hickman suggested a "plain reading" of the Second Amendment somehow reveals the Framer's true intent that states, and not the people, have the right to own arms. It certainly requires some questionable mental gymnastics and dubious logic to reach this conclusion. One wonders if the courts would have such a difficult time understanding the syntax of the Second Amendment, if the First Amendment read as follows: "A well informed Congress, being necessary to a free country, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." It is also curious that, despite the simple language in the Second Amendment, courts refuse to acknowledge it guarantees an individual right, while they have no trouble finding a "fundamental," yet unwritten, right of privacy floating around somewhere in the nebulous "penumbra" of the Constitution. IV. How has the Supreme Court read the Amendment? In Cruikshank v. U.S. (1875) and Presser v. Illinois (1885), the Supreme Court stated the Second Amendment did not create a right. Rather, it concluded the Amendment recognized the people's pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. This distinction is critical. The right of the people to keep and bear arms existed before the Bill of Rights was ratified, it exists now, it will always exist, and it is inalienable. It is also significant that in Cruikshank and Presser, the Court noted the Second Amendment precluded Congress, but not the states, from enacting gun control laws. This superficially appears to give states the green light to enact gun control. It also seems to support the Hickman decision. However, Cruikshank and Presser were decided prior to the advent of the "Selective Incorporation Doctrine" in 1897 (in Chicago V. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago), whereby the Court began applying the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment. There is also a curiously revealing error in Footnote 10 in Hickman. The Court stated: "... the Second Amendment is not incorporated into the Bill of Rights. (citation)" [emphasis added] To the contrary, the Second Amendment is undeniably an integral part of the Bill of Rights. Presumably, the Court meant the Amendment has not yet been incorporated to the states, but this "Freudian slip" speaks volumes about the true political agenda behind the Hickman decision. V. What about the reference to the Militia? In concluding the Second Amendment only guarantees a state's right to maintain a militia, the Court in Hickman relied primarily upon U.S. v. Miller (1939). In Miller, the defendant was charged with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act's ban on "sawed off" shotguns. Miller defended on the grounds the Act violated his Second Amendment right. The trial court rightly threw out the statute, and the U.S. appealed to the Supreme Court. Miller apparently died shortly thereafter. (It appears the Court in Hickman did not carefully read Miller because it erroneously stated Miller had been convicted at trial, rather than acquitted, and that Miller, rather than the U.S., was the appellant.) Thus, when the matter was heard before the Supreme Court, only the U.S., the appellant, was present to offer evidence. The Supreme Court therefore had no alternative but to rule in accordance with the government's evidence. The Court ultimately held that, without evidence indicating a sawed off shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The Court in Hickman latched onto this passage from Miller. However, this passage does not establish a state's "right." It simply means Americans have the right to own military weapons to insure the existence of a pool of armed citizens from which a militia can be drawn. This makes good sense because during the Revolutionary era, every city and township maintained its own militia consisting of all able bodied males between 18 and 45. A militia could exist only if all the citizens were armed. Moreover, in the context of the 1770's, the term "well regulated" meant "well disciplined" or "well drilled." The term did not mean regulated by the state. Similarly, the Court's suggestion in Hickman that the National Guard is the modern day equivalent of the militia is incorrect. Were the National Guard synonymous with militias, then every state is in violation of Art. I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the states from maintaining armies in peace time. Under the Ninth Circuit's interpretation, the portion of the Amendment which actually recognizes the right is rendered meaningless surplusage. This is an absurd result. VII. Have any gun control laws been invalidated? The Court in Hickman noted no individual has ever established a personal right under the Second Amendment. If true, are we then to ignore the Amendment's plain meaning because no court has acknowledged that meaning? Courts make mistakes all the time. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1897), the Supreme Court held the "separate but equal" doctrine was consistent with the 14th Amendment. Fifty years later, in Brown v. Board of Education it reached the opposite conclusion. As evidenced by the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Court even accepted slavery for nearly 100 years. The point is, our rights exist independent of the very government against which the Bill of Rights is asserted. That's why they are called "rights." If government has the power to take away rights, are they really rights? To be sure, the Supreme Court may properly determine if restrictions on a right are reasonable, since no right is absolute. But no governmental body, including the judiciary, has the authority to repeal rights. Otherwise, could we not repeal the 13th Amendment and reinstate slavery? It would have been more logical and consistent with the Constitution, had the Court in Hickman acknowledged the Second Amendment guarantees a personal right. Then, it would be a comparatively simple matter to determine which "reasonable limitations" apply, yet still let us achieve the purpose of he Second Amendment. If the Supreme Court allows Hickman to stand, it will be a prescription for disaster. It will be perhaps the only time in history in which the courts abrogated an enumerated right. Americans will not take kindly to such an overt, aggressive and blatantly illegal governmental attack on their freedoms. VIII. What you can do to help. The experts with whom the LSAS conferred estimate the cost of appealing the Hickman case to be approximately $50,000. Unfortunately, with fires already burning on the social, political and other legal fronts, the large pro-gun organizations are already spread to thinly to foot this bill. For this reason, the LSAS has established a trust fund to pay the costs associated with bringing this case before the Supreme Court. Well-known pro-gun attorney Don Kates, who wrote the "amicus brief" in the Hickman case, has agreed to write the appellate brief. The LSAS is asking every gunowner in America to contribute at least $5, and businesses to contribute at least $100, to defray these costs. Contributors of $30 or more will receive a membership in The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, which includes a subscription to its newsletter, The Liberty Pole. Any surplus funds generated will go to the LSAS, which is a non-profit corporation [501(c)(4)], to be used to fund other pro-gun legal challenges. Contributions are not tax deductible. We actually have little to lose. As it is, Congress, the courts, and most legislatures are already proceeding on the assumption that the Second Amendment protects only a "state's right." This is why we have some 20,000 gun control laws nationwide, including the Brady law and the "assault weapon" ban. If we lose, then we are merely back where we started; namely, in the political arena where such national groups as the NRA have proven so effective. But, the problem with the political arena is, gunowners must constantly spend money to try to influence politicians, just to protect what should be recognized as an inalienable right. What happens if Clinton gets re-elected and the Republicans lose control of Congress? On the other hand, if we win, the benefits are myriad. In a nutshell, a win would cut off gun control at the knees. The debate would change from whether we have a right, to what limitations on that right are "reasonable." Everyone can afford a nominal $5 contribution; look at it as a "small price to pay" to protect one of our most cherished and important freedoms. Please make checks payable to "The LSAS Trust Fund," and mail them to: The LSAS 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329 Encino, CA 91316. Telephone: (818) 734-3066. -- "Big Oh" "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." Frederic Bastiat "Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will." Alexander Hamilton "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." Frederic Bastiat "Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income pie, decent government is impossible." Friedrich A. Hayek >---- End Forwarded Message ----< -- >From a remote computer: John Johnson TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. chasm@phoenix.net Agent .99e.16 Houston, TX X-No-Archive: Yes [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: (fwd) [ MOVIE } "THE TRIGGER EFFECT" = sucks and anti RKBA (fwd) Date: 01 Sep 1996 20:35:27 -0400 (EDT) Saw this review and thought it might be of interest. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns I had the unfortunate experience of seeing a movie calle the "trigger effect". It was a horribly slow,boring and stupid movie. It was also decidedly anti gun. the premise is that a power out age occurs for several days, it takes out all the grid power, all the phone lines, all the AM and FM stations. But apparently the radios the police have still work, yet know one knows what is causing the outage or when its over, and the people have completely no communication with anyone outside of voice range ( except apparently the police). The family in the movie a guy, his wife, the baby and a friend try to stick it out together. After hearing rummors of massvie lootings and killings (we never see them in the movie), the guys decided to buy a shot gun, of course they have only atm cards and checks ( none of which are being taken anyware). so the guy offers his $600 watch in trade to the gun store guy- the guy says, i,ll give you $300 CREDIT. They cant get a pistol because of a 15 day waiting period , So the "jerk " gun store operator tells the guy he needs a 12 gauge shot gun, and goes on sprouting stuff about large shot pattern and stuff, he then tells the guy that he can go over to the hardware store and get a hack saw and shorten the barrel (but he mentions that this would be against the law). BUT of course when you see the shot gun, its obvious that the tubular magazine is as long as the barrel (its a pump action) and can NOT be easily shortened. the friend also argues with the store owner for inflating the price of the shot gun to $300 , the sticker price is $97 (god i would like to find that gun store). The gun store owner lies to them about being out of 12 gauge, before he offers them the gun, then he gives them a box of shells with the gun, the friend calls him on the lie and they guy offers to take the shells back. he also says that he is all out of pistol ammo -he lists a bunch of calibers and ends with .38, but then he sinisterly mentions that he still has some hollowpoint .38 ammo left if they need/want it - they end up with the shotgun. They take it home, when they go to sleep the friend wakes them up and says that there is an intruder in the house, and asks where the shotgun is, it then turns out that the wife threw gun and shells in the pool. well the guys go down stairs with baseball bats and a knife, they find a guy in the kitchen with a switch blade, they let him get out side and confront him and tell him to drop the stuff and get out. the guy drops everything but the knife and an old alarm clock. Of course they start acting like they think the clock might be a gun (we see its not), meanwhile the neighbour across the street comes out to the curb, the bad guy gets to the middle of the street and faces the neighbour on the curb (the neighbour is aware the guy only has a knife) , the neighbout shoots they guy. some other stupid dialog happens, and they are all upset at the neighbour becuase the guy only had a knife. Ofcourse they make a big effort to save his life, but he is dead. About 30 seconds after the shooting the police show up saying "we heard a shot" ( in the entire movie the police are there very quickly after any shooting or almost shooting- amazingly quick service even if there were not outage) well the neighbour in that 30 seconds stuffs a gun in the bad guys hand, and the 2 friend grudginly cover for him. then they ask him, well whats going to happen when they check the registration and find out its your gun,the guy responds -- its not registered- "i won it at a card game" The entire story centers about scared people doing stupid things with guns, with the moral consistently being that if they had had more trust in there fellow man and not had any guns no one would be hurt. there are several more senarios like that but the movie is NOT action packed, but rather is very slow. In one of the last scenes, they stop by the side of the road near a car with the hood open, well it turns out there is a guy in the car and his car is dead. Well, this same guy was seen by the audiance a few mins. earlier harrassing a black guy and generally being really scary. well the guy asks (in a crazy sort of tone, several times) for a ride, they refuse, but then the friend sees a concealed pistol in the guys front pocket, of course they then agree to take the guy as a ruse to dig the shot gun out of the car (not all the shells work because they were wet from the pool). well the friend pulls the shotgun on the suspected bad guy, the "hero" tries to stop the pending shooting, during which time the bad guy shoots friend in the shoulder. Then the "bad guy" takes the care, but not before screaming - what the hell were you doing, why did you pull the shot gun on me, i wasent going to pull a gun, are you people crazy, this is all your fault- AND WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING KEEPING A LOADED SHOT GUN IN THE CAR WITH A BABY ( an infant ). Basically the entire "Trigger effect" is that guns cause people to be hurt, also interstingly the police are always immedaitely there after the scene has played out. the entire movie is anti gun, poorely written, and will agravate you with its stupidity ( sort of like watching entire movie cast of "Gilligans" {from the TV comedy series Gilligan's Island} continually screwing up but with no humor involved. god this movie really sucked. When the movie ended a group of teenagers in the back boo'ed the movie in muffled tones, i said to my female friend that the movie sucked, and older guy walking past said "you got that right!", folks i doubt this movie will make it more than a few days before it disappers off the screens. dont waste your money Thomas If we can not trust a freeman with his right to keep and bear arms, then how can we trust him with the right to vote? Surely the right of a freeman to vote has a much greater effect on our collective lives than does any individual's firearm. If one argues that the effect of any one freeman's vote is minimal, then why allow it in the first place? To be armed is to secure one's right to representation. Thomas Mincher ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Donna J. Logan" Subject: Permits Needed to Pray in the USA (long) (fwd) Date: 01 Sep 1996 21:50:01 -0400 (EDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- My Dear Atlantean Family and Friends: In July, 1996, I posted a message that I had been sent regarding a group of Native American Indians not being allowed to pray on their land (which is now a National Park in Georgia) because they did not have a permit. I have been trying to ascertain further information for myself and for several people who have asked me. Well, I finally received the information. It seems that they have had many,many inquiries and are just now able to disseminate the requested clarification. Please excuse length but I feel compelled to get these facts regarding the outrageous behavior of our government to all the world. Thank you for your prayers, concerns and actions. When one of us is harmed, all of us are harmed. In Love, Light, Service and Laughter, Julie Miller Walelu Ageya Hummingbird Woman Namaste' My mom has asked me to send the following response to all who have written about her needing a permit to pray at New Echota. O'siyo to those whose hearts hear the words... My son has forwarded to me the many letters you have each sent in response to the piece I wrote, Permits To Pray. I thank each of you for hearing the words and coming forth to the sacred fire with offers to help. The incident is a true one and happened on Memorial Day weekend at New Echota State Park in Georgia. New Echota was considered the Cherokee *Tsalagi* Holy City. I suppose it could be equated to what Catholic people feel about the Vatican. New Echota was considered so holy that if anyone committed a crime in our Nation he/she could come there and receive refuge as long as they did not harm another. Our sacred fire was there....all of our holy relics... We lost New Echota when we were forced to leave our lands which we called, the Trail of Tears...in 1838... Our Beloved Woman, Nancy Ward once found a starving group of military soldiers and took our Cherokee cattle to them in order to save them there. Our repayment was the burning of all of our villages and slaughter of our People. Nancy was taken prisoner...for 19 months and never allowed to return to her holy city...which also was burned. We won our right to stay on our lands in the US Supreme Court but the President, Andrew Jackson (whom the Cherokee Nation still considers betrayed us) had a law passed called the Indian Removal Act...which passed by ONE vote...Thus, a proud People, who had welcomed all who came to them, were marched a thousand miles to Oklahoma Territory...losing their homes and lands. We began as 12,000 people, marching across the mountains...a third of us died on that march. A third of our People are buried along that trail of sorrow. The March began May 26th, 1838. Thus...on that Memorial Day weekend, another cherokee woman (both middle aged) and a young male student of mine who was 19 years old and myself, went to New Echota (which is now a State Park owned by the State of Georgia) to kneel on those holy lands and offer a prayer up in memory of our ancestors. We were met there by many Park Rangers who were armed and in force. I spoke with the Supt there, showing him my Tribal Membership/Registration cards and explained to him that we merely wished to kneel in a moment of prayer on the sacred land to remember our People, as others were remembering theirs during that Memorial Day weekend. He refused to allow it....He told us we had to drive back to Atlanta, which was about 60 miles away, to obtain a Permit to pray from the Georgia Natural Resources Board, which runs the State Parks. It was on a Friday and it was too late to get there before the office closed in order to get a permit. He explained there was a small patch there which they called the First Amendment area....That area alone is the place where people can kneel...but he said again...I had to have a permit.... He admitted they could waive this on an individual case basis...but refused to do so in my case. I have never been a violent Indian activist...I am a writer..a Registered Nurse and a Wife and Mother. There was no reason for him to refuse to allow me to kneel on my People's sacred grounds. The Park Rangers were carrying 9 mm semi automatic weapons....They were very angry...I knew to pursue it any further risked the student I have been teaching all summer (about our Traditional ways) and both of we women, being shot. I wanted the world to know that there is no religious freedom in this country...And until all People can pray without harassment...none are free. The Lakota Nation's most sacred lands are National Parks...They too are regulated in their attempts to pray and must pay to pray...entrance fees to the parks. I wrote also of this months ago....Pay to Pray. This Country must know of the oppression that First Nations suffers...They must realize that we are not afforded the same religious opportunities than the non native culture has. If you wish to discuss this...I am at Tsalagi@cris.com My son, Black Eagle speaks with Honor...I encourage you to visit his homepage...get on his mailing list as he forwards out messages about our People's problems. I wish each of you gentle winds in your Journey...and ask you today...to Pray for First Nations...Aliski Adanudo (Spirit Dancer).... Tanyan Mani (Walk Well)! Wanbli Sapa (Black Eagle) (Lakota Ikche Wichasha) One Earth, One Life Endeavors icabu@ix.netcom.com >X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X< When you took away our good health and gave us diseases, somehow we lived on. When you took the land that Creator had placed us on, somehow we survived. And when you took our languages, our cultures, our medicines, our ways, all those things that made us who we were, our spirits still lived. But when you took our children, you took our hearts, our dreams, and we died. But we shall live again. We SHALL live again. -Sunkmanitu Tanka Olowan (Wolf Song), with pride, my Dad NOTE: write to me for information on purchasing Dad's cassette, with this song on it. >X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X<>X< http://www.pobox.com/~jsd/WKmasscre.html Wounded Knee Web Page (compliments of the First Nations/First People Web Page) First Nations/First Peoples Issues (4 Star Magellan site) http://www.pobox.com/~jsd/firstnations.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Computer Files on Fliers? Date: 01 Sep 1996 14:03:38 CDT Bob Knauer wrote: >>From the "news": > > Computer Files on Fliers? > The Washington Post says a presidential commission on >aviation security is considering plans that would require U.S. >airlines to scrutinize all passengers at U.S. airports using >massive computer files. If the plan is enacted, the federal >government would require creation of a computer profiling system >that would examine passengers' bill-paying records, flying >habits and other data to identify potential terrorists and other >suspicious individuals. Numerous legal issues still need to be >resolved, including whether airlines would be given access to >information from government computer systems like those >containing criminal records. The version I heard on CNN was only mentioned once in the course of the evening -- I watched for a couple of hours to see if it would come on again. According to their report, persons who fit the profile of a terrorist, whatever that is, would have their baggage searched in detail and without their knowledge. CNN characterized the program as being a background security check on all persons who purchase tickets, and I very much had the impression from their report that the database would include more than just airline-related activity. I don't expect that this would ever get through Congress. Watch for it to be implemented by executive order. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Alpert Subject: This is too funny for words!! Date: 02 Sep 1996 06:43:59 -0700 In what has got to be divine justice at its very best, KC Star cartoonist Bill Schorr has been arrested in a domestic dispute involving his having grabbed a handgun and pointed it at his wife and at police. Any who follow the Star know that Schorr's editorial depiction of gunowners is hateful and mean - and now he has become the very caricature of the irresponsible gunowner that he loves to harpoon. Brad **** Star cartoonist arrested after dispute By GLENN E. RICE Staff Writer Date: 09/01/96 22:15 Bill Schorr, an editorial cartoonist for The Kansas City Star, was arrested early Sunday following a domestic dispute with his wife. Kansas City police were called to the couple's residence in the 1000 block of West 56th Street at 7:35 a.m. Schorr, 48, who is separated from his wife, was visiting the home and got into an argument with his wife. At one point, police said, Schorr grabbed a handgun stored in a closet and began waving it. His wife phoned police. The couple and a 21-year-old daughter were standing outside when officers arrived. Schorr, who was still armed, ran back into the house, locked the door and refused to come out, said Police Sgt. Gerald Wagoner, a supervisor with the Metro Patrol Division. Schorr pointed the weapon at officers, Wagoner said. No shots were fired and no injuries were reported. Several other officers were summoned. Authorities were about to call in members of the tactical response unit when Schorr agreed to surrender to his lawyer, who arrived about 10 minutes later, Wagoner said. Police determined that the handgun, which belonged to Schorr's wife, was unloaded. The two are legally separated and police did not know the nature of the argument, said Jackson County Prosecutor Claire McCaskill. Schorr was arrested and agreed to be placed into psychiatric care. Authorities are continuing their investigation and will decide Tuesday whether charges will be filed, McCaskill said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: TAPES Date: 02 Sep 1996 12:47:09 EDT Would that be called "America Underseige"? Gary On Thu, 29 Aug 1996 21:25:28 -0400 Constitution Party writes: >Hey, list: > >Anyone know where I can get a quick copy of Linda T's Concentration >Camp >video? I asked her and she has none. Need it quick. > >Mike I. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: (fwd) CLINTON: 1996-08-27 President Remarks at Michigan Date: 02 Sep 1996 12:47:09 EDT He's scheduled to come by and clean mine now any second. Gary On Thu, 29 Aug 1996 23:11:52 -0500 Joe Sylvester writes: >At 05:06 PM 8/29/96 -0500, you wrote: >> > >> >> THE WHITE HOUSE >> >> Office of the Press Secretary >> (Aboard The 21st Century Express) >>________________________________________________________________________ >>For Immediate Release August 27, >1996 >> >> REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT >> TO THE PEOPLE OF >> THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY >> >> Michigan State University >> East Lansing, Michigan > >> >> >> THE WHITE HOUSE >> >> Office of the Press Secretary >> (Aboard The 21st Century Express) >>________________________________________________________________________ >>For Immediate Release August 27, >1996 >> >> REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT >> TO THE PEOPLE OF THE ROYAL OAK AREA >> >> >> Royal Oak, Michigan > > >Paul, >Do you have the nation wide keyboard cleaning and refurbishment >franchise. > >Just think how many keyboards around the country are now covered in >puke >after folks read those "remarks". > > > > > > > The Second Amendment is the RESET button > of the United States Constitution. > ("Doug McKay" ) > > >Joe Sylvester >Don't Tread On Me ! > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: This is too funny for words!! Date: 02 Sep 1996 11:28:24 -0700 At 06:43 AM 9/2/96 -0700, Brad Alpert wrote: >In what has got to be divine justice at its very best, KC Star cartoonist Bill >Schorr has been arrested in a domestic dispute involving his having grabbed a >handgun and pointed it at his wife and at police. > >Any who follow the Star know that Schorr's editorial depiction of gunowners is >hateful and mean - and now he has become the very caricature of the irresponsible >gunowner that he loves to harpoon. > This isn't "funny" as much as it is instructive; gun-grabbers want to ban citizen ownership of handguns, not because they don't trus _US_, but because they don't trust THEMSELVES; and feel that everybody is the same way they are. A fundamental principle of psychology is called "projection"; projecting our own attitudes, feelings and beliefs onto others. We feel or think or believe one thing; it only makes sense that everybody else does, too. It disturbs us to discover that they don't. Think about it. Why is there "no honor among theives"? Because the thief knows that he's not honorable, that _HE_ is out to steal from other people; therefore, everybody else is, too. Why is is so easy to cheat an honest man, the first time? He's honest, and expects everybody else to be honest, too. We really have to have our noses rubbed in the fact that other people are different for the lesson to sink in. Beware the person who accuses you of dishonesty, for he is very probably dishonest himself. Hey, he already KNOWS _he's_ lying; why shouldn't you? A thief may accuse you of theft; a traitor will be the first to accuse others. The person who knows that he'd do something stupid with a gun, and knows that he's not safe with one, assumes that none of us are either. Jeff Cooper's term "hoplophobia", for a person with an irrational fear of weapons, merely describes one aspect of projection; the hoplophobe would be dangerous if he had a gun, and is afraid that others are as unstable as he is. Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. 8037 Stone Canyon |counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing Citrus Heights, CA|citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent 95610 |crimes and it appears to produce no increase in kmitchel@gvn.net |accidental deaths. If those states which did not 916-449-9152 (vm) |have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had 916-729-0966 (fax)|adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; |4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults |would have been avoided yearly." Crime, |Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns |John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago -------------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm---------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: This is too funny for words!! Date: 02 Sep 1996 14:09:41 -0500 At 06:43 AM 9/2/96 -0700, you wrote: >In what has got to be divine justice at its very best, KC Star cartoonist Bill Schorr has been arrested in >a domestic dispute involving his having grabbed a handgun and pointed it at his wife and at police. > >Any who follow the Star know that Schorr's editorial depiction of gunowners is hateful and mean - and now >he has become the very caricature of the irresponsible gunowner that he loves to harpoon. > I think this actually sheds some light on the reasons some folks oppose gun rights. They know, in their heart of hearts at least, that *they* can't be trusted with or even around a gun. Thus they project and figure that the rest of us are "just like them" (couldn't be something wrong with *them* could there?), and likewise can't be trusted around firearms, or sharp objects one might suppose. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: [ MOVIE } "THE TRIGGER EFFECT" Date: 02 Sep 1996 12:16:19 -0700 At 08:35 PM 9/1/96 -0400, Brad Dolan wrote: >Saw this review and thought it might be of interest. >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Bite Me ATF > > >I had the unfortunate experience of seeing a movie calle the "trigger >effect". It was a horribly slow,boring and stupid movie. It was also >decidedly anti gun. > >the premise is that a power out age occurs for several days, it takes out >all the grid power, all the phone lines, all the AM and FM stations. But >apparently the radios the police have still work, yet know one knows what >is causing the outage or when its over, and the people have completely no >communication with anyone outside of voice range (except apparently the >police). An interesting point. The police are as dependent on power as anybody; more so, perhaps. During Hurricane Frederick in Pensacola Florida in the fall of 1980, I was an amateur radio operator (I'm WD0ELQ) at the Escambia County Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The EOC had its own power, but when the city power failed, as it so often does during a hurricane, the EOC's backup generator failed to kick in. 911 was off the air. The police commissioner, the fire chief, and the mayor were completely out of touch with the rest of the county. There was exactly ONE radio in the EOC that worked; MINE. When the power failed, I slogged out into the storm, got the battery out of my truck, and was back on the air in 10 minutes. (That's why they call us the "Amateur Radio Emergency Service".) When the brass realized that my radio worked and that I could talk to any of the "ham" operators already at every emergency shelter, at every hospital, at every fire station, and at several police substations, my radio room got VERY crowded. The EOC's generator finally came back on, after about 3 hours, but during that time, we showed them what amateur radio can do. (To give Escambia Couty full credit, they already knew. That's why I had a radio room, with permanantly mounted external antennas, in the EOC where I'd be handy if we were needed. It wasn't the first time, nor the last.) >The family in the movie a guy, his wife, the baby and a friend try to >stick it out together. After hearing rumors of massvie lootings and >killings (we never see them in the movie), the guys decided to buy a shot >gun, >The entire story centers about scared people doing stupid things with >guns, with the moral consistently being that if they had had more trust in >there fellow man and not had any guns no one would be hurt. there are >several more senarios like that but the movie is NOT action packed, but >rather is very slow. Would it not be equally true to say that the movie shows what happens when you're NOT PREPARED? Charlton Heston tells stories of the Rodney King riots, when his friends (all liberal movie stars, of course) called him up and said, "Chuck, old buddy, I tried to buy a gun to protect myself from the rioters, but there's a 15-day waiting period in California, and can I borrow one of yours?" Heston says that he told them, in effect, "You voted for that 15-day waiting period, and the only thing more dangerous than a rioter with a bat is an untrained, panicked person with a gun", and encouraged them to buy a shotgun and to LEARN HOW TO USE IT before the next time - because there WILL be a "next time". Most of us on this list already own guns. We know how to use them. We have some ammunition stockpiled. I hope that we've given some thought to what we'd do in a major disaster - because the cops WON'T be there, and citizens will be pretty much on their own, without power or telephones, for a minimum of 48 hours. And remember; "no power" means that the high-school dropout (or these days, even HS graduate) cashier at the grocery store will be unable to add your bill or calculate your change without his/her electronic cash register. And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts (which USED to be pretty good odds, but is now only about 2-1) that the store won't even be open at all. Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. 8037 Stone Canyon |counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing Citrus Heights, CA|citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent 95610 |crimes and it appears to produce no increase in kmitchel@gvn.net |accidental deaths. If those states which did not 916-449-9152 (vm) |have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had 916-729-0966 (fax)|adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; |4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults |would have been avoided yearly." Crime, |Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns |John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago -------------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm---------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: TAG - DF8 Revisited Date: 02 Sep 1996 12:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Got my update from TAG in St Louis and the situation is not promising. The most popular and electable challenger dropped out of the race due to family problems. Local speculation has it that the Gephardt machine may have had a hand in creating those family problems, but be that as it may, the current challenger it totally unimpressive - no chance of winning. The primaries were on Aug 6th, so it's too late for new entries. Regret raising false hopes. Maybe in '98. TAG is resolved to stay in business. Regards, Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: This is too funny for words!! Date: 02 Sep 1996 16:42:56 EDT The only thing I have to say is "How aprapo!! How aprapo" Under the new Brady law extention he now has no right to even attempt to purchase a hand gun. Gary On Mon, 02 Sep 1996 06:43:59 -0700 Brad Alpert writes: >In what has got to be divine justice at its very best, KC Star >cartoonist Bill Schorr has been arrested in >a domestic dispute involving his having grabbed a handgun and pointed >it at his wife and at police. > >Any who follow the Star know that Schorr's editorial depiction of >gunowners is hateful and mean - and now >he has become the very caricature of the irresponsible gunowner that >he loves to harpoon. > >Brad >**** > > > Star cartoonist arrested after dispute > > By GLENN E. RICE Staff Writer > Date: 09/01/96 22:15 > > Bill Schorr, an editorial cartoonist for The Kansas >City Star, was > arrested early Sunday following a domestic dispute >with his wife. > > Kansas City police were called to the couple's >residence in the > 1000 block of West 56th Street at 7:35 a.m. > > Schorr, 48, who is separated from his wife, was >visiting the home > and got into an argument with his wife. At one point, >police said, > Schorr grabbed a handgun stored in a closet and began >waving it. > His wife phoned police. > > The couple and a 21-year-old daughter were standing >outside when > officers arrived. Schorr, who was still armed, ran >back into the > house, locked the door and refused to come out, said >Police Sgt. > Gerald Wagoner, a supervisor with the Metro Patrol >Division. > > Schorr pointed the weapon at officers, Wagoner said. >No shots > were fired and no injuries were reported. > > Several other officers were summoned. Authorities >were about to > call in members of the tactical response unit when >Schorr agreed to > surrender to his lawyer, who arrived about 10 minutes >later, > Wagoner said. > > Police determined that the handgun, which belonged to >Schorr's > wife, was unloaded. The two are legally separated and >police did > not know the nature of the argument, said Jackson >County > Prosecutor Claire McCaskill. > > Schorr was arrested and agreed to be placed into >psychiatric care. > > Authorities are continuing their investigation and >will decide Tuesday > whether charges will be filed, McCaskill said. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Clinton Consultant Resigns Date: 02 Sep 1996 16:42:56 EDT Donna, You ought to work at The Improve in D.C. Regards, Gary H. Burkepile On Fri, 30 Aug 1996 21:27:24 -0400 (EDT) "Donna J. Logan" writes: >On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, Bill Vance wrote: >> I _was_ intimating that it was appropriate that a "high priced >wench" read >> it first, thus placing the First Lady in the, "position", of quoting >her.... >> >> The wench probably had better, "delivery", too.....:-) > >Did anyone watch "Politically Incorrect" Thursday night? I didn't >catch >her name, but one of the panel of guests was a writer for the American > >Spectator, and she came out with a great line, basically to the effect > >that having a whore "vett" Hillary's speech gives a whole new spin on >the >Democratic Party describing itself as "the party of working women".... > >But what I don't understand...and maybe this is a "guy" thing, in >which >case those of the male persuasion on this list can explain it to >me...but >just what is the turn on in having your high-priced whore read >speeches, >listen in on conversations with the President, etc.? I can tell you, >it >definitely wouldn't float MY boat, it's the LAST thing I'd consider to > >get ME "in the mood"....hell, if that got their juices flowing, why >not >read the current Tax Codes? Maybe I'm missing something here? Maybe >because I'm not a guy, let alone one who'd pay $200/hour to get it on, > >then off...but if I WAS, I could think of dozens of other things I'd >rather be doing for that amount of money than talk to my boss or read >his >wife's speeches. > >Can we now expect "It Takes A Village" to be published in installments >in >"Oui" magazine? Soon to be a miniseries on the Playboy Channel? > >Another burning question which has caused me to lose sleep >wondering.... >if this guy got off having this whore suck his toes, did they have sex > >with Socks on, or did they get Socks off...and get him his own p***y? > >Donna (blame it on no sleep) Logan >;-) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: balpert@sky.net Subject: Anti-Crazed Cartoonist flyer Date: 02 Sep 1996 18:35:06 CST Ok, this is the ASCII version of the pretty Pagemaker flyer I made up for distribution at a big community festival today to be handed out at the Missouri 51st Militia table. Brad **** K.C. Star Cartoonist Exposed as Hypocrite! Your chance to demand justice!! Kansas City Star Editorial Cartoonist Bill Schorr is a long-term enemy of your Second Amendment rights. From his position of safety behind the shield of the First Amendment, Bill Schorr's editorial "cartoons" for the Kansas City Star have for years depicted American gunowners in the foulest, most noxious and negative terms imaginable. His "cartoons" portray American gunowners as, at best - pot bellied ignoramuses and at worst - murderous thugs There has never been even an inkling in his cartoons that American gunowners are deserving of anything resembling fair treatment at the hands of decent people. In the early hours of Sunday, September 2nd, Bill Schorr became involved in a domestic dispute with his estranged wife and, in the presence of the couple's daughter, seized his wife's handgun from a closet and threatened her with it. At the arrival of police, Schorr barricaded himself in the house and brandished the weapon at police, aiming it at them while refusing to surrender. At the arrival of more police, and at the point that SWAT was about to be called in, Schorr decided to surrender to his attorney and then had himself committed for psychiatric care. WE DEMAND EFFECTIVE PUNISHMENT OF VIOLENT FIREARMS CRIMINALS AND CALL UPON JACKSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR CLAIRE McCASKILL TO FILE FELONY BRANDISHING CHARGES AGAINST THE GUN-CRAZED CARTOONIST IN ADDITION TO ANY DOMESTIC ABUSE CHARGES SHE IS CONSIDERING! Here's what to do: 1.) Call the Jackson County Prosecutor's office tomorrow at 881- 3555. Tell them that you remember Claire McCaskill's campaign promises to focus upon domestic abuse cases and that she would concentrate on the prosecution of violent gun crime in Jackson County. Tell them that this is her chance to prove that her word is worth something to the voters. Demand that "felony firearms brandishing" charges be filed against this dangerous man who aimed a stolen firearm at peace officers. 2.) Call Rich Hood, the executive in charge of the editorial department at the Kansas City Star at 234-4885 and demand that Schorr be either A.) terminated or B.) put on unpaid leave while his case is adjudicated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert (fwd) Date: 03 Sep 1996 08:19:24 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Today as I was driving to the airport, WGST Radio in Atlanta announced that, beginning Sunday, September 1, all airline passengers will begin being profiled by computer. When I got to the airport, I had to show a picture ID before I could get on the plane. Fortunately or unfortunately, all 7 planes I tried to board for the Washington D.C. rally were overbooked, so I didn't get to go through this other invasion of my privacy tomorrow on the return trip. That's probably good, because I would probably be in jail for causing the biggest scene they would have ever seen. The Atlanta Journal/Atlanta Constitution, our favorite subversive newspaper had an article by Roberto Suro of the Washington Post entitled, "Profiling to Detect Bombers Studied". The article states that: a presidential commission, who President Commy appointed Al Gore to head, is considering a bomb detection plan requiring U.S. airlines to scrutinize all passengers at U.S. airports using massive computer files to identify potential terrorists "or other suspicious individuals". It says that the government (gestapo) would require "creation of a computer profiling system that would EXAMINE PASSENGERS' BILL-PAYING RECORDS, flying habits and much other data to determine which checked baggage should undergo examination by sophisticated explosives detection equipment". This is because of the TWA Flight 800 explosion. You know, the one they haven't even figured out IF it was a terrorist act or a mechanical problem. "This is something that, if you don't have a bit of an ulcer about it initially, it is because you don't understand the problem," said Cathal Flynn, associate FAA administrator for civil aviation security." Well, I do understand and if an ulcer is all I can look forward to getting, along with every one else, I'll be really amazed! Elaine Kamarck, a senior policy advisor to Gore, said, "Anyone who has thought this through realizes that passenger profiling HAS to be part of the way we resolve the dilemmas inherent in creating an explosive detection system". Here's the REALLY, REALLY STUPID PART! "The chief advantage of computerized profiling is that it allows authorities to determine that a large majority of passengers are not suspicious, thus greatly reducing the number of bags requiring examination. In turn, that resolves a problem that has bedeviled airport security officials around the world for years: the kind of equipment sensitive enough to detect most bombs operates too slowly and IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO USE ON EVERY SUITCASE CHECKED on an airplane without creating unacceptable delays." These fools state that they only want to have a FEW bags go through detectors. Yea, let all the people carrying bombs and guns slip through and stop us. Sounds like these morons have already been a product of outcome based education. Gees, where do they grow these people?????? Obviously, we know the real problem...Patriot mobility. The equipment is too expensive? How expensive is the cost of freedom? Quite frankly, if I have to be under tyranny, I'll take the pain of going through a metal detector any day before I will allow myself to be computer profiled and my spending habits in the hands of these communist bastards (any more than they already are). Benjamen Franklin could not have made a more appropo statement than that those loving security more than freedom deserve neither! You know, the really bad part is, that if you want to fly anywhere, you will submit to this invasion or you will not get on the plane. Period. We have to stop this. What's next? Damn these bastards!!!!!!!!!! Don't just sit there.........Raise hell!!! Make yourself heard in your editorial sections, write Congress. I'm preaching to the choir for one reason, I wanted to make sure you knew about this, however my letter's already been sent to Washington and the newspaper. No wonder Patrick Henry said, "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!" I truly understand. I do not want to live like this! Cyndee in Atlanta ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert (fwd) Date: 03 Sep 1996 12:19:59 -0400 (EDT) Can you pay cash and board without presenting ID if you bring no luggage? If not, this is about surveillance and control, not preventing terrorist bombings. bd On Tue, 3 Sep 1996 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 18:34:05 -0700 > From: CYNTHIA D PARKER > Subject: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert > > Today as I was driving to the airport, WGST Radio in Atlanta announced > that, beginning Sunday, September 1, all airline passengers will begin > being profiled by computer. When I got to the airport, I had to show a > picture ID before I could get on the plane. Fortunately or > unfortunately, all 7 planes I tried to board for the Washington D.C. > rally were overbooked, so I didn't get to go through this other > invasion of my privacy tomorrow on the return trip. That's probably > good, because I would probably be in jail for causing the biggest scene > they would have ever seen. > > The Atlanta Journal/Atlanta Constitution, our favorite subversive > newspaper had an article by Roberto Suro of the Washington Post > entitled, "Profiling to Detect Bombers Studied". The article states > that: a presidential commission, who President Commy appointed Al Gore > to head, is considering a bomb detection plan requiring U.S. airlines > to scrutinize all passengers at U.S. airports using massive computer > files to identify potential terrorists "or other suspicious > individuals". > > It says that the government (gestapo) would require "creation of a > computer profiling system that would EXAMINE PASSENGERS' BILL-PAYING > RECORDS, flying habits and much other data to determine which checked > baggage should undergo examination by sophisticated explosives > detection equipment". This is because of the TWA Flight 800 explosion. > You know, the one they haven't even figured out IF it was a terrorist > act or a mechanical problem. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: TAG Update - DF8 Revisited Date: 03 Sep 1996 10:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Rather than play middleman (a.k.a. control-freak), let me expend a few bytes to share TAG's latest update with you directly. You can decide for yourselves what's appropriate - not to mention that some of Cindy's lessons-learned ideas are worth noting and her resolve is encouraging. Regards, Skip. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 17:54:54 -0700 Hi, all, To address your questions and the speculation of DF8 et al, let me be succinct. The GOP primary was won by Debbie Wheelahan, the only woman in the race. While we are sure she would be a better congressman that Dick G., the fact that she has no money, no good way of getting any, no name recognition, and no appreciable grassroots is not lost on us. TAG's morale is fine, thanks, considering this particular situation. We had a large field of generally weak candidates and this was the outcome. We are philosphical, but far from resigned. The fact that the primary turned out as it did, is to us further evidence of the need for a permanent structure such as TAG here in MO's 3rd district. Quality candidates (for our purposes, we define a "quality" candidate in this race as someone who has held elective office and has a bare minimum of 20-30K in personal funds to invest in the race) will not take on a risk as big as challenging Dick Gephardt unless they have some sort of reasonable expectation of success. This is where TAG comes in. We have had reasonable success in our initial attempts at fundraising locally. Our web page has brought us favorable attention. We have had decent exposure in the press and of course we have our database of 4000 or so TAG friends and contributors. We now have a donated office for at least the next few months (allowing me to be much more productive). We are working with a dynamite political consultant, Sandy McDade, of Louisiana, who is coaching us through the first-ever conservative voter ID in this congressional district. To make a long story not any longer, we are continuing our efforts and biding our time. Gephardt is "vulnerable" based on numbers--his re-elect is less than ideal, but his machine and the fact that he is very well funded have more than compensated for that in the past, and they probably will this time too. We can, however, begin to raise his negatives and to identify our voters. No longer will the Gephardt/Aboussie "machine" be the only football team on the field. And we believe it's high time. We believe that this effort is of tremendous importance for the future of our nation. Were Dick Gephardt to disappear tomorrow (wishful thinking) his putrid legacy would remain in our district for decades. We have made a fine start at building the tank and we're not stopping. I will be happy to answer any remaining questions you have. Thanks , as always for your help and input. Regards, Cindy P.S. Dick Gephardt's district does not include any of E. St. Louis (which is in Illinois). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: A Final Warning for Clinton (fwd) Date: 03 Sep 1996 15:21:05 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM: Virginia McMillan, INTERNET:jinks@u.washington.edu TO: (unknown), INTERNET:CCNRS@ESKIMO.COM DATE: 9/3/96 2:49 AM Re: A Final Warning for Clinton? C O N S E R V A T I V E C O N S E N S U S (tm) ***************************************************************** Events * Analysis * Forecasts * Commentary * Readers' Opinions ***************************************************************** G U E S T O P E D ::: World, National, Regional Distribution: World Editor's Desk COPYRIGHT 1996 by Conservative Consensus, ISSN 1074-245X. Excerpted from our Journal; email subscription below. QUOTATION and redistribution are encouraged, for private, non-commercial use, provided nothing is changed and our headers and trailers remain intact. V2XC52 A FINAL WARNING FOR CLINTON? By Jon E. Dougherty As the First Family concluded their vacation in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, yet another mysterious plane crash has occurred. Will this finally convince even the staunchest liberal apologists that something is ominously wrong with our body politic? Who knows, but it should. As the Clintons landed safely back in Washington, DC, a special C-130 cargo plane--one of many such planes detailed to move the vast array of protective equipment everywhere the president goes--crashed into a mountain shortly after takeoff around midnight on August 17. Initial reports said the plane carried a single Secret Service agent, and about nine other "administrative" types and equipment. Are we to believe that this is just another in the plethora of 'coincidences' surrounding the infamous bad luck endemic to this administration? Or, perhaps diabolically, was this a sort of warning to the president that maybe it's time to end the charade and relinquish the reins of power to a more competent, capable group of people? Before you mumble, "Geez, where did that come from," consider that just a few weeks ago, Democratic insider Robert Strauss, armed with Clinton's latest Bethesda Naval Hospital report took a delegation comprised of himself, Sen. Teddy Kennedy and Sen. John Glenn to see our beleaguered Commander-in-Chief . The topic? Don't run for reelection; either step down now or decline the party nomination in a few days when the Democrats convene their convention this year. What was in the Strauss report? Strong evidence indicating presidential substance abuse on a regular basis, complete with the name of his supplier. For Kennedy's part, as sort of senior man on the Democratic totem pole, he was charged with making the decision about whether or not to confront Clinton with this latest reason for his removal from office; when you consider the text of the 25th Amendment, which states that when a president has been adjudged by the House and Senate to be incapable of carrying out his duties of office, he can be replaced "for the good of the nation." It may have now come to that. Could the crash of the C-130 have been a sort of 'warning' to Clinton? It was certainly 'close' enough to him, and would possibly indicate that this president--ever arrogant and dismissive--declined the "offer" to step aside. At this point, it's speculation but certainly something is amiss here. In just two months, three of the best kept, best maintained airplanes in the US administrative fleet have 'gone down' under suspicious circumstances (remember Ron Brown and that new presidential Sikorsky helicopter being readied for delivery?), and it's getting harder to deny that things are as they should be in Camelot. Why are we to even care what--if anything--may happen to this president? Doesn't he "deserve" all he gets? Hasn't he "done enough to this country" and gotten away with it so far? Hasn't this been one of the most scandalous administrations in history? Be careful how you answer; the fate of the greatest nation on earth is at stake here. Granted, Clinton and his cronies have been running roughshod over the Constitution and the American people for nearly four years now. The White House more or less resembles a playground for left-over ideological hippies instead of the distinguished icon of responsible government it used to resemble. And true, even though reports suggest Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr's investigative actions seem to be closing in on the First Couple, they've remained 'above the legal fray' thus far, much to the disappointment of honest and decent people. But does this president deserve a fiery death at eleven thousand feet? Does he deserve to be gunned down from Pennsylvania Avenue, or blown to bits by a fanatic in a light plane? The answer is unequivocably no. No American should sanction the terrorism of a US president, either from within our power structure or from abroad, no matter what the implications of his reign. To do so would be to surrender every president from now on to such extremism--even the ones most of us may like--and undermine the power of the United States irreparably. This is not the way to do politics in America; we are not--yet, at least--a third world banana republic. But to examine such extreme tactics at face value suggests an urgency not seen in decades in this country's political elite. Why, after four long years of abject executive usurpation and arrogance has it become so necessary now to end this charade of government? November looms ever closely and with it the very real prospect of a Clinton reelection. Are we to conclude, then, that there is something looming over the horizon most of us cannot yet see? A building crisis, maybe, of such astronomical proportions that it will require first rate leadership to effectively deal with--a trait never seen in a Clinton White House? Or, is it simply an extreme manner to rid the nation's capital of nearly 50 years of continual corruption, which has finally peaked in this administration? Another possibility, when you consider the record number of mysterious Congressional "retirings" the past year alone (Republicans and Democrats alike). History will be the ultimate judge of these and other innuendos, but to be sure, there's no room for denial any longer. Stable administrations too have had their misfortunes, but Clintons' has been the most enduring. If his administration were likened to a motorist, they'd be hard pressed to find any insurance company willing to take a risk at covering them. If denial is your thing, by all means go ahead and discount this latest mishap as pure coincidence, speculative conspiracy theorizing, or some other wholly inappropriate conclusion. It's no secret by now to many in the alternative press that Clinton was in danger of losing his power by November anyway. Either that's true, as I believe, or the Boordas, the Fosters, the Browns, and the Colbys who've perished since the man from Hope took office are just one administration's misfortune. ### Jon Dougherty is cohost of "The Dougherty/Keating Show" on the Media Bypass Radio Network, and is publisher of the bi-weekly geopolitical intelligence report, "The Dougherty/Keating Letter." Online computer users can subscribe to The D/K Letter free by emailing usafeat@ix.netcom.com . (c) 1996 by USA Features. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission. ======================== SIGN UP FOR FREE RELEASES. This is a low-volume list; you will receive 8-12 releases monthly and no mail from other subscribers. Email ccnrs@eskimo.com with SUBSCRIBE CC as the subject. BRAND NEW! Visit our all-text Website for back issues and frequent updates. It's free, fast, and accessible with any browser -- plus you are free to download or repost our material onto other services. http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html GET THE FULL STORY: Each month our Journal covers over 100 news events -- with analysis and commentary -- that have been spiked, suppressed, or ignored by the government-sourced mainline media! Email ccnrs@eskimo.com with GET CATALOG as the subject. We cover: *** The US Constitution * US & World Security * Political Corruption Individual Liberty * World Financial Markets * Religious Freedom *** __________________________________________________________________ Conservative Consensus * ccnrs@eskimo.com * jinks@u.washington.edu http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html __________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: BATF is the IRS (fwd) Date: 03 Sep 1996 15:21:44 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM: Wayne Rulon, Bevan, PRESIDENT MARIPOSA AGGREGATES PO BOX 942 MARIPOSA, CA 95338 (209)966-2211 (O) (209)966-4983 (f) E-MAIL: maggie@ims.mariposa.ca.us TO: ALL CONCERNED SUBJECT: INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DECEPTION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. If you have any comments please share them with me. I am always looking for the truth, if you find any discrepan- cies in this information please advise me and I will post them on board. I might be able to help you obtain your own personal Individual Master File and I know those who can decode the codes on it. This letter is reprinted from issue #6, September 1995, VERITAS newspaper by William Cooper (CAJI) based on twenty years of extensive research done by Wayne Bentson. After I found out about Mr. Bentson's existance, I was so im- pressed with his material, that I tracked him down in Arizona and paid for a five day personalized seminar. Besides being very through and professional, the one thing that Wayne Bentson cannot be accused of is being "cheap"! His view about information, is that a person that spends his time reading, studying, and preparing himself should be compensated for his efforts. I cannot find fault with this point of view, but it does tend to restrict the dissemina- tion of valuable insights to those who can afford them. The following article contains enough information and insights to write a couple of books. I recommend it to you. It is yours for the reading. This information is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The week I spent with Bentson was a truly unforgetable experience. His first comment was that "Everything you thought you knew about the IRS is false." Everything went down hill after that. I have been fascinated by the issues brought up within the "Patriot Movement." I have also been frustrated by the amount of "bullshit" that tends to be passed off as "truth." I have known "intuitively" that there was more to the IRS story than having to declare yourself a "sovereign, free, white, virgin male" and enter the survival mode of living. What I got from Wayne Bentson, and the reason I went to him in the first place, was the government's "truth." I wanted to know what the government thought was their legal basis for the rape and pillage of this country. It turns out that lawyers, accountants, CPA's, etc do not read the law, but only their "Master Tax Guides," etc. I shared my week with an attorney from New Orleans. He start- ed out with expressions such as "I know that is what it says, but that can't be what it means." He changed his mind before the week was out. It appears that they tell us exactly what they are doing, in writing. Wayne Bentson has spent much of his life suing the IRS under the Freedom of Information Act for manuals and docu- ments that were not readily available to the public. To show you how demented he is, he actually reads and under- stands what they have said. As he mentioned to me, "It is all there in black and white. These people are not anar- chists. They have told us exactly what they are doing, the problem is that we find it hard to believe what we read. It is all hidden in plain sight. Who in his right mind would read the IRS Tax Code?" Wayne Bentson has thousands of pages of information that is not available to just anyone. You have to be will- ing to sue, sue, and sue some more in Federal District Court in order to force these "public servants" to share the information they give each other but not to the public. It is my understanding that he provided the information that allowed Larry Becraft to win the Lloyd R. Long case in Tennessee, but that is another another tale and another time. When I read the real story from their own manuals, code, and documents, I can honestly say that I will never look at my government the same way again. I was a pilot during Vietnam, actually in Laos, actual- ly in Thailand since we were never in Laos. Of course, our government has never lied to anyone. I retired as a Major. I swore to upold and defend the Constitution with my life against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and domes- tic, and domestic. Somehow, I never thought that legal terrorists within our own government would turn out to be a bigger threat to the Constitution than the "communists". I have verified most of the assertions made in this article myself. I challenge you to do the same. I have some of the letters mentioned that I might be able to scan if enough would be interested. Wayne Rulon, Bevan Major (USAFR) Retired VERITAS PUBLICATIONS c/o PO BOX 3390 ST.JOHNS, ARIZONA POSTAL ZONE 85936 (cut) BATF FROM IRS On June 6, 1972 Acting Secretary of the Treasury Charles E. Walker signed Treasury Order Number 120-01 which established the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He did this with the stroke of his pen citing "by virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of the Treasury, includ- ing the authority in Reorganizationzation Plan No. 26 of 1950." He ordered the "transfer, as specified herein, the functions, powers and duties of the Internal Revenue Service arising under laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, fire- arms, and explosives (including the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue Service) to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereinafter referred to as the Bureau) which is hereby established. The Bureau shall be headed by the Director, Alco- hol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereinafter referred to as the Director). The Di- rector shall perform his duties under the general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) and under the su- pervision of the Assistant Secretary (Enforcement, Tariff and Trade Affairs, and Operations) (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Secretary)." BATF=IRS Treasury Order 120-01 assigned to the new BATF Chapters 51, 52, and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and sections 7652 and 7653 of such code, chapters 61 through 80 inclusive of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 USC Chapter 8) (which, in 1935, the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional within the several States of the Union,) 18 USC Chapter 44, Title VII Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 USC Appendix, section 1201-1203, 18 USC 1262-1265 1952 and 3615, and etc. Mr. Walker then makes a statement within TO 120-01 that is very revealing, "The terms 'Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division' and 'Commissioner of Internal Revenue' wherever used in regulations, rules, and instructions, and forms, issued or adopted for the Administration and Enforcement of the laws specified in paragraph 2 hereof, which are in effect or in use on the effective date of this Order, shall be held to mean 'the Director'". Walker seemed to branch the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), creating the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), and then with that statement joined them back together into one. In the Federal Register, Volume 41, Number 180, of Wednesday, September 15, 1976 we find, "The term 'Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division' has been replaced by the term 'Internal Revenue Service.'" We found this pattern of deception and obfuscation everywhere we looked during our investigation. For further evidence of the fact that the IRS and the BATF are one and the same organization check 27 USCA Section 201. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Donna J. Logan" Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert (fwd) Date: 03 Sep 1996 19:12:00 -0400 (EDT) On Tue, 3 Sep 1996 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > It says that the government (gestapo) would require "creation of a > computer profiling system that would EXAMINE PASSENGERS' BILL-PAYING > RECORDS, I'd like to know what that has to do with determining whether someone is a terrorist or not (presuming that anyone bringing a bomb onboard wouldn't have charged it on their Visa at their local Wal-Mart...)... what does knowing whether someone hasn't paid their cable bill in 3 months, or even if they've bounced checks...do rubber checks a terrorist make? :-/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Donna J. Logan" Subject: VITA/World Bank invitation to participate in new think tank (fwd) Date: 03 Sep 1996 20:01:27 -0400 (EDT) Hey! It SAYS to forward it on to all the lists I belong to! Little do they know the lists I belong to! ROTFLMFAO! ;-) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Devel-L subscribers: You are invited to participate in the next electronic conference sponsored by the World Bank. This four-week electronic exchange will focus on how the World Bank Group and the Philanthropic Community can work together more effectively in support of science and technology for development. We would welcome your posting this invitation to lists which you belong, and we regret that because of cross-posting you may receive more than one invitation. We look forward to your participation. Ron Epstein TechNet Think Tank Conference Manager Volunteers in Technical Assistance (VITA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE WORLD BANK'S TECHNET: THINK TANK ELECTRONIC CONFERENCES This message has been cross posted to multiple discussion lists and news groups. We apologize to readers who have seen it more than once. Feel free to cross post this message to RELEVANT lists. It is with pleasure that we invite you to participate in the World Bank's TechNet Third Think Tank Electronic Conference. This think tank discussion addresses the topic of Philanthropic Foundations and Their Role in Developing Countries. The World Bank Group and the Foundation Community are working together with a view to enhance the effectiveness of their effort in support of Science and Technology (S&T) for Development. TechNet is the focal point for this collaboration. The electronic conference on this topic is a joint effort of the Carnegie Foundation and the World Bank group. The objective of this conference is to explore the potential for a stronger relationship between the World Bank and the foundations in the area of science and technology (S&T) and on means to improve the effectiveness of donors in building S&T capacity in developing nations. It will start September 9 and is scheduled to close on October 9, 1996. This conference and subsequent ones are being conducted by the World Bank in cooperation with the Volunteers in Technical Assistance (VITA). TechNet will be hosting a series of seven separate Think Tanks over the next twelve months on subjects related to science, technology and information in development. HOW IT WORKS A Think Tank is a conference discussion that is conducted entirely through electronic means. Approximately 20-30 experts from the foundations, government, private sector, academia, NGOs, international organizations and the World Bank will discuss each topic for a period of four weeks. The discussion will be "broadcast only" to subscribers, but readers are encouraged to comment and to pose questions. To participate in the Think Tank discussion on Philanthropic Foundations, you may subscribe by visiting the TechNet Web site: http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/technet/ or by sending an email message as follows: To: listproc@vita.org Subject: (Leave Blank) Text: sub fountech FirstName LastName (Give your own FirstName and Last Name) You can subscribe to this or any other Think Tank by visiting the TechNet conference page: http://www.vita.org/technet ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert (fwd) Date: 04 Sep 1996 00:01:31 -0500 At 12:19 PM 9/3/96 -0400, Brad Dolan wrote: >Can you pay cash and board without presenting ID if you bring no luggage? > >If not, this is about surveillance and control, not preventing terrorist >bombings. > *Cash*? That'd mark you as a drug dealer. Especially as you'd be paying full fare. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: More on PMRS (fwd) Date: 04 Sep 1996 12:35:45 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: dateline , usatoday@clark.net, piml@mars.galstar.com, tab@hollyent.com [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] MEMO TO: Judge Alex Kozinski Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Pasadena, California state FROM: Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law DATE: September 3, 1996 SUBJECT: Performance Management and Recognition System ("PMRS") I thought I would drop you a brief note to explain all the commotion concerning the PMRS. We know a political prisoner who is prepared to testify that the PMRS is a poor disguise for a very ugly political kick-back scheme. This witness will testify that the President of the United States is, evidently, getting $35,000 for each indictment which the "Internal Revenue Service" obtains from federal grand juries against "illegal tax protestors." These "performance recognition awards" are being paid out under color of the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM"). You will note that the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM") has no authority in law whatsoever. See Lurhing v. Glotzbach, 304 F.2d 360 (4th Cir. 1962); Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1980); and United States v. Goldstein, 342 F.Supp. 661 (E.D.N.Y. 1972); Boulez v. C.I.R., 810 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1987); United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 967 (6th Cir. 1982). Judge Kozinski, this is jury tampering, obstruction of justice, and treason. I won't stand for it. Will you? Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA REPUBLIC email: pmitch@primenet.com =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: H. R. 3103 (fwd) Date: 04 Sep 1996 12:45:14 -0500 (CDT) ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- This is from the *Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 1996* * Subtitle E: Revenue Offsets - Chapter 1: Treatment of Individuals Who Expatriate - Sets forth the tax responsibilities of an expatriate: (1) who has had an average annual net income tax of more than $100,000 for the five year period ending before expatriation; (2) or whose net worth is $500,000 or more.Provides as a general rule that all property of a covered expatriate shall be treated as sold on the expatriation date for its fair market value. Allows an exclusion from gain of up to $600,000. Permits an expatriate to elect to continue to be taxed as a United States citizen, in which case the provisions applicable to other expatriates will not apply. Sets forth specified reporting requirements for all expatriates.* that is tucked away in the middle of the *health bill* when you get closer to the end you find the following: * Title VI: Internal Revenue Code and Other Provisions - Subtitle A: Foreign Trust Tax Compliance - Revises the requirements regarding information that must be reported regarding certain foreign trusts. Modifies the circumstances (with regard to foreign trusts having one or more U.S. beneficiaries) in which a transferor is treated as the owner. Replaces provisions setting forth a special rule applicable to foreign grantors with provisions declaring that provisions relating to treating grantors and others as substantial owners shall apply only when that application results in an amount being currently taken into account in computing the income of a U.S. citizen or resident or a domestic corporation. Requires a United States person to report information regarding foreign gifts or bequests when the gifts' aggregate value during a taxable year exceeds $10,000. Modifies requirements regarding the interest charge on accumulation distributions from foreign trusts. Changes the circumstances in which an estate or trust is included in the definition of "United States person." Modifies the definition of "foreign estate or trust." Requires (for provisions relating to the imposition of a tax on transfers to avoid income tax) treating a trust which is not a foreign trust and which becomes a foreign trust as having transferred, immediately before becoming a foreign trust, all of its assets to a foreign trust. Subtitle B: Repeal of Bad Debt Reserve Method for Thrift Savings Associations - Repeals the bad debt reserve method, concerning reserves for losses on loans, for thrift savings associations.* Now, will someone explain to me how the above tag-ons relate to the health coverage of anyone ???? --------PGP KEY FILE------------- To request my PGP Key Send a message to mwarren@telepath.com, with SEND PGP KEY, in subject field. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Raid Today on Idaho Company Date: 04 Sep 1996 10:47:35 -0700 Still think you live in a free country? This morning a small Idaho company, OZ Technology, was raided by police officers and EPA officials demanding to look through their records, etc. Their crime? They have a better replacement for FREON than the one that's currently approved by the EPA. And they have a court date in Boise on Friday, two days from now, when the injunction they've filed against the EPA will be heard. Begin to get the picture? The raid is still going on as I write this; I'll let you all know more as soon as I do. My business partner left a half hour ago to join in the festivities and will (hopefully) be reporting back. Germany in the thirties... - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: FDA ATTACKS VITAMINS AGAIN: Letter to Senator Hatch (fwd) Date: 04 Sep 1996 13:06:36 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 09:05:01 -0500 >From: "Len B." >Subject: FDA ATTACKS VITAMINS AGAIN: Letter to Senator Hatch >To: pnpj@db1.cc.rochester.edu, bailey@best.COM, jane@swdc.stratus.COM, > wac@europa.COM > >PLease redistribute far and wide ... and DO NOT STOP!!!!! THE FDA IS >ATTACKING US AGAIN! FIRE THE SHOTS THAT WILL MAKE THEM LISTEN!!!! THE WAR >IS NOT OVER! > > Len Bucuvalas > >> >============================================================================ > >>Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 04:25:17 -0700 (PDT) >>From: "John J. Amsler" >>To: John DiNardo >>Cc: Len Bucuvalas , >> "W. Sanford Smith III" <102652.1062@compuserve.com>, >> Joe Zychik >>Subject: Codex Alimentarius: Letter to Senator Hatch >>Mime-Version: 1.0 >>Status: R >> The Life Extension Foundation: UN/WHO Codex Alimentarius >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> >> The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch 1/29/96 >> >> c/o Tricia Knight >> >> US Senate, RSOB 135 >> >> Washington, DC 20510 >> >> 202-224-5251, FAX 202-224-6331 >> >> Re: DSHEA AFFORDS ZERO PROTECTION: PLEASE HELP US! >> >> Dear Senator Hatch: >> >> Several months ago you promised consumers of dietary supplements >> that you would once again come to our assistance if it became >> apparent that we were not afforded sufficient protection from the >> FDA by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. (DSHEA) >> >> The December 20 '95 letter to you from attorney Milton Bass of the >> Nutritional Health Alliance (enclosed) makes it crystal clear that >> I was BETRAYED by the 103rd Congress when it UNANIMOUSLY enacted >> DSHEA with the false assurance that DSHEA made it impossible for >> the Food and Drug Administration to ever again regulate and ban >> vitamins as drugs or prescription drugs. >> >> The ink had barely dried after President Clinton signed DSHEA into >> law before the FDA had used DSHEA in court to claim that vitamin >> B-12 was a drug because it was absorbed through the nasal membrane. >> >> It was the FDA's first test case of DSHEA. On April 14, 1995, the >> U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York >> permanently enjoined Nature's Bounty from marketing Ener-B (vitamin >> B-12) "or any other nasally administered nutrient" without an >> approved new drug application. >> >> On December 19, 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second >> Circuit upheld the District Court decision. Milton Bass wrote you >> December 20. (see enclosed letter). >> >> I realize that Tricia was on vacation and was then out with an >> injury and is now facing a huge in basket, so you may not have >> responded yet to Milt Bass, but I am helping Tricia here by >> providing you with a copy of his letter so that she won't have to >> dig through her pile to find it. I trust that you will agree to >> sponsor a Senate companion bill to Congressman Pallone's HR 1951 >> and that you will work as diligently to get it enacted as you did >> to get DSHEA passed in the last Congress. >> >> H.R. 1951 will correct the fatal defect in DSHEA which not only >> allows, but encourages FDA to continue to expand its 50 year >> regulatory war against me and millions of other consumers who do >> not want vitamins, minerals, amino acids, herbs, hormones and other >> dietary supplements regulated as drugs. If B-12 is better >> assimilated by some people when taken as a nasal gel, that in no >> way changes B-12 to a drug. If I take Epsom Salt (magnesium >> sulfate) bath and assimilate magnesium through my skin, that does >> not make magnesium a prescription drug. If I inhale herbs >> (aromatherapy) that does not make those herbs "drugs". If I apply >> vitamin E oil to prevent or reduce scar tissue, that does not make >> vitamin E a "drug." If I apply aloe vera to a sunburn, that does >> not make this useful herb a "drug." >> >> The USA vs Nature's Bounty decision is not good, Senator. In >> Norway, where draconian regulations were rammed through in the late >> 1980's that have outlawed most dietary supplements and only allow a >> handful to be sold (at RDA levels), they began by chipping away at >> people's freedom in exactly this way. >> >> The German delegate to the UN/WHO's Codex Alimentarius Commission's >> Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses has >> proposed a very restrictive provision governing dietary supplements >> that would reduce the whole world to Norway's level of servitude to >> the multinational pharmaceutical industry, and efforts are being >> made internationally to "harmonize" with Codex. In the last Codex >> meeting, the German delegate's proposal was accepted by 16 out of >> 18 delegates present. Only the US and UK delegates opposed it. At >> the next Codex meeting in October, the US is very likely to be >> outvoted on this issue, and the WTO will then attempt to force us >> into compliance via trade sanctions. We direly need to pass HR 1951 >> in order to send a message to the WTO that we will not yield. >> >> On January 18, 1996, an article titled "World Trade Group Orders >> U.S. to Alter Clean Air Act" was published in the NY Times. The WTO >> says that our Clean Air Act "discriminates" against foreign oil >> refiners who are currently blocked from importing gasoline >> containing "armomatic" chemicals which would contribute to smog. Is >> it in America's best interests for foreign judges to be allowed to >> override domestic legislation that is in the best interests of >> public health? We urge a US withdrawal from both the UN and WTO. >> >> If the Codex Commission adopts the German delegates proposal >> regarding dietary supplements, the WTO will attempt to sanction the >> US in order to force us into compliance, just as they are currently >> attempting to scuttle our Clean Air Act. It is therefor IMPERATIVE >> that you sponsor a Senate companion bill to HR 1951, as well as >> urge a national pull out from the WTO. >> >> I respectfully request a copy of your reply to Milton Bass, as >> well as a reply to this letter. Will you sponsor a companion bill >> to HR 1951? Will you urge a US pullout from the WTO? Do you see >> the threat to health freedom posed by Codex? >> >> Sincerely yours, >> >> (Letter from Milton Bass follows. This letter prepared for my >> convenience by John C. Hammell, legislative advocate, Life >> Extension Foundation, 1534 Polk St. Hollywood, FL 33020, USA. >> Form letter to be sent to Senator Hatch - not to LEF!) >> >> LETTER FROM MILTON BASS of BASS and ULLMAN, PC Counselors at Law >> 747 3rd Ave. NY, NY 10017 >> >> (Milt Bass is the attorney for the Nutritional Health Alliance) >> >> December 20, 1995 >> * via facsimile (202) 224-6331 >> * and first class mail >> >> * The Honorable Senator Orrin G. Hatch >> * United States Senate >> * Russell Senate Office Building >> * Room 135 >> * Washington, D.C. 20510 >> >> Re: Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 >> >> (DSHEA) >> >> Dear Senator Hatch: >> >> I wish to bring to your attention a very important decision which >> has just been handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for >> the Second circuit. >> >> You will recall that when the Senate passed the bill, you put a >> provision in that bill which stated that the FDA cannot make >> dietary supplements into drugs. That provision was removed when it >> went to the House of Representatives, and a different provision was >> put in its place. The Court has now interpreted the new provision >> and has ruled that the statute has provided a wide open door for >> the FDA to make dietary supplements into drugs, and prohibit their >> sale. >> >> This interpretation of DSHEA by FDA and the Court not only >> reinforces the significance of the provision which was originally >> in the bill, as passed by the Senate, but it changes even the prior >> law wherein FDA was strictly limited to the provisions of 321(g)(1) >> as a basis for making dietary supplements into drugs. You will note >> in the enclosed copy of the opinion that I have underlined the >> words "for other reasons, such as its method of intake" (page >> 5,line 8), which is not what the original 321(g) * (1) provided nor >> the way this section was interpreted before DSHEA by the same Court >> of Appeals. >> >> I believe this is a very serious and urgent matter, and >> respectfully request your assistance in correcting this problem by >> getting back the provision we originally has in the Senate bill to >> prevent the FDA from making dietary supplements into drugs. >> >> With kindest regards, >> >> Respectfully, >> >> >> Bass and Ullman, P.C. >> >> >> Milton A. Bass >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Information Provided by John C. Hammell, Legislative Advocate, The >> Life Extension Foundation, LEF Political Office 1534 Polk St. >> Hollywood, FL 33020 USA jhammell@ix.netcom.com, 800-333-2553, >> 954-929-2905, FAX 954-929-0507. >> >> DONATIONS URGENTLY NEEDED TO FUND THE I.H.A (International Health >> Alliance)Make out checks to Life Extension Foundation, send to >> above address. Funds will be used to operate our Think Tank on >> Codex in order to strategize the most effective grass roots monkey >> wrenching effort. Former law professor Suzanne Harris, GATT expert, >> will be conducting this all important Think Tank. Funds will also >> go to Ron Birckhead, our European Liason who is working hard to >> build a grass roots anti Codex army in Europe. We have 8 short >> months to monkey-wrench Codex. We are all that stands between you >> and the tyranny of the UN/WHO's Codex Alimentarius Commission which >> seeks to destroy health freedom world wide as they seek total >> control over the world's food supply, including dietary >> supplements. Permission granted to reprint. Media contacts urgently >> needed. Am doing radio shows to solicit urgently needed donations >> and to discuss the Codex threat to health freedom. Call your >> Congressman today: Get cosponsors on HR 1951, help get a Senate >> companion bill to it, get the US out of the UN/WTO!!! >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: PIML: National ID card (fwd) Date: 04 Sep 1996 13:11:06 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Reply-to: rre-maintainers@weber.ucsd.edu [The new welfare bill in the US has profound privacy implications and will require major new identification systems and databases. See the article on the front page of today's (9/2/96) New York Times for some details. (There's a bunch of useful Internet stuff in the business section too.) This issue of the Privacy Forum, which I've abridged and rearranged, includes three items on Social Security Numbers and another on fingerscanning. This is really it: pressures for universal identifiers are growing exponentially from a hundred directions as we speak. I wish I knew how to communicate the magnitude of it. If half the stuff currently being launched in this area really happens then the world is going to be completely different a year from now -- give it two if the system development projects choke as per usual on their overambition. I hope you're not sick of this topic, because you'll be hearing lots more about it this autumn. Educate, agitate, organize. Please. Speaking of which, I've also enclosed a note about a Privacy International web page on national identification cards.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= PRIVACY Forum Digest Sunday, 1 September 1996 Volume 05 : Issue 16 This alert came by mail from the National Conference of State Legislatures in Washington, D.C. I added an update which includes the names of House-Senate conferees. The federal immigration bill (H.R. 2202) is expected to emerge from conference committee some time during the first week of September. Now is the time to act. TOWARD A NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION CARD AND MORE RED TAPE: CONGRESS MANDATES CHANGES TO DRIVER'S LICENSES AND BIRTH CERTIFICATES On May 2, 1996, the U.S. Senate passed S. 1664 (now called H.R. 2202 - Senate version), a bill to reform illegal immigration, that proposes monumental changes to all driver's licenses and birth certificates (section 118). These changes will force most U.S. citizens to obtain and pay for new driver's licenses and birth certificates; compromise each citizen's right to privacy; violate state and local control over driver's licenses and birth certificates; and invite discrimination against minorities. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal driver's license mandate alone will shift up to $20 million in costs to states and localities. The House also passed an immigration bill, H.R. 2202. The House bill does not contain the driver's license and birth certificate mandates. Both House and Senate immigration staff are currently reconciling the two bills in an informal conference committee. Phone calls to House and Senate Leadership are urgently needed to demand that the driver's license and birth certificate mandates be deleted from the final bill. What Does the Senate Version of H.R. 2202 Require? 1. Driver's Licenses - State driver's licenses and identification cards MUST CONTAIN THE APPLICANT'S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. The federal government will also create new federal standards for the application process and design of all driver's licenses and ID cards. States that currently retain and verify an applicant's social security number but do not place the number on the cards are initially exempt from the social security number mandate. According to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, of the 38 states that do not require the social security number to be on their driver's licenses, only Massachusetts would qualify for this exemption; all other states would be required to place social security numbers on driver's licenses and ID cards. All states are required to conform to the other federal standards. States with cycles of renewal longer than six years must start October 1, 2006. After October 1, 2006, NO ONE may use a driver's license or ID card for identification purposes that does not meet these federal standards. 2. Birth Certificates - All birth certificates must be printed on federally-approved safety paper and be certified by the issuing agency. The federal government will also issue additional provisions requiring other security features in the future. Starting in 1999 (three years after the bill's enactment), birth certificates that do not meet these federal standards cannot be accepted by any federal agency or by any state or local agency that issues driver's licenses or ID cards. Who Needs a New Driver's License? Anyone who wants to use their driver's license as a valid form of identification after October 1, 2006. If you need to use a driver's license to vote, to apply for a passport, to qualify for a federal school loan, license, contract or public assistance program or to meet any other federal, state or local requirement you will need a new driver's license. Will I Have to Put My Social Security Number on My Driver's License? Yes. While most states currently give applicants the option of not using this number on their driver's license or prohibit its use outright, the new federal requirements will force almost every American to put their social security number on their license or ID card. Many citizens are concerned by laws that increase the circulation of their social security number. The social security number is a key which provides access to vital personal information, which could be misused if it fell into the wrong hands. Others believe that proposals making driver's licenses uniform, including social security numbers, are a significant step toward a national ID card. Finally, many minorities contend that they will be disproportionately affected by the new requirements because they will be asked to show their documents more often than other Americans. Who Needs a New Birth Certificate? Anyone who wants to use their birth certificate as a valid form of identification after October 1, 1999. If you need to use your birth certificate to establish citizenship, apply for or renew a driver's license, passport or other identification documents, obtain a marriage license, register to vote, change your name, or many other purposes you will need a new certificate. No matter how old you are, if you need to use your birth certificate it must conform to the new federal standards, otherwise it is invalid. Fees will almost certainly be charged for new birth certificates to pay for the new federal requirements. This will impose a significant hardship on elderly and low-income Americans. THE DRIVER'S LICENSE AND BIRTH CERTIFICATE MANDATES IN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BILL H.R. 2202 (Senate) WILL... ...INCREASE SOCIAL SECURTY NUMBER FRAUD. H.R. 2202 (Senate version) will require the vast majority of automobile drivers in the U.S. to put their social security numbers on their driver's licenses. In the future, whenever someone shows their driver's license they will also be exposing their social security number. With the social security number accessible to so many people, it will be relatively easy for someone to fraudulently use your social security number to assume your identity and gain access to your bank account, credit services, utility billing information, driving history, and other sources of personal information. This new federal law will compound and exacerbate a disturbing trend reported by banks and credit card companies that social security number-related fraud is already on the rise. ...INVADE PRIVACY AND THREATEN CIVIL LIBERTIES. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, when social security numbers were first issued in 1936, the federal government assured the public that use of the numbers would be limited to social security programs. The driver's license and ID card provisions in H.R. 2202 (Senate version) violate this promise, and will dramatically increase the circulation of the social security number and its use as a national identifier. Now more corporations, creditors, insurance companies, government officials and others will be able to get easier access to vast amounts of personal information that can be used to support marketing schemes, determine insurance and loan eligibility, gain an advantage in a lawsuit, etc. ...PREEMPT STATE LAWS AND SHIFT COSTS TO STATES AND LOCALITIES. According to the Automobile Association of America, 38 states do not require drivers to put their social security numbers on their driver's licenses. Legislation has been introduced in a number of states (including Mississippi and Hawaii) that require social security numbers on their driver's licenses to take the numbers off the card because of fraud and privacy problems. The new federal law would require all but Massachusetts to change their laws, taking this option away from the majority of the nation's drivers and limiting state authority to decide whether this policy is appropriate for their residents. The bill also gives the federal government wide latitude to develop new and more costly requirements for state driver's licenses, ID cards and birth certificates in the future. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the new unfunded federal mandates in the law will shift up to $20 million in costs to states and force states and localities to increase fees for birth certificates to pay for new federal requirements. ...LEAD TO A NATIONAL ID CARD THAT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST MINORITIES. By requiring states to tie the social security number to state-issued identification documents, the proposal marks a dramatic shift toward using the number as an identifier. Today's mandate that the states follow federal requirements in their identification documents will lead to tomorrow's mandate: that the federal government issue the identification documents itself to ensure uniformity and reliability. Make no mistake: this provision is a key building block for national identification documents, and the national ID card. If such an ID card is mandated, Latinos, Asians, and other Americans who "look foreign" or speak with an accent will be expected to produce this document far more often than other Americans, especially if they live in border areas. Increasing discrimination against our own citizens is no way to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. ...TANGLE CITIZENS IN GOVERNMENT RED TAPE. The federal bill requires any citizen that needs to use their birth certificate for official identification to get a reissued birth certificate from their place of birth by October 1999. Senior citizens that intend to apply for Medicare will need to obtain a new birth certificate. Couples engaged to be married will need new birth certificates for a marriage license and to change their names. Professionals traveling internationally for business or families going on vacation overseas will need new birth certificates to obtain passports. With millions of citizens requesting new birth certificates, lines and waits for federally-approved birth certificates will be long. All recipients will be charged a fee for their new birth certificates. ------------------------------- UPDATE: To study the full text of the Senate's version of H.R. 2202, go to http://thomas.loc.gov and look up S.1664, section 118. Write or call conferees and your own member of the House. As of Thursday, 8/29/96, 4:30 pm EDT, Senate conferees on the immigration bill were: Feinstein, Dianne - California Grassley, Chuck - Iowa Hatch, Orrin - Utah Kennedy, Edward - Massachusetts Kohl, Herb - Wisconsin Kyl, Jon - Arizona Leahy, Patrick - Vermont Simon, Paul - Illinois Simpson, Alan - Wyoming Specter, Arlen - Pennsylvania Thurmond, Strom - South Carolina Likely House conferees include: Becerra, Xavier - California (30) Berman, Howard - California (26) Bono, Sonny - California (44) Bryant, Ed - Tennessee (7) Bryant, John - Texas (5) Conyers, John, Jr. - Michigan (14) Frank, Barney - Massachusetts (4) Gallegly, Elton - California (23) Goodlatte, Bob - Virginia (6) Hyde, Henry - Illinois (6) McCollum, Bill - Florida (8) Smith, Lamar - Texas (21) Please do not wait to contact House conferees. The conference report could be issued within as little as 24 hours of their final selection. To be most effective, letters should be postmarked by Saturday, August 31st, or faxed early the following week. Members' offices also may be reached by phone through the Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121. Thanks for your help. [ From Risks-Forum Digest; Volume 18 : Issue 35 -- MODERATOR ] Last spring, I asked readers of RISKS for suggestions on alternatives to Social Security numbers in organizations with large data bases of information about individuals. Many such organizations find they do not need to use SSNs, and avoid privacy problems associated with using them. For a copy of all of the responses, send a request to us and specify whether you want hard copy or electronic edition of our August issue, and provide postal address or e-mail address. Robert Ellis Smith, Publisher, Privacy Journal newsletter, Providence, RI, 401/274-7861, e-mail 5101719@mcimail.com. Excerpts from the suggestions follow: * FROM WASHINGTON, D.C.: Maryland uses Soundex (of name and birth date concatenated [linked in a chain]) both for driver and vehicle registrations. * FROM CAMBRIDGE, MASS.: "Against Universal Health-Care Identifiers" in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION 1:316-319, 1994, by Dr. Peter Szolovits of MIT and Dr. Isaac Kohane of Children's Hospital in Boston, discusses a number of ways in which cryptography- based health care identifiers can be used to preserve privacy while remaining manageable for typical medical purposes. This is publication #49 (in Postscript format) at http://medg.lcs.mit.edu/people/psz/publications.html. * FROM YARDLEY, PA.: One way is to use a simple scheme like three letters from last name, the first initial, and some digits; another is just to use sequential numbers. Another is an MD5 hash of the full-name string [a one-way mathematical function as a stand-in for the name that makes translation back to the original name impossible]. This is always unique for a unique string, so you might need to add some numbers. * FROM MADISON, WISC.: When I was working on the development of the Wisconsin Student Data Handbook - we tried to develop what we called an "SSN surrogate," also of nine bytes per individual. It involved an algorithm which combined year, month, and date of birth with sex and two consonants each extracted from the first and middle names. * FROM CYBERSPACE: I worked with a banking software company that set up employee records simply by exact hire date and time. Since they never hired anyone at exactly the same time, it gave each person a unique number. You could do the same for any data base in which records are added gradually one at a time - just number them based on exact date and time added. * FROM PALO ALTO, CAL.: At Stanford University we made a decision long ago not to use SSN for identification except where required by law (payroll taxes, for example). We use a unique Stanford University ID (SUID), which is a lifetime number and applies to all students, alumni, faculty, staff, and patients. It serves all the same purposes that the SSN would do if it were used. Excerpt from EPIC Alert 3.15 ======================================================================= [3] Welfare Legislation Signed by Clinton ======================================================================= On August 22, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bill includes a number of sections that expand the use of the Social Security Number and create new databases of personal information. The bill requires that states obtain individuals' Social Security Numbers for many state documents. It provides that on "any application for a professional license, commercial driver's license, occupational license, or marriage license [the SSN] be recorded on the application." The new bill also creates a national database of every employee in the United States. States are also required to create databases of "new hires." The state databases would be uploaded to a federal registry and the Social Security Administration would verify the SSNs. The Commissioner of Social Security is required to develop "a prototype of a counterfeit-resistant social security card" made of tamper proof materials for proving citizenship, and to issue a report on the cost of issuing a new card to all citizens over a three, five or ten year period. More information on the welfare bill, the Social Security Number, and efforts to expand its use is available at: http://www.epic.org/privacy/ssn/ SEATTLE WEEKLY Copyright 1996 - used with permission July 24,1996 - "Quick and Dirty" column by Eric Scigliano Thumbprint, retinal or body-odor scan, sir? If you think those "Go to Jail" charity slumber parties are a scream, you may get a kick out of cashing checks after September 11. That's when US Bank will start requiring that non-customers cashing its checks consent to be finger--or, rather, thumb--printed. Other local banks are expected to join US Bank on the new security frontier in September, and at least one, Seafirst, plans to start taking thumbprints next year in step with its California parent, Bank America. The thumbprinting scheme is being pushed by the Washington Bankers Association, which wants all its members to take the plunge together. As Dan Doyle, regional manager over US Bank's Western Washington branches, notes, "I'm not sure any one bank wants to be the one to step out and do it--it probably sounds cold, hard, and not very customer-friendly." Indeed. "But it's really to protect customers." That protection is supposed to come from deterrence. Very few, if any, check forgers actually get caught via thumbprints in those states (most notably Texas, Nevada, and Arizona) whose banks already take them. Tellers can't (yet, anyway) check the prints for known forgers; the prints will merely be saved (on the checks themselves) for investigation in the event of a bounce. But Bruce Koppe, the Bankers Association's executive director, reports that bogus-check losses have declined by 40 percent in those states. Doyle says US Bank has charted 45 percent reductions in states where it's tried the system, and fewer than 1 percent of those asked decline to give prints. Some retailers, and reportedly at least one local credit union, are already taking prints on checks. Customers can at least be reassured that they won't have to bear the telltale black stains of traditional fingerprinting; the new "inkless" printing leaves no visible mark on the skin. Still, fingerprinting is, in the words of American Civil Liberties Union lobbyist Jerry Sheehan, "the archetypal metaphor of criminality, along with the mug shot and lineup." Some tellers are already grumbling at the prospect of having to do it. The banks take heart that they won't be demanding prints of their current customers. But the ill will may still come around to bite them; those are all potential customers they stand to infuriate, and account-holders may not like the idea of their checks being valid only when backed by thumbprints. And thumbprinting may be just the nose under the tent. That mixed bodily metaphor suits the brave new world of "biometric" identification in which we will, very soon, find ourselves. Down in Olympia, a working group of the joint Legislative Transportation Committee is considering what kind of biometric and/or computer technology to adopt in upcoming "smart" driver's licenses; its findings are due in December, preparatory to the next legislative session. Possibilities include a bar code or magnetic strip; a store scrutinizing your check or a cop writing a ticket could scan your full digitalized profile. All the drivers' license data that now fills a state warehouse could be consolidated in a single data base. And all those sci-fi and privacy-protectionist warnings about personal bar codes and instant snooping will come true. Transportation Committee staffer Jennifer Joly says that fingerprinting is still the most common form of biometric ID. But more exotic techniques are coming in: hand geometry scans, retinal scans, iris scans, computerized facial recognition, and (I am not making this up) body odor measurement. It seems unlikely that those who take IDs will stop at thumbprinting checks. Joly reports that bankers, retailers, and law-enforcement groups have joined in a coalition to weigh in on the new drivers' licenses. "We'll be pushing for legislation imposing severe restrictions" on fingerprinting, the ACLU's Sheehan vows. And they'll "continue to resist these pressures to create uniform identification papers from a document intended for driver's certification." [...] July 31, 1996 - "Quick and Dirty" column by Eric Scigliano [...] They want to know it all If you feel queasy about being fingerprinted by a bank, imagine how tellers feel about all the information they're supposed to disclose. US Bank asks employees to fill out an "extortion readiness card" listing all their cars (by number and "markings") and neighbors, the names, schools, and daily routes and schedules of their children, and any meetings they themselves regularly attend. US Bancorp spokeswoman Mary Ruble says taking such data is a longtime standard banking practice done for the employees' "own safety," to protect them in "hostage situations" and to help authorities "follow up if a claim of kidnapping is made." She adds that US Bank has never encountered such a situation, but believes other banks have. The cards are kept confidential in a central office, and filling them out is "voluntary for employees." But one bank worker who objected recalls being told to fill out the card anyway, and got the feeling, despite the explanation, that the intent was really to guard against crimes by, rather than against, employees. "The extortion readiness card has nothing to do with embezzlement," says Ruble. The Internet PRIVACY Forum is a moderated digest for the discussion and analysis of issues relating to the general topic of privacy (both personal and collective) in the "information age" of the 1990's and beyond. The moderator will choose submissions for inclusion based on their relevance and content. Submissions will not be routinely acknowledged. All submissions should be addressed to "privacy@vortex.com" and must have RELEVANT "Subject:" lines; submissions without appropriate and relevant "Subject:" lines may be ignored. Excessive "signatures" on submissions are subject to editing. Subscriptions are by an automatic "listserv" system; for subscription information, please send a message consisting of the word "help" (quotes not included) in the BODY of a message to: "privacy-request@vortex.com". Mailing list problems should be reported to "list-maint@vortex.com". All messages included in this digest represent the views of their individual authors and all messages submitted must be appropriate to be distributable without limitations. The PRIVACY Forum archive, including all issues of the digest and all related materials, is available via anonymous FTP from site "ftp.vortex.com", in the "/privacy" directory. Use the FTP login "ftp" or "anonymous", and enter your e-mail address as the password. The typical "README" and "INDEX" files are available to guide you through the files available for FTP access. PRIVACY Forum materials may also be obtained automatically via e-mail through the listserv system. Please follow the instructions above for getting the listserv "help" information, which includes details regarding the "index" and "get" listserv commands, which are used to access the PRIVACY Forum archive. All PRIVACY Forum materials are available through the Internet Gopher system via a gopher server on site "gopher.vortex.com". Access to PRIVACY Forum materials is also available through the Internet World Wide Web (WWW) via the Vortex Technology WWW server at the URL: "http://www.vortex.com"; full keyword searching of all PRIVACY Forum files is available via WWW access. End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 05.16 ************************ EXTENSIVE NATIONAL ID CARD WEB SITE IS NOW ON LINE The London-based human rights watchdog Privacy International (PI) has just opened an extensive web page on National ID cards. The initiative comes in the wake of pending efforts in the United States, Canada and United Kingdom to implement national ID card systems. The page contains a 7,000 word FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) on all aspects of ID cards and their implications. Also included in the PI documents is a paper describing successful campaigns opposing to ID cards in Australia and other countries. The page also has links to numerous other sites and documents. PI Director Simon Davies said he hoped the page would help promote debate about the cards, "ID cards are often introduced without serious discussion or consultation. The implications are profound, and countries planning to introduce them should proceed with caution." "The existence of a card challenges important precepts of individual rights and privacy. At a symbolic and a functional level, ID cards are often an unnecessary and potentially dangerous white elephant. They are promoted by way of fear-mongering and false patriotism, and are implemented with scant regard for serious investigation of the consequences." he said. The URL is : http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/ PI has also set up an auto response function for the FAQ document. Its address is: idcardfaq@mail.privacy.org Privacy International is an international human rights group concerned with privacy and surveillance issues. It is based in London, UK. For further information contact the Privacy International Washington Office at +1.202.544.9240 or email pi@privacy.org. PI's web page is available at: http://www.privacy.org/pi/ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ David Banisar (Banisar@privacy.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Privacy International Washington Office * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.privacy.org/pi/ Washington, DC 20003 --------- End forwarded message ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: News on Australia Gun Ban ... and US Marines? (fwd) Date: 04 Sep 1996 13:21:30 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Return-path: >Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 10:25:29 -0400 >From: Rdy4Battle@aol.COM >Subject: Press release from australia >To: PNPJ@db1.cc.rochester.edu > >From: Rdy4Battle (Paula Demers) > >Hi folks, I hear a rumor about US Marines going door to door in Australia >confiscated weapons. I contacted some folks to ask them about it and this is >the press release they sent me back. Lots of similarities. (Reighstag >Australia) > >Paula > >ubj: Re: searches >Date: 96-09-03 23:11:40 EDT >From: despatch@closer.brisnet.org.au > >From: despatch@closer.brisnet.org.au (Wendy Beuster) >Reply-to: despatch@closer.brisnet.org.au >To: Rdy4Battle@aol.com >Dear Paula, > >If there is Paula we have had no news yet, but because of the interest >we have issued a statement to help clear up things as we can see them. >This statement is not copyrighted as long as it is copied entirely and >source acknowleged. > >bye Wendy Beuster >============================================ > >3rd. September, 1996 > >Despatch Statement...re "The Gun Issue" > >Here in Australia New gun laws from the Federal government have made the >retaining of Semi-Automatic & Automatic type weapons illegal. This was >a kick started by the massacre in Tasmania, where approx. 36 people >were gunned down by a `madman' at or near the Port Arthur tourist cafe. >Hysteria was stirred up across Austalia and many citizens joined in the >cry to take personally owned guns away. Street marches for and against >resulted, with suggestions that guns could be crimped where possible, >not removed from our citizens...Prime Minister Howard vetoed this, and >put tremendous pressure on the States to all agree to ban guns by >legislation. This was achieved. > >Victoria was the first to hand over the guns; a 12 months amnesty is >being allowed; the government is offering a buy back system which of >course does not adequately recompense the gun owners...there has been a >huge bonfire of collected guns since all this began. > >During all this two federal parliamentarians Downer and Fisher, went to >the USA to confer with Warren Christopher ...is this a co-incidence? > >USA marines have been in Australia since the 31st. of July 1995. As far >as we can ascertain, 7,000 odd are stationed here with supposedly 30,000 >coming and going for supposed training exercises. We know of these >troops in Ipswich, Queensland, as far south as Victoria, and as far >north as Townsville. There has been no information in newspapers, >Television or by word of mouth re the USA rumour of these troops using >any standover tactics out here. But of course it is convenient that >they are here in case we do object to Gun removal eh! > >Before the States capitulated to Howard's demand for legislation re the >Guns; the Gun Lobby people became so irate in demonstrations that the >Television showed pictures of John Howard wearing what could be nothing >other than a bullet proof vest under his suit. He copped quite a bit of >flack over it! > >Many people want the guns taken away, but it appears to us that many, >many more are objecting, even with threats of anarchy and >violence...stirred on by the `rambos'. They are saying our `inherited' >Bill of Rights from England gives us, (mainly those in Queensland are >saying this) the right to bear arms etc. But the Politicians are >maintaining that our Constitution over-rides the English Bill of Rights, >which was brought in round Magna Carta time. > >The riots out here in Australia have been occurring concurrently with >the above gun lobby, but about the supposed Budget blow out of 8 >billion dollars inherited from the Labour Government of Paul Keating, >and John Howard's [Liberal ] apparently drastic cut-back program to >spending, prior to his announcement of his new budget. The new budget >has quieted things down a little. > >The unions have caused violent riots at Parliament house in Queensland >over ensuing loss of jobs for, State school cleaners and the State >University's Austudy cut backs. But Federally, they have rioted over >loss of jobs for public servants, health workers changes to the >unemployed benefits etc > >The Aboriginals also have rioted at both Parliament Houses in Canberra >[the old and the new] over large cut-backs in Federal Assistance and the >Mabo legislation infringements etc....injuries resulting in blood being >spilt on the parliamentary floor...unheard of, such madness in >Australia. > >Wendy Beuster...Publications Dept. for W.b. Howard. > > ><{{{@> ><{{{@> ><{{{@> ><{{{@> ><{{{@> ><{{{@> > >W.B. Howard...Director & Editor of Despatch Magazine >Endtime Ministries/Christian Resource Center [pub.Q'rtly.Despatch mag.], > which exposes the Infiltration of the N.A.N.W.O. > in our Churches and Society in General. >============================================================= >Visit our Aussie site: http://www.closer.brisnet.org.au/~despatch/ >============================================================= > Jesus said: " I am the way, the truth and the life; > no man cometh unto the father but by me." Jn.14:6 > ><@}}}>< <@}}}>< <@}}}>< <@}}}>< <@}}}>< <@}}}>< > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: LLAW: Re: H. R. 3103 Date: 04 Sep 1996 11:37:15 -0700 (PDT) >>From: CGrib70171@aol.com >>Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:19:17 -0400 >> >>Subject: H. R. 3103 >> >>This is from the *Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 1996* >> >> * Subtitle E: Revenue Offsets - Chapter 1: Treatment of Individuals Who >>Expatriate - >>Sets forth the tax responsibilities of an expatriate: (1) who has had an >>average annual net income tax of more than $100,000 for the five year period >>ending before expatriation; >>(2) or whose net worth is $500,000 or more.Provides as a general rule that >>all property of a covered expatriate shall be treated as sold on the >>expatriation date for its fair market value. Allows an exclusion from gain >>of up to $600,000. Permits an expatriate to elect to continue to be taxed as >>a United States citizen, in which case the provisions >>applicable to other expatriates will not apply. Sets forth specified >>reporting requirements for all expatriates.* Where have they defined "Expatriate"? Does that imply only those who move offshore, or does it also imply those who claim Soverign Citizenship? What "all property" -- real, personal? Sold to whom? And if it has not in fact been sold, does this somehow give the IRS the presumed right to confiscate? Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: More on Idaho Raid Date: 04 Sep 1996 11:51:06 -0700 I just heard from my partner who's over at the raid at OZ Technology. Apparently, the feds are at least being civil and business-like; it could be worse. Looks like it's basically a fishing expedition, since the court case comes up in 2 days. Makes a guy wonder what would happen if *we* showed up at EPA headquarters and demanded to look through all their records prior to a court case. After all, they work for *us*, right? Oh, sorry, I got carried away and starting thinking this was America. More as I get it... - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: H. R. 3103 Date: 04 Sep 1996 16:39:48 EDT > >>>Subject: H. R. 3103 >>> >Individuals Who >>>Expatriate - >>>all property of a covered expatriate shall be treated as sold on the >>>expatriation date for its fair market value. Allows an exclusion >from gain >>>of up to $600,000. Permits an expatriate to elect to continue to be >taxed as >>>a United States citizen, in which case the provisions >>>applicable to other expatriates will not apply. Sets forth >specified >>>reporting requirements for all expatriates.* > > >Where have they defined "Expatriate"? Does that imply only those who >move >offshore, or does it also imply those who claim Soverign Citizenship? > >What "all property" -- real, personal? Sold to whom? And if it has not >in >fact been sold, does this somehow give the IRS the presumed right to >confiscate? > >Greg > > It would seem that they are trying an end run to try and Federalize all property. (IMO) Capt. G.H. Burkepile Communications Officer First Alabama Regiment VII Ranger Corps ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: H. R. 3103 Date: 04 Sep 1996 18:20:40 -0700 At 04:39 PM 9/4/96 EDT, GARY H. BURKEPILE wrote: > >> >>>>Subject: H. R. 3103 >>>> > >>Individuals Who >>>>Expatriate - >>>>all property of a covered expatriate shall be treated as sold on the >>>>expatriation date for its fair market value. Allows an exclusion >>from gain >>>>of up to $600,000. Permits an expatriate to elect to continue to be >>taxed as >>>>a United States citizen, in which case the provisions >>>>applicable to other expatriates will not apply. Sets forth >>specified >>>>reporting requirements for all expatriates.* >> >> >>Where have they defined "Expatriate"? Does that imply only those who >>move >>offshore, or does it also imply those who claim Soverign Citizenship? >> >>What "all property" -- real, personal? Sold to whom? And if it has not >>in >>fact been sold, does this somehow give the IRS the presumed right to >>confiscate? >> >>Greg >> >> >It would seem that they are trying an end run to try and Federalize all >property. >(IMO) No, it's just their "HOW DARE YOU WANT TO LEAVE AMERIKA!" act; anybody here owes all that they have to the government, and if they leave, the government gets to take it. "Expat" refers to somebody who renounces their US citizenship to tak eup permanant residence in another nation. It's patently unconstitutional, and violates several UN charter provisions as well, since it infringes the "right to travel". Not that they care any. Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. 8037 Stone Canyon |counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing Citrus Heights, CA|citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent 95610 |crimes and it appears to produce no increase in kmitchel@gvn.net |accidental deaths. If those states which did not 916-449-9152 (vm) |have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had 916-729-0966 (fax)|adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; |4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults |would have been avoided yearly." Crime, |Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns |John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago -------------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm---------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: H. R. 3103 Date: 05 Sep 1996 00:37:59 EDT On Wed, 04 Sep 1996 18:20:40 -0700 Kenneth Mitchell writes: >At 04:39 PM 9/4/96 EDT, GARY H. BURKEPILE wrote: >> >>> >>>>>Subject: H. R. 3103 >>>>> >> >>>Individuals Who >>>>>Expatriate - >>>>>all property of a covered expatriate shall be treated as sold on >the >>>>>expatriation date for its fair market value. Allows an exclusion >>>from gain >>>>>of up to $600,000. Permits an expatriate to elect to continue to >be >>>taxed as >>>>>a United States citizen, in which case the provisions >>>>>applicable to other expatriates will not apply. Sets forth >>>specified >>>>>reporting requirements for all expatriates.* >>> >>> >>>Where have they defined "Expatriate"? Does that imply only those who > >>>move >>>offshore, or does it also imply those who claim Soverign >Citizenship? >>> >>>What "all property" -- real, personal? Sold to whom? And if it has >not >>>in >>>fact been sold, does this somehow give the IRS the presumed right to > >>>confiscate? >>> >>>Greg >>> >>> >>It would seem that they are trying an end run to try and Federalize >all >>property. >>(IMO) > > >No, it's just their "HOW DARE YOU WANT TO LEAVE AMERIKA!" act; anybody >here >owes all that they have to the government, and if they leave, the >government >gets to take it. "Expat" refers to somebody who renounces their US >citizenship to tak eup permanant residence in another nation. It's >patently >unconstitutional, and violates several UN charter provisions as well, >since >it infringes the "right to travel". Not that they care any. >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Ken Mitchell Ken, After taking a look see in my Webster's New World, you are right. Gary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: LLAW: Re: H. R. 3103 Date: 04 Sep 1996 22:52:18 -0700 (PDT) >>From: CGrib70171@aol.com >>Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:19:17 -0400 >> >>Subject: H. R. 3103 >> >>This is from the *Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 1996* >> >> * Subtitle E: Revenue Offsets - Chapter 1: Treatment of Individuals Who >>Expatriate - >>Sets forth the tax responsibilities of an expatriate: (1) who has had an >>average annual net income tax of more than $100,000 for the five year period >>ending before expatriation; >>(2) or whose net worth is $500,000 or more.Provides as a general rule that >>all property of a covered expatriate shall be treated as sold on the >>expatriation date for its fair market value. Allows an exclusion from gain >>of up to $600,000. Permits an expatriate to elect to continue to be taxed as >>a United States citizen, in which case the provisions >>applicable to other expatriates will not apply. Sets forth specified >>reporting requirements for all expatriates.* Where have they defined "Expatriate"? Does that imply only those who move offshore, or does it also imply those who claim Soverign Citizenship? What "all property" -- real, personal? Sold to whom? And if it has not in fact been sold, does this somehow give the IRS the presumed right to confiscate? Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Re: H. R. 3103 Date: 04 Sep 1996 23:08:23 -0700 (PDT) > "Expat" refers to somebody who renounces their US >citizenship to tak eup permanant residence in another nation. It's patently >unconstitutional, and violates several UN charter provisions as well, since >it infringes the "right to travel". Not that they care any. >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Ken Mitchell > Exactly my point. Is this not exactly what State Citizenship does? Do we not renounce our U.S. citizenship to take up permanent residence in another nation, namely an individual State (Republic, Territory) -- Republic of Texas, Florida State, etc.? And if so, it would appear that this bill is a direct challenge to the State Citizenship movement. Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: H. R. 3103 Date: 05 Sep 1996 07:21:34 EDT On Wed, 04 Sep 1996 18:20:40 -0700 Kenneth Mitchell writes: >At 04:39 PM 9/4/96 EDT, GARY H. BURKEPILE wrote: >> >>> >>>>>Subject: H. R. 3103 >>>>> >> >>>Individuals Who >>>>>Expatriate - >>>>>all property of a covered expatriate shall be treated as sold on >the >>>>>expatriation date for its fair market value. Allows an exclusion >>>from gain >>>>>of up to $600,000. Permits an expatriate to elect to continue to >be >>>taxed as >>>>>a United States citizen, in which case the provisions >>>>>applicable to other expatriates will not apply. Sets forth >>>specified >>>>>reporting requirements for all expatriates.* >>> >>> >>>Where have they defined "Expatriate"? Does that imply only those who > >>>move >>>offshore, or does it also imply those who claim Soverign >Citizenship? >>> >>>What "all property" -- real, personal? Sold to whom? And if it has >not >>>in >>>fact been sold, does this somehow give the IRS the presumed right to > >>>confiscate? >>> >>>Greg >>> >>> >>It would seem that they are trying an end run to try and Federalize >all >>property. >>(IMO) > > >No, it's just their "HOW DARE YOU WANT TO LEAVE AMERIKA!" act; anybody >here >owes all that they have to the government, and if they leave, the >government >gets to take it. "Expat" refers to somebody who renounces their US >citizenship to tak eup permanant residence in another nation. It's >patently >unconstitutional, and violates several UN charter provisions as well, >since >it infringes the "right to travel". Not that they care any. >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Ken Mitchell Ken, After taking a look see in my Webster's New World, you are right. Gary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 07:21:12 -0500 >I'd like to know what that has to do with determining whether someone is >a terrorist or not (presuming that anyone bringing a bomb onboard >wouldn't have charged it on their Visa at their local Wal-Mart...)... >what does knowing whether someone hasn't paid their cable bill in 3 >months, or even if they've bounced checks...do rubber checks a terrorist >make? ----- Since terrorism is a dangerous occupation, I would expect it to be well-paid, and therefore terrorists as a class would have their bills paid on time. Honest Citizens, like you and me, have to work for a living, and since we have to give up half of it to the govt, we obviously can't pay our bills on time. So all the JBGTs at the airport have to do is spot someone whose bills are paid on time, and, walla - they got themselves a bona fide terrorist. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: L&J: Raid Today on Idaho Company Date: 05 Sep 1996 07:27:19 -0500 >Germany in the thirties... ----- How true! When they confisacate our guns (or effectively do it with ammo taxes), you will know for sure. But then it will be too late. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Iraq WWW sites (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 07:56:21 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I personally found many of these to be interesting, and thought someone else might enjoy doing a little research. BOB =================== Forwarded Message =================== US Strikes Iraq a Second Time *******BREAKING: As of 9:42 pm EST, the US launched a second cruise missile attack to "destroy targets which were not destroyed as of yesterday's initial attack". Newsbytes Pacifica has furnished an outstanding collection of background/news links relative to today's missile strikes in Iraq. Links are furnished below: Perry Castaneda Library Map Collection - has a (377k) map of Iraq http://www.lib.utexas.edu/Libs/PCL/Map_collection/middle_east.html The Kurdish Information Network http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/ Carnegie Mellon University also has information on the Kurds http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/ozturk/kurd.html CIA's World Fact Book (1995) - Iraq http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/95fact/iz.html General Information on Iraq from Arab Net http://www.arab.net/iraq/iraq_contents.html US Navy News http://www.ncts.navy.mil/newsinfo/navy.html Military Public Affairs Office http://www.dtic.dla.mil/airforcelink/ Air Force Link Page http://www.dtic.mil/afps/news/ American Forces News Service http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/html/briefroom.html And links regarding military hardware involved: http://www.navy.mil/navpalib/weapons/missiles/tomahawk/facts.html http://www.spear.navy.mil/ships/ddg58_hp.html http://www.rubynet.com./cvn70/index.htm http://www.dtic.dla.mil/airforcelink/pa/factsheets/B_52_Stratofortress.html USENET Newsgroups: Usenet: news:soc.culture.kurdish Usenet: news:soc.culture.iraq <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< INTERNET >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Freelance Writer/Journalist/Content Developer/Recruiter Liz W. Tompkins, President NBNSOFT Corporation Bellingham, MA 02019 Email: liz@kersur.net NBNSOFT Content Awards -----> http://www.tricky.com/liz/ <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ======================================================================== 29 I would add one more link to Liz's great list. Here is the Defenselink story on Desert Strike. Includes commanders, weapons, faqsheets, etc. http://www.dtic.mil/defenselink/iraq/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ** For PGP public key send message with "request pgp key" as subject ** ** It will automatically be sent to you return email. ** ** PGP Encouraged. ================================================== ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Chicago Housing Authority (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 08:11:51 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by yarnell@se28.dseg.ti.com (Lyle Yarnell) > > Posted to texas-gun-owners by samk@i-link.net (Sam A. Kersh) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [snip] > tried to do to the First. Look at what both Clinton and Cisneros wanted to > do to the Forth re:Search and seizure in federal housing. Correction: Not "*wanted* to do" but rather, what they *did* do. I followed the story fairly closely as it occurred. It began with the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA). The following is an interview of Joseph Shuldiner. Prior to coming to HUD, Joseph Shuldiner was Executive Director of the Los Angeles Housing Authority (1990-93). The interview was held on July 21, 1994 by Chester Hartman. The complete interview may be found at http://www.nhi.org/about/shuldiner.html As you read this, keep in mind Shuldiner thinks the CHA did a *good* job without violating basic rights! My comments in [ ] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hartman: What can be done about crime and drugs without trampling on basic rights? Shuldiner: Actually, I think Chicago is a perfect example. When you got down to what was actually legal, it was all good management. I think there was a misunderstanding by the public over our very real desire to support Vince Lane [CHA Director] and the very difficult situation with 300 shootings in one week-end, 15 people shot, five killed. I mean we're talking Beirut. We can't tolerate that. When the Secretary went out there that weekend, the residents came up to him and said, just stop the shooting, just stop it. [I've always said it is easy to take away the rights of an ambivalent individual, but it's much easier if you con them into begging you to remove those rights.] What we've always said in terms of when you can do sweeps and searches has been very clear. There is a four-point program. One, you can sweep or search in common areas, in the entryways, the hallways, the mail rooms, whatever. Second, you can go into vacant apartments, and again both of those are examples of good management, because a good manager has control of the site that he or she is responsible for. The third thing is that you can do sweeps when you get the residents' permission. The fourth is the one that's always existed: in some exigent circumstances, warrantless sweeps are OK and that is for the court [Execept in the case of a "hot pursuit" or someone's life being in immediate danger, I can think of no reason for a "warrantless sweep."] to decide. Police forces know what the test is; they may choose to push the envelope, but [I like the colorful use of words. I wonder if he would call it "pushing the envelope" if the black-suited, jack-booted thugs were kicking in his door?] they know what the test is. It was pretty obvious that the test had not been met in Chicago, where the police went in more than 48 hours after the fact and swept the whole building, with absolutely no expectation they would find anything. Our position has been pretty much down the middle: you've got to get control of the premises, and if you do it right, sweeps and unwarranted searches don't become necessary. [That's "down the middle"???] Interestingly, a number of authorities-- Philadelphia, Baltimore--have conducted sweeps without any problem from the ACLU. They either do announced sweeps or they basically do the sweeps that Vince Lane was able to get the ACLU to agree to, which were basically inspector sweeps: the inspector would come in and look at the unit, a non-police presence. [That's the camel's nose coming in under that tent. Remember, this activity began with Vince Lane doing these "sweeps" without the aid of police. This gets the sheep accustomed to the wolves' (I mean shepherd dog's) presence. Then after they're used to it, eat them one at a time; in the darkness of night.] My personal view is that police are an important actor in the larger puzzle, [LARGER PUZZLE????] but in the end, only a community can take back a community. So I would ask the housing authority to identify its problems and come up with a comprehensive plan, [After the CHA and LEO's were busted by a judge for their illegal gestapo activities, President Slick called Henry Cisneros and Janet Reno (now there's a team) and ordered them to get around that pesky fourth amendment. Their solution: Change the contract (sort of like a lease to the tenants) to state in fine print that the tenant surrenders the fourth ammendment's protection against unwarranted searches and seizures. They don't call him Slick for nuthin.] which has to involve the community and has to recognize the fact that even if you get the National Guard to come in they're only going to come in for a short period of time. What's going to be left when they leave? What is the plan? The role of the police is to foster an atmosphere where the community can get the job done, but if the community is afraid to do anything, you need the police to come in and create an atmosphere where people are not so afraid, where they will in fact participate. But in the end if you don't have the community do it, it doesn't get done. We're also disseminating to housing authorities various studies on youth employment, job programs, and two on crime that say, if you're interested in drug interdiction, here are four programs where different housing authorities tried interdiction, here are the contact persons, here's how they work, and here are the successes or failures. That's part of our clearinghouse function. We're also working through the U. S. Attorney's office at the request of the Attorney General [Ms. Reno would suggest *that*?] to focus federal law enforcement efforts on public housing, so we've had a number of incidents where the FBI and the DEA have targeted resources for public housing. I would want to be sure the local community was giving public housing its fair share of police protection. We know that poorer neighborhoods are underserved, that a cop is there in five seconds in a good neighborhood and you never can find one in a poor neighborhood. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Note: The following excerpt is from the unofficial version of the Congressional Record. The printed Congressional Record produced by the Government Printing Office is the only official version. PART CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (HOUSE) DATE February 8, 1995 Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois spoke here in vehement opposition to H.R. 666. In it she tells part of the story of the CHA. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PAGE H1395 Let me give the Members an example of what I am talking about. About a year or so ago in my district the BATF and some local law enforcement officials entered into some HUD-owned Chicago Housing Authority property in my district in the city of Chicago and knocked down the doors. They said they were looking for guns. What happened as a result of that? They found a number of assault weapons that they were looking for, but in addition to that, they [Notice the tone of her speech reveals that she doesn't really seem to mind the raid if it nets an "assault weapon," but she's bothered if no gun is found.] went into the homes of a number of people, and they did not find any weapons there. What they found instead was terrified children. Imagine, here you are in your home, little kids running around in there, somebody comes in and knocks on your door, bursts their way in with `ATF` on the back, with `Chicago Police` on their shoulders, et cetera, guns all ready to be drawn, little kids [Does she expect them to have their guns in such a way that it would be difficult for them to be drawn?] sitting there screaming, and law enforcement officers are running through people`s houses, ransacking through their dresser drawers, through their closets, up under their beds and anyplace else they thought there might be a weapon to be found. PAGE H1395 Mr. Chairman, this is a tremendous amount of terror that you can give anybody, but particularly to young children. To have this kind of thing happen without a search warrant, without cause, was beyond all realism whatsoever. I just could not believe it was happening, but it did happen. It happened in my district of Chicago. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a crime bill here, yes, but we are also talking about crimes that the Federal Government and others can perpetrate on people. It is not right for the police to do that. It is not right for the IRS to do that. It is not right for agencies to do that. If it is a crime, it is a crime for them to commit a crime as well, without probable cause. PAGE H1395 Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Supreme Court has continually and consistently refused to adopt such sweeping exceptions to the exclusionary rule as those that are embodied in this legislation before us today. H.R. 666 would not only render the exclusionary rule, and therefore, the most basic rights of all of our citizens, moot, but also provide a disincentive for police officers to follow the dictates of the law. [EXPLANATION: The Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995, under the Taking Back Our Streets Act of 1995, is a part of the legal reform Congress was considering. Under the Exclusion Rule Reform Act, evidence obtained in a search or seizure that was in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution would not be excluded from a court trial if the search or seizure was carried out with the belief that it was done in agreement with the Fourth Amendment. Evidence that is obtained in a search that violated the Fourth Amendment is excluded from court trials, but under this amendment the evidence would not be excluded if the search or seizure was done "in good faith." Democrats added amendment to the bill that slightly weakened the bill.] By allowing courts to admit evidence gathered in the case of warrantless searches, this body would be giving law enforcement officials the mere option of following legal search and seizure requirements or not. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sleep well, Lyle ================================================================================== "You can trust us. We'll only tell the government." Moe and Larry in "No Census, No Feeling" 1940 -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml Michael New Update - URGENT (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 08:14:49 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Cc: Snet NewsList Reply-to: snetnews@alterzone.com -> SearchNet's snetnews Mailing List ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Please cross-post to whatever newsgroups you feel are appropriate. SEE THE **URGENT** MESSAGE FOLLOWING THE UPDATE NOTICE!! The Unofficial Michael New page has been updated! The web address is http://www.infinet.com/~jaylor/mikenew.html See the following sections for recently updated material: 1. Special Update - link to Official Homecoming notes 2. Related Items - Michael New: The Movie 3. Current Status - link to the Official Status page - Call for Enlistment Boycott The Official status page is a detailed status report which was recently added to the Official Defense Fund page sponsored by First Principles Press. --- ****** URGENT ****** ****** URGENT ****** ****** URGENT ****** === PLEASE DISTRIBUTE === ACTION ITEM: Call your Representative NOW and OPPOSE HR3308, the so-called "Armed Forces Protection Act," which will basically legalize the scam that Slick has perpetrated by sending US troops into Macedonia under UN control. Ask them to support, instead, "The American Soldier Protection and American Command Preservation Act." (sorry I do not have a bill number at this time). Click on the link to the Official Press Release regarding Michael New's Homecoming for more details on these bills. The TOLL FREE number for Congress is 1-800-962-3524. THIS BILL WILL PROBABLY COME UP WEDNESDAY 9/4!!!!!!!!!!! CALL NOW!!!! OPPOSE this bill, EVEN WITH THE AMENDMENTS, for 2 reasons: 1. It exempts the past/current actions but "prohibits" future actions, but the "exemption" sets the precedent. 2. It is not strong enough to stop the president from putting troops under UN control, it only recommends that the president "should consult closely with Congress" before doing so. My Rep's aide was particularly receptive to my thoughts because they hadn't really looked at it yet. CALL NOW so you can have some influence on the process and myabe we can kill this thing before it is too late. I told him I'd rather have NO bill than a BAD bill, but try to support the substitute legislation. Giving the UN control is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Let's put a stop to it now. This is a notice of update for the Unofficial Michael New Action Fund HomePage. If you are receiving this notice it means you (or a list you subscribe to) are on the list to receive updates. If you don't want to be on this list, send an email to jaylor@infinet.com and request that you be removed from the list. Generally speaking, I will not remove a mailing list from the update list unless I get enough requests from subscribers or the . These updates are relatively infrequent so they should not be terribly bothersome. As of now, this notice is going to the following lists: ohio-rkba@world.std.com HELP GET THE WORD OUT! If you know anyone else who is interested in this case, forward this message on to them. If you want to be added to the list, use the same address and include your email address in the note (return-address headers are not always accurate). Likewise, if you have additional information that you would like to see posted to the page, send it to the aboved named address for inspection. If you forward this note, please do not remove this notice. ******************************************************I*Support*Michael*New!*** Jeff Aylor Visit the Jayl House! http://www.infinet.com/~jaylor "The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance." - Jefferson -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@alterzone.com -> Posted by: Joe Also, you might want to check out the photos of Michael New with his Citizens' Medal of Honor at http://www.holli.com/~deckard Oral Deckard, constitutional loyalist http://www2.holli.com/~deckard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Mind Control (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 08:34:23 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following is an article from the September 1996 Bob Livingston Letter that really goes along with the Brian Redman quote "The perfect slave thinks he's free." __________ Does mind control work? Is there a well defined mind control system in America? Answer: Mind control of the masses is the basis of the political power of the state. And yes, there is a well-defined mind control system in America. The trouble is most can't see or perceive it because they are victims of it. To be victimized by an illusion is to become the illusion. The art of mind control reaches its maximum when a victim cannot see his chains. After all, you do not have to know that you are a slave to be one. A concentration camp can be the geographical boundaries of an entire country. Modern concentration camps do not have wire fences or walls. Modern concentration camps are mind control systems in which victims clamor for their chains. For example (read carefully): The so- called budget deficit as an economic and mathematical reality is a fiction. But you would have to get a search warrant to find somebody who doesn't believe it. In fact, you would have to burn the forest and sift through the ashes to find a nonbeliever in this fiction. Whatever we perceive as reality is reality to us. The apex of mass mind control is reached when everybody is controlled by mental fictions. "The budget deficit" does not exist. By definition, a deficit suggests that more is spent than received -- an impossible thing to do when "money" is credit. And when "money" becomes credit it is already a mental fiction. The Federal Reserve says in its publication entitled Modern Money Mechanics, "our system works only with credit." To spend suggests limits of finality. According to Webster's 1948 Collegiate Dictionary, "to spend is to consume by using; to exhaust." This definition in specific and general does not apply to fictitious or imaginary money. One cannot spend, consume, or exhaust a fiction called credit. The Federal Reserve has created and creates a fiction called credit, which the American people perceive as money. It is impossible to have a budget deficit of credit (fiction) that is created out of nothing in unlimited amounts existing only in imaginary numbers. Yet this fiction called "the budget deficit" is the focus of political debate and the foundation for the illusion of reality for millions of Americans. It is a prime example of an unconscious mind existing in a vacuum of mental fictions, totally immune to the real world. The conclusion is that the American people believe that there is a "budget deficit." Ironically, the higher the "education" level, the more that segment of the population clamors for "budget discipline." Budget discipline means to them "higher taxes," (more reduction of consumption). It is a self-sacrifice system of mind control that reasons that the higher my taxes are and the more my consumption is reduced, the better off I will be with a "balanced budget." Should the government cut spending? How can the government spend or cut spending according to Webster's definition of the word "spend"? It is impossible for the government to spend or exhaust a fiction of its own creation. "Budget deficit," anyone? Yes, mind control does work. It is our modern concentration camp. "Budget deficit" propaganda serves to cover the ever-expanding transfer of real resources to the government from the people without payment. When we hear the word "democracy," do we have any idea what it means? The U.S. government corporation is the largest corporation in the world, and it has never produced a product or service. Yes, mind control does work. It is our modern concentration camp. How great is Mystery Babylon? She will deceive the elect if it were possible. Mark 13:22. __________ Quoting from The Bob Livingston Letter is permitted if reference to name, address and subscription prices are given. The Bob Livingston Letter, P.O. Box 110013 West End Station, Birmingham, AL 35211. 12 issues $39.00. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: PIML: EPA Raid in Idaho (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 08:36:05 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This just in From Monte Cooley ================================================= Still think you live in a free country? This morning a small Idaho company, OZ Technology, was raided by police officers and EPA officials demanding to look through their records, etc. Their crime? They have a better replacement for FREON than the one that's currently approved by the EPA. And they have a court date in Boise on Friday, two days from now, when the injunction they've filed against the EPA will be heard. Begin to get the picture? The raid is still going on as I write this; I'll let you all know more as soon as I do. My business partner left a half hour ago to join in the festivities and will (hopefully) be reporting back. Germany in the thirties... - Monte ====== I just heard from my partner who's over at the raid at OZ Technology. Apparently, the feds are at least being civil and business-like; it could be worse. Looks like it's basically a fishing expedition, since the court case comes up in 2 days. Makes a guy wonder what would happen if *we* showed up at EPA headquarters and demanded to look through all their records prior to a court case. After all, they work for *us*, right? Oh, sorry, I got carried away and starting thinking this was America. More as I get it... - Monte Helen Reed-Johnson - Fridays - 8:00 pm EST - WWCR 5.065 Mhz E Pluribus Unum & The Ohio Unorganized Militia PO Box 477; Stockport, Ohio 43787; Office: 614-559-3468 Fax: 614-559-3469 Web Site - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 "..The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" Jms:5:16 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: HR3308 Fast Track !!! (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 08:52:06 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ----- Begin Included Message ----- FROM: Jackie Patru - CDR TO: A L L We just received the following info by fax from the Louisiana Kitchen Militia, with further info from Kentuckians for the Right to Bear Arms. ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1996.... THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL VOTE ON THE LARGEST MILITARY POWER GRAB IN WORLD HISTORY. Uncle Bou Bou Wants You in his U.N. HR 3308 - The so-called "U.S. ARMED FORCES PROTECTION ACT OF 1996"... WILL LEGITIMIZE an illegal and unConstitutional transfer of congressional authority to the executive branch at the PRESIDENT'S DISCRETION TO PLACE OUR TROOPS UNDER U.N. COMMAND and with the excuse, it's in the "national interest" !!!!! EVERY WORLD DICTATOR'S DREAM COME TRUE NIPS ANY WANNA BE MICHAEL NEW's IN THE BUD! CALL YOUR U.S. CONGRESSMAN; U.S. HOUSE OF REPS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. 800 - 972 - 3524 or 202-224-3121 This is on the fast track... at warp speed in the House. URGENT !!! URGENT !!!! PLEASE MAKE YOUR CALL FIRST THING THURSDAY. IF YOU GET THIS LATE, TRY FRIDAY. IT MAY BE HELD OVER. This from Kentuckians for the Right to Bear Arms... Our American service men and women will have no say about who they serve or serve under. This is a direct violation of the constitution as the constitution gives ONLY Congress the authority to declare war, and only then does the president become Commander in Chief and the right to deploy troops. To "fast track" a bill means the leadership has decided that this bill CAN NOT be amended. It must be voted up or down as is. This method of putting a bill through is usually an indication that there is a SKUNK somewhere. This is how we were blessed with GATT. Urge your Congressman to vote NO on fast track and NO on HR3308. TELL THEM TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION BEING PRESENTED BY CONGRESSLADY HELEN CHENOWETH IN THE FORM SHE PROPOSES. CALL 800 972-3524 OR 202-224-3121 Note: I have HR3308. It's a piece of garbage. The Kitchen Militia has heard many Congressmen's offices are telling callers the bill isn't as networkers are claiming. OH ! YES ! IT ! IS ! iF YOU GET THIS POST IN TIME, PLEASE MAKE THE CALL. In liberty... Jackie Patru - CDR Council on Domestic Relations CDR INFO HOUR - Radio Show Saturdays - 6 p.m. central time Amerinet Broadcasting - Shortwave 9.400 Satellite - Galaxy 6, Transponder 23 Audio 8.1 --------------------------------- CDR Web Site http://www.logoplex.com/shops/cdr/cdr.html ---------------------------------- Druck for Congress Web Site http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ddruck "WE ARE APT TO SHUT OUR EYES AGAINST A PAINFUL TRUTH... FOR MY PART, I AM WILLING TO KNOW THE WHOLE TRUTH; TO KNOW THE WORST; AND TO PROVIDE FOR IT." Patrick Henry ************************************************ ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: H. R. 3103 Date: 05 Sep 1996 10:34:17 -0400 > >It would seem that they are trying an end run to try and Federalize all >property. >(IMO) > >Capt. G.H. Burkepile > Maybe they want to stop the flow of high net-worth individuals who then become expatriates or renounce their citizenship to escape income and estate taxes. Sounds like a move prior to moving to really punitive tax rates. Useful if they want to slap controls on currency movement out of the country, or devalue the currency, or make private ownership of gold illegal. Generally all this stuff is unneccessary if the combination of U.S. living conditions and U.S. tax rates is better than developed world averages. If the combination of living standards/tax rates don't hit that standard, then you have to start putting controls in place (if you're a total statist facist). Look at what happened to England when their damn tax rates approached 90% marginal rates. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: Chicago Housing Authority (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 09:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Paul, thank you for this excellent fwd. I also sent a thank you note (the week this happened) to President Clinton. It was -this- incident that woke me from a long slumber, more then 10 years of Liberal political action (I started canvassing at 13) during wich I very foolishly believed that government could be the collective expression of societal values and action. CHA ended my political narcolepsy. _My_ government would not abandon housing projects declaring them non patrolled free fire zones. No one expressing anything to do with me would use the inevitable result of such an abandonment as an excuse to break down doors and -steal- peoples means of self defense. I appreciate seeing this atrocity followed up on. Yours in Freedom. Boyd Kneeland On Thu, 5 Sep 1996 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 19:03:10 -0500 > From: Lyle Yarnell > To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net > Subject: Chicago Housing Authority > > Posted to texas-gun-owners by yarnell@se28.dseg.ti.com (Lyle Yarnell) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Posted to texas-gun-owners by samk@i-link.net (Sam A. Kersh) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > [snip] > > > tried to do to the First. Look at what both Clinton and Cisneros wanted to > > do to the Forth re:Search and seizure in federal housing. > > Correction: Not "*wanted* to do" but rather, what they *did* do. > I followed the story fairly closely as it occurred. It began with > the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA). The following is an interview > of Joseph Shuldiner. Prior to coming to HUD, Joseph Shuldiner was > Executive Director of the Los Angeles Housing Authority (1990-93). > The interview was held on July 21, 1994 by Chester Hartman. The complete > interview may be found at http://www.nhi.org/about/shuldiner.html > As you read this, keep in mind Shuldiner thinks the CHA did a *good* > job without violating basic rights! My comments in [ ] > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Hartman: > What can be done about crime and drugs without > trampling on basic rights? > > > Shuldiner: > Actually, I think Chicago is a perfect > example. When you got down to what was actually > legal, it was all good management. I think > there was a misunderstanding by the public over > our very real desire to support Vince Lane [CHA Director] > and the very difficult situation with 300 shootings > in one week-end, 15 people shot, five killed. > I mean we're talking Beirut. We can't tolerate > that. When the Secretary went out there that > weekend, the residents came up to him and > said, just stop the shooting, just stop it. > > [I've always said it is easy to take away the rights > of an ambivalent individual, but it's much easier if > you con them into begging you to remove those rights.] > > What we've always said in terms of when you > can do sweeps and searches has been very > clear. There is a four-point program. One, > you can sweep or search in common areas, in the > entryways, the hallways, the mail rooms, > whatever. Second, you can go into vacant > apartments, and again both of those are > examples of good management, because a good > manager has control of the site that he or she > is responsible for. The third thing is that you > can do sweeps when you get the residents' > permission. The fourth is the one that's always > existed: in some exigent circumstances, > warrantless sweeps are OK and that is for the court > > [Execept in the case of a "hot pursuit" or someone's > life being in immediate danger, I can think of no > reason for a "warrantless sweep."] > > to decide. Police forces know what the test is; > they may choose to push the envelope, but > > [I like the colorful use of words. I wonder if > he would call it "pushing the envelope" if the > black-suited, jack-booted thugs were kicking > in his door?] > > they know what the test is. It was pretty > obvious that the test had not been met in Chicago, > where the police went in more than 48 hours > after the fact and swept the whole building, with > absolutely no expectation they would find anything. > > Our position has been pretty much down the > middle: you've got to get control of the premises, > and if you do it right, sweeps and unwarranted > searches don't become necessary. > > [That's "down the middle"???] > > Interestingly, a number of authorities-- > Philadelphia, Baltimore--have conducted sweeps > without any problem from the ACLU. They either > do announced sweeps or they basically do > the sweeps that Vince Lane was able to get > the ACLU to agree to, which were basically > inspector sweeps: the inspector would come > in and look at the unit, a non-police presence. > > [That's the camel's nose coming in under that > tent. Remember, this activity began with Vince > Lane doing these "sweeps" without the aid of > police. This gets the sheep accustomed to the > wolves' (I mean shepherd dog's) presence. Then > after they're used to it, eat them one at a time; > in the darkness of night.] > > My personal view is that police are an important > actor in the larger puzzle, > > [LARGER PUZZLE????] > > but in the end, only > a community can take back a community. So I > would ask the housing authority to identify its > problems and come up with a comprehensive plan, > > [After the CHA and LEO's were busted by a judge > for their illegal gestapo activities, President > Slick called Henry Cisneros and Janet Reno (now > there's a team) and ordered them to get around > that pesky fourth amendment. Their solution: > Change the contract (sort of like a lease to the > tenants) to state in fine print that the tenant > surrenders the fourth ammendment's protection > against unwarranted searches and seizures. > They don't call him Slick for nuthin.] > > which has to involve the community and > has to recognize the fact that even if you > get the National Guard to come in they're only going > to come in for a short period of time. What's > going to be left when they leave? What is the > plan? The role of the police is to foster an > atmosphere where the community can get the job > done, but if the community is afraid to do anything, > you need the police to come in and create > an atmosphere where people are not so afraid, > where they will in fact participate. But in the > end if you don't have the community do it, it > doesn't get done. > > We're also disseminating to housing authorities > various studies on youth employment, job > programs, and two on crime that say, if you're > interested in drug interdiction, here are four > programs where different housing authorities > tried interdiction, here are the contact persons, > here's how they work, and here are the successes > or failures. That's part of our clearinghouse > function. > > We're also working through the U. S. Attorney's > office at the request of the Attorney General > > [Ms. Reno would suggest *that*?] > > to focus federal law enforcement efforts on > public housing, so we've had a number of incidents > where the FBI and the DEA have targeted resources > for public housing. I would want to be sure the local > community was giving public housing its fair share > of police protection. We know that poorer neighborhoods > are underserved, that a cop is there in five seconds > in a good neighborhood and you never can find one in > a poor neighborhood. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Note: The following excerpt is from the unofficial version of the Congressional > Record. The printed Congressional Record produced by the Government > Printing Office is the only official version. > > PART CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (HOUSE) > DATE February 8, 1995 > > > Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois spoke here in vehement opposition to H.R. 666. > In it she tells part of the story of the CHA. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > PAGE H1395 > Let me give the Members an example of what I am talking about. > About a year or so ago in my district the BATF and some local law > enforcement officials entered into some HUD-owned Chicago Housing > Authority property in my district in the city of Chicago and > knocked down the doors. They said they were looking for guns. > What happened as a result of that? They found a number of assault > weapons that they were looking for, but in addition to that, they > > [Notice the tone of her speech reveals that she doesn't really seem to mind > the raid if it nets an "assault weapon," but she's bothered if no gun is found.] > > went into the homes of a number of people, and they did not find > any weapons there. What they found instead was terrified children. > Imagine, here you are in your home, little kids running around in > there, somebody comes in and knocks on your door, bursts their way > in with `ATF` on the back, with `Chicago Police` on their > shoulders, et cetera, guns all ready to be drawn, little kids > > [Does she expect them to have their guns in such a way that it would be > difficult for them to be drawn?] > > sitting there screaming, and law enforcement officers are running > through people`s houses, ransacking through their dresser drawers, > through their closets, up under their beds and anyplace else they > thought there might be a weapon to be found. > PAGE H1395 > Mr. Chairman, this is a tremendous amount of terror that you can > give anybody, but particularly to young children. To have this > kind of thing happen without a search warrant, without cause, was > beyond all realism whatsoever. I just could not believe it was > happening, but it did happen. It happened in my district of > Chicago. > Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a crime bill here, yes, but we > are also talking about crimes that the Federal Government and > others can perpetrate on people. It is not right for the police to > do that. It is not right for the IRS to do that. It is not right > for agencies to do that. > If it is a crime, it is a crime for them to commit a crime as > well, without probable cause. > PAGE H1395 > Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Supreme Court has continually and > consistently refused to adopt such sweeping exceptions to the > exclusionary rule as those that are embodied in this legislation > before us today. > H.R. 666 would not only render the exclusionary rule, and > therefore, the most basic rights of all of our citizens, moot, but > also provide a disincentive for police officers to follow the > dictates of the law. > > > [EXPLANATION: The Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995, under the > Taking Back Our Streets Act of 1995, is a part of the legal reform Congress > was considering. Under the Exclusion Rule Reform Act, evidence obtained in a > search or seizure that was in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the > Constitution would not be excluded from a court trial if the search or seizure > was carried out with the belief that it was done in agreement with the Fourth > Amendment. Evidence that is obtained in a search that violated the Fourth > Amendment is excluded from court trials, but under this amendment the > evidence would not be excluded if the search or seizure was done "in good > faith." Democrats added amendment to the bill that slightly weakened the bill.] > > > By allowing courts to admit evidence gathered in the case of > warrantless searches, this body would be giving law enforcement > officials the mere option of following legal search and seizure > requirements or not. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Sleep well, > > Lyle > > ================================================================================== > > "You can trust us. We'll only tell the government." > > Moe and Larry in "No Census, No Feeling" 1940 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net > with the word help in the message body. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: "A call to arms" (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 12:10:13 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following is a test for all those unenlightened sheeple we encounter everyday. You know the ones who think all patriots are kooks and wacko s. I think most of you will know exactly where and when this speech was first given. It is the address given by Patrick Henry. I have updated it to modern terminology and more topical themes to throw off the rubes. I have given this to those non-believers and wait for them to call me a kook or a wacko and then I give them the original. I usually get a blank look or a dumb stare or some goofy comment when they realize just how topical and pertinent this is. Some are embarrassed when they discover that it came from "a great American Patriot", and not just this guy they know who has a strange viewpoint on government, God, the NWO, and other topics. Once in a while, I get someone who really wants to discuss this, a thinker, and then I do what we all want to do, engage them in a sensible, reasonable, rational discussion on the jobs, money, the debt, the deficit, politicians, and then the great documents of Liberty, the Constitution, the Declaration, and rights that come from our Creator, not government. I find this is the best method for making converts, not clubbing them in the head with the arcane, obtuse, legal machinations that the "One Worlders" have implemented. Leave that for later once they have a grip on how things should work. I realize this is a slow method, but we need the people WC talks about in the beginning of "Pale Horse" thinkers!, not just numbers. "My fellow citizens: no man thinks more highly than I do of the intentions, and well placed efforts, of the politicians in office. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, I entertain, opinions that are the very opposite to theirs. I will as I always have, speak my mind freely and without reserve. These men continue to run our governments as though it were their own personal domain, and although the very foundations of our country crumble before them, we still have political campaigns couched in pomp and circumstance. This is no time for ceremony. The question before all Americans is one of a pivotal moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject, there should be freedom of debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which I hold to God and our country. Should I hold back my opinions at such time, for fear of giving offense?, no!, I would then consider myself guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. It is natural for men to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, until she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in returning a great nation to true liberty? Do we count ourselves among those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I have no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past I wish to know, what there has been in the conduct of the Judicial, Legislative or Executive branches for the last ten years, to justify those pleas which Americans have soothed themselves with?. Is it that insidious smile with which our pleadings for balanced budgets or term limits or jobs (as they always promise) has been received? Trust it not, for it will prove a snare to your feet. Do not allow yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our pleadings arranges itself with these warlike preparations (terrorism bills and the like) which darken our land. Are heavier regulations and greater federal authority in all matters necessary to achieve a better nation? Have we shown ourselves unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our trust of government? Let us not deceive ourselves. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which despotic rulers resort. I ask you, what else can this martial array mean, if it s purpose be not to force us to submission? Can you assign any other possible motives for it?. Does the US Gov t have that many enemies within our own borders?, to call for all this accumulation and consolidation and concentration of federal power and authority? No, they don t have as many as they would like you to believe. They are meant for us; the greater portion of the population, they can be meant for no other. The purpose of the war on drugs and the associated confiscatory laws in conjunction with the IRS and total control of our monetary system are to achieve complete bondage, and to finally quench the chains which the Aristocracy of the US Gov t has been so long forging. And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? We have been trying that for the last ten to twenty years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing. We have examined and elected, petitioned, boycotted and protested the subjects in every light of which it is capable; but it has all been in vain. Shall we resort to humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, deceive ourselves any longer. We have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the State Legislatures and Senates, and have implored their interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the Federal Government mandates. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrance s have produced nothing more than additional insults; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the "necessary mandates". After all these attempts, in vain, should we indulge the hope of redress and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free --- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long waiting --- should we just abandon the struggle in which we have been so long engaged, for liberty and freedom, and to which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon?, I say, not until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained. I also say we must fight! I repeat it, we must fight!, an appeal to arms, and to the God of Nature is all that is left us! They tell us, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. On the lips of every mouth, are the words "but what can we do?" But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a Federal garrison shall be stationed in every town or region? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging that delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? We are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of Nature has placed within our power. Two hundred and fifty millions of people, armed in the cause of Liberty, and in such a country as that which we posses, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up the indignations of all peoples to fight our battles with us. The battle, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, we have no choice. If we were coward enough to want to, it is now to late to retire from the fight. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Oklahoma! The war is inevitable --- and let it come! I repeat, let it come! It is in vain, to extenuate the matter. Reasonable people may cry peace, peace --- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the Capitol will bring to our ears the bootclap of UN troops! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that Americans wish. What would they have? Is life so dear, and peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?, Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me give me liberty or give me death!" By Gods providence, it is my honor to be, Kevin Wallace, sui juris "None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsely believe themselves to be free." .....Goethe ************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Senator Boxer asks for Investigation of CIA (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 12:12:01 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Thanks to Linda Thompson and AEN News for the following. Brian Redman | bigred@shout.net | ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred Editor-in-Chief | ---------------Phone: 217-356-4418---------------- Conspiracy Nation | "The perfect slave thinks he's free." ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following text is from a letter originally delivered to John Deutch, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, on Wednesday, August 28, 1996, by Barbara Boxer, Member of the United States Senate, California. The Honorable John M. Deutch Director of Central Intelligence Washington, DC 20505 Dear Dr. Deutch: I am writing to ask that you investigate allegations about CIA involvement in the illegal drug trade. A three-part series published last week by the San Jose Mercury News charges that the CIA tolerated, if not promoted, crack cocaine sales as a means to finance Nicaraguan revolutionaries in the early 1980s. Specifically, the Mercury News charges that the Fuerza Democratica Nicaraguense FDN - the largest of the groups known collectively as the Contras - raised millions by selling cocaine to drug dealers in California at the same time that the crack epidemic was beginning. Federal, state and county law enforcement agencies investigating California's largest crack cocaine rings have complained that their operations were mysteriously thwarted. Several people close to the investigations have openly speculated that the CIA had compromised their investigations in an effort to sustain the Contras. As you know, this is not the first time allegations of this kind have surfaced. For over a decade, rumors of a Contra-CIA cocaine connection have persisted. I believe that these questions can be put to rest only by a candid and thorough investigation of the facts. I urge you to conduct such an investigation and make your findings public. Although the tragic situation described in this series of articles predates your leadership of the CIA, we must continue to insist that the whole truth be known. Crack cocaine has destroyed countless lives, and even the notion that the U.S. Government was involved in trafficking is sickening. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your timely response. Sincerely, Barbara Boxer United States Senator Kind regards, ******************** V *************************** DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER. *************************************************** Linda Thompson Dr. Linda Thompson American Justice Federation Internet: lindat@iquest.net **************************************************** Remember Waco. The Murderers are still free. **************************************************** PATRIOT and PROUD. **************************************************** Patriot. n. a person who loves his native country and will do all he can for it. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, 1991 Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition. *************************************************** Remember Oklahoma. The real bombers are running our country. **************************************************** TRAVEL, SEE THE WORLD AND GET FREE DRUGS!!! Inquire at CIA for details! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 14:35:04 EDT On Thu, 05 Sep 1996 07:21:12 -0500 "R. Knauer-AIMNET" writes: >From: "Donna J. Logan" >Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 19:12:00 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert (fwd) > >>I'd like to know what that has to do with determining whether someone >is >>a terrorist or not (presuming that anyone bringing a bomb onboard >>wouldn't have charged it on their Visa at their local Wal-Mart...)... >>what does knowing whether someone hasn't paid their cable bill in 3 >>months, or even if they've bounced checks...do rubber checks a >terrorist >>make? > >----- > >Since terrorism is a dangerous occupation, I would expect it to be >well-paid, and therefore terrorists as a class would have their bills >paid >on time. > >Honest Citizens, like you and me, have to work for a living, and since >we >have to give up half of it to the govt, we obviously can't pay our >bills on >time. > >So all the JBGTs at the airport have to do is spot someone whose bills >are >paid on time, and, walla - they got themselves a bona fide terrorist. > >Bob Knauer > > Makes sence to me. Capt. G.H. Burkepile Communications Officer First Alabama Regiment VII Ranger Corps ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Re: Chicago Housing Authority (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 13:40:38 -0500 (CDT) On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, boydk wrote: > Paul, thank you for this excellent fwd. I also sent a thank you note (the > week this happened) to President Clinton. It was -this- incident that > woke me from a long slumber, more then 10 years of Liberal political > action (I started canvassing at 13) during wich I very foolishly believed > that government could be the collective expression of societal values and > action. CHA ended my political narcolepsy. _My_ government would not > abandon housing projects declaring them non patrolled free fire zones. (CUT) You are not alone my friend in Liberty. I voted for George McGovern and was an avid classical liberal, I was in the Sierra Club and trusted big government. Then while I was unemployed Waco happened live while I was listening to KRLD radio here in Dallas. Well my government would never attack a church full of women and children with indiscriminate shooting. Then I got this job and internet and dug out my old short wave radio. Wow was I in for a surprise. Government is the cause of all the major problems in America: Crime: War on Drugs, creates black market for mafia and gangs. Crime: Welfare, allows out of wedlock babies, no family values. Family breakdown: Both parents have to work now because in 1950 all taxes were 5% of a family income now it is over 50%. Terrorism: FBI/BATF was directly involved with the NYC world trade tower and the Oklahoma City bomb. Crime: Is higher in every city and state with the most anti gun laws. Education: OBE outcome based education is a socialist agenda that is dumbing down children for world government and socialist outcomes replace academic achievement. Job training by the state on behalf of the large corporations with the polytechnic soviet system of skills mastery certificate. Drugs: CIA,MENA,BCCI,P2, brings in the majority of "mafia drugs" Politicians: Are bribed with Swiss bank accounts full of drug money from the CIA/Mafia. War: Vietnam was a war to steal the Opium trade from England (remember the Opium wars) and run it with the CIA. Most plausible reason for the death of JFK, LBJ expanded the war and started the Socialist agenda called the "Great Society". War: Civil war was pushed by eastern-industrial-banker-England to destroy states rights and allow the creation of the Federal martial law later moved to the newly created department of justice run by the Attorney General removing citizens from the protection of state citizenship. This allowed the creation of privileges called "civil rights" that were allowed to federal citizens in place of Bill of rights under the Constitution. NOTE: this is how the Rodney King police were tried twice for the same crime, 1st under state criminal court, 2ed under federal citizen civil right violations and venue. Also how federal citizens under the Housing Authority can have random search and seizure. Jobs: 14th amendment created corporations, corporations only care about profit not employees or communities and move jobs to Mexico and Malaysia. Jobs: NAFTA, and WTO allow big corporations to ignore communities and people and move jobs and facilities destroying families and towns. Taxes: IRS is a trust fund administer for the IMF as payment on our national debt bankruptcy 1933 and helps reduce the inflation by sucking out excess federal reserve notes. Federal Crime: Waco and Randy Weaver were caused by the BATF who are the police arm of the IRS on behalf of the IMF to keep the slaves from protesting to much. Inflation: is caused by credit/debt based federal reserve notes that replaced all outstanding money in 1933, all federal spending is debt funded by private federal reserve bank. Black Tuesday: The great stock market crash was caused by design when the Federal Reserve pulled out 33% of the money/credit supply. Regards, Paul Watson, pwatson@utdallas.edu "The difference between Purchasing Department death and taxes is death The University of Texas at Dallas doesn't get worse every time DISCLAIMER: MY THOUGHTS ONLY!!! Congress meets." Will Rogers ph# 214/883-2307, fax# 214/883-2348 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Donna J. Logan" Subject: Re: Chicago Housing Authority (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 17:34:31 -0400 (EDT) On Thu, 5 Sep 1996 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > What we've always said in terms of when you > can do sweeps and searches has been very > clear. There is a four-point program. One, > you can sweep or search in common areas, in the > entryways, the hallways, the mail rooms, > whatever. Second, you can go into vacant > apartments, and again both of those are > examples of good management, because a good > manager has control of the site that he or she > is responsible for. The third thing is that you > can do sweeps when you get the residents' > permission. The fourth is the one that's always > existed: in some exigent circumstances, > warrantless sweeps are OK and that is for the court > > [Execept in the case of a "hot pursuit" or someone's > life being in immediate danger, I can think of no > reason for a "warrantless sweep."] Speaking as a resident of an apartment complex which has to abide by HUD regulations (albeit not run directly by HUD itself), I can tell you this happens all the time. It's called the yearly inspection (altho not usually performed by the local jackboots...). But they DO look for anything "banned"... > they know what the test is. It was pretty > obvious that the test had not been met in Chicago, > where the police went in more than 48 hours > after the fact and swept the whole building, with > absolutely no expectation they would find anything. Oh. Yeah. And Chicago ain't windy. > Interestingly, a number of authorities-- > Philadelphia, Baltimore--have conducted sweeps > without any problem from the ACLU. They either > do announced sweeps or they basically do > the sweeps that Vince Lane was able to get > the ACLU to agree to, which were basically > inspector sweeps: the inspector would come > in and look at the unit, a non-police presence. Just as I said...yearly inspection. Any pets? Any washers? Any motorcycles hidden in the closet? Any drugs? Any guns? (BTW, while my lease specifically prohibits the first three items, it doesn't mention the last two....) > which has to involve the community and > has to recognize the fact that even if you > get the National Guard to come in they're only going > to come in for a short period of time. "Gee, ain't it a shame we can't keep military troops policing U.S. civilians...?" > What's > going to be left when they leave? Uh....a Constitutional Republic? > plan? The role of the police is to foster an > atmosphere where the community can get the job > done, but if the community is afraid to do anything, > you need the police to come in and create > an atmosphere where people are not so afraid, > where they will in fact participate. But in the > end if you don't have the community do it, it > doesn't get done. Okay, just keep repeating the mantra...the police aren't there to create fear (they're there to preserve fear, to paraphrase the late Mayor Daley, that paragon of support for basic human rights....) > We're also disseminating to housing authorities > various studies on youth employment, job > programs, and two on crime that say, if you're > interested in drug interdiction, here are four > programs where different housing authorities > tried interdiction, here are the contact persons, > here's how they work, and here are the successes > or failures. That's part of our clearinghouse > function. Any pamphlets on what to do when the people actually working at/for the project are dealing drugs themselves? ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ken L. Holder" Subject: psychos & politicos Date: 05 Sep 1996 15:03:09 -0700 ** From today's "Nando Times" at http://www.nando.net ** Are politicians and psychopaths cut from same cloth? Copyright 1996 Nando.net Copyright 1996 Reuter Information Service LONDON (Sep 5, 1996 00:05 a.m. EDT) - Politicians and criminal psychopaths share some important behavioral characteristics, a leading British psychologist said Wednesday. "Psychopaths lie easily. They get pleasure from duping people whereas politicians lie for a purpose," David Cook, a lecturer at Glasgow's Caledonian University, told Reuters. Cook and graduate student Lisa Marshall presented the findings of a three-year study on the causes of psychopathic behavior to the British Psychological Society's annual conference in York, in northern England. They interviewed 105 repeat offenders in Scottish prisons and found that a combination of social and biological factors contributed to psychopathic behavior. "Difficult childhoods tended to be a common thread," Cook said, adding that the purpose of the study was not to discover if politicians were psychopaths but to understand what factors triggered the behavior. "To say politicians are psychopaths is a bit of a distortion," Cook said, but he acknowledged that the two groups appeared to share some similar behavior patterns. "Psychopaths tend to be grandiose, they don't feel remorse, they don't feel guilt and they don't maintain stable relationships," he added. Marshall said people in high-powered careers such as politics and stockbroking shared enough characteristics to be defined as psychopathic. "They have the characteristics of psychopaths but without the criminal intent," she told the conference Tuesday. Cook believes it will be difficult to scientifically prove that to be a successful politician or stockbroker a person needs to be a psychopath. "The trouble is there just isn't any data. Politicians and stockbrokers don't like to be studied," Cook said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Donna J. Logan" Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 18:27:08 -0400 (EDT) On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > Since terrorism is a dangerous occupation, I would expect it to be > well-paid, and therefore terrorists as a class would have their bills paid > on time. > > Honest Citizens, like you and me, have to work for a living, and since we > have to give up half of it to the govt, we obviously can't pay our bills on > time. > > So all the JBGTs at the airport have to do is spot someone whose bills are > paid on time, and, walla - they got themselves a bona fide terrorist. O I C...so a bad credit rating a true patriot makes? ;-) ;-) ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] Mohawks Overthrow Public School (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 19:53:57 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- liberty-and-justice@pobox.com, piml@mars.galstar.com, 73427.1615@compuserve.com, starkMIL@aol.com, varga@juno.com --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: <199609052112.RAA19613@smtp2.erols.com> M O H A W K I N D I A N S S E I Z E C O N T R O L O F P U B L I C S C H O O L by Ian Williams Goddard The Associated Press (9/5/96) reports that approximately 200 Mohawk Indians from three tribes entered a state-run elementary school in upstate New York sending all govt teachers and officials packing. Stating that ``We need to have control over our children's education,'' the Mohawk Tribal Council renamed the school the Mohawk School and plans to replace the govt employees with Indians. Richard Mills, NY State Education Commissioner, has declined to comment on the peaceful overthrow. Chairman of the Mohawk Tribal Council, Phil Tarbell, said, ``It's been coming. It's not any one small issue that upset the applecart, it's a series of things that have been brewing for years.'' A SHOCKING AFFRONT TO STATIST AUTHORITY Communities seizing control of their lives--this is a clear threat to the planned order. This brazen act of self-govt and community control of education is a direct affront to centralized govt control of education. Washington D.C. must quickly send out the cavalry and reclaim the govt's control of these rabble rousing Indians before people all across the nation get the idea that they could control their own lives and the education of their children. :^o ********************************************************************** IAN GODDARD FREEDOM: to have it, give it. Visit Goddard's Universe --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/home.htm ______________________________________________________________________ --------- End forwarded message ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 21:44:43 EDT On Thu, 5 Sep 1996 18:27:08 -0400 (EDT) "Donna J. Logan" writes: >On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: >> Since terrorism is a dangerous occupation, I would expect it to be >> well-paid, and therefore terrorists as a class would have their >bills paid >> on time. >> >> Honest Citizens, like you and me, have to work for a living, and >since we >> have to give up half of it to the govt, we obviously can't pay our >bills on >> time. >> >> So all the JBGTs at the airport have to do is spot someone whose >bills are >> paid on time, and, walla - they got themselves a bona fide >terrorist. > >O I C...so a bad credit rating a true patriot makes? ;-) ;-) ;-) > WOW!!! WOOPEE!!! If that's the case, move over Patrick Henery, you ain't got nothing on me!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: H. R. 3103 Date: 05 Sep 1996 20:22:04 -0700 At 10:34 AM 9/5/96 -0400, John Curtis wrote: >> >>It would seem that they are trying an end run to try and Federalize all >>property. >>(IMO) >> >>Capt. G.H. Burkepile >> > Maybe they want to stop the flow of high net-worth individuals who > then become expatriates or renounce their citizenship to escape income > and estate taxes. If this had been a problem, them MAYBE there would be some justification. But there hasn't been. There have been about 20 rich ex-pats who have taken their American money and run to some overseas tax haven in the last 3 or 4 years. The WSJ discussed this at length during the debates over Slick Willie's "Middle Class Tax Hike". > Sounds like a move prior to moving to really punitive tax rates. Useful > if they want to slap controls on currency movement out of the country, or > devalue the currency, or make private ownership of gold illegal. > > Generally all this stuff is unneccessary if the combination of U.S. living > conditions and U.S. tax rates is better than developed world averages. > > If the combination of living standards/tax rates don't hit that standard, then > you have to start putting controls in place (if you're a total statist facist). > > Look at what happened to England when their damn tax rates approached 90% marginal > rates. Just so. Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. 8037 Stone Canyon |counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing Citrus Heights, CA|citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent 95610 |crimes and it appears to produce no increase in kmitchel@gvn.net |accidental deaths. If those states which did not 916-449-9152 (vm) |have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had 916-729-0966 (fax)|adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; |4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults |would have been avoided yearly." Crime, |Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns |John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago -------------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm---------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert (fwd) Date: 05 Sep 1996 20:48:30 -0700 >>> So all the JBGTs at the airport have to do is spot someone whose >>>bills are >>> paid on time, and, walla - they got themselves a bona fide >>terrorist. >>O I C...so a bad credit rating a true patriot makes? ;-) ;-) ;-) >WOW!!! WOOPEE!!! If that's the case, move over Patrick Henry, you >ain't got nothing on me!!! Me too! Me too! I'm so excited, I finally found where I fit in!!! - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com (E. J. Totty) Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert (fwd) Date: 06 Sep 1996 08:09:52 -0700 Donna, >>>>>>> I'd like to know what that has to do with determining whether someone is a terrorist or not . . . <<<<<<< You aren't looking deep enough. The whole purpose would be to see if you have credit established. Hence, the credit check. Pitty the poor citizen who refuses to pay nothing but cash for all purchases. Having no credit references, is sort of like being a hot button issue in the intelligence community. Obviously, if you don't have a credit record, then you are an outcast, and/or have something to hide. The flip side of the issue, would be to see if you have purchased regulated items, ie., gun powder, fire arms, etc. Why else? Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: airports_2.html (fwd) Date: 06 Sep 1996 10:11:03 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Thursday September 5 11:03 PM EDT Panel Calls for Aviation Security Moves WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A special White House panel Thursday recommended a series of urgent steps to improve airport security, including using new bomb detection equipment and profiling passengers to screen out possible terrorists. The recommendations, announced by the commission's chairman, Vice President Gore, also included wider use of bomb-sniffing dogs, more FBI involvement in airport and airline security and the matching of baggage with passengers. Gore noted that President Clinton said after the July 17 explosion of TWA flight 800 that the United States would take the strongest steps to thwart terrorism and said ``the recommendations today are a downpayment on that pledge.'' ``They can be put into place quickly and effectively, and will help ensure that airline travel remains as safe as possible for all travelers,'' Gore said after the panel's first public hearing. ``These actions are tough, they are doable,'' he said after the meeting of the Aviation Safety and Security Commission. Gore added at a news conference that the panel of aviation and security experts would continue to meet to devise longer-range methods to reduce the threat of terrorism. The panel was formed after the TWA explosion off Long Island July 17, which killed all 230 people on board. Investigators have not yet determined the cause, but traces of explosive chemicals were found in the wreckage of the 747, leading them to suspect a bombing or other criminal act. Gore said the recommendations would be forwarded to Clinton Monday, who would then act on them. If he accepts them, Gore said, many could be put into effect quickly by the airlines, airports and the Federal He said the profiling would use information already in computer data bases to try to screen out low-risk passengers in order to focus on those more likely to be potential terrorists. Nojeim, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, cautioned the commission about the threat to civil rights if the computer profiles use race or ethnic background as a basis for identifying potential terrorists. Gore said profiling would be used in conjunction with matching baggage to passenger and new bomb detection devices. He said the panel called for federal funding for the initial bomb detection devices, but that a public-private consortium could be formed later to take the lead in deploying the expensive devices and overseeing research into new ones. Other recommendations by the commission include making assessments of airports on their vulnerability to terrorism and improved methods to screen and train airport security staff, with special attention to security staff at some overseas airports. He did not identify the overseas airports. Aviation specialists said there was likely to be disagreement over who should pay for the new anti-terrorism steps over the long run, with airlines and airports often balking at financing expensive bomb detection devices. They argue that terrorism was seldom aimed at any individual airline or any individual passenger but at the United States itself, thus the government should be the one to finance the steps needed to combat terrorism. _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: airports_2.html (fwd) Date: 06 Sep 1996 11:45:38 -0400 > > If he accepts them, Gore said, many could be put into effect quickly > by the airlines, airports and the Federal He said the profiling would > use information already in computer data bases to try to screen out > low-risk passengers in order to focus on those more likely to be > potential terrorists. > The thing that strikes me about this is how relatively easy it is to do. There are computer databases available (Lotus tried to sell them on CD to small businesses, but got nixed) that contain name, address, credit info, subscription info, address based guess at annual income, etc. This is already commercially available. If you have another database that just has airline travel habits produced by some munge of major airlines customer databases, then all you have to do is come up with a simple screen that says: John Doe has a fixed address and a credit history and annual income that make sense when correllated with his apparent travel today on vacation with his wife. Or, Joe potential terrorist has only been at this address n months, has no credit history and we have no previous flight records. If you are going to pull people out of line and interrogate them, who would you choose? The striking thing is that all this stuff is probably already legally in commercial databases and the only novel element is the screen. Welcome to the information age. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: helicopter_1.html (fwd) Date: 06 Sep 1996 12:15:51 -0500 (CDT) Just a warning, ?? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Friday September 6 12:34 PM EDT White House Support Helicopter Crashes in Fla. ORLANDO, Fla. (Reuter) - A helicopter used in supporting the entourage of President Clinton crashed in Orlando on Friday but all crew members escaped without injury, White House spokesman Mike McCurry told reporters. Defense Department officials in Washington said preliminary reports were that it was a CH-46E Seaknight Marine helicopter used in supporting presidential trips. It was in the process of landing at Orlando Executive Airport when the accident happened. ``It rolled over and apparently was destroyed in a fire at the Orlando Executive Airport,'' McCurry told reporters in Orlando. ``All crew members escaped without injury.'' Clinton, who was visiting Florida on a two-day election campaign trip, was elsewhere in Orlando when the accident happened. The helicopter was used on Thursday to transport members of the presidential party but not including Clinton. It was the second air accident involving support for the president in three weeks. A C-130 Air Force cargo plane that accompanied Clinton on his vacation trip to Jackson, Wyo., crashed on a Wyoming mountain on Aug. 17, killing all nine people aboard. They included eight crew members and a Secret Service agent. _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) Morris/Mars/Iraq/TWA (fwd) Date: 06 Sep 1996 13:20:44 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Presidential advisor Dick Morris had shared with his prostitute lover the news of the Mars meteorite a week before its public announcement. This meant that Morris and the President were sitting on the Mars news at least a week prior to its release. On Monday August 5, 1996 GOP Presidential candidate Bob Dole announced his economic plan calling for a 15% cut in personal income tax. The next day the Mars news began to hit the media. Dole's plan, the center of his Presidential campaign was completely overshadowed. I urge you to search any and all media sources. This analysis will not be found. Such an analysis reveals that Clinton and Morris would use any event for political gain. The September 1996 strike against Iraq had been targeted much closer to the election. It was Morris's own advice to his President that the "Iraq strike date" be moved up to over-power the scandal that he had created in waning days of August 1996. The TWA crash investigation is another example of Clinton/Morris stage managing. Despite reports in numerous news organs detailing evidence of sabotage, the administration will hold off announcing the conclusion of its investigation, the identity of the saboteurs and the country of their origin. A vengeful and decisive Clinton will announce these things as well as the punitive actions his administration will enact during the stretch run of the election. As Dick Morris will later write, "It was our ace in the hole". -- Carlos This is an excerpt from a Message 93 (http://www.islandnet.com/~rhb/Future_Page.html) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert Date: 06 Sep 1996 15:13:53 -0500 I don't get it. Why would the Fascists expect a "terrorist" would get on an airplane that he wanted to blow up? Dumb and dumber. Bob Knauer -- ******************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ******************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: WSJ: Airport Security Profiling Date: 06 Sep 1996 16:27:11 -0500 I can't believe what I am reading (see below) - they are actually going do it. Now anyone who doesn't fit into the govt-determined "correct" profile - and that means just about anybody they want - is going to have some minimum-wage moron jacking them around like a common criminal at the airports. These morons will, of course, have "quotas" just like traffic cops, which means there will be no end to the harrasment of decent citizens. Then someone in the Washington will decide that terrorists use the roadways to do their dirty deeds and all motorists must be stopped and "profiled" too. Then it will extend to searching everybody's house because terrorists have to sleep somewhere. And it will extend to work, recreation, walking, etc., because terrorists work, recreate, and walk, too. Does anyone in govt bother to consult the Constitution anymore, except to wipe their ass with it? I wonder how much these airlines and security equipment/service companies contributed to the Democrats this go-around? Bubba is so desperate to keep one step ahead of Whitewater that he will literally sell your liberty to the highest bidder. I believe this is one of the most significant things to come out of Fascist Washington since the spate of Gun Control laws a few years ago. If the trend towards tyranny continues at this accelerated pace, we won't have any liberty left by year 2000. Bob Knauer +++++ From the WSJ: Antiterrorist Plan Is Unveiled To Assure Safe Air Travel By ASRA Q. NOMANI Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration, seeking to assure travelers that it is moving aggressively to keep air travel safe, announced controversial plans to uncover terrorists by profiling airline passengers and pumping $300 million into high-tech bomb-detection equipment. Although federal investigators haven't settled on a cause of the July 17 explosion of a Trans World Airlines jet over the Atlantic, the catastrophe sent the administration scurrying to improve aviation safety and security. "It is clear that the terrorist attacks ... represent an attack on the United States of America. There is clearly a national interest here," said Vice President Al Gore, who is leading the Aviation Safety and Security Commission that unveiled recommendations it will submit on Monday to President Clinton. Mr. Clinton established the commission days after the TWA Flight 800 explosion. Civil-Rights Issues Is Raised The American Civil Liberties Union immediately took issue with the notion of passenger profiling, raising concerns that aviation security personnel will be targeting passengers based on nationality, race and religion. "At a ticket counter, airplane passengers check their baggage, not their rights," ACLU legislative counsel Gregory Nojeim warned at a hearing before the commission. Mr. Gore acknowledged that there is a line aviation security officials would have to be careful not to cross, or they would violating passengers' rights. The decision to request additional federal funding for new security systems represents a victory for airline and airport interests that have lobbied hard against footing the bill. On Monday, the administration plans to submit a $300 million supplemental budget request to Congress to buy advanced bomb-detection systems that have been installed in only a couple of airports. Airlines and airports have fought paying for these machines, slowing their introduction to airports. Commission officials briefed Republican lawmakers Thursday after the hearing and indicated that they expected support for their legislative proposal. Looking at Airline Employees The commission recommended that airports assess the vulnerability of their security systems and develop better screening methods for airline and airport employees, as well as passengers, to identify potential terrorists. Mr. Gore said the commission is also recommending additional funding for bomb-sniffing dogs. Under the proposed plan, the government would install advanced bomb-detection systems that can spot plastic explosives at more than 50 of the country's busiest airports. The commission also is recommending spending $100 million -- split evenly between the government and industry -- for research and development of newer bomb-detection systems. The rush to put new machines into airports is expected to mean a boom for companies such as InVision Technologies Inc., a Foster City, Calif., company that sells $900,000 scanners, and Thermedics Inc., a Woburn, Mass., company that produces detection systems with electronic "sniffers" that track plastic explosives. Some evidence of plastic-explosive material has been found on wreckage from the TWA explosion, which killed all 230 passengers and crew members. Among the more controversial of its recommendations, the commission blessed the creation of computer systems that track passengers' travel patterns for any suspicious movements that could be matched with information about terrorist activities from intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. More Delays for Customers The plan could mean further delays and hassles for customers. The commission recommended using profiling to decide whether certain passengers' bags should be pulled for further examination using the sophisticated bomb-detection systems. Some of the systems are so time-consuming that it could take hours to inspect all the bags on any one flight. The commission also recommended that airports implement "full baggage match" programs to ship baggage only if the baggage's owner has boarded the flight. While this policy is basically in place on international flights it hasn't been fully implemented and sometimes misses bags that are transferred between airlines. Carol Hallett, president of the Air Transport Association, a lobbying group that includes 22 airlines including the country's major carriers, said airlines support a profiling system and new bomb-detection systems as long as the government pays for the devices. "Terrorism has come to our shores," she said, adding that a strike against a U.S. airline constitutes a hit against the country's national security. +++++ -- ******************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ******************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert Date: 06 Sep 1996 16:47:29 CDT Bob Knauer wrote: >I don't get it. > >Why would the Fascists expect a "terrorist" would get on an airplane that he >wanted to blow up? Because that's how they'd do it themselves. There has to be *someone* there to set it off, you know. >Dumb and dumber. Yep. ;-) The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: hornswog.html (fwd) Date: 06 Sep 1996 17:19:45 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.jetlink.net/~mystery HAVE YOU BEEN HORNSWOGGLED? =20 [IMAGE] =20 Which Flag is Which? by Richard McDonald =20 The people of the United States actually have two national flags: one for our military government and another for the civil. Each one has fifty stars in its canton and thirteen red and white stripes, but there are several important differences. =20 Although most Americans think of the Stars and Stripes (above left) as their only flag, it is actually for military affairs only. The other one, meant by its makers for wider use (peacetime), has vertical stripes with blue stars on a white field (above right). You can see this design, which bears civil jurisdiction, in the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs flags, but their service insignias replace the fifty stars. =20 I first learned of the separate, civil flag when I was reading Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, published in 1850. The introduction, titled "The Custom House," includes this description: =20 From the loftiest point of its roof, during precisely three and a half hours of each forenoon, floats or droops, in breeze or calm, the banner of the republic; but with the thirteen stripes turned vertically, instead of horizontally, and thus indicating that a civil, and not a military post of Uncle Sam's government, is here established. =20 It took me two years of digging before I found a picture that matched what he was describing: my second clue was an original Illuminated History of North America (1860). If this runs against your beliefs, look up those two references. =20 History book publishers contribute to the public's miseducation by always picturing the flag in military settings, creating the impression that the one with horizontal stripes is the only one there is. They don't actually lie; they just tell half the truth. For example, the "first American flag" they show Betsy Ross sewing at George Washington's request, was for the Revolution - of course it was military. =20 The U.S. government hasn't flown the civil flag since the Civil War, as that war is still going on. Peace has never been declared, nor have hostilities against the people ended. The government is still operating under quasi-military rule. =20 You movie buffs may recall this: In the old Westerns, "Old Glory" has her stripes running sideways and a military yellow fringe. Most of these films are historically accurate about that; their stories usually took place in the territories still under military law and not yet states. Before WWII, no U.S. flag, civil or military, flew within the forty-eight states (except in federal settings); only state flags did. Since then, the U.S. government seems to have decided the supposedly sovereign states are its territories too, so it asserts its military power over them under the "law of the flag." =20 =20 Today the U.S. military flag appears alongside, or in place of, the state flags in nearly all locations within the states. All of the state courts and even the municipal ones now openly display it. This should have raised serious questions from many citizens long ago, but we've been educated to listen and believe what we are told, not to ask questions, or think or search for the truth. =20 =20 _______________________________________________________________ =20 NOTES =20 1. hornswoggled: deceived. The term comes from the traditional image of cuckolded husbands wearing horns.=F3Editor 2. canton: The rectangular section in the upper corner of a flag, next to the staff. 3. The Scarlet Letter: An Authoritative Text, edited by Sculley Bradley, W. W. Norton, New York, 1978, pp. 7-8. 4. There is also a picture of the Coast Guard flag in Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass., 1966. 5. For more about the law of the flag, see "A Fiction-at-Law . . . ," in the printed version of Perceptions Magazine May/June1995, Issue 9, page 11. _______________________________________________________________ =20 About the author: Richard McDonald is a California Citizen domiciled in The California state Republic. He does legal research and has his own site on the web, The Citizens Forum File area . =20 Back to Issue 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: WSJ: Airport Security Profiling Date: 06 Sep 1996 17:26:31 -0700 --snip-- >Does anyone in govt bother to consult the Constitution anymore, except to >wipe their ass with it? No. --snip-- - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Bob Starr case Date: 06 Sep 1996 17:34:09 -0700 Anybody got any suggestions? The court date is Sept 16. >The Bob Starr case in Macon Georgia is in urgent need of a Constitutional >attorney, due to Attorney Nancy Lord being removed by the judge. > >This is an urgent plea, anyone who has any contacts, please do what you can. > >Contact JJ Johnson at 912 788 6272, or respond to CopWatch@AOL.com > >Please repost this message > >Thanks, > >Jeff Randall > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: Bob Starr case Date: 06 Sep 1996 18:54:54 -0600 >Anybody got any suggestions? The court date is Sept 16. > > >>The Bob Starr case in Macon Georgia is in urgent need of a Constitutional >>attorney, due to Attorney Nancy Lord being removed by the judge. Anyone know the story on why she was removed ? Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Silberger Subject: A special request from Silberger Date: 06 Sep 1996 21:25:39 EDT In the related interests of fairness and of opening the American political process, please email the Commission on Presidential Debates at or snailmail that Commission at 601 Thirteenth Street, NY, Suite 3108, Washington, DC 20005. Ask the Commission to invite Harry Browne to participate in the debates with Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Thank you. Donald Silberger ======================================================================== 16 Whoever drafted the Browne Campaign's formal request for Harry Browne to be included in this fall's presidential debates, and the announcement to us which communicated that request, should be complimented on a job very well done indeed. That announcement says it all, politely, succinctly, and powerfully. I believe that the announcement should be published in the mainstream media as widely as possible, so that the public therefrom gains some clear cognizance of what is at issue on this matter. Best wishes. Donald Silberger ========================================================================= Return-Path: Received: from UICVM (NJE origin SMTP2@UICVM) by UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5207; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:46:41 -0500 Received: from hustle.rahul.net by UICVM.UIC.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Fri, 06 Sep 96 15:46:09 CDT Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA27602 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for SILBERGD@SNYNEWVM.bitnet); Fri, 6 Sep 1996 13:36:48 -0700 Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 6 Sep 96 12:56:25 PDT Message-Id: <55738.323081E9.ann@HarryBrowne96.org> Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.6a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HARRY BROWNE, LIBERTARIAN FOR PRESIDENT 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For additional information: Bill Winter, Director of Communications Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 226 Internet: 73163.3063@CompuServe.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CAMPAIGN NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 6, 1996 Harry Browne formally requests invitation to presidential debates WASHINGTON, DC -- Bolstered by support in two more newspapers, the Harry Browne for President campaign has made a formal request to the Commission on Presidential Debates to be included in the upcoming televised debates. On September 5, campaign staffers presented the Commission more than 280 pages of documentation that Libertarian candidate Browne "is running a serious, viable, and credible campaign -- and should properly be considered among the principal rivals for the Presidency." The documents pointed out that Browne: * Is one of only four Presidential candidates on the ballot in all 50 states. * Has won the endorsements of numerous elected officials, radio talk show hosts, and newspaper columnists. * Has raised more than enough money to qualify for federal matching funds. * Has generated a substantial amount of media coverage, including front-page newspaper stories, hundreds of interviews on talk radio, and appearances on television. "Given the obstacles faced by third-party candidates, Mr. Browne has built an impressive nationwide organization, has achieved significant newsworthiness and competitiveness, and has generated substantial indicators of national enthusiasm," campaign director Sharon Ayres wrote to the Commission. "We hope you'll agree that in the interests of the voting public -- and because of his significant accomplishments as a presidential candidate -- Mr. Browne deserves to be invited to participate in the debates." One day after the presentation to the Commission, two more newspapers joined the growing chorus of requests that Browne be included in the debates. The Sun-Sentinel (West Palm Beach, Florida) editorialized on September 6 that both Browne and Reform Party candidate Ross Perot deserve to participate in an expanded series of debates. "Open up the process and allow Perot and Browne to infuse the presidential campaign with their ideas," the newspaper wrote. "Browne's name will be on the ballot in all 50 states. The Libertarian Party has a well-organized, nationwide organization. This year, 1,000 Libertarian candidates will run for office. Currently, 180 of them hold elected local or state positions. The Libertarians have a well-reasoned political philosophy based on free-market economics, individual liberty, and military restraint." Include Perot and Browne, the newspaper concluded, because they will "provide points of view that will shake up the vested interests." Also on September 6, Democratic campaign consultant William Bradley, in an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times, wrote that the Debates Commission "seems more interested in 'viability' than in spurring a serious debate about where America is headed. I would open the debates to include not just Reform nominee Ross Perot ... but also Green standard- bearer Ralph Nader and Libertarian candidate Harry Browne. "Neither Perot nor Nader nor Browne may have the answers as potential presidents. But they do have some of the questions. And they are not questions that Clinton, Dole, or much of the Washington establishment wants to talk about." -- Harry Browne for President Campaign@HarryBrowne96.org http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/ fax: 202-333-0072 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037 voice: 202-333-0008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert Date: 06 Sep 1996 19:27:58 -0700 At 03:13 PM 9/6/96 -0500, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: >I don't get it. > >Why would the Fascists expect a "terrorist" would get on an airplane that he >wanted to blow up? > >Dumb and dumber. No, just gutsy. Terrorist gets aboard airliner with disassembled bomb parts. Terrorist assembles bomb during flight, sets timer to go off during NEXT leg of the flight, hides bomb aboard plane. Terrorist exits plane. Bomb goes off some hours later, killing somebody, maybe SEVERAL somebodies, else. Been done. The arab terrorist just convicted of attempted air terrorism in New York did it a couple of years ago on a Philippine Airlines plane, killing a Japanese passenger. Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. 8037 Stone Canyon |counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing Citrus Heights, CA|citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent 95610 |crimes and it appears to produce no increase in kmitchel@gvn.net |accidental deaths. If those states which did not 916-449-9152 (vm) |have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had 916-729-0966 (fax)|adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; |4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults |would have been avoided yearly." Crime, |Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns |John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago -------------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm---------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: WSJ: Airport Security Profiling Date: 06 Sep 1996 21:27:08 -0500 (CDT) On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > I can't believe what I am reading (see below) - they are actually going do it. > > Does anyone in govt bother to consult the Constitution anymore, except to > wipe their ass with it? I wonder how much these airlines and security > equipment/service companies contributed to the Democrats this go-around? > Bubba is so desperate to keep one step ahead of Whitewater that he will > literally sell your liberty to the highest bidder. > > I believe this is one of the most significant things to come out of Fascist > Washington since the spate of Gun Control laws a few years ago. If the trend > towards tyranny continues at this accelerated pace, we won't have any > liberty left by year 2000. > > Bob Knauer Bob, you hit that nail on the head. The great plan for a new world order and a new age of religion is the year 2000. Pull out a one dollar bill and look at the Great Pyramid missing the cap stone. The Illuminati all seeing eye is waiting to see if the "NOVOS ORDO SECLORUM" new world order will happen. This is what they said not me, do they really believe in this stuff, I wonder, some I am sure do. Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy Bye the way, have you read "New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies?" This book isn't that well written but it's full of the same kind of things you were just talking about. Well, not all of the things, but some of them. (Such as the symbolism of the dollar bill) NWO: APOSS is a book about how the Masons plan to take over the world and have been at work with this plan since their societies began, springing up out of Atlantis no less. Now I'm not sure how much of the book I believe, but it does make you think, and is worth reading. It's by William T. Still and it's published by Huntington House. **Best caption from the book: under a picture of Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt it says, "Stalin, Roosevelt & Churchill: all three were masons." If that isn't enough to make you want to buy it, then hey..... And so are Dole and Kemp? Preston Financial Opportunities (financial.opportunities@canrem.com) wrote: : Ackshully {I'm borrowing my spelling from Hampster Clueless tonight, the : only person alive who could refer people to "Revelation 20:004"!}, : here's the *ackshul* goods on that nasty ol' $1 pyramid: : * the "eye" is the Horus eye of Lucifer. : * there are 13 "steps" or courses of stone in the pyramid: : 13 is the Satanic number. : * look closely at the right-hand side of the base course of : stones and you'll see the Roman numerals MDCCLXXVI engraved. : These are the Roman numerals for 1776, May 1st. That was the : date that Adam Weishaupt founded the Illuminati in Inglestadt, : Germany. : * the pyramid forms "a triangle within a circle", an occultic : and symbolic representation of Lucifer. The triangle, in : Babylonian occultic code, represented their three Satanic : deities: Lucifer, the Sun God; Nimrod, Ruler of the World; : and the sun and moon, stars, and Mother Earth, represented : by the Satanic number 666. : Want some *more* goodies....? : * Benjamin Creme, the noted New Age nutcase, stated: "The [coming : New Age] Christ will be known as the *point within the triangle*." : [MAITREYA'S MISSION, p.46] : * the triangle is the global symbol of the environmental movement. : On EARTH DAY, in April 1990, the UN endorsed the Luciferian : "Great Invocation" as the official Earth Day, environmentalist : prayer. It is an occultic appeal to Lucifer to set up his : kingdom on earth. "Djwal Khul, the demonic Tibetan master, reveals : that *the triangle, through The Great Invocation, represents the : combined energies of the Solar Father, "the Christ", the occultic : hierarchy, and humanity*. In Christian terms, this means that the : triangle represents the combined energies of Satan, his false : New Age "Christ", and the demonic {fallen} angels [demons] of : hell, and mankind." [MYSTERY MARK OF THE NEW AGE, Texe Marrs, : p.83] : * In THE NEW AGE ENCYCLOPEDIA, Barbara Walker declares: "The triangle : is the universal symbol of the Mother Goddess [the "Earth Goddess" - : Gaia]" : * Aphrodite is the Greek equivalent of the Babylonian Mother Goddess. : Robert Muller, in THE NEW GENESIS, p.29, describes the New World : Order "as a glorious Aphrodite emerging from the sea." : * India worships the Mother Goddess today as The Great Serpent. : * Al Gore, US Environmentalist El-Supremo, wrote in EARTH IN THE : BALANCE: "We can understand our religious heritage based on *a : single earth goddess who is assumed to be the fountain of all : life*." [Quoted in THE CHRISTIAN AMERICAN, April, 1994, p.6] : * US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT portrayed the All Seeing Eye of Lucifer : centred within the pyramid with an arrow pointing toward the : future. The title of the article was: "Points in time 1990 to 1999" : [December 25th/Jan1st issue, 1990] : * the Meditation Room in the UN building, in NYC, is designed in the : form of a pyramid on it's side with the cap-stone missing [the : Illuminati believe that when the capstone comes down, Lucifer will : have manifested himself to rule the world, and that they will then : be "illumined" by their "Sun God"] {Note also that Benjamin Franklin : looked at the "Sun Rising" engraved on the great wooden chair : in the chamber where the Revolutionary Congress met, and said : afterward that he often wondered if the sun was rising or setting : on their revolutionary enterprise - well: now you know what that : "rising sun" represented!] The Great Black Stone in the Meditation : Room represents Lucifer, the capstone of the pyramid. Just to : complete the farce, the Meditation Room has it's own Hindu Guru, : who teaches that 666 *is a holy number*! : * Exactly *13* blocks from the White House, in Washington, is the : great Masonic "House of the Temple", of the Scottish Rite {remember : those impassioned screeds defending Masonry here some months ago? : Well, this is where the "scripts" for them are written :)] It, too, : houses a great black stone. This temple is the 33rd Degree Masonic : Temple. Albert Pike wrote: "The ancients adored the Sun under the : form of *a great black stone*" [MORALS AND DOGMA, p.775] : But, *hey*! It's probably all just *coincidence*! : Cheers! : John W. : ********************************************************************* : Above material abstracted from the fascinating and detailed new book, : THE WORLD'S LAST DICTATOR, by Dwight L. Kinman [ISBN 18779112205, : US$8.95]. Well worth reading - an appendix of this superb book includes : the McAlvany Intelligence Report on Waco, *eye-opening* reading! : ************************************************************************ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert Date: 06 Sep 1996 19:51:43 PDT roc@xmission.com wrote : >At 03:13 PM 9/6/96 -0500, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: >>I don't get it. >> >>Why would the Fascists expect a "terrorist" would get on an airplane that he >>wanted to blow up? >> >>Dumb and dumber. > >No, just gutsy. Terrorist gets aboard airliner with disassembled bomb >parts. Terrorist assembles bomb during flight, sets timer to go off during >NEXT leg of the flight, hides bomb aboard plane. Terrorist exits plane. >Bomb goes off some hours later, killing somebody, maybe SEVERAL somebodies, >else. Been done. The arab terrorist just convicted of attempted air >terrorism in New York did it a couple of years ago on a Philippine Airlines >plane, killing a Japanese passenger. I am perplexed. You are after all dealing with a culture that has fanatics quite willing to die for the cause. If assassins are willing to strap explosives around their body to be able to get close enough to the target and destroy it why would they have any qualms about blowing up the plane they themselves were on up .....as long as it was for the cause. Jack >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. >8037 Stone Canyon |counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing >Citrus Heights, CA|citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent >95610 |crimes and it appears to produce no increase in >kmitchel@gvn.net |accidental deaths. If those states which did not >916-449-9152 (vm) |have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had >916-729-0966 (fax)|adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; > |4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults > |would have been avoided yearly." Crime, > |Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns > |John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago >-------------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm---------------- > !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Re: Bob Starr case Date: 06 Sep 1996 21:30:53 -0700 (PDT) >X-Sender: chad@mail.pengar.com >Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 18:54:54 -0600 >To: roc@xmission.com >From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) >Subject: Re: Bob Starr case >Sender: owner-roc@xmission.com >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: roc@xmission.com >X-UIDL: e02cf91457a077d7d6b5ef2128b5dc1d > >>Anybody got any suggestions? The court date is Sept 16. >> >> >>>The Bob Starr case in Macon Georgia is in urgent need of a Constitutional >>>attorney, due to Attorney Nancy Lord being removed by the judge. > >Anyone know the story on why she was removed ? > > >Chad > My guess is that Nancy is doing too good of a job. They want her out so they can replace her with a federal attorney who will make the sham look real and plead for maximum sentence. Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert Date: 06 Sep 1996 21:53:38 -0700 (PDT) On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Kenneth Mitchell wrote: > At 03:13 PM 9/6/96 -0500, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > >I don't get it. > > > >Why would the Fascists expect a "terrorist" would get on an airplane that he > >wanted to blow up? snip > No, just gutsy. Terrorist gets aboard airliner with disassembled bomb -Neither- scenario is unlikely (as terrorirst attacks, inherently unlikely, go). Remember folks, Hamas (a group that will never look at a cell phone in the same way again) has made a veritable hobby of driving car bombs onto side walks. Religious zealotry, IMHO, is not a pretty thing. Boyd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert Date: 07 Sep 1996 01:18:13 EDT On Fri, 06 Sep 1996 19:27:58 -0700 Kenneth Mitchell writes: >At 03:13 PM 9/6/96 -0500, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: >>I don't get it. >> >>Why would the Fascists expect a "terrorist" would get on an airplane >that he >>wanted to blow up? >> >>Dumb and dumber. > >No, just gutsy. Terrorist gets aboard airliner with disassembled bomb >parts. Terrorist assembles bomb during flight, sets timer to go off >during >NEXT leg of the flight, hides bomb aboard plane. Terrorist exits >plane. >Bomb goes off some hours later, killing somebody, maybe SEVERAL >somebodies, >else. Been done. The arab terrorist just convicted of attempted air >terrorism in New York did it a couple of years ago on a Philippine >Airlines >plane, killing a Japanese passenger. >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Ken Mitchell Makes sense to me. Gary Burkepile ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Bob Starr case Date: 07 Sep 1996 01:18:13 EDT Chad, Ask J.J. Johnson, who is in Georgia helping these guys as much as he can. He can be reached at citizen@mindspring.com. If any body knows he should. Thanks, Gary On Fri, 6 Sep 1996 18:54:54 -0600 chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) writes: >>Anybody got any suggestions? The court date is Sept 16. >> >> >>>The Bob Starr case in Macon Georgia is in urgent need of a >Constitutional >>>attorney, due to Attorney Nancy Lord being removed by the judge. > >Anyone know the story on why she was removed ? > > >Chad > >------------------------- Live Free or Die ! >--------------------------- >Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! >Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop >(sm) >http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com >http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text >interface >Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and >Activism Info >--------------------$4/month commercial WWW >space!!!-------------------- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Bob Starr case Date: 07 Sep 1996 01:18:13 EDT Yea! Get Jerry Spence!! That is if he will. Gary Burkepile On Fri, 06 Sep 1996 17:34:09 -0700 Liberty or Death writes: >Anybody got any suggestions? The court date is Sept 16. > > >>The Bob Starr case in Macon Georgia is in urgent need of a >Constitutional >>attorney, due to Attorney Nancy Lord being removed by the judge. >> >>This is an urgent plea, anyone who has any contacts, please do what >you can. >> >>Contact JJ Johnson at 912 788 6272, or respond to CopWatch@AOL.com >> >>Please repost this message >> >>Thanks, >> >>Jeff Randall >> > > >- Monte > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > * Psalm 33 * > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of >servitude > greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in >peace. > We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the >hand > that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may >posterity > forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >O- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Did Chicago Police Crush Dissident Journalists? Date: 07 Sep 1996 07:42:18 -0400 Anybody hear this? Tom >Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:03:02 -0500 (CDT) >Reply-To: bigred@duracef.shout.net >Sender: owner-CN-L@cornell.edu >From: Brian Redman >To: Conspiracy Nation >Subject: Did Chicago Police Crush Dissident Journalists? >X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)=20 >X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN > > >The following is one of several such reports I've received. >I consider the story to be unconfirmed at this point. It >may be true; it may be disinformation. > >Brian Redman | bigred@shout.net | ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred >Editor-in-Chief | ---------------Phone: 217-356-4418---------------- >Conspiracy Nation | "The perfect slave thinks he's free." > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 13:32:55 +0100 >From: gilboa >To: bigred@duracef.shout.net >Subject: Re: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 03 > >brian, > > as an independant mediaperson, who was involved in the following, i=20 >implore you to distribute the following on your fine list. i should=20 >hope that you are not participating in this media blackout on the=20 >issue below. > >regads >eddy > >COUNTERMEDIA 312/243-8342 fax 312/243-8406 > =20 > PRESS RELEASE > =20 >August 29, 1996 >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > >Contact: 312/278-0775 (James or Vic, Autonomous Zone) > 312/243-8342 (CounterMedia) > =20 > CHICAGO POLICE RAID ACTIVIST HEADQUARTERS > AS PRESIDENT ADDRESSES CONVENTION > Press Conference and Demonstration Planned at Police Headquarters > =20 >CHICAGO- As President Clinton took the stage at the Democratic=20 >National >Convention tonight, Chicago police raided the site of Active=20 >Resistance, a >counter-convention conference organized by the local activist group, >Autonomous Zone. A press conference and demonstration will be held at >1:00pm on Friday, August 30 at the 14th District Police Station, 2150=20 >N. >California Ave. > =20 >At approximately 8:00pm tonight, numerous police vans gathered in the >street and 5-8 uniformed officers forced their way into the building=20 >at >2010 W. Carroll, which has served as a central meeting site for the >conference. Several conference participants were pepper-sprayed; two=20 >were >hospitalized. Officers reportedly searched through personal=20 >belongings >and confiscated radio equipment and papers from the site. Conference >participants report that when they asked to see a search warrant,=20 >officers >told them a search warrant wasn't necessary. No arrests have been >reported. > =20 >As officers entered from the back of the building, they ordered=20 >conference >participants there to sit down. Those who did not sit down were pushed >down. One officer threatened to push a woman down the back stairs of=20 >the >building. Conference participant Lynn Harrington was kicked and, when=20 >she >asked officers "what are you doing?," was pepper-sprayed in the face=20 >at >close range. Conference participants report that they repeatedly >requested a search warrant and officers' badge numbers, but were not >provided with either. Participants were told they were not being=20 >arrested >or detained. But when one woman and her three year-old son asked if=20 >they >could leave, officers denied them permission. On their way out,=20 >officers >reportedly pepper-sprayed participants indiscriminately. Conference >participant Alex Berkman was sprayed repeatedly at close range and was >hospitalized. > =20 >Police vans then proceeded to another Active Resistance meeting site=20 >at >343 N. Western. By the time officers arrived at the second site, >counter-convention participants had already removed their belongings=20 >and >evacuated the building. > >Active Resistance has been host to over 700 activists from throughout >North America and Europe who came to Chicago to attend workshops and >discussion groups on issues ranging from community organizing to >alternative economics. Conference participants also organized today's >Festival of the Oppressed, a peaceful street-theater procession with >costumes and colorful puppets made by participants during the week. > =20 >The police raids this evening come at the end of a day of 14 arrests=20 >of >activists and independent media makers. Eight conference participants >were arrested at the Festival of the Oppressed procession, including=20 >the >parade's traffic safety coordinator. Six videographers working with >CounterMedia, a coalition of alternative media makers, were arrested=20 >while >covering the procession. Their cameras were confiscated and some of=20 >their >film was destroyed by arresting officers. Videographer Jeff=20 >Perlstein, >who was arrested earlier in the week and participated in=20 >CounterMedia's >press conference this morning addressing police harassment of=20 >independent >media, was arrested again this afternoon. He reports witnessing an >officer smash his camera on the ground. Charges have not yet been >released. > >PREVIOUS INFORMATION > >Chicago Police cracked down today on CounterMedia, a collective of=20 >media >activists covering the protests at the Democratic National Convention=20 >in >Chicago, and on other protesters around town. At about one o=B9clock in=20 >the >afternoon some 200 activists in Chicago to attend Active Resistance, a >national convention of anarchists that has been occurring here since=20 >August >21, gathered in Wicker Park for the "Festival of the Oppressed" (the=20 >march >was *not* arranged by the A.R. organizers). Puppeteers had been=20 >working for >several days on a tremendous piece of puppet/guerrilla theater =AD a=20 >huge wood >"corporation" tower with an arm on either side holding painted heads=20 >of >Clinton and Dole. Two dozen worker/slaves pulled the corporation and=20 >dozens >of =AD "immigrants," "minorities," "single mothers," trailed behind,=20 >"crushed" >by the tower. About 200 anarchists led the piece of theater on a=20 >march >through the Wicker Park area of town. Dozens upon dozens of Chicago=20 >Police >surrounded the march as it wound its way through the streets. There=20 >was no >permit for the march but it was very peaceful =AD no incendiary chants,=20 >actions >or problems. > >There were police there, however =AD "the appropriate amount," according=20 >to >police spokesman Paul Jenkins. About =BD hour into the march those=20 >police >began to make sporadic arrests. First they arrested a CounterMedia >videographer and an A.R. participant who were walking slightly ahead=20 >of the >march. The CounterMedia videographer was talking on one of the >walkie-talkie/radios that CounterMedia has used to coordinate=20 >coverage. > Police took his camera and radio. More police closed in. This=20 >changed the >tenor of the march tremendously and made everyone extremely tense, but=20 >the >marchers continued, arms linked, surrounded on all sides by police. =20 >Shortly >before the march reached the intersection of North, Damen and=20 >Milwaukee, two >CounterMedia members were standing on the corner, one speaking on her=20 >radio >the other videotaping the scene. Police pointed to them and then=20 >swarmed in. > They arrested the female and confiscated her radio but the male=20 >dashed off, >eluding officers. When the march reached the corner police surrounded=20 >it. > That was the perfect point for the climax of the theater, as the=20 >corporation >walls fell and out of it ran the "liberated" people of the world. The >anarchists greeted this part of the theater with tremendous cheers and=20 >then >slowly marched the final block back to Wicker Park. > >At the Park the anarchists had a collective meeting about how to=20 >handle the >arrests. They reached consensus to go down to the precinct where=20 >police had >taken those who were arrested and about 50 of them set off. The park=20 >was >relatively empty after they took off, leaving a couple dozen marchers=20 >who >were putting away the puppets and five members of CounterMedia. There=20 >were >still police units on every corner. The CounterMedia members, two >videographers, a member of the print team and two video stringers,=20 >thought > that the police may be waiting for them. The stringers, who had not=20 >been >actively involved in CounterMedia coverage, felt that they were safe=20 >and went >to their motorcycle to bring their tape back to the CounterMedia=20 >office. The >three remaining members stood between them and a police cruiser parked=20 >across >the street so that the officer, if he was watching, would not see the >stringers place their video camera under one of their jackets. Soon=20 >after >the stringers left the surveillance cruisers moved out. The three=20 >remaining >members walked without incident to the Burger King a block away and=20 >waited >there for about an hour, after which they proceeded by el back to the >CounterMedia office. When they arrived they discovered that police=20 >had >arrested the two stringers on the motorcycle. CounterMedia assumes=20 >that the >police believed that the three remaining members had passed their=20 >radio and >camera to the stringers. > >At this moment, there are 10 members of CounterMedia and 5 A.R.=20 >participants >in custody for various charges. About 50 A.R. participants are at the=20 >police >office where those arrested have been taken. Apparently in the last=20 >day >Chicago police have also arrested David Dellinger and Andrew Hoffman=20 >(son of >Abbie), two of the planners of the Festival of Life, and this=20 >afternoon >arrested four more Festival planners. The Festival of Life arrestees=20 >are out >an holding a press conference, according to the most recent reports. > CounterMedia, Active Reistance and those with convetion-related=20 >problems >from the housing projects are not "big name" organizers and therefore=20 >will >need a lot more community support. > >PLEASE pass this information around as quickly and as widely as=20 >possible. To >help please call the CounterMedia office at (312) 243-8342, though=20 >realize >that the phone will be quite busy. For solid documentation of=20 >Tuesday=B9s >CounterMedia arrests and information from today as much as we are=20 >able,=20 > >check >out the web site at "http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/cpsr/countermedia". > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: HUMAN RIGHTS OUTRAGE. MAKE THE CALLS. (fwd) Date: 07 Sep 1996 07:48:24 -0400 >Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:25:24 -0500 (CDT) >Reply-To: bigred@duracef.shout.net >Sender: owner-CN-L@cornell.edu >From: Brian Redman >To: Conspiracy Nation >Subject: HUMAN RIGHTS OUTRAGE. MAKE THE CALLS. (fwd) >X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)=20 >X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN > > >Thanks to Linda Thompson and AEN News for the following. > >Brian Redman | bigred@shout.net | ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred >Editor-in-Chief | ---------------Phone: 217-356-4418---------------- >Conspiracy Nation | "The perfect slave thinks he's free." > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 4 Sep 96 16:51 EST >From: Linda Thompson >To: aen-news@aen.org >Subject: HUMAN RIGHTS OUTRAGE. MAKE THE CALLS. > >Forwarded from R. J. Tavel > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >PLEASE GET THE PHONES DIALING. They *DO* worry when people "on the= outside" >KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING and people INSIDE get *MUCH* better treatment!!! > >Until somebody is good and ready to do what needs doing -- MAKE THE CALLS! > >(Notice the media whores aren't mentioning it, either.) > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 01:21:36 -0300 (ADT) >From: david blumenstein >Reply-To: inet-news@nstn.ca >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Time is of the essence > >Please take the time to read the press release below, i know that it is >long, but it is also quite detailed. We need as many people as possible to >bring attention to this story. This has gone far beyond a "computer hacker" >story/issue...it has now taken on human rights implications...I strongly >urge subscribers of this list to spread the word, if you or your= publication >does not cover such stories, perhaps there are peers of yours who do... > >If you have any further questions regarding this case please contact >emmanuel@2600.com (Emmanuel Goldstein) > >MAN CONVICTED OF POSSESSING LAWFUL ITEMS AND BOOKS >NOW SEVERELY BEATEN AFTER CRITICIZING PRISON CONDITIONS > > TARGET OF CAMPAIGN BY U.S. SECRET SERVICE > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > >A man in prison for nothing more than possession of >electronic parts easily obtainable at any Radio Shack, has been >savagely beaten after being transferred to a maximum security prison >as punishment for speaking out publicly about prison conditions. >Ed Cummings, recently published in Wired and Internet Underground, as >well as a correspondent for WBAI-FM in New York and 2600 Magazine, >has been the focus of an increasingly ugly campaign of harrassment >and terror from the authorities. At the time of this writing, Cummings >is locked in the infectious diseases ward at Lehigh County prison in >Allentown, Pennsylvania, unable to obtain the proper medical treatment >for the severe injuries he has suffered. > >The Ed Cummings case has been widely publicized in the computer hacker >community over the past 18 months. In March of 1995, in what can only >be described as a bizarre application of justice, Cummings (whose pen >name is "Bernie S.") was targetted and imprisoned by the United States >Secret Service for mere possession of technology that could be used to >make free phone calls. Although the prosecution agreed there was no >unauthorized access, no victims, no fraud, and no costs associated with >the case, Cummings was imprisoned under a little known attachment to the >Digital Telephony bill allowing individuals to be charged in this fashion. >Cummings was portrayed by the Secret Service as a potential terrorist >because of some of the books found in his library. > >A year and a half later, Cummings is still in prison, despite the >fact that he became eligible for parole three months ago. But things have >now taken a sudden violent turn for the worse. As apparent retribution for >Cummings' continued outspokenness against the daily harrassment and >numerous injustices that he has faced, he was transferred on Friday >to Lehigh County Prison, a dangerous maximum security facility. Being >placed in this facility was in direct opposition to his sentencing >order. The reason given by the prison: "protective custody". > >A day later, Cummings was nearly killed by a dangerous inmate for not >getting off the phone fast enough. By the time the prison guards stopped >the attack, Cummings had been kicked in the face so many times that he >lost his front teeth and had his jaw shattered. His arm, which he tried >to use to shield his face, was also severely injured. It is expected that >his mouth will be wired shut for up to three months. Effectively, >Cummings has now been silenced at last. > >>From the start of this ordeal, Cummings has always maintained his >composure and confidence that one day the injustice of his >imprisonment will be realized. He was a weekly contributor to a >radio talk show in New York where he not only updated listeners on >his experiences, but answered their questions about technology. >People from as far away as Bosnia and China wrote to him, having >heard about his story over the Internet. > >Now we are left to piece these events together and to find those >responsible for what are now criminal actions against him. We are >demanding answers to these questions: Why was Cummings transferred >for no apparent reason from a minimum security facility to a very >dangerous prison? Why has he been removed from the hospital immediately >after surgery and placed in the infectious diseases ward of the very >same prison, receiving barely any desperately needed medical >attention? Why was virtually every moment of Cummings' prison stay a >continuous episode of harrassment, where he was severely punished for >such crimes as receiving a fax (without his knowledge) or having too >much reading material? Why did the Secret Service do everything in >their power to ruin Ed Cummings' life? > >Had these events occurred elsewhere in the world, we would be quick >to condemn them as barbaric and obscene. The fact that such things are >taking place in our own back yards should not blind us to the fact that >they are just as unacceptable. > >Lehigh County Prison will be the site of several protest actions as will >the Philadelphia office of the United States Secret Service. For more >information on this, email protest@2600.com or call our office at >(516) 751-2600. > >More information on this case can be found on the following >web site: http://www.2600.com. > >9/4/96 > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > >These are the people responsible for keeping Ed Cummings imprisoned. > >Name/Address Phone Fax > >Bucks County Correctional Facility 215.325.3700 = 215.345.3940 >1730 South Easton Road >Doylestown, PA >Director: Mr. Nesbitt (warden equivalent) >Chief: John Henderson (had Cummings thrown into maximum security > for receiving a fax from a reporter - later > told Cummings he had "no right" to speak > to the press) > >Lehigh County Prison 610.820.3270 >38 North Fourth Street >Allentown, PA 18103 >Warden: Ed Sweeney 610.820.3133 = 610.820.3450 > >Haverford Township Police Department > John Morris 610.853.2400 = 610.853.1706 > (original arresting officer who believed Cummings was involved > in a drug deal because he was observed selling electronic > components to a vehicle occupied by African Americans) > >Northampton County Probation Department > Scott Hoke (parole officer) 610.559.7211 = 610.559.7218 > (as Cummings' parole officer for a minor infraction years > earlier, Hoke had told Cummings that parole was a waste of > time for such a trivial offense. However, after being > interviewed by the Secret Service, Hoke did an about face > and began referring to Cummings as a very dangerous criminal > who needed to be in prison for a long time.) > >Harrisburg Parole Office > Ralph Bigley 717.787.2563 = 717.772.3534 > Mr. Bigelow 717.787.5699 > >Northampton County Courthouse (main) 610.559.3000 > Judge Panella 610.515.0830 = 610.515.0832 > >US District Court, Philadelphia (main) 215.597.2995 >601 Market Street >Philadelphia, PA 19106 > Judge Marjorie Rendell 215.597.3015 = 215.580.2393 > Judge Jay C. Waldman 215.597.9644 = 215.580.2155 > Judge Charles B. Smith 215.597.0421 = 215.597.6125 > >Assistant U.S. Attorney >Anne Whatley Chain, Esq. 215.451.5282 >615 Chestnut Street >Suite 1250 >Philadelphia, PA 19106 > >Special Agent Thomas L. Varney >U.S. Secret Service (main) 215.597.0600 = 215.597.2435 >Room 7236 >Federal Building >600 Arch Street >Philadelphia, PA 19106 > (Varney was the key factor in having Ed Cummings imprisoned > since March of 1995. It was he who convinced Det. John Morris > that Cummings' possession of electronic components and certain > books and magazines made him a danger to society. His testimony > stands out in its incredible assessment of Cummings as nothing > short of a terrorist and his ability, as a representative of > one of the nation's most powerful agencies, to convince others > in law enforcement that Cummings belongs in prison with the= most > dangerous and most violent of criminals.) > > david m blumenstein lead technologist > Ogilvy & Mather david@david.com > Corporate Division david@ogilvy.com > work: 212.237.6751 home: 718.544.6411 > > > ><---- End Forwarded Message ----> > >Sarah Thompson, M.D. >Dedicated to ALL Civil Liberties >The Righter >The Demo-Cans have betrayed us! >PO Box 271231 Vote Libertarian! >Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 Harry Browne for President >801-966-7278 - fax & voice mail >righter@aros.net=7F >Director for Women's Affairs, Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research >Communications Director, Utah Libertarian Party >http://www.aros.net/~righter/welcome.html >PGP key available on request. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >Dr. Tavel's Self Help Legal Clinic and Sovereign Library is the Homepage of >R. J. Tavel, J.D Libertarian Mediator Check out the free online legal help >with Pro Se manuals, actual pleadings, reference tools, international media >contact tools, and more: =09 > http://www.iquest.net/~rjtavel >"If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every Post-War American >president would have to be hanged." Noam Chomskey > > "There are no magic answers, no miraculous methods to overcome the >problems we face, just the familiar ones: honest search for understanding, >education, organization, action that raises the cost of state violence for >its perpetrators or that lays the basis for institutional change--and the >kind of commitment that will persist despite the temptations of >disillusionment, despite many failures and only limited successes, inspired >by the hope of a brighter future." Noam Chomskey > For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, J.D. > > > >Kind regards, > >******************** V *************************** > DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER. >*************************************************** >Linda Thompson > >Dr. Linda Thompson >American Justice Federation >Internet: lindat@iquest.net > >**************************************************** > Remember Waco. > The Murderers are still free. >=20 >**************************************************** > PATRIOT and PROUD. >**************************************************** >Patriot. n. a person who loves his native country and will do all he can for it. > >The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, >1991 Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition. >*************************************************** > Remember Oklahoma. >The real bombers are running our country. >**************************************************** >TRAVEL, SEE THE WORLD AND GET > FREE DRUGS!!! Inquire at CIA for details! > > > > > > > > > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: NY Times on nat'l id card Date: 07 Sep 1996 14:57:59 -0500 > The New York Times Magazine, September 8, 1996, pp. 58, 59. > > > The True Terror Is In the Card > > In the name of safety, authorities are rushing to > require identification for everyone. They're ignoring > how much damage lies down that road. > > By Robert Ellis Smith (Mr. Smith, a lawyer, is publisher of > Privacy Journal.) > > > Last winter a friend of mine from Washington was mugged in > New York City and had her wallet stolen. Shaken by the > experience, she wanted only one thing, to get back home. > Luckily, her employer's headquarters is in Manhattan and > she was able to borrow cash to get to the airport. But she > had some fast explaining to do there because Delta was > demanding that passengers produce a driver's license or > other ID before boarding the plane. After some trouble, she > was finally able to convince the airline of her identity by > proving she was a Delta frequent flyer. She would have an > even harder time today because airlines are much more > stringent since the Olympics and the T.W.A. crash. > > Delta, like other airlines, is using a directive from the > Federal Aviation Administration to require passengers to > provide a Government-issued identification to board an > airplane. If it could be shown that this in fact enhances > airline safety, then we would all readily accept this > invasion of privacy. The Government and the airlines, > however, have never shown a connection between the ID card > and the prevention of explosives or weapons in luggage. > > I object to the requirement on the grounds that it forces > me to satisfy the Government that I am a real person before > I may exercise the constitutional right to travel within > the United States. I object also that it is part of an > accelerating trend toward requiring every citizen to carry > a Government-issued ID card -- in essence, a national > identity document. > > Attention seems to be focused on asking passengers for more > identification rather than on subjecting all carry-on and > checked luggage to complete screening for weapons or bombs. > The ID requirement, in fact, serves only to lead the public > to believe that somehow we are more secure on an airplane > if our "papers are in order" before boarding. Probably the > only effective consequence of such requirements is to get > us used to the idea of presenting identification in all > aspects of our lives. > > I'm shocked that more Americans are not shocked by the > idea. Don't we remember the Nazi experience in Europe, > where identity documents listing religion and ethnic > background facilitated the roundup of Jews? Don't we > remember how we condemned South Africa in the 1970's and > 80's for using a domestic passport to limit the movements > of certain citizens but not others? Don't we realize the > dangers of allowing the Government to establish identity > and legitimacy? Isn't it, in fact, the responsibility of > the citizenry to establish the legitimacy of the > Government? > > Faced with rising crime, illegal immigration, welfare fraud > and absentee parents, many bureaucrats and members of > Congress insist that the nation would run more smoothly if > we all had counterfeit-proof plastic identity cards. In > considering immigration legislation this spring, the House > came within a few votes of requiring a national > identification card for all working Americans. Congress is > about to authorize pilot programs with employers in several > states verifying the legal identity of new employees by > using central data bases. And it has already established a > National Directory of New Hires containing the name, Social > Security number and birth date of every person newly hired > in the private and public sector. > > These are precursors of a national ID card. The machinery, > in fact, is now in place. All that is missing is the piece > of plastic -- and apparently most Americans are ready for > it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California has > increased the stakes; she wants to create an identity card > with a fingerprint, digitized photo, eye retina scan or > some other biometric identity device. > > Would an ID card work? It would make it easy to track > illicit cash transactions, to discover after the fact all > persons at the scene of a crime, to know immediately > whether an adult accompanying a child is a parent or legal > guardian, to keep a list of suspicious persons in a > neighborhood each night, to know who purchased a gun or > knife or fertilizer or Satanic books, or to know who > carries the H.I.V. virus. > > A suspicious police officer could demand to see your > identity document and then query an on-line data base that > would display identifying information about you. An > employer could check the card to see whether you are a > citizen or legal alien, have a criminal record or have > filed previous workers' compensation claims. > > But listing possible uses of a national ID card makes > evident how it could be a nightmare to each of us. And > that's not even considering the errors inevitable in such > a data base. Even a remarkably low error rate of 1 percent > would impose hardship on 650,000 innocent Americans who > would be excluded from work, travel, commerce or schooling > if their identity were somehow confused with a criminal's. > > And that doesn't take into account the lucrative market in > counterfeit ID cards. The advocates of an identity document > want us to believe that it would be counterfeit-proof. But > experts know there is no such thing. > > Many people, charmed by the convenience of credit-card > shopping by number over the phone or the Internet, think we > already have a national identity system anyway. But that > practice is wholly voluntary and doesn't involve > centralized Government depositories of information. It is > true that Social Security numbers are used in all kinds of > ways. But the number is not issued to every person in the > country as a national ID number would be. > > Nor is a driver's license a true national identity > document. While it is issued by a governmental agency, > people are not required to have it when they do not drive, > a photograph is not always required and a person who moves > may apply for a new and different license. > > A true national identity document would be mandatory, > everyone would have to carry it and present it upon demand. > It would be issued to everyone, probably at birth. And the > identity of the bearer of each card would be recorded in a > national data bank, usually along with other personal > history. It would be the universally accepted proof of > identity everywhere in the society. Without the card, you > would have no acceptable proof of your citizenship. > > Let's be clear that this is a one-way street. Once having > established a requirement to carry photo ID, it will be > difficult if not impossible to reverse. It's hard to > imagine that the Government can begin issuing an > identifying number at birth, then later tell all the > agencies that have come to rely on it that they must > disregard it. > > What would a national ID card mean to American life? By > accepting it, we will have removed the spontaneity in our > lives. Every time we leave home, it will be necessary for > each of us to gather up "our documents" -- and those of our > children, of course -- before we venture out, to jog in a > park, stroll in the neighborhood, lounge at the beach, buy > a six-pack of beer or cross a state line. We will have > empowered police officers to stop citizens engaged in > law-abiding activities and demand that they produce proof > of identity and "give a good account of themselves." There > would be no excuse for not carrying the card -- only > criminals would not be carrying the card. By acting > strangely at any time or by simply passing someone who > doesn't like our looks, we can trigger a demand to produce > the ID card. This, in turn, will trigger a search of an > electronic data base to confirm our identity and perhaps > provide other bits of personal data. > > For most Americans, this would usually be an occasional > inconvenience. For many others, it would be an affront to > their dignity -- but still nothing worse than a reason to > rant at the next forum on civil liberties. But for several > segments of our society, it would be truly a nightmare. One > includes those whose records in the data base happen to be > mixed up or whose identity is being used by a criminal > impostor. Another would be those whose mere presence raises > suspicions. That might be because of their dress, race, > youth or incivility. The lack of an identification card > could be the beginning of an ordeal -- arrest and possibly > criminal charges. Yet another segment would be those on the > fringes of society, who may have no permanent residence nor > even a safe place on their persons to keep such a document. > These are precisely the people who will have difficultly > holding on to their cards or explaining a computer error. > > After we have come to accept this, politicians will point > out that technology allows for other means of establishing > identity. Many parents would welcome computer-readable > implants to identify their children in the event of > kidnapping. Relatives of Alzheimer's disease patients would > want these micro-chip implants too, so that wandering > patients could be located. > > Laurence N. Gold, a former vice president of Nielsen > Marketing Research, has written futuristically about > voluntary "devices that can be carried, worn -- or even > implanted under the skin. These sensors will store and > transmit data ... identifying not only who is in the room > but also his or her physiological state in response to both > TV programs and advertising messages." Would people stand > for it? Gold speculated that, despite "20th century > sensibilities, future children may have much different > attitudes about this." Well, not my children, I hope. We > must draw the line now. Identifying people by a number is > dehumanizing, and in the end destructive of a free society. > > [End] > > > > > > > >- ------- End of Forwarded Message > -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: NY Times on nat'l id card Date: 07 Sep 1996 19:32:56 EDT This is hogwash! My grandson had an ID number before he was even born via SSAN. But like Mr. Smith says, all that remains undone is the plastic for the cards. GOD HELP US. Gary On Sat, 07 Sep 1996 14:57:59 -0500 "R. Knauer-AIMNET" writes: >> The New York Times Magazine, September 8, 1996, pp. 58, 59. >> >> >> The True Terror Is In the Card >> >> In the name of safety, authorities are rushing to >> require identification for everyone. They're ignoring >> how much damage lies down that road. >> >> By Robert Ellis Smith (Mr. Smith, a lawyer, is publisher of >> Privacy Journal.) >> >> >> Last winter a friend of mine from Washington was mugged in >> New York City and had her wallet stolen. Shaken by the >> experience, she wanted only one thing, to get back home. >> Luckily, her employer's headquarters is in Manhattan and >> she was able to borrow cash to get to the airport. But she >> had some fast explaining to do there because Delta was >> demanding that passengers produce a driver's license or >> other ID before boarding the plane. After some trouble, she >> was finally able to convince the airline of her identity by >> proving she was a Delta frequent flyer. She would have an >> even harder time today because airlines are much more >> stringent since the Olympics and the T.W.A. crash. >> >> Delta, like other airlines, is using a directive from the >> Federal Aviation Administration to require passengers to >> provide a Government-issued identification to board an >> airplane. If it could be shown that this in fact enhances >> airline safety, then we would all readily accept this >> invasion of privacy. The Government and the airlines, >> however, have never shown a connection between the ID card >> and the prevention of explosives or weapons in luggage. >> >> I object to the requirement on the grounds that it forces >> me to satisfy the Government that I am a real person before >> I may exercise the constitutional right to travel within >> the United States. I object also that it is part of an >> accelerating trend toward requiring every citizen to carry >> a Government-issued ID card -- in essence, a national >> identity document. >> >> Attention seems to be focused on asking passengers for more >> identification rather than on subjecting all carry-on and >> checked luggage to complete screening for weapons or bombs. >> The ID requirement, in fact, serves only to lead the public >> to believe that somehow we are more secure on an airplane >> if our "papers are in order" before boarding. Probably the >> only effective consequence of such requirements is to get >> us used to the idea of presenting identification in all >> aspects of our lives. >> >> I'm shocked that more Americans are not shocked by the >> idea. Don't we remember the Nazi experience in Europe, >> where identity documents listing religion and ethnic >> background facilitated the roundup of Jews? Don't we >> remember how we condemned South Africa in the 1970's and >> 80's for using a domestic passport to limit the movements >> of certain citizens but not others? Don't we realize the >> dangers of allowing the Government to establish identity >> and legitimacy? Isn't it, in fact, the responsibility of >> the citizenry to establish the legitimacy of the >> Government? >> >> Faced with rising crime, illegal immigration, welfare fraud >> and absentee parents, many bureaucrats and members of >> Congress insist that the nation would run more smoothly if >> we all had counterfeit-proof plastic identity cards. In >> considering immigration legislation this spring, the House >> came within a few votes of requiring a national >> identification card for all working Americans. Congress is >> about to authorize pilot programs with employers in several >> states verifying the legal identity of new employees by >> using central data bases. And it has already established a >> National Directory of New Hires containing the name, Social >> Security number and birth date of every person newly hired >> in the private and public sector. >> >> These are precursors of a national ID card. The machinery, >> in fact, is now in place. All that is missing is the piece >> of plastic -- and apparently most Americans are ready for >> it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California has >> increased the stakes; she wants to create an identity card >> with a fingerprint, digitized photo, eye retina scan or >> some other biometric identity device. >> >> Would an ID card work? It would make it easy to track >> illicit cash transactions, to discover after the fact all >> persons at the scene of a crime, to know immediately >> whether an adult accompanying a child is a parent or legal >> guardian, to keep a list of suspicious persons in a >> neighborhood each night, to know who purchased a gun or >> knife or fertilizer or Satanic books, or to know who >> carries the H.I.V. virus. >> >> A suspicious police officer could demand to see your >> identity document and then query an on-line data base that >> would display identifying information about you. An >> employer could check the card to see whether you are a >> citizen or legal alien, have a criminal record or have >> filed previous workers' compensation claims. >> >> But listing possible uses of a national ID card makes >> evident how it could be a nightmare to each of us. And >> that's not even considering the errors inevitable in such >> a data base. Even a remarkably low error rate of 1 percent >> would impose hardship on 650,000 innocent Americans who >> would be excluded from work, travel, commerce or schooling >> if their identity were somehow confused with a criminal's. >> >> And that doesn't take into account the lucrative market in >> counterfeit ID cards. The advocates of an identity document >> want us to believe that it would be counterfeit-proof. But >> experts know there is no such thing. >> >> Many people, charmed by the convenience of credit-card >> shopping by number over the phone or the Internet, think we >> already have a national identity system anyway. But that >> practice is wholly voluntary and doesn't involve >> centralized Government depositories of information. It is >> true that Social Security numbers are used in all kinds of >> ways. But the number is not issued to every person in the >> country as a national ID number would be. >> >> Nor is a driver's license a true national identity >> document. While it is issued by a governmental agency, >> people are not required to have it when they do not drive, >> a photograph is not always required and a person who moves >> may apply for a new and different license. >> >> A true national identity document would be mandatory, >> everyone would have to carry it and present it upon demand. >> It would be issued to everyone, probably at birth. And the >> identity of the bearer of each card would be recorded in a >> national data bank, usually along with other personal >> history. It would be the universally accepted proof of >> identity everywhere in the society. Without the card, you >> would have no acceptable proof of your citizenship. >> >> Let's be clear that this is a one-way street. Once having >> established a requirement to carry photo ID, it will be >> difficult if not impossible to reverse. It's hard to >> imagine that the Government can begin issuing an >> identifying number at birth, then later tell all the >> agencies that have come to rely on it that they must >> disregard it. >> >> What would a national ID card mean to American life? By >> accepting it, we will have removed the spontaneity in our >> lives. Every time we leave home, it will be necessary for >> each of us to gather up "our documents" -- and those of our >> children, of course -- before we venture out, to jog in a >> park, stroll in the neighborhood, lounge at the beach, buy >> a six-pack of beer or cross a state line. We will have >> empowered police officers to stop citizens engaged in >> law-abiding activities and demand that they produce proof >> of identity and "give a good account of themselves." There >> would be no excuse for not carrying the card -- only >> criminals would not be carrying the card. By acting >> strangely at any time or by simply passing someone who >> doesn't like our looks, we can trigger a demand to produce >> the ID card. This, in turn, will trigger a search of an >> electronic data base to confirm our identity and perhaps >> provide other bits of personal data. >> >> For most Americans, this would usually be an occasional >> inconvenience. For many others, it would be an affront to >> their dignity -- but still nothing worse than a reason to >> rant at the next forum on civil liberties. But for several >> segments of our society, it would be truly a nightmare. One >> includes those whose records in the data base happen to be >> mixed up or whose identity is being used by a criminal >> impostor. Another would be those whose mere presence raises >> suspicions. That might be because of their dress, race, >> youth or incivility. The lack of an identification card >> could be the beginning of an ordeal -- arrest and possibly >> criminal charges. Yet another segment would be those on the >> fringes of society, who may have no permanent residence nor >> even a safe place on their persons to keep such a document. >> These are precisely the people who will have difficultly >> holding on to their cards or explaining a computer error. >> >> After we have come to accept this, politicians will point >> out that technology allows for other means of establishing >> identity. Many parents would welcome computer-readable >> implants to identify their children in the event of >> kidnapping. Relatives of Alzheimer's disease patients would >> want these micro-chip implants too, so that wandering >> patients could be located. >> >> Laurence N. Gold, a former vice president of Nielsen >> Marketing Research, has written futuristically about >> voluntary "devices that can be carried, worn -- or even >> implanted under the skin. These sensors will store and >> transmit data ... identifying not only who is in the room >> but also his or her physiological state in response to both >> TV programs and advertising messages." Would people stand >> for it? Gold speculated that, despite "20th century >> sensibilities, future children may have much different >> attitudes about this." Well, not my children, I hope. We >> must draw the line now. Identifying people by a number is >> dehumanizing, and in the end destructive of a free society. >> >> [End] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>- ------- End of Forwarded Message >> > >-- > >************************************************** > A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing > Corporation World Wide Web Publishing > > http://www.aimtec.com/ >************************************************** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: URGENT ALERT: Dr. Nancy Lord Attorney at Law Threatened by Date: 07 Sep 1996 18:25:02 -0700 More info on Nancy Lord's removal, plus a comment from Martin Lindstedt: >FOR MASS DISTRIBUTION > > > >A terrible miss-justice has happen in Macon, Ga. today that will shock >every Red Blooded American. The Department of Injustice has seen to >it, that Dr. Nancy Lord, Attorney at law and 1992 Libertarian >Vice-president candidate, was removed from the Bob Starr Case in >Federal Court of the middle district of Georgia. Early in the case Dr. >Lord and the defense went to Jimmie McCranie's house to recover some >vital evidence pertaining to the case. Now the Judge is claiming that >there were explosive residue, and she is being threaten by the >Department of Injustice of being subpoenaed to testify against her own >client Bob Starr. Dr. Lord has stated that she will reserve her >attorney client privilege, and her 5th Amendment right. Even risking >the possibility of going to jail. > > >Is any American safe from being railroaded into false injustice, and >used as a political stepping stone to glorify those who would want to >rule over us and enslave us? How long will you ignore the abuses of an >totalitarian government when they are imprisoning innocent people? >Will you wait until they come from you, and will there be any American >Citizen to defend you? > >Bob Starr, Jimmie McCraine and Troy Spain need your help, or they may >spend the next twenty to fifty years in prison! They need $20,000 >dollars to continue their defense. No DONATION IS TO SMALL. These men >are in desperate need of a good Constitutional defense attorney for >their trial, which starts October 16, 1996. > >Please make all check, money orders payable to Robert Starr, and send >them ASAP to: > >Robert Starr Defense Fund >C/O Don Beauregard >PO Box 16161 >St. Petersburg, Fl. 33734-16161 > >For more information about this important case, please read on and/or >call 813-588-3072. > >Thank you, >Concerned American citizen of the Robert Starr Defense Fund > Comment from Martin Lindstedt: This is the sort of crap they pull, especially when they get desperate. They'll violate Starr's Amend. 6 "Right to counsel" by kicking Lord off the case, especially since she is putting up a fight and replace her with a "public pretender" who will roll over and play dead on command. It won't matter that Starr gets an appeal. Starr loses the case, it's big news and the appellate procedure is ignored by the lackey press. It could stretch out for years with Starr in the "penalty box" the whole time. We don't want that! No! You never concede anything. In fact, you expose this shoddy trick, embarrass the government, and remove the current judge for bias, prejudicial conduct, and abuse of discretion. Cross the T, and scare the next rat-bastard into better behavior. Since Lord is a lawyer, she must obey the gag order or she could lose her law license. Licensure is the stick by which the government makes sure that lawyers don't buck the system. A monopoly licence to steal from the general public is also the carrot. So since Lord is not allowed to spill the beans, who should? Simple. Bob Starr should. As he has no lawyer, he should file a complaint demanding the reinstatement of Nancy Lord. As a defendant, he has standing to bitch, plus, he has no law license to lose. Once he has made a public complaint (remember: Lord can't) to SOMEBODY, (I thought I heard him complain to somebody, probably one of them troublemakers JJ Johnson or Jeff Randall) the rest of us can stir up a shitstorm and embarrass the piss out of the government for showing their typical fascist behavior. Snap a mousetrap on the government's pecker. Make them explain their Nazi-legal behavior to the Homer Simpsons. File a human-rights complaint at the Iraqi Embassy. If you have ever been "privileged" to stand trial in front of a government-run "Starr Chamber," you know full well you had better show teeth because you are going to get screwed anyway. You make sure they bleed legitimacy from the public-opinion jugular every step of the way. They are not your friends. They wish to destroy you. Rise up, and destroy them first! Just as war is the continuation of politics by other means, law is the means by which politicians wage war on the people. Just my opinion from a corner of the field. --Martin Lindstedt, A Political Road Warrior, but not a G-D lawyer - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Airline Passenger Tyranny Alert Date: 07 Sep 1996 23:03:21 -0500 At 07:51 PM 9/6/96 PDT, Jack Perrine wrote: > >>At 03:13 PM 9/6/96 -0500, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: >>>I don't get it. >>> >>>Why would the Fascists expect a "terrorist" would get on an airplane that he >>>wanted to blow up? >>> >>>Dumb and dumber. >> >>No, just gutsy. Terrorist gets aboard airliner with disassembled bomb >>parts. Terrorist assembles bomb during flight, sets timer to go off during >>NEXT leg of the flight, hides bomb aboard plane. Terrorist exits plane. >>Bomb goes off some hours later, killing somebody, maybe SEVERAL somebodies, >>else. Been done. The arab terrorist just convicted of attempted air >>terrorism in New York did it a couple of years ago on a Philippine Airlines >>plane, killing a Japanese passenger. > >I am perplexed. You are after all dealing with a culture that has fanatics >quite willing to die for the cause. If assassins are willing to strap >explosives around their body to be able to get close enough to the target >and destroy it why would they have any qualms about blowing up the plane >they themselves were on up .....as long as it was for the cause. Not that many who are that fanatical about the whole thing, and many of those have been used up already. I believe I read that they get the suicide bombers high on hashish before hand, kinda of hard for someone like that to get on an airplane and blend in. Note also that the truck bomber in Dahran, unassed the truck well before it blew. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Re: NY Times on nat'l id card Date: 07 Sep 1996 21:51:51 -0700 (PDT) >This is hogwash! My grandson had an ID number before he was even born >via SSAN. But like Mr. Smith says, all that remains undone is the >plastic for the cards. GOD HELP US. > I'll give the plastic card a year or two, then it'll be a bio-chip in the hand. Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Action Alert: Letters to Editor Needed Date: 08 Sep 1996 09:54:48 -0400 >Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 20:22:12 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Action Alert: Letters to Editor Needed > >Action Alert: Letters to the Editor Needed > >Re: A Juror on Trial >The State of Colorado vs. Laura Kriho >Case# 96CR91 >(Please re-distribute this alert freely!) > > Many people are outraged by the prosecution of juror Laura >Kriho for contempt of court for deliberating "improperly" when >she served on a jury. Her case is starting an important public >debate about many issues surrounding juries and jury rights. It >is important that this debate continue, in an intelligent manner, >in the local press. > The Jury Rights Project is requesting that people write >letters to the editors of these local newspapers about Laura's >case. A few minutes of your time could have a great impact on >the outcome of her case by helping to educate the public and call >attention to her case. > Here is the list of papers that have email addresses. The long list >(including those without email) is at the end of this post. > >letters@denverpost.com Denver Post, Denver >letters@denver-rmn.com Rocky Mt. News, Denver >news@dailycamera.com Daily Camera, Boulder ** >talbot@bcn.boulder.co.us Colorado Daily, Boulder ** >bweditor@tesser.com Boulder Weekly, Boulder >news@boulderplanet.com Boulder Planet, Boulder >mtn-ear@indra.com Mountain Ear, Nederland >editorial@westword.com Westword, Denver > > As of 9/6/96, only two of the Boulder newspapers (**) have >done an article about the case. Letters to the editor are a good >way to educate the public, to open a dialogue about important >social issues, and to encourage papers to cover cases that the >public deems newsworthy. > > Letters policy: The letters to the editor policies of most >newspapers are similar. Editors print short letters (200 to 300 >words). Editors need an address and phone number for >verification of the letter (these are not published). If you >photocopy your letter to send to several papers, editors often >request that you put an original signature on each letter. > > OpEd Articles: Editors may print longer articles (500 to >800 words) in "Guest Opinion" columns. When submitting these >longer articles, it is important to follow up with a phone call >to see what the chances are of the newspaper publishing the >article and when this would be likely to occur. > > It would be helpful to mention Laura's legal defense fund at >the end of your letter, as she still has a lot of money to raise. >Since newspaper reporters must try to appear unbiased in their >stories, letters to the editor are often the only (free) way to >get information about defense funds into the newspaper. > For writing tips, check out "How to Write Effective Letters" >on the Media Awareness Project Web site: >(http://www.drcnet.org/map/mapinfo.htm) > If possible, send a copy of any letters you write to the >Jury Rights Project. We can also help you if you want to write a >letter, but don't know what to say. > Thanks in advance for all your help! > >Colorado Front Range Newspapers > >***** Daily Newpapers ****** >Denver Post >1560 Broadway >Denver, CO 80202 >Phone: (303) 820-1010 >Fax: (303) 820-1369 >Email: letters@denverpost.com > >Rocky Mt. News >400 W. Colfax >Denver, CO 80204 >Phone: (303) 892-5000 >Fax: (303) 892-5499 >Email: letters@denver-rmn.com > >Daily Camera >P.O. Box 591 >Boulder, CO 80306 >Phone: (303) 442-1462 >Fax: (303) 449-9358 >Email: news@dailycamera.com > >Colorado Daily >P.O. Box 1719 >Boulder, CO 80306 >Clint Talbott, Ed. >Phone: (303) 443-6272 >Fax: (303) 443-9357 >Email: talbot@bcn.boulder.co.us >Online Edition: http://bcn.boulder.co.us/media/colodaily > >Longmont Times-Call >350 Terry Street >Longmont, CO 80501 >Phone: (303) 444-3636 >Fax: (303) 772-8339 >Email: none > >**** Weekly Newspapers ***** > >Boulder Weekly >690 S. Lashley Lane >Boulder, CO 80303 >Phone: (303) 494-5511 >Fax: (303) 494-2585 >Email: bweditor@tesser.com > >Boulder Planet >2028 14th Street >Boulder, CO 80302 >Phone: (303) 444-5761 >Fax: (303) 415-1210 >Email: news@boulderplanet.com > >Mt. Ear >P.O. Box 99 >Nederland, CO 80466 >Phone: (303) 258-7075 >Fax: (303) 258-3547 >Email: mtn-ear@indra.com > >Weekly Register-Call >Box 609 >Central City, CO 80427 >Phone: (303) 582-5333 >Fax: (303) 582-3932 >Email: none > >Westword >P.O. Box 5970 >Denver, CO 80217 >Phone: (303) 296-7744 >Fax: (303) 296-5416 >Email: editorial@westword.com > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > Web site: http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > To be removed from this mailing list, just ask. > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > (303) 841-9649 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Douglas Quote Date: 08 Sep 1996 08:47:53 -0500 I spotted this in the Michigan Militia Corps Weekly Update (3-26) - I believe it bears repeating. Bob Knauer +++++ Power concedes nothing without a demand... it never did.. and never will. Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -----Frederick Douglas, 1857 +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: NY Times on nat'l id card Date: 08 Sep 1996 09:27:00 EDT On Sat, 7 Sep 1996 21:51:51 -0700 (PDT) gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) writes: > >>This is hogwash! My grandson had an ID number before he was even >born >>via SSAN. But like Mr. Smith says, all that remains undone is the >>plastic for the cards. GOD HELP US. >> >I'll give the plastic card a year or two, then it'll be a bio-chip in >the hand. > >Greg > > That's a given! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Hillary Clinton Puts Out a Contract on Dick Morris (fwd) Date: 08 Sep 1996 22:23:39 -0400 More food for thought, or fodder for the fire. Whichever is your want. Regards Tom >Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:10:04 -0500 (CDT) >Reply-To: bigred@duracef.shout.net >Sender: owner-CN-L@cornell.edu >From: Brian Redman >To: Conspiracy Nation >Subject: Hillary Clinton Puts Out a Contract on Dick Morris (fwd) >X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) >X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 08 Sep 1996 14:44:43 -0700 >From: J. Orlin Grabbe >To: bigred@duracef.shout.net >Subject: Hillary Clinton Puts Out a Contract on Dick Morris > > Hillary Clinton Puts Out a Contract on Dick Morris > > by J. Orlin Grabbe > > Hillary Clinton contracted with three government thugs to kill >Dick Morris. > > The planning of the hit began well before the *Star* started >talking to Dick Morris's hooker girlfriend Sherry Rowlands. Apparently >Morris gave Hillary too much competition for the ear of the President. > > At the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton leaked >the statement that Dick Morris was "depressed" and "suicidal" because >of the Star's reporting of his affair with Sherry Rowlands. This statement >was not accidental. She was planning to kill Dick Morris right after the >Democratic Convention. > > The three government thugs have confessed to working for >"I-3" out of the Pentagon. What is I-3? Who do they normally report >to? What is the Pentagon doing with hit squads on its payroll? Is >the murder of White House officials standard operating procedure for >elements of the military? > > Under gentle persuasion, one of the thugs described how the >hit was going to go down. Dick Morris was going to "commit suicide" >with a pistol. He was going to "pull the trigger himself", much like >in the botched murder of Vince Foster. > > At the time of the Vince Foster murder, the story was also leaked >that Foster was "depressed" and "suicidal", even though a number of people >had already given statements that contradicted this characterization. Did >the same three thugs also kill Vince Foster? > > Hillary Clinton now stands exposed for the scheming, murderous >bitch she is. Is there enough evidence to charge her with Murder One? >That's for Kenneth Starr to figure out. > > And William Perry can, in the meantime, explain what he is doing >with I-3 hitmen on the Pentagon payroll. > >September 8, 1996 >Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ > > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Michigan Militia Corps Weekly Update (from gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE)) Date: 08 Sep 1996 20:39:08 -0600 > >Does any one know how to s*bscribe to or if it is s*bscribeable to the >publication listed below. Either way please let me know at >gburke1@juno.com. > >Thanks, >Gary > >On Sun, 08 Sep 1996 08:47:53 -0500 "R. Knauer-AIMNET" > writes: >>I spotted this in the Michigan Militia Corps Weekly Update (3-26) - I >>believe it bears repeating. >> >>Bob Knauer >> >>+++++ >> ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Action Alert: Letters to Editor Needed Date: 08 Sep 1996 09:54:48 -0400 >Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 20:22:12 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Action Alert: Letters to Editor Needed > >Action Alert: Letters to the Editor Needed > >Re: A Juror on Trial >The State of Colorado vs. Laura Kriho >Case# 96CR91 >(Please re-distribute this alert freely!) > > Many people are outraged by the prosecution of juror Laura >Kriho for contempt of court for deliberating "improperly" when >she served on a jury. Her case is starting an important public >debate about many issues surrounding juries and jury rights. It >is important that this debate continue, in an intelligent manner, >in the local press. > The Jury Rights Project is requesting that people write >letters to the editors of these local newspapers about Laura's >case. A few minutes of your time could have a great impact on >the outcome of her case by helping to educate the public and call >attention to her case. > Here is the list of papers that have email addresses. The long list >(including those without email) is at the end of this post. > >letters@denverpost.com Denver Post, Denver >letters@denver-rmn.com Rocky Mt. News, Denver >news@dailycamera.com Daily Camera, Boulder ** >talbot@bcn.boulder.co.us Colorado Daily, Boulder ** >bweditor@tesser.com Boulder Weekly, Boulder >news@boulderplanet.com Boulder Planet, Boulder >mtn-ear@indra.com Mountain Ear, Nederland >editorial@westword.com Westword, Denver > > As of 9/6/96, only two of the Boulder newspapers (**) have >done an article about the case. Letters to the editor are a good >way to educate the public, to open a dialogue about important >social issues, and to encourage papers to cover cases that the >public deems newsworthy. > > Letters policy: The letters to the editor policies of most >newspapers are similar. Editors print short letters (200 to 300 >words). Editors need an address and phone number for >verification of the letter (these are not published). If you >photocopy your letter to send to several papers, editors often >request that you put an original signature on each letter. > > OpEd Articles: Editors may print longer articles (500 to >800 words) in "Guest Opinion" columns. When submitting these >longer articles, it is important to follow up with a phone call >to see what the chances are of the newspaper publishing the >article and when this would be likely to occur. > > It would be helpful to mention Laura's legal defense fund at >the end of your letter, as she still has a lot of money to raise. >Since newspaper reporters must try to appear unbiased in their >stories, letters to the editor are often the only (free) way to >get information about defense funds into the newspaper. > For writing tips, check out "How to Write Effective Letters" >on the Media Awareness Project Web site: >(http://www.drcnet.org/map/mapinfo.htm) > If possible, send a copy of any letters you write to the >Jury Rights Project. We can also help you if you want to write a >letter, but don't know what to say. > Thanks in advance for all your help! > >Colorado Front Range Newspapers > >***** Daily Newpapers ****** >Denver Post >1560 Broadway >Denver, CO 80202 >Phone: (303) 820-1010 >Fax: (303) 820-1369 >Email: letters@denverpost.com > >Rocky Mt. News >400 W. Colfax >Denver, CO 80204 >Phone: (303) 892-5000 >Fax: (303) 892-5499 >Email: letters@denver-rmn.com > >Daily Camera >P.O. Box 591 >Boulder, CO 80306 >Phone: (303) 442-1462 >Fax: (303) 449-9358 >Email: news@dailycamera.com > >Colorado Daily >P.O. Box 1719 >Boulder, CO 80306 >Clint Talbott, Ed. >Phone: (303) 443-6272 >Fax: (303) 443-9357 >Email: talbot@bcn.boulder.co.us >Online Edition: http://bcn.boulder.co.us/media/colodaily > >Longmont Times-Call >350 Terry Street >Longmont, CO 80501 >Phone: (303) 444-3636 >Fax: (303) 772-8339 >Email: none > >**** Weekly Newspapers ***** > >Boulder Weekly >690 S. Lashley Lane >Boulder, CO 80303 >Phone: (303) 494-5511 >Fax: (303) 494-2585 >Email: bweditor@tesser.com > >Boulder Planet >2028 14th Street >Boulder, CO 80302 >Phone: (303) 444-5761 >Fax: (303) 415-1210 >Email: news@boulderplanet.com > >Mt. Ear >P.O. Box 99 >Nederland, CO 80466 >Phone: (303) 258-7075 >Fax: (303) 258-3547 >Email: mtn-ear@indra.com > >Weekly Register-Call >Box 609 >Central City, CO 80427 >Phone: (303) 582-5333 >Fax: (303) 582-3932 >Email: none > >Westword >P.O. Box 5970 >Denver, CO 80217 >Phone: (303) 296-7744 >Fax: (303) 296-5416 >Email: editorial@westword.com > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > Web site: http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > To be removed from this mailing list, just ask. > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > (303) 841-9649 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Leveraging your political money (fwd) Date: 09 Sep 1996 00:18:27 PST On Sep 8, Jeff Quinton wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Here's a column from Brett Kottman (of the Ronald Reagan Home Page) on an exciting new 'net project that many of you may be interested in: Leveraging Your Political Money People often talk about how to leverage your investment money, or how to leverage your credit to obtain a mortgage, but few explore the ways to leverage your political money. It might seem odd to think of it that way, but who you support politically has a great deal to do with how your other investment will fare. For example, those who support lower capital gains rates support your efforts to build a retirement fund and save for college. Those who support higher rates want to make you more dependent on Big Government to provide those services. If you've been following the successes of the Republican Contract With America, you know that the freshman class had a great deal to do with the success of that program in cutting the deficit, making Congress follow its own rules (i.e., the laws of this country) and getting the U.S. back on the right track with programs that actually work. However, the reactionary left has responded in its usual demagogic fashion. Spinning tales of deceit about "cuts" in this program or that and accusing the Republicans of wanting to starve children and throw the elderly out into the street. Those who knew the truth could only shake their head at this latter-day doublespeak as the mainstream media dropped the ball again and again on the issues by failing to challenge any of the leftist lies or allow the Republicans equal time to refute the nonsense. Fortunately the American public turned to talk radio and candidates for the truth, and the Republicans swept into power in both houses of Congress. Shocking the left and the media, they then made good on their promises and voted on all ten issues, passing nine of them. (All but term limits.) The cycle has begun again, this time in a Presidential election year. Big Labor has decided to make a last stand this year, and is pouring in $35 million in order to try and stop the progress that has been made to clean up government and make it more responsible. Frightened by the progress made in free markets they've used money taken by force from some workers to lobby against programs that those workers support! The Enviro-Whackos are also out in full force, lying about what the Contract with America means for the environment. To counter this threat, we must support the Republican members of Congress in general, and the freshman class in particular. Where does the leveraging come in? Some of the most prominent members of the on-line Republican community have banded together to form Freshman PAC, a political action committee dedicated to re-electing the top ten targets of Big Labor, Enviro-Whackos, and other extremist, far-left organizations. With your help, and the help of others we reach, we will support as many of these candidates as we can. I say we because I am one of those on-line activists using my influence to support the cause. I don't usually get involved in actual campaigns because of the time constraints of running the Ronald Reagan Home Page, but this cause is so good, and the need is so great that I could not in good conscience decline. How can you help? Visit the web page for the Freshman PAC at http://www.ipa.net/~jmwhite/ and fill out the contribution form! By sending in $25, $50, or more we will all leverage our money into re-electing the best defenders of the Contract with America and other Republican programs. Fighting Big Labor, Enviro-Whackos and other far left-wing organizations requires money but by leveraging our money we can defeat them and their attempts to turn America back to the failed policies of the past Democratic congresses. Be sure and forward this to email lists and newsgroups so we can reach as many people as possible. Those of you on community-level campaigns should feel free to print out copies and hand them out to your neighbors. The postal address for Freshman PAC is Freshman PAC c/o Mark White P.O. Box 2975 Fayetteville, AR 72702-2975 Remember, it's not just your money, it's your future. Let's tell the far-left we don't want to go back to the era of failed policies, we want to continue forward into the 21st century! Leveraging Your Political Money is the latest installment on Brett Kottmann's Reality Hammer, part of the Ronald Reagan News and Commentary page at http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/news_and_commentary.html. That web page contains the fully linked and HTMLized version of this article. Copyright (c) 1996 Brett Kottmann Permission is hereby granted to store and reproduce this article in its entirety on any electronic or physical storage or printing device. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: AA pilot saw a Missile Pass His Plane (fwd) Date: 09 Sep 1996 08:18:35 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Weeks After TWA Crash, Pilot Reports Seeing Missile >Pass By His Plane > > (AP) - Weeks after the TWA Flight 800 explosion and >hundreds of miles away, an American Airlines pilot claimed >he saw a missile pass by his jetliner in flight, federal >investigators said Saturday. > >While the two cases were being investigated separately, >the report fits a scenario that is one of the theories under >consideration in the TWA case - that a missile brought >down the jumbo jet July 17, killing all 230 people aboard. > >The National Transportation Safety Board said the pilot on >an Aug. 29 American Airlines flight from San Juan, Puerto Rico, >to Boston said he saw a missile pass his Boeing 757 as it flew >over Wallops Island, Va. > ============= >The island, where the National Aeronautics and Space >Administration has a program for unmanned research >rockets, is about 220 miles south of the TWA crash site. > >``We got a report of it through our normal channels and >assigned an investigator to it,'' said NTSB spokesman >Peter Goelz. ``We're going to look into it. So far, >we have not been able to confirm anything.'' Goelz >said he had never heard of such a report in the two >years he had been with the agency. > >He said the pilot did not report taking any evasive action. >``We have no idea how close it was. We don't know that >it was a missile. It might have been something else,'' he said. > >No one answered the telephone Saturday at the NASA >Wallops Flight Facility on the island when a call was >placed for comment. > >Questions have persisted about military activities on >the evening of the TWA Flight 800 crash because >investigators say a missile attack remains one of three >possible explanations, along with a bomb and a >catastrophic accident. > >Pentagon and state National Guard spokesmen have >said repeatedly that no exercises with missiles or other >live weapons were being conducted in the area. > >Asked about the possibility that friendly fire brought >down the jetliner, NTSB Vice Chairman Robert Francis >said Thursday: ``My information, and I believe it is >reliable, is obviously it's something we looked very >closely at, and there's no indication that was the case.'' > >Meantime Saturday, attempts to find wreckage from >TWA Flight 800 were ruined by bad weather Saturday. >Rough waves off Long Island stirred by the remnants >of Hurricane Fran left no visibility on the ocean floor, >said Lt. Nicholas Balice, a Navy spokesman. > >(c) AP -09-07-96 2010 EDT > > >************************************************ >To subscribe or unsubscribe send mail to: >caji-owner@pobox.com with: >(un)subscribe caji youremail@yourprovider.com >in the body of the message. > > > **************************************************** "American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader." --Robert L. Dabney **************************************************** Harvey Wysong, National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Assn. 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Re: Did Chicago Police Crush Dissident Journalists? (fwd) Date: 09 Sep 1996 12:29:59 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dave, the following isn't directly pertinent to LuckyTown, but I would appreciate the opportunity to clarify a few things about Counter Media and about what happened out in the streets of Chicago this week, if you don't mind posting to all you sent your intitial message to. The CounterMedia office was not raided Thursday but if you read on, you'll see why we fully expected it to be. Counter Media is a group of media makers and individuals who got together about four months ago to gather and disseminate information about protests and actions taking place here in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention. We planned five projects for the last two weeks of August: First we had a fundraising Unconventional Film & Video Festival, a two week shin dig showing flicks by and about activists such as "The Murder of Fred Hampton", "Gringo in Manana Land", "AIDSCREAM", and (Ms.)treating Prisoners. In all, we showed 26 films with discussions afterwards mostly led by the film makers' themselves. We also opened an office available to all national alternative media to use during the democratic convention to find the locations and directions of the many protests, etc. But mainly we were interested in facilitating the coverage of as many protests and acts of civil disobedience as we could find. Towards those ends, we worked with the national radio show "Making Contact" plus did both radio and TV broadcast of our own show "Off the Record." The last of which was uplinked through Deep Dish television to over 150 TV stations around the country. Not satisfied with that, we also developed a web site were we could give immediate updates on events as they occurred complete with pictures of scanned- in photos and stills from video. Are you confused? Does this sound like a MEDIA project to you? Apparently the Chicago police and whatever other law enforcement agencies that descended upon Chicago this week were unable to distinguish a camera from a bomb. Though we were doing nothing illegal and running a completely open office no law enforcement agency, to my knowledge, contacted us directly and asked us what we were doing. According to yesterday's Chicago Tribune, police claim activists were "posing" as journalists - and that "confused" them. A few months ago it would have been illegal and embarrassing for the Chicago police to have several officers force their way inside of a media van full of videographers without a warrant while just ten feet from the front of a march of several hundred people, like they did this week to our clearly marked Counter Media van at the front of the Cash the Check march this week. But now a warrant is not needed because the police don't need a warrant when they "suspect" a bomb. Perhaps they thought the bomb was in the 35mm film cameras from which officers ripped the film out, exposing to light the images of them entering the van. They fell upon similar "suspicions" the very next day when they pulled over another Counter Media vehicle for "failure to use a turn signal." The videographer and driver were told that the vehicle which contained several individuals' video equipment and personal belongings was going to the FBI to make sure it didn't have "a bomb". By "bomb" did they mean the video tapes showing the illegal(?!) entry into our van the day before? Or the video of the arrest of yet another of our videographers at an abortion clinic during an Operation Rescue/Clinic Defense action? By "bomb" could they be talking about the video tape of several young black man from Henry Horner Homes, the housing project directly adjacent to the United Center where the DNC was taking place, rapping to us about the harassment by law enforcement prior to the convention: "They told us, there's *always* evidence. Even when there isn't evidence, there's *always* evidence." But what damage we did is done, our footage was edited and uplinked to public access and public TV stations all over the country. Meantime we're still trying to deal with the damage the police did. The young black men that appeared on our TV show were arrested a few hours after they were interviewed in a sweep that all other media groups will tell you didn't happen -because they weren't there. We still haven't got the minivan or any of it's contents back. Charges are still pending against six of our camera people and as of today, we are still getting reports of individuals identified as involved with Counter Media being harassed and threatened by law enforcement. Many tapes were destroyed and cameras were purposefully broken as they were confiscated. If all of this sounds deeply disturbing, perhaps you should take a breath before you read on. On the last day of the DNC, members of an anti-nuclear group who had been driving around a truck that has a mock-up cask showing how nuclear waste is transported were also arrested. Organizers of the Festival of Life, a week long free speech event taking place in two of Chicago's lakeside parks, were arrested in arrests that took place away from the crowds. The state's attorney is planning to prosecute them for trumped up federal offenses that carry up to two years in jail. Just as the President's prime-time brouhaha began Thursday evening, one of the most disturbing events of all took place. Having assured themselves that no cameras were around, several police officers burst forth warrantless into one of the buildings leased for use to the Active Resistance conference. Active Resistance has been host to over 700 activists from throughout North America and Europe who came to Chicago to attend workshops and discussion groups on issues ranging from community organizing to alternative economics. Several participants report that when they demanded a warrant they were told, "We don't need a warrant, we believe you're conspiring against the US. Government." Police then proceeded to another property leased to AR, which was successfully evacuated prior to the officers arrival. Two people were hospitalized for pepper-spray injuries. Without a warrant and without arrests at either location, the police were able to successfully turn people from all over the world, terrified and without their belongings, out into the night streets and still maintain deniability that the raid took place at all. Yesterday's Chicago Tribune reports the police as claiming that the raid was a stunt caballed between Active Resistance organizers and Counter Media volunteers. Considering that the 23 arrests we know of are spread among such a variety of groups (not including the Horner arrests), easily involving over 1500+ individuals, it remains to be seen how law enforcement intends to maintain deniability of the many violations that have taken place over the past few weeks. This is the most accurate report I can give at this time. There is still information trickling in from the various individuals and groups involved. But since I worked in the CounterMedia office, where stringers were being dispatched, protestors were calling, faxing, and stopping by, and national alternative journalists were hanging out, I may be as likely a candidate as anyone to have a somewhat complete overview. Dharma Dailey CounterMedia Office Coordinator CounterMedia (312) 243-8342. Fax: (312) 243-8406. http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/cpsr/countermedia/ xmediax@ripco.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] LPTexas Letter to the Post Dispatch (fwd) Date: 09 Sep 1996 13:26:00 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This event is not of the magnitude of some that are posted to PIML, but it indicates how our Liberty is being stripped away, little by little, day by day. NO LIMITATION of rights can be considered acceptable, not even something so seemingly insignificant as a teen curfew. Curfews are necessary in combat zones under martial law - they are NOT ACCEPTABLE in a free society. Instead, people of all ages need to be held accountable for their actions which harm others. Actions which do not harm others are nobody's business. Wake up, America. Vote against the incumbents at all levels who have given us unconstitutional government. Vote for Harry Browne, the only constitutionalist Presidential candidate. for Liberty, Bill Utterback ================================================================== Wes, sorry this is so long....I got wound up....edit as needed. RHK Dear Editor, I have neglected to write due to the fact that I am not a resident of your fine city. I have noticed though that portions of the Post Paper are being mailed and faxed around the state and country as well as discussed on various sections of the internet so I have decided to comment on the issue of teen curfew that is before your city at this time. I can speak from personal experience with my son's curfew violation. Perhaps I can raise some questions for you to consider before you rush to embrace curfews. My son is an honor student, a boy scout, and his life revolves around computers and church activities. I allowed him to spend the night with a church friend from a far better side of town than we live in and he and his friend were arrested and locked up at 1:00am for throwing water balloons with the kids next door who also had friends over and were in on the "fun". He admitted guilt and agreed to take whatever punishment was dished out for this hideous crime. He was punished by me first. (parents are still allowed to do that as far as I know.....until "the village" notifies me of a change) A policemen woke me at 4:00am to inform me that my son was being held. The city informed me that he could also be fined up to $500.00. Ultimately he was fined only $39.00 if he would serve 4 nights on teen court and do 90 hours of community service scrubbing floors and rinsing bedpans at the hospital. He did all of this. He felt he had somehow shamed our family and he deserved the punishment. THEN I received MY fine of $39.00! I was told this was my punishment for not "keeping and eye on my kid" I refused to pay it due to the fact that I BROKE NO LAWS nor did I injure any party on this night. I had entrusted my son to someone else's care and I could not sit and monitor him at their house. I also refused to pay on constitutional grounds. That is when my education began. I was taken into a little office where the city marshall of Lubbock, Texas informed me that this was a city ordinance and it had NOTHING to do with my constitutional rights. I asked if he charged the parents of gang punks with murder when their sons commited a drive by shooting and he jumped to his feet and in a raised voice said "You want to compare apples to oranges huh? Do you want to compare apples to oranges?" I am not sure what that meant but it did cause me to stop and think about about the cops weighing the decision of patrolling the dark streets of east Lubbock (where I live and have been robbed and vandalized) versus the water ballooners on south Quaker and choosing to arrest a clean cut apple or two over a gang of oranges that might kill them. Your officials will make the same call. I was told I could fight this in court if I wanted to or pay the city $300.00 because I had not paid the $39.99! They issued a warrant for my arrest. I wimped out and paid the $300.00 because I felt the time and money of a legal battle would cost more and because I don't feel that I could ever get justice in Lubbock County(this was before the common law court was established). I now feel I shamed my family by not having the courage to stick to my convictions. I learned later that of the three boys detained for this offense, each paid a different fine and did different amounts of community service hours basically depending on the court's mood at the moment. I also asked the marshall, if a mom who had custody of a child allowed the child to spend a weekend with a divorced father and the dad allowed the child out past curfew would the mom be fined? The city marshall informed me that whoever is the legal guardian will pay. Think about this Post! Is this fair? Isn't the whole concept of taking away freedoms to gain a little security only punishing the law abiders? Do you really want to be like Lubbock? Would you respect a teacher who kept the whole class in from recess because two kids could not behave? Would you want a coach who made the whole team run extra laps if the star QB got caught drinking? This is the mentality of punishing your decent kids because you don't have the courage to deal with the vandals. The good kids in Post deserve better. Richard H. King 2218 58th St. Lubbock, TX. 79412 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: ATF more active in small towns, study finds Date: 09 Sep 1996 21:37:01 -0500 This from USA today; ATF more active in small towns, study finds WASHINGTON - The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms refers disproportionately more criminal cases from rural areas and small cities to federal prosecutors than big urban centers, a study shows. More criminal cases originate in such places as Billings, Mont., Asheville, N.C., and Pensacola, Fla., on a per capita basis, than large cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, according to documents examined by Syracuse University researchers. ATF denies it pursues crime in small towns more actively than it does in big cities. ------ Guess working in the big cities is too harzardous for them. The real are even more likely to shoot back than the average rural resident, even if the latter are more likely to be armed. Besides which there aren't many "militias" in the big cities, just drug dealers and other armed criminals. For the full article see: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nds13.htm The report itself can be located at: http://www.trac.syr.edu/tracatf/ The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: The Symbiosis of Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton (fwd) Date: 10 Sep 1996 07:36:56 -0400 Is this true? Comments? Tom >Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 22:37:01 -0500 (CDT) >Reply-To: bigred@duracef.shout.net >Sender: owner-CN-L@cornell.edu >From: Brian Redman >To: Conspiracy Nation >Subject: The Symbiosis of Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton (fwd) >X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) >X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 20:23:56 -0500 (EST) >From: KALLISTE@delphi.com >To: snetnews@alterzone.com, jya@pipeline.com, jqp@globaldialog.com, > tenega@aol.com, jw-rh@ix.netcom.com, bigred@duracef.shout.net, > jlavis@communique.net, liberty@gate.net, vikbob@halcyon.com, > rwb@daka.com, cato@cato.org, akimery@citizen.infi.net, > pwatson@utdallas.edu, garb@ix.netcom.com, maddog6@flex.net, > edb@interport.com, wdmann@ix.netcom.com, germanic@netcom.com, > eric@remailer.net, sandfort@crl.com, loboazul@icsi.net, > bdolan@use.usit.net, fathom9@aol.com, defraud@tpi.net, > L.L.Grabbe@theol.hull.ac.uk, JMcCorm215@aol.com, > jdtabor.uncc@uncc.campus.mci.net, zns@interserv.com, tbyfield@panix.com, > drdean@bio.win.net, rpedraza@sierra.net, kalliste@aci.net >Subject: The Symbiosis of Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton > > The Symbiosis of Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton > > by J. Orlin Grabbe > > The Federal Reserve has no legal authority to intervene in the >stock market. But they have been doing just that. > > The existing Fed powers of conducting open-market operations in >the Treasury market, of setting the discount rate for commercial bank >borrowing of reserves, of establishing reserve ratios on demand and time >deposits, and of controlling margin requirements governing the purchase of >corporate stock--all these are apparently not enough for Mr. Greenspan. > > So he has also arrogated to himself the right to intervene in the >stock market. An example of this is the Federal Reserve's massive purchase >of S&P 500 stock index futures, traded at the International Money Market of >the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, on July 16, 1996. The trades were executed >through the brokerage firm of Merrill Lynch. At that time the Dow Jones >Industrial Average had fallen about 165 points, following the previous >day's decline of 165 points. > > Why does Mr. Greenspan wish to promote the illusion of prosperity >brought about by vastly inflated stock and other financial asset prices? >Was he, on July 16, secretly working for the benefit of Bill Clinton, in >an attempt to keep stock prices pumped up prior to the Democratic National >Convention? > > Let's consider some of the uncomfortable stock-related financial >records that have been set this year: > > * Stock margin loans at an all-time high. > > * A ratio of liabilities to equity capital at large Wall > Street investment firms near 50 to 1, as high as it's > been in U.S. history. > > * A dividend yield for the Dow at a hundred year low. > > * A price/earnings (PE) ratio on the S&P 500 at 22.4. > This compares to a historical average of about 15, and a > August 1987 high (just before the October crash) of 22. > > * A PE ratio on a group of 30 favored OTC stocks at around 170. > > Do these figures make you nervous, Mr. Greenspan? Is that why >you are trying to bolster the myth that stock prices always rise, and hence >postpone the day of financial reckoning to some time beyond the November >election? It sure looks that way. > > Did some unknown authority sanction your intervention into the >stock market? If so, why not make this information public, and cite your >legal authorization for this activity? Why are you keeping your stock >buying secret? > > The cracks in the banking system are showing up everywhere. The >largest bank in the world outside Japan, namely the French bank Credit >Lyonnais, is going under. You know this, don't you, Mr. Greenspan? > > And what are the consequences? Credit Lyonnais, in its desperate >search for cash, has plundered cash resources from two U.S. financial >institutions, and left them in a weakened state. (They really had no >choice but to help Credit Lyonnais, because it would have taken them >down with it.) > > One of these plundered institutions is Citibank. The other >financial institution is in more serious shape. Is it ready to fall >over the precipice? Even while you foment stock market euphoria to >stave off any perception of financial meltdown for the few short months >necessary to re-elect Bill Clinton? > > Intervening in the stock market has only a short-run cosmetic >effect, and artificially rewards those who get out of stock during those >occasions of Federal Reserve intervention. Is this your purpose: to >reward favored players? > > Or is your inflation of stock prices through the purchase of >futures contracts intended to beautify a cosmetic Presidency that derives >its power from image, smoke, puffery, and mirrors? > >September 9, 1996 >Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 10 Sep 1996 07:38:23 -0500 >Subject: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List > > >Digitaltronics Corporation V.P of Human Relations: "Joe, thanks for coming >in this morning. I'm sure you're busy, so I'll make this as short as >possible. OK with you?" > >Joseph Shlubsky, Programmer: "Uh, sure." > >Digitaltronics: "Joe, we have a problem. We understand that on your last >two business trips you've been flagged for Special Processing at airport >security. We checked, and it seems you're on the Suspicious Persons List. >As you know, this causes problems for your fellow travellers (no pun >intended, eh Joe ). And, Joe, it undermines the corporate image for >one of our people to be on the SPL. I'm sure you see our problem?" > >JS: "Uh...." > >Digitaltronics: "Joe, we're not sure what you've been doing to get yourself >put on the SPl, and we're forbidden by the Fairness in Employment Act from >even asking you about your interests and affiliations, but we really can't >have representatives of Digitaltronics being pulled aside for SPL >processing, now can we?" > >JS: "But I told them I was only carrying a briefcase, and that they could >search it all they wanted to, and--" > >Digitaltronics: "Joe, I'm sorry, but we're going to have to let you go. You >know how these things are. Nothing can be done. Not our decision, when you >think about it. The government has their ideas of who should be on the >Suspicious Persons List, and there's just nothing we can do about it. We >just can't have our corporate image linked to persons on the SPL. Now, Joe, >you'll get a generous 6 weeks of severance pay, and Daphne will assist you >with your outplacement processing. Of course, Joe, you will have to go >through an inspection every morning until you're fully processed...there's >that SPL matter, you know." > >JS: "Uh..." ----- Programmer is a poor choice to make the point - all Joe needs to do is go next door and get a job with one of the competitors who are in desperate need of his talents. The writer should have used the example of a 60 year old white male in middle management who makes "too much" money, has a fat "about-to-be-fully-vested" company retirement account, which is not vested if he is "terminated for cause" today, etc. In fact, why not have the company get this new Joe to carry some suspicious looking package to the plane - company property and all. Then the minimum-wage "security" moron, who's on a quota, will flag Ole Joe for fitting one of the JBGT "profiles". That'll get him "terminated for cause" for sure. And the company will save all that money. Maybe we ought to suspend the devisive Right vs. Left debate (for a while anyway) and all join the ACLU. I assume you all belong to the NRA already - if not, you have no right to enjoy what freedoms we in the NRA have fought to preserve for you. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: SAFAN NO. 81. Stepping Across the Line (fwd) Date: 10 Sep 1996 08:20:36 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW! (S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 81, September 10, 1996) STEPPING ACROSS THE LINE by Douglas G. Towne, Publisher of Common Sense News President Clinton has finally shown his hand. In order the cruise missile attacks against Iraq, the President used military power without following proper procedure. He has used the deadly force of the United States Military against another nation without notifying the Congressional leadership. In fact he notified the President of France before he told the Congress of his actions, according to widely circulated press reports. The War Powers Act clearly states that the President is supposed to consult with and notify the Congressional leadership prior to any military action. He did not do this. In fact Trent Lott, the Senate Majority Leader, was not notified until 40 minutes after the President gave his national press conference. In addition, the War Powers Act also requires the President to file a report on the actions taken within 48 hours of the military involvement. The report was not filed on time. It was filed about 12 hours late according to Trent Lott's office. This is not a partisan political issue. What is at stake here is a President using his military power illegally. He has thumbed his nose at the Congress and the people as if to say, "I will do as I please. You really don't matter." With this misuse of the armed forces, Mr. Clinton has stepped across the line that divides the President of a Republic from being a dictator. This cannot be allowed to stand. Given the reaction of our gulf war allies has shown that most overseas see his actions as purely political. Perhaps this is so, but whether politically motivated or not the President has misjudged the American people's willingness to allow him to act as a dictator. Given all the rumors flying about and the legal troubles facing the President, we must wonder whether the missiles he fired were really aimed at Iraq or the rest of us including the Congress. This is an impeachable offense and all Americans must call, write, fax or do whatever else they can to get the Congress to commence impeachment proceedings against Mr. Clinton. This misuse of power cannot be allowed to pass. We must remember that we live under a justice system that operates on precedent. This must not be allowed to become legal prececent. If we do not stop him how, who will he use the cruise missiles against next time? Take action today to defend the Republic by calling your Congressional Representative toll free 800-962-3524. Call or fax to anyone else you can thiink of. This may well be the key to removing Mr. Clinton from office. Douglas G. Towne Common Sense News P. O. Box 1776 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 Voice 888-472-1776 FAX 888-797-1776 (EMail and Home Page under construction - available soon online) ========================================================= SAFAN NOTE: "Common Sense" 8/24/96 Special Issue, "Deadly Failures to Intelligence Analysis and Defense Unpreparedness" by Benton K. Partin, Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret) 5 Pages. Call 888-472-1776 for your copy today ============================================================ SAFAN Internet Newsletter %Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 ============================================================ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: FW: TWA 800 - Friendly Fire? (fwd) Date: 10 Sep 1996 08:56:40 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Have you seen this? Worth a read. Old folks down here have been saying this for weeks. Chuck Xxxxxxx - Peaceable Texan ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- TO: "'bash@yosemite.net'", INTERNET:BASH@YOSEMITE.NET DATE: 9/9/96 6:31 PM RE: FW: TWA 800 - Friendly Fire? More conspiracy fun. I guess I'd have to say that a foulup of such monumental proportions would surprise me. However, were such a thing to occur, the resultant coverup wouldn't surprise me in the least... Chuck, isn't this much more satisfying as a conspiracy theory than mere terrorists with a Stinger? Yummy. [Followups to this noted that a supersonic missile without an explosive warhead would neatly fit various eyewitness accounts, where some supposedly reported hearing a boom, THEN looking up and seeing the plane explode, as well as explaining the lack of explosive residue and lack of other effects expected from a high explosive.] > - Tunny > >> >>The latest rumor. >> >>The message came to me from a man who was Safety Chairman for the >>Airline Pilots Association for many years and he is considered an >>expert on safety. He would not ever spread idle rumor. In short, >>he is usually quite certain before saying anything! >> >> >>The following information about TWA Fight 800 was received this >>afternoon: (08-22-96 ) >> >>TWA flight 800 was shot down by a U.S. Navy guided missile ship >>which was in area W-105. W-105 is a Warning Area off the SouthEast >>coast of Long Island and is used by the military for missile firing >>and other military operations. >> >>Guided missile ships travel all over the world defending the US >>and they were conducting practice firings up over the top of a Navy >>P-3 radar plane who was on a Southwest heading about over the top >>of TWA 800. Evidently the missile is suppose to go over the top >>of the P-3 and the accuracy of the missile is being measured by >>instrumentation in the P-3. >> >>There was a USAir flight coming from the Southeast descending >>towards Providence, RI that had been cleared to 21,000 feet and >>the TWA 800 aircarft was restricted to 13,000 feet. The air traffic >>controller requested the USAir flight to turn on his landing lights >>with the idea that TWA might see his lights and identify him. At >>that point, he would clear the TWA flight to continue his climb. >> >>The P-3 was a non-beacon target (transponder OFF) flying southwest >>in the controlled airspace almost over TWA 800 and made NO calls >>to ATC. After the explosion, he continued his flight to the west >>and then called ATC and asked if they would like him to turn around >>and assist with the "accident!" >> >>You will remember that the first announcement about this accident >>came from the Pentagon. The spokesman mentioned that they were >>sending the Navy to the crash site. They immediately sent a Navy >>Captain who was replaced the next day by an Admiral. That Admiral >>is still on the scene. >> >>The FBI has conducted at least 3,000 eyewitness interviews and the >>NTSB has not been able to be a part of these interviews not have >>any access to the contents of them. Some of those eyewitnesses >>reported seeing lights. Those were probably the landing lights of >>the USAir plane. >> >>It has been a cover-up from the word go. The NTSB is there in name >>ONLY. All announcements made by Mr. Bob Francis say absolutely >>nothing and notice that the FBI is always standing beside or behind >>Mr. Francis and it would appear that his job is to make sure that >>nothing is said that would give away "THE BIG SECRET!" >> >>It is time to end this farce and tell the public the real truth as >>to what happened to TWA 800. >> >>My source shall remain my own but the above information is true >>and I believe it will all become known soon. Now that all of you >>know the real truth. >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: The Symbiosis of Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton (fwd) Date: 10 Sep 1996 08:54:35 CDT Tom Cloyes queried: >Is this true? Comments? >> >> [ ... Snip ... ] >> >> The Symbiosis of Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton >> >> by J. Orlin Grabbe >> >> The Federal Reserve has no legal authority to intervene in the >>stock market. But they have been doing just that. >> >> [ ... Even Bigger Snip ... ] I can't comment on the validity of the article itself, because I'm not familiar with the subject, but I can say that Grabbe's credibility hasn't been very high since he started burbling about phosphorous warheads aglow on the missile that shot down TWA800. Most of what I have read of his work that is on subjects about which I have some knowledge is pretty hard to swallow. For what it's worth. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: SAFAN NO. 80. Clinton's Choppers Rocket Home of Dissident (fwd) Date: 10 Sep 1996 00:17:37 PST Hey, Lobo, do you know these folks? On Sep 10, Gene Gross -- Personal Account wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW! (S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 80, September 10, 1996) CLINTON'S CHOPPERS ROCKET HOME OF DISSIDENT by John DiNardo, jad@etext.org, Editor, The People's Spellbreaker The following is transcribed from the 1994 documentary video, AMERICA UNDER SIEGE, produced and distributed by: American Justice Federation, 3850 So. Emerson Ave., Suite E, Indianapolis, INdiana 46203 (317) 780-5200 Part 4, AMERICA UNDER SIEGE: New World Order Coup D'etat ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NARRATOR: Mike and Carol Benn, of Dallas, Texas, have gathered SEVENTEEN MILLION signatures to impeach President Bill Clinton. They have been visited by the United States Secret Service, who told them: "You have an awfully nice home to be doing what you're doing!" MICHAEL BENN: Just shortly before complete daylight, on the morning of January 11th, 1994, I was jerked out of bed -- completely brought awake -- by this TREMENDOUS noise coming down over our home -- the noise of these military helicopters. And I opened the shades and looked out the window, and all I saw was this heavy blanket of fog over the neighborhood. I couldn't really see it, but I could hear it. And then, I heard it move away from over the top of our house, across the street, and down. And then I heard it go away. So I ... you know, being dazed from being sound asleep that early in the morning, and being jerked out of bed, awakened by that noise, I thought, "Well, maybe the fog has echoed the noise somehow, and the helicopter is [actually] thousands of feet in the air. I don't know." So I just went back to bed. I looked at the clock when I laid back down, and it was like a quarter `til seven. Then, fifteen minutes later, I was jerked out of bed again by the noise of fire engines coming down the street. And I thought, at this point, "Well, I've got to put my pants on and go outside and see just what in the world is going on here, because there is something drastically wrong!" By the time I got outside, it was completely daylight. About 80 to 90 percent of the fog had lifted. They were running fire hoses over the house and into the house, and people were running out. The child who was in the house comes running out. I found out later that the mother had already left, and she was coming back to pick up this child a little bit later. So no one was hurt in the fire, but their home was just completely gutted out. And there were flames coming out from the roof and everything. You know, I never associated this with the helicopter -- at that particular moment. We were out in the street. A bunch of the neighbors were out in the street, standing by the fire trucks, and just having the typical conversations that you would have in a situation like this. "What happened? What's going on?" And I asked one of the neighbors, "Did you hear military helicopters flying over our houses this morning, right before daylight?" And one of the women said, "Yes, I sure did! And it sure scared me!" And I thought, "Well, jee, that's incredible. So it was not something I was just imagining." The day went on, and, within an hour, there was .... I wasn't really watching this as a problem with the Federal Government, at this time. So we went on with our daily activity of packing mail here, and handling the phone calls, and talking on radio stations, and on and on. We then noticed that six or eight white, plain cars -- like medium-sized Chevrolets -- drove up into the neighborhood. Men in suitswere getting out of the cars, with cellular phones to their ears. So we went on with our day's activities, and at 6:30 that night, I was up at the 7-11 [convenience store] on Tuesday evening, on the 11th. One of our other neighbors, from across the street, was there, and when we were in line I said, "Wasn't it terrible what happened this morning with the fire." And he said, "Yeah, when I got home from work at 4:30, I went down there, and the fire marshal didn't know what had caused the fire. But he said that one of these insurance people (now, we're talking about these men in the grey suits with their cellular phones) walked up to him and said that the fire was started by lightning." And he said, "I thought that was kind of funny because there was no rain or lightning this morning." And I said, "Well, there sure wasn't any rain or lightning this morning. That house couldn't have been hit by lightning." And, all of a sudden, a little alarm started going off in my head, [indicating] that we had a real problem here, and, obviously, that fire was meant for us. We were totally alarmed by this time. We knew that there was a real problem. We know that that military helicopter .... from looking at the roof, because they put the fire out right away on one end of the house. One end of the house -- which you can tell from the pictures that you've already seen on this videotape -- shows that the roof is totally burnt off. But at the other end of the house -- at the bedroom end of the house -- you can see that the round [charred] holes [in the roof show] that something obviously entered that house to set the house on fire. And there is just no question about it, as you have seen on the beginning of this videotape. ======To be continued==================== To receive an episode of these many series in your e-mail box each weekday, just send an e-mail message with the word "SUBSCRIBE" in the "Subject" line, to jad@locust.cic.net . I urge you to post the episodes of this ongoing series to other newsgroups, networks, computer bulletin boards and mailing lists. It is also important to post hardcopies on the bulletin boards in campus halls, churches, supermarkets, laundromats, etc. -- any place where concerned citizens can read this vital information. Our people's need for Paul Reveres and Ben Franklins is as urgent today as it was 220 years ago... ...........John DiNardo jad@locust.cic.net ========================================================= SAFAN Internet Newsletter %Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 PLEASE NOTE: Michael Benn presented SEVENTEEN MILLION SIGNATURES asking for the impeachment of President Clinton - and what happened? He got his house attacked by the military. Isn't this ENOUGH for you????? ============================================================= [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: SAFAN NO. 81. Stepping Across the Line (fwd) Date: 10 Sep 1996 00:16:48 PST On Sep 10, Gene Gross -- Personal Account wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW! (S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 81, September 10, 1996) STEPPING ACROSS THE LINE by Douglas G. Towne, Publisher of Common Sense News President Clinton has finally shown his hand. In ordering the cruise missile attacks against Iraq, the President used military power without following proper procedure. He has used the deadly force of the United States Military against another nation without notifying the Congressional leadership. In fact he notified the President of France before he told the Congress of his actions, according to widely circulated press reports. The War Powers Act clearly states that the President is supposed to consult with and notify the Congressional leadership prior to any military action. He did not do this. In fact Trent Lott, the Senate Majority Leader, was not notified until 40 minutes after the President gave his national press conference. In addition, the War Powers Act also requires the President to file a report on the actions taken within 48 hours of the military involvement. The report was not filed on time. It was filed about 12 hours late according to Trent Lott's office. This is not a partisan political issue. What is at stake here is a President using his military power illegally. He has thumbed his nose at the Congress and the people as if to say, "I will do as I please. You really don't matter." With this misuse of the armed forces, Mr. Clinton has stepped across the line that divides the President of a Republic from being a dictator. This cannot be allowed to stand. Given the reaction of our gulf war allies has shown that most overseas see his actions as purely political. Perhaps this is so, but whether politically motivated or not the President has misjudged the American people's willingness to allow him to act as a dictator. Given all the rumors flying about and the legal troubles facing the President, we must wonder whether the missiles he fired were really aimed at Iraq or the rest of us including the Congress. This is an impeachable offense and all Americans must call, write, fax or do whatever else they can to get the Congress to commence impeachment proceedings against Mr. Clinton. This misuse of power cannot be allowed to pass. We must remember that we live under a justice system that operates on precedent. This must not be allowed to become legal prececent. If we do not stop him how, who will he use the cruise missiles against next time? Take action today to defend the Republic by calling your Congressional Representative toll free 800-962-3524. Call or fax to anyone else you can thiink of. This may well be the key to removing Mr. Clinton from office. Douglas G. Towne Common Sense News P. O. Box 1776 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 Voice 888-472-1776 FAX 888-797-1776 (EMail and Home Page under construction - available soon online) ========================================================= SAFAN NOTE: "Common Sense" 8/24/96 Special Issue, "Deadly Failures to Intelligence Analysis and Defense Unpreparedness" by Benton K. Partin, Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret) 5 Pages. Call 888-472-1776 for your copy today ============================================================ SAFAN Internet Newsletter %Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 ============================================================ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: SAFAN NO. 80. Clinton's Choppers Rocket Home of Dissident (fwd) Date: 10 Sep 1996 11:04:27 -0600 Bill Vance wrote: > > Hey, Lobo, do you know these folks? > I'm not sure which folks you're talking about. I know Dot Bibbe if that's what you're asking. Met her briefly at the '94 rally. As far as the Benn's go, I don't know them but I know a guy who got about 15k signatures on their petition back before the congressional elections and sent them in. Never heard back from them. That story has been around for sometime. I've never checked it out. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: The Symbiosis of Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton (fwd) Date: 10 Sep 1996 13:38:37 -0400 > >Is this true? Comments? >Tom > Well, the one clear factoid that I grasp in this is that the Fed is alleged to have bought SP500 index futures at a critical juncture in mid-July. I do recall that the Wall Street Journal reported an unusual blip in buying activity in index futures on somewhere (17th, 18th, or 19th, I can't recall exactly). This wouldn't be out of line with past actions (not neccessarily by the Fed). During the '87 crash there was unusual buying activity on index futures in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange - this came at a critical juncture when the futures should have suspended trading as the market makers on the NYSE had failed (exhausted their credit) and underlying stocks were not trading. Had the indicies stopped trading the panic would have intensified. Instead, at a period of very light volume (as even the most robust traders were scared silly), there was a bit of engineered buying of the index, which was interpreted in NY as someone calling a bottom and stopped the plunge. Check late October / early November WSJ for this *excellent* story of how the crash happened, what market mechanisms failed, and how it all came back. Sorry, I don't have time for exact references. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Re: SAFAN NO. 81. Stepping Across the Line (fwd) Date: 10 Sep 1996 12:58:00 -0500 (CDT) On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Robert E. Day wrote: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:22:02 -0400 > >From: DotHB@aol.com > >To: DotHB@aol.com > >Subject: SAFAN NO. 81. Stepping Across the Line> > >STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW! > >(S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 81, September 10, 1996) > >STEPPING ACROSS THE LINE > >by Douglas G. Towne, Publisher of Common Sense News> > > > >President Clinton has finally shown his hand. In order the cruise missile > >attacks against Iraq, the President used military power without following > >proper procedure. He has used the deadly force of the United States Military > >against another nation without notifying the Congressional leadership. In > >fact he notified the President of France before he told the Congress of his > >actions, according to widely circulated press reports. > > > >The War Powers Act clearly states that the President is supposed to consult > >with and notify the Congressional leadership prior to any military action. > [...] > > There has been much made over the fact that the President did not report to > Congress. President Clinton's lawsless actions started earlier. Below is an > excerpt from the WAR POWERS ACT. > > < Begin quote > > Public Law 93-148 > 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542 > November 7, 1973 > SECTION 2. > (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to > introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations > where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the > circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to > (1) a declaration of war, > (2) specific statutory authorization, or > (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, > its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. > > < End quote > > > The WPA is very specific on when the President may use military action. And > with this operation, there was no declaration of war, no "upon the United > States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces", and according > to my congressional representative, there was no "specific statutory > authorization". > > The President has not shown that he had legal authority to send the United > States Armed Forces into hostilities with Iraq. The Armed forces of the > United States carried out illegal orders, which resulted in the loss of > human lives. This is wrong. > > > Robert Day. > I think because we are still under a form of military law left over from the Civil war and this alows executive orders as codified in 50 USC that what Clinton did was legal. Paul Watson, see attached THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release May 6, 1995 EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - PROHIBITING CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO IRAN By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 505 of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 (22 U.S.C. 2349aa-9) (ISDCA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, in order to take steps with respect to Iran in addition to those set forth in Executive Order No. 12957 of March 15, 1995, to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States referred to in that order, hereby order: (cut) (d) the term "Iran" means the territory of Iran and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the Government of Iran claims sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Iran exercises partial or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements; and (CUT) Sec. 5. Sections 1 and 2 of Executive Order No. 12613 of October 29, 1987, and sections 1 and 2 of Executive Order No. 12957 of March 15, 1995, are hereby revoked to the extent inconsistent with this order. Otherwise, the provisions of this order supplement the provisions of Executive Orders No. 12613 and 12957. (CUT) (b) This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register. WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE, May 6, 1995. # # # ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Col. Ron Ray Speech (council for New) Date: 10 Sep 1996 14:42:58 -0700 >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >Subj: Re: Michael New's attorney speaks >Date: 96-09-09 00:46:55 EDT >From: October L >To: dateline@nbc.com >To: cnn.feedback@cnn.com >To: channel9@vnet.net > >by Col. Ron Ray >Chief Counsel for Spc. Michael G. New > >[Colonel Ronald D. Ray, a practicing attorney in Kentucky, is an author >and a highly decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War (two Silver >Stars, a Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart). He has served as a Deputy >Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration, has served >on a Presidential Commission concerned with military matters, and is a >former Marine historian working on a book on the Vietnam War.] > > >Three thousand miles away from America's eastern shore in a military >court room in Wuerzburg, Germany, a very serious and impressive 23- >year-old Army Specialist with an exemplary record heard the verdict -- >guilty. Only a few months ago his Army career looked bright and >promising, but all that has changed. What happened to this young >soldier? What was his crime? > >Spc. Michael New respectfully declined an order to wear what his senior >officers referred to as the United Nations "uniform." To Michael New, >the order seemed extraordinary; to wear the badges, insignia and uniform >of another government seemed wrong. Specialist New's battalion, >stationed in Germany, was ordered last summer to prepare to ship out to >Macedonia as part of a United Nations military mission. As part of the >Macedonian mission which began in July 1993, New's U.S. Army infantry >battalion would be required to wear the U.N. "baby blue" uniform; to >serve for the first time in history under a Finnish U.N. officer; and >the only identification document required in the mission area for U.S. >soldiers is a U.N. identity card. > >When Specialist New expressed his concerns to his sergeant about >surrendering his U.S. uniform, his platoon commander threatened that if >he did not wear the "U.N. uniform," he could go to jail, be >court-martialed, and/or less-than-honorably discharged. A strong >reaction, considering that Specialist New was just asking a simple >peacetime uniform question in garrison: "By what authority are you >ordering me to change my uniform to that of a foreign government?" The >Army finally answered New's entry-level uniform question just before the >deployment with mockery, attempting to coerce him into wearing the >unauthorized uniform. "We wear the U.N. uniform," they said, "because it >looks fabulous." On October 10, 1995, as ordered, Michael appeared at >morning formation, but in his regulation historic U.S. Army Battle Dress >Uniform, respectfully refusing to wear the "U.N. uniform," amid a sea of >baby blue. > >To Michael New, whose recruiter never mentioned U.N. Command or the >"U.N. uniform" as he signed him up, a change in uniform and insignia is >not a trivial matter. Michael swore the enlisted man's oath to Support >and defend America and the Constitution. Changing uniforms constituted >an involuntary transfer of allegiance from the United States to the >United Nations. The transfer of American troops to "foreign commanders," >who have not sworn the same allegiance to America, is also a significant >change. Should American soldiers ever be required to wear the uniform of >the Russian Army, salute their flag and serve under their commanders? Of >course not. But to Michael New, wearing the uniform of the U.N. -- a >foreign government by U.S. statute -- was no different than swearing >allegiance to another nation. > >When the Army failed to honestly answer New's question, 44 Congressional >representatives joined with Specialist New. They wrote President Clinton >a letter on October 6, 1995, in which they described Michael New a "a >patriotic soldier with an exemplary record" and asked that the President >provide the Congress legal justification for the oral orders to New to >wear the "U.N. uniform." President Clinton has not provided the legal >justification -- because he can't. There is no legal justification: >Michael New is right. The Army is wrong. The "U.N. uniform" is >unauthorized and not regulation. > >Spc. New tripped over a grunt-level E 81 uniform order and found himself >nose to nose with President Clinton! New's lawyers found in researching >the unlawfulness of the order that the entire deployment to Macedonia is >unauthorized, and that Bill Clinton misled Congress in order to deploy >our sons and daughters -- without getting the required prior approval >from Congress. > >President Clinton's order placing U.S. soldiers at the disposal of the >U.N. Security Council, as well as the order conveyed to Spc. New >requiring U.S. soldiers in "Task Force Able Sentry" to wear the U.N. >Uniform and be deployed to Macedonia at the "strategic direction" of the >United Nations Security Council and to serve under foreign United >Nations commanders, is unauthorized and unconstitutional because such an >order: >(a) violates the Constitutional provision in Article 1 Section 9 >requiring prior Congressional approval; >(b) violates U.S. statutes which do not authorize the involuntary >wearing of any such foreign insignia, badges or UN uniform; and >(c) violates the U.S. Army's own Wear and Appearance of Army Uniform >regulations. > >The Presidential order to Macedonia also violates The United Nations >Participation Act of 1945. In letters to the Congress, Clinton described >the Macedonian deployment as a U.N. Chapter VI mission. However, >twenty-seven U.N. Security Council Resolutions dealing specifically with >the U.N. Macedonian deployment designate the mission under Chapter VII >of the U.N. Charter, which specifically requires prior Congressional >approval -- approval which has never been obtained. > >You may ask, "Can't the President, as Commander-in-Chief, simply order >our troops to do whatever he wants?" No! These unlawful orders violate >U.S. laws and threaten the Constitutional limits upon Presidential >authority and may constitute impeachable acts. Broken and ignored laws >ultimately make a country of men, not of laws. > >American troops are increasingly deployed across the globe for >questionable U.N. interests. Michael New's stand has illustrated for the >American people how far the government has gone in overturning the >historical role and use of America's military. It is unlawful to subject >U.S. soldiers to a multilateral organization, force them to wear >unauthorized U.N. uniforms, or involuntarily transfer them to serve >under the command of foreign U.N. officers -- all of which have been >done in this case without the consent of the people's house, the United >States Congress. > >As word of Michael New's stand for America and the Constitution spreads >across the country, millions of Americans are standing with Spc. New to >say "enough is enough." > >The fix for this problem is not as simple as voting out the current >President. There are many more where he came from on both sides of the >aisle. The next President and those elected to Congress must be >challenged by "we the people" to faithfully uphold and defend the >foundation upon which our liberty rests -- the Constitution -- and to >execute the laws of the United States, which include the U.N. >Participation Act of 1945. As Michael New appeals the court-martial >decision, both in the military courts and in the federal courts, a >bipartisan group of Congressmen have already introduced House Concurrent >Resolution 134 to nullify the conviction, pardon New and fully recognize >that he disobeyed an unlawful order. They have acted because they know >Spc. Michael New was right to question an unlawful order and >committed no crime except to love his country more than the United >Nations. > >Spc. Michael New's valiant stand has given all liberty-loving >independent Americans an important and timely opportunity to rally >around and stand in the fight to support and defend our Constitution >against all foreign and domestic enemies. This young American soldier >has made his allegiance clear: He is not a U.N. soldier. New is standing >against the same elite global game of princes as our founders did. New >is "on the point," risking his life and liberty like Americans before >him since 1775, while we enjoy the comforts of home. Now is the time for >you to join with New. Call your representatives and ask them where they >stand. Tell them, like Michael New, you have declared independence -- >not isolationism -- and that you expect them to stop the steady erosion >of America's sovereignty and stop the drive toward the utopian U.N. >ideas of global "interdependence" and "intervention." >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- >To subscribe, email majordomo@pobox.com with the >message "subscribe ignition-point". >http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Alpert Subject: Missouri 51 Militia protest against the Klan Date: 10 Sep 1996 18:02:13 -0700 Kay Sheil wrote: > > AN INVITATION TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE > September 9, 1996 > > The members of the Missouri 51st Militia cordially invite all concerned > citizens to join them in a peaceful protest of the GOOD OL' BOYS ROUND-UP > '96 to be held in Lone Jack, Missouri on September 14, 1996. > > The event is sponsored by elements of the KKK and Aryan Nation. This will > be the fourth year this grossly offensive racist gathering has been held in > Lone Jack. While the members of the Missouri 51st Militia understand > everyone has the right to their own opinions, the 51st has the right and the > duty to show their condemnation of such an affair. > > Anyone wishing to join the Missouri 51st Militia in protesting the event can > meet us Saturday, September 14, 1996 at 9:15 a.m. at the Civil War Museum > parking lot in Lone Jack, Missouri. (Take the Lone Jack exit off 50 > Highway.) Bring your signs and help make a difference in Missouri. > > For more information contact: Kay Sheil (816)455-5253 or > Mike McKinzey (816)229-0262 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacques Tucker Subject: Re: Missouri 51 Militia protest against the Klan Date: 10 Sep 1996 21:05:57 -0500 At 06:02 PM 9/10/96 -0700, you wrote: >Kay Sheil wrote: GOOD OL' BOYS ROUND-UP Any suggestions for a good sign? Maybe "BAD OL' BOYS BELIEVE B...S..." Nawh. The 14th? Wish I could make it, but will be tied up. Jacq' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: L&J: more on gun bans Date: 10 Sep 1996 21:15:05 -0500 A glimpse into our future in America. Bob Knauer +++++ >>NEW...UPDATED... REPORT FROM DESPATCH MAGAZINE - >> >> >>9th. September, 1996. >> >>MORE INFORMATION ON GUNS, US TROOPS. >> >>JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER, ON THE TODAY SHOW: >>John Howard, the Prime Minister, Liberal, commented to Steve Leibman on >>the Today Show that all semi-automatic weapons would be totally >>outlawed, even 22 calibre rifles. >> >>The Australian newspaper said there would be a six month only amnesty, >>with a new tax levy to fund the buy back of guns. Heavy fines and even >>jail terms would be given to any person who failed to hand in their >>weapons. Howard wants a mandatory sentence for possessing a weapon. You >>will not have to commit a crime to go to jail, just keep a weapon. Said >>the Australian: "if you think shot guns are not next, then all bolt >>action 22's - you delude yourself. This is the start of the total ban >>the Federal Government passed into law a few years ago." >> >>THE LEGISLATION STATES: >>"The importation of all firearms, except those listed below - pistols, >>rifles, shotguns, tear gas launchers and specialist equipment that are >>to be used by defense and law enforcement...." >>This would mean total disarmament forever! >> >>In the Adelaide Advertiser of August 9,1996, there was an estimate given >>of 50,000 military firearms that would disappear in SA(South Australia) >>alone because the Federal Government will not even pay any compensation >>to the owners of firearms that are unregistered. >> >>This interesting piece of news appeared in South East Christian Witness: >>"...it is almost impossible at present to purchase large diameter >>irrigation style poly pipe in the South East. Virtually every stockist >>of this, and similiar type pipe, has sold out. It does not take a >>college education to realise where it has gone. It is underground! But I >>would hazard a guess the pipes are not filled with water!" >> >>All states, it appears at this stage, will pay compensation to gun >>owners, except SA. The police minister there has said that they are "not >>prepared to pay people to break the law. They should hand in those >>firearms now without compensation. They are breaking the law." Police, >>the gun lobby and politicians have condemned the move. >> >>It is feared that not compensating gun owners might lead to an illegal >>trade in firearms, with SA (South Aust.) owners wanting money and >>selling unregistered weapons in blackmarket deals. >> >>After four months in the amnesty, owners who still retained their guns >>will face fines of up to $20,000, or a four year jail term. Victoria, >>Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South Australia have >>registration which requires all newly banned weapons to be registered. >>The first three states will offer compensation to those who own >>unregistered guns, they will not be prosecuted for handing in those >>guns, if they have not been used in a crime or have been stolen. The >>Victorian Government, Herald-Sun, Sunday August 11, 1996, said that the >>Victorian Government will have vans which will be used as mobile units >>to collect surrendered guns. The vans will have power saws to cut the >>weapons up, and the vices to crush them. The owners will get a >>government cheque on the spot. >> >>THE USA TROOPS HERE: >>It is reported [by soldiers] that 30,000 marines are in Perth.(but we >>had heard via news services, these marines are coming and going, not >>stationed here.) 7,000 are also in other parts of Australia. People >>have reported them as being in Victoria, Queensland - as far north as >>Townsville. >> >>"The top-secret spy satellite base at Pine Gap will be upgraded as part >>of proposals to strengthen the US-Australia alliance. >> >>For the first time, the US will be sending what one diplomat described >>as a trifecta of top officials for the meeting: Secretary of State >>Warren Christopher, Defense Secretary William Perry and Joint chiefs of >>Staff chairman General John Shalikashvilli." SECW, August, 1996. [note >>here the Despatch Vol.8:3 report of Downer & Fisher's meeting with >>Christopher in the US, during the height of the Gun debate.] >> >>A FEW DISTURBING DEVELOPMENTS: >> >>The disarming of the population is occurring here in conjunction with >>the basing of US peacekeeping troops, who could be used if massive >>unrest happens and law and order breaks down. It appears to us that >>there may be things about to go on which we will not like, and so it >>appears we are having our weapons removed so that we can be made to >>submit. >> >>In Brisbane, September 6th 1996, Dr, Norman Myers [from the UK] spoke in >>our Town Hall. He said he was on his way to speak to the Federal >>Government re. the `population explosion', and the need to protect the >>environment. Myers advocates the issuing of licenses to have children, >>he is part of the plan to reduce the population of the globe from 6 >>billion to 2 billion! Myers composed the environmental side of `Gaia >>Atlas of Future Worlds'[which is in all our Australian Schools], he is >>an advisor to the World Bank, the World Resources Institute and various >>UN agencies. The International Peace Research Association [IPRA] met in >>Brisbane recently, Nobel prize Laureates were there, Gen. Sec, of UNESCO >>also. All these matters may be unrelated, but one wonders? >> >>Wendy B. Howard...Editor of Despatch... +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: L&J: more on gun bans Date: 10 Sep 1996 20:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Bob -- Just a personal thanks for your posts on Aussie gun ban -- keep 'em coming! If this doesn't wake us up ... I don't know what will. Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Alpert Subject: Re: Missouri 51 Militia protest against the Klan Date: 10 Sep 1996 23:09:01 CST ** Reply to note from Jacques Tucker Tue, 10 Sep 1996 21:05:57 -0500 > > GOOD OL' BOYS ROUND-UP > > Any suggestions for a good sign? Maybe "BAD OL' BOYS BELIEVE B...S..." Nawh. The > 14th? Wish I could make it, but will be tied up. > > Jacq' > I'm thinking that side 1 of my sign will have an image of an AR-15 and text saying "My AR-15 shoots as straight as yours!" and side 2 will have a nice big happy Star of David, an AR-15, and the text - "Never Again!" Brad wish you could make it, Jacques. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacques Tucker Subject: Clinton, Dole and BROWNE Date: 11 Sep 1996 00:53:37 -0500 The Libertarian party has candidates and office holders across the nation. The Libertarian party convention was viewed by Americans on C-Span this year. The Libertarian party is, or will be, on all 50 states' ballots. The Libertarian party POTUS candidate, Harry Browne, qualified for matching funds, but nevertheless declined to accept taxpayers' money to conduct a campaign. Harry Browne is the "president" of "cyberland." Just look at any "poll" on the "web." Talk show hosts and newspaper editors across the nation are calling for Harry Browne to be included in the debates. The facts enumerated above insist that if there is to be a viable, credible debate, Harry Browne should--must--be a participant. The American people should--must--hear what Harry Browne has to say. The democrat and republican candidates should--must--respond. I sincerly urge you, the debate committee, to search your collective conscience and insure that Harry Browne is included. Respectfully yours, Jacques Tucker Kansas City, MO "Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not overdo it." --- Lao-Tzu !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cyrano@ix.netcom.com (Steve Allen Silver) Subject: FOIA Requests Date: 11 Sep 1996 00:10:25 -0700 If anyone is interested, I recently learned about two resources re: submitting Freedom of Info. Act requests to the government. For $5, the ACLU will send you its "Step by step Guide to Using the FOIA." Address: ACLU publications Dept., 122 Maryland Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002. I ordered mine, but have not yet received it (heck, I'll give the ACLU $5 if they give me a book; I just an concerned that my bank clerk might think I'm a member, or something gross like that) The other is, or was, put out by the Church of Scientology (we know they have lots of experience in this regard!). The book is called, "The handbook on how to use the Freedom of Information Act" It's out of print, but they will send you a free photocopy of some of it, and they may print it again. Address: Church of Scientology, 1404 N Catalina St, Los Angeles, CA 90027 (213) 960-3500. ISBN 1-878346-03-2. Let's have our gubmint woikahs do something for us, for once! Enjoy. Steve Silver ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: AMMO REGISTRATION LAW A FAILURE Date: 11 Sep 1996 07:33:19 -0500 For those few of you out there who don't believe that such things happen - such as "registration to buy ammo", however absurd it may be - read the item below from the NRA newsletter. As you can clearly see these hoplophobes will stoop to any level of idiocy to placate their mental illness. If a madman were running up and down the streets you would expect him to be locked up. But if a madman runs around the legislature putting tyranical laws on the books, we do nothing about it because we have become conditioned to the fact that such legislators are lunatics to begin with. But the laws get written anyway, lessening our respect for the law. That needs to change and change quickly - like right now, this November. Bob Knauer +++++ NO SURPRISES HERE - AMMO REGISTRATION LAW A FAILURE: A Pasadena, California law requiring purchasers of ammunition to register with police is a failure, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times (9/6/96). While the law, which requires ammunition purchasers to present identification and register at gun shops, passed last year with much fanfare, it has had no impact on Pasadena criminals. According to the Times' report, the registration information is useless to police in helping them solve crimes, and most ammunition used in the commission of crimes was obtained illegally anyway. +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: caps@visigenic.com (Cap Schwartz) Subject: Re: (fwd) Col. Ron Ray Speech (council for New) Date: 11 Sep 1996 06:18:11 -0700 >> >>You may ask, "Can't the President, as Commander-in-Chief, simply order >>our troops to do whatever he wants?" No! These unlawful orders violate >>U.S. laws and threaten the Constitutional limits upon Presidential >>authority and may constitute impeachable acts. Broken and ignored laws >>ultimately make a country of men, not of laws. >> >>stand. Tell them, like Michael New, you have declared independence -- >>not isolationism -- and that you expect them to stop the steady erosion >>of America's sovereignty and stop the drive toward the utopian U.N. >>ideas of global "interdependence" and "intervention." >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- But, aren't we going to get into trouble if we do that? =C ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Ask them Now (fwd) Date: 11 Sep 1996 08:28:04 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Doug Fiedor wrote, Mike Kemp forwards: >This is a great piece (no pun intended)- makes me mad I didn't write it. >Mike Kemp > > > Ask them now, While it's Still Legal > > By Doug Fiedor > > Anyone who can see or hear knows by now that this is an election year. This > is the season politicians pander to the voters. And, yup, just like a bevy > of New York hookers swarming a young sailor, here they come, telling us what > they are going to do to make us feel good. > > The problem is that with these political prostitutes comes the infliction of > the AIDS of high taxes, the herpes of oppressing our rights and the > enforcement pimp bureaucrats. Not a pretty picture. > > At least with prostitutes you have to touch them to catch something. With > politicians, we are sometimes affected only because we exist. > > So let's be careful. We'll treat them like strippers, rather than hookers. > You know -- stand back and look, but don't touch. And, as with strippers, > let's encourage them to put on a public show for us. > > In politics, this is called the "silly season." So why not get a little > silly and study your Constitutions for a day or two? Review the document > that once was a parchment limitation on government. Then, compare it with > the government we have today. > > Oh, and don't get confused about all that "shall not" stuff in there. The > federal government overruled all that years ago. In Constitutional law, > those words no longer mean what the dictionary says they mean. Government > officials conveniently "interpret" the Constitution to fit whatever it is > they wish to do. > > Still, we can have a little fun, cause during the campaign season, all > politicians make mouth noises indicating that they'll follow those > Constitutional rules. The fact that they never do, is another story. We > can worry about all that later. Right now, let's just have some fun. > > To initiate some profound political pandering -- and hence, to produce a > very interesting intellectual strip show -- let's ask questions of our > Members of Congress. > > Actually, only one pointed question is necessary to start the fancy fan > dance. It's a question we have all wondered about in one form or another > for years. So, while we still have the remnants of freedom of speech, let's > try to get it answered. > > The pandering politicians are all out there telling us what they will do for > us. How about we ask what, if anything, they will _not_ do to us? Sure, > that is a perverted question. But, this is a perverted subject. > > First, let's clean up our question a bit so it can be used by all. Make it > something like, "May we please have a list of those rights, liberties and > actions which the federal government will not regulate." > > Quick! Name three. . . . Yeah, right! > > Our Constitution gives the federal government authority to legislate on only > eighteen functions. That was intentional, by the way! The Founding Fathers > did not want the federal government running every little thing in the > country. They gave them those eighteen things to do, and that was all. > > Congress themselves added a few thousand more subjects on which to > legislate. That they have zero authority to do that is, well . . . > incidental. You (the American citizen) let them. They did it. And now it > is probably too late to stop them. > > But that doesn't mean that we can't yank their collective chains on the > subject from time to time. You know, encourage them to go back to being > simple prostitutes, rather than acting like an over-bearing dominatrix. . . . > > Another question for the pandering politicians then -- should you still have > the courage to ask it -- is quite easy: "Are there _any_ areas affecting > human existence in which Congress may not legislate?" And, if so, "may we > please have a list." > > These are fair questions for an election year. Eighty percent of what the > federal government does, it does with absolutely zero Constitutional > authority. And, when you add the foolishness perpetrated by the regulatory > agencies, a whopping ninety percent of what the federal government does is > without any Constitutional authority. > > You think not? Pick a subject. Then find it in the Constitution. You'll > need a real good imagination to find authorization for any federal law that > affects your personal life. That's because the federal government is not > supposed to be able to pass any laws that affect the personal lives of > citizens. > > Today's Congress legislates like a Parliament. That is, they do pretty much > as they please. So, to ask for a list of subjects on which they will not > allow government regulation is an honest request. > > Probably there are no subjects affecting our lives the federal government > will stay out of. Yet, we'll never know if we do not ask. So, let's all > have at them this year. > > Expect the reply to be a lot shorter than this editorial. > > =============================================== > This is one of a periodic series collectively titled: > "A View from the Foothills of Appalachia" > by Doug Fiedor e-mail to: fiedor19@eos.net > 8-9-96 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Re: FW: TWA 800 - Friendly Fire? (fwd) Date: 11 Sep 1996 09:50:36 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: White House Targets Date: 11 Sep 1996 13:00:13 -0600 Here's an interesting piece about our our beloved president's propaganda machine operates. Feel free to forward. White House targeted Ruddy and WJC Western Journalism Center Ph: (916) 852-6300 FAX: (916) 852-6302 A confidential White House memo recently released to Congressional investigators details a laundry list of scandals, persons and potential problems facing the Clinton White House. The memo specifically identifies by name Christopher Ruddy and the Western Journalism Center. An excerpt of the multi-page memo was published by the Wall Street Journal on September 6. The Journal described the memo, compiled by Associate White House Counsel Jane Sherburne and dated December 13, 1994, as "a playbook for the complex political and criminal defense operation run out of the White House." According to the memo, the White House Counsel's office created an "offensive structure" which included the assignment of key White House lawyers and staff to monitor and facilitate the handling of several scandals. Some of the chief concerns of the White House, apparent from the memo, were issues related to Vince Foster's death and the investigations into matters relating to his office after his death. The memo notes that Associate White House Counsel Miriam Nemetz was assigned to handle the "Foster suicide." Later in the memo, under point number 4, White House plans for handling the "Foster suicide" matter are listed as follows: a. Chris Ruddy/Center for Western Journalism b. causes for suicide c. monitor Senate report; coordinate with [James] Hamilton d. develop press response Ruddy is the only journalist targeted in the White House memo. The Western Journalism Center is the only media organization similarly targeted. "This memo is compelling evidence that the White House has been concerned about the truth of Vincent Foster's death and the work of investigative reporter Chris Ruddy," explained Joseph Farah, executive director of the Western Journalism Center. The center has supported Ruddy's efforts to bring the facts about Foster's death and the handling of the official probes to the American public. At the time of the memo Ruddy had just joined the staff of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, where he continues as a correspondent. He also serves as a Media Fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. "There has been an attempt by some to marginalize Chris Ruddy's work, to say it was trivial and meaningless," said Farah, "but when it came to a secret White House plan to tackle the most serious problems and people facing them in the United States, Chris Ruddy and the WJC were the only names that came to the minds of those who know best, the people in the Clintons' inner circle." The memo also notes the use of "press response" and the unusual use of the Foster family attorney, James Hamilton, in advising both the Clintons and the Foster family -- at the same time and without any apparent concern for conflict of interest. At another point in the memo Hamilton is listed under a section entitled "surrogate role." "We note that it was soon after this memo that Mike Wallace and CBS' "60 Minutes" first approached the WJC and Ruddy to do what they claimed would be a fair investigation into the Foster case," Farah said. When the "60 Minutes" segment did air, first in October 1995, and again this summer, White House surrogate James Hamilton was a central character in the program's attempt to discredit Ruddy and the work of the WJC. The WJC has retained a prominent Washington law firm to file a Freedom of Information Act request for other materials the White House gathered in dealing with their priority item of "Chris Ruddy/Center for Western Journalism." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) CLINTON: 1996-09-09 President at Aviation Safety Commission Annoucement (fwd) Date: 11 Sep 1996 13:06:24 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Keywords: Crime, Disaster, Economy, Foreign, Government, Information-Policy, Document-Id: PDI://OMA.EOP.GOV.US/ THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release September 9, 1996 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT DURING WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ON AVIATION SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENT The Oval Office 10:02 A.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Let me begin by thanking the Vice President and the commission for all their hard work and for this excellent action plan. This is partnership at it's best -- the government and private citizens, Democrats and Republicans, joining together for the common good. As the Vice President, said, we asked the members of this commission to do a lot of work in a little time. They rolled up their sleeves, they delivered. We know we can't make the world risk-free, but we can reduce the risks we face and we have to take the fight to the terrorists. If we have the will, we can find the means. We have to continue to fight terrorism on every front by pursuing our three-part strategy: First, by rallying a world coalition with zero tolerance for terrorism; second, by giving law enforcement the strong counterterrorism tools then need; and, third, by improving security in our airports and on our airplanes. The Vice President's action plan goes to the heart of this strategy. So I want everyone to understand that whenever this plan says, the commission recommends, you can understand it to mean, the President will. Today I will direct the Federal Aviation Authority to instruct their personnel in the field to convene immediately those responsible for security at our nation's 450 commercial airports so they can strengthen security as a team. I will direct that all airport and airline employees with access to secure areas be given criminal background checks and FBI fingerprint checks. I will direct the FAA to begin full passenger bag match for domestic flights at selected airports. And I'm proud to say that several of the commission's recommendations will be put into place immediately. Last Thursday, Secretary Pena announced a rule to require more accurate and detailed passenger manifests on international flights, a priority for families of victims of aviation disasters. Families of victims also deserve a single point of contact for receiving information. That is why today I will sign an executive order to give the National Transportation Safety Board the job of coordinating the response for families of victims. And our military has agreed to provide, starting next week, several dozen canine teams for key airports. But as the Vice President's action plan makes clear, there is much more which must be done, and we cannot meet that responsibility without willingness to commit our resources. Shortly, I will submit to Congress a budget request for more than $1 billion to expand our FBI anti-terrorism forces and to put the most sophisticated bomb detection machines in America's airports. As a result of these steps, not only will the American people feel safer, they will be safer. Close to half our requests will be used to make the improvements in aviation security the Vice President and this commission have asked for. As I said, we want to put the most sophisticated bomb detection equipment for screening passengers, baggage and cargo in America's airports. We should do this as quickly as possible. We want to significantly expand the number of FBI special agents dedicated to fighting terrorism. We want to expand the use of bomb-sniffing dogs in our airports, the no-tech program the Vice President has recommended, and train additional bomb-sniffing dogs for government use, as well. In addition to improving security in airports and airplanes, the focus of the Vice President's plan, we want to use these funds to keep advancing the other two parts of our strategy --combating terrorists beyond our borders and here at home. We need to continue to improve security at our military and diplomatic facilities overseas so we can better protect those who wear our nation's uniform and serve our nation's interests abroad. We need to continue to expand our intelligence capabilities to combat terrorists worldwide. We must train and equip fire departments and medical teams so they can respond to biological or chemical attacks, like the Sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway. We must tighten protection at a number of high profile public sites including government buildings, national landmarks and national parks. These counterterrorism funds are a smart investment in our nation's security and our people's safety. I urge Congress to join with me in combatting terrorism by giving us the resources we need to do the job right. As I requested, the Vice President and this commission took just 45 days to deliver their action plan. Now Congress should act with the same dispatch before they leave in October to pass the funding that will bring these security measures to life. Our people deserve no less. There are other areas where Congress can and should act to strengthen our fight against terrorism. We need new laws I have proposed to crack down on money laundering and to prosecute and punish those who commit violent crimes against American citizens abroad, who add taggants to gun powder used in bombs so we can track down the bomb makers, to extend the same police power we now have against organized crime to tapping all the phones a terrorist uses so we can better prevent terrorist attacks. And I again call upon the Senate to ratify without delay the Chemical Weapons Convention. We need all these laws, and we need them now, before Congress recesses for the year. Terrorists don't wait and neither should we. The American people should be grateful that the Vice President and this fine commission didn't wait and, in fact, delivered on their mandate within just 45 days. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Q Are you any closer, Mr. President, to finding a solution to the TWA crash? THE PRESIDENT: Well, we don't have an answer for you. They are continuing to work and they continue to piece the evidence together, but we don't have an answer now. Q Do you think a missile could have caused it? THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me? Q A missile? THE PRESIDENT: It would be wrong for me to comment until I see the people -- who are doing the report -- final report. Q Mr. President, the high sophisticated technology that you mentioned this morning for screening passengers for bomb detection technology can see through clothes. Do you expect there to be a major debate over privacy issues and civil rights in connection with the deployment of this technology? And could it thwart some of the commission's actions? THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to answer that? THE VICE PRESIDENT: Let me respond to that. We don't -- we think that particular concern has been greatly overstated in some of the preliminary reports. That's only one of several technologies that are discussed in this report. Incidentally, the commission is recommending the establishment of a civil liberties advisory board to review and give advice upon any of the recommendations that might raise privacy or civil liberties concerns. But we think that particular concern has been vastly overstated. Q Mr. President, in Iraq are we abandoning Kurdish rebels who took a stand against Saddam Hussein and now are being hunted down by his forces? THE PRESIDENT: Well, what we know of what is happening is that the Kurdish forces themselves are continuing to fight. Obviously, Saddam Hussein is supporting one side over another now. But the primary fight is being carried on between the Turkish forces -- I mean, the Kurdish forces, excuse me. We're doing everything we can to get out of Iraq American citizens and those who have worked with us. And we have done everything we could to make it clear to the Kurds that we think that there should not be any cavalier killing of civilians and others who are not combatants in this. As to the intelligence matters, I can't comment. But we are doing everything that we believe we can do and that we think is appropriate. Q Have you gotten any updates on the damage from Hurricane Fran and anything else that you can do to -- particularly for the people suffering from the flooding? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I got updates all weekend on the extent of the damage, and I expect to hear from Mr. Witt today about where we are with the floods and whether we need to do any more to try to go back to get some extra help for the -- it's quite extensive, and I think it's -- the hurricane itself, except for the terrible loss of life in North Carolina, was not as damaging as we thought it would be, but the aftermath of the flooding has been, I think, worse than was anticipated. And so I expect to get a more updated report today in terms of what else should be done. And when I know something, I'll say. THE VICE PRESIDENT: Could I add a brief word on that, Mr. President? In fact, a couple members of the commission coming from Virginia, were impeded in their attendance at this event this morning by the flooding. And I want to single out Retired General Mike Lowe, who worked so hard on this commission report. And the other members of the commission are listed in the back. Not all of them could make it here this morning, and a couple of them for that reason. Q Mr. President, do those that you are trying to get out of Iraq include the members of the Iraqi National Congress, who are apparently holed up in a mountain hideaway somewhere and hoping for political asylum? THE PRESIDENT: I think it would be better for me not to comment now. I'd like to stay with my first statement. We're doing everything we think we can to help anybody that needs to be out of Iraq. Q Mr. President, what are your concerns about the building strength of Saddam's ground forces, though? THE PRESIDENT: Well, the main thing that we wanted to say was, first of all, the United States has done a great deal to help the Kurds over the years. And we've worked very hard. They make it more difficult to help them when their leaders continue to promote fights within the Kurds, within the Kurdish faction. And as you might expect, Saddam Hussein would try to take advantage of that. Our ability to control internal events in Iraq is limited, but what we did do, which I thought was important, was when we found that what he had done contravened the United Nations resolution and constituted repression of his own people by carrying forward the military attack on Irbil himself, what we did was to expand the no-fly zone and enforce it and take out air defenses, which means that every day he has to pay a price in terms of his capacity to maneuver in his own country and threaten his neighbors. And so we have done what we thought was appropriate there. I would still like to do more to help the Kurds but, frankly, if you want the fighting -- for the fighting to be ended, the leaders of the various factions are going to have to be willing to go back to the peace table and talk it through. We have worked very hard with them, but that's a decision they're going to have to make, which will have a lot to do with the fate of their own people. Thank you. END 10:15 A.M. EDT -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) Bob Dole Promises A Police State - NRA & ACLU Support Him Date: 11 Sep 1996 13:07:12 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (New York Times Sep. 6th, Pg A12) Bob Dole promised an audience=20 at Washington University, North Canton, Ohio: "I'll tell you=20 this: On Day 1 of the Dole-Kemp Administration, we will begin a=20 real war on drugs all across America." From Dole's homepage=20 http://www.dole96.com are the details of what Dole intends: *"We must start with a plan to use our military=20 power=97particularly our technological capabilities=97to fight this=20 battle; to involve our intelligence agencies, including the CIA,=20 in this effort." *"We cannot win the war on drugs 'on the cheap.'"=20 *"And instead of ignoring the invaluable contribution made to the=20 anti-drug effort by the men and women of the National Guard, I=20 will recognize their capabilities, and ask them to do=20 more." Last week, in a stump speech, Dole said that if the National=20 Guard isn't sufficient, "I'll use the Armed Forces to stop=20 illegal drugs at the border." As for how serious a war he intends on waging, Dole said in the=20 same stump speech, "Drug use is wrong and should not be tolerated=20 anywhere in America." If you think that the _Posse Comitatus Act_ will protect your=20 bedroom from being invaded by the US Army, don't sleep in=20 America. >From=20 http://www.nra. org/pub/ila/95-10-26_ltr_re-law_enforcement_reforms/ we discover: "The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878. Just prior to its=20 passage, the armed forces were being used. . . in finding and=20 destroying illegal whiskey distilleries, enforcing voting laws,=20 and a number of other purposes." However, the Act, which prohibits the military from being used=20 within US borders and particularly against US citizens, has=20 certain exceptions: *"Military support for civilian law enforcement agencies in=20 limited circumstances." Hence, the justification for the military=20 presence at Waco - and for 14,000 military personnel at the=20 Atlanta Olympic Games. *"[It] permits the armed forces to provide training [to the=20 police] in the use of equipment and 'expert advice. . .'" You may=20 or may not have heard many reports that the military is being=20 used to train the police. The exception quoted above is the legal=20 loophole the administration uses to get away with it. *"Lawful purposes [for training] include enforcement of the=20 Controlled Substances Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act,=20 the Tariff Act, and the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act." Let's go back to the 14,000 troops stationed in Atlanta. They=20 were there for approximately three weeks under the guise of=20 "limited circumstances." Bob Dole could use the military in=20 cities across the nation under the same guise. The only issues=20 would be cost and for how long? A 90 day military presence to=20 fight the drug war in Harlem or South Central LA could easily=20 meet the test of "limited circumstance." The real horror is that after the military completed its 90 days,=20 the residents throughout the entire city would beg the military=20 to come back. Fact: if the military is used to support the police in the war on=20 drugs, crime will drop. The more armed personnel patrolling the=20 streets, the less crime. For instance, crime in Los Angeles=20 County dropped by 25% after the second Rodney King verdict. Why?=20 Because the police were patrolling the streets in full force. Bob Dole's war on drugs will do the worst thing possible to=20 whatever is left of Liberty in America: it will get the public to=20 beg for a soldier on every street corner. Certainly, a continual=20 military presence in every city across the country will=20 significantly curtail the flow and use of drugs. It will cut=20 crime. It will not cut crime as much as drug legalization would.=20 But it will give the government a military presence in your=20 neighborhood, supported by the CIA. The streets will be safer -=20 maybe even as safe as the streets in Singapore where there is no=20 freedom of the press, no right to bear arms; the gov't controls=20 the economy; political prisoners fill the prisons. Drug use in=20 Singapore is far lower than it is here. Yes, there is a correlation between openly using drugs and=20 freedom. Fact: the more drug use is suppressed, the less Liberty=20 you have. There are some people who are so stupid and hateful, they're=20 willing to give up their liberties to stop others from using=20 drugs. Are you? Is it so important to you to stop someone from=20 slamming heroin into their arm that you are willing to let your=20 neighborhood be invaded by the US Army? For years, those of us fighting for drug legalization have warned=20 that the gov't will use the war on drugs to establish a police=20 state. Bob Dole promises you one. How does the gov't get away with it? For one answer look at the=20 source I got my information about Posse Comitatus from: the NRA.=20 Yet, at the Republican Convention, Wayne La Pierre, representing=20 the NRA, told a reporter that instead of gun control, the US=20 should increase its war on drugs. Then he said, "We're in favor=20 of more police, more prisons and more courts." Fact: we don't=20 need more police and more prisons. What we need is less dumb,=20 evil laws. Had La Pierre simply said, "We're in favor of overturning any=20 legislation that interferes with a person's liberties" he'd have=20 done every gun owner and every American a great service. Instead,=20 the NRA continuously calls for an increase in the stupid, hateful=20 the war on drugs. The NRA isn't the only culprit. The ACLU absolutely refuses to=20 recognize that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, not=20 states. It refuses to admit that all the Amendments in the=20 Constitution are equally important. Fact: if the Second Amendment=20 were applied as equally as the First, carrying a gun would be=20 about as difficult as starting an e-zine. As long as the NRA and the ACLU refuse to recognize that they=20 need each other, as long as you refuse to recognize that drug=20 users have as much moral right to snort cocaine and smoke crack=20 as you have to drink yourself dead drunk; as long as you refuse=20 to recognize that gun control attacks your neighbor's moral right=20 to self defense - and without the right to self defense your=20 neighbor has no rights - you and your loved ones are not safe=20 from the greatest fighting force ever created on the face of the=20 earth: The US Military. Other Recent Articles in the Zychik Chronicle: *Long Haired RAM and the next American Revolution: The future of=20 the 'net. *There's a Fascist in your baggage: Beware of govt and business=20 working together. *Religious Right Endorses OJ Simpson: Hate and murder find a=20 home. *Poisoning Medical Progress: Consumer unprotection. *From The Halls of Oregon To The Shores of The Forest:=20 Militarizaiton spreads. *Child Molestors should start smoking pot: Facts they don't want=20 you to know. *What if the Second Amendment were the First?: Dole is looking=20 for a few good cowards. *Is Harry Browne Pro-Choice?: A disheartening conclusion. *An open letter to the debate commission: What is a debate? *Shooting Calculus Instead of Shooting Hoops: Free markets and=20 education *The profits in Socialism: Altruism doesn't exist. *1% Lie. 99% Bull: Clinton's lies about education. *Capitalism gets fueled: Another sign of the future. *DEA & IRS Target Al Capone: When the govt's main purpose is=20 collecting taxes. *Instead of war: More stupidity in Iraq. *Thoughts for the week: Washington; Goethe, Hitler, MacArthur This week's Chronicle is available in easy to read format at http://www.free-market.com/zychik -- To have the Zychik Chronicle sent to you free, contact: jzychik@pacificnet.net --- alternate site: http://www.iquest.net/~rjtavel -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Why is Fort Worth holding a mock drill today with Dissidents holding city officials as hostages??? Date: 11 Sep 1996 13:10:39 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Updated: Wednesday, Sep. 11, 1996 at 00:23 CDT Fort Worth to hold drill on how to respond to terrorists By Kathy Sanders Star-Telegram FORT WORTH -- Stay calm. Don't panic. That's not Fort Worth Mayor Kenneth Barr being dragged away at gunpoint this morning by terrorists who've killed his bodyguard at his parking space downtown. And those people on the ground outside City Hall aren't really dead. That car explosion in front of City Hall? Nothing to it. Just a little flash and a big boom. Same thing on the seventh floor of the old Lone Star Gas building. So don't grab your recently permitted handgun, round up the posse and ride to the rescue. It's just the city's emergency people training on how to respond to homegrown terrorists. "We need to be as real as we can, but at the same time we don't want to cause a panic," said Lt. Kent Worley of the Fort Worth Fire Department. Despite a concentrated campaign to inform and enlighten the public and businesses in a three- block area around City Hall, some officials remain concerned that some bystanders won't know that the shooting and blasts are fake, and may suffer health problems from the shock or may try heroically to intervene with real firepower. "Everybody around here knows what's going on," said Fort Worth's Emergency Management Officer Ted Jones, who conjured up the story line for today's exercise. "My answer to those concerns are if we can do `Walker, Texas Ranger' downtown, then we can do this." Monroe Street, between 10th Street and Texas Street, and some other areas will be cordoned off with police guards, not only as part of the three-hour exercise but to help inform the public, Jones said. The electronic marquee outside the Fort Worth/Tarrant County Convention Center will carry a warning that what people may see between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. is a drill. Signs are posted in the area warning that a drill is under way and not to believe what passers-by see, Jones said. A bullhorn will also sound the same warning at frequent intervals. Even with the training, offices will remain open to conduct regular city business. Although City Hall will be idle during the evacuation and head count, it will return to business within 30 minutes, Jones said. Each year, the city must conduct a training exercise and for this year, the federal government requested that entities use a terrorism theme, Jones said. He has been planning the drill for more than a year, he said. The exercise will begin when an actor portraying the mayor walks with his bodyguard to his parking space. Terrorists, calling themselves Citizens Rebelling Against Politicians and portrayed by members of the city's tactical unit and bomb squad, will abduct the mayor in a bloody gunbattle, leaving the bodyguard and one terrorist fatally injured, officials said. The terrorists will flee to the old Lone Star Gas building, which the city owns, where they will kill a few more people, take hostages and hole up on the seventh floor. Firefighters responding to the scene will fall under snipers as will citizens walking around town, the story goes. A car bomb -- using an old police car junker and black powder -- will explode outside City Hall to show officials that the terrorists are serious and from then, chaos will reign in the three block area with several more incidents that Jones declined to mention. At least 15 people will be transported to John Peter Smith Hospital by MedStar ambulance personnel, all of whom are part of the exercise. _________________________________________________________________ © 1996 Fort Worth Star-Telegram -- Terms and Conditions -- Send us your Feedback. _________________________________________________________________ News Index | Weather | Sports | Business | Classified | InterAct | Lifestyle | Neighborhood | Top Stories | Contents | Home ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: (fwd) Bob Dole Promises A Police State - NRA & ACLU Support Him Date: 11 Sep 1996 13:26:07 -0600 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: jzychik@pacificnet.net (Joe Zychik) > Bob Dole Promises A Police State - NRA & ACLU Support Him Then NRA has not endorsed Bob Dole. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: (fwd) Bob Dole Promises A Police State - NRA & ACLU Support Him Date: 11 Sep 1996 12:37:18 -0600 >pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: jzychik@pacificnet.net (Joe Zychik) >> Bob Dole Promises A Police State - NRA & ACLU Support Him > > >Then NRA has not endorsed Bob Dole. But they support his ideas on a police state. According to the article, Wayne LaPierre said so himself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Bubba Readies His New Home Date: 11 Sep 1996 13:48:41 -0500 It looks like Ole Bubba is going to make things cushy for himself in his new home - even has drug treatment - where I suppose "treatment" will be at least five or six lines a day. Bob Knauer +++++ From the so-called "unbiased news" (Oxymoron Alert): Clinton to Unveil Prison Plan President Clinton is expected to use a campaign stop in Colorado today to propose a plan that links federal prison funding to drug treatment. The White House says the plan would require that states set up drug treatment programs for prisoners and parolees in order to receive federal money to build new prisons. The president has timed the idea to coincide with a Justice Department study showing sharp declines in repeat offenses when such programs break drug habits. The study shows that when drug problems are not treated, nearly two thirds of parolees commit crimes again. +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Why is Fort Worth holding a mock drill today with Dissidents holding city officials as hostages??? Date: 11 Sep 1996 15:24:37 -0400 > > The exercise will begin when an actor portraying the mayor walks with > his bodyguard to his parking space. Terrorists, calling themselves > Citizens Rebelling Against Politicians and portrayed by members of the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > city's tactical unit and bomb squad, will abduct the mayor in a bloody > gunbattle, leaving the bodyguard and one terrorist fatally injured, > officials said. > Ha, ha, ha! Sometimes the truth just slips through, doesn't it? Citizens Rebelling Against Politicians! Can't have that, can we? Whats the re-elect rate for Congressmen? > 90%? Oh ho! Whats an honest citizen to do? Voting doesn't work. So its not the nasty Iraquis that you all are worried about, is it? hee, hee, hee. Approx. one month ago the Lawrence Eagle Tribune (local rag for northern Mass.) had an article on anti-terroism training at a local hospital. A local cop played a lone gunman who took a hostage in the ER. I can hear the Propaganda wheels turning from here. Get people whipped up against a virtually non-existent terrorist threat and they will tolerate nearly *any* reaction on the part of police against *anyone*. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Why is Fort Worth holding a mock drill today with Dissidents holding city officials as hostages??? Date: 11 Sep 1996 15:35:51 CDT John Curtis wrote in part: >> The exercise will begin when an actor portraying the mayor walks with >> his bodyguard to his parking space. Terrorists, calling themselves >> Citizens Rebelling Against Politicians and portrayed by members of the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> city's tactical unit and bomb squad, will abduct the mayor in a bloody >> gunbattle, leaving the bodyguard and one terrorist fatally injured, >> officials said. >> > Ha, ha, ha! > > Sometimes the truth just slips through, doesn't it? You *are* referring to the acronym, aren't you? The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: The Feds use Terrorism to Attack critism of big Government Date: 11 Sep 1996 17:36:11 -0500 (CDT) THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release September 9, 1996 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT DURING WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ON AVIATION SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENT The Oval Office As the Vice President, said, we asked the members of this commission to do a lot of work in a little time. They rolled up their sleeves, they delivered. We know we can't make the world risk-free, but we can reduce the risks we face and we have to take the fight to the terrorists. If we have the will, we can find the means. We have to continue to fight terrorism on every front by pursuing our three-part strategy: First, by rallying a world coalition with zero tolerance for terrorism; second, by giving law enforcement the strong counterterrorism tools then need; and, third, by improving security in our airports and on our airplanes. But as the Vice President's action plan makes clear, there is much more which must be done, and we cannot meet that responsibility without willingness to commit our resources. Shortly, I will submit to Congress a budget request for more than $1 billion to expand our FBI ^^^^^^^^^^ anti-terrorism forces and to put the most sophisticated bomb detection machines in America's airports. We should do this as quickly as possible. We want to significantly expand the number of FBI special agents dedicated to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ fighting terrorism. We want to expand the use of bomb-sniffing dogs in our airports, the no-tech program the Vice President has recommended, and train additional bomb-sniffing dogs for government use, as well. In addition to improving security in airports and airplanes, the focus of the Vice President's plan, we want to use these funds to keep advancing the other two parts of our strategy --combating terrorists beyond our borders and here at home. We need to continue to improve ^^^^^^ security at our military and diplomatic facilities overseas so we can better protect those who wear our nation's uniform and serve our nation's interests abroad. We need to continue to expand our intelligence capabilities to combat terrorists worldwide. We must train and equip fire departments and medical teams so they can respond to biological or chemical attacks, like the Sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway. We must ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ tighten protection at a number of high profile public sites including government buildings, national landmarks and national parks. There are other areas where Congress can and should act to strengthen our fight against terrorism. We need new laws I have proposed to crack down on money laundering and to prosecute and punish those who commit violent crimes against American citizens abroad, who add taggants to gun powder used in bombs so we can track down the bomb makers, to extend the same police power we now have against organized crime to ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ tapping all the phones a terrorist uses so we can better prevent ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ terrorist attacks. And I again call upon the Senate to ratify without delay the Chemical Weapons Convention. We need all these laws, and we need them now, before ^^^ Congress recesses for the year. Terrorists don't wait and neither should we. The American people should be grateful that the Vice President and this fine commission didn't wait and, in fact, delivered on their mandate within just 45 days. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Q Are you any closer, Mr. President, to finding a solution to the TWA crash? THE PRESIDENT: Well, we don't have an answer for you. They are continuing to work and they continue to piece the evidence together, but we don't have an answer now. Q Do you think a missile could have caused it? THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me? Q A missile? THE PRESIDENT: It would be wrong for me to comment until I see the people -- who are doing the report -- final report. Q Mr. President, the high sophisticated technology that you mentioned this morning for screening passengers for bomb detection technology can see through clothes. Do you expect there to be a major ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ debate over privacy issues and civil rights in connection with the deployment of this technology? And could it thwart some of the commission's actions? THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to answer that? THE VICE PRESIDENT: Let me respond to that. We don't -- we think that particular concern has been greatly overstated in some of the preliminary reports. That's only one of several technologies that are SO IT CAN SEE THROUGH CLOTHES ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ discussed in this report. Incidentally, the commission is recommending the establishment of a civil liberties advisory board to review and give advice upon any of the recommendations that might raise privacy or civil liberties concerns. But we think that particular concern has been vastly overstated. Fort Worth to hold drill on how to respond to terrorists By Kathy Sanders Star-Telegram FORT WORTH -- Stay calm. Don't panic. That's not Fort Worth Mayor Kenneth Barr being dragged away at gunpoint this morning by terrorists who've killed his bodyguard at his parking space downtown. And those people on the ground outside City Hall aren't really dead. That car explosion in front of City Hall? Nothing to it. Just a little flash and a big boom. Same thing on the seventh floor of the old Lone Star Gas building. So don't grab your recently permitted handgun, round up the posse and ride to the rescue. It's just the city's emergency people training on how to respond to homegrown terrorists. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "We need to be as real as we can, but at the same time we don't want to cause a panic," said Lt. Kent Worley of the Fort Worth Fire Department. Despite a concentrated campaign to inform and enlighten the public and businesses in a three- block area around City Hall, some officials remain concerned that some bystanders won't know that the shooting and blasts are fake, and may suffer health problems from the shock or may try heroically to intervene with real firepower. "Everybody around here knows what's going on," said Fort Worth's Emergency Management Officer Ted Jones, who conjured up the story line for today's exercise. "My answer to those concerns are if we can do `Walker, Texas Ranger' downtown, then we can do this." Monroe Street, between 10th Street and Texas Street, and some other areas will be cordoned off with police guards, not only as part of the three-hour exercise but to help inform the public, Jones said. The electronic marquee outside the Fort Worth/Tarrant County Convention Center will carry a warning that what people may see between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. is a drill. Signs are posted in the area warning that a drill is under way and not to believe what passers-by see, Jones said. A bullhorn will also sound the same warning at frequent intervals. Even with the training, offices will remain open to conduct regular city business. Although City Hall will be idle during the evacuation and head count, it will return to business within 30 minutes, Jones said. Each year, the city must conduct a training exercise and for this year, the federal government requested that entities use a terrorism ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ theme, Jones said. He has been planning the drill for more than a year, he said. The exercise will begin when an actor portraying the mayor walks with his bodyguard to his parking space. Terrorists, calling themselves Citizens Rebelling Against Politicians and portrayed by members of the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ city's tactical unit and bomb squad, will abduct the mayor in a bloody gunbattle, leaving the bodyguard and one terrorist fatally injured, officials said. The terrorists will flee to the old Lone Star Gas building, which the city owns, where they will kill a few more people, take hostages and hole up on the seventh floor. Firefighters responding to the scene will fall under snipers as will citizens walking around town, the story goes. A car bomb -- using an old police car junker and black powder -- will explode outside City Hall to show officials that the terrorists are serious and from then, chaos will reign in the three block area with several more incidents that Jones declined to mention. At least 15 people will be transported to John Peter Smith Hospital by MedStar ambulance personnel, all of whom are part of the exercise. _________________________________________________________________ © 1996 Fort Worth Star-Telegram -- Terms and Conditions -- Send us your Feedback. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: address change Date: 11 Sep 1996 17:55:29 -0600 my new address is loboazul@bluewolf.com I should still get mail at the old one but you never know. thanks, jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: address change Date: 11 Sep 1996 17:12:41 -0600 >my new address is loboazul@bluewolf.com > >I should still get mail at the old one but you never know. > >thanks, > >jim WHat does this mean? Did you get a "virtual domain" with someone runnin it for ya or do you have your own servers? I just got a new domain: shire.net pengar.com is still my main one. I want to try and raise $40k to set up an email forwarding business like pobox.com for folks who move emails a lot they can have a set email address they publish. Do you know any folks who do startups and can help me raise the $40k? (in your wealth of contacts :-) regards Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Lewis Glendenning Subject: Re: (fwd) Bob Dole Promises A Police State - NRA & ACLU Support Him Date: 11 Sep 1996 19:52:36 -0700 (PDT) But it will. The NRA is a 'real politique' organization, i.e. a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. My money ended up on both sides of several races in the '92 elections, so I don't give money to the ILA any more. Lew Glendenning rlglende@netcom.com "Ideology? We don't got no Ideology. We don't need no stinkin Ideology! We have a CONSTITUTION!" The CONSTITUTION, the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, and NOTHING BUT the CONSTITUTION. On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Howlin' Blue wrote: > pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: jzychik@pacificnet.net (Joe Zychik) > > Bob Dole Promises A Police State - NRA & ACLU Support Him > > > Then NRA has not endorsed Bob Dole. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Donna J. Logan" Subject: RE: Why is Fort Worth holding a mock drill today with Dissidents holding city officials as hostages??? Date: 12 Sep 1996 08:35:52 -0400 (EDT) On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > The electronic marquee outside the Fort Worth/Tarrant County > Convention Center will carry a warning that what people may see > between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. is a drill. Signs are posted in the area Seems to me, if they wanted to minimize problems caused by civilians not knowing what's going on, a better time than most people's lunch hour should have been chosen.... > Each year, the city must conduct a training exercise and for this > year, the federal government requested that entities use a terrorism > theme, Jones said. He has been planning the drill for more than a > year, he said. Hmmm...did the feds only ask Ft. Worth to conduct a 'terrorist' exercise, or has the same request gone out to other communities? Has anyone heard of any similar exercises being conducted by any other cities? > The exercise will begin when an actor portraying the mayor walks with > his bodyguard to his parking space. Terrorists, calling themselves Does the mayor of Ft. Worth NORMALLY travel to work surrounded by bodyguards? I know the mayors in my area don't....what is it about the Ft. Worth mayor, that he needs to have constant bodyguards? > Citizens Rebelling Against Politicians and portrayed by members of the CRAP...how cute. :-/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Why is Fort Worth holding a mock drill today with Dissidents holding city officials as hostages??? Date: 12 Sep 1996 09:39:44 -0400 >You *are* referring to the acronym, aren't you? Yeah, C.R.A.P., you've got to love it. Plus the pure truth of it. They really are worried about people just plain sick of it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Chinese warns religion believers (fwd) Date: 12 Sep 1996 13:37:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Thursday September 12 7:25 AM EDT Li Peng Warns Religious to Obey Law BEIJING (Reuter) - Chinese Premier Li Peng warned believers not to step out of line and called for tighter controls on religious activities while on a visit to China's restive Muslim northwest, the People's Daily said Thursday. ``Religious activities must take place within legal limits,'' the Communist Party newspaper quoted Li as saying during a visit to northwestern China's mostly Muslim Xinjiang region. ``The relevant departments should...step up the control of religious affairs,'' Li said. Li said China upholds freedom of religious belief, but he added that religion should serve the aims of socialism. He did not elaborate on how the faithful should follow those precepts under Beijing's atheist communist rulers. Xinjiang officials battling the increasingly violent campaign for independence have warned that ``splittism'' and illegal religious activities posed the most serious threat to stability in the region. Beijing last May ordered tighter border controls in the region to try to curb the smuggling of weapons and subversive materials from neighboring Muslim states. Xinjiang borders on Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. _________________________________________________________________ Next Story: Clinton ask the IRS to copy Red China on 501C churches "We have a lot to learn about subversive religions and how to treat them in a way that better supports Socialism." _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Congresswoman Suspected of Tax Evasion Date: 12 Sep 1996 15:32:08 -0700 [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 28, 1996 Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion Payson, Arizona. Paul Mitchell, a Counselor at Law and Citizen of Arizona state, today challenged U.S. Representative Barbara Kennelly to stop evading the big question about federal income taxes: Does the term "State" at Internal Revenue Code 3121(e) include only the named federal territories and possessions of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa? Can this be income tax evasion? Read on. In a letter to Mr. John Randall of San Diego last January 24, Kennelly responded to a written request from Randall asking her if the word "State" in 26 U.S. Code 3121(e) and in other pending legislation were the same. Rep. Kennelly, a Democrat from Connecticut, first checked with the Legislative Counsel and with the Congressional Research Service about the definition. "According to these legal experts," answered Kennelly, "the definitions are not the same. The term state in 26 U.S. Code 3121 (e) specifically includes only the named U.S. territories and possessions." Her letter to Randall, on official House of Representatives stationery, was dated January 24, 1996. This admission is earth-shaking, according to Paul Mitchell, who has conducted an in-depth investigation of federal laws and the U.S. Constitution for seven years now. If the Internal Revenue Code was deliberately written to confuse the American people into believing that "State" means "Arizona" or "California," when it does not, then the Congress has a lot of explaining to do. Mitchell has since challenged Kennelly to produce copies of the correspondence she received from the Legislative Counsel and Congressional Research Service, but she has now fallen silent and refuses to answer any follow-up letters. Congress, incidentally, exempted themselves from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. Writing under several pen names, Paul Mitchell's work has reached all the way into the U.S. Supreme Court, which adopted "the federal zone" as a household word in their sweeping 1995 decision in U.S. v. Lopez. His book entitled The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue, was first published in 1992, and became an instant underground success for its lucid language and indisputable legal authority. The book was originally written in electronic form, which made it easy to disseminate through the Internet. The fourth edition can be viewed with the Alta Vista search engine, developed by Digital Equipment Corporation. The Internet version does not preserve any bold, underline, or italics, however. Mitchell has used special character formats to highlight important words and phrases in federal statutes and case laws, easing the reader's burden of deciphering an otherwise unintelligible code. Mitchell Challenges U.S. Rep. Barbara Kennelly: Page 1 of 2 It is clear, there is a huge difference between the area covered by the federal zone, and the area covered by the 50 States. "Money is a powerful motivation for all of us," writes Mitchell in a chapter from the book. "Congress had literally trillions of dollars to gain by convincing most Americans they were inside its revenue base when, in fact, most Americans were outside its revenue base, and remain outside even today. This is deception on a grand scale, and the proof of this deception is found in the statute itself." Indeed, the proof is now leaking out on official Congressional stationery. Mitchell goes on to argue, it is no wonder why public relations "officials" of the IRS cringe in fear when dedicated Patriots admit, out loud and in person, that they have read the law. It is quite stunning how the carefully crafted definitions of "United States" do appear to unlock a statute that is horribly complex and deliberately so. As fate would have it, these carefully crafted definitions also expose perhaps the greatest fiscal fraud that has ever been perpetrated upon any people at any time in the history of the world. It is now time for a shift in the wind. That shift is being driven by a growing understanding of personal status and its relation to government territorial jurisdiction. The vivid pattern that has now painfully emerged is that "citizens of the United States", as defined in federal tax law, are the intended victims of a modern statutory slavery that was predicted by the infamous Hazard Circular soon after the Civil War began. This circular admitted that chattel slavery was doomed, so the bankers needed to invent a new kind of slaves. These "statutory" slaves are now burdened with a bogus federal debt which is spiralling out of control. The White House budget office recently invented a new kind of "generational accounting" so as to project a tax load of seventy-one percent on future generations of these "citizens of the United States". The final version of that report upped the projection to eighty percent. "It is our duty to ensure that this statutory slavery is soon gone with the wind, just like its grisly and ill-fated predecessor," concludes Paul Mitchell. The fifth anniversary edition of The Federal Zone will be available before the end of the year. Copies of Mitchell's correspondence with U.S. Representative Kennelly can be obtained by sending email to pmitch@primenet.com, Mitchell's email address on the Internet. # # # Mitchell Challenges U.S. Rep. Barbara Kennelly: Page 2 of 2 ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing,] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 12 Sep 1996 13:24:27 -0500 from another list: I said earlier: >>I assume you all belong to the NRA already - if not, you have no right to >>enjoy what freedoms we in the NRA have fought to preserve for you. ----- Some cretin at replied: >Hey man, FUCK YOU. >Everyone has _every_ _right_ to enjoy their freedoms, regardless >of what the NRA does or doesn't do. Rights are for everyone, even the >people you don't like. And, if you'll bother to inquire with the NRA, >they will indeed confirm that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution >isn't just for people who pay the NRA every year. ----- My considered reply: The role of the unorganized militia is to keep govt tyranny in check (see the Constitution). That militia is composed of all non-govt citizens who have and can use firearms. Why should we, who take the time to be militia members by virtue of our firearms skills, do all the work to protect hoplophobic, gun control freaks from tyranny? BTW, I thought it was a sign of terminal immaturity to use abusive foul language in a direct personal attack on the Internet. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Rep addrs Date: 12 Sep 1996 12:35:48 PST Does anyone have an email addr that goes direct to the Dole/Kemp Campaign Hindquarters as opposed to the general RNC? I thought I had them both but seem to have misplaced them. Thanks. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Donna J. Logan" Subject: MSNBC seeks Atlanta bomb info... Date: 12 Sep 1996 19:39:14 -0400 (EDT) I haven't heard who they've settled on as their new patsy...Starr? Anyways, anyone wishing to 'help' this chick out, feel free... ;-) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- If anyone has any information about the new suspect in the Olympic bombing, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Please email me here or call me at 201-583-5216. Thanks, Mary Kathleen Flynn, MSNBC Internet Correspondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Rerun Date: 12 Sep 1996 17:07:53 -0700 A forward... ------------ For years we have heard learned people compare the fall of the Roman Empire to conditions that are arising in America. More recently, we have heard paranoid, yet learned nonetheless, people compare the rise of the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler in pre-WWII Germany to the rise of federal intrusion into the private lives of Americans and the overregulation of their businesses and confiscation of their weapons. Whether or not these comparisons have any validity will inevitably be realized over time. What we do know from history is that the people of Rome and the people of Germany had something in common up to the moment their little lives were thrown into utter chaos: Both peoples, centuries apart, were ignorant and apathetic of the tide of developments that ultimately ended their respective civilizations as they had previously known them. Hmmm. Don Harkins Media Access altragee@dmi.net - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: RE: FYA (fwd) Date: 12 Sep 1996 16:22:12 PST On Sep 12, Don Corbitt wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] I checked with product support (PSS) and we decided it's a hardware problem.... :-) -- Don Corbitt President, Microsoft Gun Club "Geeks With Guns" (I still think the Microsoft Gun Club slogan should be "Our Response to Netscape", but somehow I don't think the Justice Department would find that amusing :-) >---------- > >Don't know if this should be targeted against shooters or computer >dinks? Don Corbitt may have an observation here! > ><---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> >Subject: Re: FYA (fwd) >To: ma-firearms@europe.std.com >Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:15:34 -0400 (EDT) >From: Drew Betz >Reply-To: ma-firearms@europe.std.com > >Yo! > > One of Microsoft's finest techs was drafted and sent to boot camp. At the > rifle range, he was given some instruction, a rifle and bullets. He fired > several shots at the target. The report came from the target area that all > attempts had completely missed the target. The tech looked at his >rifle,and > then at the target. He looked at the rifle again, and then at the target > again. He put his finger over the end of the rifle barrel and squeezed >the > trigger with his other hand. The end of his finger was blown off, >whereuponhe > yelled toward the target area: "It's leaving here just fine, the trouble >must > be at your end!" [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Attached Files: A Primer Date: 12 Sep 1996 19:33:51 -0700 A Primer on Encoding Attached Files One of the most commercially successful email packages is Eudora Lite and Eudora Pro. The former is usually made available as shareware from Internet Service Providers; the on-line documentation is stripped out to give the user a motive to buy the latter "Professional" version. This software is a good benchmark to compare with other email software. A key capability is the "attached file" function, which sends an "attachment" as a separate file, and writes it into a specified directory on the inbound user's computer (e.g. C:\ATTACH is the one I use). This is like a loading dock, for staging inbound attachments to their ultimate destination. Files which are transmitted over the Internet are usually encoded, to provide a minimal level of encryption to the transmission. In Eudora, there are three different encoding methods: MIME, BinHex, and Uuencode. The problem with these encoding methods is that other email packages may use one, but not the other two. So, email senders may have their Eudora or similar software set to use one of these three, by default, but the one they choose as their default is not one which the inbound software is capable of handling. So, when the inbound user tries to view the attached files, they are gibberish. The mid-term solution to this problem is to upgrade to a package like Eudora Pro. In the long-term, software developers will have all necessary encoding and decoding logics, and software will be able to work out a pairwise agreement for to guarantee compatibility. The very short-term solution is to tell the sender, before s/he sends anything, what encoding you can decode upon receipt of the sender's attachments. This may sound a bit awkward, but the alternative is a lot of trial-and-error until the right pairwise combination is found (e.g. MIME-to-MIME, BinHex-to-BinHex, Uuencode-to-Uuencode). I know from experience, because I have had to re-send everything three different times. Trial-and-error does work, but it is the most time-consuming method of problem solving known to mankind. I speak from experience! So, as for life in general, don't presume anything. Tell your sender what encoding(s) you can handle, if any, before the sender attaches anything to your inbound email. The worst case is the sender cannot encode in anything you can decode. It would be better to find this out beforehand, so you don't have to waste your time trying to do the impossible (i.e. decode an encoding you simply cannot decode). I hope this helps. I am not an expert on this subject, by any means, so if some of you want to elaborate on this topic for our benefit, please do so. I would appreciate your input and expert clarification. Thanks so much. /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing,] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 12 Sep 1996 23:30:48 EDT On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:24:27 -0500 "R. Knauer-AIMNET" writes: > from another list: > >I said earlier: > >>>I assume you all belong to the NRA already - if not, you have no >right to >>>enjoy what freedoms we in the NRA have fought to preserve for you. > >----- > >Some cretin at replied: > >>Hey man, FUCK YOU. >My considered reply: > >The role of the unorganized militia is to keep govt tyranny in check >(see >the Constitution). That militia is composed of all non-govt citizens >who >have and can use firearms. > >Why should we, who take the time to be militia members by virtue of >our >firearms skills, do all the work to protect hoplophobic, gun control >freaks >from tyranny? > >BTW, I thought it was a sign of terminal immaturity to use abusive >foul >language in a direct personal attack on the Internet. > >Bob Knauer > >-- > >************************************************** That right Bob, kill'em with kindness. Gary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Don't Mess with Bill (fwd) Date: 13 Sep 1996 08:30:42 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Mess With Bill -------------------- Patricia Mendoza, arrested for "disorderly conduct" when she dared to shout at Bill Clinton, "You suck," describes herself and her husband as boring people. "We own a station wagon. We're very boring people," she reportedly says. But since she dared to "diss" Brother Bill, she has been locked up for 14 hours, subpoenaed by the SS (Secret Service), and has received a letter from the IRS saying basically, according to the Washington Times National Weekly Edition (9/8/96), "We're going to take your house." She is said to be frightened that her children will be taken away from her. "I didn't let my kids out of my sight for a month and a half," she is quoted as saying. "I thought they were going to take my kids." What's next? Will Lord Clinton declare her hometown, the Chicago suburb of Westchester, a "no-fly zone?" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] Fwd: (Fwd) DEA agents accuse CIA of tapping phones of overseas bureau (fwd) Date: 13 Sep 1996 08:37:03 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --------------------- Forwarded message: Sender: iufo-approval@alterzone.com Reply-to: iufo@alterzone.com CC: iufo@alterzone.com -> SearchNet's iufo Mailing List (The CIA needs to find out what DEA knows about their drug operations, so that they can bribe or 'neutralize' officials who know too much. --SW) DEA agents accuse CIA of tapping phones of overseas bureaus Copyright c 1996 Nando.net Copyright c 1996 The Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO (Sep 12, 1996 7:47 p.m. EDT) -- The CIA and other spy agencies have systematically tapped the phones of overseas Drug Enforcement Administration offices, according to a class action lawsuit agents filed Thursday in Washington. The lawsuit, which also names the National Security Agency and the State Department, seeks a court order barring those agencies from any further wiretapping. "These agencies have a pattern and practice of eavesdropping on DEA agents' and employees' conversations while they are serving the government overseas," said attorney Brian Leighton of Clovis, Calif. But legal experts say it could be a difficult lawsuit to win, especially since an employer -- in this case the government -- generally has a right to listen to employee conversation on office phones. It also doesn't help that national security was involved and that courts have held that U.S. citizens don't have constitutional rights overseas. "It's an uphill battle. It's going to be a tough suit," said constitutional law expert Paul Rothstein of Georgetown University. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all DEA agents, but the agency itself was not part of the action. The only DEA agent named as a plaintiff in the suit is Richard A. Horn, currently with the agency's New Orleans bureau. Five other incidents involving other unidentified agents are alleged. Two years ago Horn filed a lawsuit accusing U.S. officials of undermining his anti-drug efforts in Burma. That suit is still pending. Leighton said subsequent contacts with other DEA personnel revealed a pattern of similar abuses around the world. CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said he could not comment directly on the class action lawsuit, but defended his agency. "It is not the CIA's mission, nor is it part of the operations of the agency, to surveil in any manner U.S. officials, or other U.S. citizens at home or abroad," Mansfield said. The only exception would be in counterintelligence cases, he added, and then only in consultation with senior Justice Department officials. DEA spokesman James McGivney said he could not comment on pending litigation, but noted that as a U.S. citizen, Horn had the right file his own lawsuit. John Russell, spokesman for the Justice Department, which defends the other agencies in lawsuits, said only, "we will respond in court." In Horn's previous case, Leighton said, the Justice Department angered DEA agents by claiming they have no Fourth Amendment constitutional right against wiretapping when working outside the country. Leighton, a former federal prosecutor, said the lawsuit doesn't address the reasons for the alleged electronic eavesdropping. "My assumption is because they want to know what DEA is doing, they want to rip off DEA informants, they want to know DEA contacts within foreign governments," Leighton said. "And with the Cold War over, these agencies are looking for a new mission." An April 1996 letter to agents by Horn and Leighton, details the allegation of wiretapping against the agent in Burma. Horn's residence "was the target of a U.S. Government Agency-sponsored electronic audio intercept," it said. "Horn had occasion to see a cable containing his words in quotation marks, that he had spoken to another DEA agent, set forth exactly as stated..." The suit also reports alleged wiretaps against DEA agents in the Dominican Republic from 1987 to 1990, in May 1993 and September 1994 at the Bangkok, Thailand office; at the Guatemala City office in 1984, 1985 and from 1987 to 1989; and in an unidentified location in April 1987. The suit, assigned to U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene, names as defendants Secretary of State Warren Christopher, CIA Director John Deutch and NSA Director Adm. J.M. McConnell. Anomalous Images and UFO Files http://www.linex.com/ufo -> Send "subscribe iufo " to majordomo@alterzone.com -> Posted by: "Steve Wingate" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 13 Sep 1996 10:12:42 -0400 > >The role of the unorganized militia is to keep govt tyranny in check (see >the Constitution). That militia is composed of all non-govt citizens who >have and can use firearms. > >Why should we, who take the time to be militia members by virtue of our >firearms skills, do all the work to protect hoplophobic, gun control freaks >from tyranny? > >BTW, I thought it was a sign of terminal immaturity to use abusive foul >language in a direct personal attack on the Internet. > I'd like to point out that this is a pretty poorly reasoned piece of argument. Yes, the militia is roughly as you have described. Also, the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. No, the general citizen has no obligation to bear arms. The founders recognized the rights of citizens who, as a matter of conciense, declined to bear arms. You sound like you're trying to set up two classes of citizens, one that you will defend against tyranny and one that you will not. I think that by making this basic distinction, you are setting yourself up for a fall at the hands of tyrants (who are very good at salami politics). You've already sliced off non-gun owners, elevated your own militia participation (whatever form that may take) to a prefered class, and now you're slicing off nonNRA member gun-owners. You've salamied yourself, and didn't need the help of tyrants to do it. Bad move. Whether the first poster is a dues paying member of the NRA is totally irrelevant to his rights under the Constitution. This is the Restore Our Constitution email list, right? One man's opinion. Jack Curtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: (fwd) Rerun Date: 13 Sep 1996 10:44:37 -0400 >For years we have heard learned people compare the fall of the Roman Empire >to conditions that are arising in America. > >More recently, we have heard paranoid, yet learned nonetheless, people >compare the rise of the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler in pre-WWII Germany to >the rise of federal intrusion into the private lives of Americans and the >overregulation of their businesses and confiscation of their weapons. > As a side note. An article in the latest "The Weekly Standard", writing about the Dick Morris, Bill Clinton debacle, the author compares the moral climate surrounding the current administration to 18th century France. Paraphrasing, he says "we scoff at members of the court at Versailles who would arrange to be present when the Sun King defecated" and then goes on to ask what future people will think of the "zone of solipsism" that surrounds Mr. Clinton. Jack Curtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Fibbies creating *evidence* ????? Date: 13 Sep 1996 08:21:18 -0700 forwarded from elsewhere... > This morning, while listening to WSB 750 out of Atlanta, they >reported that the FBI had taken a *duffle bag* from a store >selling army surplus goods. The store owner said they wanted >to photograph it, and that it *might have an indirect bearing on >Olympic Bombing case*. > Now, my question is, why did they *need* that duffle bag??? >Could it be they intend to fabricate the evidence they need to >set up a militia group??? Are they taking lessons from the >batf-reaks (or vice versa)???? > The first *report* I heard from the media stated that it was a >*leather pouch*. The next *report* said it was a *canvas-type >pouch*. A week later they said, * it was in a paper bag*. Do >they really know, or are they making it up as they go along??? > I suspect they are looking at the pictures of the people who >attended Bob Starr's hearings and rallys and are manipulating >the facts to fit whomever they choose to be the *mad bomber* > I find it facinating that out of the last 22 bombings in the >united States, 17 have been by *left-wing terrorists*. People >involved in the *green* movement. Bio-terrorists. To date, I >have not been able to find one incident in which the bombing >has been carried out by a Militia. > Before Clinton became president we did not have *domestic >terrorism* in this country. I really pity anyone that is so paranoid >that they see *domestic terrorism* under every tree, and behind >every bush. But Clinton, like most children of alcoholics, can not >function unless he has a *crisis*, real or imagined, on his hands. > For a person like Clinton I imagine that the militias, or for >that matter any person who believes strongly in the Constitution, >does pose a *threat*. It is not the type of threat that physical >force entails however. It is the threat of educating the people to >the overstepping of bounds that the federal government is involved >in. The more people that we can educate, the greater the threat >to our representatives, senators, and all of our elected officials. >They seem to have forgotton that they work for us, not the other >way around. > >Freedom and Liberty and Justice for ALL?????? >Charli Gribble >53901 State Hwy 79 >Blountsville Al 35031 - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: First Texas Flag (fwd) Date: 13 Sep 1996 10:42:10 -0500 (CDT) While I was at a NIGP, National Institute of Governmental Buyers convention in August I took time to tour the newly renovated State of Texas Capital building in Austin. On the wall in the Senate chambers was a painting of a woman holding a flag on display on the wall. The flag had in the middle the Texas 5 point star with the letters T^E^X^A^S^ between each point. On the bottom of the case was this: JOANNA TROUTMAN 1835 Georgia Volunteers, white silk 5 pointed star, Liberty or Death Ubi Libertas Habitat Ibi Nostra Patria Est (Where Liberty Resides there is my Country) Raised by James Fannon at Goliad when the Texas Declaration of Independence was signed March 8, 1836 I never new where the Texas star had come from until I read this. Yesterday I was in the Texas home page http://www.sos.state.tx.us/tac/info.struct.html and found a picture of it. I was really moved by this painting when I read it. The spirit of people back then who gave so much to help found a new Republic of freedom is amazing in contrast to todays couch potatoes. Regards, Paul Watson C.P.M., pwatson@utdallas.edu Senior Buyer UTD The University of Texas at Dallas ph# 214/883-2307,fax# 214/883-2348 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: L&J: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 13 Sep 1996 11:27:57 -0500 >>The role of the unorganized militia is to keep govt tyranny in check (see >>the Constitution). That militia is composed of all non-govt citizens who >>have and can use firearms. >> >>Why should we, who take the time to be militia members by virtue of our >>firearms skills, do all the work to protect hoplophobic, gun control freaks >>from tyranny? > > I'd like to point out that this is a pretty poorly reasoned piece > of argument. Yes, the militia is roughly as you have described. > Also, the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear > arms. No, the general citizen has no obligation to bear arms. The > founders recognized the rights of citizens who, as a matter of conciense, > declined to bear arms. > > You sound like you're trying to set up two classes of citizens, one that > you will defend against tyranny and one that you will not. > > I think that by making this basic distinction, you are setting yourself up > for a fall at the hands of tyrants (who are very good at salami politics). > You've already sliced off non-gun owners, elevated your own militia > participation (whatever form that may take) to a prefered class, and now > you're slicing off nonNRA member gun-owners. You've salamied yourself, > and didn't need the help of tyrants to do it. > > Bad move. > > Whether the first poster is a dues paying member of the NRA is totally > irrelevant to his rights under the Constitution. ----- I must disagree with your comments above. But first I do not buy your "salami" argument since it itself is a "salami" argument - an attempt to divide people into two classes, those who use "salami" arguments and those who do not. The Constitution depends on all able-bodied, non-govt citizens to keep and bear arms in the Constitutional Militia. In fact the FF *required* that as part of being a citizen, otherwise they would not have addressed it as an important matter in the Constitution itself. BTW, the Constitutional Militia is *NOT* to be confused with various paramilitary groups springing up all over America calling themselves "militias". I do not belong to any paramilitary group, nor do I have any intentions of so doing in the immediate future, but I am still a member of the Constitutional Militia nonetheless by virtue of firearms ownership and skill. Since the NRA is the only Second Amendment orgainzation with any *serious* national political clout (reference the November 1994 Massacre), I feel that it is incumbant on every citizen to have at least one NRA membership per household. It only costs $0.10 per day to be a member and you will have joined a member base of 3.5 million like-minded partiotic citizens. That's ten cents a day to be a patriot and weigh in come Election Day - one helluva a bargain by any measure. We are in a very serious crisis caused by "citizens" not keeping careful watch over their govt. - and that includes the citizen organization, the NRA, of a few years past. But now things have changed - the NRA has returned basically to it original charter, and citizens everywhere are becoming proficient with firearms. Just look at all the CHL/CCW states - 31 at last count. That's the result of intense NRA activity at the state level. I conclude that if a person is not a member of the Constitutional Militia by virtue of firearms ownership and skill, much less not a member of the NRA, that person is not fully a citizen in the sense the FF expected. Hell, even little old ladies in wheelchairs have been known to kill criminals with guns, so there is no excuse for the rest of us to let the JBGTs gas and burn fellow citizens, women and children alike, in their church - and then send the few survivors to prison. The FF must be rolling in their graves right now. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: L&J: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 13 Sep 1996 14:02:49 -0400 Bob, I'm not trying to anger you, or discredit you. I've worked together with many people whom I disagree with on many topics, when the cause was just. >I must disagree with your comments above. But first I do not buy your >"salami" argument since it itself is a "salami" argument - an attempt to >divide people into two classes, those who use "salami" arguments and those >who do not. > Ha, ha. Clever logical point. >The Constitution depends on all able-bodied, non-govt citizens to keep and >bear arms in the Constitutional Militia. In fact the FF *required* that as >part of being a citizen, otherwise they would not have addressed it as an >important matter in the Constitution itself. > I believe this is incorrect, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned. The FF did not require everyone to bear arms. The FF considered a 2nd amendment that would require citizens to bear arms, and then the religious exception was raised. There was debate about including an explicit clause to note that people with conflicting matters of personal conciense would not have to bear arms. Then, this was dropped in favor of the current 2nd Amendment wording, which I don't have to quote for you. This protects the right, but does not require anyone to own or train in the use of a firearm. >BTW, the Constitutional Militia is *NOT* to be confused with various >paramilitary groups springing up all over America calling themselves >"militias". I do not belong to any paramilitary group, nor do I have any >intentions of so doing in the immediate future, but I am still a member of >the Constitutional Militia nonetheless by virtue of firearms ownership and >skill. I agree absolutely. >Since the NRA is the only Second Amendment orgainzation with any *serious* >national political clout (reference the November 1994 Massacre), I feel that >it is incumbant on every citizen to have at least one NRA membership per >household. It only costs $0.10 per day to be a member and you will have >joined a member base of 3.5 million like-minded partiotic citizens. That's >ten cents a day to be a patriot and weigh in come Election Day - one helluva >a bargain by any measure. > I agree that it is a small step. >We are in a very serious crisis caused by "citizens" not keeping careful >watch over their govt. - and that includes the citizen organization, the >NRA, of a few years past. But now things have changed - the NRA has returned >basically to it original charter, and citizens everywhere are becoming >proficient with firearms. Just look at all the CHL/CCW states - 31 at last >count. That's the result of intense NRA activity at the state level. > >I conclude that if a person is not a member of the Constitutional Militia by >virtue of firearms ownership and skill, much less not a member of the NRA, >that person is not fully a citizen in the sense the FF expected. > I disagree. As a matter of practical propaganda, if we require that people join the NRA and own firearms and become skilled in their use *before* we will address them as citizens, then guess what - We Lose. This leaves out 90% of the voting public and leaves us open to all kinds of counter attacks. If you want to only invite to dinner people who are NRA members and skilled gun owners, by all means do so. If you will only accept as citizens those people, then just as a matter of human nature, the other 90% are going to reject your views out of hand. As an example of some one-on-one propaganda, that I have used effectively with people who are non-gun owners and are about to sneer at me (i.e. paint me as a gun nut), I say: "You know, I think that a politician's willingness to acknowledge 2nd Amendment as an individual right is a pretty good litmus test for how he is going to handle power. If they want the government to have a monopoly on armed force, what are they planning to do next?" Try it, it works with some people. ciao, Jack Curtis > >Bob Knauer > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 13 Sep 1996 14:47:06 -0500 >I believe this is incorrect, at least as far as the Constitution is >concerned. The FF did not require everyone to bear arms. The FF considered >a 2nd amendment that would require citizens to bear arms, and then the >religious exception was raised. There was debate about including an explicit >clause to note that people with conflicting matters of personal conciense >would not have to bear arms. Then,this was dropped in favor of the current >2nd Amendment wording, which I don't have to quote for you. This protects >the right, but does not require anyone to own or train in the use of a >firearm. Perhaps - but I wonder if the FF were that understanding. I agree that people who have deep serious scruples, religious or otherwise, would best leave the business of firearms to others - but these people should not be trying to disarm us just because they have a mental problem or hide behind "conscience" to cover up outright laziness. >I disagree. As a matter of practical propaganda, if we require that people >join the NRA and own firearms and become skilled in their use *before* we >will address them as citizens, then guess what - We Lose. This leaves out >90% of the voting public and leaves us open to all kinds of counter attacks. > >If you want to only invite to dinner people who are NRA members and skilled >gun owners, by all means do so. If you will only accept as citizens those >people, then just as a matter of human nature, the other 90% are going to >reject your views out of hand. > >As an example of some one-on-one propaganda, that I have used effectively >with people who are non-gun owners and are about to sneer at me (i.e. paint >me as a gun nut), I say: "You know, I think that a politician's willingness >to acknowledge 2nd Amendment as an individual right is a pretty good litmus >test for how he is going to handle power. If they want the government to >have a monopoly on armed force, what are they planning to do next?" I am trying to draw a fine distinction here and am obviously failing. It comes from earlier discussions on what provisions there are in the Constitution to ward off the inevitable assaults from the Criminal Element in politics - like the Fascist Criminals that are entrenched in Washington right now and have been since the time of Mr. Tyrant Himself, A. Lincoln. 3.5 million NRA members may be not enough this time around - the November 1994 Massacre notwithstanding. The Criminals have upped the ante, and we need all the help we can get. So I ask everyone, even those who don't own firearms, to consider joining the NRA. If we lose this battle, like the South lost the War of Northern Aggression, then we who did our part, however insignificant on the individual level, are going to wonder why more people didn't help out - like join the NRA, buy a firearm and learn how to use it, etc. I for one am going to be mighty pissed off if we lose this whole thing just because there wasn't a critical mass of pro-RKBA patriots out there weighing in, at ten cents per day no less. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Silberger Subject: Charrrge! Date: 13 Sep 1996 16:07:32 EDT ======================================================================== 33 That announcment I just finished reading from Michael Cloud was the very first of his writings I have encountered with its authorship plainly disclosed. It was a superb piece. Michael Cloud deserves our congratulations for a truly fine piece of argumentation. I will repost that particular HarryBrowne Campaign announcement as widely as I can. Another thought: If it does happen, as some of us pessimistic grundges anticipate, that Harry Browne will be excluded from those debates, then maybe the Browne Campaign can get together with Ralph Nader and, in the case that Perot also will have been excluded, with Perot as well, and arrange with an enterprising television system to stage our own debates despite our exclusion from the "regular" debates. Those "regular" debates would, of course, discussed gleefully during such alternative debates. We could perhaps even contrive to get our alternative debates running concurrently, and in competition with, the Clinton-Dole debates. Moreover, our debates, unlike those involving DoltonClint, could be in fact substantive, with open phone lines and (gasp!) uncensored phone questions manned from all over the country. I've got ideas on how such a debate format could go, and how we might make a national mockery of those trussed-up press conferences which now pass for discussions by presidential candidates. Hell, we could run a spectacle which might draw in television audiences of the sort that attended endlessly to the OJSimpson tedium! Anybody at HarryBrowne96 care to phone me? I'll be happy to talk at any hour of the day or night. My phone number is 914-255-8819. Best wishes. --Donald Silberger ========================================================================= Return-Path: Received: from UICVM (NJE origin SMTP2@UICVM) by UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2983; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:37:05 -0500 Received: from hustle.rahul.net by UICVM.UIC.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP; Fri, 13 Sep 96 10:36:33 CDT Received: by hustle.rahul.net with UUCP id AA07137 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for SILBERGD@SNYNEWVM.bitnet); Fri, 13 Sep 1996 08:21:21 -0700 Received: by dehnbase.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Fri, 13 Sep 96 07:50:29 PDT Message-Id: <58428.323974B4.ann@HarryBrowne96.org> Sender: announce-request@HarryBrowne96.org Reply-To: campaign@HarryBrowne96.org X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released with lsendfix 1.6a Paul Kirk Tries to Rig the 1996 Presidential Super Bowl by Michael Cloud Projects Manager, Harry Browne for President Adrien Seybert, in the Tuesday September 10th issue of 1996 PoliticsNow, quotes Presidential Debates Commissioner (and former Democratic National Chair) Paul Kirk as saying, "(The Presidential Debates) is not Candidates' Night In D.C. This is the endgame. This is the Super Bowl. And In order to get into the Super Bowl, you have to obtain certain victories along the way." Paul Kirk is confused. November 5th is America's Presidential Super Bowl. The Constitution says so. Everything before Election Day is regular season play and divisional playoffs. During the regular football season, last year's Super Bowl Champs have to play even the lowliest qualified teams. And they have to play new franchise teams. Last season's Super Bowl Champs can't refuse to play the other qualified teams and demand to go straight to the Super Bowl. And the last Super Bowl Champs can't claim wins against teams they refuse to face on a level playing field. The first Presidential Debates are regular season games. Perhaps the later ones are the playoffs after the stronger political franchises eliminate the weaker teams. But the older franchises, the Democratic and Republican organizations, have to defeat the other franchises on the playing field. This is the way the National Football League does it. Honest and fair. May the best team win. But the teams must meet on the field, do battle, and win their victory. They can't rig the game, bribe the refs, refuse to play against weaker or newer franchises, and cheat their way to a hollow victory. Such a `victory' would cheat every fan in every city across America. It's time that former Democratic National Chair Paul Kirk and former Republican National Chair Frank Fahrenkopf, and the other Republican and Democratic appointees who run the Presidential Debates Commission, stop trying to `fix' the Presidential Superbowl. It's time for the 1992 Presidential Super Bowl Victors and the runners up play the other teams during the regular political season. Let Clinton and Dole meet with Wild Card Ross Perot and Dark Horse Harry Browne. Both Perot and Browne will be on the ballot in all 50 states. Both Perot and Browne have qualified for the playoffs. Why won't Clinton and Dole meet Ross Perot and Harry Browne on the playing field...in front of the fans - America's voters? Because the Republican and Democratic teams refuse to schedule games against Ross Perot and Harry Browne. Because the Republican and Democratic teams write the rules to exclude every team except theirs. Because the Republican and Democratic teams hire the refs. Refs who look the other way. Refs who only call penalties against the other teams. Refs who are bought and paid for. The Refs work for Clinton and Dole. Paul Kirk is against everything American Sports offers the fans. A level playing field. Fair rules. Honest officiating. Impartial Referees. Perennial favorites. Underdogs. Crushing victories. Surprise upsets. Home town favorites. Rooting for your own team. Last season's cellar team battling their way to the top. From zero to hero. Cinderella stories. Open and honest competition. Paul Kirk is an enemy of the spirit of American football. An enemy of competitive sports. To win, you must compete. Paul Kirk has insulted America's football fans. And all Americans who love a fair fight - not a `fixed' fight. If Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf believe in a level playing field and open and fair competition, make Bill Clinton and Bob Dole debate the only two other 50 state qualified candidates for President of the United States: Ross Perot of the Reform Party and Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate for President. By rigging the playoffs, they are rigging the Presidential Super Bowl: the November 5th Election. Will Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf get away with `fixing' America's Presidential Super Bowl? Or will we cry `Foul' and require fair and open debates that include all four 50 state qualified Presidential Candidates: Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, Ross Perot, and Harry Browne? -30- -- Harry Browne for President Campaign@HarryBrowne96.org http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/ fax: 202-333-0072 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037 voice: 202-333-0008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: L&J: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 13 Sep 1996 13:21:36 -0700 At 02:02 PM 9/13/96 -0400, John Curtis wrote: > >>The Constitution depends on all able-bodied, non-govt citizens to keep and >>bear arms in the Constitutional Militia. In fact the FF *required* that as >>part of being a citizen, otherwise they would not have addressed it as an >>important matter in the Constitution itself. >> > I believe this is incorrect, at least as far as the Constitution is > concerned. The FF did not require everyone to bear arms. > The FF considered a 2nd amendment that would require citizens to bear arms, > and then the religious exception was raised. Didn't the 1798 Militia Act require that all households maintain a musket and ammunition in serviceable condition? >There was debate about including an explicit clause to note that people with >conflicting matters of personal conciense would not have to bear arms. Then, >this was dropped in favor of the current 2nd Amendment wording, which I don't >have to quote for you. This protects the right, but does not require anyone >to own or train in the use of a firearm. The argument rejecting an exemption for "religious" people was rejected because, in the opinion of some of the Founders, it could be used to DENY the right to keep and bear arms to people that Congress might declare to be "religious". Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. 8037 Stone Canyon |counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing Citrus Heights, CA|citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent 95610 |crimes and it appears to produce no increase in kmitchel@gvn.net |accidental deaths. If those states which did not 916-449-9152 (vm) |have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had 916-729-0966 (fax)|adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; |4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults |would have been avoided yearly." Crime, |Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns |John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago -------------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm---------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Don't Mess with Bill (fwd) Date: 13 Sep 1996 13:50:32 -0700 Paul Mitchell comments below: At 08:30 AM 9/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:20:47 -0500 (CDT) >From: Brian Redman > >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >Don't Mess With Bill >-------------------- > Patricia Mendoza, arrested for "disorderly conduct" when she >dared to shout at Bill Clinton, "You suck," describes herself and >her husband as boring people. "We own a station wagon. We're >very boring people," she reportedly says. > But since she dared to "diss" Brother Bill, she has been >locked up for 14 hours, subpoenaed by the SS (Secret Service), >and has received a letter from the IRS saying basically, >according to the Washington Times National Weekly Edition >(9/8/96), "We're going to take your house." > She is said to be frightened that her children will be taken >away from her. "I didn't let my kids out of my sight for a month >and a half," she is quoted as saying. "I thought they were going >to take my kids." > What's next? Will Lord Clinton declare her hometown, the >Chicago suburb of Westchester, a "no-fly zone?" > >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Please have Patricia Mendoza contact me here. Thank you. /s/ Paul Mitchell ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing,] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 13 Sep 1996 14:37:51 -0700 (PDT) On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > >I believe this is incorrect, at least as far as the Constitution is > >concerned. The FF did not require everyone to bear arms. The FF > considered >a 2nd amendment that would require citizens to bear arms, and > then the >religious exception was raised. There was debate about including > > Perhaps - but I wonder if the FF were that understanding. I agree that > people who have deep serious scruples, religious or otherwise, would best > leave the business of firearms to others - but these people should not be > trying to disarm us just because they have a mental problem or hide behind > "conscience" to cover up outright laziness. This isnt really related to this (possibly off topic) thread so I apologize in advance to all and sundry. Robert, I have to vigorously disagree with what you said here (expecting that maybe it's not what you meant to say). RKBA is a Right correlative to self defense. It is emphatically -not- best left to others by those of deep scruples. Those of deep scruples need to examine their conscience to find what is Right; to leave the defense of themselves and their principles to those incapable of stopping force/tyranny OR to accept that responsibility themselves. There are many thinking scrupulous people (IMHO) who have fallen victim to the societal propaganda surrounding deadly weapons. I don't think we're best served by either ignoring them hoping they'll one day wake up or by shaking them and screaming into their slumbering ears (though I'll grant you the latter is darned tempting at times). These ethical somniacs must be woken gently, perhaps it will take time but eventually they will gratefully embrace their responsibility and remember who woke them. I think the real issue of this thread is force. Should we force people to do the responsible (kba) thing. We can't, ethically or physically and we shouldnt. -Boyd (all IMHO) Kneeland ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: First Texas Flag (fwd) Date: 13 Sep 1996 20:09:37 -0700 Paul Watson, C.P.M.? Control Program for Microcomputers? /s/ Paul Mitchell p.s. For real chills, read JFK's inaugural address, right before he says, "Ask not ..." At 10:42 AM 9/13/96 -0500, you wrote: > >While I was at a NIGP, National Institute of Governmental Buyers >convention in August I took time to tour the newly renovated State of >Texas Capital building in Austin. On the wall in the Senate chambers was >a painting of a woman holding a flag on display on the wall. The flag >had in the middle the Texas 5 point star with the letters T^E^X^A^S^ between >each point. On the bottom of the case was this: > >JOANNA TROUTMAN 1835 Georgia Volunteers, >white silk 5 pointed star, >Liberty or Death >Ubi Libertas Habitat Ibi Nostra Patria Est >(Where Liberty Resides there is my Country) >Raised by James Fannon at Goliad when the Texas Declaration of >Independence was signed March 8, 1836 > >I never new where the Texas star had come from until I read this. >Yesterday I was in the Texas home page >http://www.sos.state.tx.us/tac/info.struct.html >and found a picture of it. > >I was really moved by this painting when I read it. The spirit of people >back then who gave so much to help found a new Republic of freedom is >amazing in contrast to todays couch potatoes. >Regards, >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Paul Watson C.P.M., pwatson@utdallas.edu Senior Buyer UTD >The University of Texas at Dallas ph# 214/883-2307,fax# 214/883-2348 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing,] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Women Boost Clinton Poll Stand Date: 13 Sep 1996 18:26:18 -0500 This (see below) was reported months ago in the WSJ, including a recent followup article. Don't blame me, I didn't give women the right to vote. :-) But it is all a bunch of lies - each and every *real* woman I talk to in Houston thinks klintoon is a total piece of shit - and that's their words, not mine. Anyway you don't want to hear what they *really* think of Bubba - it would curl your pubic hair. But then that's to be expected - klintoon is *NOT* leading in Texas. I doubt he is leading anywhere else except a few Marxist Fascist strongholds like New Yawk, Chicago and San Francisco - hardly representative of America. Bob Knauer +++++ From the "news": Women Boost Clinton Poll Stand President Clinton's lead in the polls is being bolstered by an 18-point gender gap, showing that women favor him far more than men do, the women's political organization EMILY's List said today. The Democratic, abortion rights group's survey of 700 women and 300 men showed that female voters support Clinton by a 22-point margin, while men favor Clinton by only 4 points. EMILY's List, which supports female candidates and tracks women's voting patterns, said Clinton's gender gap advantage has not narrowed following the Republican and Democratic national conventions. +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Crime Emergency in Indiana City Date: 13 Sep 1996 18:30:22 -0500 Right out of some B-movie about the future (see below). Notice the use of the term "emergency order". Bob Knauer +++++ Crime Emergency in Indiana City City officials operating under an emergency order cracked down on violent crime in Gary, Ind., today with beefed-up police patrols and strict curfew enforcement. Police reported no major criminal activity in the 24 hours since Mayor Scott King declared a state of emergency and ordered the tightened security measures. He acted after incidents earlier in the week in which a high school was hit by a drive-by shooting and a public housing project was torn apart by an apparent gang-related gun battle. No one was injured in the shootings but King said he was putting more police on the streets and ordering security measures at high schools. +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: AMMO REGISTRATION LAW A FAILURE Date: 13 Sep 1996 18:55:10 -0500 In a tagline from Brandon Christensen : >"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear > the government there is tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson I love it! And I wanted to share it with all of you. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 13 Sep 1996 19:13:07 -0500 >Didn't the 1798 Militia Act require that all households maintain a musket >and ammunition in serviceable condition? Switzerland was never invaded by anyone, Hilter included, since the time of Hannibal and the elephants. True, Switzerland is a natural fortress, but each Swiss citizen is *required* to keep a fully automatic weapon in his/her home and be trained in its use. That's what the FF had in mind when they wrote that fragile of documents called the Constitution: The Citizen Militia, to protect that fragile freedom just won. >The argument rejecting an exemption for "religious" people was rejected >because, in the opinion of some of the Founders, it could be used to DENY >the right to keep and bear arms to people that Congress might declare to be >"religious". Something went wrong a long time ago - beginning about the time of Lincoln. The failure of the Confederacy to win the War Of Northern Aggression turned America into a freak side-show called "democracy" in which the worst in human nature subjugates the rest of us. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: L&J: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 13 Sep 1996 19:39:58 -0500 >This isnt really related to this (possibly off topic) thread so I >apologize in advance to all and sundry. >Robert, I have to vigorously disagree with what you said here (expecting >that maybe it's not what you meant to say). RKBA is a Right correlative >to self defense. It is emphatically -not- best left to others by those of >deep scruples. Those of deep scruples need to examine their conscience to >find what is Right; to leave the defense of themselves and their >principles to those incapable of stopping force/tyranny OR to accept that >responsibility themselves. There are many thinking scrupulous people >(IMHO) who have fallen victim to the societal propaganda surrounding >deadly weapons. I don't think we're best served by either ignoring them >hoping they'll one day wake up or by shaking them and screaming into >their slumbering ears (though I'll grant you the latter is darned >tempting at times). These ethical somniacs must be woken gently, perhaps >it will take time but eventually they will gratefully embrace their >responsibility and remember who woke them. >I think the real issue of this thread is force. Should we force people to >do the responsible (kba) thing. We can't, ethically or physically and we >shouldnt. -Boyd (all IMHO) Kneeland ----- It is indeed a complex issue: Who has the responsibility to defend liberty? I was willing to concede that some few (very few) may have bona fide reasons not to keep and bear arms. That certainly is not justification for what we have today - a chickenshit populace willing to bend over and let the federal govt shove it in - just like the Jews in Germany who were conned by Fascists. I want to believe that the Consitutuion is an inspired document, but to believe so requires a literal reading. The Constitutional Militia is literally spelled out in clear language for anybody to see for themselves - and by implication palces a serious responsibility on all able citizens. Yet it seems not to have all that much meaning for the vast majority of these "citizens", who shirk their responsibility so easily - to save ten cents a day. Gun control eats at the heart of the Constitution, like a vulture picking on carion. If I had to trace the reasons we are in the mess we are now, I would blame it on the gradual erosion of RKBA which happened when "democracy" was instituted at the time of Lincoln. For example, unConstitutional Texas handgun laws were enacted 125 years ago because the carpetbaggers were tired of being shot at by patriot Texans. I guess to the victor belongs the oppression. Just look at Switzerland right now - that proud nation is under attack by the FarLeft which wants to disarm its citizens. How about Australia - what will become of them now that the demagogues have cut off their balls? Sickening. And for ten cents a day (NRA dues) we could change it, slowly but surely. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: L&J: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 13 Sep 1996 19:42:38 -0500 >I'll be glad to -- if the NRA will honor the entire Bill of Rights, >recognize that 'Right' != 'Privilege', and not attempt to expand >federal authority beyond the enumerated powers. Cases in point: >NRA's support for the "War on Drugs", "Instant Check", "shall issue" >CCW permits and restrictions on who may possess firearms. > ----- How true. Life is not perfect. Grab the best shot you have. Idealists always lose. For me the NRA is my best shot, warts and all. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Re: ! Book Report ! (fwd) Date: 13 Sep 1996 21:58:31 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Liberty or Death I agree with all 3 of the reviewed books! Here's another: I just finished a book that is a MUST READ and actually affordable too ;) It's called "Uncommon Sense," by William James Murray; it basically explains in simple, enjoyable, and easy to read terms how America came to be. Then it explains how screwed up America is, and why. And finally, it talks about how we can go about fixing it. And he does it with humor. For those who are already up to speed, this will be a fun read; you'll also pick up some great new ways to explain to folks the concept of a free republic that I virtually guarantee you never thought of before. The real value of this book is as something to give someone on the verge of waking up, or even if they're sound asleep. It's easy and enjoyable reading, and you'd have to be a serious socialist to disagree with his conclusions. Actually, a serious socialist would probably *agree*, but from the other side. The book is available from the publisher: America West Publishers PO Box 3300 Bozeman MT 59772 1-800-729-4131 The cost is $5.95. I talked to the owner of America West yesterday, and when I asked him about shipping cost, he started to give me a price and then said, "Oh, if they tell me they heard about it on the internet I won't charge shipping." You can buy a case of 72 books for $144.00 plus shipping as well. Folks, I'm not exaggerating - you need to read this, and you need to pass it on. I talked a friend of mine into buying it (Hi Rebbecca! :) and she told me she's half way through it already and the only problem with it is that it's hard to put down. And she's a lady with *no* free time. GET THIS THANG!!! It's *only* $5.95! Necessary disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with the publisher and stand to make no profit from sales. I just want my country back, and this is one of the best tools I've seen toward that end in a while. GET IT! PS - did I suggest you oughta buy it yet? - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: crime triggers emergency in Gary Indiana(fwd) Date: 13 Sep 1996 22:36:33 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Next Story: Data Show Consumer Inflation Low, Sales Slow _________________________________________________________________ Friday September 13 4:42 PM EDT Crime Triggers Emergency in Gary, Indiana GARY, Ind. (Reuter) - City officials operating under an emergency order cracked down on violent crime in Gary Friday with beefed-up police patrols and strict curfew enforcement. Police reported no major criminal activity in the 24 hours since Mayor Scott King declared a state of emergency Thursday and ordered the tightened security measures. He acted after incidents earlier in the week in which a high school was hit by a drive-by shooting and a public housing project was torn apart by an apparent gang-related gun battle. No one was injured in the shootings but King said he was putting more police on the streets and ordering security measures at high schools. ``The line is drawn and it's not happening in this city any more,'' he said. Gary has one of the highest murder rates per-capita in the United States. Last year Indiana state police were sent in to try to restore order. _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: Bodies of Two More TWA Crash Victims Found Next Story: Data Show Consumer Inflation Low, Sales Slow _________________________________________________________________ [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited Comments to: reuters-admin@yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 14 Sep 1996 01:25:26 EDT On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 19:13:07 -0500 "R. Knauer-AIMNET" writes: >Something went wrong a long time ago - beginning about the time of >Lincoln. >The failure of the Confederacy to win the War Of Northern Aggression >turned >America into a freak side-show called "democracy" in which the worst >in >human nature subjugates the rest of us. > >Bob Knauer > >-- > That's right I must agree. The War was not fought over slavery as the history writers would have us believe. It was fought because all the Yankees had the factories and the South, all of the raw materials.(i.e. cotton) When the Yankees wouldn't pay a fair price for the raw materials but wanted to make a huge profit on the finsihed product, somebody poped up and said "unfair". The slave issue was thrown in so the French would not back the Confederacy. Any historian out there want to dispute that??? Capt. G.H. Burkepile Communications Officer First Alabama Regiment VII Ranger Corps ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Civil War Motives Date: 14 Sep 1996 05:38:50 -0700 At 01:25 AM 9/14/96 EDT, you wrote: > >On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 19:13:07 -0500 "R. Knauer-AIMNET" > writes: > > >>Something went wrong a long time ago - beginning about the time of >>Lincoln. >>The failure of the Confederacy to win the War Of Northern Aggression >>turned >>America into a freak side-show called "democracy" in which the worst >>in >>human nature subjugates the rest of us. >> >>Bob Knauer >> >>-- >> > >That's right I must agree. The War was not fought over slavery as the >history writers would have us believe. It was fought because all the >Yankees had the factories and the South, all of the raw materials.(i.e. >cotton) When the Yankees wouldn't pay a fair price for the raw >materials but wanted to make a huge profit on the finsihed product, >somebody poped up and said "unfair". The slave issue was thrown in so >the French would not back the Confederacy. > >Any historian out there want to dispute that??? Proving the motives of others is always difficult, and proving a single motive for the Civil War is fraught with even more difficulty. Since foreign banks were backing both sides, another motive worth examining is that the creditors of the United States wanted a precedent for printing paper money, unbacked by substance (gold and silver). When Lincoln balked at their usury, by authorizing U.S. Notes to be printed, the creditors retaliated with a bullet to his head. Wars can be, and have been, engineered by creditors to force increased lending. Try outfitting a million soldiers some time; don't forget the runways and the factories, ad nauseam. When the governments don't have the funds to prosecute a war, they have very few alternatives at that point in the game. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >Capt. G.H. Burkepile >Communications Officer >First Alabama Regiment >VII Ranger Corps ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: FOIA to Clinton Date: 14 Sep 1996 07:50:50 -0700 [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA REPUBLIC September 14, 1996 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST William J. Clinton The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Clinton: This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., and regulations thereunder. This is My firm promise to pay fees and costs for locating, duplicating, and mailing to Me certified copies of the records requested below. If these fees and costs should exceed $25, please advise first before complying with this request. If some of this request is exempt from release, please furnish Me with those portions reasonably segregable. I am requiring certified copies of the documents requested, in lieu of personal inspection of same. Documents requested: 1. Certified copy of all provisions in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, as of the date on which you took your oath of office. The requested records are not exempt from disclosure because they: (A) could not reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings; (B) would not deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication; (C) could not reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal property; (D) could not reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source; (E) would not disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, and would not disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions; (F) could not reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual. [see Exemption 7 in FOIA] If you are not the correct person to whom this Freedom of Information Act Request should be directed, kindly forward it to the correct person. Time is of the essence. If you have any questions about your rights and obligations under 5 U.S.C. 552, may we recommend that you contact the office of the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., for immediate assistance. Thank you very much for your consideration, and for your timely obedience to the controlling laws in this matter, specifically the Freedom of Information Act and the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness all rights reserved without prejudice copies: Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice Speaker, House of Representatives President, United States Senate Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 14 Sep 1996 09:05:31 -0500 I said earlier: >>I assume you all belong to the NRA already - if not, you have no right to >>enjoy what freedoms we in the NRA have fought to preserve for you. ewolfe@wnstar.com (Ed Wolfe) replied: >Does this mean that you feel that the Bill of Rights are conditional? Hey, Brother Ed, it's been awhile. :-) What do you think? Are the BOR for all to enjoy and only a few to preserve? Where does it say in the BOR that one citizen class can tear down the very BOR itself and still enjoy the freedoms afforded therein? Should a Gun Control Tyrant be allowed to enjoy freedom under the BOR, especially if the freedom is won and maintained with RKBA? Is that what the FFs had in mind? If so, they were truly imbeciles. You see, ever since the time of Lincoln we have had the evils of "democracy" and "egalitarianism" imposed on us by force. And that means that we are supposed to "tolerate" people of "different opinions" - like Hoplophobes and Gun Control Tyrants. Pure Unadulterated Bullshit! Lincoln screwed us royally, and now the moment of truth has arrived as the Marxist Fascist Criminal Tyrants press us ever further into a corner. And I am supposed to feel "compassionate" for my enemies? As I said, "Bullshit!" May they rot in hell where they belong! >What if I thought the NRA was unpatriotic beyond the second amendment and >hypocritical as well? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I would ask you to reconsider and become a member of the only pro-RKBA org that can weigh in significantly at Election Day. The operative word here is "significantly". The other pro-RKBA orgs are important, but only the NRA is significant - witness the November 1994 Massacre, compliments of the NRA. If you feel that there are ways to improve the NRA, as many of us do, then join. Sitting on the sidelines taking potshots isn't going to help our cause. If so, the Brady Law and the AW Ban would have been repealed long ago. >What if I belonged only to Gun Owners of America and Oregon Gun Owners? That's great - and I encourage everyone to join as many pro-RKBA orgs as possible! But be sure to include the NRA on your list. For a mere ten cents per day, you can join the NRA and actually have your voice heard on Election day. You always hear the FarLeft bitching about the "gun lobby", which is taken by them to mean the NRA. Someday I hope they include other pro-RKBA orgs, but today the term refers to the NRA. >Would I then not deserve the liberties that you and the NRA have fought >for? OK, OK - I was being rhetorical with reference to the NRA (it's certainly not the first time for me to be rhetorical :-). But I do believe that it is every able citizen's responsibility to be armed and trained. And I stretched that point by saying that I also believe it is essential - especially at this critical juncture in our political evolution - that every able citizen be a member of the only pro-RKBA org with any significant political clout nationally, the NRA. If so-called "citizens" shirk their responsibilities to be members of the Constitutional Militia (members by virtue of gun ownership and training), then I certainly do not care to share any hard won freedom with them. Let them go to some NWO country, like GB, and see what Gun Control Tyranny is really like. Good Riddance. If all able citizens were armed and trained, the prospects for tyranny in America would be remote indeed, and our present concerns would be irrelevant. If all able citizens were members of the NRA, then the politicians wouldn't even consider Gun Control Tyranny, much less any other form of tyranny, in the first place, at least not as easily as they do today. Could you see Schumer promoting Gun Control Tyrany if all his constitutents were armed and members of the NRA? Hell, he wouldn't even be in office. The FF wrote the Constitution based on certain assumptions, one of the most important of which is the presence of the Constitutional Militia. It says it right there: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...". The operative word here is "necessary", not "elective" , not "maybe", not "only if the citizens feel like it". It says "necessary" - that was what the FF assumed when they contructed the Constitution. And what do have we today to defend the Constitution: A nation of emasculated wimps and a handful of paramilitary groups running around the woods in their underwear on weekends with hunting rifles. Some defense of the Constitution, huh!. And we wonder why we are in the mess we are today. I am amazed we aren't in a deeper mess than we are. I firmy believe that America would be just like the NWO countries right now if it weren't for RKBA - and the NRA. Yeah, I know, that is a very sweeping statement, but I believe it nonetheless. Let me end by copying the tag line from another of your posts (which I think is great!): "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." In our present circumstances the term "standing army" above refers to all the JBGT police-state agencies in America, not the military per se (except at Waco), although soon they will be inlcuded too. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: JackBoot Janet Won't Gas & Burn, No More, No More, No More Date: 14 Sep 1996 10:56:26 -0500 From the so-called "Unbiased News": Reno Could Leave After Election President Clinton's re-election could lead to major Justice Department personnel changes, including the possible departure of Attorney General Janet Reno, administration officials say. Although White House and Justice Department officials said it was too early to know for sure what moves would be made, they increasingly question whether Reno, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, will stay on for a second term. They say Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor and Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick have emerged as the leading candidates to replace Reno as the nation's top law enforcement officer. ++++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 14 Sep 1996 11:25:59 -0500 >That's right I must agree. The War was not fought over slavery as the >history writers would have us believe. It was fought because all the >Yankees had the factories and the South, all of the raw materials.(i.e. >cotton) When the Yankees wouldn't pay a fair price for the raw >materials but wanted to make a huge profit on the finsihed product, >somebody poped up and said "unfair". The slave issue was thrown in so >the French would not back the Confederacy. >Any historian out there want to dispute that??? See the book review below. >Proving the motives of others is always difficult, and proving a single >motive for the Civil War is fraught with even ore difficulty. Since foreign >banks were backing both sides, another motive worth examining is that the >creditors of the United States wanted a precedent for printing paper money, >unbacked by substance (gold and silver). When Lincoln balked at their >usury, by authorizing U.S. Notes to be printed, the creditors retaliated >with a bullet to his head. Wars can be, and have been, engineered by >creditors to force increased lending. Try outfitting a million soldiers some >time; don't forget the runways and the factories, ad nauseam. When the >governments don't have the funds to prosecute a war, they have very few >alternatives at that point in the game. England wanted a piece of the action too, not just France. Bob Knauer +++++ Book Review: EMANCIPATING SLAVES, ENSLAVING FREE MEN A History of the American Civil War by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel reviewed by Jim Powell This magnificent book demolishes one of the most insidious dogmas about our heritage, the moral justification for the Civil War. Hummel, an economics professor at California's Golden Gate University, makes a compelling case that the Civil War was evil, that it wasn't necessary for the liberation of slaves and that it ushered in the era of costly and oppressive big government which plagues us today. Hummel covers the evils of slavery. While he acknowledges that it seemed to be profitable, he shows how it depended utterly on government support. Besides runaway slave laws, there were laws making it illegal to educate blacks or speak out against slavery. Hummel provides a good summary of the abolishment movement. He talks about famous heroes like Frederick Douglas, Harriet Beecher Stowe and William Lloyd Garrison, who urged that the North secede from the Union, and unsung hereof like libertarian Lysander Spooner who was to denounce Lincoln's" political slavery" as energetically as he had denounced black chattel slavery. Hummel makes clear that Lincoln, idolized by generations of historians, was no crusader for racial equality. Lincoln admitted that "I am not nor have I ever been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races---that I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of making voters of the Negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them marry white people." The book tells how, step by step, Lincoln's decision to forcibly resist Southern secession led to an authoritarian regime. He suspended habeas corpus and disregarded the Chief Justice's ruling that suspension was unconstitutional. Lincoln ordered a blockade of the South, a build-up of the military, censorship of mail and other measures without consulting Congress. Lincoln ordered mass arrest and had people imprisoned for months without charges being filed. He enforced martial law. He had federal soldiers force large numbers of peaceful border state residents out of their homes, destroyed their buildings and crops before the war actually got underway. To help bolster his political support, Lincoln had his henchmen rig state elections, and he conjured up new federal bureaucracies like the Department of Agriculture. He approved high tariffs. He pushed through myriad new taxes, including an income tax, and Hummel reports that the North became the world's highest taxed nation, Lincoln promoted paper money inflation ("Greenbacks"). He introduced military conscription and approved the execution of deserters---the U S government executed more of its own soldiers in the Civil War than all of its other wars combined. Lincoln revoked California's proclamation freeing slaves there. As Hummel reminds us, while Lincoln later issued his own Emancipation Proclamation, it applied only to Confederate territory, so it didn't free a single slave. Then there was the horrifying war carnage. About 620, 000 people died from war wounds and disease---America's worst wartime death toll. An estimated 410,000 captured Civil War soldiers languished in wretched prison camps. Governments did little to relieve suffering. After the Battle of Bull Run, about 600 fallen soldiers were left bleeding and starving for a week. The most effective war relief came from private individuals, such as those who organized the private U.S. Sanitary Commission. Some courageous individuals like American Red Cross founder Clara Barton provided relief on the battlefields. Lincoln belittled these saviors as meddlers. Soldiers stole and destroyed civilian property wherever they went. The worst devastation occurred after Sherman's soldiers burned a 60 ml-wide path as they marched to Atlanta. This torching of Atlanta gave Lincoln a badly-needed boost which helped him win the 1864 election. While slaves were officially liberated after the Civil War, Hummel tells how the South enacted "Black Codes" which denied blacks civil liberties, later compounding these evils with compulsory segregation over the objections of railroads and other businesses. Such outrages persisted for nearly a century. What might have happened if the South had been allowed to secede? Hummel explains why slavery was politically on the decline before the war. He persuasively suggests that decline would have accelerated had a northern neighbor welcomed runaway slaves. Hummel tells how Cuba and Brazil abolished slavery while minimizing bloodshed during the late 19th century. The Civil War, Hummel contends, left an evil legacy. It set a precedent for evading constitutional limits on federal power. The military remained 50% larger than when the war started, and wiping out the Indians was among its postwar assignments. Many taxes persisted, and although the income tax lapsed in 1872, it set a precedent for the income tax enacted four decades later. The Civil War spawned regulatory agencies, starting with the Interstate Commerce Commission, which enabled businesses to exploit customers as they hadn't been able to do in competitive markets. By expanding government, the Civil War brought massive corruption.. It was a prelude to the "Progressive" era, the New Deal and more recent government evils. Hummel's book is the best on the Civil War from the standpoint of liberty. His bibliographic essays are gems, discussing in detail the debates among historians about economic issues, political issues, military strategy and more. A triumph! +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: the first Civil War Date: 14 Sep 1996 12:00:38 -0700 Excellent review of excellent book (towards the end of this post): > >>That's right I must agree. The War was not fought over slavery as the >>history writers would have us believe. It was fought because all the >>Yankees had the factories and the South, all of the raw materials.(i.e. >>cotton) When the Yankees wouldn't pay a fair price for the raw >>materials but wanted to make a huge profit on the finsihed product, >>somebody poped up and said "unfair". The slave issue was thrown in so >>the French would not back the Confederacy. > >>Any historian out there want to dispute that??? > >See the book review below. > >>Proving the motives of others is always difficult, and proving a single >>motive for the Civil War is fraught with even more difficulty. Since >foreign banks were backing both sides, another motive worth examining is >that the creditors of the United States wanted a precedent for printing >paper money, unbacked by substance (gold and silver). When Lincoln balked >at their usury, by authorizing U.S. Notes to be printed, the creditors >retaliated with a bullet to his head. Wars can be, and have been, >engineered by creditors to force increased lending. Try outfitting a >million soldiers some time; don't forget the runways and the factories, ad >nauseam. When the governments don't have the funds to prosecute a war, >they have very few alternatives at that point in the game. > >England wanted a piece of the action too, not just France. > >Bob Knauer You meant the Bank of England, didn't you? /s/ Paul Mitchell > >+++++ > >Book Review: > >EMANCIPATING SLAVES, ENSLAVING FREE MEN >A History of the American Civil War >by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel >reviewed by Jim Powell > >This magnificent book demolishes one of the most insidious dogmas about >our heritage, the moral justification for the Civil War. Hummel, an >economics professor at California's Golden Gate University, makes a >compelling case that the Civil War was evil, that it wasn't necessary for >the liberation of slaves and that it ushered in the era of costly and >oppressive big government which plagues us today. Hummel covers the evils >of slavery. While he acknowledges that it seemed to be profitable, he >shows how it depended utterly on government support. Besides runaway >slave laws, there were laws making it illegal to educate blacks or speak >out against slavery. Hummel provides a good summary of the abolishment >movement. He talks about famous heroes like Frederick Douglas, Harriet >Beecher Stowe and William Lloyd Garrison, who urged that the North secede >from the Union, and unsung hereof like libertarian Lysander Spooner who >was to denounce Lincoln's" political slavery" as energetically as he had >denounced black chattel slavery. Hummel makes clear that Lincoln, >idolized by generations of historians, was no crusader for racial >equality. Lincoln admitted that "I am not nor have I ever been in favor >of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the >white and black races---that I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of >making voters of the Negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold >office, or having them marry white people." The book tells how, step by >step, Lincoln's decision to forcibly resist Southern secession led to an >authoritarian regime. He suspended habeas corpus and disregarded the >Chief Justice's ruling that suspension was unconstitutional. Lincoln >ordered a blockade of the South, a build-up of the military, censorship of >mail and other measures without consulting Congress. Lincoln ordered mass >arrest and had people imprisoned for months without charges being filed. >He enforced martial law. He had federal soldiers force large numbers of >peaceful border state residents out of their homes, destroyed their >buildings and crops before the war actually got underway. To help bolster >his political support, Lincoln had his henchmen rig state elections, and >he conjured up new federal bureaucracies like the Department of >Agriculture. He approved high tariffs. He pushed through myriad new >taxes, including an income tax, and Hummel reports that the North became >the world's highest taxed nation, Lincoln promoted paper money inflation >("Greenbacks"). He introduced military conscription and approved the >execution of deserters---the U S government executed more of its own >soldiers in the Civil War than all of its other wars combined. Lincoln >revoked California's proclamation freeing slaves there. As Hummel reminds >us, while Lincoln later issued his own Emancipation Proclamation, it >applied only to Confederate territory, so it didn't free a single slave. >Then there was the horrifying war carnage. About 620,000 people died >from war wounds and disease -- America's worst wartime death toll. An >estimated 410,000 captured Civil War soldiers languished in wretched >prison camps. Governments did little to relieve suffering. After the >Battle of Bull Run, about 600 fallen soldiers were left bleeding and >starving for a week. The most effective war relief came from private >individuals, such as those who organized the private U.S. Sanitary >Commission. Some courageous individuals like American Red Cross founder >Clara Barton provided relief on the battlefields. Lincoln belittled these >saviors as meddlers. Soldiers stole and destroyed civilian property >wherever they went. The worst devastation occurred after Sherman's >soldiers burned a 60 ml-wide path as they marched to Atlanta. This >torching of Atlanta gave Lincoln a badly-needed boost which helped him win >the 1864 election. While slaves were officially liberated after the Civil >War, Hummel tells how the South enacted "Black Codes" which denied blacks >civil liberties, later compounding these evils with compulsory segregation >over the objections of railroads and other businesses. Such outrages >persisted for nearly a century. What might have happened if the South had >been allowed to secede? Hummel explains why slavery was politically on the >decline before the war. He persuasively suggests that decline would have >accelerated had a northern neighbor welcomed runaway slaves. Hummel tells >how Cuba and Brazil abolished slavery while minimizing bloodshed during >the late 19th century. The Civil War, Hummel contends, left an evil >legacy. It set a precedent for evading constitutional limits on federal >power. The military remained 50% larger than when the war started, and >wiping out the Indians was among its postwar assignments. Many taxes >persisted, and although the income tax lapsed in 1872, it set a precedent >for the income tax enacted four decades later. The Civil War spawned >regulatory agencies, starting with the Interstate Commerce Commission, >which enabled businesses to exploit customers as they hadn't been able to >do in competitive markets. By expanding government, the Civil War brought >massive corruption.. It was a prelude to the "Progressive" era, the New >Deal and more recent government evils. Hummel's book is the best on the >Civil War from the standpoint of liberty. His bibliographic essays are >gems, discussing in detail the debates among historians about economic >issues, political issues, military strategy and more. A triumph! > >************************************************** > A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing > Corporation World Wide Web Publishing > > http://www.aimtec.com/ >************************************************** ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 14 Sep 1996 10:44:12 PST On Sep 14, GARY H. BURKEPILE wrote: > >On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 19:13:07 -0500 "R. Knauer-AIMNET" > writes: > >>Something went wrong a long time ago - beginning about the time of >>Lincoln. >>The failure of the Confederacy to win the War Of Northern Aggression >>turned >>America into a freak side-show called "democracy" in which the worst >>in >>human nature subjugates the rest of us. >> >>Bob Knauer >> > >That's right I must agree. The War was not fought over slavery as the >history writers would have us believe. It was fought because all the >Yankees had the factories and the South, all of the raw materials.(i.e. >cotton) When the Yankees wouldn't pay a fair price for the raw >materials but wanted to make a huge profit on the finsihed product, >somebody poped up and said "unfair". The slave issue was thrown in so >the French would not back the Confederacy. > >Any historian out there want to dispute that??? It should also be noted that the CSA's Constitution was the _first_ to have anything against slavery in it. It forbad the import/export of slaves. It was allready recognized that slavery was on the way out, the question at the time was how to accomplish that with the least problems. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 14 Sep 1996 13:44:47 -0500 >>The FF wrote the Constitution based on certain assumptions, one of the most >>important of which is the presence of the Constitutional Militia. It says >>it right there: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security >>of a free State,...". The operative word here is "necessary", not >>"elective" , not "maybe", not "only if the citizens feel like it". >*assumptions* O.K.; What basis did the FF's use to come to these >assumptions? If the FF made a statement like: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...", then does it not follow that they were counting on the Constitutional Militia to preserve liberty? Thye did say that the Militia would be a nice thing to have around, but if some Tyrant disolved it thru superior force of arms, well that's the way it goes. Quite the contrary, they "assumed" that the Constitutional Militia would be functional at all times. That assumption, on their part, however, did not take into account tyrants like Lincoln, or the emasculated wimp society of gutless citizens who whine all the time that *GUNZ*R*BAD* today. Now to your question. I will turn it around and ask you a question: If we did indeed have the well regulated Constitutional Militia in America that the FF assumed, do you think for one minute the JBGTs would have perpetrated Waco or Ruby Ridge or countless other atrocities? If these tyrants knew that they would have to answer to the Constitutional Militia if they dared encroach on the rights of citizens, would they not have thought twice? If our elected representatives had to answer to the well regulated Constitutional Militia also, don't you think that these representastives would have hanged all of the JBGTs and their cowardly supporters in public for all to see? Would the Constitutional Militia have ever permitted the fed govt to amass a "standing army" of JBGTs in the first place? I think not, and neither did the FF or they would not have made such a big deal over it, Second Amendment and all. They recognized that it's the deterent effect of having to stare into the face of a fully armed citizenry that would keep any JBGTs in place. The last time it was tried it led to the War Of Federal Aggression. Unfortunately the Constitutional Militia of that time, the Confederacy, got wiped out by the Criminals of the North. (The FF did not envision that happening, did they?) And ever since, the Constitution has been a just piece of toilet paper for the tyrants to wipe their filthy ass with and smear it in our face. >>It says "necessary" - that was what the FF assumed when they contructed the >>Constitution. And what do have we today to defend the Constitution: A >>nation of emasculated wimps and a handful of paramilitary groups running >>around the woods in their underwear on weekends with hunting rifles. Some >>defense of the Constitution, huh!. And we wonder why we are in the mess we >>are today. I am amazed we aren't in a deeper mess than we are. >I thought you were an ardent supporter of not assuming anything?! I surely >believe the FF's didn't assume anything either. Again, go back to the top >and answer assumptions. You are a difficult person to deal with :-(. I never said anything about being an ardent supporter of not assuming anything - you are making that up. It is true that the FF saw the vital importance of the Constitutional Militia, but they made fatal assumptions about it, primarily that it would not only be in existence but be of sufficient strength to withstand any threat to the Constitution if called on to do so. They didn't figure that the Criminals in the North would conquer and enslave the Constitutional Militia in the South. That was a fatal assumption for generations to come. >>I firmy believe that America would be just like the NWO countries right now >>if it weren't for RKBA - and the NRA. Yeah, I know, that is a very sweeping >>statement, but I believe it nonetheless. >I agree, but your statement IS NOT sweeping! You can easily prove your >statement by showing all the reasons why you believe what you stated. >Hint: You can also use all the RKBA facts throughout history to back >your beliefs, plus whatever else you can come up with. There are plenty. Amazing! We are in agreement! But the Hoplophobes who depend on a "standing army" of JBGTs to "keep the peace", it is a very sweeping statement indeed. These so-called "citizens of democracy" would never trust other armed citzens to preserve the Constitution and perhaps for good reason - look how the Constitutional Militia lost the War Of Northern Aggression. Anything else we might agree on?, like freedom does not belong to those who shirk their duty to preserve the Constitution by being active members of the Constitutional Militia thru firearms ownership and practice (and membership in the NRA for ten cents a day)? NB: Now maybe some people can see why an ammo ban (thru excessive taxation) is so damaging. Well regulated means well practiced. If ammo is out of reach for Constitutional Militia members, they will not be well practiced. The damn stuff costs enough now, much less letting tyrants like Moynihan, Bradly and algore tax it into oblivion. Let's get these rotten Criminals out of our face once and for all - come Election day - and get back to the business of Constitutional Rule! In the meantime buy a gun, practice a lot, and join the NRA. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 14 Sep 1996 14:03:50 -0500 >Bob, just paying dues to the NRA, or even buying a Life Membership >(is the interest on that your ten cents a day?), which is necessary >if one wants to have any voice in correcting NRA's asinine anti-BoR >policies, is entirely inadequate to fulfill one's duty as a member >of the citizen militia. Just paying dues puts little or no pressure >on Congress, bureaucratic and corporate tyrants, or one's meddling, >yet oblivious and obsequiously compliant neighbors. ----- There has been a bunch of NRA bashing from time to time lately, some of it well deserved. I am not claiming that any human organization is without flaws. Hell, even the churches are as guilty as sin of being human. That's because people can differ in their opinion about politics and religion. But that is not the issue here. In the big picture, I believe that NRA membership does have a positive effect because I saw it in operation last election. For whatever warts the NRA may have, it did deliver an incredible grassroots response to federal gun control tyranny last election - and at the voting booth where it counted most. Having Foley thrown out compliments of the NRA should be enough to make anyone who claims to love freedom sign up for the NRA right now. BTW, the ten cents per day is just the $35 annual membership dues divided by 365 days per year (none of it in octal either). And I do not believe you have to be a Life Member to have any influence on the NRA - but that's an old thread. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 14 Sep 1996 19:04:49 -0500 >O.K.; What gave them the opinion that they were counting on the >Constitutional Militia to preserve liberty? In other words; How did they >decide this avenue of approach the best course to take? It was implied in the Second Amendment - literally interpreted. >Well lincoln was wrong wasn't he? (We know that! :-) We know that, but how many others do? >However; Why didn't they impeach lincoln because he was doing wrong? >Stands to reason, he was breaking the Constitution, and it was plainly >stated that secession was legal. The South tried to break free, but it didn't work out. The Forces Of Evil have dominated ever since. For the longest time they have gotten what they wanted without rocking the boat too much, but now they want our guns, and that is the last straw. You don't believe me, how important that is? Just ask the Jews! >>Now to your question. I will turn it around and ask you a question: If we >>did indeed have the well regulated Constitutional Militia in America that >>the FF assumed, do you think for one minute the JBGTs would have >>perpetrated Waco or Ruby Ridge or countless other atrocities? >I concur. So what does this say about the militias? The FF depended on citizens to defend their Constitution by being always prepared with arms. It says so right there in the Constitution. >So what does this whole paragraph tell us about our state of affairs >in our country? If each able citizen were to arm themselves and practice with firearms, I believe things would be different now. Also, I believe citizens should be members of the NRA. >It's not nice to call your fellow yankee brethern up north *criminals*! >Some on this list might take it personally! :-) I would hope not, if said brethern are true to the cause. >I will tell you'all this tho. The north with lincoln used slavery as a >weapon of attack on the Constitution and the South based upon the FACT >it captured a part of the public's sentiment. This sentiment was used >to defraud the public into fighting a war that was based on State's Rights >instead of the sentimental issue of slavery. Crafty wasn't it. However >the EXACT same thing is now being done on a grand scale using *children*, >*smoking*, *drugs* and several other issues to divert the attack to >sentimental reasons instead of Constitutional ones. People continually >fall for it, and we suffer for it immensely in the long run. I think every thinking person agrees fully with your statements, in principle. We discussed that very point a while ago, if I recall, >>And ever since, the Constitution has been a just piece of toilet paper for >>the tyrants to wipe their filthy ass with and smear it in our face. >Tell me something new! But for whose gain? In other words; Who are the >ultimate gainers? Tyrants, of course. >>You are a difficult person to deal with :-(. I never said anything about >>being an ardent supporter of not assuming anything - you are making that >>up. >You are of course correct, literally. But you insinuate such with remarks >such as those concerning everyone should be NRA members or else. >Plus other little things that gives the same general impression. >I just had to post and write long enough to find a way to point it >out to you. Thanks. We owe you a debt of gratitude, I suppose :-) >>It is true that the FF saw the vital importance of the Constitutional >>Militia, but they made fatal assumptions about it, primarily that it would >>not only be in existence but be of sufficient strength to withstand any >>threat to the Constitution if called on to do so. They didn't figure that >>the Criminals in the North would conquer and enslave the Constitutional >>Militia in the South. That was a fatal assumption for generations to come. >They were counting on one OVER-RIDING thing! That was that this country >would always place its morales and principles on the Christian Faith. >Goes back to the saying, America is great because America is good. >The couldn't forsee a falling away of this philosophy. >Well they could, but they knew the end results to. I would personally like to believe that the FF produced a divinely inspired document, the Constitution, which transcends individual religious sects. In particular I would like to think Muslims, Hindus, etc. are also bound by the Constitution. There is something important about religion. Some historian said, and maybe you can tell me who that was since you spotted that Churchill quote, that no civilization has ever progressed without religion. >>Amazing! We are in agreement! But the Hoplophobes who depend on a "standing >>army" of JBGTs to "keep the peace", it is a very sweeping statement indeed. >>These so-called "citizens of democracy" would never trust other armed >>citzens to preserve the Constitution and perhaps for good reason - look how >>the Constitutional Militia lost the War Of Northern Aggression. >Well it shows one thing; Might always makes right! Whether it is really >Right or not! However I do honestly believe there is a logical reason >the South lost the war. Yeah, the Forces of Evil triumphed. It's happened before. And it will probably happen again. >Nope, can't agree here! People have to have the Right to make up their >own minds freely (Free Will). Whether it is morally right or not! >I will however agree you are personally right morally, from your >point of view. I fundamentally disagree with that "free spirited" attitude you espouse. I believe people do have obligations, and if they shirk those obligations, let them leave. RKBA is a fundamental obligation of free men - history shows that. Those who do not believe that should leave America - the FF would not want them to be here any more than I do. >>NB: Now maybe some people can see why an ammo ban (thru excessive taxation) >>is so damaging. Well regulated means well practiced. If ammo is out of >>reach for Constitutional Militia members, they will not be well practiced. >>The damn stuff costs enough now, much less letting tyrants like Moynihan, >>Bradly and algore tax it into oblivion. >I agree! and I believe this will be the main avenue of attack for the >short term future. It's so easy. No house-to-house searches. Just popguns that don't go pop, or if they do, they don't go pop worth anything, due to lack of practice. Sorta like castration - you can get it up, but you can't make babies. And the tyrants know that too! >>Let's get these rotten Criminals out of our face once and for all - come >>Election day - and get back to the business of Constitutional Rule! >Come election day, we will go to the polls and elect more of the same, >especially you. You will pull the lever for dole...ect. who still only >sees the Constitution as a *butt* wiping piece of paper. Plus, consider >he is also answer to higher authorities, just as klinton does. >(See top of my post.) But a vote for anyone but dole is a vote for klintoon. That's worse. >>In the meantime buy a gun, practice a lot, and join the NRA. >In the meantime, I strongly suggest you look after yourself/ourselves >instead of trying to compromise with the devil, and his advocates! Give me someone worthwhile who has a chance to win - then I will listen to you. The operative phrase here is "has a chance to win". Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: L&J: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 14 Sep 1996 20:02:30 -0500 NB: I would cross-post this thread to PIML, but the list owners there have a strange ethic about commentary. They let anyone they like comment all they want, but jump all over everyone else - just like the republic-of-texas list and some other hypocritcal lists. >> EWolfe, >> You sound as if you know where you are comming from! :-) >Why, thank you. :-) But your comments should've been directed toward >Robert Knauer. Why,thank you, Ed. :-) >That only states that RKBA is necessary. Not required. WRONG!!! FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG!!! No wonder we are in the mess we are today. >It CAN NOT be infringed (which is my main problem with the NRA - they don't >seem to mind infringement as long as it is one they agree with) but it can >not be enforced. Then what was behind the Second Amendment? Someone mentioned the Militia Act of 17??. What was behind that? >Some people will never use their right to free speech when they damn well >should. Rights are not requirements. If your house were burning down would you not expect every able neighbor to be throwing water on the fire? What would you think of some lazy sob who just sat there and watched? Or worse, threw gasoline on the fire? >I'm sorry that you buy into the image of the militia groups that the >media peddles. Ever heard of the Militia of Montana? How about the >Kitchen Militia? They are not the Constitutional Militia. The Constitutional Militia consists of you and me and everyone else who owns guns and trains with them. I don't need no stinking paramilitary org to validate my membership in the Constitutional Militia. :-) >The primary activity of any bona fide militia is the disemination of >information. The primary activity of any bona fide Constitutional Milita is ot defend the Constitution. The hell with information. >They are trying to educate Americans as to the nature and possible solutions >this country faces. Good for them - so is the NRA. >In the event that we are unable to stop the full-blown destruction of this >Republic and may be required to fight as our forefathers did, it is also a >very good idea to own and be trained in the use of firearms. But I don't need no stinking paramilitary org to validate my membership in the Constitutional Militia. >You think everyone should be compelled to own and train in the use of >firearms and then take a backhanded swipe at those who are most vocal and >active regarding such for the very purpose the 2nd amendment was >intended. The Constitutional Milita is composed of all able (non-govt) citizens who own guns and are trained in their use. It is not necessary, nor is it well advised, to form paramilitary groups - too visible. Let the Tyrants wonder who have the guns, and who know how to use them. Nowhere in the Constitution did the FF say anything about paramilitary groups run by political aspirants. My personal opinion of paramilitary orgs is that they are either just a bunch of regular guys and gals looking for an excuse to run around in the woods and shoot guns or some kind of political group which will do no real good except for themselves. Thank God they are not really the Constitutional Militia or we would have yet another political group to deal with. >> Some defense of the Constitution, huh!. And we wonder why we are in the >>mess we are today. I am amazed we aren't in a deeper mess than we are. >We are. I sincerely hope not. >But this is America. And as strange as it seems, we can use our 1st >Amendment right of free speech to rail against our 2nd Amendment right. WRONG!!! The Constitution is inviolate - it is the Sacred Scripture of our Rule of Law. >Anyway, the intention of the FF's was that the people having the right to >arm themselves as a deterrent to tyranny would happily do so. Especially >since it was that very right that gained them their liberty. They saw no >need to enforce that right as a requirement. It would've been pointless >to do so. If we made everyone have weapons, what good would it do if >those who hate guns and wouldn't think of using them to secure their >liberties had them? Ask the Swiss. Anyway citizens should not "hate" guns. That is a failure of our culture. The NRA has attempted to change that for many years. >It's also odd that you are so adamant about everyone having weapons and >being trained to use them for the purpose as stated in the 2nd Amendment, >but being called upon to use them for that purpose is abhorrent to you. Of course I do not want to see shooting in the streets - I never said I did. But I do want the "standing army" of JBGTs to know that it could happen. That's called deterence - nothing strange about that, is there? The LA riots, hardly my idea of "order in the streets", showed us that the "standing army" of JBGTs are basically a bunch of cowards, which is not surprising. Just look how those cowards took out Waco and Ruby Ridge. Real heroes, huh? What that tells me is that these tyrants do fear the Constitutional Militia as the FF foresaw, even if, in the case of the LA riots, that particular Constitutional Militia consisted of a bunch of brave Koreans on rooftops with "assault weapons". But there are not anywhere near enough members of the Constitutional Militia, so we need to recruit more members. That's the least the FF expected of us when they wrote the Constitution. In fact, they just might have considered it a necsessity in order to preserve the liberty they created. You tell me. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 15 Sep 1996 10:06:29 -0500 >It isn't strange at all. It simply isn't a discussion list. The list >exists to inform patriots. Discussion *is* allowed if a reply to a post >adds significant, new information. Especially if it corrects wrong >information given by the original poster. That's a new one on me. I once made a *very* short one or two sentence comment on an article posted there, and the previous list owner used it as an excuse to vent his PMS on me. But that was to be expected, I suppose, since he is a Libertatian. >When you see something on PIML that you'd like to discuss, take it to L&J >or TAB and discuss it there. What's TAB? You mean there is a patriot/RKBA list I haven't been run off of that I am not on? >That makes it sound like there are a select few that are allowed to >ramble on about anything. That is not the case. You can write an *>informative article and post it to PIML. Then you'll be one of those >"commenting all you like." That's not the way it worked before. But who really cares anyway? >The fact is that the RKBA is the right, not the requirement to keep and >bear arms. >How would we have any liberty if the populace were forced to do things by >the Constitution? As with any of the other enumerated rights, a person is >free to forfeit them. You are correct about the letter of the law, but the spirit demands something not written down - that a well regulated Constitutional Militia be in place. For that to be a fact of reality, every able citizen must participate, whether they like it or not. >I'm sorry, but I don't know anything about it. What was behind the 2nd >Amend. was the intention for the people to be armed to deter gov't from >getting out of hand, and to make it perfectly clear that the gov't had NO >right to take away the one safeguard from tyranny. I agree with the distiction you are raising. The 2nd Am per se protects a right, it does not create an obligation. But the Constitution does, IMO, require that able citizens be members of the Constitutionla Militia. >I would expect them to and sure appreciate it, but I couldn't force them >to. The Swiss and the Israelis "force" their citizens. >> What would you think of some lazy sob who just sat there and watched? >I would think him a worthless human being and inform him of that fact >after the fire was out. Would you help put out his house fire if it happened to him? >> Or worse, threw gasoline on the fire? >I'd shoot him. So would I, but the Constitution doesn't permit assasination. >Sorry, but they *are* part of the constitutional militia. They may not be >any more so a member of the const'l militia than any other able-bodied >male, but they are part of the same militia that you and I are part of. >They are merely organized and in some cases "well regulated." Fair enough. But I don't like the idea that they are being represented as the "One-And-Only-Militia". If you own a gun, are trained in its use, you are a member of the Constitutional Militia even if you don't belong to any paramilitiary org. >How would anyone get to point of defending it without first learning that >it needs defending and why? Defense of the Constitution should be ingrained in every citizen's mind from the age of reason forward. But the Marxist school system, preaching "democracy", has poisoned students' minds instead. How many school kids do *you know who are being taught that America is a "democracy"? Sickening. And then when you tell your kids the truth, the Marxist teachers jump all over them. >I disagree. If the citizen militia is to be a deterrent to gov't abuse, >then it would seem to be a good idea to let them know that we haven't >forgotten our rights and responsibilities in that regard, lest they think >a citizen militia is a thing of the past. I think you are right - I just don't trust political orgs, like paramilitary groups, to do that. >If the gov't was so afraid of duck hunters and target shooters you'd see >a concentrated effort to smear them as they are doing with the organized >militias. No need to smear them - just take their ammo away thru prohibitive taxation. >>Nowhere in the Constitution did the FF say anything about paramilitary >>groups run by political aspirants. >And nowhere does it say that an able-bodied male may not organize a >militia while at the same time running for political office. I can't >think of any better people to put in office, by the way. If I lived in >Bill Utterback's district I'd do everything I could to help get him >elected. Just don't post a short comment to his mailing list, unless you are one of his political supporters. >Where did you get this "running around in the woods" crap? I happen to >shoot my guns in the woods because it is the only place I where I can. I >don't do it for an excuse to run around in the woods. In fact, I wish I >didn't have to drive up to Larch Mountain to try out a new gun or >maintain my proficiency. > >I think you must've gotten your viewpoint of the organized militias from >20/20 or Sixty Minutes. If so, consider the sources. These paramilitary orgs are no substitute for every able citizen to be armed and practiced. And they do not speak for that Constitutional Militia. I know they do not speak for me. >Why? They would tell you those citizens are useless when it comes to >preserving liberty or defending the country. I am not sure that having a gun in your house makes you useless. Anyway, these "useless" citizens certainly should be expected not to vote for Gun Control Tyrants. >Remember, the patriots who wanted independence and fought for it were a >very small percentage of the population. Less than 20%. Considering that, >I'm sure the FF's were well aware that many people would never exercise >their right to bear arms. But as was demonstrated by the war against >England, we don't need everyone of them to. They probably assumed that >enough people would always be armed. The Revolutionary War was fought by an military army. I am not talking about an army - I am talking about the Constitutional Militia, the one the FF assumed would be in place to protect against the govt raising "standing armies" against the citizens. >Again, they couldn't have imagined that has weapons technology advanced, >the people would be deprived of the same newer and better weapons that >the gov't obtained. > >That is an infringement. That is also why it is not radical to say that >we should have every weapon in our possession that the gov't might use >against us. You make some very interesting points. >That some do is irrelevent. It is also a success by a sub-culture in our >society and the result of propoganda that is put out for a specific >reason. THAT is why education is so important. Ever try "educating" a Hoplophobe? An exercise in futility. Not even freud had any use for those who feared guns. But to the point. Statistics show that only 10% of America's women own a gun (over 50% of citizens do, so the men are carrying that burden). My wife owns a gun (or two) and she can shoot them quite well, including the .44Mag. (BTW, that statistic is skewed in Houston - many women in Houston carry guns in their purses everyday, CHL notwithstanding. The authorities put up metal detectors at the court house a while back, and the tables were covered with small purse pistols from women. It amazed me when I saw it, how many women in Houston carry guns.) Who ever said that women shouldn't have guns - Barbie? Yet try as we might to "educate" them, women not only shy away from gun ownership, but they also vote for Liberal Gun Control Tyrants. Figure that. >Not if you are willing to back up the deterrence with action. When we are >called upon to put out the fire of tyranny, will you help? When push comes to shove, not only I but a hell of a lot of other Houstonians will be there, including a considerable number of Houston's women. That is also true of other Texas cities - we have a score to settle that is 135 years old, and it would please us to no end to get to settle it in our lifetime. But first let's try to do it in a peaceful manner. BTW, since you seem to speak for these paramilitary orgs, where were they when needed most? Will they show up next time, or will they be more concerned about their political image? I do not trust political groups whatever their disguise. >How can you say the militia are every-bodied person capable of owning and >using a firearm and then say there are not enough members? You're using >multiple definitions of militia. You are confused over words. The citizen must not only be able, but also actually possess the firearm and be trained in order to be a member of the Constitutional Militia. >In my opinion there are not enough members of the active and organized >militias and too many people unaware of the fact that they ARE the >militia and as such, have certain rights and responsibilities like being >armed and proficient with arms. They are the Constitutional Militia only if they keep and bear arms. The rest who don't are just part of the problem. >So to sum it up, the FF's bought freedom with blood and provided for All >(including those who never lifted a finger to help) to enjoy and preserve >that freedom. And that is all. You can not force a people to be free or >earn or preserve their freedom. I fundamentally disagree. But then we have been over this before. Libertarians take the concept of liberty to unnatural extremes, including the complete dismissal of personal responsibility. My belief system requies that neighbors pitch in and put out a neighbor's fire, not just sit there "exercising their freedom" not to help out. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 15 Sep 1996 11:00:06 -0500 >Uhm hum? Well, the 2nd A. doesn't literally say the first thing about >bullets; Now does it? It doesn't mention full auto firearms, or >any firearms in general. Sooo, how can say the 2nd A. is literally >interpreted? What about the other Articles and Amendments? deal dole >doesn't believe the Constitution is literal; Did you know that? Klinton >doesn't think it is literal either. How can you say it is? Nothing like a few comments disguised as questions. :-) Yes, the 2nd Am. says nothing about the types of firearms. And any strict Constitutionalist would agree that the Constitutional Militia member has a right to keep and bear any arms necessary to preserve freedom. That leaves out nuclear weapons, but does include full-auto weapons. But who really wants full-auto weapons anyway? Jeff Cooper once said the if he is ever shot at, he hopes it is from a full-auto firearm. >Really? Explain who the forces of evil are? What makes them evil? >And who is to classify them as evil? As for the last straw, I would >think confiscating our guns is only the beginning. In the context of the War Of Northern Aggression, the North was the evil entity. They enslaved the South, and most reasonable people would see that as evil. Now the North is also enslaved, so nobody won except a handful of Northern industrialists bacj then and the cadre of Marxist Fascist Criminals today. >What's religion got to do with it? I thought you weren't religious. >Besides many/most Jews are anti RKBA. Explain why this is true >or not? One at a time: 1) I used the term Jews as members of a cultural group in NAZI Germany. Nobody said anything about the Jewish religion per se. 2) There you go again. I never said whether I was or was not a religious person. This is a Patriot/RKBA/Liberty list, not a religion discussion group. I try to stay clear of those discussions - it's hard enough to argue politics, much less religion :-) 3) Where were you when we had the excellent discussion on L&J about Jewish Hoplophobia? I thought that matter was resolved then - at least it was for me. >>The FF depended on citizens to defend their Constitution by being always >>prepared with arms. It says so right there in the Constitution. >I mean, what has happened to the state of being of the milita? >Why is it so abhorred, dispised, ridiculed and detested by >washington? You are referring to those paramilitary/political groups calling themselves "the militia". Show me where in the Constitution that the FF said that the Constitutional Militia is to composed of paramilitary/political groups. >I remember part of the thread, but I started to overlook the thread because >everything was so self evident. I couldn't learn anything I didn't already >know. I wish I were as smart as you :-) But maybe you did learn something - about the true character of the Constitutional Militia. The Constitutional Militia is *NOT* comprised of any paramilitary/political groups. The FF weren't that stupid. >Christianity taken and followed correctly does in fact transcend >all individual religious sects. Accordingly all religions are to >be treated fairly. The hitch here is that Christianity must be >acknowledged as the inspiration for the Constitution. If not the >whole document falls apart. I don't believe that the Constitution relies soley on just the precepts of Christianity. In fact I do not believe that there is a mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution is for everyone, but it did assume people of good character, as has been pointed out many times here. But I do not want to get into a religious discussion on a Patriot/RKBA/Liberty list. >I don't know who said it, but there is much to that quote. Actually >religion can be a form of competetion. Each trying to outdo the other, >and in the process society benefits. Consider how the US till it >threw off Christianity. While we are progressing, it has come to the >point of the system breaking down, and civil unrest beginning. I respect each persons right to practice whatever religion they freely choose. Christianity is not a prerequisite to believing in and defending the Constitution. >>Yeah, the Forces of Evil triumphed. It's happened before. And it will >>probably happen again. >It is now! Can you show otherwise? You gotta be a bit careful in making doomsday predictions. Those who attempt it have successfully predicted exactly zero so far. But it is rather obvious that the stakes are quite high right now. If the Marxist Fasicst Criminals get full power this Novwember, they will immediately legislate our RKBA out of existence, in which there will be another "civil" war in America, with much bloodshed. And those citizens who uphold the Constitution will lose again just like in the War Of Northern Aggression. >Your term *obligations* is a term that is relevent to what what one thinks. >What I believe is a obligation and what you believe is a obligation may >not be the same thing. This what the Constitution is for! So one may not >impose their belief's on others, thus limiting the powers to enforce these >belief's through laws. This becomes necessary when a breakdown in society >necessitates a supreme authority to enforce Liberty's for all. BTW *Free >Will* is a fundamental theme in the Bible. You must chuse your own way, >without hindering or being hindering by others. I tend to agree - but I also point out that the FF expected certain obligations to be fulfilled by the citizenry. One was that each able person would keep arms, train in their use, and use them to put down any and all attempts of the govt to raise "standing armies" against the citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution did the FF say anything about the Libertarian concept of limited responsibility. >This is a fundamental problem of mankind. You just can't people believe >anything! No matter how much proof you have. No matter how many facts >you have. No matter what you do or say, people will believe what they >will and that's it! That is the reason when you know/realize something >for a fact, you have only proved it to yourself. Talking of Christ and >Christianity is the very same thing. One believes what they will. Shall >we say, reality is what you make it to be? I think you are trying to >impose your will onto others! I would consider this tyranny in itself! Spoken like a true Libertarian. Now what do you do when it comes time for the Constitutional Militia to protect the Constitution? Wish in one hand and spit in the other? >I humbly suggest you and the rest of us, buy, save, store, hide...ect. >as much of this stuff as you possibly can. I believe our time grows >EXTREMELY short. If you think otherwise, please tell me/us why? That's exactly what some are doing. But that still won't be enough to sustain regular practice. After a year or so of an ammo ban (real or effective thru excessive taxation), most of us will run out. Those who have hoarded will not share. >You just don't get it do you? Being right doesn't have the first >thing to do with voting for the lesser of two evils! What are you >going to think when dole tries/calls for anti-RKBA laws like klinton >is now doing? He has already proved he will do such! Accordingly, >as a Christian I am told/taught/read that you cannot compromise with >evil! One cannot hope that a lesser evil will be better than a more >obvious one. Besides in Christianity it is proven time and again, it >is not the numbers that counts, it is what is Right, and how you abide >by knowing what is Right. Thus being right and practicing what you know >is right, is more important than playing the middle. Then we are doomed. Nobody but a Democrat or a Republican will win. So I suppose it is OK to go vote for Alfred E. Newman if you want. Actually my favorite is Pat Paulson. >>Give me someone worthwhile who has a chance to win - then I will listen to >>you. The operative phrase here is "has a chance to win". >A very humanistic approach. Very wrong too! As I said, the road to hell >is paved with good intentions. As republicans use to say, it's the principle >of the thing that counts. You obviously aren't following the republican's >own rules? You lost me on that one. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Iraq Calls Clinton 'Retarded' Date: 15 Sep 1996 12:45:50 -0500 At least that got that right. Bob Knauer +++++ From the so-called "unbiased news": Iraq Calls Clinton 'Retarded' As the U.S. continued its military buildup in the Gulf, Baghdad pursued its war of words against President Clinton, who one official newspaper called ``mentally retarded, immersed in vice and without conscience.'' In a bid to defuse the latest military crisis with the United States over the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq, Baghdad announced Friday it would suspend missile attacks on allied planes. But it reiterated that this did not mean it recognized the zones. The government newspaper al-Jumhouriya today attacked Clinton in some of the strongest language ever used by Iraq against a U.S. leader. +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: L&J: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 15 Sep 1996 13:32:44 -0500 NB: Usually I won't post comments as deeply as the one below, but the thread loses meaning without it in this case. >>>>My personal opinion of paramilitary orgs is that they are either just a >>>>bunch of regular guys and gals looking for an excuse to run around in the >>>>woods and shoot guns, or some kind of political group which will do no >>>>real good except for themselves. Thank God they are not really the >>>Constitutional Militia or we would have yet another political group to >>>>deal with. >>>I was aiming to respond to this post in full. However the above statement >>>put an abrupt end to that! Anyone who believes the above IS A FOOL! >>>ANY PART OF IT! >>I think you need to amplify that rather grand sweeping statement for your >>comment to take on even the semblance of credibility. But first you might >>want to read some comments I made earlier to Ed's post. >Is not the statement I wrote generally correct? After all that, my reply is simply: "No." >I know you believe in some form of militia. However you only believe in >what you want militia to mean to you, and not in the spirit of the term. As has been the admonition many times here: "Read The Constitution!" Nowhere did it say that the Constitutional Militia consisted in a paramilitary/political group. Those who keep up on this sort of thing can enlighten us as to a document written about two kinds of militias: 1) The "organized militia" - i.e., the National Guard, and 2) The "unorganized militia", namely non-govt citizens who own and train with firearms. The latter "unorganized militia" was the Constitutional Militia referred to in the Constitutuion. The operative word here is "unorganized" - and paramilitary/political groups or the National Guard hardly qualify as "unorganized". When George Wallace defied unConstitutional federal orders to desegrate the U. of A., which orders were unequivocally against the tenth amendment however politically incorrect Wallace may have been at the time, the govt "nationalized" the National Guard and forced Alabamians to assault their own governor. That can't be considered an action to preserve the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination. No, the Constitutional Militia is composed of all able non-govt citizens who own guns and train in their use. It is not composed of paramilitary/political groups per se, althought I suppose the members of such groups can also separately claim to be members of the Constitutional Militia. But they are not members of the Constitutional Militia just because they are members of a paramilitary/political group any more that one could claim to be a member just because he or she were a member of the NRA. >If you can show me where a militia is to be composed of officers, logistics, >...ect. on a set scale, then I might have reason to give your opinion >thought. You state that militias as you/we see them today is not what >they were meant to be. So this leaves quite a bit of explaining for you >to do to show us what the militias are *really* supposed to be! I have explained all I intend to - others see what I am saying, so why are you being so obtude? I am afraid you are just plain mistaken to think paramilitary/political groups constitute the Constitutional Militia described in the Constitutuion by the FF. >Maybe like the Confederate army during the war between the states? That was a military army, although is comes very close to being like the constitutional Militia, since its purpose was to fend off the evil tyrants of the North who had subverted the Constitution. >Maybe everyone having a gun and each playing soldier for himself? The first part is OK, but the second part makes no sense. Who said anything about the members of the Constitutional Militia being soldiers? >Maybe a State run militia? The National Guard is not the Constitutional Militia. >Maybe a militia composed of friends? Friends sure, why not - but separately from being members of the Constitutional Militia. >Maybe a militia composed of differing ideas/philosophies? An ideological militia? God help us! >Maybe the National Guard/Army Reserve could pass as a form of militias. (see above) The army reserve is a military entity and therefore disqualifies it as the Constitutional Militia. >Personally I don't think you know what defines militias. Do you? Well then, All-Knowing-One, please enlighten us. Next we know, your brand of militia will require Christianity as a precondition. It already does, according to you, in order to believe in the Constitution. I guess Jews are just too stupid to understand the Constitution. And let's not forget all those Heathen Native-Americans, running around in loin cloths - they can't possible be as enlightened as a Christian like you. Did I leave anyone out? >Therefore you use what *you* think fits the term militia. I use the meaning the FF had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. >And then you try and tell *us* what you think (opinion) is the truth, and >doing such by making *grand sweeping statements* yourself, attacking the >militas at hand. I am not attacking any "militias" because I do not recognize paramilitary/political groups as the Constitutional Militia. Anyway pointing that out hardly constitutes an "attack", unless you have deep-rooted personal reasons to perpetute the illusion that paramilitary/political groups are the same as the Constitutional Militia - just like the obvious deep-rooted personal reasons you have to perpetuate the illusion that only Christians can be true believers of the Constitution. Pretty soon only Mike Lamb clones can understand anything in life, all the rest of being the infidels we are. >I won't bite here, sorry. Your *grand sweeping statement* is >false, mine is correct, or prove otherwise! I think I just did. NB: There must be something about being a Libertarian that makes people go off the deep end. Sorry, Jeff and others, it seems to be more the case than not. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: Iraq Calls Clinton 'Retarded' Date: 15 Sep 1996 12:29:47 -0700 >The government >newspaper al-Jumhouriya today attacked Clinton in some of the >strongest language ever used by Iraq against a U.S. leader. There they go again, taking the easy way out. It is almost annoying to be forced to agree with comments of the Iraqis. It will be a real shame if we end up with four more years of a man we cannot be proud of, and that our enemies can so easily discredit. I didn't see any comments on Clinton in that Iraqi statement that I would wish to argue in a public forum. In reading the Iraqi statement to my wife, she commented, "They have better intelligence data than I would have expected." They probably take British newspapers! I miss Ike! Hell, I even miss Jimmy! Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Wee Willie Clinton Eulogizes Deceased Rapper Tupac Shakur Date: 15 Sep 1996 13:23:46 -0700 >My Dear Gangsta Rapping Friends and Mourners, > >I, Wee Willie Clinton, join you homies here today to mourn the loss of our >brother Tupac Shakur. I notice many Clinton/Gore 96 supporters seated in the >front row: Snoop Doggy Dog, Dr. Dre, Ice-T and Ice Cube, Democrat home boys >one and all. I salute you, the end products of a generation of failed HUD >housing projects populated by single moms waiting for welfare checks and yet >devoid of dads holding down jobs. I salute you for your advocacy of killing >cops, of abusing women and for your glorification of the criminal misuse of >firearms. Without the influence of the late Tupac, without your influence, >my Administration and the Congress of early 1994 could never have rammed >a so-called "assault weapon" and high capacity magazine ban down the >throats of law abiding Americans. You enabled my staff and Congress to >lie about the role of firearms in American society and to get a fearful >public, fed mush by a Clintonized media, to believe our bogus story. You >inspired us when we needed a morale boost. Snoop, I can assure you that my >advisor Dick Morris knew the lyrics to every song from your album "Dog >Pound " by heart. Yes, you gangsta rappers are Clinton/Gore homies to the >core. We love you. We salute you. We ask you, in memory of Tupac Shakur, >to keep "gang banging", to keep abusing women, to keep inferring that >everyone with a gun in hand is a potential local cop killer. You are our >devoted allies in our long term effort to disarm Americans. Keep packin', >keep shootin', keep hootin' and keep lootin'. With your help, and with >the help of Hollywood's Clintonistas who know how to always show firearms >being used in a bad light, one fine day, Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, my >staff and I will be able to send you a formal letter of thanks for your >able assistance rendered during our mid-90's March To Destroy Freedom. We >shall overcome those who wish to defend freedom. We shall overcome. In >conclusion, when "in extremis, just remember, "two to the dome!" >_______________________________________________________________________________ >THIS IS A SATIRE .. THIS IS A SATIRE .. THIS IS A SATIRE .. THIS IS A SATIRE! > >Christopher C. Ferris >Litchfield NH >ferriscc@mainstream.net > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Gubmint Firefighting Date: 15 Sep 1996 13:49:43 -0700 Whose Responsibility Is It To Put Out The Fire, Anyway? The myriad of problems we face in 1996 America and the tactics Americans must employ to fix them are clearly identifiable through the smoke of the several hundred thousand acres which burned in central Oregon this last fire season. Farmers and ranchers worked side by side, shared resources and equipment and dripped oil to start strategically placed backfires to save each other's crops and herds and "public" lands while government firefighters set up command posts and their in-the-field bureaucratic hierarchy miles away from firelines. Solid American people with intimate knowledge of the lay of the land and a vested interest in saving their livelihoods threw their own equipment and bodies into the firefight while government moved its cozy air conditioned, tax paid offices into the field and threw tax dollars into fighting the fire where they were pretty sure it would eventually end up. While government firefighters descended upon the town and bought up every sleeping bag, shovel, lantern, battery and Band-Aid in sight, then dug a big pit to bury everything they'd just purchased before they left, farmers and ranchers used their own shovels and Band-Aids, their own water trucks and bulldozers to fight fires popping up everywhere, then cleaned their equipment just in case they need it again next year. Townspeople took up collections for a local grocery store to make sandwiches at cost for rancher/farmer/firefighters while government bureaucrats shipped in boxes of food to feed its government firefighters. While government firefighters set up FAX links with circling aircraft in an apparent attempt to spend tax dollars to protect government trees and animals on public land, farmers and ranchers were bulldozing trenches, setting backfires and spraying water to protect crops and herds and trees and animals from fire regardless of whose property it was. Wildfires broke out in central Oregon last fire season, too. The same scenario was in effect last year what with the government bureaucratic hierarchy in place to keep fuel to flame. At one point, a group of ranchers and farmers decided to set a backfire to contain a fast-moving, wind-whipped wildfire in a convenient canyon. Since it just so happened that the convenient canyon was on BLM land, an ineffectual BLM field bureaucrat, who must have thought fire would recognize BLM property boundaries, reportedly stated authoritatively to a rancher, "You can't set fire to BLM land." The rancher told the BLM field bureaucrat, "I tell you what, I'm going to get my guys together to contain this fire in that canyon, you get your guys together and start writing citations." And this is the lesson we have learned and the lesson that can be used to blanket all of the problems in America. The American people must take responsibility for solving their own problems, putting out their own fires because it is the American people who must live with the charred remains of their lives if they don't take responsibility for them. The government is in the business of looking out for its own interests which is not the business of solving problems for us but in creating them and perpetuating them so it can justify the appropriation of more tax dollars to pretend to solve problems for another year. Not based solely on the example set by government firefighters but based upon all of the examples being set by every government agency that has been formed and funded in the last 60 years to solve America's problems, we should be getting the picture by now that government agencies will never solve anything. Our problems will only be solved when the American people start bulldozing trenches, dripping oil to set backfires and spraying water from their own water trucks to put out threatening flames. Americans will have to solve America's problems in spite of field bureaucrats running around with their little ticket books issuing citations to protect us from ourselves. Everybody in America who loves their country and is willing to do whatever it takes to rebuild the Constitutional Republic our Founding Fathers bought for us with their blood should stand up and give a standing ovation to the farmers and ranchers of central Oregon and the townspeople who kept them fed and supplied. Those people threw their knowledge, energy and limited resources into fighting fires and saved thousands of acres from going up in flames while our government, with the seemingly unlimited resources of our tax dollars, was content to let our crops and fields and animals burn. Don Harkins Media Access Inc. AAP@dmi.net - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Prisons in America Date: 15 Sep 1996 14:17:35 -0700 forwarded from elsewhere... --------------------------- Bars More Prisons and the Thriving Justice Industry In 1980, one out of every 687 Americans claimed a mailing address from a state or federal penitentiary. In 1996, many states across the nation are contemplating yet another batch of warehouses for violators of "The Law," to keep one out of every 250 Americans behind bars in a state or federal institution--an increase of 219 percent in 15 years. The United States of America, land of the free and home of the brave, has more people imprisoned per capita than any country in the world, including China and Russia. In an effort to secure bed space for the epidemic of American criminals, a large percentage of which have been convicted and sentenced for victimless crimes, a national trend has made itself apparent. The trend is for government to bait small, rural and typically agricultural communities of under 10,000 people with the carrot of state and/or federal dollars to build and operate new prisons. Small American farming and ranching communities have been hit hard, over and over for the last 20 years with state and federal overregulation. Farmers and ranchers across the nation have found it more and more difficult to make a decent living off their land and are being regulated out of business. For the last decade government bureaucrats bearing impressive feasibility studies with colorful charts and graphs and multi-million dollar budgets have found it easy to convince desperate farmers and ranchers to trade their barns for guard towers and be a part of America's fastest growing industry--the justice industry. "Say a little prayer for the good years and the good days you used to have in your little town," said Claude Cramer of Coalinga , CA, in reference to anybody who is seriously considering the construction of a prison in their community. "More money than you've ever seen will flow into your community, but believe me, its just boom and bust," Cramer added. When the bureaucrats descend upon a community to sell them on the idea of a prison, they promise an influx of dollars through additional commerce and often promise that local contractors will be allowed to bid on prison construction. They also promise that the government will sign contracts with local businesses to provide services to the prison after it is up and running. The promises sound good coming out of the mouths of polished professionals and even better coming into the ears of naive country folk who simply want to feed their families. However, ten years--or less--down the road, simple country folk find their economy ruined because the prison salespersons not only fail to keep their promises but fail to tell the community about the inevitable repercussions of inviting the justice industry into town. Cramer, who has been actively opposed to the construction of several prisons in his area, including the state prison which houses hard-core inmates like Charles Manson in the small town of Corcoran, CA, (population of about 4,500), cited the "iron-clad" contract the state government signed with the local hospital for over $1million to provide medical services for the institution. "They thought they were set for life but the prison broke the contract and built their own hospital. That left the little town of Corcoran four and a half million dollars in debt. That's a lot of money for a little town," Cramer said. With a note of sarcasm touched with humor, Cramer added, "I don't think the entire town is worth that much." What the tax-paid-state-or-federally-employed prison sales teams do not tell trusting community leaders is what will inevitably happen to their community after the massive influx of money to build the prison has been spent and the short lived booming economy busts: 1. Correctional officers and staff with salaries and benefits that are easily double the local average move into the area at a ratio of one officer/staff member for every three inmates. Seventy percent to 80 percent of the prison employees will commute up to 60 miles to and from work and not even live in the town of their employ. 2. Business owners will raise the price of their goods because over 1,000 highly paid people working for the prison can afford to pay whatever businesses demand for goods and services. 3. Property value and rent will increase dramatically. 4. Crime will increase drastically as inmate families move into the area. 5. Welfare disbursements will increase noticeably. 6. All of the town's existing services will become stressed to the limit including libraries, streets, police and fire protection, schools and, of course, the welfare office and health department. 7. Taxes and assessments will be hitting residents from all sides to pay for the expansion of all the services which are not able to keep up with the demands placed upon them. 8. All persons on fixed incomes will suffer due to the increased cost of everything it takes to survive. 9. Many people who had once been hard-working and responsible members of the community will move somewhere else, leaving a larger and larger population of criminal and dependent people behind. These people will be administered to by tax-paid government workers with a diminishing tax base from which to pay their salaries and benefits. 10. The culture of the town will be changed forever and the traditional economy of ranching and farming will all but disappear and the new economy will become almost totally dependent upon government jobs. Why are so many Americans winding up in prison? Is it because so many Americans are bad or because we Americans keep electing legislators, many of whom are lawyers, to entangle every aspect of our country and culture in a web of rules and regulations that are choking us to death? Why won't prison salespersons warn a community of the inevitable repercussions should the community leaders be short-sighted enough to invite the justice industry into town? When are people going to start protecting themselves from politicians who have proven over and over again that they will say anything, do anything, compromise anything in order to feather their own nests or further their own personal political agendas? There is a quote by Thomas Jefferson that is historically appropriate in describing almost everything that is happening to our beloved country and to what were once free Americans: "If we run into such debts that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, in our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and expenses; And the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; Have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; But be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." This quote is particularly appropriate when discussing matters related to the justice industry in America. Thomas Jefferson describes a historically inevitable cycle that he and our other Founding Fathers tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to avoid for us. If Jefferson was right, the exponential growth of the justice industry in our once great country is an indication that we are near the end of the cycle--wretchedness and oppression. If Jefferson was right we can avoid wretchedness and oppression by calling the mismanagers to account instead of hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers. All communities in America must seriously consider the long-term advantages and disadvantages of inviting the justice industry into their lives. Community leaders must not trust the promises of government bureaucrats whose intentions are not to benefit the community but to sell it a prison so more Americans can be put behind bars. Community leaders across America must do their own research by contacting other communities which have allowed prisons to be built in their small towns. They must get information regarding all sides of the issue before they condemn the culture and traditions of their town and the lives of their townspeople to be changed forever. - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Militia Report 1/2 (fwd) Date: 15 Sep 1996 14:09:21 PST Hi folks; While not all of the info in this two part forwarded post may be of direct interest to this list, there is never the less a lot of interesting reading here. Of special note however, is article number 6. It explains in great detail, how Pro-Constitution Activists can get the goods on some of our nastier than thou politicians. The article is titled "Hacking The Politicians". In the interest of sabotaging the campaigns of the corrupt and the traitorous, and more Pro-Active opposition to the enemies of Freedom then, Happy Hacking! On Sep 15, Gene Gross -- Personal Account wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Modern Militiaman Issue #2, July, 1996 A Journal of the Modern Resistance Movement Purpose and Dedication: This electronic and limited print newsletter is dedicated to the modern militiamen and women of the American Resistance Movement. The writers, editors, and contributors of this newsletter have by their talents became leading actors within the overall Patriot movement, be they militiamen, common-law jurists, tax-protesters, Freemen, shortwave talk-show hosts, Libertarians, Conspiracy Theorists or other assorted Rebels with a cause. We are an unruly bunch. Most of the feeds and articles to this newsletter come off the Internet or electronic mail, which is the Gutenburg device of choice. Far-flung, quick, cheap, and secure, the Internet is a growing web of information which cannot be stopped or effectively censored. While at least one copy of each issue will be printed in order to take advantage of 1st Amendment press protections, thus blanketing the electronic edition, this and every issue is designed to be pulled apart and redesigned for every region, for every portion of the former Sweet Land of Liberty, to be used by Patriots everywhere. The opinions expressed in this newsletter are the opinions only of the authors, nobody else. The result should be freedom, not peace. This is the first issue. I have the honor to be the first editor of it. Hopefully, there will be other issues, other editors, and new writers as the old ones are locked up, shot, run-off, Arkancided, or bored to death -- anything other than complacent. Now let's go out and raise some hell and have some fun. Editor Martin Lindstedt Copyright 1996. Anyone is at liberty to copy this newsletter in whole or in part for non-profit purposes provided they properly attribute copied portions to Modern Militiaman and the author(s). People who do make a buck from it are expected to pony up. Table of Contents: 1. About This Issue by Patricia Neill, Roving Editor 2. Infiltration by Government Agents by Mike Johnson 3. Private Prosecutions by Jon Roland 4. The Sense of History by Jane G. Beckman 5. The Great Militia by Dave Delany 6. They Say, I Say: Terrorism Debate by Patricia Neill 6. Hacking the Politicians by J. Orlin Grabbe 7. Martin Lindstet: Always Use a Tool Which Works or The Myth of Non-Violence 8. Joe Z About This Issue: As the roving editor of the second issue of this seditious rag, the Modern Militiaman, I would like to explain my concept for this issue. The information presented here, for the most part, is meant to be used tactically. We don't need to keep preaching to the choir, though I am guilty of that myself. We need to act. But in order to act, we need to know practical things to do. In this issue are articles on spotting infiltrators from Mike Johnson (anyone got any news of that boy, btw?), some ideas for private prosecutions by Jon Roland (I hope these ideas will be developed further), militia background and history from Dave Delany's Freedom House, some fine advice on finding out things you might want to know about your politicians from Orlin J. Grabbe, and for our education and entertainment: a screed by me, an outstanding poem by Jane Beckman, and a debate between Martin Lindstet and Joe Zychik on the issue of nonviolent civil disobedience (JZ) and the usefulness of violence as a tool (ML). Read and Enjoy. How to Spot a Government Infiltrator by Mike Johnson Those who have been studying the stories released to the media these days about the arrests of various different people within the militia movement will doubtlessly have noted that government infiltrators are usually involved. This should make people nervous. And rightly so. Our normal view of government is that the only people who should have to worry about what the government is up to are people who are breaking the law. As the vast majority of constitutional militia units are composed of people who are of good character and don't go around breaking the law to begin with, they might feel that they should have little to worry about from the government. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. The government appears to be going all out to discredit the constitutional militia movement in this country. This effort on the part of the government does include the use of government agents to infiltrate militia units and cause as many problems, hate and discontent as they possibly can. In many instances, these government agents may not be readily apparent as to who and what they are. Some of these people may have had extensive experience in working undercover operations and may not make some of the more stupid mistakes. There are a variety of different roles that such government operatives may play. The first is that they may simply act as a mole. They will do everything anybody else in the unit does, and do nothing at all to call undue attention to themselves. However, they will relay everything that goes on within the unit to their handlers. About the only indication a unit may have that they have been infiltrated by a mole may be that they can't seem to be able to keep anything a secret. This type of role is the most difficult for a unit to detect and deal with. Which is also possibly why most of the spy novels that get written deal with various different ways to smoke out moles. While I wouldn't suggest that anybody try a technique for which the only source of documentation is a work of fiction, it is an indication of just how obnoxious this type of agent could be to deal with. Another role that a government agent might play may be that of a dissipator. A dissipator is one who tries to redirect the course and energy of a unit in ways which will cause it to accomplish nothing of any importance. They may also act so as to break a unit up by emphasizing differences, disagreements and personality clashes between unit members. Given that the people who are attracted to the constitutionalist militia movement usually tend to be strong willed and opinionated people to begin with, such an agent may find that his task is somewhat easier than it might be if he were working with other groups. Unit members should simply be encouraged not to take things personally, be aware that there will be honest differences of opinion between the members of the unit, and to be wary of somebody who does try to take everything personally, or set up cliques within the unit. The final role which will be discussed is that of the agent provocateur. Such an agent infiltrates a unit and tries to get the members of the unit to actually commit crimes, or make it look like they are actually planning to commit crimes. One should also bear in mind that a government agent is not going to be confined to operating within any one of the roles that have been discussed, and may likely mix and match as they feel best. However, the role that has received the highest profile in government operations these days is that of the agent provocateur. That is largely because the results of an operation conducted by an agent provocateur or two make for good propaganda when the media gets hold of it. The resultant publicity given to the arrests and the charges gets used to brand everybody in the entire movement as a criminal. The fact that the entire thing was set up by someone in the employ of the government isn't going to be mentioned at all by the mainstream media. For those who haven't caught on by now, your antenna should start to quiver in the presence of any one, or especially a combination of the following behaviors/patterns demonstrated by a unit member (*): (1) Wants to make bombs. (2) Wants to get everybody else to make bombs. (3) Wants people to buy/store large quantities of substances which could be used for explosives manufacture. (4) Fanatic about obtaining fully automatic weapons, *without* benefit of Class III license. (5) No obvious means of support, especially if they have lots of money to throw around. (6) Auto license tag changed on an irregular basis. (7) Encourages people to plan/do *stupid* things (raid armories, blow up office buildings, etc.) (8) Some groups can get auto tags run. They should be especially suspicious of anybody whose auto tag turns up a complete blank when run. (9) In our case, the guy was absolutely paranoid about his car being out of either his sight or his "wife's" sight for even a trivial amount of time. (10) Person claims to have a military background that they do not have. One individual claimed to be former Special Forces, but was found to be ignorant of some of the things that he should have known when quizzed by people who *were* former Special Forces. Depending on the level of trust that the members of your group have with each other, it might be a good idea to request to see the DD-214s of anybody claiming to have a military background. (11) One of your members has taken effective action to expose or block activities of the police or government preventing the expansion of or preservation of government power to control people and/or invade the privacy of the people. (12) One of your members (a) has an FFL; or (b) is involved in selling at gun shows; or (c) Is involved in promoting gun shows. Arguably the best way to deal with people who meet criteria 1-10 is simply to invite them to leave the unit. As Starr and McCranie found out, trying to turn them in will do no good at all, so the next best bet is to try to get them to leave. Failing that, disband unit, start again from scratch with people you can trust after sufficient elapsed time. Given the way things are going right now, those who have not joined up with public units may want to consider forming small closed units with just a small group of people that they have known for a long time and that they trust. For persons in 11, and 12: Do your best to be sure the goons cannot find a pretext as that is what they often work from. (*) Bill Albert of the Michigan Militia contributed to the list of items to look for and the discussion which follows it. Private Prosecutions by Jon Roland Although almost all criminal prosecutions today are conducted by public prosecutors, there is a longstanding tradition of Anglo-American law for criminal prosecutions to be conducted by private attorneys or even by laymen. The forms of criminal procedure are the same for both kinds of prosecution, and they differ only in the official status and source of compensation of the prosecutor. Most of the cases of private prosecution that we find in the federal courts were conducted by private attorneys who also represented the victim in a civil action against the accused. The first of these federal cases of interest was State of New Jersey v. William Kinder, 701 F.Supp. 486 (D.N.J.1988). A private complainant instituted a criminal case against the defendant by charging him with simple assault and battery under the authority of New Jersey Municipal Court Rule 7:4-4(b), which provides in part, "any attorney may appear on behalf of any complaining witness and prosecute the action on behalf of the state or the municipality". After removing the case from the Municipal Court of New Brunswick, the defendant moved to dismiss. The District Court, Debevoise, J., held that: (1) Municipal Court Rule 7:4-4(b) allowing state to prosecute defendant through use of private attorney was applicable even upon removal to federal court, and (2) the private attorney who prosecuted the case did not have a conflict of interest that violated defendant's constitutional right to due process. In its opinion the Court stated that "there is no provision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which conflicts with its provisions". State courts which have invalidated criminal prosecutions by private attorneys have done so in cases involving serious crimes and those involving situations where a public prosecutor has expressly refused to prosecute the defendant. See e.g., State v. Harton, 163 Ga.App. 773, 296 S.E.2nd 112 (1982) (prohibiting private prosecution for vehicular homicide absent consent and oversight of the district attorney); State ex rel. Wild v. Otis, 257 N.W.2nd 361 (Minn.1977), appeal dismissed, 434 U.S. 1003, 98 S.Ct. 707, 54 L.Ed.2nd 746 (1978) (where county attorney refused to prosecute and grand jury refused to indict on charges of perjury, conspiracy, and corruptly influencing a legislator, private citizen could not prosecute and maintain such charges; dicta suggesting that this might be permissable with legislative approval and court appointed private attorney as prosecutor); see also, Commonwealth v. Eisemann, 308 Pa.Super. 16, 453 A.2nd 1045 (1982) (Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require that a person who is not a police officer must get the district attorney's approval to file felony or misdemeanor charges which do not involve a clear and present danger to the community); People ex rel. Luceno v. Cuozzo, 97 Misc.2nd 871, 412 N.Y.S.2nd 748 (City Court, White Plains 1978) ("exercising its discretion," court prohibits private criminal prosecution against police officer where complainant was charged with a criminal offense arising out of the same occurrence). The practice of using private attorneys to prosecute criminal offenses is derived from English common law. Until the late nineteenth century English criminal procedure relied heavily on a system of private prosecution even for serious offenses. This is discussed in some detail in a classic article by Morris Ploscowe, "The Development of Present-Day Criminal Procedures in Europe and America", 48 Harv.L.Rev. 433 (1935). On p. 437, Ploscowe states, "The Germanic procedure of Charlemagne and the Anglo-Saxon procedure of nearly the same period still looked upon the redress of most crimes as a private matter. ... Since crime was in general treated as a private injury, there was no distinction between civil and criminal proceedings." On p. 469, "The English criminal procedure developed its traditional accusatory characteristics largely because it relied upon a system of private prosecution. ... In the course of the 19th century private prosecution proved itself inadequate. The private individual would frequently forego prosecution rather than incur the expense and responsibility involved. Sometimes there was no individual who could be called upon to prosecute a particular case, and when a private individual did institute proceedings, the case was very often badly prepared. Moreover, the system was abused for private ends, lending itself to bribery and collusion. ... The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was created by act of Parliament in 1879.... Many towns and boroughs appoint solicitors whose functions are to prosecute offenders. ... Prosecutions are also carried on by the police, either directly or through private solicitors whom they hire. The traditional English system of private prosecution is therefore supplemented by various devices for public intervention. ... The public prosecutor has no greater advantages than any private solicitor or barrister prosecuting a case on behalf of a client." Another case was Wesley Irven Jones, Appellant, v. Jerry E. Richards, Sheriff of Burke County, N.C.; Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, State of North Carolina, Appellees, 776 F.2d 1244 (4th Cir.1985). On an appeal of a petition for habeas corpus denied, Circuit Judge Chapman held that no constitutional right was impaired by involvement of the same attorneys as prosecutors in a criminal trial and as plaintiff's attorneys in civil suits filed against petitioner arising out of a traffic accident which produced both criminal charges and civil actions. In their appeal, attorneys for petitioner cited Ganger v. Peyton, 379 F.2d 709 (4th Cir.1967), in which private prosecution was disallowed. However, in that case, the Commonwealth's attorney who prosecuted Ganger in his criminal case for an assault against his wife was at the same time representing Ganger's wife in a divorce proceeding. Ganger testified that the prosecuting attorney offered to drop the assault charge if Ganger would make a favorable property settlement in the divorce action. On the basis of that testimony, it was decided that Ganger's prosecutor "was not in a position to exercise fair-minded judgement" in the conduct of the case. In North Carolina the use of private attorneys to assist the state in the prosecution of criminal cases "has existed in our courts from their incipiency," State v. Best, 280 N.C. 413, 186 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1972), and such use in a particular case is committed to the discretion of a trial judge. State v. Lippard, 223 N.C. 167, 25 S.E.2d 594, 599, cert. denied, 320 U.S. 749, 64 S.Ct 52, 88 L.Ed. 445 (1943). However, when private attorneys are employed, the district attorney must remain in charge of and be responsible for the prosecution, State v. Page, 22 N.C.App. 435, 206 S.E.2d 771, 772 cert. denied, 285 N.C. 763, 209 S.E.2d 287 (1974). Other states provide for private prosecutors by statute. In Texas, Vernon's Ann.Texas C.C.P. art. 2.07(a) [Attorney pro tem] provides that "Whenever an attorney for the state is disqualified to act in any case or proceeding, is absent from the county or district, or is otherwise unable to perform the duties of his office, or in any instance where there is no attorney for the state, the judge of the court in which he represents the state may appoint any competent attorney to perform the duties of the office during the absence or disqualification of the attorney for the state." However, by Op.Atty.Gen. 1990, JM-925, a district judge is authorized to appoint a district attorney pro tem pursuant to the above article even though there is an assistant district attorney in place. In Davis v. State (App. 12 Dist.1992) 840 S.W.2d 480 it was held that appointment of a special prosecutor was within the discretion of trial courts, and that such appointment is not predicated on the absence or disqualification of elected district attorney. Visit Jon's Web site at http://www.constitution.org/ Herewith, an excellent poem on our history by Jane G. Beckman: A Sense of History by Jane G. Beckman It is not conspiracy, but only realization--- History swinging its pendulum, Replaying old fears and ancient ways. Whither our world? Down routes we have gone A thousand times before, Even in the land of the Free. I have been there, when Cary Chapman Catt sounded the call, Or the agents of Pinkerton beat the strikers senseless, Gone to jail with Woodhull and Sanger. I remember COINTELPRO, and wars created for the sake of News. They have lynched me in the South, and beaten me on marches. I have shared a podium with Anthony and Fanny Wright, Made impassioned pleas with the Sisters Grimke. There is a black list, and a man named McCarthy, And a man named J. Edgar who keeps a list of his enemies. Houses have burned, and offices of newspapers, Men jailed for speaking forbidden Truth. This is America, but it has never been the Land of the Free, But rather the Land of Opportunity, where the scrabblings of a few Can raise them to rule over us. To some, liberty or justice has ever been but a word. Tell of Freedom to the railbaron, the magnates in patent-leather, The oilmen and the ursurers, the politicians and the police. And of "protection" and payoffs, of people of no consequence, Of crushing taxes, of oppressive factories, of company stores. This, too, is the history of Our Land. There is no more child labor, but it could come again. Women are equals? Tell another story of utopias! The soldier and the policeman are your friends? It depends on where one stands in the scheme of things. The lawyer and the politician, are they friend or foe? Do they fight for ideals, or for personal gain? Mr. Jefferson, how right you were, speaking of raided coffers, And the way history might swing and sway, right and left. Radicals and revolutionaries have ever given blood and bone, Dear-bought the rights, the lives we lead, That we might cast them to the winds, uncaring. Such is the way of things, when man grows sleepy, sated, When he forgets the terror of a knocking at the door. And yet he wakes, and wakes to fight again, Against an ancient spectre of injustice. Perhaps it was Spartacus, or O'Connell, or Thomas Payne. Perhaps it was a Martin Luther King, or Lech Walesa, Or the shoutings of mobs in St. Petersburg or Paris, Those crushed by tanks in Tienamin Square. We look to heros of legend, name William Tell and Robin Hood, Add our own names to Magna Carta or beneath John Hancocks, Thinking we, too, might bear such company, never thinking price. For there are expenses to be borne in bold acts, And life and fortune are such little things to pay. These are the currents of history, Lifting frail banners of Freedom aloft. They ebb and flow like tides, And when the tide flows out, There are bodies in the rockweed. ************************************************** The Great Militia by Dave Delany The militia is a "grass roots" tool of the people, designed to check the abuse of its own internal government, *and* to defend against the incursions of a foreign enemy. The struggles of war are best left to an army which is to be called up *only* in the event of war -- "called up," not "impressed." Standing armies have no place on American soil. The professional soldier is without purpose in a free society. He is, as John Hancock clearly pointed out, sometimes a man unfit to live in society; a man who has no liberty, and despises it in others; a man who, for an extra penny in his paycheck, would gladly alter his allegiance. We have seen the "professional" doing his work on our citizens, and preparing for assault in our cities. Besides the assaults at Waco and Ruby Ridge, we have all read the accounts of soldiers training in our cities. It must be clear from the beginning that the fine young men of our history, and the outstanding officers who have been called up during our conflicts with foreign nations, have been the finest, noblest, best disciplined in the history of the world's defense of freedom. We are now at odds with our history. Standing armies are training to obey the word to act against the neighbors of their youth. Standing armies *have no place* on American soil! "But," answers Hancock against the obvious question, "since standing armies are so hurtful to a state, perhaps my countrymen may demand some substitute, some other means of rendering us secure against the incursions of a foreign enemy." Our military strength should be increased, and our military budget should be slashed. Our defense should be trebled, and our professional soldiers cut by thirds thrice. We should be prepared to take on the world, and not venture from our shores to do so. Hancock continues: "But can you be one moment at a loss? Will not a well disciplined militia afford you ample security against foreign foes? We want not courage; it is discipline alone in which we are exceeded by the most formidable troops that ever trod the earth." *That*, my friends, is why *you* are necessary in the militia; and by reason, by intuition, and by God, you *are* in the militia! The militia is not a few groups of local organization. That is unnatural. You cannot call up the militia of Maine to defend your California home, and when the force directed against you is the army of the federal government, or one of its fingers, you can hardly call upon the hand of the federal government to protect you! Do you somehow think that the commander in chief is immune from the abuse of power? Rather than replacing the local militia, the growth of the federal army requires the increase in the strength of the local militia. The local militia is the only defense against the tyranny of a standing army. Josiah Quincy wrote in 1774, that standing armies are composed of men "whose interest and very existence, depend on an abuse of their power." Do you understand? Is that clear? "Booty and blind submission is the science of the camp." The solution? Quincy sounds much like Hancock: "No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty without uniting the characters of the citizen and the soldier in those destined for the defense of the state. The sword should never be in the hands of any, but those who have an interest in the safety of the community, who fight for their religion and their offspring; -- and repel invaders that they may return to their private affairs, and the enjoyment of freedom and good order. Such are a well regulated militia composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property as individuals, and their rights as freemen." "A well regulated militia:" a standing army? God forbid! They are naturally at odds with one another! Joseph Warren spoke passionately against the professional soldier among the people. A great statesman, he saw that the professional soldiery are "taught to consider arms as the only arbiters by which every dispute is to be decided between contending states; -- they are instructed implicitly to obey their commanders, without enquiring into the justice of the cause they are engaged to support; hence it is, that they are ever to be dreaded as the ready engines of tyranny and oppression. And it is too observable that they are prone to introduce the same mode of decision in the disputes of individuals, and from thence have often arisen great animosities between them and the inhabitants, who, whilst in a naked, defenseless state, are frequently insulted and abused by an armed soldiery." Quincy: "An invasion and conquest by mere strangers and foreigners are neither so formidable or disgraceful as the establishment of a standing army under color of the municipal law of the land." Are you swept up by the current foment against the local militias? Forgive the brashness of the question, but . . . Are you stupid? I suspect not. You have probably assumed the best and most noble of our government. Let me close by adding yet another figure from our nation's great and formative history, Benjamin Rush. He said, in 1787: "the American war is over, but this is far from being the case with the American revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the drama is closed." He was speaking then of the weakness of our nation. I am writing now of the weakness of our nation also. "Hear her proclaiming, in sighs and groans, in her governments, in her finances, in her trade, in her manufactures, in her morals and in her manners," (do you hear them?) "'The Revolution is not over.'" If we are to remain free, it never will be. God bless the militia. Dave Delany's Freedom House PO Box 212 Conklin NY 13748 For the real thing, send a donation! Get the graphics, the contributing writers, and the proper formatting! $20 suggested for one year. For an on line subscription, send the message "subscribe" freedomh@spectra.net. Copyright: Dave Delany's Freedom House You may copy and repost this material for non-commercial use, if the articles remain intact and credit is given to Dave Delany's Freedom House [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Militia Report 2/2 (fwd) Date: 15 Sep 1996 14:10:35 PST On Sep 15, Gene Gross -- Personal Account wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Modern Militiaman, Issue 2, Part 2 They Say, I Say: Terrorism Debate by Patricia Neill So the national media and my governors sez to me "Hey Patty. You are not safe. Life is not secure. There are terrorists lose in the land. We're gonna take your freedoms, all of 'em, and we'll make you safe and secure." So I sez to them: "Precisely how safe are you gonna make me, pal? You had thousands of cops, security guards, tons of FBI, ATF, GBI, an entire stew of security guys, surveillance cameras, all kinds of that security junk at the Olympics and *still* you couldn't stop what happened. People get hurt and killed with your security, you assholes. What security? I ain't buying, no thanks no way." Sez They: "But planes are falling out of the sky, terrorists are blowing up planes!! We need to really buckle down and get these terrorists, and yeah, we're gonna take away your right to travel, we're gonna stick a chip in your body so we can track your every movement in case you get kidnapped or something, and we're gonna limit everything you can do and say, but you'll have security! You'll be safe!" Sez Me: "You guys are a pack of liars! You tell me in New York State that I cannot carry a gun to protect myself with if I am attacked. And yet you also tell me that is not the job of the police to protect me, just as you told that woman in New York and you didn't allow her to buy a gun and she was attacked and nearly killed by her exboyfriend. She sued your asses, and then the court had the unmitigated gall to tell her that the police are not obligated to protect citizens and can't be sued for not doing so. YOU ARE LIARS. You are not offering me security you stupid bozos, this is a naked power grab on your part and you know it. You people are really ignorant if you think we're gonna buy this one. I'll tell you what, you lying media whores and you lying politician whores, I am going to protect myself. And I am going to defend my country from the likes of you nazis." Sez They: "Help, help, this woman is obviously a hate mongering extremist terrorist. Help Help! We'll have to listen in on all your conversations and watch your with our surveillance cameras. We must arrest her immediately and put her away where she cannot harm society. Help Help!" Sez Me. "I may be a hate mongering extremist, for I hate your lies and your brazen and obvious power grabs. I hate the way you are selling my country and my rights down the river, you traitorous bastards. You are traitors to this country, you are nazis, National Socialists, each and every one of you. Damn straight I hate your actions. As for mongering, no one is paying me for these opinions (darn it). As for extremist, you are right on the money there. I am no conforming, braindead consumer. I am a wide-awake, thinking American and *I* *don't* *like* *you* *guys.* Oh and by the way, I have no intention of harming society, but I do intend to put you traitors out of business, so just get used to the thought." Sez They: "Help Help! This woman is no doubt a member of one of those terrorist militias. Help Help." Sez Me: "Well, technically, the law says males between the ages of 17 and 45, so I'm the wrong sex and I'm almost too old, but the hell with that. You're damn tooting I'm a militiamember, you lowlife creeps. It is an AMERICAN thing to be. I intend to defend my Free State from the likes of you betrayers of the people, from the traitors we find in all political offices, from your lying propagandists, the media." Sez They: "But those militia members in Georgia had bombs! They had discussed blowing up the Olympics! The militias are all terrorists!" Sez Me: "Lying will get you no where, pal. You lies are becoming very obvious, in case you weren't aware of that fact. Your very own ATF agents fed that Olympics story to the media, who of course, bought that lie hook line and sinker as they always do from their "bosses." And your very own ATF agent admitted under oath that he had planted those bomb parts on the guy's property without his knowledge! Your very own ATF agent admitted to doing all of this, under oath, on the stand in a courtroom. The ATF are terrorists. And besides that they're NAZIS!" Sez They: "We're going to get you! We have all the power on our side." Sez Me: "Oh yeah? Go talk to King George the III." "Political rights do not originate in parliaments, they are rather forced upon them from without ... they do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistence of the populace." Rudolf Rocker ******************************************** Hackers vs. Politicians by J. Orlin Grabbe Politicians are those annoying people who--drink in hand--can stare at a uuencoded file for hours, fall into a sexual reverie involving ASCII entities, and then weave their way to the nearest TV camera to pontificate about pornography on the Internet. But, you ask, if they are so dumb, why are they so rich? Sometimes the latter *is* a mystery, reminiscent of the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. Take the case of a man who can hardly pay his bills, but who gets elected to national political office and goes off to Washington for a few years. Then--lo and behold!--on his simple politician's salary, he suddenly manages to maintain two fine homes, one inside the beltway in Chevy Chase and another in his home town community of Rat's Ass, to purchase new cars for his wife and himself, to accumulate lakefront property in a neighboring county, and to stash away a nice sum of cash in a foreign bank account. If the "simple politician's salary" bit sounds improbable, it probably is. Let's face it: many politicians are on the take. They may have hidden sources of income involving illegal payoffs from corporations, lobbying groups, or individuals. Are you a student? Then you will be proud to know that educational commissions and associations are also a hot new conduit for political bribes. This article suggests a few basic procedures for finding out whether that special politician you have in mind is getting more on the side than ASCII sex. Honest politicians, of course, will have nothing to fear from any of the following. Is what I am about to do legal? you ask. Of course it is. To reassure yourself, pull out your world-wide web browser and take a peak at one of the many data service companies, say Insights, Inc.<(located at http://isis.iah.com/insights/background/). They promise, using only an individual or business name and/or address, to provide sufficient information for: Preparing Due Diligence Reports Locating People or Businesses Exposing and Controlling Fraud Uncovering & Verifying Background Information Identifying and Verifying Assets How do they get away with this? Simple. They legally search public records. Much of this public-record information is computerized, although some of it is not. In any event, I do not advocate illegal or questionable access methods, or the breaking of any laws. Checking up on the (possibly criminal) politician of your choice doesn't have to be a crime. Still not convinced? Hop over to http://www.infi.net/~dgs.assc/locator/bgrndnfo.html Infonet (http://www.infi.net/~dgs.assc/locator/bgrndnfo.html), which for a fee will mine public records for nuggets like: Felony and Misdemeanor Criminal Filings--"Search any court in the nation for a seven year history of criminal filings and possible convictions." (Many politicians wait until they reach office to work on this part of their resume, but some are early starters.) Driving Histories--"Search a three to seven year history of an individuals driving performance, including tickets and accidents." (So you don't really care if your politician speeds a little now and then. But, on the other hand, did that official who helped him get out of a DWI expect a quid pro quo?) Upper and Lower Court Civil Filings--"Obtain a civil litigation history of any individual in any court in the United States." (Is there some hidden reason this guy is getting sued all the time?) Social Security Number Tracking--"Access all three credit bureaus to verify the user of a social security number and the addresses being used." (Having your politician's social security number is the next best thing to having his Swiss bank account number.) Professional Licensing--"Verify the existence and status of an entity's license in a specific practice area, such as private investigation, medicine, real estate and more." (Was your politician really a world-renowned physicist before returning home to run for mayor of Rat's Ass?) Consumer and Business Credit Reports--"Review account balances, credit terms and payment histories for an individual or business." ("So, before he went to Washington, he couldn't pay his bills . . .") Well, if they can do it, so can you. So where do you start? Well, first see what the politician him/herself has to say about the money flows. Federal law (5 USC app. 6, section 101 et seq.) requires members of Congress to file *Financial Disclosure Statements* yearly. The Financial Disclosure form has nine parts: Schedule I: Earned Income Schedule II: Payments in Lieu of Honoraria Made to Charity Schedule III: Assets and "Unearned Income" Schedule IV: Transactions. Schedule V: Liabilities Schedule VI: Gifts Schedule VII: Fact-Finding, Substantial Participation, and Other Travel Schedule VIII: Positions Schedule IX: Agreements Want to see Newt Gingrich's personal finances for the year 1993? Direct your web browser to http://www.cais.com/newtwatch/93sei.html. Many state, county, and city elections have similar requirements, either on a personal or a campaign basis. Want to see a copy of the *Candidate Campaign Statement-Long Form-Form 490* for Joel Ventresca, candidate for Mayor of San Francisco? VisitCampaign Net at http://tmx.com/sfvote. These statements represent what a politician says he or she has or gets. But the really interesting items--like those kickbacks from the Cali cartel--not surprisingly go unreported. To get the good stuff, you will need your full hacker armor. The first thing to get is your politician's *social security number (SSN)*. It's not difficult. Your politician loves to be photographed doing his/her civic duty of voting. Which means he or she fills out a *voter's registration card* (public information) which will contain said politician's name, address, date of birth, party affiliation, and--usually--social security number. Voter files may be obtained at your politician's local county court house, as well as on many on-line data bases. A person's SSN is the common key that links together many commercial and government data bases. Can't find the SSN number on the voter's registration card? Then try *DMV* records. The insurance lobby has made sure that driver's records are easy to get, along with the details of any accidents, and critical driver information such as height, color of eyes, address--and social security number, if the latter was required information on the form. (California won't give out addresses, if a request has been filed not to do so--the "movie star" exemption.) In about 20 states the individual's social security number is the driver's license number. Still searching? Then go with the triple whammy of the major credit bureaus--TRW, TransUnion, and CBI/Equifax. The Fair Credit Reporting Act essentially implies you must be contemplating a business relationship--such as selling a car, renting an apartment, giving a loan, or attempting to collect on a judgment--with a party to request his credit report. But the *header* information in the file--such as social security number, date of birth, address, and spouse's name--is legally available to anyone, and your inquiry (unlike an actual credit report) will leave no footprints. The addresses and phone numbers are: TRW 660 N. Central Expressway, Exit 28 Allen, TX 75002 Automated phone: 800-392-1122 Phone: 800-422-4879 CBI/Equifax 5505 Peachtree Dunwoody, #600 Atlanta, GA 30374-0241. Automated phone: 800-685-1111 Phone: 800-685-5000 Trans Union P.O.Box 7000 North Olmsted OH 44070-7000 Automated phone: 800-851-2674 Phone: (714) 738-3800, ext. 6450 Are you a hacker-journalist? Then take a peak at the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting (NICAR; located at http://www.nicar.org/). Their bylaws prohibit them from selling data to nonjournalists (not that you want to *buy* data anyway--we're just exploring *possibilities*). But data is "sold at or below costs to journalism organizations or individuals for legitimate journalism uses only." (Doing your civic duty to keep tabs on your politician is, naturally, a legitimate journalistic use of the data.) Their data bases include these publicly-available information sets, among others: Organization: Government Services Agency Databases: Federal Procurement Contracts for 1992-1994. Organization: Federal Election Commission Databases: Campaign Contributions for the 1991-1994 election cycle. Organization: Federal Reserve Board Databases: home mortgage loans covered by Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (for 1992-1994) Organization: Federal Aviation Administration Databases: Service Difficulty Reports, Airman Directory, Aircraft Registry Organization: Federal Bureau of Investigation Databases: Uniform Crime Reports Organization: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Databases: Gun Dealer Licenses The existence of such data immediately brings to mind a barrage of possibly relevant questions: Is there an incestuous relationship between the donors to your politician's campaign and subsequent federal government contracts? (It always starts somewhere . . .) To find out, compare federal procurement data with campaign contributions. Campaign contribution data from the Federal Election Commission are supposed to include all contributions by individuals and political action groups (PACs) to a politician's federal election campaign. The Government Services Agency, meanwhile, keeps Individual Contract Action Reports (ICARs), which has information about the federal agency granting a government contract, the identity of the contractor, and the contract dollar amount. Has your politician recently purchased a new home? What is its value? What was the down payment? Is he or she living suspiciously beyond his or her means? What is your politician's race or gender (DNA sequence?)? To start to answer these questions, look at home mortgage data. The Federal Reserve Board started keeping data like this in order to check on "fair" lending practices. So the Fed began tracking home and home-improvement loans, as well as bank-purchased loans. (And just to help the enterprising hacker, when your politician is buying, or possibly refinancing, a house, most banks will now ask for his Social Security Number on the Deed of Trust, especially as the Federal National Mortgage Association now requires it.) Does your politician own an aircraft? What's its value? Did he purchase it with cash? Check the FAA's aircraft records. Does your politician own a gun even while advocating gun control? If he bought the gun from a dealer, ATF records can help out here. And so on. Now let's get to the nitty-gritty: *city, county, and state records*. The *City Clerk* in your politician's home town will have a list of business licenses (name, address, date) and building permits (name, address, cost of construction). The *County Clerk* or *County Recorder* should have liens on file (lien holder, payment agreements), a Probate Index (estate settlements), records of lawsuits and judgments, powers of attorney with respect to real estate, records of mortgages on personal property, and bankruptcy papers. Here you can find out not only the value of your politician's property, but also the names, addresses, and property values of everyone who lives on his street. *City and County Courts* will also maintain a Civil Index (civil actions, plaintiffs and defendants, as well as civil files: description of any disputed property or valuables), a Criminal Index (criminal cases in Superior Court, as well as criminal files), and voter's registration files. The *county tax collector* will have a description of any property owned, as well as taxes paid on real estate and personal property. The *county assessor* may also have maps and photos, or even blueprints showing the location of your politician's hot tub. The *Secretary of State* will have corporation files and possibly annual reports of your politician's company. Okay, let's go over it again, taking it slow. With your politician's social security number in hand, you can get header information from the major credit bureaus. This will give you a seven to ten year history of addresses, as well any spousal name or names. The latter is very important, since your average politician's instinct will be to keep questionable sums of money and suspect personal assets in the name of his or her spouse, sibling, business associate, or girlfriend. Next you go to the state Department of Motor Vehicles, to find out your politician's tastes in cars, trucks, motorcyles, boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. Of course if your politician leases any of the above, he or she will not show up as the vehicle owner. So the next thing to do is to run the license plate number of that Caddy parked out front, since this will give you the name of both lessee and lessor. Next you talk to someone who does business with your politician, and who thus has a permissible reason under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to run a credit check. This will give you a listing of all your politician's credit accounts, current balances, payment history, and payment terms. Any bankruptcies in the last ten years, or liens or judgments in the last seven years, will be listed. Did your politician suddenly receive a huge campaign contribution from some source, soon after your politician found himself stuck with a quarter million dollar judgment against him? If so, he won't be the first person who has sold out his country to pay off a personal financial debt. What property does your politician own? The offices of County Recorder and County Tax Assessor will give you the land value, improvement value, and total assesssed values for any property. They will frequently have also the amounts received for any sales, the sale dates, as well as information on the mortgage-holder or other lender. Did your politician get a large loan from Washoe International State Bank just about the time Washoe International State Bank was having trouble with state banking regulators, who are overseen by a legislative committee on which your politician sits? Does your politician own a business of any consequential size? Then run a business credit check. Who are (were) your politician's business associates? Who are the company officers and principals? Or--if as is commonly the case--your politician is a lawyer, who are the law partners? Look also for bankruptcies, tax liens, public records filings, judgments, and UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) financing statements. These documents may turn out to be filled with all sorts of unexpected names, dates, and activities. On what honorary commissions does your politician serve? Do the commission's audited financial statements show any payments for services not rendered? This was apparently what New York Attorney General Dennis Vacco was wondering, when he noted, on January 9, 1996, in a letter to the National Center on Education and the Economy: "Statement 11 on your 1990 Federal 990 and Note 5 on your 1990 audited financial statements indicate that the Center had retained the services of Hillary Rodham Clinton, a member of the Rose Law Firm, to direct your Workforce Skills Program while she also served as a member of the Center's Board of Trustees. Statement 11 of the 1990 filing indicates that Mrs. Clinton received $23,000 for unspecified services. The 1990 filing also refers to a second contract, which was reported to be in the amount of $150,000 covering the period February 1, 1991 through January 31, 1992, and a similar statement appears on Statement 11 attached to the 1991 Federal 990." Moreover, did either Hillary Clinton or the Rose Law firm pay taxes on the sums received? (A little birdie tells me neither one did.) The office of the Secretary of State in any of the 50 states can be a source of UCC searches. UCC Indices will show whether your politician is listed as either a debtor or secured party. (Okay. So your politician is up to his neck in debt to Jackson Stephens. That doesn't mean he listens to a word of political advice Stephens gives him. No way.) Superior Courts, Federal Bankruptcy Courts, Small Claims Courts, and city, county, and state tax authorities keep records of tax liens, court judgments, and bankruptcy filings. These reveal not only outstanding financial obligations, but also personal and company affiliations, partners, subsidiaries, and dependents. (Is there a Don Lasater or Don Tyson in your politician's background?) Does your politician really have those degrees he claims? Call the college registrar. Despite what you think, many politicians don't believe in their own "self-made man" rhetoric, and will enhance their resumes with unearned degrees. This in itself may only be a venal sin, but someone who records falsehoods in this area will likely also lie in others. Has your politician been in the news? Check your library's newspaper file, along with reader's guides, and other news indexes. On the Internet, you can quickly search for your politician's name among the 8 billion words on 16 million WWW pages, using the new Alta Vista search utility created by Digital Equipment Corporation. You can also do a name or keyword search through all 13,000 Usenet groups. Alta Vista is located at . Be sure to read Lee Lapin's book The Whole Spy Catalog (Intelligence Incorporated, 2228 S. El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA 94403; ISBN 1-880231-10-7) for literally dozens of names, addresses, and phone numbers of data information providers, along with an evaluation of their services. You don't need to patronize these services in order to steal ideas from them. Basically none of these providers specializes in politicians, so after a little self-education and set-up, you may be in a position to start your own business in political investigations. Bill yourself as a 21st Century Sherlock Holmes. (*Somebody* has to stop the nefarious influence of DigiCrime, Inc., found at http://www.digicrime.com/.) Oh. About those foreign bank accounts. Well, I'll leave that to your imagination. But a little birdie told me if you call a military base computer, find an out-dial number, call another military base, and so on, going through a *minimum* of three military bases, any trace back will stop at the third military base. Whatever you do, don't do anything illegal. Always Use a Tool Which Works or The Myth of Non-Violence Violence, like guns, is a neutral tool used by good and evil men alike to carry out their goals. Arguing about "good" violence as opposed to "bad" violence is an act of futility. Successful violence is defined as "good" by the victors while violence used by those who lose, be it for purposes of aggression or defense, whatever, is always defined as being "bad." That is simply the way it is. No amount of argument ever changes this fact, although it does try to disguise it. Violence was used to form this country. George III just wouldn't step down from being king just because the Declaration of Independence asserted that the colonies had decided that they didn't consent to his further rule and he was now an illegitimate despot. Violence kept this country united when the South decided to go her own way. Violence maintains the current government. George Washington said that the essence of government was force. Force is useless unless it contains the threat of violence or fails to deliver upon that threat. And now that this country is decaying, the social order is falling apart, and no justice is to be found, expect a Golden Age of Violence to come about. Count on it. Non-violence would be preferable. Sane people should be able to work out their differences without the need for bloodshed, express or implied. However, a policy of non-violence seldom, if ever, works. The two times within this century when a supposed policy of "non-violence" worked were in Mohandas Gandhi's kicking the British out of India and the supposed triumph of Martin Luther King and desegregation. Neither policy was entirely successful and they only worked in their limited fashion because the following two prerequisites were present: 1.) The status quo is able to be reasoned with and retains some sense of decency. Gandhi used his techniques against an English government which had promised to leave India if she helped England fight. While Gandhi was imprisoned a number of times by the British government, eventually Gandhi's demand that the Indians be master in their own house was met. Let's say the Germans had won WWII and by conquest succeeded the English as rulers of India. Would there have been talk of non-violence if they had done with Hindus as they did with Jews? Of course not! Now let's take Martin Luther King and his struggles with Southern whites for integration of the Negro into white society. Martin Luther King succeeded only because the early 1960's was a time when this country was willing to make some accommodation with allowing blacks to vote, desegregate educational facilities and public offices, and spend some political muscle into seeing that by dint of "interstate commerce" laws that private institutions were forced to integrate. The Southern political establishment and some of the white middle class were "soft" on the notion that it was time for the Negro to get some of his rights. They went along, although they complained aloud for public consumption. One of the phrases in King's "I have a Dream" speech concerned how blacks had a "blank check" to cash in reparations due to white injustice against them. Such a phrase today would be laughed away today by rich and middle-class white Republicans tired of paying taxes for welfare programs. The time for such as Martin Luther King has long passed. No, the South of the early and middle '60's was ripe for de jure Negro integration, as whites and blacks had been working and living close together for a hundred years and it was sensed that it was time to change the artificial, government-imposed conditions which held the blacks down. True integration proceeded farther and faster in the South than it did in Northern cities. Martin Luther King tried to help out Northern city blacks but failed. Chicago was not interested because Chicago was not ready to listen. 2.) There is a credible threat of violence to back up the protestations of non-violence. White Englishmen were outnumbered by thousands to one by Indians. They realized that if the Indians decided to rise up and kill them all, the English were toast. The English remembered the Great Mutiny of 1857 and recognized that unless nuclear weapons were used, ten thousand trigger-fingers to one were hopeless odds. In addition to being too tired to maintain their Empire, the English no longer had enough of a technological edge to maintain it in the face of open hostility from the natives. Martin Luther King and his bunch of black "Reverends" were quite adept at using militants like Malcom X, Stokely Carmichael, and the Black Panthers to play games of "good nigger -- bad nigger" against rich, soft, white authorities in the South. "Unless there is social justice NOW, them 'bad niggers' will riot, burn down and loot your stores and rape white wimmin!" ( I hear the same thing today from white folks about what "them niggers" are going to do if welfare checks are stopped. ) While some of the poor rednecks and Ku Kluckers would have loved to fight a race war, the Southern white establishment had far more to lose, including positions of influence over white and black alike. In the South, the blacks lived cheek and jowl with whites. In the North, blacks lived in discernible ghettoes or districts, and thus in case of racial war would be easier to contain. Southerners knew they were far more vulnerable, hence they had to come to some sort of accommodation. So unless there are present in the current social situation the above two factors of open-minded decency on the part of the ruling status-quo and a credible threat of violence from the agitating change faction, any hope of accomplishing peaceful change through "civil disobedience" or "non-violent protest" is sheer fantasy. Idiotic, dangerous fantasy. Remember, violence is a tool, and tools are meant to be used. In fact, Violence is at its most uncontrollable whenever dishonorable people have a relative monopoly on violence and their victims believe in pacifism. Hence the slaughter of Jews by National Socialist Germans, wherein an orgy of bloodshed was engaged in by masochists and sadists feeding each other's sickness. Violence is only able to understand Violence and usually only by methods of counting, be it the number of trigger-fingers aiming rifle barrels, or tanks, nuclear missiles, biological weapons, or whatever is the latest and greatest weapon of violence. The neutral tool of Violence has no good nature towards which to make moral appeal. Violence is only deterred by the presence of greater Violence. So understanding these facts of life concerning both human nature and the uses of violence, for good people to eschew Violence merely assures that evil people will seek, then gain, an unobstructed monopoly on Violence. Once these evil people have a monopoly of violence they will use it to enslave more docile human beings and kill anyone who threatens to get in their way. This is the nature of government and it explains why slavery, in its many forms, always exists. God himself will eventually have to use force, or the threat of it, in order to forever imprison Satan. In the ongoing struggle of good vs. evil, it will not be by means of gentle persuasion that evil desists, but through the use of force. All foolish pacifists wish to do is convince the credulous that they are better than God. It is an item of tacit agreement among the natural leaders of the militia movement that eventually it will come down to violence. Some of us might file lawsuits or run for political office or pursue other "non-violent" means of change, even though we know there is no justice to be found in government courts and there is no chance to be elected in a society determined to cannibalize itself until there is nothing left to loot. Why do we engage in activity hopeless in its own right? It is no longer so much a matter of de-legitimizing government. Most people realize the government is corrupt and unjust since the government was the greatest devourer of its former right to rule. Right now we are in the middle of the choosing of sides for the Great Violence ahead. An array of the New Elite, with their allies of Constitutionalists, Militant Libertarians, Birchers, home-schoolers, Radicalized Christians, Militias, Common-Law Sovereigns and other tired producers prepare to do battle with the tired, corrupt Old Elite and their rabble of government workers, army-of-occupation police thugs, politicians, lawyers, corporations, bankers, and other assorted parasitic looters. In between both camps are the great mass of Homer Simpsons, uneasily sitting on the fence, waiting for one side to win. The entire country holds its breath for the election of 1996, after which this country will implode when some trifling incident sparks a Second American Civil War. Our side must present Justice- and Freedom-based alternatives to violence, if for no other reason than to increase the poignancy due to good-faith efforts shattered upon the greed-carapace of evil. Right now, the very best and brightest militia people are beginning to measure the new foundations of government for after we win this war. Will we have a loose confederation of states banded together for mutual protection? Small republics of like-minded people? An overall Cromwellian military dictatorship for 40 years until the people are worthy to reassume a whole American Republic? Petty monarchies or despotism? Complete anarchy? We will probably win this upcoming war, although some of us won't be around to celebrate the victory. Good usually triumphs over evil for no other reason than because good can survive on its own, but evil must live off of good. But what happens if all the good is completely destroyed because it did not use the tool of Violence? Granted, evil devours itself upon its lusts. How does this benefit good? Non-violence is a mirage dreamed up by pacifists -- cowards demanding halos. Far better to use a tool which works. Martin Lindstedt, militiaman, 7th Missouri Militia Libertarian Candidate for Governor =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send to liberty-and-justice-request@pobox.com with "unsubscribe" in body (not subject) of the msg. List-Owner - Mike Goldman [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: L&J: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 15 Sep 1996 17:26:35 -0700 (PDT) On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: whack > I have explained all I intend to - others see what I am saying, so why are > you being so obtude? I am afraid you are just plain mistaken to think I LIKE it! "Obtude" sort of a cross between dude and obtuse. Very good, I will use this word in a sentence this week. > NB: There must be something about being a Libertarian that makes people go > off the deep end. Sorry, Jeff and others, it seems to be more the case than not. Stereotypes are beneath you (hope you come to realize it). > Bob Knauer Boyd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Dem & Rep Science & Tech Platforms Date: 15 Sep 1996 23:10:00 -0500 The following shows the major difference between the positions of the Dems & the Reps WRT Big Govt vs. Private Business. The actual differences, however, seem to be much less in practice, IMHO. Enjoy. --Bob ----- Begin Included Message ----- ASLA 96-19: PARTY PLATFORMS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY The platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties provide an insight of each party's philosophy and objectives. During a heated campaign, party platforms can be overlooked. Nevertheless, the platforms give some indication of the direction that the victorious party may take regarding a specific issue. Below are selections from the Democratic and Republican party platforms (presented alphabetically) addressing science and technology. To conserve space, sections on defense, energy, nuclear waste disposal, and medicine are not included. The following information is reproduced from "FYI", the American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PLATFORM: --Technology-- "We know investments in technology drive economic growth, generate new knowledge, create new high-wage jobs, build new industries, and improve our quality of life. In the face of Republican efforts to umdermine America's dedication to innovation, President Clinton and the Democratic Party have fought to maintain vital investments in science and technology. We remember that government investment in technology is responsible for the computer, for jet aircraft, and for the Internet -- no investments have paid off better, in jobs, in opportunity, or in growth. "We support government policies that encourage private sector investment and innovation to create a pro-growth economic climate, like a permanent research and development tax credit. We want technology to create jobs and improve the quality of life for American workers. President Clinton and Vice President Gore fought for an, the President signed, a sweeping telecommunications reform bill that will unleash the creative power of the information industry to create millions of high-wage American jobs. We recognize that our system of research colleges and universities is the bedrock of American leadership in science and technology. When we invest in our research institutions we are literally investing in our future by helping to train the next brilliant generation of American scientists and engineers. As we enter the 21st century, we will continue to invest in world-class research and development, advanced technologies in transportation, information, and other industries, and agricultural and environmental research in partnership with American business. We are working to reinvent the national laboratories and revitalize America's space program, including support for the space station." --Technology in the classroom-- "We must bring the 21st century into every classroom in America. There is a vast realm of knowledge waiting for our children to tap into. Computers are powerful tools to teach students to read better, write better, and understand math. President Clinton and Vice President Gore understand that technological literacy is essential to success in the new economy. The only way to achieve that for every student is to give them all access to a computer, good software, trained teachers, and the Internet -- and President Clinton and Vice President Gore have launched a partnership with high-tech companies, schools, state, and local governments to wire every classroom and library to the Information Superhighway by the year 2000." REPUBLICAN NATIONAL PLATFORM: --Science, Technology and Innovation in the 21st Century-- "Our goal is to empower the American people by using the benefits of advanced science to improve the quality of life without undue restraint from government. Our bottom line is more jobs, better jobs, and a higher standard of living for the families of America. "As we prepare for the dawn of a new century, it is essential that our public policies keep pace with an evolving economy. Increased productivity is essential to expand the economy and improve the standard of living of all Americans. A recent report by the Office of Technology Assessment attributes at least half of all economic growth in the United States to advances in technology. "America is expanding its leadership role as a country that fosters innovation and technological advances, the essential ingredients of increased productivity. Leading these efforts are the men and women - and high-technology businesses - that foster creative solutions to world problems. We must create policies that enable these thoughtful leaders to continue to invest in research and development. U.S. research and development (R&D) investment has increased significantly over the past two decades and currently accounts for about 2.6% of the nation's gross domestic product. The private sector has been the main engine behind this growth, contributing over 60 percent of the national R&D investment. Such investment has led to increased employment and high-quality jobs. Businesses that invest heavily in R&D tend to create more jobs, and to employ high-skilled workers in those new jobs at above average wage levels. "Research and development is our commitment to the future. It is our investment in the future. We must design tax and regulatory policies that encourage private sector research and experimentation, while lowering the cost of such investments. "We believe that the marketplace, not bureaucrats, can determine which technologies and entrepreneurs best meet the needs of the public. American companies must use the most advanced production technologies, telecommunications, and information management systems. Technological advance means economic growth, higher productivity, and more security. We therefore support private-sector funding of applied research, especially in emerging technologies, and improved education in science and engineering. American workers must have the knowledge and training to effectively utilize the capabilities of those new systems. "Federal science programs must emphasize basic research. The tax code must foster research and development. These policies will increase the pace of technological developments by de-emphasizing the role of government and strengthening the role of the private sector. We will advance the innovative ideas and pioneering spirit that make possible the impossible. "New discoveries to bolster America's international competitiveness are essential. The fruits of federally funded research led to the creation of the biotechnology industry through the Bayh-Dole Act. This is an example of innovation and risk-taking, creating 2,000 biotechnology companies employing thousands of employees and selling billions of dollars of products to keep us first and foremost in the global marketplace. "The communications revolution empowers individuals, enhances health care, opens up opportunity for rural areas, and strengthens families and institutions. A Dole-led Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to promote the full and open competition and freedom of choice in the telecommunications marketplace. In contrast, the Clinton-Gore administration repeatedly defended big-government regulation. This micromangement of the Information Age is an impediment to the development of America's information superhighway. "We support the broadest access to telecommunications networks and services, based upon marketplace capabilities. The Internet today is the most staggering example of how the Information Age can and will enhance the lives of Americans everywhere. To further this explosion of new-found freedoms and opportunities, privacy, through secured communications, has never been more important. Bob Dole and the Republican party will promote policies that ensure that the U.S. remains the world leader in science, technology, and innovation." --Changing Washington From the Ground Up-- "As a first step in reforming government, we support elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Energy, and the elimination, defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus." --Power for Progress-- "We support elimination of the Department of Energy to emphasize the need for greater privatization and to reduce the size of the federal government. The Department of Energy's defense concerns should be transferred to an independent agency under the Defense Department. Other necessary programs should be farmed out to other departments and offices." --Space-- "The Republican party led America into space and remains committed to its exploration and mastery. We consider space travel and space science a national priority with virtually unlimited benefits, in areas ranging from medicine to micro-machinery, for those on Earth. Development of space will give us a growing economic resource and a source of new scientific discoveries. We look toward our country's return to the Moon and to completion of the International Space Station, not just as a unique orbiting laboratory but also a framework for world cooperation in pursuit of expanding human knowledge. "Those and other ventures require leadership now lacking at the White House. The Democratic party approaches space issues with a confined vision and misplaced appropriations, encouraging inefficient investments and pork barrel spending. Bill Clinton gives lip service to our space program but denies it crucial resources. A Republican president and a Republican Congress will work together to make space an American frontier again. We will develop the Reusable Launch Vehicle, promote markets for commercial space launch services, and push technology to its creative limits. Commercial space development holds the key to expanding our aerospace industry and strengthening our technology base, but it can be promoted only by removing unnecessary and artificial regulatory, legal, and tax barriers. "Space exploration and exploitation are a matter of national security. Our armed forces already rely on space assets to support their operations on Earth, and space technology will rapidly become more critical to successful military operations. Space is the ocean of tomorrow, and we cannot allow its domination by another power. We must ensure that America can work and prosper there, securely and without outside influence. A new Republican team will secure the high frontier for peace on Earth and for unlimited human opportunity." ASLA 96-19: AGU Science Legislative Alert (ASLA) David W. Thomas, AGU Public and Government Relations Manager A KOSMOS service for AGU members. E-mail address: asla@kosmos.agu.org ----- End Included Message ----- _______________________________________________________________ | Robert S. Linzell linzellr@datastar.net | | Disclaimer: The content of the preceding message reflects | | my opinion only, unless otherwise indicated. | | "Live" from South Mississippi State Motto: Virtute et Armis | |_______________________________________________________________| `[1;33;41mNet-Tamer V 1.06.B - Registered ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Let's Meet Date: 16 Sep 1996 07:03:45 -0400 Anybody that is interested in joining in a live internet chat session should join me on sunday evening at 6:00 eastern. Maybe we can get the old aol gang back together again. The room name will be, what else, #right2beararms. Don't forget the # sign. Maybe we can plan an election strategy for november. Regards Tom "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Dole Web Site Date: 16 Sep 1996 08:50:36 -0500 Last week someone here was inquiring about the Dole Internet address. The Web site URL I have is: http://www.dole96.com although I have not verified this. Let the Dole people know what you think and that you're watching. Yours in the Struggle, Bob _______________________________________________________________ | Robert S. Linzell linzellr@datastar.net | | Disclaimer: The content of the preceding message reflects | | my opinion only, unless otherwise indicated. | | "Live" from South Mississippi State Motto: Virtute et Armis | |_______________________________________________________________| `[1;34;47mNet-Tamer V 1.06.B - Registered ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Clinton Set for Big Endorsement Date: 16 Sep 1996 08:05:41 -0500 Now we know which side the cops are on. Bob Knauer +++++ From the "news": Clinton Set for Big Endorsement The Clinton campaign expects to pick up an endorsement today from the National Fraternal Order of Police. It will be the first time the organization has endorsed a Democratic candidate, a senior campaign official said. The announcement will come at an event in Cincinnati. Clinton already has won the endorsement of two other major police groups. The NFOP endorsement threatens to steal the limelight from Republican challenger Bob Dole, who is due to unveil a crime-fighting package in Philadelphia on Monday. +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 08:21:56 -0500 >On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: I did not write the part immediately below. >>> I have explained all I intend to - others see what I am saying, so why >>>are you being so obtude? I am afraid you are just plain mistaken to think >>>I LIKE it! "Obtude" sort of a cross between dude and obtuse. Very good, I >>>will use this word in a sentence this week. I did write this part immediately below. >> NB: There must be something about being a Libertarian that makes people go >> off the deep end. Sorry, Jeff and others, it seems to be more the case >>than not. >Stereotypes are beneath you (hope you come to realize it). ----- It has been said many times before, not by me but by others on these lists, that they find Libertarians to be obnoxious at times. I am just reporting on my experiences in that regard. There are no stereotypes involved on my part, because I have found that here are more Libertarians who are *not* obnoxious than are. And I have said several times that the few who are certainly do not further the Libertarian cause. If Libertarians as individuals want to be obnoxious and not declare themselves Libertarian when so doing, it would go a long way in decoupling that unfortunate stereotype. But there are a few people who hide behind Libertarianism as a justification for being obnoxious, like Hoplophobes hide behind their particular mental affliction when they preach about the evils of gun ownership. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Prisons in America Date: 16 Sep 1996 06:38:30 -0700 (MST) At 02:17 PM 9/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >forwarded from elsewhere... >--------------------------- > >Bars >More Prisons and the Thriving Justice Industry You misspelled JUST US. /s/ Paul Mitchell =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: L&J: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 10:18:05 -0400 Ken, >The argument rejecting an exemption for "religious" people was rejected >because, in the opinion of some of the Founders, it could be used to DENY >the right to keep and bear arms to people that Congress might declare to be >"religious". > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. I believe this is absolutely correct. Thus the 2nd is an affirmation of a pre-existing right without conditions or requirements that anyone bear arms as a matter of Constitutional law. Don't know about the 1798 Militia Act -> you're probably absolutely correct there, also. The whole evolution of the 2nd shows the FF understanding of the benefits of being minimal and unconditioned in certain areas. Jack Curtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 10:13:31 -0400 > >>I believe this is incorrect, at least as far as the Constitution is >>concerned. The FF did not require everyone to bear arms. The FF >considered >a 2nd amendment that would require citizens to bear arms, and >then the >religious exception was raised. There was debate about including >an explicit >clause to note that people with conflicting matters of personal >conciense >would not have to bear arms. Then,this was dropped in favor of >the current >2nd Amendment wording, which I don't have to quote for you. >This protects >the right, but does not require anyone to own or train in the >use of a >firearm. > >Perhaps - but I wonder if the FF were that understanding. I agree that >people who have deep serious scruples, religious or otherwise, would best >leave the business of firearms to others - but these people should not be >trying to disarm us just because they have a mental problem or hide behind >"conscience" to cover up outright laziness. > Bob, Congrats, you(we) have fought our way to common ground. I doubt that the FF were *real* understanding about hoplophobes either, but they were aware enough of the deep and dangerous nature of people's lust for power to put the escape clause in. The FF had just finished a revolution, after all. I just read a great quote about the FF being "ambitious men who understood the craving deep in the human heart for power". Those guys weren't choir boys, but they did construct a Constitution for the Republic that was useful in checking abuse of power for what, 150 years or so? (I'd say that you have to date Roosevelt's packing of the Supreme Court *or* the mass mobilization, price controls, etc. of WWII as the end of effective Constitutional checks. - some real die hards might take that back to the Civil War, leaving us with less than 100 years of effective Constitutional government.) I too believe that everybody should join the NRA. I also have no sympathy for people who attempt to disarm me (or the Bosnians, or anybody else). ciao, Jack Curtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: Clinton Set for Big Endorsement Date: 16 Sep 1996 08:07:20 -0700 (PDT) IMHO this sort of thing is a serious problem related to the politics of large sheriffs departments and large police departments. Here in King County Washington there will be (or possibly is actually) an initiative starting to return the county sheriffs position to -elected- status from it's current status as a political appointee. If you are as frustrated as I am by seeing police line up behind the political FOP du jour, look for an effort like this in your area, or start it yourself. _Elected_ public servants are accountable directly to the electorate. Political appointees are accountable to the political system and their political benefactors. End the appointment of law enforcement leaders. -Boyd Kneeland (opinions expressed are mine alone) On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > Now we know which side the cops are on. > > Bob Knauer > > +++++ > > >From the "news": > > Clinton Set for Big Endorsement > The Clinton campaign expects to pick up an endorsement today > from the National Fraternal Order of Police. It will be the > first time the organization has endorsed a Democratic candidate, > a senior campaign official said. The announcement will come at > an event in Cincinnati. Clinton already has won the endorsement > of two other major police groups. The NFOP endorsement threatens > to steal the limelight from Republican challenger Bob Dole, who > is due to unveil a crime-fighting package in Philadelphia on > Monday. > > +++++ > > -- > > ************************************************** > A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing > Corporation World Wide Web Publishing > > http://www.aimtec.com/ > ************************************************** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Charles R. Duke: BAA, BAA, SAY THE SHEEPLE Date: 16 Sep 1996 10:14:28 -0500 Forward from PIML: > September 16, 1996 > SENATOR DUKE > (719) 481-9289 > > By Senator Charles R. Duke > Colorado District 9 > > BAA, BAA, SAY THE SHEEPLE > > Who would have thought America would be where it is today? >Earlier in the week, news stories appeared announcing that a >proposal to do background checks on regular passengers came from >a commission studying terrorism. > This, of course, would do absolutely nothing to stop >terrorism. Any decent terrorist knows enough to not travel >under a real name. In any case, most airline terrorist >incidents will likely be caused by someone who doesn't fly on >the same plane for which the incident is planned. > Since these ideas are patently obvious to the most casual >observers, what, then, is the purpose of this tyranny? Is it >simply to get the American sheeple so accustomed to government >spying that we don't mind? > To do this would require some sort of identification number >and what better number to use than the Social Security number? >Having the SSN flying around all these databases would also >allow those who have access to such numbers to examine our bank >records and credit history, along with many other records. > Oh, nuts, I say. This proposal is just too depressing. So >I pick up the Wall Street Journal for Friday the Thirteenth of >September. Might as well read a little financial news to get in >a better mood. I mean, our economy is really doing okay, or at >least so the government would have us believe. > I never got to the stock tables. There, on the front page, >is a story from San Mateo, California, where den mothers, >coaches, and other volunteers who work with children will now be >subjected to fingerprinting and background checks. The idea, >you see, is to keep our children safe from child abuse. Don't >look now, Toto, but this doesn't feel like Kansas, anymore. > This will be totally ineffective at curbing child abuse, >but you probably already knew that. This writer knows something >about child abuse and can assure everyone that the overwhelming >majority of child molesters become neither den mothers nor >coaches. > We have a Fourth Amendment to our U.S. Constitution that >flatly prohibits these unreasonable searches and seizures. >Specifically, the Amendment 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." > It means that our private effects and our private lives are >none of any civil authority's business, unless they have >probable cause, and can obtain a warrant, sworn to by an oath or >affirmation before a judge. The only way any nosy government >gets away with this open and flagrant violation of >constitutional rights is if the sheeple allow it. > Where is the hue and cry from everyone about these >measures? Have we become so conditioned to prying eyes that we >have forgotten what privacy is about? Why are you, who have the >courage to read this column, just standing idly by and letting >our God-given rights be stripped from us on a daily basis? >Where are the letters to the editor and civil demonstrations >about this blatant tyranny? > Our forefathers paid for these rights with their lives and >their blood. They must be churning in their graves with the >lackadaisical attitude we have today about our Constitution. >They fought a War for Independence because King George was >allowing warrantless searches and incarcerations. It was >considered by our Founding Fathers to be a sacrilegious >violation of rights granted to us by our Creator and not subject >to the rule of Man. > Somehow, in 1996, we have been lulled into complacency >and apathy by a government totally dedicated to the absolute >subjugation of our free will. Most of us have never really been >free. We have been enslaved so long it is not clear we would >know how to behave if by some process we had our real freedom >restored. > It is possible the American people actually deserve what is >about to happen to us. We deserve it because of our collective >inaction, our collective morals, our collective set of values, >and our collective embrace of a failed political process. > There are many examples in history where societies created >and led by moral and just people have lasted for long periods. >Almost without exception, the collapse of these societies were >preceded by a loss of character in the people governed. Where >would you put America today? > End -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 10:53:00 -0500 >>The argument rejecting an exemption for "religious" people was rejected >>because, in the opinion of some of the Founders, it could be used to DENY >>the right to keep and bear arms to people that Congress might declare to be >>"religious". >I believe this is absolutely correct. Thus the 2nd is an affirmation of >a pre-existing right without conditions or requirements that anyone bear >arms as a matter of Constitutional law. > >Don't know about the 1798 Militia Act -> you're probably absolutely correct >there, also. > >The whole evolution of the 2nd shows the FF understanding of the benefits of >being minimal and unconditioned in certain areas. ----- It's time to do a reality check. I have based my position regarding the importance of the Constitutional Militia on several assumptions, some of which I reiterate below: 1)Did not the FF assume that most if not all able citizens should be armed and practiced in an otherwise unorganized manner (not part of a formal organization)? 2)Wasn't this assumption built into the Constitution as one of its strongest safeguards against the tyrany of the federal govt, their ability to raise "standing armies", like the police-state agencies of today? 3)Wasn't the War of Northern Aggression fought by the Confederacy over "states' rights" matters as described in the Constitution. 4)Is it not the serious obligation (requirement) of every able citizen to be armed and practiced as a condition of citizenship in the Republic of the United States based on the Constitution? 5)Would we be in the mess we are in today if throughtout our history we had obliged (required) every able citizen to be armed? Maybe I am grasping at straws with this Constitutional Militia thing. If I am wrong about this, then the FF wrote a document so weak that it could easily be attacked by any tryant, and nothing could stop them. The fact that Lincoln tried is one thing the fact that the Confederacy tried in vain to depose him is another. At least they tried, which is more than we as citizens can say today. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 11:06:57 -0500 >Congrats, you(we) have fought our way to common ground. I doubt that the >FF were *real* understanding about hoplophobes either, but they were >aware enough of the deep and dangerous nature of people's lust for >power to put the escape clause in. But see my post on "reality check". >The FF had just finished a revolution, after all. I just read a great quote >about the FF being "ambitious men who understood the craving deep in the >human heart for power". Those guys weren't choir boys, but they did >construct a Constitution for the Republic that was useful in checking abuse >of power for what, 150 years or so? (I'd say that you have to date >Roosevelt's packing of the Supreme Court *or* the mass mobilization, price >controls, etc. of WWII as the end of effective Constitutional checks. - some >real die hards might take that back to the Civil War, leaving us with less >than 100 years of effective Constitutional government.) I am one of those "real die hards". It is a fact of history that Lincoln formally subverted the Constitution. (For a good book review on that subject, email me privately.) >I too believe that everybody should join the NRA. I also have no sympathy >for people who attempt to disarm me (or the Bosnians, or anybody else). I stress membership in the NRA (and other guns rights groups as well, as long as the NRA comes first), because I want the Tyrants to know in no uncertain terms that there are (should be) 100,000,000 households in which the able adult members are armed and practiced, and will hold them accountable for any and all atrocities like JackBoot Janet's Gas & Burn Holocaust. Membership in the NRA is just such a public declaration like membership in any organization is an announcement of one's affiliation. Just imagine if 100,000,000 people belonged to the NRA. At $35 per year (probably much less if they had that many members) that would be $3.5 BILLION dollars. I wonder how many Gun Control Tyrants, much less any kind of Tyrant, there would be in govt with an org like that against them. Awesome when you think about it. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: More Americans are jailed... Date: 16 Sep 1996 11:42:40 -0500 Is this where we are headed - a banana republic like Mexico where assasination is the only "rule of law", and guns are banned outright? Bob Knauer ----- More Americans are jailed as Mexico vigorously enforces its 1972 ban on importing weapons PHOENIX -- Last June, Don Tucker finished shopping at a grocery store near the US-Mexico border when he decided on impulse to cross over to Mexico to buy some medicine. The prescription drug was a few dollars cheaper in Mexico than in the US, but Mr. Tucker got more than he bargained for. Mexican authorities stopped him during a random search and found an unloaded rifle and shotgun in his trunk. Tucker landed in a Mexican jail for more than seven weeks, accused of trafficking in weapons and facing a 25-year sentence, despite his insistence that the arms were stored there to keep out of reach of his visiting two-year-old granddaughter. Even as the two countries work to dissolve the border under the North American Free Trade Agreement, Tucker's case highlights a major difference both in the attitudes toward gun possession and legal systems of the two nations . On the US side, more Texans are toting guns since carrying concealed weapons became legal this past January. In some Arizona towns, it's not unusual to see a shopper with his Smith and Wesson revolver belted to their hip. Daniel Knauss, assistant US attorney for Arizona, says Americans tend to be ````fairly chauvinistic. We assume our rights go with us`` when Americans enter another country. ``That is not the case.`` As a result, more Americans are being detained on weapons-possession charges in Mexico, where in the wake of several political assassinations and guerrilla uprisings, the Mexican government is enforcing a 1972 ban on gun imports with renewed vigor. In 1995, 110 Americans were stopped, an increase over the 95 US citizens held the previous year, according to the State Department. Figures for the current year are unavailable, but a State Department spokeswoman says, ``It is something that we are concerned about, and ... people need to know that if they are going there.`` Mexico takes a hard line on imported weapons, treating violators with the same harshness that American authorities reserve for drug dealers in the US. ``It's a very serious predicament if you take a weapon across the river`` into Mexico without authorization, says Sheriff Juan Garza of Webb County, Texas, which includes the city of Laredo. Sentences for possession of firearms in Mexico can be for up to 30 years. Some Mexican cities even have municipal laws that make it illegal to possess a knife or anything that might look like a weapon. Mr. Garza's office offers help to law enforcement officers and others who travel through Laredo to Mexico, and who feel uncomfortable leaving weapons behind in a hotel room: The weapons can be stored at the sheriff's office and retrieved upon return. Garza says his department has not seen an increase in the number of Americans who cross at Laredo being detained in Mexico. Most Texans, he says, are familiar with the law. Still, not all Americans are aware, as Tucker's case illustrates. He was freed on July 31 after a flurry of negotiations between officials from the state of Sonora, Mexico, where he was jailed, and Arizona's governor and attorney general. But not all persons who are detained in Mexico are ignorant of the rules, however, the State Department acknowledges. Some are being held on legitimate gun-smuggling charges, although the State Department could not determine the exact number. Anxious Mexicans have reason for the recent stepped-up activity to enforce the 1972 law, with the specter of political assassinations and uprisings fresh on their minds. That concern stems from the March 1994 murder of presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio Murrieta in Tijuana, as well as the armed rebel uprising that same year in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas. This past summer, a second rebel group killed 13 people in Mexico, leading the government of President Ernesto Zedillo de Leon to coordinate an attack in five southern Mexican states. Karie Dozer, spokeswoman for Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, who worked for Tucker's release, says there is a misperception among relatives of jailed Americans that the attorney general has the power to spring detained Americans in Mexico. Such is not the case, she argues, with the two nations having separate legal systems that must be respected. All the attorney general's office can do, she says, is work with its Mexican counterparts when possible to obtain a release. Even so, it is illegal for a US citizen to take a weapon, registered or not, out of the US without an export permit, according to the State Department. Meanwhile, signs have been put up at border crossings in Arizona, cautioning Americans entering Mexico to leave firearms behind. But, Ms. Dozer says, ``I don't know whether people look at those and think, 'I guess that doesn't mean me,' or 'Well, if I let them know I am taking it, that's OK.' `` ``They mean no firearms,`` she says. ``They don't want your guns in their country. And that is their law. We have to respect it.`` -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: RE: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 13:10:32 -0400 >Maybe I am grasping at straws with this Constitutional Militia thing. If I >am wrong about this, then the FF wrote a document so weak that it could >easily be attacked by any tryant, and nothing could stop them. > I think that we must fight the political battle on many levels, simultaneously. To use the apt quoted analogy, we are like frogs being gently simmered. We aren't dead yet, but we are close. The only bright side I see is the fact that modern information handling methods (the net, web sites, fax machines, copy machines, PC's in general) are difficult to control. 90% of anything is crap, on the net its 99%. But, the 1% is worth getting. The vast majority of people are asleep, apathetic, afraid, or buzzed on consumer goods and satellite TV. Many just want to be left alone. That is one thing that the government won't do. The FF came from a nation of free farmers and small merchants. I wouldn't blame them, I would blame us. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] US POWS, MIA's (fwd) Date: 16 Sep 1996 12:53:13 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- TO: Barbara j. Beier, 73622,1250 DATE: 9/15/96 8:27 PM RE: US POWS, MIA's Sender: 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com Received: from mithoff.1eagle1.com (www.1eagle1.com [204.118.45.167]) by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id UAA24081; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 20:18:45 -0400 Received: from ep229.1eagle1.com (204.118.45.229) by mithoff.1eagle1.com with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.0); Sun, 15 Sep 1996 18:31:38 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19960916011934.19275c54@mithoff.1eagle1.com> X-Sender: 6mysmesa@mithoff.1eagle1.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Barb, please repost everywhere you can. Don't read this is you don't plan on getting severely pissed off today. I wonder what the exalted Mr. Clinton will do about this?.........What the hell are WE going to do about it? I always suspected this was the case, just couldn't prove it. No list relevance at all...unless you were in the Military or knew someone in the Military or know some one there now. JH US News and World Report this week... Korea: An old war's dark new secrets Fresh evidence of American POWs in Korea In the fall of 1979, a tour-bus driver taking Romanian workers on a sightseeing trip through North Korea apparently lost his way and drove onto a dusty collective farm. As the vehicle pulled up, the driver was amazed. There were 10 Caucasian men,including one with blue eyes, working the fields. A passenger explained: The "farmers," who appeared to be in their 50s, were American soldiers captured during the Korean War. Last year, U.S. investigators in Romania tracked down a second passenger on that fateful bus trip. He confirmed the bizarre sighting. Who were those middle-aged white men scratching out a living in a North Korean field? The answer is unclear, but the Romanians' observations, along with a flurry of "live sightings" that have emerged in recent months, suggest that at least some American POWs could be alive in North Korea more than four decades after the end of the war there. Indeed, one Pentagon analyst wrote in an internal memo in March that the pattern of sightings led him to conclude that as many as "10 to 15 possible American POWs" could well be living in North Korea. Perhaps even more disturbing are statements from a high-ranking Czech defector that U.S. soldiers from Korea, and later from Vietnam, were subjected to medical experiments by Czech and Soviet doctors that involved mind-altering drugs and included testing their reactions to biological, chemical and radioactive materials. This week, a House subcommittee will convene hearings on the matter. The evidence, on the face of it, seems persuasive. The sightings noted in intelligence reports, mainly by North Korean defectors, often are strikingly similar, describing the POWs as either teachers or farmers. Several reports have surfaced about Americans teaching at a military school in Pyongyang, for instance. One defector claimed that 11 POWs, between the ages of 55 and 60, worked as English teachers at a language school in the capital but were not allowed to travel freely. In another report, a defector said he met a 60-year-old Caucasian male, who identified himself as an American, on a cooperative farm outside Pyongyang. A co-worker, the defector said, described the American as a POW from the "Korean Liberation War." Citing yet another report, Pentagon analyst I. O. Lee wrote that the POWs "were always escorted" and moved in a vehicle from the "reconnaissance bureau." Correlating the various reports, Lee wrote that it appeared the POWs were held at compounds in the capital and its suburbs. In any case, he wrote--and a spokesman for the Pentagon's POW-MIA office agrees--there are "too many live-sighting reports" to dismiss the idea that there are American POWs in North Korea, despite that country's continued denials. The story of Oh. Such speculation was heightened two weeks ago when Asia Times, a Bangkok-based daily, published an interview with a recent North Korean defector who claimed to have repeatedly visited a top-secret prison camp housing elderly white and black men. Oh Young Nam, described as a former secret-police official who was the son of a bodyguard to the late North Korean leader Kim Il Sung, told the newspaper that he visited the camp north of Pyonyang numerous times between 1982 and 1993. He said police friends working at the camp told him the men were U.S. prisoners from the Korean War. According to Oh, the Americans were segregated in their own sector, which was marked by a sign reading "USA" in Roman letters. Once, while visiting friends at the camp in the early 1980s, Oh encountered a black American and offered him a beer. The defector told the newspaper that the Americans were "too old to work" and were not doing any physical labor. A POW-MIA office spokesman said U.S. officials met with Oh and are looking into his claims. Another case involves POWs in Russia. Jim Doyle, a former U.S. Navy communications specialist based in Japan, has come forward with a vivid report on the shooting down of a U.S. reconnaissance plane near Vladivostok in July 1953. The copilot of the downed RB-50 aircraft survived, and two bodies were later recovered, but the fate of the rest of the crew remains a mystery. Doyle, who was handling message traffic from radio intercepts the night of the shoot-down, said Soviet radio traffic showed that Soviet boats had picked up at least 16 crewmen and one body from the plane. "They asked for instructions of what to do with them," Doyle told U.S. News. "They were told to proceed to the Vladivostok naval base." The U.S. closely monitored Soviet communications, but nothing more was heard. Gruesome job. At this week's hearings, chaired by California Republican Rep. Robert Dornan, the most explosive testimony could come from Gen. Jan Sejna, a Czech defector who says he was personally involved in a project--organized and run by Soviet military intelligence agents--that used American POWs for gruesome medical experiments. Sejna, who now works for the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, defected in 1968 from Czechoslovakia, where he was first secretary of the powerful Czech Defense Council. Under instructions from the Soviet Union, Sejna says, Czechoslovakia built a supersecret hospital in North Korea for the express purpose of experimenting on American POWs, even using the soldiers for practicing amputations. The 69-year-old defector said the hospital was built for 200 "patients" but often handled three times that number. As many as 100 Americans, he said, were later transported to the Soviet Union for long-term observation and to undergo further tests. Others, he said, were killed and their remains cremated. Although the project was shut down after the end of the Korean War, Sejna said, Soviet officials considered the work--which was a "state secret" known to fewer than 20 Czech officials--so useful it was reinstated after the Vietnam War began to escalate. Sejna said he was personally involved in overseeing the transfer and housing of a new batch of POWs, this time from Vietnam, who were flown to the Soviet Union via Prague. The stopover, which usually lasted a week, was designed for security purposes to "break the trail" between Vietnam and the Soviet Union. Sejna said that in 1963 and 1964 he personally witnessed the transshipment of as many as 200 Americans, in groups of 25 to 30, through Czechoslovakia. When he saw his first American, Sejna said, he was taken aback by the difference between these dazed and confused GIs and the tough Americans portrayed in Hollywood movies. "These guys are really depressed and walk like sheep," he said. "They didn't know where they are, where they will go." Sejna said that none of the Czech or Soviet officials involved in the project expressed any concern over the treatment of the soldiers. The American GIs, he said, were seen as "imperialist dogs." Asked if anyone ever raised the issue of the Geneva Accords, which outlaw such experiments on captured soldiers, Sejna said the attitude was blunt: "Who cares?" General Sejna's tale, though startling, is credible, says Joe Douglass, a Soviet weapons expert who has worked as a consultant for U.S. intelligence agencies and who has debriefed Sejna numerous times over the last 18 years. While both the CIA and the Pentagon have tried to discredit Sejna's reports on POWs, which have circulated privately in intelligence circles, an internal DIA memo, dated April 27, 1992, and signed by the then DIA director, Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper Jr., appears to vouch for Sejna's credibility. Although Sejna's name is blacked out of the memo, it clearly refers to the Czech defector, calling him a "very sensitive source who has provided reliable information to the U.S. intelligence community for many years." Clapper noted that Sejna, after testifying about the fate of POWs, submitted to a polygraph examination "during which no deception was indicated." BY DOUGLAS STANGLIN AND PETER CARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Wee Willie Clinton Eulogiezes Deceased Rapper (joke) Date: 16 Sep 1996 13:05:45 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- My Dear Gangsta Rapping Friends and Mourners, I, Wee Willie Clinton, join you homies here today to mourn the loss of our brother Tupac Shakur. I notice many Clinton/Gore 96 supporters seated in the front row: Snoop Doggy Dog, Dr. Dre, Ice-T and Ice Cube, Democrat home boys one and all. I salute you, the end products of a generation of failed HUD housing projects populated by single moms waiting for welfare checks and yet devoid of dads holding down jobs. I salute you for your advocacy of killing cops, of abusing women and for your glorification of the criminal misuse of firearms. Without the influence of the late Tupac, without your influence, my Administration and the Congress of early 1994 could never have rammed a so-called "assault weapon" and high capacity magazine ban down the throats of law abiding Americans. You enabled my staff and Congress to lie about the role of firearms in American society and to get a fearful public, fed mush by a Clintonized media, to believe our bogus story. You inspired us when we needed a morale boost. Snoop, I can assure you that my advisor Dick Morris knew the lyrics to every song from your album "Dog Pound" by heart. Yes, you gangsta rappers are Clinton/Gore homies to the core. We love you. We salute you. We ask you, in memory of Tupac Shakur, to keep "gang banging", to keep abusing women, to keep inferring that everyone with a gun in hand is a potential local cop killer. You are our devoted allies in our long term effort to disarm Americans. Keep packin', keep shootin', keep hootin' and keep lootin'. With your help, and with the help of Hollywood's Clintonistas who know how to always show firearms being used in a bad light, one fine day, Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, my staff and I will be able to send you a formal letter of thanks for your able assistance rendered during our mid-90's March To Destroy Freedom. We shall overcome those who wish to defend freedom. We shall overcome. In conclusion, when "in extremis", just remember, "two to the dome!" _______________________________________________________________________________ THIS IS A SATIRE .. THIS IS A SATIRE .. THIS IS A SATIRE .. THIS IS A SATIRE! Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 13:23:21 -0500 >I think that we must fight the political battle on many levels, >simultaneously. > >To use the apt quoted analogy, we are like frogs being gently simmered. We >aren't dead yet, but we are close. The only bright side I see is the fact >that modern information handling methods (the net, web sites, fax machines, >copy machines, PC's in general) are difficult to control. 90% of anything >is crap, on the net its 99%. But, the 1% is worth getting. > >The vast majority of people are asleep, apathetic, afraid, or buzzed on >consumer goods and satellite TV. Many just want to be left alone. That is >one thing that the government won't do. > >The FF came from a nation of free farmers and small merchants. I wouldn't >blame them, I would blame us. ----- If the FF indeed assumed (expected) all able citizens to be armed and practiced, then I don't blame them for what happened, I blame the citizens who did not heed their obligation. Maybe the FF were too nice - maybe they should have required either gun ownership/practice or some other civic service for those with serious problems around guns. But I am banking on the fact that people do see what is going on. Most white males are Republicans and will vote accordingly on Election Day. Many Black men also see the tyranny imposed on them by the socialist state, and I am hoping they will either vote Rep. or stay home like they did in 1994. That leaves women. But I cannot believe women are that easily deceived. The women in West Harris County (Houston) I meet day by day certainly aren't. (The old saying "Don't Mess With Texas" apples equally to men and women in Texas.) If my wishes come true then we will have the November 1996 Landslide, especially when Dole forces out the truth about klintoon's real state of health - cocaine addict and all (see today's WSJ). Would America's mothers and daughters, whatever their personal cultural agendas, be willing to put up with a coke addict as president? If so, we are indeed doomed and deserve to go under. This has been one helluva scary experience these last few years. Ammo tax/ban legislation in committee one election away from beiong enacted, the Waco Holocaust and other Fascist activities such as the CDA and airline background checks, etc. Only 7 more weeks to doomsday - or salvation. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 13:00:01 -0600 >If my wishes come true then we will have the November 1996 Landslide, >especially when Dole forces out the truth about klintoon's real state of >health - cocaine addict and all (see today's WSJ). Would America's mothers >and daughters, whatever their personal cultural agendas, be willing to put >up with a coke addict as president? If so, we are indeed doomed and deserve >to go under. > >This has been one helluva scary experience these last few years. Ammo >tax/ban legislation in committee one election away from beiong enacted, the >Waco Holocaust and other Fascist activities such as the CDA and airline >background checks, etc. > >Only 7 more weeks to doomsday - or salvation. > >Bob Knauer > A Dole win would be a catastrophe. His escalation of the drug war means one thing -- a giant police state. (Reference: recent post full of Dole quotes on his plans) Dole is no salvation. Brady-Bill Bob and many of the upper level Republicans don't care one bit about RKBA or liberty and freedom. Why do we all blindly follow them and vote for them? We get what we deserve. Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 15:42:49 -0400 >A Dole win would be a catastrophe. His escalation of the drug war means >one thing -- a giant police state. (Reference: recent post full of Dole >quotes on his plans) Dole is no salvation. Brady-Bill Bob and many of the >upper level Republicans don't care one bit about RKBA or liberty and >freedom. Why do we all blindly follow them and vote for them? We get what >we deserve. > >Chad This is what we have come to. A win by either candidate advances the "Welfare/Warfare" state. What can we hope for? Maybe a R majority in Congress, a Dole defeat, and a total melt down of the Clinton administration. In other words: "In Gridlock We Trust". ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 11:32:53 PST On Sep 15, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: [snip] >>> What would you think of some lazy sob who just sat there and watched? > >>I would think him a worthless human being and inform him of that fact >>after the fire was out. > >Would you help put out his house fire if it happened to him? > >>> Or worse, threw gasoline on the fire? > >>I'd shoot him. > >So would I, but the Constitution doesn't permit assasination. The Constitution doesn't cover this, but Federal Law does. The Militia are forbidden to excercize Capital Punishment, save in time of War or "Public Danger". You could indeed, shoot the Son Of A Bitch. All you have to do is convene a Drum Head Courts Martial, and when the jerk is found Guilty, apply Military Field Expediency Justice in the form of a Whip, a Firing Squad or a noose, (the three most _traditional_ methods). Further at this point in time the Militia can do this at virtually any time or place. We currently live under some 50 or 60 odd "States Of Emergency", (Public Danger), and 2 States Of Declared War, (Poverty and Drugs), none of which have been Declared won, lost, ended, over with, or otherwise rescinded. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress makes little or no distinction between "States Of Emergency" and "States Of War". Two Presidents and two Congresses have Declared them to be "War", and it is not up to anyone beneath Congress or the Presidency to argue the point if it goes to Court, but rather to recognize and deal with it. If they send it to a Military Court, if the Officers convening it want to keep their nice cushy jobs at the Public Teat, it wouldn't behoove _them_ to argue with two Presidents and Congresses, either. This leaves his nibs the Governor, and he comes under Congress and the Presidency too. They wont like it a bit, but all the proper justifications are there. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Silberger Subject: Let's rock and roll! Date: 16 Sep 1996 16:12:56 EDT ======================================================================== 167 Your post was transmitted to LPNY-general by Lloyd Wright, State Chair of the Libertarian Party of New York. Lloyd mentioned that the town of Liberty, New York, a tiny burg about three quarters of an hour from New Paltz, would be a fine site for those of us in eastern New York State to stage our Twilight's Last Gleaming celebration. Incidentally, New Paltz is where Lloyd and the rest of us Mid-Hudson Region Libertarians have our monthly coffee meetings. Mr. Munz, your idea is an excellent on, and I personally thank you for it. I have an additional idea. In fact, I transmitted it to Michael Cloud in response to his superb, football-season analogy, of an announcement at the closing of the STBO campaign. We still have not heard from the Commission on Presidential Debates, and so we are not *certain* what it will "decide". My guess is that the Commission will stage only Dolfuss and von Klint. There is a nontrival probability that the Commission may invite also Tiny Hitler, who stokes his campaign with his government-contract billions. The Commission's maneuver to include Perot would be motivated as was his inclusion in 1992, by its hope (a) to mollify the public via inclusion of a bogus third party that has absolutely no fundamental principles, so that the real alternative parties (the LP, the Greens, the Right-to-Life Party) will be blanked out in this purported "Perot threat" hype; (b) to give the debates a consequent patina of substance which they would lack even more obviously if Dole and Clinton were the only "debaters"; and finally (c) to add just the pinch of old homeboy pizzazz to the debates requisite to gain a significant audience and to con the electorate to vote. My additional idea is this: The Libertarian Party contacts the Greens, and the Reform Party in the event that Perot is not invited to join with DolClint in the purveying of platitudes which has long masqueraded as "discussion" in American national political campaigns. With a massive contribution from the grassroots of all potentially participating "minor" parties, and with a heavy solicitation of advertisers, we Third Party people set up with national television systems some bona fide no-holds- barred presidential/vicepresidential televised debates. Maybe these could run concurrently and in competition with the Demopublican charade. Or, maybe we could run our debates afterwards, preceded by some comedy by people like Dave Barry, P.J.O'Rourke, and Michael Moriarty in a satire of the Clinton-Dole-(Perot) absurdity. Those intermissionary reoutines would comic relieve the main event, which involves Harry Browne, Ralph Nader, maybe Perot, and perhaps some other people as well. I believe that these alternative, *REAL*, televised discussions ought to be, moreover, different in structure from the Republocrat press conference circuses. I would, for instance, ask that a "cyclic conversation" format be adopted for our alternative debates, and it would proceed something like this: Let us imagine that the participants are Browne, Nader, and Perot, and that the posted criteria for their invitation to debate would be (i) that they had gained the ballot in enough states to achieve the arithmetic possibility of winning enough electoral votes to get elected, and (ii) that they had submitted a brief coherent statement of principles and goals that could be published (and actually read with interest) as a portion of the advertisements we ought to put out widely for our debates. Of course Clinton and Dole should be invited too. I can even imagine one of those big cheeses accepting the invitation in order to embarrass his competitor, provided that our alternative debates do not in fact run concurrently with the Clinton-Dole television posturings. The cyclic conversation I propose would go like this: The discussion participants would be seated in enough isolation (sound proof rooms) from one another so that they could not be audible if they started screaming during the time it was one of their number's turn to say his piece. Each would be under the constant glare of a television camara, which would in fact transmit that person's image continuously to the television audience, so that the audience could see who was sweating, having hysterics, etc., while one of his competitors was speaking. In a constant sequence one after another of the speakers' microphones would be switched on, and the face of the person whose mike had been switched on would be enlarged and put in the center of the faces: He'd be surrounded by his temporarily diminished foes' faces. Each speaker who thus became "it" would get a measured strictly limited period (three minutes seems reasonable) in which to do his uninterrupted babbling. After that time he would suddenly be visually on the periphery and no longer audible. One of his opponents would then get to be it. I'd suggest exactly two rounds of such three-minute speeches, after which the discussion would be thrown open for ten or fifteen minutes to the television audience AND LATER TO ANSWER QUESTIONS PHONED IN FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. Those audience and phoned-in questions would be monitored only for the purpose of excluding verboten words, slander, and excessive length. Otherwise, a half dozen or so of the one-liners would be printed across the top and/or the bottom of the viewers' TV screens, so that someone in Kokomo could jump the phone to express support for a particular one or two of the thus printed questions, whereupon those favored questions would get priority treatment during the question period that actively involves the audience and the telephoning public. During the question periods, the "debaters" would get only a small amount of time, one minute or less unless he specifically asked for an additional minute, to field any given question that had been addressed to him. (Questions wouldn't have to be addressed to any participant in particular. Thus, with touchy questions the electorate would get a chance to see which of the candidates had the cojones to volunteer to answer such questions.) After the first two-cycle bout of cyclic conversation, and the first audience/electorate question break, the cyclic conversation format would commence anew. A candidate who found himself suddenly with nothing to say could surrender his turn by saying, "I'll pass", before his three minutes are exhausted, whereupon his microphone would be switched off and the next-in-the-cycle candidate's microphone would be turned on. One important advantage of this format is that nobody would be able to interrupt somebody who was attempting to make a subtle and difficult point. People would actually be able to say their piece, and to answer accusations and queries that are addressed to them. And those caught with only their teeth in their mouths would have to own up to their inability to answer. The moderator would *not* interrupt in order to keep the candidates from insulting one another. The moderator's only roles would be to direct the switching off and on of the mikes and the placement on the TV screens of the candidates' visages, and in the (extremely unlikely) event of a boring lull, would switch from a cyclic conversational phase to an audience/phone-in phase, or pose some prepared and hopefully interesting questions of his own. I would hope that this affair could in fact go on much longer than the "regular" debates. The O.J.Simpson trial, which was for the most part a dull shuck of tabloid fascination, gained enough audience interest nationwide to make it valuable to support by advertising. As everybody knows, the OJSimper went on forever and a day. The advertising money kept rolling in to support that court procedure. A bloody knockdown and dragout verbal battle between people arguing for their principles and their reputations in front of God knows how many viewers may well attract some significant viewer interest and consequent advertising support *after* these alternative debates had already started and had thus shown their (hopefully considerable) potential to suck in the audience of television viewers. Obviously, attacks on the two major-party candidates, and especially on that fraud of a Commission on Presidential Debates, would be a very heavy and repeated portion of the talk during the alternative debates, and it may very well disabuse a fair number of viewers of their preconceived notions about exactly when those viewers ought to perceive themselves as "wasting" their votes. That's my suggestion in a preliminary form. I'd like feedback from as many Libertarians (and Greens, etc.) from all over the country as I can get. Let's discuss, and maybe plan, most of this alternative TV event via the internet. Obviously we should get feedback at least from Browne, before we launch it as a serious effort. My present post is by no means intended to denigrate the "Twilight's Last Gleaming" suggestion. That too would be worth implementing, in my opinion. Indeed, I'd like to see some Sixties Style street circus. I remember Jerry Rubin's (Abbie Hoffman's?) visit to Congress attired in red-white-and-blue jockey shorts. I LOVED it! And so did many other citizens in those days of hurdygurdy weed, wine, and roses. Before some jerks start shooting at other jerks in this country, let's at least have a little fun, shall we? A sort of last truly free fling before the razor wire and the machinegun towers take control of things? Yours for letting each citizen mind his own life for himself, Donald Silberger ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fritz Sands Subject: RE: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 13:07:36 -0700 This positively screams "bumper sticker". I'll take two. Fritz >---------- >From: John Curtis[SMTP:jcurtis@cisco.com] >Sent: Monday, September 16, 1996 12:42 PM >To: roc@xmission.com >Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List > > In other words: "In Gridlock We Trust". > > ciao, > > jcurtis > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Morons at gun shows, the real scoop Date: 16 Sep 1996 18:39:48 -0400 >delta5 wrote: ># ># Here in Arizona we have our own share of "Morons at Gun Shows": folks ># from California that try to buy guns that their liberal state forbids ># them. -snip- >Dear "Delta5": I understand your concern about others provoking the > government into >passing ever more restrictive laws. But please have a little sympathy for > the poor >people of California. They need guns, they can't get them because of > clearly >unconstitutional restrictions in their home state and they try their best > to work >around it. I too encourage them to move away, but that's not always so > easy. Remember too; the more pro-people we have leave the state, the less we have to carry on the fight. ( and we need all we can get in Ca.) If we keep running to other states to escape the laws, we just postpone the inevitable. The Anti's don't recognize borders. We need to fight wherever we are in whatever way we can. A lone voice(or a few) in the wilderness is better than none.;-) Regards, V. Lum Tsuma@aol.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Act(s) of Admission Date: 16 Sep 1996 18:36:00 -0500 >I do not know which other states have reserved the right to secede but I >know for certain that Texas reserved that right. > >By the "letter of the law" the full process was never completed as it should >have been and some people in this state are attempting to reform the >Republic of Texas based on that faulty process. > >There is zero chance of success in secession without them somehow gaining >overwhelming public support. The Republic of Texas proponents are nowhere >near gaining even a simple plurality. ----- And if those assholes on the republic-of-texas mailing list keep pissing off serious people like me, the real RT movement will get absolutely nowhere. I am now convinced that the republic-of-texas mailing list is run by an agent provaceteur. Figure this: The ISP, colossus.net(1), is out of Chicago(2). And that's not Chicago, TX, either! The Fascist Tyrants will do anything to confuse us, including putting up a fake mailing list, and then run off anyone who begins to be inquisitive. Chicago, indeed! The Fascist Capital of the MidWest. Bob Knauer +++++ (1): Direct from the sign-on message: Welcome to the republic-of-texas mailing list! If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to "majordomo@colossus.net" <===================== ^^^^^^^^^^^^ +++++ (2): Direct from interNIC: Colossus (COLOSSUS4-DOM) 2038 N. Clark St. #348 Chicago, IL 60614 c <================================== ^^^^^^^^^^^ Domain Name: COLOSSUS.NET <================================== ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact, Billing Contact: Klien, Eric (EK5) hostmaster@COLOSSUS.NET (307) 755-0809 (FAX) (307) 755-0811 Record last updated on 17-Apr-96. Record created on 28-Nov-95. Domain servers in listed order: NS.NEWACCOUNT.COM 207.33.41.10 NS2.NEWACCOUNT.COM 207.78.230.10 +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: bogus RT web site Date: 16 Sep 1996 17:30:55 -0700 (MST) Bob, Thanks. What's the command sequence for removing myself from their web site? I am sorry to bother you with this, but I am deluged at the moment. I appreciate any help you can provide. Best regards, /s/ Paul Mitchell At 06:36 PM 9/16/96 -0500, you wrote: >>I do not know which other states have reserved the right to secede but I >>know for certain that Texas reserved that right. >> >>By the "letter of the law" the full process was never completed as it should >>have been and some people in this state are attempting to reform the >>Republic of Texas based on that faulty process. >> >>There is zero chance of success in secession without them somehow gaining >>overwhelming public support. The Republic of Texas proponents are nowhere >>near gaining even a simple plurality. > >----- > >And if those assholes on the republic-of-texas mailing list keep pissing off >serious people like me, the real RT movement will get absolutely nowhere. > >I am now convinced that the republic-of-texas mailing list is run by an >agent provaceteur. Figure this: > >The ISP, colossus.net(1), is out of Chicago(2). > >And that's not Chicago, TX, either! > >The Fascist Tyrants will do anything to confuse us, including putting up a >fake mailing list, and then run off anyone who begins to be inquisitive. > >Chicago, indeed! The Fascist Capital of the MidWest. > >Bob Knauer > >+++++ > >(1): Direct from the sign-on message: > >Welcome to the republic-of-texas mailing list! > >If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, >you can send mail to "majordomo@colossus.net" <===================== > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >+++++ > >(2): Direct from interNIC: > > Colossus (COLOSSUS4-DOM) > 2038 N. Clark St. #348 > Chicago, IL 60614 c <================================== > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Domain Name: COLOSSUS.NET <================================== > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact, Billing Contact: > Klien, Eric (EK5) hostmaster@COLOSSUS.NET > (307) 755-0809 (FAX) (307) 755-0811 > > Record last updated on 17-Apr-96. > Record created on 28-Nov-95. > > Domain servers in listed order: > > NS.NEWACCOUNT.COM 207.33.41.10 > NS2.NEWACCOUNT.COM 207.78.230.10 > >+++++ > >-- > >************************************************** > A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing > Corporation World Wide Web Publishing > > http://www.aimtec.com/ >************************************************** > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 17:37:27 -0700 (PDT) On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Chad Leigh wrote: > A Dole win would be a catastrophe. His escalation of the drug war means > one thing -- a giant police state. (Reference: recent post full of Dole > quotes on his plans) Dole is no salvation. Brady-Bill Bob and many of the > upper level Republicans don't care one bit about RKBA or liberty and > freedom. Why do we all blindly follow them and vote for them? We get what > we deserve. > > Chad > No offense Chad, but shall I conclude then that you prefer Clinton and his RKBA policies? There are only two electable choices - or do you know something I don't? Regards, Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: #liberty IRC Date: 16 Sep 1996 20:10:23 -0500 Someone posted an invite to an IRC group called #liberty. Tonight's discussion was supposed to be on "freedom of speech". I joined and noticed that the first one in began giving everyone but me the so-called "operator" privelage (+o), which means that you are now one of the "inner circle" when you ge it. When I asked what that was all about, I was told that it was given out sparingly for whatever reasons. So - here we have a group purportedly about to discuss freedom of speech, selectively handing out "press box" passes to their buddies, screening out the "rabble". Fuck that shit! As I said earlier, there are scams all over the Internet, so be careful you don't sucker for any of them and waste your time. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 18:21:41 PDT roc@xmission.com wrote : > >On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Chad Leigh wrote: > >> A Dole win would be a catastrophe. His escalation of the drug war means >> one thing -- a giant police state. (Reference: recent post full of Dole >> quotes on his plans) Dole is no salvation. Brady-Bill Bob and many of the >> upper level Republicans don't care one bit about RKBA or liberty and >> freedom. Why do we all blindly follow them and vote for them? We get what >> we deserve. >> >> Chad >> >No offense Chad, but shall I conclude then that you prefer Clinton and his >RKBA policies? There are only two electable choices - or do you know >something I don't? > >Regards, Skip > > > > Actually, I think you will find that there are five or six electable possibilities. This business of the CIA committing Genocide on the Blacks in Los Angeles is going to cost Clinton half or more of his support. And it matters not whether anyone but they believe it and they will. After all a bone dry area of brush with a strong wind cares not what provides the spark. If they either do not vote at all or abandon the Democratic Party that will end Clinton and if it looks as if Clinton is collapsing in the Polls people will abandon right and left. Maybe none of this will coalesce until the last two weeks to ten days before the election If you do not like Clinton and / or Dole the distribute the story in the San Jose Mercury right and left. The Dry Brush is sitting there waiting to explode. Have fun toss lighted torches right and left. Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: berg stephen erik Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List-San Jose Mercury Date: 16 Sep 1996 21:33:31 -0500 (CDT) Even the Chicago Tribune had an editorial about the CIA drug story, and some discussion of Maxine Waters'investigation. If this spreads to disclosures about Mena, the whole election could become very interesting. The same newspaper had a cartoon recently showing a transport plane marked Cocaine Importation Agency. Normally, the Trib is Clinton occupied territory, so this sort of coverage seems odd. Steve z931086@corn.cso.niu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Lewis Glendenning Subject: RE: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 19:40:03 -0700 (PDT) This is not a flame. However, one of the important things we should all realize about humans is how BAD we are as "intuitive statistitians". The problem is that our brain mixes memory and perceptual functions in the same units. An unfortunate consequence is that we perceive best what we have already seen, what we expect. Thus, it is very easy to find/recognize confirmation of our previous experience/prejudices. On the contrary, few people go around looking for evidence DIS-confirming their theories. Thus, stereotypes. All of this is made much worse by the probability that some stereotypes have some amount of truth. But, you must remember, if you don't go do a serious count of a random sample, as a human mind you won't ever find the truth. Your biology won't let you. Lew Glendenning rlglende@netcom.com "Ideology? We don't got no Ideology. We don't need no stinkin Ideology! We have a CONSTITUTION!" The CONSTITUTION, the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, and NOTHING BUT the CONSTITUTION. On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > >On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > > I did not write the part immediately below. > > >>> I have explained all I intend to - others see what I am saying, so why > >>>are you being so obtude? I am afraid you are just plain mistaken to think > >>>I LIKE it! "Obtude" sort of a cross between dude and obtuse. Very good, I > >>>will use this word in a sentence this week. > > I did write this part immediately below. > > >> NB: There must be something about being a Libertarian that makes people go > >> off the deep end. Sorry, Jeff and others, it seems to be more the case > >>than not. > > >Stereotypes are beneath you (hope you come to realize it). > > ----- > > It has been said many times before, not by me but by others on these lists, > that they find Libertarians to be obnoxious at times. I am just reporting on > my experiences in that regard. > > There are no stereotypes involved on my part, because I have found that here > are more Libertarians who are *not* obnoxious than are. And I have said > several times that the few who are certainly do not further the Libertarian > cause. > > If Libertarians as individuals want to be obnoxious and not declare > themselves Libertarian when so doing, it would go a long way in decoupling > that unfortunate stereotype. > > But there are a few people who hide behind Libertarianism as a justification > for being obnoxious, like Hoplophobes hide behind their particular mental > affliction when they preach about the evils of gun ownership. > > Bob Knauer > > -- > > ************************************************** > A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing > Corporation World Wide Web Publishing > > http://www.aimtec.com/ > ************************************************** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: Act(s) of Admission Date: 16 Sep 1996 21:54:58 -0500 >I didn't think you believed in ANY movement like the RoT anyway. >They are run by militia type groups you know! >And you claim you don't believe in such; So why complain? >So I don't see how it makes any difference if they *piss* you >off or not. That is meaning, that you don't believe in any >of what any of them are doing anyway. ----- Michael, just about every time I am ready to write you off, you come out with something which shows that there is an intelligent mind hidden behind all those untamed emotions. Your discussion about the War Of Northern Aggression today was very enlightening. Keep up the good work! But please cut the bullshit! The RT movement may or may not be run by paramilitary groups - that was not the topic I addressed. The topic I addressed was the MAILING LIST which calls itself the "republic-of-texas @ fascist.chicago.net". I did not infer anything about the actual RT movement here in TX. Personally, if they are indeed legit, I wish them success. That's a big "if", by the way - they need to prove it to me, especially after the treatment from that bogus mailing list. Take a few deep breaths, get a good night's sleep and prepare yourself for the grand battle that is about to ensue. The moment of truth is upon us. You may choose to characterize it as Christian good vs. evil, our Jewish friends, having experienced the Holocaust directly or indirectly, might choose to characterize it otherwise, as others are free to do. But it is a battle against tyranny if I ever saw one. Am I exaggerating? Consider this: Do you want to have to submit to a "background check" conducted by some minimum-wage moron on quota at the airport, and if you happen to fall into the "profile" of some "politically incorrect" category, you then must submit to a thorough body cavity search by another minimum-wage moron, probably a sadistic pervert out of Clockwork Orange? How would you like to see your wife strip-searched because she was wearing the wrong style of blue jeans that day? They now have the power to do that, and it's coming to an airport near you. One thing which separates you from others is that you own guns and are trained in their use, as you have said. That scores big points in my book, even if we lock do horns ideologically now and then, more often than not it seems. Sleep tight - the moment of truth is upon us. klintoon is about to be exposed as a cocaine addict, which should thoroughly piss off the majorioty of the NEA, much less all of Female America (see today's WSJ for the first hint of this). The WSJ accurately analyzed the klintoon support base (women) earlier in the year, and is now in the process of exposing its weaknesses. I look upon all of this as the countdown of a space ship that is going to blast klintoon and his Cadre of Marxist Fascist Criminals straight to hell. Blast off is due November 5th. I can't wait! Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 21:03:39 -0600 >On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Chad Leigh wrote: > >> A Dole win would be a catastrophe. His escalation of the drug war means >> one thing -- a giant police state. (Reference: recent post full of Dole >> quotes on his plans) Dole is no salvation. Brady-Bill Bob and many of the >> upper level Republicans don't care one bit about RKBA or liberty and >> freedom. Why do we all blindly follow them and vote for them? We get what >> we deserve. >> >> Chad >> >No offense Chad, but shall I conclude then that you prefer Clinton and his >RKBA policies? There are only two electable choices - or do you know >something I don't? > >Regards, Skip Hi Skip I don't vote to try to anticipate the winner and then cast my vote so I can say I voted for the winner. I try to vote for a real winner. That real winner is Harry Browne this year. I will vote for the candidate that best suits my needs and best matches my thoughts on what is needed for our country's survival. I refuse to waste my vote trying to anticipate the winner or to help my enemy get into office because his opponent is also my enemy. I am not happy about the D and R choices, and I will accept Clinton for 4 more years. He scares me less than Dole after reading what Dole wants to do to "fight the War on Drugs." Dole is directly proposing a Police State. Clinton has only hinted at it. And of course, I admit the need to fight a tactical as well as a strategic war. I support efforts to keep and expand the R control of Congress as a counterbalance to Clinton. As John Curtis said earlier today: In other words: "In Gridlock We Trust". Voting for the lesser of two evils has never worked. Instead, vote for liberty and freedom, personified this year by Harry Browne. The ONLY way we will reverse the slide on RKBA and freedom in general is to replace one or both of the major parties with other parties. That can ONLY happen if they increase the number of votes received and start to build momentum. That can only happen if we stop voting for the lesser evil and start making our votes count. Start making our votes heard. There is nothing more a politician wants (besides your money) than your vote. Make him earn it. If you just give it away you have wasted your vote and the politician owes you nothing. best regards Chad ps: Voting for Loser Brady Bill Bob is a wasted vote anyway -- he can't win anyway (so say the polls and everyone else [almost]) and so you have wasted your vote on a loser. If one wants to just vote for the winner, vote for Clinton. That way one can say that they voted for the "winner." ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: The Whole Constitution and nothing but Date: 16 Sep 1996 20:13:07 -0700 (MST) >The CONSTITUTION, the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, and NOTHING BUT the CONSTITUTION. ... SO HELP ME GOD! /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 16 Sep 1996 22:18:31 -0500 >A Dole win would be a catastrophe. Not near as much as a win for klintoon. > His escalation of the drug war means one thing -- a giant police state. >(Reference: recent post full of Dole quotes on his plans) Dole is no >salvation. Brady-Bill Bob and many of the upper level Republicans don't >care one bit about RKBA or liberty and freedom. Why do we all blindly >follow them and vote for them? We get what we deserve. ----- May I suggest that the Dole fanfare about drugs is a setup preliminary to the exposure of klintoon as the nation's cocaine-addict-in-chief. What's the FarLeft gonna do when that comes out? Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Gummy Bears Date: 16 Sep 1996 20:23:17 -0700 (MST) >Sleep tight - the moment of truth is upon us. Klintoon is about to be >exposed as a cocaine addict, which should thoroughly piss off the majority >of the NEA, much less all of Female America (see today's WSJ for the first >hint of this). But, you didn't hear? He doesn't inhale the stuff! He only brushes his teeth with it, to whiten them for his next press conference. After which he cannot tell the difference between bare gums and gummy bears. /s/ Paul Mitchell Intergalactic President, The Klingon Party (and what a party it was!) P.S. I know where Klingon can buy a great plumber's helper. =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Uns*bscribe from fake republic-of-texas mailing list Date: 16 Sep 1996 21:38:09 -0600 >>Thanks. What's the command sequence for removing myself >>from their web site? I am sorry to bother you with this, >>but I am deluged at the moment. I appreciate any help you can >>provide. > >>Best regards, >>/s/ Paul Mitchell > >----- > >This is from their sign-on: > >Bob Knauer > >+++++ > >If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, >you can send mail to "majordomo@colossus.net" with the following command >in the body of your email message: > > uns*bscribe republic-of-texas > replace the * with u ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Ken Cook Date: 16 Sep 1996 22:39:22 -0500 This from the ever-perceptive pen of Ken Cook: Bob Knauer +++++ HEADS UP! HEADS UP! There are rumblings all over the 'Net that something big is about to break with respect to the Clinton scandals - and probably as early as this week. Here are some of the rumors that I have been able to nail down so far: - Arnold de Borchgrave, the Editor at Large for the Washington Times, was on C-SPAN this morning (9/16) stating that the Times was going to run a blockbuster article this Wednesday (9/18) that would "blow the lid off" the Clinton medical records cover-up. Borchgrave said that the article pertains to some treatment Bill Clinton received in Little Rock back in 1984 for a "non-medical" reason. One can only speculate at this time. But abuse of cocaine, I must say, is a real possibility. It was around 1984, many might remember, that brother Roger was indicted and convicted of cocaine distribution. And Roger was caught on videotape, filmed by Arkansas narcotics officers, saying to his supplier, "Got to get some (cocaine) for my brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner." In Roger Morris' (no relation to Dick) book "Partners In Power," Sally Perdue, one of Bill Clinton's known mistresses, is quoted as saying that during the 1983-84 period, Bill Clinton would smoke marijuana and use cocaine regularly. Often he would pull joints out of a cigarette case and shake cocaine out from a small bag onto a table in her living room. "He had all the equipment laid out," Sally told a reporter, "Like a real pro." - The noose around Hillary Clinton is tightening. Special prosecutor Ken Starr has grand juries taking evidence in both Little Rock and Washington. Many journalists inside the beltway are no longer asking whether Hillary will be indicted, but when. As inconceivable as it may seem to many, it is quite possible that Ken Starr will unseal indictments against Hillary (and many others) before the election. If Bill Clinton wins re-election and Ken Starr (through a grand jury) waits until after the election to indict, he will never live down the criticism from angry voters and fellow Republicans. For contrary to what the Democrats would have Starr believe, it is important that the country knows BEFORE the election if there are going to be any indictments. As for Hillary, she has been AWOL for the past week. Rumor has it that she is holed up in a retreat someplace waiting for the shit to hit the fan. - Debra McKim-Brown, of the Whitewater Bulletin Board on Prodigy, reports that the congressional leadership has made an appointment to meet with The War Hero tomorrow at the White House. The official line is that they will be briefed on the Iraqi situation, but Debra believes that they might have, ahem, other issues to discuss. I tend to agree with Debra and recommend that we stay tuned - just in case. - The Fox News Network reported yesterday that Anthony Marceca, of Filegate infamy, has decided to cooperate with the Independent Counsel. This will be very damaging to the White House as Marceca will be naming names and reportedly has knowledge of just who in the White House ordered him to collect files on prominent Republicans. - On another Filegate front, The New York Post reports today that Dick Morris' hooker, Sherry Rowlands, has been subpoenaed by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for both her testimony and her now infamous diaries. Diaries that have Dick Morris laying the blame on Filegate on none other than Hillary Clinton. Post reporter Thomas Galvin reports that this move by Starr is a clear indication that Dick Morris' records will also be - or already have been - subpoenaed. To make matters worse for toe-sucking Dick, it is reported by columnist William Safire of the New York Times that his home computer - oops! - ate all the files that might be of interest to Ken Starr. That unfortunate accident may just result in obstruction of justice charges to be filed against Dick. May he find lots of bare feet in the slammer to suckle on. - Then we have the government newspaper of Iraq, "al-Jumhouriya," editorializing that Bill Clinton is not only "immersed in vice" and "without conscience," but is also "mentally retarded." It was the strongest attack ever made against a U.S. president by Iraq. Well, as most of us here know, Iraq is at least 2 for 3 if not batting 1.000! Why the sudden dissing of our War Hero by the Iraquis? Who just last week was lobbing missiles into their country? Maybe even Saddam Hussein knows that Bill Clinton is about to take one hell of a fall. - Check out the Wall Street Journal (9/16) Op-Ed page today. OUCH! STAY TUNED! ===================================================== Bob Dole is either purposely throwing the election to Bill Clinton or he is relying on some (or all) of the above to come true before the election. ===================================================== On Tuesday, Boston Herald political columnist Wayne Woodlief published a nauseating editorial about how poor little Susan McDougal was being beat up on by the mean old special prosecutor. You all know the spin by now. I promptly fired off a missive to the Herald, a portion of which was published in today's Boston Herald. My opinion piece also caught the attention of Herald columnist and talk show host Howie Carr who was previously unaware of Susan McDougal's "little problem" in California. The first hour of his show today was devoted to Susan McDougal's felonious past and he interviewed Wall Street Journal editorial writer John Fund, who elaborated further on Susan McDougal's checkered career. It seems that Susan's full time occupation today is that of defendant. Anyhow, here's my letter to the Herald that was published today on page 30: SUSAN MCDOUGAL - NO SMALL FISH by Ken Cook In response to "Susan McDougal: Small Fish Fried" by Wayne Woodlief (Sept. 10), I take offense to his portrayal of Mrs. McDougal as some innocent small-fry caught in the middle of a Whitewater power play between special prosecutor Ken Starr and the Clintons. Mr. Woodlief neglected to tell his readers that not only was Susan McDougal already convicted of several felonies by a jury of her peers in the Whitewater case, but that she is about to be prosecuted for felonies UNRELATED to Whitewater in a California case. There, she is accused of embezzling around $160,000 from a prominent conductor, Zuba Mehtz (sp). After Susan and her husband got divorced, Susan moved to California and gota job as bookkeeper for this conductor. After a year or so, she was indicted for embezzling from her employer! Now we are expected to feel sorry for Susan as she refuses to tell a Little Rock grand jury whether or not she feels Bill Clinton told the truth when he testified in her defense at her Whitewater trial earlier this year. Mr. Woodlief seems to forget that when you are called in front of a grand jury, you are required by law to present yourself and answer the questions. Hence the reason for her immediate imprisonment. Not to mention the fact that if Susan McDougal knew Bill Clinton told the truth to begin with, she wouldn't even be in the situation she is in now. All of this coupled with the fact that Ken Starr's investigation could further ensnare Susan in other Whitewater-related crimes, it seems that Mr. Woodlief's portrayal of Susan as a "babe in the woods" is far off the mark. IT took me about 10 minutes to fire off this missive to letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com and it's good to see that it caused quite a ripple today in the Boston area. Had idiots like Larry King and Diane Sawyer thought to confront Susan with this little matter of embezzlement in California, it's unlikely she would have garnered the sympathy of the nation. This is where Dole/Kemp need to hit Clinton the hardest. Start exposing this crooked bunch for what they are. The mainstream media isn't going to do it. ================================================== Regards, Ken Cook September 16, 1996 +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Clinton Set for Big Endorsement Date: 16 Sep 1996 22:43:24 -0500 We know Alan is right (see below). But does America? Bob Knauer +++++ >Return-Path: >X-Sender: mystery@mail.jetlink.net (Unverified) >Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:15:43 -0700 >To: snetnews@alterzone.com >From: Alan Russell >Subject: Re: Clinton Set for Big Endorsement >Sender: snetnews-approval@alterzone.com >Reply-To: snetnews@alterzone.com > > >-> SearchNet's snetnews Mailing List > > I have been watching several t.v. talk shows with interviews of "real" >on the street police officers, and the overwhelming majority have said >that they could not believe that the order would do such a heinous >thing. The overwhelming majority oppose Clinton on all fronts. And >comment the Fraternal order of Police officers is just a rogue group, >no more important than the Tupalo, Mississippi, community college >fraternity Psi Alpha Omega. (Not really that big nor important) >The real problem is when the Clintonistas, play it up to be >"such a big endorsement"... and people believe it. +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Constitution Party Subject: ALTERNATE NAMES Date: 17 Sep 1996 08:31:37 -0400 NOTICE - NOTICE - NOTICE Dear Friends: Please be advised that patriot@netaxs.com will be alternately utilizing the names of the Constitution Party and also The Pennsylvania Research Guild, short for (Pennsylvania Constitutional, Historical and Legal Guild of Researchers). Mike Innerarity Howard Bloom Kevin Wallace -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 4.0 Business Edition mQCNAjGsl20AAAEEALoYUvqtbkPkCY/SD8LqBy5k7tUwd3+tljGs/wx2bh/aRtmD 2VvQRhpbgC2vemGYmgtDTInFk55/Z88ITzhlOAPtowtM7xc19Lm3ENjsDDqXmxK5 yuW21g3LhXDJXh1BYW9Eb3XRF3XL8f83MKcsIQuocbYe9ZUrBSXAj+gItmUBAAUR tCRNaWtlIElubmVyYXJpdHkgPHBhdHJpb3RAbmV0YXhzLmNvbT4= =+sS/ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Fwd: Ron Brown Murder (fwd) Date: 17 Sep 1996 07:41:59 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- snetnews@alterzone.com, caji@pobox.com ----- Begin Included Message ----- >Return-Path: >From: Betty49er@aol.com >Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 16:14:13 -0400 >To: imajinnn@gnn.com >cc: Hank14@adnc.com >Subject: Fwd: Ron Brown Murder > >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: jlmcg@ix.netcom.com (JOHN MCGOVERN) >To: Betty49er@aol.com >Date: 96-09-14 22:42:02 EDT > >---- Begin Forwarded Message >220 229078 <51ambv$4qt@homer.alpha.net> article >Path: >ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!www.nntp.prim >enet.com!nntp.primenet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbn >planet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!homer.alpha.net!us >enet >From: Noneyo@bussiness.edu (Whatsina Name) >Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy >Subject: Ron Brown Murder >Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 04:05:08 GMT >Organization: Totally, Inc. >Lines: 307 >Message-ID: <51ambv$4qt@homer.alpha.net> >Reply-To: Someone Who Cares >NNTP-Posting-Host: dial43-4.mixcom.com >X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 > > MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE; > The Death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown > > Cilipi Airport, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2:10 PM, April 3, 1996: >Captain Amir Schic lands a twin-engine corporate jet carrying the >Croatian Prime Minister and the American Ambassador. It is one of >five planes to land routinely on Runway 12 in the hour preceding >the scheduled 3:00 arrival of IFOR-21, the Boeing T-43A carrying >Ron Brown and his upbeat entourage of American industrial >deal-makers. > > Cilipi Airport, 2:15 PM: >Businessmen begin to straggle into the lobby, a few carrying umbrellas >to ward off the very light to moderate rain. They're early because >they're anxious to greet the 35 Americans who at this moment are >taking >off from Tuzia, Bosnia, 130 miles to the northeast. Outside, a perfect >breeze blows at 14 mph from east to west, perfect because at 120 >degrees >from north, it is only one degree off from being an exact headwind for >the landing pattern of IFOR-21. Contrary to some U.S. news reports, >it is not a dark and stormy night. It is the middle of the afternoon. > > The Radio Shack of Cilipi Airport, about 2:30 PM: >Maintenance Chief Niko Jerkuic, 46, nervously fiddles with the dials >on his NDR (Nondirectional Radio) beacon, the only instrument he has >that can guide approaching planes. In a couple of hours, he will be >a rich man, the two American operatives told him, if he can quietly >send IFOR-21 into Sveti Ivan (St. John's Hill), one of the highest >mountains in the area at 2400 feet. Jerkuic will simply shut his >beacon down--at the same moment that a decoy beacon is turned on by >an American operative sitting near the base of Sveti Ivan. This is >an old trick dating back to pirate days. He inspects his terrain map >again and again. If he miscalculates...well, the Americans did not >look like men who would forgive someone who botches a serious >assignment like this one. All Jerkuic knows is that there is someone >on the plane who is very dangerous to the American President, and it >is his job to make sure the plane never lands. With a shaky hand, he >picks up a scrambled walkie-talkie and rechecks with the American >agent who is sitting in a jeep at Sveti Ivan with another NDR in a >suitcase beside him. Jerkuic glances out at some broken clouds >scudding by 400 feet above. They will have no effect. He will have >to depend on the main cloud cover at 2,000 feet. Sveti Ivan rises >almost 400 feet into this overcast. Jerkuic calculates that the new >signal will alter the plane's course by a full ten degrees and send >it far off course to the north into the mountain. His timing will >have to be perfect. Money or no money, he begins to wonder if he's >doing the right thing. > > Cilipi Airport, 2:48 PM: >Captain Schic climbs to the control tower to give IFOR-21 a friendly >radio >greeting and reassurance that all is well. He describes the Cilipi >weather: >Visibility eight kilometers (5 miles), winds still at 14 mph, all >flights >arriving normally. Flying at about 10,000 feet and 40+ miles away, >Co-captains Ashley J. Davis, 35, and Tim Shager, 33, thank Schic for >his >words of welcome. These conditions are later described by Newsweek and >others as "the worst storm in ten years" with "visibility just 100 >yards." >(Their portrayal of the weather is flatly denied by Aviation Week and >Space Technology.) > > In the clouds over the Adriatic Sea, 2:50 PM: >IFOR-21 reports in to Cilipi routinely. It is the last time their >voice is heard. > > Split, Croatia, 2:52 PM: >The main regional radar station loses IFOR-21 from its screen. > > Cilipi Airport, 2:52 PM: >Jerkuic stops monitoring the control tower to detect any other planes >in the landing pattern. There are none, so he calls the American at >Sveti Ivan again. They count down: 5,4,3,2,1. Simultaneously, >Jerkuic shuts down and the American powers up. > > Kolocep Island, 2:54 PM: >IFOR-21 is on course as it passes over Cilipi's first beacon, >11.9 miles from the airport. It then locks onto the second and final >beam that is being transmitted from Sveti Ivan. This changes the >plane's actual direction from 119 degrees to 109 degrees, heading >straight into Sveti Ivan. But the Cilipi control tower doesn't know >the plane is now off course. It has no radar. > > Aboard an AWACS plane, 2:56 PM: >The U.S. Air Force plane keeping track of the air traffic in the >Bosnian conflict area losses track of IFOR-21 just after it passes >over Dubrovnik. (Being the military version of a Boeing 737-200, >IFOR-21 is not easily lost.) Because it is less than a mile off >course at this point, no one on the AWACS notes any problem. > > Srebreno, Croatia, 2:57 PM: >Villagers hear a plane roaring past unusually low and close. > Plat, Croatia, 2:57 PM: >Villagers Ana and Miho Duplica rush outside and see IFOR-21 looming >"like a ghost out of the clouds." > > Velji Do, Croatia, 2:58 PM: >Everyone in this tiny collection of stone huts at the base of Sveti >Ivan hears a plane go directly overhead in the clouds, then rev its >engines mightily for one instant. Aboard the plane, the klaxon of its >ground-proximity warning device suddenly blares, jolting Captain >Davis. >He immediately jerks the plane upward and to the left. The two to >three seconds of warning are far too little. The plane's left wingtip >touches ground, spinning it directly into the rocky hillside, making >an earth-shaking explosion. There is the crackling hiss of a huge >fireball as the plane and its large load of gas burn. Then a dead >silence in the mist. The tail section remains quite intact, but the >rest of IFOR-21 is all over the hill, making later identification of >many of the passengers impossible. The nose of the fuselage is just a >blackish smudge in the ground. All 35 people are dead except for >stewardess Shelly Kelly, who, riding in the tail, sustains only minor >cuts and bruises. > > Cilipi, 3:18 PM: >U.S. authorities are notified that IFOR-21 is down, location >completely unknown. However, they are to suffer 11 1/2 hours of >confusion before arriving at the scene. > > Republic of South Africa, approximately 4:00 PM: >News reports say an attempt has been made on the life of Ron Brown's >law partner, Tommy Boggs, by unknown assailants in a staged car >accident in Capetown. Later, Boggs refuses to discuss it. > > Cilipi, later that afternoon: >Niko Jerkuic goes home to collect his reward, but the reward is not >waiting him. It comes three days later: a bullet through the chest, >administered just shortly before he is scheduled to be grilled by the >U.S. Air Force accident investigation team. The hit squad wraps his >hand around the gun and departs. The Americans do not want a live >witness who could spill the beans later. Like many of the Whitewater >dead, Jerkuic is immediately labeled a suicide, even though there's >no evidence--and a chest wound is a rather rare cause--especially with >a large caliber pistol Unusual in Europe). The quick official reason >given for bachelor Jerkuic's death is despondence over romantic >troubles with his girlfriend. At this point, however, we have not >been able to find any verification for this. Instead, what we have >found is neighbors and friends who all agree that Jerkuic was not >depressed. Like many of his friends who had survived the years of >the Bosnian war, he was excited that life was finally getting better. > > Crash site, 7:20 PM: >Four hours and 20 minutes after the crash, the first Croatian Special >Forces search party arrives on the scene and finds only Ms. Kelly >surviving. They call for a helicopter to evacuate her to the >hospital. >When it arrives, she is able to get aboard without assistance from the >medics. But Kelly never completes the short hop. She dies enroute. >According to multiple reports given to journalist/editor Joe L. >Jordan, >an autopsy later reveals a neat three-inch incision over her main >femoral artery. It also shows that the incision came at least three >hours after all her other cuts and bruises. This datum, of course, >creates in one's mind a horrifying scene in the back of the chopper, >as one Special Forces operative holds down the struggling woman and >muffles her screams while another slices her leg. Further necropsies >will probably not happen. At this writing, Clinton has ordered the >cremation of all victims. It's hard to perform autopsies on ashes. > >Ever since the crash, most reporters and officials have refused to >even >consider the possibility of foul play. Some of them have merely >followed >orders. But most of them have instinctively fled from the highly >disturbing possibility. That Ron Brown was assassinated by people close >to his own President. So confronted with the total impossibility of >two >experienced pilots following an NDR beam to a crash site 1.6 miles off >course, they all shrug their shoulders in bewilderment. None of their >theories have come even close to explaining how a beacon that is >accurate >to within two feet at the landing point could lead the plane so far >astray. > >But they have tried: > > -One desperate explanation was a nasty crosswind that "blew" the >plane > sideways. Not credible: This would require a wind 90 degrees off >from > the actual wind. > > -Most of the press and officialdom have blamed poor visibility to >some > extent. To do this, they have to take the ferocity of the rainstorm > later that afternoon and evening and move it back in time to the >crash > hour. But records show the weather from 2:54 PM to 2:58 PM was well > within the normal limits for landing. And NDR beacons never get >blown > off course. In any case, pilots more than a few miles from an >airport > normally rely on a beam rather than visual sighting anyway. > > -Pilot fatigue and strain? Not likely on a 45-minute flight. > > -Equipment malfunction on a rickety old plane? IFOR-21 was the >number > two plane in the White House fleet: in essence, Air Force Two. It >had > carried Hillary and Chelsea Clinton and Defense Secretary William >Perry > just the week before. Everything about that flight was checked our >and > rehearsed a week in advance. > > -Lightning or other troubles causing the pilots to lose track of the > beam? No, they were both drilled in the standard procedure for >Cilipi: > If you lose the beam or miss the airport, you immediately veer TO >THE > RIGHT AND UP to make sure you avoid Sveti Ivan. Indisputably, the > pilots thought they were following the beacon, or they would have > executed the standard right turn within seconds. Plus, their >landing > gear was locked down, showing they expected to land at any moment. >In > sum, none of the "official" explanations to date have held any >water. > And all of them ignore the glaring fact that IFOR-21 did not simply > stray off the path at the last moment; by all accounts, it went > straight as an arrow to its doom the moment it left the Kolocep > Island beacon and picked up the Cilipi beacon. The problem had > to be the Cilipi beacon, which was shut down at the airport while > a substitute transmitter at Sveti Ivan was turned on. > > Could the problem have been that technician Niko Jerkuic had let his > equipment become run-down? No, thousands of landings had taken >place > while his equipment was running, some just minutes before the crash. > To transmit an NDR beacon that's ten degrees off, it takes more than > an accident. Obviously, this explanation could do double duty by > aiding the suicide theory. In this scenario, Jerkuic simply felt so > bad about his shoddy work that he shot himself. Unfortunately for > the theory, you can't just accidentally bump a knob and make the > whole apparatus line planes up with Sveti Ivan. It takes a >sustained > effort by a qualified engineer. Plus, other planes had landed just > before IFOR-21. So Jerkuic had to shut off his beacon at the last > minute. The question arises: Could not the whole issue be resolved > by a quick review of the tapes at the control tower? They probably > could...if the tapes had not suddenly disappeared. And couldn't the > air traffic controller shed some light on things? Certainly. But > now he, too, has "committed suicide"...which, by the way, is a rare > event for such a cause in Croatian culture. More details: Chief > investigator for Pratt & Whitney, staying a Paris hotel, was told > not to go--"There's not going to be a safety investigation." For > the first time in history, the Air Force had canceled the safety > investigation of a crash on friendly soil. Pentagon brass stated > that there were no black boxes aboard. It is difficult to imagine > that America's #2 VIP plane had no black box. And a veteran Air > Force mechanic who claims to have worked on just about every T-43A > in the USAF says he never saw one without a black box. > > Why would anyone want to murder Ron Brown? >Brown was up to his neck in major scandals. At the time of his >murder, >Brown was under investigation by a special prosecutor in the Justice >Dept., the FDIC, the Congressional Reform and Oversight Committee, >the FBI, the Energy Dept., the Senate Judiciary Committee, and even >his own Commerce Dept. Inspector General. > >1. How did North Vietnam recently get us to drop our trade embargo >against them so suddenly? Easy. As a Vietnamese businessman and >official >later revealed to the press, the Communist government paid Brown >$700,000 >to do it. The money went into a Singapore bank account, the embargo >fell, >and Clinton squashed a feeble FBI attempt to investigate. He and Brown >also neutralized a federal grand jury probe later. > >2. The 1/23/95 U.S. News & World Report broke the news that Brown had >bought a $360,000 townhouse for his girlfriend, Lillian Madsen, a >prominent political player and whorehouse madam from Haiti. > >3. Brown used to receive $12,500 a month as the PR flack for Baby Doc >Duvalier, the much-loathed dictator of Haiti. Brown also managed Baby >Doc's $50 million investment fund, most or all of which is now in >Vietnam >firms. > >4. Brown okayed the sale of a new U.S. gas turbine engine to China >for >use in its cruise missiles. > >5. Brown irked Congress and most of Europe by acting as point man for >Clinton to bring Iranian Muslims and their weaponry into the Bosnia >war. > >6. Janet Reno appointed Daniel Pearson to prosecute Brown in a grand >jury probe of an Oklahoma gas company's large money payments to >Brown's >son, Michael. The president of the company told a Tulsa grand jury >that >the money was to be routed to Ron Brown, who was expected to "fix" a >big >lawsuit for the company. When Reno gave Pearson blanket permission to >investigate anything, Brown angrily demanded that Clinton force her to >withdraw Pearson. When Clinton said he couldn't comply, Brown angrily >told Clinton he wasn't going to take the rap. He was going to finger >Bill and Hillary instead. > >From that point on, Brown was dead. Like Vincent Foster before him, >he >knew too much. More than any man in Washington, he knew where all the >money went for the payoffs, bribes, scams, money laundering, >cover-ups, >participation fees, hush money, and side deals--all the way from >one-man >operations to vast multinational trade treaty fixes. > >If the preceding data were widely known, America would realize that >Bill Clinton is by far the most dangerous man ever to live in the >White House. His complex personality certainly has a genial side. >But a clear overall picture of this man must include the brutal nature >of the hit team that carries out his muttered wishes and looks after >his political fortunes. > >---- End Forwarded Message > Hank Newman ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Ken's Mailing - September 16, 1996 (fwd) Date: 17 Sep 1996 07:52:53 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 'MR ALFRED L BROWN' , 'MRS JOSEPHINE GOBETZ' , 'Richard Sampson' , 'Rick Casey' , 'Ronald Laitch' , 'Robert Juhl' , "'R. D. Horton'" , 'martha' , 'Larry Dykes' , 'M B Wolfe' , 'Matt Thompson' , 'Randy Benes' , 'Kevin Taylor' , 'Ramona Mock' , 'Nancy Carr' , 'Lois McNeil' , 'Liberty or Death' , "'William D. Hagewood'" , 'Raymond Gill' , 'Marjorie Walker' , 'MR FRED C GIELOW JR' , 'Katheryn Nicol' , 'ken hayES' , 'Ken Cook' , 'MR TOM D MCNICHOL' , 'MR GEORGE M RAMSAY' , 'Larry the X' , 'lcb' , "'linda@ionetwork.com'" , "'litz@pta6000.pld.com'" , "'MAGoldberg@aol.com'" , 'Stephen Mahan' , 'MARK A KILMER' , 'Michael Frisbie' , 'Ronald Doughty' , 'mattline' , 'Martha Sachs' , 'Norm Froman' , 'Maxine Alexander' , "'Peter W. Watson'" , 'MR BOB D HICKS' , 'Patricia Neill' , "'Patrick T. Cleaver'" , "'pwatson@utdallas.edu'" , 'Ray Heizer' , "'Ri10017605@aol.com'" , "'Richard L. Whitmire'" , "'RoadsEnd@aol.com'" , "'Robalini@aol.com'" , 'Rod Cole' , 'roger' , 'SAMMY FINKELMAN' , 'Samual Metcalf' , "'Paul L. Reese'" , 'Kathryn Hammer' , 'Steve Wingate' , 'Warren Litsinger' , 'MR WILLIAM M YOUNG' , 'Tony Kayser' , 'Mike McCullough' , "'tracy.drake@juno.com'" , 'MRS LINDA H BECKHAM' , 'Sonja Rau' , 'Simon Bronstein' , "'K. Cook'" , 'Rob Patelke' , 'Martin Oppenheimer' , 'Ken Salmen' [This is a mass-mailing going out to those who have subscribed to my mailing list for breaking events that the media does not normally cover. To unsubcribe from this list, which will go out several times a week, please email kencook@tiac.net. If you know others who would like to be on it, please feel free to give out this e-mail address and have them contact me. Please feel free to distribute these mailings widely, but bear in mind that they often contain copyrighted material being used under the "Fair Use" provision of copyright law, so do so on a not-for-profit basis. And never remove bylines and other credits that precede and follow copyrighted material.] ================================================== As many of you know, I do a weekly segment on Jack Christy's radio show. I discuss mostly Whitewater but also whatever is in the news at the time that can't be found in the mainstream media. This show is now available on the Internet! Point your browser to http://www.khj1380am.com/ There, you will find a link to download a free RealAudio driver (if you don't already have one) so that you can listen to the show in real time. Jack's show is each Sunday from 12-4 p.m. EDT and my segment is usually after the 3:30 break. ====================================================== HEADS UP! HEADS UP! There are rumblings all over the 'Net that something big is about to break with respect to the Clinton scandals - and probably as early as this week. Here are some of the rumors that I have been able to nail down so far: - Arnold de Borchgrave, the Editor at Large for the Washington Times, was on C-SPAN this morning (9/16) stating that the Times was going to run a blockbuster article this Wednesday (9/18) that would "blow the lid off" the Clinton medical records cover-up. Borchgrave said that the article pertains to some treatment Bill Clinton received in Little Rock back in 1984 for a "non-medical" reason. One can only speculate at this time. But abuse of cocaine, I must say, is a real possibility. It was around 1984, many might remember, that brother Roger was indicted and convicted of cocaine distribution. And Roger was caught on videotape, filmed by Arkansas narcotics officers, saying to his supplier, "Got to get some (cocaine) for my brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner." In Roger Morris' (no relation to Dick) book "Partners In Power," Sally Perdue, one of Bill Clinton's known mistresses, is quoted as saying that during the 1983-84 period, Bill Clinton would smoke marijuana and use cocaine regularly. Often he would pull joints out of a cigarette case and shake cocaine out from a small bag onto a table in her living room. "He had all the equipment laid out," Sally told a reporter, "Like a real pro." - The noose around Hillary Clinton is tightening. Special prosecutor Ken Starr has grand juries taking evidence in both Little Rock and Washington. Many journalists inside the beltway are no longer asking whether Hillary will be indicted, but when. As inconceivable as it may seem to many, it is quite possible that Ken Starr will unseal indictments against Hillary (and many others) before the election. If Bill Clinton wins re-election and Ken Starr (through a grand jury) waits until after the election to indict, he will never live down the criticism from angry voters and fellow Republicans. For contrary to what the Democrats would have Starr believe, it is important that the country knows BEFORE the election if there are going to be any indictments. As for Hillary, she has been AWOL for the past week. Rumor has it that she is holed up in a retreat someplace waiting for the shit to hit the fan. - Debra McKim-Brown, of the Whitewater Bulletin Board on Prodigy, reports that the congressional leadership has made an appointment to meet with The War Hero tomorrow at the White House. The official line is that they will be briefed on the Iraqi situation, but Debra believes that they might have, ahem, other issues to discuss. I tend to agree with Debra and recommend that we stay tuned - just in case. - The Fox News Network reported yesterday that Anthony Marceca, of Filegate infamy, has decided to cooperate with the Independent Counsel. This will be very damaging to the White House as Marceca will be naming names and reportedly has knowledge of just who in the White House ordered him to collect files on prominent Republicans. - On another Filegate front, The New York Post reports today that Dick Morris' hooker, Sherry Rowlands, has been subpoenaed by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for both her testimony and her now infamous diaries. Diaries that have Dick Morris laying the blame on Filegate on none other than Hillary Clinton. Post reporter Thomas Galvin reports that this move by Starr is a clear indication that Dick Morris' records will also be - or already have been - subpoenaed. To make matters worse for toe-sucking Dick, it is reported by columnist William Safire of the New York Times that his home computer - oops! - ate all the files that might be of interest to Ken Starr. That unfortunate accident may just result in obstruction of justice charges to be filed against Dick. May he find lots of bare feet in the slammer to suckle on. - Then we have the government newspaper of Iraq, "al-Jumhouriya," editorializing that Bill Clinton is not only "immersed in vice" and "without conscience," but is also "mentally retarded." It was the strongest attack ever made against a U.S. president by Iraq. Well, as most of us here know, Iraq is at least 2 for 3 if not batting 1.000! Why the sudden dissing of our War Hero by the Iraquis? Who just last week was lobbing missiles into their country? Maybe even Saddam Hussein knows that Bill Clinton is about to take one hell of a fall. - Check out the Wall Street Journal (9/16) Op-Ed page today. OUCH! STAY TUNED! ===================================================== Bob Dole is either purposely throwing the election to Bill Clinton or he is relying on some (or all) of the above to come true before the election. ===================================================== On Tuesday, Boston Herald political columnist Wayne Woodlief published a nauseating editorial about how poor little Susan McDougal was being beat up on by the mean old special prosecutor. You all know the spin by now. I promptly fired off a missive to the Herald, a portion of which was published in today's Boston Herald. My opinion piece also caught the attention of Herald columnist and talk show host Howie Carr who was previously unaware of Susan McDougal's "little problem" in California. The first hour of his show today was devoted to Susan McDougal's felonious past and he interviewed Wall Street Journal editorial writer John Fund, who elaborated further on Susan McDougal's checkered career. It seems that Susan's full time occupation today is that of defendant. Anyhow, here's my letter to the Herald that was published today on page 30: SUSAN MCDOUGAL - NO SMALL FISH by Ken Cook In response to "Susan McDougal: Small Fish Fried" by Wayne Woodlief (Sept. 10), I take offense to his portrayal of Mrs. McDougal as some innocent small-fry caught in the middle of a Whitewater power play between special prosecutor Ken Starr and the Clintons. Mr. Woodlief neglected to tell his readers that not only was Susan McDougal already convicted of several felonies by a jury of her peers in the Whitewater case, but that she is about to be prosecuted for felonies UNRELATED to Whitewater in a California case. There, she is accused of embezzling around $160,000 from a prominent conductor, Zuba Mehtz (sp). After Susan and her husband got divorced, Susan moved to California and gota job as bookkeeper for this conductor. After a year or so, she was indicted for embezzling from her employer! Now we are expected to feel sorry for Susan as she refuses to tell a Little Rock grand jury whether or not she feels Bill Clinton told the truth when he testified in her defense at her Whitewater trial earlier this year. Mr. Woodlief seems to forget that when you are called in front of a grand jury, you are required by law to present yourself and answer the questions. Hence the reason for her immediate imprisonment. Not to mention the fact that if Susan McDougal knew Bill Clinton told the truth to begin with, she wouldn't even be in the situation she is in now. All of this coupled with the fact that Ken Starr's investigation could further ensnare Susan in other Whitewater-related crimes, it seems that Mr. Woodlief's portrayal of Susan as a "babe in the woods" is far off the mark. IT took me about 10 minutes to fire off this missive to letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com and it's good to see that it caused quite a ripple today in the Boston area. Had idiots like Larry King and Diane Sawyer thought to confront Susan with this little matter of embezzlement in California, it's unlikely she would have garnered the sympathy of the nation. This is where Dole/Kemp need to hit Clinton the hardest. Start exposing this crooked bunch for what they are. The mainstream media isn't going to do it. ================================================== Regards, Ken Cook September 16, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Notice of Default and Intent Date: 17 Sep 1996 06:55:17 -0700 (MST) >Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:51:08 >To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: Notice of Default and Intent > > PUBLIC NOTICE OF DEFAULT > AND OF INTENT TO COMPEL > PRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS > >This is to provide formal Public Notice to interested >People, that the United States Attorney General has >defaulted in response to a lawful request made under >the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") for the >official credentials of all 633 alleged federal agents >who rotated in and out of the Freeman Standoff in >Jordan, Montana, under auspices of the Federal Bureau >of Investigation and other federal agencies which >were involved in said Standoff. > >Accordingly, the requester, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, >B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state, Counselor at >Law, and federal witness, hereby provides formal >legal notice to all interested People of His intent >to compel production of the requested documents by >filing a petition for same with the District Court >of the United States in Billings, Montana, with all >deliberate speed, which is the court of competent and >original jurisdiction pursuant to Title 5 United States >Code Section 552 et seq. > >This is also formal legal notice to all interested >People that said requester's Internet Request for >Proposals for a qualified and competent Article III >federal judge to preside over said Court has produced >absolutely no proposals to date. Accordingly, requester >places all interested People on notice of his intent to >serve a formal Notice and Demand upon a Judge of the >Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a certificate of >necessity to be served upon Chief Justice William H. >Rehnquist to appoint a Judge from the Court of >International Trade in New York City temporarily to >preside over said District Court, whose compensation >is not currently being diminished by federal income >taxes in violation of Article III, Section 1, and >Evans v. Gore, U.S. Supreme Court (1921). > >/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell >Executed on September 17, 1996 > > > >At 11:14 PM 9/16/96 -0800, you wrote: >>======================================================================= >>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA >>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing >>======================================================================= >>Something known as a "session(s)" will be held in Billings beginning on >>Tuesday. THis is the common law county commissioners - one supreme Court >>or some version of that - who knows what the Feds can comeup with. This >>would probably be ex parte, but I don't know for sure. Update will follow >>tomorrow night. As to whether the Freemen will be present is unknown??? >> >>Sessions are one day courts. See my homepage for the brief fax from Judge >>Burns and blacks definition of session. >> >>the best >> >>Ralph Kermit, Winterrowd >>American National >>Born of natural born parents of the Posterity >>One of the People >>Sovereign State in Fact >> >>If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better >>than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not >>your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May >>your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our >>countrymen. >> Samuel Adams >> >>Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains >>and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may >>take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death. >> Patrick Henry: Speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23,1775 >> >> >>My Homepage is: http://www.alaska.net/~winter/jefferson.html >> >> >> > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Notice of Default and Intent Date: 17 Sep 1996 07:15:49 -0700 (MST) >Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:51:08 >To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: Notice of Default and Intent > > PUBLIC NOTICE OF DEFAULT > AND OF INTENT TO COMPEL > PRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS > >This is to provide formal Public Notice to interested >People, that the United States Attorney General has >defaulted in response to a lawful request made under >the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") for the >official credentials of all 633 alleged federal agents >who rotated in and out of the Freeman Standoff in >Jordan, Montana, under auspices of the Federal Bureau >of Investigation and other federal agencies which >were involved in said Standoff. > >Accordingly, the requester, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, >B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state, Counselor at >Law, and federal witness, hereby provides formal >legal notice to all interested People of His intent >to compel production of the requested documents by >filing a petition for same with the District Court >of the United States in Billings, Montana, with all >deliberate speed, which is the court of competent and >original jurisdiction pursuant to Title 5 United States >Code Section 552 et seq. > >This is also formal legal notice to all interested >People that said requester's Internet Request for >Proposals for a qualified and competent Article III >federal judge to preside over said Court has produced >absolutely no proposals to date. Accordingly, requester >places all interested People on notice of his intent to >serve a formal Notice and Demand upon a Judge of the >Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a certificate of >necessity to be served upon Chief Justice William H. >Rehnquist to appoint a Judge from the Court of >International Trade in New York City temporarily to >preside over said District Court, whose compensation >is not currently being diminished by federal income >taxes in violation of Article III, Section 1, and >Evans v. Gore, U.S. Supreme Court (1921). > >/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell >Executed on September 17, 1996 > > > >At 11:14 PM 9/16/96 -0800, you wrote: >>======================================================================= >>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA >>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing >>======================================================================= >>Something known as a "session(s)" will be held in Billings beginning on >>Tuesday. THis is the common law county commissioners - one supreme Court >>or some version of that - who knows what the Feds can comeup with. This >>would probably be ex parte, but I don't know for sure. Update will follow >>tomorrow night. As to whether the Freemen will be present is unknown??? >> >>Sessions are one day courts. See my homepage for the brief fax from Judge >>Burns and blacks definition of session. >> >>the best >> >>Ralph Kermit, Winterrowd >>American National >>Born of natural born parents of the Posterity >>One of the People >>Sovereign State in Fact >> >>If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better >>than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not >>your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May >>your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget ye were our >>countrymen. >> Samuel Adams >> >>Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains >>and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may >>take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death. >> Patrick Henry: Speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23,1775 >> >> >>My Homepage is: http://www.alaska.net/~winter/jefferson.html >> >> >> > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: RE: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 17 Sep 1996 09:15:02 CDT Robert Lewis Glendenning and Bob Knauer were having a conversation: R.L.G. wrote: >This is not a flame. Rats. ;-) >However, one of the important things we should all realize about humans >is how BAD we are as "intuitive statistitians". > >The problem is that our brain mixes memory and perceptual functions in the >same units. An unfortunate consequence is that we perceive best what >we have already seen, what we expect. Thus, it is very easy to >find/recognize confirmation of our previous experience/prejudices. >On the contrary, few people go around looking for evidence DIS-confirming >their theories. Something to remember when listening to the political propaganda cleverly disguised as "polls" on the evening news is the nature of the objects examined to discover that information. I'm a geologist. When I look at a rock I'm reasonably sure that when I look at it again in a week it will not have changed. If I see anything different, I'm quite sure that what has changed is my perception of that rock. This is not so when humans are the objects observed. Ask one of them what he thinks now and you may get a different answer than you did to the same question put to him five minutes ago -- even if you don't change the wording. Polls are based on very slippery "knowledge." B.K. wrote: >> I did write this part immediately below. >> >> >> NB: There must be something about being a Libertarian that makes people go >> >> off the deep end. Sorry, Jeff and others, it seems to be more the case >> >>than not. >> >> [ ... Snip ... ] >> >> It has been said many times before, not by me but by others on these lists, >> that they find Libertarians to be obnoxious at times. I am just reporting on >> my experiences in that regard. I'm one of those who have found Libertarians to be obnoxious, and on not a few occasions. I have found them to be arrogant, self-righteous, insufferable, narrow-minded, and shallow. More than that, they have gloried in being that way. Sounds like I'm talking about the liberals, doesn't it? I freely admit that my sample of Libertarians may possibly be biased. The reasonable ones probably don't get involved in the declamation contests which seem so to fascinate their less-accomplished brethren. That would be true by definition. Given my experiences with them, however, one can certainly understand how I might conclude that having a political discussion with a Libertarian is impossible. To draw a conclusion from direct repeatable observation is not to engage in stereotype. If Libertarians wish to dispell this widely-held perception, then they had best get to work and do it. It wasn't conjured up out of thin air. The offenders could begin by admitting in debate that their opponent may be arguing in good faith and from a position of principle, reached by careful thought and research. Simply protesting against "stereotyping" as one of the modern no-nos won't do it. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List-San Jose Mercury Date: 17 Sep 1996 10:26:30 -0600 berg stephen erik wrote: > > The same newspaper had a cartoon recently showing a transport plane > marked Cocaine Importation Agency. Normally, the Trib is Clinton > occupied territory, so this sort of coverage seems odd. Maxine Waters hates Bush. Called him a racist to his face on one occassion. Got so out of line about it even Jesse Jackson tried to calm him down live in living color on Cspan. You can bet your bottom dollar they figure to attach this to the R's and cover up Clinton role in Mena. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: RE: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 17 Sep 1996 09:25:19 -0700 (PDT) On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Neil Dickey wrote: > Robert Lewis Glendenning and Bob Knauer were having > a conversation: > > R.L.G. wrote: > > >This is not a flame. > > Rats. ;-) snip by bk > B.K. wrote: > > >> I did write this part immediately below. > >> > >> >> NB: There must be something about being a Libertarian that makes people go > >> >> off the deep end. Sorry, Jeff and others, it seems to be more the case > >> >>than not. > >> > >> [ ... Snip ... ] Actully, what Boyd K wrote was snipped. I was objecting to the generalization about all Libertarians. I called it a stereotype wich wasnt completely fair because it was -kind-of- labeled (more the case than not) but I just find judgements about people based on groups they belong to (generally ; ) not usefull. > >> It has been said many times before, not by me but by others on these lists, > >> that they find Libertarians to be obnoxious at times. I am just reporting on > >> my experiences in that regard. > > I'm one of those who have found Libertarians to be obnoxious, and on not a > few occasions. I have found them to be arrogant, self-righteous, > insufferable, narrow-minded, and shallow. More than that, they have > gloried in being that way. Sounds like I'm talking about the liberals, > doesn't it? I freely admit that my sample of Libertarians may possibly > be biased. It's an -anecdote-. Gauranteed, not only is the sample of any group you personally contact biased, but it's limited to the point of irrelevancy. I, personally, know lots of Republicans. Quantifying that, it would probably be 50-60, and for one person I submit that that really is a lot (all people who would greet me by name if I walked up to 'em). Statistically, that is -bupkiss-. If I were to extrapolate from that group I would get that most (but not all) republicans are pro choice, live in cities and drive minivans. Would I inflict this irrelevent data on anyone else as representing anything but the few (relative to all) republicans I had run into? No. And, since it is a sample of republicans I've run into we know with certainty that the sample is skewed. Put succinctly, it's meaningless. > The reasonable ones probably don't get involved in the > declamation contests which seem so to fascinate their less-accomplished > brethren. So, you have yourself told us the skew in your sample group. That you're probably only hearing from the ones that yell on line. Yeesh, I couldnt agree with you more. The Libertarians in your sample group are prone to declamation contests. This just shows how meaningless it is to draw conclusions about a large group based on (only) personal experience. Please don't take this as a flame, I'm just saying what I personally think of generalizations, generally. > That would be true by definition. Given my experiences with > them, however, one can certainly understand how I might conclude that > having a political discussion with a Libertarian is impossible. To draw > a conclusion from direct repeatable observation is not to engage in > stereotype. This is -only- true if your "direct" observation is large enough to be statistically significant (see my Repub example). Does your sample reflect a representation of the Libertarians spread in social demographic groups? Geographic region? (rhetorical questions) > If Libertarians wish to dispell this widely-held perception, then they had > best get to work and do it. It wasn't conjured up out of thin air. So far I've heard this generalization repeated by two people. I hereby publicly offer to help those to people overcome their misperception that all Libertarians are horses puhtooties. If you two gents are anyway near Bellevue Washington, the drinks are on me! Come on over to my house, sit down with mom and me and I'll whip ya up a batch of sphagetti you'll never forget. Will this mean that all Libertarians are pony tailed nearsighted sphaggeti freaks? No, it means you can get a free meal at my house ; ) As far as any misperception of all party members (though I dont think technically I am a "member") I couldnt care less. That's my point here. > The > offenders could begin by admitting in debate that their opponent may be > arguing in good faith and from a position of principle, reached by careful > thought and research. Simply protesting against "stereotyping" as one of > the modern no-nos won't do it. Actually, it was Plato who first wrote about generalization in argument. Or Phaedrus, one a those guys, but it's not a "modern" concept that over generalization is illogical. Since my ONLY objection here was to stereotyping (and not to any of the issues being debated, something I made clear in the material you snipped) I hardly see how I can cede my opponents wisdom (I'm not opposed to what was said, I have no opponents to cede to). However, if it will correct your misperception regarding me personally that all libertarians are jerks I'll do it anyway: I, Boyd Kneeland, member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, sometime financial supporter of both the Libertarian and Republican parties, Republican precinct chair of Bel 2621 and Republican 41st district B2 chair hereby repeat my appreciation of Neil Dickeys usual style of argumentation and point out that I've posted my thanks for his wit and wisdom publicly before. > The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- > wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. Ditto > | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | Boyd "I agree with the concept, it's the implementation that sucked" Kneeland ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Fwd: Loyal Democrats!!! (fwd) Date: 17 Sep 1996 12:19:12 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by txjohn47@ix.netcom.com (John Johnson) <---- Begin Forwarded Message ----> Newsgroups: us.politics.bob-dole talk.politics.misc talk.politics.libertarian talk.politics.guns [snip for bandwidth] alt.politics.nationalism.texas INS set standards aside, say officials By Ruth Larson THE WASHINGTON TIMES Tomorrow, more than 10,000 immigrants will stand in Texas Stadium outside Dallas, raise their right hands and become America's newest citizens in one of the largest swearing-in ceremonies of its kind. But some Immigration and Naturalization Service officials say many of those immigrants have been rushed through the system, with none of the background checks normally done as part of the naturalization process. Immigrants are normally subjected to FBI checks of fingerprints and names. But in documents obtained by The Washington Times, a senior INS official in Texas charged that "the applications were 'sand bagged' and all action was held in abeyance pending the accrual of 10,000 people for a 'grandstand' appearance." "Not a single case relating to a positive criminal record check was referred to Investigations," the official wrote, noting that such checks would normally yield "hundreds if not thousands of positive returns." "Not a single referral was made to Investigations concerning the request for a good moral character investigation," the official said, nor were referrals made for suspected testing fraud. Using fraudulent documents to obtain employment is an example of conduct that would bar an applicant from being considered for naturalization. But no checks were made to determine whether applicants had violated employment laws. "A large percentage of the 10,000 individuals being naturalized at Texas Stadium may have been ineligible ... for naturalization," the official said. Such lapses were reported to the Justice Security Agency, but officials there "indicated they would not investigate the allegations until after the elections," according to the INS official. The allegations mark only the latest criticism erupting from inside and outside the INS over the unprecedented push to process 1.3 million new citizens by the end of the year, a program dubbed Citizenship USA. Last week, witnesses at a House Government Reform and Oversight subcommittee hearing said fraud is widespread in the citizenship testing administered by INS contractors at hundreds of sites nationwide. Rep. William F. Clinger, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the full committee, called the situation "nothing short of gross, gross mismanagement" by the INS that erodes the credibility of the naturalization process. INS officials acknowledge there have been some problems. They recently conceded that at least 36 new citizens may have their citizenship revoked because of criminal records. But they insist such cases are rare. The officials stress that Citizenship USA is designed to reduce a huge backlog in applications. Delays had grown to four years or more. "Citizenship USA puts both the 'naturalization' and 'service' back in the INS," the agency's executive commissioner for programs, T. Alexander Aleinikoff, told a House subcommittee last week. Mr. Aleinikoff noted that the INS resorted to lowering standards to rush through a record number of applicants. On the contrary, INS has insisted on more stringent requirements, he said. "There have been no shortcuts taken." But INS officials in Texas tell a different story. They say that for the past several months, enforcement employees, who are supposed to check on whether businesses are employing illegal aliens and to conduct record checks to support deportation of criminals, were reassigned to process citizenship paperwork. Several immigration inspectors normally assigned to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport have been detailed to the Dallas district office to handle the naturalization program. At least one special agent in the El Paso district office has been removed from enforcement duties and assigned to citizenship duties. In addition, the INS recruited unqualified temporary workers and volunteers and spent thousands of dollars on overtime to process citizenship applications, INS workers said. The Times first reported in May that the INS was detailing employees from other federal agencies to process the surge in citizenship applications. The agency had come under pressure from the White House, which hoped for a similar surge in newly registered Democratic voters, INS employees told The Times. Mr. Aleinikoff disagreed. "I can say categorically that Citizenship USA was not motivated by political considerations," he said last week. But as recently as June 15, an INS field official in Dallas who expressed concerns over the fraudulent testing said he was told that "this was a ... headquarters 'pet' project and the sentiment was that the ... headquarters wanted a 'hands off' policy as it related to these entities," according to an internal INS memo. >---- End Forwarded Message ----< -- >From the main computer of: John Johnson TXJohn47@ix.netcom.com The opinions expressed above represent those of the writer (me) and not necessarily those of his employer (also me). ;-) -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Word Wrap Date: 17 Sep 1996 13:11:22 -0500 There was a discussion recently on some of the lists about the problems of word wrap in email clients. If word wrap is not in effect when you send or reply to a message, each nested level of the reply screws up the appearance, eventually to the point of being unreadable. Specifically, Eudora Light (v 1.5.2) was discussed because it is very popular. So I thought it would be useful to copy these comments to this list, as I had promised on L&J. Jeff Huber and I have been playing around with Eudora trying to get it to behave correctly. The solution below comes from Jeff's discovery of a command line which causes word wrap. 1) First, in Special|Settings|Sending Mail CHECK the box which says Word wrap. This may or may not be needed, but go ahead and appease the software gods anyway. 2) With Eudora NOT running, edit the "eudora.ini" file (save the old one in case things get messed up). In the first section called [Settings] add a line: WordWrapColumn=72. This is the command which makes this work. I use 72, Jeff uses 65. Pick the one you like based on the font size (I use Courier 10) and window width (I use full width). 3) Now send yourself a message and see how it works. The lines will all be wrapped at 72 characters or whatever value you choose. At least that's how it worked on my machine. Of course, if people who read your message have their font size set for braille (like Courier 15) then this is not going to work. But they would have to be terminally blind to want to use anything larger than Courier 10. FWIW, Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Obnoxious Libertarians Date: 17 Sep 1996 13:36:35 -0500 >>This was posted by a longtime patriot on another list. Some of you might >>want to heed his advice, since you don't seem to want to heed mine. >> >>Bob Knauer >> >>+++++ >> >>>From another list: >> >>>I'm one of those who have found Libertarians to be obnoxious, and on not a >>>few occasions. I have found them to be arrogant, self-righteous, >>>insufferable, narrow-minded, and shallow. > >Rather than attacking personalities, wouldn't it make more sense to attack >libertarian ideas? I find it offensive in the extreme as a patriot and a >libertarian, that someone would make the above attack without specific >details and specific explanations of who fits that definition. > >Resorting to name calling is really unacceptable. ----- My first reaction is to say: "Look at the pot calling the kettle black. Why not practice what you preach?" But, on the assumption that you really do not know what this thread is all about, and based on the fact that most Libertarians are truly sincere people who exhibit good manners in debate, I will try to explain. For some reason, whenever I or others try to discuss a topic like politics - especially ABC vs LP - there are a certain few Libertarians who spew forth canned LP doctinaire rubbish - complete with all sorts of pre-canned diatribes which are hurled at us with regularity. That is not said to indict either the LP or fellow (civilized) Libertarians, as they are our friends and allies in the fight against tyranny, but rather to point out, as the poster does above, that there seems to be a finge element in the Libertarian movement that is suspiciously "Liberal" in its debate tactics. And we don't need no stinkin' Liberals around here - Liberals want to enslave you, and we opt for liberty instead. You see, we all belong to patriot/RKBA groups, which tend to be to the Right - Conservative in nature politically. Therefore, this "Liberal" style of agrumentation put forth by these few Libertarians is so venal that it grates on our sensitivities, at least mine. Now the message of the poster above (and mine too) is: "Clean up your act", because it does no good to piss off Consevatives if you seek liberty also. I hope this helps to clear up any confusion on this matter. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Word Wrap Date: 17 Sep 1996 11:56:24 -0700 --snip-- >Of course, if people who read your message have their font size set for >braille (like Courier 15) then this is not going to work. But they would >have to be terminally blind to want to use anything larger than Courier 10. > >FWIW, > >Bob Knauer Well, *I'm* not terminally blind (nice pun, Bob) and *I* use Fixedsys 11. But then, my amplifier goes to 11 too. - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) WHO'S SHIPPING OUT Date: 17 Sep 1996 12:21:54 -0700 Please respond directly to Mike (address below) if you have personal knowledge of this. - Monte >To All: > An acquaintance has mentioned that the latest ship-out of >military personnel has decimated the ranks of military and military >reservists who are Constitutionalists in his area. This leads him (and >me) to believe that there is a good chance that this movement is another >step to specifically remove Constitutional loyalists in the military from >the continental United States. > If this latest deployment has hit known Constitutional loyalists >of your acquaintance, kindly inform me in response to this posting so >that I might compile datea from around the contry. > I thank you in advance, and urge reposting of this message, far >and wide. > >In Liberty, > >Mike Kemp > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Debate Panel Says No to Perot Date: 17 Sep 1996 14:52:07 -0500 I suppose that means Browne won't be there either. Bob Knauer ----- Debate Panel Says No to Perot The commission planning for the 1996 presidential debates has recommended against including Reform Party candidate Ross Perot. The commission unanimously agreed ``that only President Clinton and Senator Dole and their running mates be invited to participate,'' co-chairman Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf said in a statement. The Commission on Presidential Debates says only Clinton and Dole have a realistic chance of being elected president of the United States. Perot's national campaign coordinator denounced the decision as ``a travesty of justice'' and said the Reform Party is considering bringing a lawsuit in federal court against the panel. ----- -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: NRA Resolution Date: 17 Sep 1996 15:14:33 -0500 A Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association of America on September 14, 1996 Whereas the National Rifle Association is committed to unalterable support for the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to all principles embodied therein: Whereas the NRA is committed to law enforcement directed at protecting the life and liberty of peaceable Americans by removing violent criminals from their midst; Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, the President of the United States, has steadfastly failed in his duty to enforce the existing Federal mandatory penalties for convicted felons possessing and using firearms, a failure which has left thousands of criminal predators untouched, and has left hundreds of thousands of innocent and peaceful Americans to suffer as victims of these free roaming criminals; And whereas considerable tragic loss of innocent life has resulted in this failure to apply existing law to criminals: And whereas William Jefferson Clinton has diverted the attention, energy, and focus of his administrates and government in an assault on the rights of peaceable Americans to own firearms, to wit, Mr. Clinton: Pressed the former Democrat-controlled Congress to enact a law -- ostensibly to ban so called assault weapons -- which in fact, for the first time in the history of the republic creates a list of specific firearms which government allows Americans to possess. Never before has government taken unto itself the power to determine what small arms may be possessed by the people. And such a list is subject to change at the whim of Congress. Pressed the former Democratic controlled Congress to enact the so-called Brady bill, which his supporters in Congress and the anti-gun special interests see as a natural step to much harsher measures against private ownership of firearms by peaceable Americans; Vetoed Federal tort reform legislation which would have ended outrageous lawsuits designed specifically to bankrupt firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers, thus depriving peaceable Americans of legitimate commerce in firearms; Used the Federal bureaucracy to discourage lawful and peaceable commerce in firearms, through imposition of arbitrary import restrictions, through harassment of Federally licensed dealers with the intent of forcing them out of business, through funding massive political studies intended to twist the future firearms debate into a national health crisis, thus diverting public attention from the core issue, and through the refusal of the Clinton Administration to use existing law to get criminals off the street. Whereas Mr. Clinton has packed the Federal courts with anti-gun judicial activists, and given a lame-duck term of four more years, will have the power to change the face of the United States Supreme Court to attain the dismantling of the Second Amendment; We therefore resolve that the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association urge in the strongest terms that the members of the Association use their collective power of the vote to remove Mr. Clinton from office and additionally to re-elect and increase the current Second Amendment majority in the Congress. =+=+=+=+ This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA. This and other information on the Second Amendment and the NRA is available at: http://WWW.NRA.Org -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait Date: 17 Sep 1996 15:17:50 -0500 It looks like Bubba is going to use US troops as a pawn to shield him from his political troubles after all. Bob Knauer ----- From the "news": Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait President Clinton has ordered 3,500 U.S. troops to Kuwait as part of his effort to deter further aggression by Iraq. Clinton says he authorized the deployment of the troops from Fort Hood, Texas, last week and signed the orders last night. A Pentagon official says the forces would go within days. Clinton briefed congressional leaders on his Gulf strategy today, but failed to silence Republican criticism. Senate Republican leader Trent Lott accused the president of ``neglect and ambiguity'' in his Iraq policy.'' A State Department official said today the United States has renewed its warning to Baghdad not to interfere with Western enforcement of no-fly zones over Iraq. ----- -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Flaky Internet Today Date: 17 Sep 1996 16:30:57 -0500 I don't know about you all, but the Internet is acting flaky today - list servers sending empty messages, others not posting as usual, chat groups not running, etc. A few other list members have written me privately complaining of the same thing. Has anyone else experienced strange behavior on the Net today? I know the govt is pissed that the Internet keeps spreading the "rumor" that friendly fire brought down TWA800, but that should not be related to these unusual events today. Right? Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: Word Wrap Date: 17 Sep 1996 15:13:19 -0700 I would recommend that you consider setting WordWrapColumn to 40, so that successive "forwarding" will simply shift the lines to the right, without causing unsightly wrap-around. Try it. You'll like it. It's more like a newspaper column. Here is how we programmers used to do it 0 1 2 3 4 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890 /s/ Paul Mitchell At 01:11 PM 9/17/96 -0500, you wrote: >There was a discussion recently on some of the lists about the problems >of word wrap in email clients. If word wrap is not in effect when you >send or reply to a message, each nested level of the reply screws up the >appearance, eventually to the point of being unreadable. > >Specifically, Eudora Light (v 1.5.2) was discussed because it is very >popular. So I thought it would be useful to copy these comments to this >list, as I had promised on L&J. > >Jeff Huber and I have been playing around with Eudora trying to get it >to behave correctly. The solution below comes from Jeff's discovery of a >command line which causes word wrap. > >1) First, in Special|Settings|Sending Mail CHECK the box which says Word >wrap. This may or may not be needed, but go ahead and appease the >software gods anyway. > >2) With Eudora NOT running, edit the "eudora.ini" file (save the old one >in case things get messed up). In the first section called [Settings] >add a line: WordWrapColumn=72. This is the command which makes this work. > >I use 72, Jeff uses 65. Pick the one you like based on the font size (I >use Courier 10) and window width (I use full width). > >3) Now send yourself a message and see how it works. The lines will all >be wrapped at 72 characters or whatever value you choose. At least >that's how it worked on my machine. > >Of course, if people who read your message have their font size set for >braille (like Courier 15) then this is not going to work. But they would >have to be terminally blind to want to use anything larger than Courier 10. > >FWIW, > >Bob Knauer > >-- > >************************************************** > A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing > Corporation World Wide Web Publishing > > http://www.aimtec.com/ >************************************************** > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RevCOAL Subject: RE: Flaky Internet Today Date: 17 Sep 1996 19:35:49 -0400 (EDT) On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > I don't know about you all, but the Internet is acting flaky today - > list servers sending empty messages, others not posting as usual, chat > groups not running, etc. A few other list members have written me > privately complaining of the same thing. > > Has anyone else experienced strange behavior on the Net today? I know > the govt is pissed that the Internet keeps spreading the "rumor" that > friendly fire brought down TWA800, but that should not be related to > these unusual events today. Right? I just sent a "heads up" to another list today....some strange spams from someone purporting to be from Smith Barney (but which they claim is from a 'disgruntled ex-employee') is hitting some lists....I would have dismissed it as 'just one of those things', if I hadn't come home to find half my mailbox filled with empty posts from act@efn.org and liberty-and-justice@pobox.com...plus, I had a few error message posts informing me that liberty-and-justice was an unrecognizable address. In the past, I've noticed that when certain lists get 'funky', and spams suddenly appear at the same time...usually in conjunction with previously quiet lists bursting out with chitchat, while other lists, which were previously calm and friendly suddenly erupt in huge flame fests....well, I've noticed that 'something' always seems to be happening, or shortly to happen, out in the 'real world'.... So....not only the TWA fiasco, but we have rumors that tomorrow a bombshell regarding Clinton's health is due to be dropped....thousands of U.S. troops are being sent to Kuwait, to arrive by Friday...Sunday/Monday is Yom Kippur.... I think no one would be shortsighted if they kept particularly alert over the next couple of days.... DJLogan ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: Obnoxious Libertarians Date: 17 Sep 1996 17:51:34 -0600 >For some reason, whenever I or others try to discuss a topic like >politics - especially ABC vs LP - there are a certain few Libertarians >who spew forth canned LP doctinaire rubbish - complete with all sorts of >pre-canned diatribes which are hurled at us with regularity. > It seems that the ABCers spew forth ABC rubbish just as much. ABC is a bad policy and will not help us in the fight for liberty. ABCers like to spread around "opinions" that if Clinton is re-elected the sky will fall and he will really stack the Supreme Court and introduce every bad law known to man. They assume that Dole would be better in this regard. They have no proof that Dole would not be as bad or worse when it comes to RKBA, the Supreme Court, and liberty and freedom. Dole has opened his mouth many times and everytime it is anti-RKBA and anti-Freedom and pro-Police-State. The evidence of his mouth and his record as a legislator seems to point to Dole not being any better of a choice; therefore the burden of proof lies with the ABCers. best regards Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: Flaky Internet Today Date: 17 Sep 1996 19:05:24 -0500 >So....not only the TWA fiasco, but we have rumors that tomorrow a >bombshell regarding Clinton's health is due to be dropped....thousands of >U.S. troops are being sent to Kuwait, to arrive by Friday...Sunday/Monday >is Yom Kippur.... > >I think no one would be shortsighted if they kept particularly alert over >the next couple of days.... ----- You betcha bombshells are about to go off. I am sure you all spotted that piece in the WSJ where they briefly mention klintoon's possible "drug addiction". The WSJ is so conservative they go out every morning and make sure the sun has risen before they put the word "today" on that day's edition. For them even to hint that Bubba's snout might be in the sugar bowl is a bit earth shaking, to me at least. It's getting exciting as we count down, isn't it? Each day we get closer to the moment of truth. And each day passing day becomes a larger fraction of the remaining total, which makes each new day more significant and suspenseful. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RevCOAL Subject: Re: Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait Date: 17 Sep 1996 20:18:20 -0400 (EDT) > Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait > President Clinton has ordered 3,500 U.S. troops to Kuwait as Okay, pardon a dumb question from someone who never was in the military.... but just how many soldiers comprise a 'troop'? ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait Date: 17 Sep 1996 20:03:42 -0700 At 08:18 PM 9/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >> Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait >> President Clinton has ordered 3,500 U.S. troops to Kuwait as > >Okay, pardon a dumb question from someone who never was in the military.... >but just how many soldiers comprise a 'troop'? > >;-) 4 Klingons and one gummy bear. ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait Date: 17 Sep 1996 20:22:10 -0700 >> Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait >> President Clinton has ordered 3,500 U.S. troops to Kuwait as > >Okay, pardon a dumb question from someone who never was in the military.... >but just how many soldiers comprise a 'troop'? > >;-) 1 - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: berg stephen erik Subject: Re: Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait Date: 17 Sep 1996 23:08:37 -0500 (CDT) > > >> Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait > >> President Clinton has ordered 3,500 U.S. troops to Kuwait as > > > >Okay, pardon a dumb question from someone who never was in the military.... > >but just how many soldiers comprise a 'troop'? > > > >;-) > I used to be stationed next to C Troop 1/9 Cavalry, an old Buffalo Soldier outfit. With the grade inflation since those old days, I imagine they are A Troop by now! ;{> Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Date: 17 Sep 1996 21:42:07 -0700 Forewarned is forearmed. In his book "The Crimes of Patriots," author Jonathan Kwitny writes, "Another former officer from the army's Criminal Investigation Division ... now a stockbroker, says that his investigation group filed reports to the Pentagon revealing that G.I. bodies being flown back to the United States were cut open, gutted, and filled with heroin. Witnesses were prepared to testify that the heroin-stuffed soldiers bore coded body numbers, allowing conspiring officers on the other end, at Norton Air Force Base in California, to remove the booty -- up to fifty pounds of heroin per dead G.I. The army acted on these reports -- not by coming down on the dope traffickers, but by disbanding the investigative team and sending them to combat duty, the investigator says. Other reports corroborate the use of G.I. bodies to ship dope back to the United States via military channels." [New York, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1987, p. 52] Any comments? ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: A Nation Betrayed Date: 17 Sep 1996 21:48:04 -0700 For your information, I have an electronic copy of the Bo Gritz lecture to St. Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco on June 1, 1990, concerning drug exports from the Golden Triangle (Laos, Burma, Thailand) into America. In 1990, the quantity of opiates being imported into America was estimated to be 3,000 tons. Quoting General Khun Sa, "How would I move 600 tons of opiates on horseback from this secret base to the free world, if it weren't for badges and credentials and official aircraft?" File is available upon request. At $125 per gram, 3,000 tons of opiates would be worth $340,500,000,000. Heroin is closer to $500 per gram. ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacques Tucker Subject: Re: Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait Date: 18 Sep 1996 00:10:24 -0500 At 08:18 PM 9/17/96 -0400, RevCOAL (whoever that is) wrote: >> Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait >> President Clinton has ordered 3,500 U.S. troops to Kuwait as > >Okay, pardon a dumb question from someone who never was in the military.... >but just how many soldiers comprise a 'troop'? > >;-) > Depends on how many horses they have. Cap'n Jacq' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait Date: 18 Sep 1996 00:17:18 -0500 At 08:22 PM 9/17/96 -0700, Liberty or Death wrote: > >>> Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait >>> President Clinton has ordered 3,500 U.S. troops to Kuwait as >> >>Okay, pardon a dumb question from someone who never was in the military.... >>but just how many soldiers comprise a 'troop'? >> >>;-) > >1 > What you never heard of "F-Troop"? We had about 25 cadets in our F-Troop. Well it was really "F Flight", but the F-Troop show wasn't far in the past in 1971 and you know how cadets and other trainees are. (The yellow ribbon song, no not that one, the calvary one became a red ribbon/F-troop jodie) Don't cavalry units still use the Troop terminology for some level of unit? The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: L&J: Gun Defense Clock website Date: 18 Sep 1996 07:58:44 -0500 Don't ya just lovit! The shoe on the other foot, that is. I wonder if someone is going to put this in Times Square. Bob Knauer ----- >Return-Path: >From: zenanarchy@earthlink.net >Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:51:45 -0700 >To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com >Subject: L&J: Gun Defense Clock website >Sender: owner-liberty-and-justice@majordomo.pobox.com >Reply-To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com > >For a running tally of "criminal attacks stopped by guns this year", as >well as some interesting statistics on gun-related defenses and deaths, check >out: > >http://www.netstorage.com/pulpless/gunclock.html > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Unsub info - send to liberty-and-justice-request@pobox.com with "unsubscribe" >in body (not subject) of the msg. List-Owner - Mike Goldman > > -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: L&J: Clinton Set for Big Endorsement Date: 18 Sep 1996 07:58:47 -0500 >>Now we know which side the cops are on. > Don't forget that on radio talk shows all over the country, police officers >have called in to express their outrage over this political endorsement -- >with which 'none' of them agree. It's the rotten core of the organization >that did the endorsement (with no input from the police officers). > > FOP is, by the way, heavily funded by -- Guess who -- Handgun Control Inc. ----- I should have been more explicit. I meant Cop Establishment, not individual peace officers. It is the Establishment that is thr real Tyrant. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Obnoxious Libertarians Date: 18 Sep 1996 08:09:22 -0500 >It seems that the ABCers spew forth ABC rubbish just as much. ABC is a bad >policy and will not help us in the fight for liberty. ABCers like to >spread around "opinions" that if Clinton is re-elected the sky will fall >and he will really stack the Supreme Court and introduce every bad law >known to man. They assume that Dole would be better in this regard. >They have no proof that Dole would not be as bad or worse when it comes to >RKBA, the Supreme Court, and liberty and freedom. Dole has opened his >mouth many times and everytime it is anti-RKBA and anti-Freedom and >pro-Police-State. The evidence of his mouth and his record as a legislator >seems to point to Dole not being any better of a choice; therefore the >burden of proof lies with the ABCers. ----- I think both sides of the now infamous ABC vs LP debate realize that both sides are getting a bum deal. That is the nature of "lesser of two evils". And like Schroedinger's Cat, you will never know if it is alive or dead until you open the chamber. So we will never know whether klintoon is all that bad or not until he is re-elected. But I believe it is almost a foregone conclusion that if he is re-elected with a majority in the House, we will see all of the pending Gun Control Tyranny unleashed. With Dole it might be a slower death, but at least we will have a brief chance to correct things - with klintoon, lame duck and all, we will have no chance at all. klintoon is more evil than Dole. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: Obnoxious Libertarians Date: 18 Sep 1996 07:44:31 -0600 >But I believe it is almost a foregone conclusion that if he is re-elected >with a majority in the House, we will see all of the pending Gun Control >Tyranny unleashed. With Dole it might be a slower death, but at least we >will have a brief chance to correct things - with klintoon, lame duck and >all, we will have no chance at all. > >klintoon is more evil than Dole. > >Bob Knauer > I think most people who think you should vote for Browne also think we need to preserve a Republican majority in Congress. If Congress goes, it doesn't matter much who is President. Schumer and friends will pass all the legislation and Dole will sign it of course. Congress is what really matters. Overall Clinton may be more evil than Dole, but RE: RKBA etc, Dole is a backstabber and has openly called for a police state. That is as evil in my book. Congress is where we should put our efforts. Best regards Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: RE: Flaky Internet Today Date: 18 Sep 1996 07:51:12 -0600 >>So....not only the TWA fiasco, but we have rumors that tomorrow a >>bombshell regarding Clinton's health is due to be dropped....thousands of >>U.S. troops are being sent to Kuwait, to arrive by Friday...Sunday/Monday >>is Yom Kippur.... >> >>I think no one would be shortsighted if they kept particularly alert over >>the next couple of days.... > > My ISP had a problem that was resolved -- not part of any larger problem and that was all I noticed. Everything else worked for me fine. regards Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait Date: 18 Sep 1996 08:11:43 -0700 (PDT) On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > At 08:18 PM 9/17/96 -0400, you wrote: > >> Clinton Orders Troops to Kuwait > >> President Clinton has ordered 3,500 U.S. troops to Kuwait as > > > >Okay, pardon a dumb question from someone who never was in the military.... > >but just how many soldiers comprise a 'troop'? > > 4 Klingons and one gummy bear. Gee, I thought that was what a democracy was: 4 klingons and a gummy bear voting on what to have for dinner. BK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: WSJ: "RKBA Sikh" Revisited Date: 18 Sep 1996 10:25:02 -0500 For those of you who followed the "RKBA Sikh" thread earlier this year, it seems we were not too far off the mark, were we? NB: The WSJ Interactive is free. http://wsj.com/ (Someone should forward this to TGO, for old time's sake) Bob Knauer +++++ From the WSJ Interactive: The Rule of Law Next, Congress Will Protect Your Right to Sunny Weather By MARCI A. HAMILTON The Supreme Court held in 1990 that Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to two drug counselors who had been fired for using peyote, which they said was part of their practice of an American Indian religion. Within days, organized religions around the country were lobbying their representatives to do something. Congress did. It enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which not only supersedes the peyote case but also obligates federal, state and local governments to "accommodate" religious conduct more than ever. Under RFRA, every government agency must accommodate every religious practice unless the government can prove it has a compelling interest in regulating it and that the regulation chosen is the least restrictive means possible. It applies to every action taken by government and to every sphere of regulation, from local zoning laws to road safety to prisons. Not satisfied with setting the balance back to the Supreme Court's doctrine before the peyote case, RFRA commands an expansive and arbitrary social policy that commandeers local decisionmaking. With RFRA, Congress seems to have forgotten that the First Amendment is an explicit limitation on congressional power, not an invitation to regulate. The Supreme Court could agree to rule on RFRA's constitutionality as early as October. Until then, taxpayers will have to live with it--and pay for it as the law of intended consequences takes hold. Here is a report on life in RFRA-land: Prisons: Emboldened by RFRA, prisoners have requested a wide variety of religious items that pose safety risks--for example, candles for Wiccan and Satanist services, masks for Luciferians and Satanists, bear claws, porcupine quills and coyote feet for American Indians. Requests for space have also increased: American Indians demand sweat lodges, Wiccans want rooms not used by Satanists or Luciferians, and Christians request rooms not used by Wiccans, Satanists or Luciferians. In addition, RFRA has brought new hope to prisoners intent on challenging prison regulations, always a potential growth industry. James Robert Kalway, a Florida inmate, has claimed that he must masturbate in front of female correctional officers as part of his religion, which is called Shrat Shabt Squt Mats. According to him, the disciplinary report he received after practicing his religion violated his rights under RFRA. Ian Deco Lightbourne, another Florida inmate, brought suit under RFRA seeking compensatory and punitive damages, claiming his right as a Rastafarian to wear dreadlocks and possess a cassette tape player and audio cassettes of his reggae music, a portable keyboard for the composing and reciting spiritual songs, and a poster of his "spiritual mentor," the late reggae singer Bob Marley. Such requests are consuming vast resources in departments of corrections, state attorneys general offices, and state and federal courts. Schools: Sikh elementary school students in California argued that RFRA means they are exempt from a schoolwide policy against carrying weapons. Their religion requires them to carry a kirpan, a curved metal blade worn in a sheath fastened to the body by a leather strap. Even though the trial court found that the knives were dangerous, citing RFRA the district court ordered the school district to permit the children to carry the knives. In short, RFRA requires school districts to permit young children to carry concealed weapons. Bankruptcy Proceedings: The Evangelical Free Church has argued, relying on RFRA, that money donated to the church may not be recovered in a bankruptcy proceeding. Thus, according to the church, RFRA entitles churches to keep money they would not otherwise be entitled to keep, and forces creditors effectively to subsidize those churches. The Eighth Circuit Court held for the church and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. Democrats and Republicans alike find RFRA difficult to resist. What politician wants to appear to be against "religious freedom"? It doesn't make it any easier that virtually every organized religion in America lobbied for RFRA and continues to support it in the courts. President Clinton has directed Attorney General Janet Reno to forbid Justice Department lawyers to challenge RFRA when it comes into conflict with other federal laws. Thus, for example, the Federal Bureau of Prisons is prohibited from challenging RFRA's constitutionality despite its obvious constitutional defects and the many RFRA challenges raised by federal prisoners. In the Evangelical Free Church bankruptcy case, Justice Department lawyers originally intervened in support of the creditors, then 30 minutes before the court argument were suddenly ordered not to take part. Like the White House, New York has taken the position that it will not challenge RFRA's constitutionality. Yet the state is required to provide full legal assistance to its corrections officers hit by prisoner lawsuits. The solution: to refuse to provide state lawyers but permit corrections officers to hire private attorneys at state expense to litigate the constitutionality issue. In fact, private attorneys are finding that RFRA is a boon to their practices. Estimates of legal fees obtained under RFRA run well into the millions. Enterprising law firms have learned the value of litigating prisoner claims on a pro bono basis and then collecting their usual hourly wage through a federal law that permits the recovery of attorneys' fees in cases raising civil rights claims against governments. An average case can result in fees exceeding $150,000. Of course, taxpayers are paying the legal fees for both sides. It's going to take a lot of time and money before the constitutionality of RFRA is determined once and for all. In the meantime, not wanting to miss the bandwagon, I have formed my own religion, which I expect RFRA to protect to the hilt. It is TCTR (Teach Congress to Read). During our religious ceremonies, I, as spiritual leader, will read aloud from the dais of the House of Representatives or the Senate the text of the First Amendment. Let us begin: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech. . . ." Ms. Hamilton is a professor at Yeshiva University's Cardozo School of Law. +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Why we should hate Libertarians Date: 18 Sep 1996 10:51:57 -0500 >Only a moron would assert that has anything to do with "secret" >balloting. > >I can see why the ever-vacuous Mr. Hammer gets so little response >to his "probing" questions. ----- He does not mince words, does he? This thread, at least for me, has a well-meaning purpose. See if you agree. I want to see people who fight tyranny do so with a broader appeal. When a handful of "pothead Libs" butt in and spam a legitimate discussion, it does not serve the best interests of either the Libertarian movement or the cause of liberty. You LP faithful know exactly what I am talking about, because many of you have written online and offline pointing out that a few obnoxious people do not speak for the majority of LPers. True, we all know that. But you also have to realize that we who would like to engage in rational discourse with LPers do so very reluctantly because the obnoxious will chime in and spam the discussion, and - *most importantly* - you LPers don't do anything to stop it. That is taken as tacit approval for the obnoxious tactics, which gives LPers the deserved or undeserved bad reputation. There are several areas left to discuss/debate, but who in his right mind would want to waste time in flame wars? So, I ask you to police your ranks when someone represents themselves as an LPer in an obnoxious manner. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Diminishing Judges' Compensation Date: 18 Sep 1996 13:03:47 -0700 I am going to the law library right now to pull: "The Constitutional Guarantee against Diminution of Judges' Compensation," UCLA Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, p. 308 (1976) ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: forward......LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION (fwd) Date: 18 Sep 1996 11:40:34 PST On Sep 18, Jeffrey &/or Holly Jennings wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >*************************************************** > THE LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION, DRAFTING, > EDITING AND RESEARCH SERVICE > (LEADERS) > P.O. Box 3245; Frederick, MD 21705 > >=====PUBLISHER OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP MAGAZINE===== > >301-293-0001 Leaders@aol.com >301-759-1010 Leader Mag@aol.com > http://logoplex.com/shops/leaders/ >*************************************************** > > >{{{{{{{ PLEASE POST THIS PUPPY EVERYWHERE!! }}}}}} > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~NEW DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT!~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >Dateline: FREDERICK, MD September 17, 1996 > > >LEADERS today announced the release of a document >which has been under development almost a full year. > >Those familiar with the Advisory Commission on Inter- >governmental Relations (ACIR) will remember that in >1974 they published a 10 volume set of books entitled >"State Legislative Program." These books laid the >foundation of proposed legislation upon which both >state and county governments nationwide erected a >myriad of programs and new policies aimed at driving >localities deeper into the federal/New World Order >web. > >Programs ranging from housing to welfare, replacing >elected officials with appointees, and a litany of >other DRAFT LEGISLATION was included in this set, and >shipped off to county commissioners, state legislators, >and bureaucrats--at taxpayer expense. (The ACIR is a >federal agency listed in the United States Government >Manual.) > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NOW IT'S OUR TURN!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >The LEADERS Legislative Program for State and County >Government is AVAILABLE, and ready for IMMEDIATE >shipment. It is available both in print and on 3.5" >or 5.25 diskettes (diskette version is WordPerfect >6.0 (TM) format). > >UPDATED Monthly, and as new proposals arrive, this >package can relight liberty's torch all over America! > >Are you tired of DEFENDING against counterterrorism, >gun control, con-con, etc.? > >LEADERS has an OFFENSIVE legislative strategy de- >signed to make the New World Order bunch meet in >the state legislature on patriot terms! > >"Our side now has access to the best, most articulate, >and intelligent constitutional minds in America," boasts >Harold Bolinger, Director of LEADERS. "Our proposals >have been drafted by or with the help of numerous >high calibre scholars, expert in their particular fields >of research--including economics, regional government, >crime and anti-gun control, the judiciary, taxation, and >other public policy concerns." > >Can you win any battle when constantly on the defensive? > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Here's the plan . . . > >#1. 46 States elect new members to their state legis- >latures and county governments this year. That means >there will be a NEW CROP of freshpersons that have yet >to be exposed to the ACIR, ALEC, NCSL, etc. ad nauseam. > >#2. We start with a LEVEL playing field. Although >many of the NWO's proposals have already been passed, >we now have American Leadership magazine (the constit- >utional antithesis to "Governing Magazine") ready to >begin educating these freshmen. > >#3. We have the LEADERS Legislative Program for State >and County Government also ready to lay in their hands. >Included are numerous TAKE AMERICA BACK pieces of >legislation SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN to UNDO the damage >that has been done! These include: > A. A bill to investigate the legality of the > actions of federal agents with regard to the > United Nations. > B. A bill to imprison renegade judges > C. The firearms facility access act > D. The United States Senate Accountability Act > E. A resolution repealing all open calls for > a constitutional convention > F. A bill to enforce the Constitution with regard > to federal regional government > G. A model legal tender act for states > And more!!!! > >#4. The only thing missing is YOU! There must be an >ACTIVE cadre of people working in EACH STATE to educate >the new and existing patriot legislators therein. Each >state must have its own "search team" to find those who >will not only listen, but will ACT to introduce the >components of this package. > >American Leadership magazine provides the BACKGROUND >information, articles, research material and other >items of interest to explain the problem to the >patriotically challenged. > >(To supplement that, LEADERS has prepared single-page >reprints of the articles relating to specific legis- >lative proposals. In that manner, the targeted legis- >lator will not feel "bogged down" with material. This >follows the KISS [keep it simple, stupid] principle. >Choose from: Social Security, Balanced Budget Amendment, >COS/Con Con, Dollar, RTKBA, 96 Tax Reform Guide, and >new titles coming soon.) > >The LEADERS Legislative Program contains the text of >bills offered to the general public for their use in >any manner they deem expedient. > >Order American Leadership magazine by the box (210 units) >for only 135 FRN's (includes shipping anywhere in the U.S.). > >Order The LEADERS Legislative Program for 1 FRN each. > >Order reprints of support articles for 10 cents each. > >The LEADERS office has all the information anyone >needs to be active, and more importantly EFFECTIVE, in >their state. We have the addresses and phone numbers >of every elected state legislator, and most county >commissioners and sheriffs. We know who is on the >committees. We have many state constitutions and >legislative rule books to identify procedures for >citizen initiatives, bill drafting, etc. > >Please call us, or place your order immediately, if >you would like to participate in the festivities. > >LEADERS is looking for activists to implement OUR >agenda for downsizing government. Membership helps >financially support our ongoing research, bill >drafting and document preparation efforts. Please >ask for a membership application when you write. > >LEADERS also designates "State Coordinators" to those >who are seriously motivated, and can work with and >direct the activities of others in their state. Ask >for a "State Coordinator's Memorandum of Understanding" >when you write. > >LEADERS has available numerous research tools for the >activist/writer. We publish the Federalist Papers, >Anti-Federalist Papers, and a collection of American >historical Documents on 3.5" computer diskette in >ASCII format. Use these to assist in your letter >writing, public appearances and for your research and >academic advancement needs. (5 FRN's each, 15 for the >set.) > >"Downsizing Government" by LEADERS director Harold >W. Bolinger is a 100,000 word dissertation on the >constitutionality of the entire executive department >branch of the federal government. Each tentacle is >reviewed using a three-part test of conformity to the >Constitution. 15.99 on diskette (ASCII or WP 6.0 [TM] >formats), 22.99 print. > >Call or write for more information about membership, >benefits, subscriptions, etc. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: George Washington Quote Date: 18 Sep 1996 15:14:39 -0500 I guess Ole George (see below) felt firearms were crucial in protecting the Constitution. Then how and why did that obvious fact get lost over the years in the history of America? Bob Knauer ----- From The Zychik Chronicle: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington ----- -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: RE: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 18 Sep 1996 15:37:51 CDT boydk wrote: >Actully, what Boyd K wrote was snipped. I was objecting to the >generalization about all Libertarians. I called it a stereotype wich >wasnt completely fair because it was -kind-of- labeled (more the case >than not) but I just find judgements about people based on groups they >belong to (generally ; ) not usefull. We disagree here. The sorts of groups to which a person belongs can tell a great deal about them. Whether or not the information is useful depends critically upon the groups and the circumstances involved. >> I'm one of those who have found Libertarians to be obnoxious, and on not a >> few occasions. I have found them to be arrogant, self-righteous, >> insufferable, narrow-minded, and shallow. More than that, they have >> gloried in being that way. Sounds like I'm talking about the liberals, >> doesn't it? I freely admit that my sample of Libertarians may possibly >> be biased. > >It's an -anecdote-. Yes, one that I've heard many times. >Gauranteed, not only is the sample of any group you >personally contact biased, but it's limited to the point of irrelevancy. Not to me. Certainly my own experience is relevant to me! When most, not *all* but *most*, of my contact with Libertarians fits the description I gave above, then I am in a position to draw useful conclusions regarding Libertarians I may meet. There may be some subjects, for instance, that I may wish to avoid discussing with them unless the individual Libertarian demonstrates to me that he is one of the exceptions to the rule that my experience has disclosed. >I, personally, know lots of Republicans. Quantifying that, it would >probably be 50-60, and for one person I submit that that really is a lot >(all people who would greet me by name if I walked up to 'em). >Statistically, that is -bupkiss-. If I were to extrapolate from that >group I would get that most (but not all) republicans are pro choice, >live in cities and drive minivans. Would I inflict this irrelevent data >on anyone else as representing anything but the few (relative to all) >republicans I had run into? No. And, since it is a sample of republicans >I've run into we know with certainty that the sample is skewed. Put >succinctly, it's meaningless. Not at all. The information is useful in forming working hypotheses which you can test against the current sample (Republican) who happens to be facing you. Either the statistical trend you have noted is supported, or it is not, but the information is certainly not meaningless. The question really is how far to extrapolate it. You seem to think that I am indicting all Libertarians, when in fact I am not -- only most of those with whom I have had occasion to discuss politics, which also happens to include all of the sample of Libertarians I have encountered. >> The reasonable ones probably don't get involved in the >> declamation contests which seem so to fascinate their less-accomplished >> brethren. > >So, you have yourself told us the skew in your sample group. Yes, I did so explicitly, and knowing fully what it meant. >That you're >probably only hearing from the ones that yell on line. Undoubtedly. That was the point. I may likely return to this below, but implicit in everything I originally wrote on the subject is that, given that most Libertarians are not as I describe, there are a relative few of them who make a noise all out of proportion to their number, and who are giving the Party a Bad Name(TM). This phenomenon preceeded the internet, by the way. I met some Libertarians in person before it existed, and they fit the mold perfectly. This may have something to do with the generally wretched showing that Libertarian candidates make at the polls. Based on my *own* experience, it is not apparent to me that most Libertarians are not arrogant wretches, but I am willing to improve my opinions. If there are among that Party those who can carry on debate without exhibiting the unfortunate traits I listed, please make yourselves known. Enter into the debates when the opportunity occurs, identify yourselves, and give me reason to change my mind by your deportment. >Yeesh, I couldnt >agree with you more. The Libertarians in your sample group are prone to >declamation contests. This just shows how meaningless it is to draw >conclusions about a large group based on (only) personal experience. >Please don't take this as a flame, I'm just saying what I personally >think of generalizations, generally. I'm not taking it as a flame, nor am I in the slightest perturbed. :-) Generalizations are useful, so long as one realizes that there very probably exist exceptions. This I have done all along in my comments on this thread. >> That would be true by definition. Given my experiences with >> them, however, one can certainly understand how I might conclude that >> having a political discussion with a Libertarian is impossible. To draw >> a conclusion from direct repeatable observation is not to engage in >> stereotype. > >This is -only- true if your "direct" observation is large enough to be >statistically significant (see my Repub example). Does your sample >reflect a representation of the Libertarians spread in social demographic >groups? Geographic region? (rhetorical questions) It is statistically significant *in*my*own*experience*. Roughly 90% of the Libertarians I am likely to encounter, at a minimum, will fit the description I have given. If that sample is not representative of the Party as a whole, then it is at least representative of what I, and many others, see of it. The Libertarian Party therefore has a huge public relations problem, which appears to be crippling its political efforts. >> If Libertarians wish to dispell this widely-held perception, then they had >> best get to work and do it. It wasn't conjured up out of thin air. > >So far I've heard this generalization repeated by two people. I hereby >publicly offer to help those to people overcome their misperception that >all Libertarians are horses puhtooties. If you two gents are anyway near >Bellevue Washington, the drinks are on me! Come on over to my house, sit >down with mom and me and I'll whip ya up a batch of sphagetti you'll >never forget. Will this mean that all Libertarians are pony tailed >nearsighted sphaggeti freaks? No, it means you can get a free meal at my >house ; ) Nothing would please me more! The problem appears not to be with you, but with some of your brethren. Now, how do we go about fixing that? >As far as any misperception of all party members (though I dont think >technically I am a "member") I couldnt care less. That's my point here. It only matters to me how one votes. If one considers himself a Libertarian, and votes for Libertarian candidates, then that is enough. >> The >> offenders could begin by admitting in debate that their opponent may be >> arguing in good faith and from a position of principle, reached by careful >> thought and research. Simply protesting against "stereotyping" as one of >> the modern no-nos won't do it. > >Actually, it was Plato who first wrote about generalization in argument. >Or Phaedrus, one a those guys, but it's not a "modern" concept that over >generalization is illogical. Generalizations are useful insofar as they are based on an accurate interpretation of the experience of the person who makes them. To take them too far is not useful. Logic and illogic really don't apply. To live is to generalize. Even without the wonders of modern technology, the world is far too complex a place not to generalize. One simply couldn't afford the time necessary to approach each successive circumstance as if it occurred in a vacuum, as if there were no past on which to draw. I conclude that you have over-generalized about generalizing. ;-) >Since my ONLY objection here was to stereotyping (and not to any of the >issues being debated, something I made clear in the material you snipped) >I hardly see how I can cede my opponents wisdom (I'm not opposed to what >was said, I have no opponents to cede to). However, if it will correct >your misperception regarding me personally that all libertarians are >jerks I'll do it anyway: I, Boyd Kneeland, member of the Republican >Liberty Caucus, sometime financial supporter of both the Libertarian and >Republican parties, Republican precinct chair of Bel 2621 and Republican >41st district B2 chair hereby repeat my appreciation of Neil Dickeys >usual style of argumentation and point out that I've posted my thanks for >his wit and wisdom publicly before. Thank you, for your invitation to a spaghetti dinner, for your own wit, and for your compliments. It is certainly true that you have spoken on my behalf on many occasions in the past. For my own part, I now admit to possessing at *least* one datum which exists in refutation of my previous experience regarding Libertarians, and to being pleased about it. ;-) The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Poll Says Let Perot Debate Date: 18 Sep 1996 15:52:12 -0500 From the news: Poll Says Let Perot Debate A majority of people surveyed in a new poll believe that Ross Perot should be allowed to participate in the presidential debates. The CNN/USA Today survey of 600 adults found that 52 percent believe Perot should be allowed to debate President Clinton and Bob Dole, while 37 percent agreed with the finding of the Commission on Presidential Debates that the Reform Party nominee is not a viable candidate and should be excluded. Separately, a new poll for Reuters shows Clinton leading Dole by 15 percent among voters in the key states of Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Date: 18 Sep 1996 16:34:49 -0700 PUBLIC NOTICE TO ALL "IRS" [SIC] EMPLOYEES OOOOOOOGA. OOOOOOOGA. OOOOOOGA. OOGA. OOGA. OOGA. OOOOOOOGA. OOOOOOOGA. OOOOOOGA.999 This is your Captain speaking. In case you haven't noticed, our ship is sinking. Please abandon ship. Please abandon ship. You can get out now, while the gettin' is good. If you are lucky, the private sector may put you to work -- pearl diving in Transylvania. /s/ Klingon, President, American Crystal Lines (We ship 'em out in black rubber bags.) ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: 120 years of kick-backs Date: 18 Sep 1996 19:50:40 -0700 PUBLIC NOTICE OF INTENT TO PETITION THE "INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE" [SIC] FOR ALL FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND RECOGNITION SYSTEM ("PMRS") FOR THE PERIOD INCLUSIVE OF 1776 ANNO DOMINI THRU AND INCLUDING 2020 ANNO DOMINI, THE LATTER OF WHICH DATE APPEARED ON A CLIENT'S ASSESSMENT RECORD IN THE YEAR 1985 ANNO DOMINI. We are not kidding here. "IRS" has asked us to be more "specific" about the years in question. Here we go .... Film at 11. "Please be advised that the PMRS has not existed for the past 3 years." Mark L. Zoltan, Tax Law Specialist, FOIA Branch, "Internal Revenue Service", "Department of the Treasury", in letter to Paul A. Mitchell dated September 12, 1996. /s/ Paul Mitchell ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Trickle Down Patriotism Date: 18 Sep 1996 18:55:59 -0700 Trickle Down Patriotism Little did the Reagan administration know when it coined the phrase "Trickle Down Economics" that it had described, in three simple words, how all of the systems in the known universe are budgeted--and they thought it just described how when all the money is in the hands of the rich and famous and powerful that, with the help of gravity, the economy eventually "trickles" down to the poorest of the poor. Everything that is can be described as a system and every system has a trickle down economy. All systems require some kind of fuel to operate. Starting at the top or the beginning, a system has a certain amount of its particular fuel available to it which comprises the system's total budget. The system's economy is dictated by how its fuel trickles down from the top, or the beginning, through all of the system's little subsystems and out to its extremities. By the time an extremity is reached in the system; by the time the system's economy has trickled all its available fuel down through it, one of three things will become apparent: There will be a surplus of fuel, a deficit of fuel or the system will have used up exactly the amount of fuel it needed to complete its task. The beginning or top of a system has the luxury of gorging itself on its available fuel supply. All subsequential subsystems are availed of less and less fuel until one of the three possible outcomes, surplus, deficit or even steven has been realized when the system completes itself. A person who makes a good living in our society is able to have a lavish lifestyle, purchase a lot of pleasurable things he doesn't really need, pay all of his bills and end up with a bank account, or surplus; money is the fuel in that system. A person who barely makes a living using money as fuel, pays what he needs to stay alive and budgets his fuel to pay for only those things he can afford in descending order of importance. An overweight person can gorge himself using food as that system's fuel and end up with surplus stored in fat. A skinny or malnourished person can eat whatever food is available, his stomach will receive it, digest it and send it out to all of his body's subsystems. If the fuel does not go far enough, the body will shut down the systems farthest from the stomach (biologically speaking) first and creep ever closer to the top of the system, emaciating everything in its trickle backwards and upwards path. Fire is always hottest closest to the fuel source; light is always brightest at the bulb and noise is always loudest at its point of origin. The fuel available to run these systems is budgeted from the top or the beginning and trickles down through its extremities and ends up with a surplus, a deficit, or neither. Fire and light can be contained and stored as heat, a surplus, and sound waves resonate ad infinitum out into space. I suspect we would have to be around for eternity to see whether that system ends up with a deficit, a surplus or breaks even. Look at presidential politics as the system at the head of our country and all of our country's little subsystems. Think back on all the presidential speeches you have heard your entire life. Think back to all the flag waving, the millions of points of light, the love of traditional family values and working men and women being the backbone of this, the greatest country in the world. Think about the wars that they have staged on drugs, crime and sex and violence on TV. Think about the love for God and the common man that pours out of these fearless leaders as they vow that on their watch, with the help of all Americans pulling together (and more government programs), America will be strong again--God bless America. If the patriotic, "oh God how I love my country," energy which comes gushing out of the mouths of incumbent presidents seeking reelection and their rival presidential hopefuls from their bully pulpit podiums at the Republican and Democratic national conventions every four years was the aviation fuel it sounds like instead of the low octane, watered down unleaded gas it really is, then our beloved country would have no problems as it prepares to meet the 21st century. If what was coming out of those men's mouths comprised our budget of goodness, decency, patriotism and the purest form of love for God and country and this nation was able to avail itself of that resource as it is generated in overwhelming amounts from those podiums, in those hallowed halls full of screaming, flag waving, silly hat wearing, red, white and blue-dressed full grown adults acting like a bunch of stoned teenagers at a rock concert; if the start or beginning of the American system was indeed presidential politics and the fuel needed to trickle down to all of America's little subsystems was generated from presidential politics, there is no way we would be having the problems we are having in our country today. So much gushing goodness and patriotism has flown out of those guys that even the most pessimistic and selfish American, the extremity, would be fueled by it and would have no choice but to be a good, decent human being and an exemplary citizen. If what our fearless, God fearing, bible banging, flag waving and Constitution quoting presidents and presidential hopefuls were telling us was genuine and the love for God and country they express with such raw, uninhibited energy were their true emotions exploding out of their patriotic, "America first" hearts into the hearts and minds of the gullible and hopeful American people, we would have had enough positive energy to more than adequately grease all of America's little subsystems for the last 60 years. With so much love, pride and freedom loving decency coursing through the veins of American leaders and out to their extremities, the American people, this country would have been overflowing with a surplus that would have been spilling over to positively affect other peoples and countries of the world to aid them in their quest for the personal freedoms and liberties our Founding Fathers gave us... ...But it's all a lie and our country is dying. Their god bless America podium pounding is nothing more than snake oil salesmanship and the American people lap it up every four years as if it were mother's milk. Trickle down patriotism. It is all a lie, and do you know how we know that? Because if presidential politics is the start or the beginning of the American system-- and the American system is broken--and all the little American subsystems are broken--it is because the fuel it has available to run them is breaking it. If we have crime, violence, adultery and perversion, corruption, decadence and drugs in abundance throughout our entire culture it is because that is the kind of fuel that is budgeted to the American system and all its little subsystems. Politicians will lie, but systems never do. Trickle down economics describes how all of the systems in the known universe are budgeted and how all systems run their course only to end up with a surplus, a deficit or with nothing left. In this case, where the system of presidential politics is at the top or the beginning, we, as a culture, have a surplus of most things that are evil, rotten nasty and corrupt. We, in that very same system, have been afforded a culture which has a deficit of things which are good, decent, compassionate, fair and honest. Right now, the two extremes, pure evil and pure decency, seem to be doing battle in our beloved country and I fear that eventually the war will be over and there will be nothing left. Don Harkins Media Access - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: 245 years of kick-backs Date: 18 Sep 1996 19:52:38 -0700 >Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 19:50:40 -0700 >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: correction: 245 years of kick-backs >Bcc: liblists > >PUBLIC NOTICE OF INTENT TO PETITION >THE "INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE" [SIC] >FOR ALL FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE >PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND RECOGNITION >SYSTEM ("PMRS") FOR THE PERIOD INCLUSIVE OF >1776 ANNO DOMINI THRU AND INCLUDING >2020 ANNO DOMINI, THE LATTER OF WHICH >DATE APPEARED ON A CLIENT'S ASSESSMENT >RECORD IN THE YEAR 1985 ANNO DOMINI. > >We are not kidding here. "IRS" has >asked us to be more "specific" about >the years in question. Here we go .... >Film at 11. > >"Please be advised that the PMRS has >not existed for the past 3 years." > >Mark L. Zoltan, Tax Law Specialist, >FOIA Branch, "Internal Revenue Service", >"Department of the Treasury", in letter >to Paul A. Mitchell dated September 12, 1996. > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Presidential Nose Spammage Date: 18 Sep 1996 20:09:40 -0700 The Nose by Don Harkins Although it is pretty rewarding to make fun of the evil, rotten, nasty characters who run our country by painting word caricatures of their faces, body shapes and body parts, I usually don't bother because it makes me feel like a child sticking my tongue out at somebody who isn't looking at me. However, there is something interesting that happens to our beloved president every time he is seen in public. You never know what to expect. You can see him at three different times during the day and his nose looks different every time. You would think that his nose would look the best first thing in the morning, after a shower and a shave and after the Hollywood makeup artist has worked his or her magic, but that isn't the case. There is no rhyme or reason to how his nose is going to look and at what time of the day or night it is going to look that way. Sometimes it is perfect, albeit a little larger than average, in that it has no reflection and is the same color as the rest of his face. Other times it looks slightly flushed and I peer inquisitively at the screen to see if I can detect a telltale white ring around his presidential nostrils. Then, as the on-screen appearance continues, the slight flush will get a little rosier and develop a reflective sheen, much resembling a big red apple ripening in the late August sunshine. Other times it is an angry, violent reddish purple with angrier, more violent, redder and purpler veins standing at attention. When his nose is in that swollen and inflamed condition, it usually seems that our president has particularly large, black bags under his eyes and maybe his nose is simply responding to the strain of holding them up. I don't know exactly what is going on with our president's nose, particularly because at a press conference only a couple of hours after it looked as if it were just about to blow up on his face in front of the international press corps, it can suddenly be seem as calm and subdued; back to being the same color as the rest of his face again. For some perverse reason, probably for the same reason that I broke my traditional code of not writing childish things behind the backs of people I despise, I am really curious about the many faces of Clinton's nose. If there is anybody out there who is closer to Clinton's nose than I am and has information regarding the state of our president's nose, please drop a line. In the mean time, when I see our president on TV, I will continue to study his nose since what he says publicly has no substantive value. Don H. Media Access - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: George Washington Quote Date: 18 Sep 1996 23:42:16 -0500 At 03:14 PM 9/18/96 -0500, you wrote: >I guess Ole George (see below) felt firearms were crucial in protecting >the Constitution. > >Then how and why did that obvious fact get lost over the years in the >history of America? > >Bob Knauer > >----- > >>From The Zychik Chronicle: > >"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. >They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone >under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the >present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to >ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are >equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms >everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of >honor with all that's good." > > -- George Washington > Warning,..Warning.. Bogus "quote" alert! This is a portion of the so called "Liberty Teeth" quote. This part sounds reasonable, but the rest of the quote is obviously bogus, mentioning praire wagons, not to come on the scene for a few decades after the supposed time of the quote, and using statistical arguments, sounding like an Ivory Soap commercial in the process. Plenty of good solid quotes from the Founding Fathers, maybe even a few from the Founding Mothers, no need to use bogus ones, and be laughed at by those one is trying to sway. (It's OK though, I got my knuckles rapped for using an unverifiable Thomas Jefferson "quote" ) The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Date: 18 Sep 1996 12:32:57 -0700 Book title now formulating in the grey matter: "Requieum for a Racket: The Last Dying Days of the Internal Revenue Service [sic]" /s/ Paul Mitchell p.s. Isn't it exciting? ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Why we should hate Libertarians Date: 18 Sep 1996 10:51:57 -0500 >Only a moron would assert that has anything to do with "secret" >balloting. > >I can see why the ever-vacuous Mr. Hammer gets so little response >to his "probing" questions. ----- He does not mince words, does he? This thread, at least for me, has a well-meaning purpose. See if you agree. I want to see people who fight tyranny do so with a broader appeal. When a handful of "pothead Libs" butt in and spam a legitimate discussion, it does not serve the best interests of either the Libertarian movement or the cause of liberty. You LP faithful know exactly what I am talking about, because many of you have written online and offline pointing out that a few obnoxious people do not speak for the majority of LPers. True, we all know that. But you also have to realize that we who would like to engage in rational discourse with LPers do so very reluctantly because the obnoxious will chime in and spam the discussion, and - *most importantly* - you LPers don't do anything to stop it. That is taken as tacit approval for the obnoxious tactics, which gives LPers the deserved or undeserved bad reputation. There are several areas left to discuss/debate, but who in his right mind would want to waste time in flame wars? So, I ask you to police your ranks when someone represents themselves as an LPer in an obnoxious manner. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cyrano@ix.netcom.com (Steve Allen Silver) Subject: Hickman & the Supremes: Update Date: 18 Sep 1996 23:06:06 -0700 This is multipart MIME message. --kkmwtkpfgulayqckdqgmauejxumjnn Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="NCZ3001.TMP" Since many folks have inquired into the current status of Hickman v. Los Angeles County, in which Ray Hickman is petitioning the US Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's (who else's) ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees a "state's right" to maintain a militia, and not an individual right to keep and bear arms, I have attached an update article which will appear in the next edition of our newsletter, The Liberty Pole. Stay tuned. Steve Silver Vice President & Founding Member The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. --kkmwtkpfgulayqckdqgmauejxumjnn Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="hickman.txt" 'Hickman' Before the Supreme Court The Supreme Court Finally Has a Chance to Adjudicate the Second Amendment Now that all the necessary documents in Hickman v. Los Angeles County have been filed, the U.S. Supreme Court will have its first chance in at least 20 years to acknowledge what most Americans know: that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: Why we should hate Libertarians Date: 19 Sep 1996 07:53:18 -0600 >>Only a moron would assert that has anything to do with "secret" >>balloting. >> >>I can see why the ever-vacuous Mr. Hammer gets so little response >>to his "probing" questions. > >----- > >He does not mince words, does he? > >This thread, at least for me, has a well-meaning purpose. See if you agree. > >I want to see people who fight tyranny do so with a broader appeal. When a >handful of "pothead Libs" butt in and spam a legitimate discussion, it does >not serve the best interests of either the Libertarian movement or the cause >of liberty. > >You LP faithful know exactly what I am talking about, because many of you >have written online and offline pointing out that a few obnoxious people do >not speak for the majority of LPers. True, we all know that. I must hang out on different lists then because I haven't seen this happen. What I have seen happen is ABCers or Republicans chime in and start calling libertarians obnoxious and crazy and potheads and stuff that does not make for a rational discussion. Instead of discussing they make claims that we are in for dire doom if Clinton is reelected or that libertarians are evil because they call for legalization of drugs (they do NOT call for drug use). Libertarians have a broader definition of freedom than conservatives. Conservatives only seem to believe in freedom for people who believe as they do and want to lock up everyone else. Each conservative has a different idea of what freedoms he supports however, and of course. If you call yourself a conservative, and you cannot think of any behavior you disagree with that you want to outlaw, maybe you are not a conservative, you are a libertarian. (Notice small 'l' and not a big 'L' for the LP). Libertarians call conservatives on their hypocrisy of wanting to only support freedom for likeminded conservatives. best regards Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Senate Hearings on "Suicides" (fwd) Date: 19 Sep 1996 09:03:00 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS Dear M R, More to come on this and similar business when I return. DAN, I've sent this to Weid and FLITEQUACK. Could you take care of the rest of the guys in the Battalion? Thanks. -- Harvey =========================== Subj: Senate Hearings on "Suicides" (fwd) >Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 21:07:12 -0500 >From: Tom Burkett >To: Brian Redman > >Senate hearings give opportunity for families to expose incompetent and >dishonest investigations. > >by Tom Burkett > >Washington, September 12: >The Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Personnel held >hearings today on the conduct of military investigative agencies in 300 >deaths. The conclusions in these cases have been questioned by families >of the victims as well as by investigators, pathologists, and members of >congress. > >Six representatives of the organization, "Until we Have Answers," were >allowed to present aspects of the cases to a skeleton review panel >consisting of Subcommittee Chairman Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) and Senator >Charles Robb (D-VA) who represented the minority members. Also present >for brief periods were Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Senator Strom >Thurmond (R-SC). Presenting the government's position were Eleanor Hill, >Inspector General, Department of Defense, and representatives of the Army >Criminal Investigations Command, the Navy Criminal Investigative >Service, and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. > >The "Until We Have Answers" spokespersons presented well-documented >examples of incompetent or dishonest military investigations. They also >made the point that the agencies involved all have a review process that >rubber-stamps the original investigations. Linda Shultz extended this >judgment to the Inspector General's office. She said the IG >investigators tried to "explain and justify the original investigation." >Dr. John Sabow said that in some cases, including that of his brother, >Col. James Sabow, the government's role went beyond incompetence to >"complicity" and that the agencies involved "attempted to hide the truth >and obstruct justice." > >The presentation by the government representatives seemed to validate the >opinion that the purpose of the agencies' review processes was indeed to >"explain and justify the original investigations." Spokesmen for the >Army, Navy and Air Force investigative agencies simply patted themselves >on the back for their "professionalism" and their "sensitivity." The >Inspector General bragged that her office had reviewed 27 of these cases >and had actually changed one ruling (from suicide to accident). > >A footnote: A Washington news-only radio station, WTOP, carries a >schedule of Senate & House activities called "Today on the Hill." On >the morning of September 12, these hearing were announced as "hearings >into ways to prevent military suicides." It would be interesting to know >who wrote that press release! > > >Tommy had things he wanted to do. > > >Tom Burkett & Beth George >(703) 435-3112 (Voice/Fax) >http://www.clark.net/pub/tburkett/pacc/PACC.html > > > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@alterzone.com >-> Posted by: Brian Redman > **************************************************** "The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture. The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a Spaniel." --Thomas Paine, _Common Sense_ **************************************************** Harvey Wysong, National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Assn. 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Clinton in a Box (fwd) Date: 19 Sep 1996 09:14:23 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- jw-rh@ix.netcom.com, bigred@duracef.shout.net, jlavis@communique.net, liberty@gate.net, vikbob@halcyon.com, rwb@daka.com, cato@cato.org, akimery@citizen.infi.net, pwatson@utdallas.edu, garb@ix.netcom.com, maddog6@flex.net, edb@interport.com, wdmann@ix.netcom.com, germanic@netcom.com, eric@remailer.net, sandfort@crl.com, loboazul@icsi.net, bdolan@use.usit.net, fathom9@aol.com, defraud@tpi.net, L.L.Grabbe@theol.hull.ac.uk, JMcCorm215@aol.com, jdtabor.uncc@uncc.campus.mci.net, zns@interserv.com, tbyfield@panix.com, drdean@bio.win.net, rpedraza@sierra.net, kalliste@aci.net Clinton in a Box by J. Orlin Grabbe Bill Clinton has now clarified his policy on the Middle East. It's called "Saddam in a Box". It sounds like a new Tyson Foods product that one might find in the supermarket next to the frozen chicken parts. And the policy's logic is about as compelling as the latter would be appetizing. Let's begin with the assassination of Rabin in Israel. Implicated are Israeli security agencies connected to Ariel Sharon. (Sharon's agents are run out of the U.S., including the Mossad's most valued asset in Chicago, who has his legs broken with a baseball bat.) Despite evidence of their involvement in the assassination, Likud wins the election and begins to dismantle the peace agreement partly worked out with Yassir Arafat and Hafez Assad. (Sharon is rewarded with a cabinet post in the new Likud government.) The U.S. and France, meanwhile, put intense pressure on Syria to give up any claim to the Golan heights. Hafez Assad sends out a "don't tread on me" statement: Syrian- trained terrorists cause the Western states blackout in the U.S., and shoot down TWA Flight 800--a flight from New York en route to Paris, carrying both U.S. and French citizens. Both governments (via the FBI in the U.S. case) are warned in advance. Clinton is advised to strike back by taking out a handful of top Syrian government officials. But it is not going well for Clinton. The Starr investigation is looking increasingly ominous. Clinton fears an October Surprise. Democrats in his own party, including a group lead by Robert Strauss, urge his resignation for the good of the country. Other (national security) agencies, concerned with his increasingly coke-induced erratic behavior, place even more pressure on him to resign. So Clinton decides to divert attention with a military operation in the Middle East. He wants something in the news headlines every day--a war, not a covert operation. He is advised that to bomb Syria would result in a U.S. domestic terrorist nightmare. So Clinton looks at Iran, an easy bombing target, and one whose agents have not shown the same skills in guerrilla warfare. First, he secretly orders units from the 101 Airborne at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, to Saudi Arabia. William Perry shows up in the Middle East and announces Iranian terrorists may be behind the Dhahran bombing ("Perry Predicts 'International Connection,' Possibly Iran, to Saudi Arabia Bombing," The Washington Post, August 3, 1996) Newspapers publish lavish charts showing the location of "Iranian terrorist camps". Various commentators beat the drums for an Iranian connection to both the Dhahran bombing and the downing of TWA Flight 800. But then Clinton is shown an article in Janes Intelligence Review describing Iran's control over the Straits of Hormuz, and its ability to cut off the flow of oil. A world oil crisis would be bad for the stock market and the up-coming election. Clinton pauses to reflect, and to look for another bombing target. Then Clinton takes a choo-choo ride to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and arrives just in time to be pounded by the Dick Morris resignation--the same Dick Morris depicted in Time as Clinton's closest advisor, his brain. (Hillary announces that she is afraid that Dick Morris is "depressed" and "suicidal", because she is secretly plotting with I3 to assassinate him.) Saddam, meanwhile, noting the U.S. rattling its saber at Iran, takes the opportunity to move into the Kurdish zone, to put down an Iranian-supported Kurdish faction, and also some CIA-supported ones. Clinton says, Aha! The White House announces that the U.S. is watching Saddam's actions with grave concern, and are thinking of sending more troops there (even while more units of the 101 Airborne are secretly dispatched to Saudi Arabia). All the U.S. allies, excepting Britain and Kuwait, refuse to go along with this charade. The U.S. bombs a few targets anyway, expands the no-fly zone, and pronounces the action a success. The nation cheers, then realizes nothing has actually happened, except a U.S.-assisted boost to Saddam Hussein's power, and deteriorated relations with Turkey, France, and Saudi Arabia. Bill decides to escalate again, sending over a contingent of F-117 Stealth fighters to Kuwait, along with all their expensive support equipment and personnel. There they sit on the ground, doing nothing. He announces soldiers from Ft. Hood, Texas, will be arriving in Kuwait, without clearing the action first with Kuwait. (They read about it in the paper.) Then Saddam says he will not oppose the expanded no-fly zone, cutting off Clinton's legs. Clinton is all dressed up for war, with nowhere to go. The Middle Eastern phase of Clinton's re-election campaign has turned into a military and international relations disaster. Meanwhile, on the home front, while Syria deploys troops to the border with Israel, Clinton has more meetings with security agencies and Starr representatives. Clinton is informed he either resigns soon, or will suffer extremely nasty consequences. The ante is upped the longer he attempts to stay. Leaving will not spare him prosecution. But it will probably spare him some of the time, and the conditions under which, he vacations in the slammer. Clinton, however, is paranoid. He will lose much (not all) of his Secret Service protection if he resigns. So Clinton's in a box. If he stays he may be dead, and if he resigns he may be dead. He wants a guarantee that if he resigns the same thing doesn't happen to him that happened to Ron Brown. Will he go or will he stay? Either way, a hard rain's a-gonna fall. September 19, 1996 Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: Clinton in a Box (fwd) Date: 19 Sep 1996 08:23:10 -0600 > > Clinton in a Box > > by J. Orlin Grabbe > > From reading his other stuff in the past this guy seems to be a goofball... Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: caps@visigenic.com (Cap Schwartz) Subject: Re: Why we should hate Libertarians Date: 19 Sep 1996 07:36:22 -0700 At 07:53 AM 9/19/96 -0600, you wrote: chad: thanks so much for teaching me how to say that which i wanted to but could not formulate. can they reisist the urge to respond, or will they step into it, do you s'pose? regards, =C >Libertarians have a broader definition of freedom than conservatives. >Conservatives only seem to believe in freedom for people who believe as >they do and want to lock up everyone else. Each conservative has a >different idea of what freedoms he supports however, and of course. If you >call yourself a conservative, and you cannot think of any behavior you >disagree with that you want to outlaw, maybe you are not a conservative, >you are a libertarian. (Notice small 'l' and not a big 'L' for the LP). > >Libertarians call conservatives on their hypocrisy of wanting to only >support freedom for likeminded conservatives. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Jewish & Black American Republicans Date: 19 Sep 1996 10:06:41 -0500 Well, folks, it looks as if the Republican November 1996 Landslide is alive and well. Before you know it Jews will be advocating CCW too, once they catch on to how many lives it saves. Bob Knauer +++++ From the "news": After Bob Dole snubbed his convention this summer, NAACP head Kweisi Mfume fumed about the GOP's failure to reach out to minorities. ``Part of the reason African-Americans, Hispanics and Jews are binding their association and allegiance with the Democratic Party,'' he charged, ``is because Republican candidates continue their tradition of not reaching out.'' Since then, the GOP has tried to mend its ways. The party has made a concerted effort to reach out to these groups. In late August, for instance, Dole told a group of black journalists in Nashville that the GOP ``will never be whole until it earns the broad support of African-Americans by speaking to their hopes.'' This followed a GOP convention which featured the likes of Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, and Steven Goldsmith. Moreover, it followed Dole's selection of a running mate universally hailed for his appeal to the black and Jewish communities - a man that has been so supportive of Israel for so long that he is known in Tel Aviv as ``Yitzhak Kemp.'' Jack Kemp has begun to follow through on Dole's Nashville overtures, calling for a ``New Civil Rights Agenda'' during a speech in South Central Los Angeles. What is interesting here is not only that this outreach is being tried at all - but also that it might just work, if seriously pursued. The African-American and Jewish-American communities have long been the Democratic Party's strongest constituencies, supporting Democratic congressional candidates by margins as high as 90 percent and 80 percent, respectively - even in the 1994 election, when Republicans broke the Democrats' long hold on the House. However, a closer look reveals that both core Democratic constituencies may actually be in play. To start with, increasing numbers of black and Jewish voters no longer describe themselves as liberals. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies released a poll earlier this year which shows that African-Americans are almost equally likely to describe themselves as conservatives (30 percent), moderate (32 percent), or liberal (31 percent). Likewise, a poll released in July by the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council shows that only 29 percent of respondents described themselves as ``liberal.'' When two-thirds of black and Jewish-Americans reject the ``liberal'' label, liberalism may be pronounced dead. Moreover, responses to issue-specific questions show that black and Jewish voters may be even more conservative than they are willing to admit. The Joint Center's study show that three out of four African-Americans surveyed favor stiff prison terms for repeat offenders, a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in the public schools, and $500-per-child school tax credits. In the Jewish community, a highly publicized poll of northern California Jews revealed that even self-described moderates were disproportionately likely to favor Republican positions. For instance, three out of four of these ``moderates'' favored the controversial ``three strikes and you're out'' legislation to lock up repeat offenders. Some minorities are reluctant to describe themselves as conservatives, even when they agree with basic conservative positions. Why then do black and Jewish votes lag behind black and Jewish opinion? The GOP may still carry a certain stigma based on its past reputation for insensitivity to minority concerns. There are signs, however, that this stigma is being overcome and that conservative opinions are slowly starting to turn into Republican votes. The Republican party now boasts two African-American House members, four Jewish House members and one Jewish senator. Moreover, in Pittsburgh's predominately black Ward 12, Republicans won 58 percent of the vote in 1995, up from 8 percent in 1991, helping the GOP gain control of Allegheny County. In 1994, three Republican governors - Bill Weld of Massachusetts, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Jim Edgar of Illinois - won majorities of their states' Jewish vote. These trends are likely to increase, since young black and Jewish voters are more likely to vote Republican than their parents. This transition is not difficult to understand. Black and Jewish voters share the general public's concerns about crime rates, moral values, and welfare reform. Both communities, moreover, have seen the dangers of keeping all their eggs in one basket. If these communities learned nothing else from the 1994 elections, it should have been that one cannot build bridges to only one party, since that party can quickly find itself out of power. By encouraging both parties to compete for their allegiance, minority communities can gain the greatest strength, unity, and security. Kenneth L. Marcus is chairman of the Young Jewish Leadership PAC of Washington; Alvin Williams is executive director of Black America's PAC of Washington. +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: caps@visigenic.com (Cap Schwartz) Subject: Re: Clinton in a Box (fwd) Date: 19 Sep 1996 08:08:30 -0700 > >From reading his other stuff in the past this guy seems to be a goofball... > >Chad yeah. but a really fun one! he is a wet dream for conspiratorologists. ;^) cAp_ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: George Washington Quote Date: 19 Sep 1996 10:32:41 -0500 >>From The Zychik Chronicle: >> >>"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. >>They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone >>under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the >>present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to >>ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are >>equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms >>everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of >>honor with all that's good." >> >> -- George Washington >> >Warning,..Warning.. Bogus "quote" alert! > >This is a portion of the so called "Liberty Teeth" quote. This part sounds >reasonable, but the rest of the quote is obviously bogus, mentioning praire >wagons, not to come on the scene for a few decades after the supposed time >of the quote, and using statistical arguments, sounding like an Ivory Soap >commercial in the process. > >Plenty of good solid quotes from the Founding Fathers, maybe even a few from >the Founding Mothers, no need to use bogus ones, and be laughed at by those >one is trying to sway. > >(It's OK though, I got my knuckles rapped for using an unverifiable Thomas >Jefferson "quote" ) > ----- Hey, I'm just the messenger - no knuckle-rapping allowed. :-) That's why I always give the attribution when I forward a quotation like this. So get on Zychik's case, not mine. :-) It sounded good anyway - the quote, that is. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: PMRS = "cash" payments Date: 19 Sep 1996 10:52:10 -0700 [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] The following is a letter-for-letter transcription, from the original on official "Department of the Treasury" stationery: Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Washington, D.C. 20224 September 12, 1996 Mr. Paul A. Mitchell Person to Contact: 2509 North Campbell - #1776 M. Zolton Tucson, AZ 85719 Telephone Number: (202) 622-6250 Refer Reply to: 96-1911 Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is in response to your July 26, 1996, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all financial records of the Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS). Your request was forwarded to us by the Office of Disclosure Services, Department of the Treasury, so that we can respond to you directly. We apologize for the delay in responding. Unfortunately, your request is not specific enough to allow us to conduct a search for the records that are of interest to you. For example, you have not stated the years for which you are interested in obtaining records. Please be advised that the PMRS has not existed for the last 3 years. In addition, it is our understanding that awards made under PMRS took the form of cash payments or quality step in-grade promotions. Therefore, the types of financial records associated with awards made under PMRS did not include the kinds of records mentioned in your request. It would be helpful if you could be more specific in describing the desired records. Accordingly, you may wish to reformulate your request to assist us in finding the responsive material. If you decide to do so, your perfected request will receive our close attention. Sincerely yours, /s/ Mark L. Zolton Tax Law Specialist FOIA Branch c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA REPUBLIC September 19, 1996 Mark L. Zolton Tax Law Specialist FOIA Branch "Internal Revenue Service" Washington [zip code exempt] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Your Ref. No. 96-1911 Dear Mr. Zolton: Thank you for your letter to Me, dated September 12, 1996. In that letter, you say that We failed to state the years for which We are interested in obtaining records. In answer to that point: We want records for the years 1776 Anno Domini through and including 2020 Anno Domini. The latter year (2020) appears on the IRS assessment records for a client of mine. Under oath, the IRS agent who signed these records testified that this date (2020) was not a mistake. We are desirous of obtaining any and all financial records associated with the PMRS, including but not limited to the names of all persons who received any kind of "recognition" from this system, e.g. the President as mentioned in the Internal Revenue Manual page in question, employees of the federal government, and all others, without exception. We presume the IRM reference is to the President of the United States. Your records should confirm whether or not any Presidents of the United States have received any "recognition" from this system, how much, when, and which ones. See Article II, Section 1, Clause 7. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness and Counselor at Law # # # ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: #liberty IRC Date: 19 Sep 1996 11:12:54 -0500 >I'll second that thought. There's nothing more demeaning that >joining an IRC with the intention of joining in, only to find >yourself with 2 strikes against you already. It's especially >troubling out here in California, which, as some of may know, has >this totally rediculous 3 strikes law. Hell, if I was say something >unkind to one of those important types with the +o aside their name, >I might find myself kicked off the channel and smack in the middle of >my 3rd strike. My god, how would I explain that to my wife of 20 >years! Oh the pain...... > ----- Whoever invented +o screwed free speech on the Internet, at least on IRC. Now I know why I have avoided IRC all this time. Those of you out there who might be tempted to join IRC, be forewarned. There is something about censorship in any form that grates at the soul, and IRC is no exception. There is also something about cliques that irritate the soul, and IRC is also no exception. To be made into a Little Pig amongst Big Pigs is against the spirit of free speech, a hallmark of the Internet. Until IRC channels explicitly forbid censorship, or at least give each participant the same status upon entry, it is not worth being involved in them. Spend your time more productively on open mailing list forums. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: L&J: Clinton Set for Big Endorsement Date: 19 Sep 1996 11:22:27 -0500 > Just a note on terms. Peace Officer by statute means the Military Police of >a State, and they are not referring to the State Militia. Robert Wangrud. ----- You totally lost me on that fine distinction. In Texas we call sheriffs peace officers. What does that have to do with Military Police of a State? And just what does that term mean? MPs of the State??? Thanks, Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: #liberty IRC Date: 19 Sep 1996 10:55:14 -0600 >>I'll second that thought. There's nothing more demeaning that >>joining an IRC with the intention of joining in, only to find >>yourself with 2 strikes against you already. It's especially >>troubling out here in California, which, as some of may know, has >>this totally rediculous 3 strikes law. Hell, if I was say something >>unkind to one of those important types with the +o aside their name, >>I might find myself kicked off the channel and smack in the middle of >>my 3rd strike. My god, how would I explain that to my wife of 20 >>years! Oh the pain...... >> > >----- > >Whoever invented +o screwed free speech on the Internet, at least on IRC. >Now I know why I have avoided IRC all this time. Those of you out there who >might be tempted to join IRC, be forewarned. > >There is something about censorship in any form that grates at the soul, and >IRC is no exception. > I missed this whole thing. Can someone please explain what this is all about? WHat the +o thing is? Etc? Thanks Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Dole Leads Bubboon in Texas By 11 Points Date: 19 Sep 1996 12:04:58 -0500 For you poll-watchers: Dole now has an 11 point lead over Bubboon in Texas, according to a poll reported by Geo. Bush. That poll is just as "accurate" as any other published political opinion poll. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Libertarians Date: 19 Sep 1996 12:43:24 -0500 >I must hang out on different lists then because I haven't seen this happen. You must, because all I have ever heard is the opposite. >What I have seen happen is ABCers or Republicans chime in and start >calling libertarians obnoxious and crazy and potheads and stuff that does >not make for a rational discussion. Not on the lists I am on. But I agree with you. >Instead of discussing they make claims >that we are in for dire doom if Clinton is reelected Yes, ABCers do point out that klintoon's relection is very dire indeed. But I think that is obvious. Why is it not obvious to all Libertarians? >or that libertarians are evil because they call for legalization of drugs >(they do NOT call for drug use). I have never heard that one. I think most freedom-loving people want to see drugs de-criminalized, not made "legal". Mass heroin addiction is not something I want to promote in America by making its use "legal". >Libertarians have a broader definition of freedom than conservatives. I do get that impression. It would seem that "liberty" for a Libertarian goes all the way to providing them with a rationalization for avoiding any responsibility in life. But that's just what I picked up in the brief moments of rational Libertarian discourse - who knows what Libertarians really think about such topics. >Conservatives only seem to believe in freedom for people who believe as >they do and want to lock up everyone else. I do not get that impression since your statement is a categorical absolute - namely the *everyone* else part. But I suppose if Conservatives want to lock up drug pushers, then that is "wanting to lock up *everyone* else". >Each conservative has a different idea of what freedoms he supports however, >and of course. If you call yourself a conservative, I call myself a Conservative in the sense of a Phil Gramm/Texas Conservative. >and you cannot think of any behavior you disagree with that you want to >outlaw, maybe you are not a conservative, you are a libertarian. (Notice >small 'l' and not a big 'L' for the LP). I am having great difficulty with your statement. If I read it as presented, it would seem that you are saying that "any behavior" must not be "outlawed". That sounds suspiciously like Anarchy. Is that what being a Libertarian is all about - Anarchy? If so, I state here (as I have elsewhere many times) that I will have no part of Anarchy in any form. Anyway, did not the Constitution itself "outlaw" certain forms of "behavior"? >Libertarians call conservatives on their hypocrisy of wanting to only >support freedom for likeminded conservatives. I do not understand what you have just said. Is it "hypocritical" to want the Rule Of Law? Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ken L. Holder" Subject: Re: Libertarians Date: 19 Sep 1996 11:23:54 -0700 At 12:43 PM 9/19/96 -0500, Bob Knauer wrote: >That sounds suspiciously like Anarchy. Is that what being a Libertarian is >all about - Anarchy? If so, I state here (as I have elsewhere many times) >that I will have no part of Anarchy in any form. "Anarchy" means "no governor". Why do you think you need somebody to tell you what to do? Just wondering. -- Ken L. Holder kholder@liberty.com http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: WSJ: New Lexis Database of Names Sparks Outcry on Privacy Date: 19 Sep 1996 13:26:06 -0500 Just try getting on their web site - impossible right now. NB: The WSJ Interactive is free: http://wsj.com/ Bob Knauer +++++ New Lexis Database of Names Sparks Outcry on Privacy By THOMAS E. WEBER Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL A database of personal information operated by Lexis-Nexis has created an uproar about privacy issues, spawning a flurry of angry messages on the Internet and prompting a torrent of telephone calls to the company from irate consumers trying to delist their names. The incident highlights the sensitivity of privacy concerns in the electronic age. But it also underscores the Internet's ability to fan the embers of a few complaints into a blaze of outrage, and confusion. The fuss is over a computer file called P-TRAK, operated by Lexis-Nexis to provide information on individuals for the legal community to use when trying to track down litigants, heirs and others related to a case. Subscribers can access the information by dialing into the database with a modem, the same way users access Lexis-Nexis' well-known library of periodicals and court documents. Lexis, based in Dayton, Ohio, says the information is straightforward: names, addresses, telephone numbers and, occasionally, maiden names. But the Internet has been abuzz with furious postings alleging that P-TRAK contains much more. "Your name, social security number ... and mother's maiden name ... are now available to anyone with a credit card," claimed one message in a discussion group. The message also was passed on to many Internet users though electronic mail. Lexis said it has become a victim of inaccurate allegations. "It's almost hilarious," said Steve Edwards, a spokesman for Lexis, a unit of Reed-Elsevier PLC. "Someone got some information about this product and added some misinformation, and has spread this around." The core claims of the Internet postings -- that P-TRAK divulges Social Security numbers and mother's maiden names, both potential tools for fraud -- simply aren't true, Mr. Edwards said. However, a P-TRAK user can type in a Social Security number and find out whom it belongs to. Ironically, P-TRAK was set up to offer Social Security numbers when it was unveiled earlier this year, but a lesser outcry on the Internet prompted Lexis to disable the feature after just 11 days. Privacy experts Wednesday were amazed at how quickly the surge of complaints grew this week. "There's this incredible forwarding phenomenon going on," said David Sobel, legal counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. "People are sending me copies of the e-mail that are fifth- and sixth-generation." Lexis defended the database, saying it was based on publicly available information. Besides, Mr. Edwards said, the company permits individuals to request that they be removed from P-TRAK. +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: George Washington Quote Date: 19 Sep 1996 15:43:06 -0500 >> I guess Ole George (see below) felt firearms were crucial in protecting >> the Constitution. > >You guess wrongly -- it's a bogus quote, according to scholar Clayton >Cramer. Are you saying that Ole George was a Hoplophobe? >The longevity of false quotes is a growing problem -- Clinton got caught >using a false de Tocqueville quote in an op-ed piece I read yesterday. Coke is know to do that, especially 5 lines a day. >> >From The Zychik Chronicle: >> >> "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. >> They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone >> under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the >> present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to >> ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are >> equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms >> everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of >> honor with all that's good." >> -- George Washington >Again, it's bogus. Save this so that you don't mistakenly use it in the >future. OK, but I can still use it, can't I, bogus and all? I mean, there's no "Bogus Quote Police" out there, huh? There was once the "Grammer(sic) and Spelling Police", because people on the Internet used atrocious grammar and couldn't spell worth a damn, but that got disbanded a long time ago - too many citations. Anyway, who is to say it wasn't a quote by George Z. Washington, my long lost cousin. Is there a law against having both the name George and the name Washington? I'm going to start putting *my name* on all quotes I post - that way it will be a true quote, since I will have said it. But when the quote turns out to be authentic (which is unlikely on the Internet), I guess I will be cited by the "Plagarism Police". Can't win! :-) Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Clinton Set for Big Endorsement Date: 19 Sep 1996 15:44:43 -0500 >FOP's president (a Mr. Gaeggo ?) was on The Late Late Show with Tom Snyder >last night. Some good questions by Snyder revealed that the "endorsement" >was NOT THE RESULT OF ANY POLLING OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS. heh heh > >Some local lodge leaders called in during the show to point out that >entire lodges were unaware of any endorsement plans until they heard it >on the news. > >Don't blame your rank-and-file FOP member. ----- I would not begin to. What I do expect is one big reaction on the part of that rank-and-file to surface, very soon while it's still fresh in everyone's mind. I want to see them draw blood - calls, letters, talk shows, congress, press, TV, talk radio, and, of course, the Internet. If all they do is fuss a little bit in between setting up speed traps and munching on donuts, then I think they could just lose our support when they need it. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fritz Sands Subject: RE: George Washington Quote Date: 19 Sep 1996 14:00:58 -0700 >---------- >From: R. Knauer-AIMNET[SMTP:rcktexas@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Thursday, September 19, 1996 1:43 PM >To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com; roc@xmission.com; act.snet@ix.netcom.com; >hammernet-l@teleport.com >Subject: Re: George Washington Quote >>You guess wrongly -- it's a bogus quote, according to scholar Clayton >>Cramer. > >Are you saying that Ole George was a Hoplophobe? No -- he is saying that the quote is bogus. > >>Again, it's bogus. Save this so that you don't mistakenly use it in the >>future. > >OK, but I can still use it, can't I, bogus and all? > >I mean, there's no "Bogus Quote Police" out there, huh? Are you this daft for real? >Fritz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Boys on the Bus Date: 19 Sep 1996 16:16:45 -0500 Why are our Boys taking a bus anyway? Could they be afraid of missles if they took an airplane? Bob Knauer +++++ From the "news": Clinton, Gore: Boys on the Bus President Clinton has returned to one of his favorite campaign gimmicks -- the road trip aboard a specially equipped bus. Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and their wives hit the highway today with a Pacific Northwest bus tour emphasizing environmental protection, Pacific trade and space exploration. [snip] [blah] [blah] +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Approved: Non-member submission from [Joe Zychik ] Re: Date: 19 Sep 1996 15:22:36 -0600 >Subject: Re: "Reaching Out" > >>Before you know it Jews will be advocating CCW too, once they catch >>on to how many lives it saves. >> >>Bob Knauer >> > >Ever hear of Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership? I'm Jewish. I've >worked my butt of for Second Amendment rights. Ayn Rand was Jewish. Your >comment is as dumb as calling every German a Nazi, every Southerner a >racist/bigot. > > >>{What the hell do the Blacks, Hispanics, and Jews mean, the GOP hasn't >> been reaching out???? The Republicans have been "reaching out" for >> years, extorting money out of my paycheck to fund unconstitutional >> and immoral theft schemes such as: > >Nice going. Nothing like buying into the race wars that the Welfare state >pimps. Wake up. Stop thinking in ethnic terms! > > >> >> - food stamps (I dont' "owe" anyone a meal), > >Larry Elder is a Black Libertarian talk show host in Southern California. >He doesn't owe anyone a meal either. > >> >> - WIC (I don't "owe" anybody's baby a bottle) > >Ayn Rand didn't have kids. The Libertarian movement wouldn't have a >philosophy with that Jewess's input. > > >> >> - welfare (I don't "owe" anyone a living), > >Hispanics do the work that most Americans won't. They don't want you to >"owe" them a living. Just let them work. > > >> >> - Socialist Sekkkurity (I don't "owe" anyone a retirement pension), > > >Most Social Security Recipients are not Black, Hispanic or Jewish. Think in >ethnic terms, die by them. > > >Treat people as individuals! > > > >jz > > >Joe Zychik >The Zychik Chronicle: http://www.free-market.com/zychik >Personal homepage: http://www.pacificnet.net/~jzychik >To receive the ZC free, contact: jzychik@pacificnet.net >"All rights are individual." > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: "Reaching Out" Date: 19 Sep 1996 16:27:45 -0500 >>Before you know it Jews will be advocating CCW too, once they catch >>on to how many lives it saves. >Ever hear of Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership? I'm Jewish. I've >worked my butt of for Second Amendment rights. Ayn Rand was Jewish. Your >comment is as dumb as calling every German a Nazi, every Southerner a >racist/bigot. [snip] >Joe Zychik ----- Don't get so jumpy, Joe - you were not privy to our extensive and very informative discussions of Jewish Hoplophobia recently. My comment was a reflection on those discussions, wherein I was pointing out that once Jews in large numbers catch on to the fact that guns do indeed save lives, they will drop their extensive, culturally-based hoplophobia and begin supporting RKBA in large numbers. That's all - you read something into my statement that just isn't there. Now, why is it that you had to make a rude statement like "Your comment is as dumb as...". I don't think anything I said could be construed as sufficient justification for that kind of treatment from you. Oh, but I forgot - you're also a Libertarian and that excuses you from the dictates of normal civilized discourse. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: Act(s) of Admission Date: 19 Sep 1996 16:40:07 -0500 With all due respect for your "friendship" with this guy, here are my comments. As related below, that's not the way it came down - and he knows perfectly well what is going on, too. He's just playing dumb because he does not want anyone to know the truth, including you. He knows quite well who I am because we exchanged correspondence once. And the part about distributed Net services has to be the biggest crock to come along since newbies were allowed to join AOL. But I have no reason to argue this any further. I have my well-formed opinions based on the facts, and you are free to formulate yours from the same direct experience as I did if you want to. Just do not expect me to sit idly by when people post purported gospel from this bogus site, because I happen to believe it does the real RT movement great harm. Bob Knauer ----- >Don Henson runs the republic-of-texas list. Here are his thoughts after >I forwarded him the original post. FWIW, I consider Don one of my >'internet chums' having corresponded via e-mail for some time now. I >believe him to be an honest and forthright individual whose aim is >keeping our nation free from tyrants. > >In freedom, > >Tony Sgarlatti >tonys@the-truth.org >http://www.future.net/~thetruth/ > >----- Begin Included Message ----- > >Date: Tue Sep 17 13:52:25 1996 >To: tfs@adc.com (Tony F Sgarlatti) >From: ddhenson@concentric.net (Don Henson) >Subject: Re: Don - Question... > >>Don, I guess you've seen this all over the net. Isn't your >>ISP colossus.net? What do you think about this guys claims? > >Actually, this is the first time I've seen it. See my replies below. > >>> And if those assholes on the republic-of-texas mailing list keep pissing off >>> serious people like me, the real RT movement will get absolutely nowhere. > >I don't know who this guy is or how he got 'pissed off'. Perhaps he didn't >like what he saw on the list? > >>> I am now convinced that the republic-of-texas mailing list is run by an >>> agent provaceteur. Figure this: > >Well, I run the list and I know that I am not an agent provacateur but I >don't suppose my unsupported statement of that fact will convince anyone. >The rest of his facts appear to be correct. The list is serviced by a >listserver on colossus.net whose company headquarters is in Chicago, >Illinois and the owner of the company is Eric Klein. However, the actual >server hardware is located in Reno, Nevada. But what does all this mean, >anyway? One of the characteristics of Cyberspace is distributed services. >The fact that the owner of a company is in Chicago, the hardware is in Reno, >and the listowner is in El Paso, Texas sounds like a pretty normal setup to >me. Perhaps calling me an agent provacateur is in fact a case of the pot >calling the kettle black? > >Don Henson, Managing Director (PGP Key ID = 0X03002DC9) >West El Paso Information Network (WEPIN) >email: wepinsto@colossus.net >Check out The WEPIN Store at URL: >http://colossus.net/wepinsto/wshome.html > >----- End Included Message ----- > > > -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: "Reaching Out" Date: 19 Sep 1996 16:04:01 -0600 Said to Joe Zychik by Bob Knauer > >Oh, but I forgot - you're also a Libertarian and that excuses you from the >dictates of normal civilized discourse. > >Bob Knauer > Bob- With all do respect, the only one lately who has been obnoxious and unable to converse within the dictates of normal civilized discourse and netiquette is you. You spill stupid discussions from other groups into the ROC group. You bash libertarians and imply they are not worthy of your acquaintance nor are they serious about freedom, you post stupid conspiratorial messages about the internet and many other things that are stupid. You call people who are in the business of working for liberty "agent provacateurs". You say stuff is a "crock" when it is perfectly reasonable. (A Chicago company having servers in Reno and a subscriber in Texas is not a "crock" -- it is perfectly reasonable. Have you checked out nra.org recently? Try a whois one of these days. See where their "Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact" is at? What the h*ll they doin' in NH? I thought the NRA was in Virginia? [I know the answer, folks, I am illustrating a point]) To another post of yours: You bring up stupid inane comments about being afraid to fly (concerning Bubba and co). That was stupid. Bubba and Company's whole goal is to have a homey down to earth back to the people campaign. Airplanes don't cut it for that but busses do. Bob. Sometimes you post interesting stuff to ROC. But you are so steeped in conspiracy and fear that you see the boogie monster behind every friggin' rock and think everyone who does not exactly believe as you do is your enemy. best Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Neil Dickey Off The Air For Now Date: 19 Sep 1996 18:32:49 -0500 Neil asked me to let you all on ROC know he has been fighting the gods of bad computer hardware all day and night, so he will be of the air for while. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: Neil Dickey Off The Air For Now Date: 19 Sep 1996 18:42:35 -0700 At 06:32 PM 9/19/96 -0500, you wrote: >Neil asked me to let you all on ROC know he has been fighting the gods of >bad computer hardware all day and night, so he will be of the air for while. > >Bob Knauer But, my bank officer told me that computers never make misTRAKeql;jlekfjqlw;efo's Didn't he tell me the truth???%@$%&@%$#@!#$@@#$! /s/ Paul Mitchell > >-- > >************************************************** > A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing > Corporation World Wide Web Publishing > > http://www.aimtec.com/ >************************************************** > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: "Reaching Out" Date: 19 Sep 1996 19:39:11 -0500 >With all do respect, the only one lately who has been obnoxious and unable >to converse within the dictates of normal civilized discourse and >netiquette is you. Not true. I am an easy person to get along with, and I will converse with just about anyone. >You spill stupid discussions from other groups into the ROC group. Please define what you mean by "stupid". Not everyone agrees with you, BTW, judging from private mail. >You bash libertarians Some of them deserve it, IMO. Anyway, am I not entitled to my opinion? BTW, you are bashing me right now - but, oh, I forgot - you are a Libertarian, and you have a special dispensation. I keep forgetting. >and imply they are not worthy of your acquaintance nor I never said that because it is not true. I take pains to make sure it is clear that I am only getting on the case of a few obnoxious Libertarians. I thought I made that clear the other day with a post on that topic - but apparently you did not read it. This, as I have learned being around Libertarians, is a typical stunt - putting words into someone else's mouth. And I suppose that in pointing this out, I am being obnoxious. >are they serious about freedom, I am beginning to wonder what the Libertarian definition of freedom really is. It's beginning to sound like garden-variety Anarchy to me. But I am willing to listen, as long as it is presented in a civilized manner. (That may be oxymoronic, for Libertarians. :-) >you post stupid conspiratorial messages about the internet and many other >things that are stupid. There you go again, calling me names. Do you seriously characterize this diatribe right here on your part as civilized discourse? >You call people who are in the business of working for liberty "agent >provacateurs". The favorite label right now on these lists is "agent provaceteur". Whenever someone doesn't want to engage in a rational discussion, they label the other person an AP. But the shoe fits differently on the other foot, doesn't it, when I start slinging that label around? >You say stuff is a "crock" when it is perfectly reasonable. (A Chicago >company having servers in Reno and a subscriber in Texas is not a "crock" -- >it is perfectly reasonable. But the so-called "republic-of-texas" list *is* a crock. Go ahead, find out for yourself. Just don't say I didn't warn you when you find out. >Have you checked out nra.org recently? Try a >whois one of these days. See where their "Administrative Contact, >Technical Contact, Zone Contact" is at? What the h*ll they doin' in NH? I >thought the NRA was in Virginia? [I know the answer, folks, I am >illustrating a point]) NRA bashing has become High Sport in Libertarian circles lately. Joe was the most recent example. >To another post of yours: You bring up stupid inane comments about being >afraid to fly (concerning Bubba and co). That was stupid. Well, excuuuuuse me! I guess next time I should consult with a Libertarian first before posting anything. How's that for freedom of expression. >Bubba and Company's whole goal is to have a homey down to earth back to the >people campaign. Airplanes don't cut it for that but busses do. No more "stupid" than most of the postings of the so-called "conspirational crowd" on the net, some of which makes it onto ROC. You don't bitch when it happens then. >Bob. Sometimes you post interesting stuff to ROC. There are a lot of people who think my postings are pure nonsense, like the RKBA Sikh spoof. Lurking Liberals, Rednecks and Libertarians don't seem to appreciate my style. That leaves most of the rest of the human race, so I really don't worry about it. >But you are so steeped in conspiracy and fear that you see the boogie >monster behind every friggin' rock Just because I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy, like Browne has a chance to be the next president, I suppose that makes me conspirational, stupid, obnoxious, etc. >and think everyone who does not exactly believe as you do is your enemy. I do not believe any such thing. You sound like you are indicting fellow Libertarians with that statement Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Daft? Date: 19 Sep 1996 19:39:50 -0500 Are you this daft for real? >Fritz ----- Only when I am around you. At least I don't wear nose rings. Nor do my wife or my children. Nor do they work for the Dictator Of The Known Universe. My, we are getting a might testy around here, aren't we. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: George Washington Quote Date: 19 Sep 1996 20:01:34 -0500 Jeez, all this for an incorrect attribution I was not responsible for in the first place. Nothing like dumping on the well-meaning messenger! >You can, but by doing so you cheapen his genuine words. I doubt it. The words of politicians cannot be cheapened any further by me. But for the record, Mr. Purist - what did he *actually* say? >I'm having trouble understanding why you think such false attributions have >value to anyone BUT hoplophobes. Hoplophobes don't care much for attributions - they don't pay any attention to the correcxt ones, do they? >> the "Plagarism Police". ^^^ >If the Spelling Police don't get you first. They are defunct now. But you can always start up your own version, assuming you can take time out from your duties with the "Attribution Police". Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: Boys on the Bus Date: 19 Sep 1996 20:05:56 -0500 Regarding the crack that I post "stupid" things, like "Boys On The Bus": See, my "stupid" posts do generate some interesting commentary, even if is not Libertarian in nature. Bob Knauer ----- >Local paper quoted Clinton as saying that the secret service informed >him that they counted about 30,000 at his downtown Seattle rally. > >The newspaper then claimed the actual number was probably 10,000 -- >about same as his last political rally appearance in 1992 -- on account >that is about the most people that can fit into that area of town. In >other words, in their assessment there were no more people present here >than on his last '92 appearance. -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: "Reaching Out" Date: 19 Sep 1996 18:48:22 -0700 Children. Children!!! CHILDREN!!!!!!! *************** KNOCK IT OFF!!!! This is getting ridiculous (again). Come on Bob. Come on Chad. Come on the rest of you. You're *all* better people than this, and it's about time you acted like it. We're always gonna disagree at least somewhat about something, but this is getting out of hand. *PLEASE* *everybody* just back off and cool down??? Please? - Monte >>With all do respect, the only one lately who has been obnoxious and unable >>to converse within the dictates of normal civilized discourse and >>netiquette is you. > >Not true. I am an easy person to get along with, and I will converse with >just about anyone. > >>You spill stupid discussions from other groups into the ROC group. > >Please define what you mean by "stupid". Not everyone agrees with you, BTW, >judging from private mail. > >>You bash libertarians > >Some of them deserve it, IMO. Anyway, am I not entitled to my opinion? > >BTW, you are bashing me right now - but, oh, I forgot - you are a >Libertarian, and you have a special dispensation. I keep forgetting. > >>and imply they are not worthy of your acquaintance nor > >I never said that because it is not true. I take pains to make sure it is >clear that I am only getting on the case of a few obnoxious Libertarians. I >thought I made that clear the other day with a post on that topic - but >apparently you did not read it. > >This, as I have learned being around Libertarians, is a typical stunt - >putting words into someone else's mouth. And I suppose that in pointing this >out, I am being obnoxious. > >>are they serious about freedom, > >I am beginning to wonder what the Libertarian definition of freedom really >is. It's beginning to sound like garden-variety Anarchy to me. But I am >willing to listen, as long as it is presented in a civilized manner. (That >may be oxymoronic, for Libertarians. :-) > >>you post stupid conspiratorial messages about the internet and many other >>things that are stupid. > >There you go again, calling me names. Do you seriously characterize this >diatribe right here on your part as civilized discourse? > >>You call people who are in the business of working for liberty "agent >>provacateurs". > >The favorite label right now on these lists is "agent provaceteur". Whenever >someone doesn't want to engage in a rational discussion, they label the >other person an AP. > >But the shoe fits differently on the other foot, doesn't it, when I start >slinging that label around? > >>You say stuff is a "crock" when it is perfectly reasonable. (A Chicago >>company having servers in Reno and a subscriber in Texas is not a "crock" >-- >it is perfectly reasonable. > >But the so-called "republic-of-texas" list *is* a crock. Go ahead, find out >for yourself. Just don't say I didn't warn you when you find out. > >>Have you checked out nra.org recently? Try a >>whois one of these days. See where their "Administrative Contact, >>Technical Contact, Zone Contact" is at? What the h*ll they doin' in NH? I >>thought the NRA was in Virginia? [I know the answer, folks, I am >>illustrating a point]) > >NRA bashing has become High Sport in Libertarian circles lately. Joe was the >most recent example. > >>To another post of yours: You bring up stupid inane comments about being >>afraid to fly (concerning Bubba and co). That was stupid. > >Well, excuuuuuse me! I guess next time I should consult with a Libertarian >first before posting anything. How's that for freedom of expression. > >>Bubba and Company's whole goal is to have a homey down to earth back to the >>people campaign. Airplanes don't cut it for that but busses do. > >No more "stupid" than most of the postings of the so-called "conspirational >crowd" on the net, some of which makes it onto ROC. You don't bitch when it >happens then. > >>Bob. Sometimes you post interesting stuff to ROC. > >There are a lot of people who think my postings are pure nonsense, like the >RKBA Sikh spoof. Lurking Liberals, Rednecks and Libertarians don't seem to >appreciate my style. That leaves most of the rest of the human race, so I >really don't worry about it. > >>But you are so steeped in conspiracy and fear that you see the boogie >>monster behind every friggin' rock > >Just because I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy, like Browne has a chance >to be the next president, I suppose that makes me conspirational, stupid, >obnoxious, etc. > >>and think everyone who does not exactly believe as you do is your enemy. > >I do not believe any such thing. You sound like you are indicting fellow >Libertarians with that statement > >Bob Knauer > >-- > >************************************************** > A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing > Corporation World Wide Web Publishing > > http://www.aimtec.com/ >************************************************** > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 20 Sep 1996 10:19:36 -0600 (sorry for the cross posting folks -- just sending this everywhere it went as far as I can tell) > From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" , on 9/20/96 9:02 AM: > Direct from the man's mouth: > >> As Harry puts it: "I will debate with anyone in any venue where the >> media will cover it. We are not trying to get 51% of the vote [this >> time]. We are trying to communciate with the millions of Americans who >> have no interest in any of the major candidates and may not vote >> because no one matches their desires for smaller government." > > ----- > > I think the Libertatian Party Faithful have a bit of explaining to do to > those of us who have maintained that Browne couldn't win all along. > > Each time we would point that out, we were covered by a barrage of diatribes > from the LPers on these various lists. Now the Head Honcho himself speaks > the truth. > > Are you LPers going to flame him, too? > > Bob Knauer > Bob You are so full of cr*p I cannot believe it. I don't know ANY "LP faithful" who has truly claimed Browne can actually win. You go around "baiting" people and putting words in their mouths and then complaining about those words you put in their mouths. Browne is my man. I fully realize (and always have) that the chance that he would win this year is about 0. That does not mean that I don't vote for him. I also fully realize that for Browne (or other future LP presidential candidates) to win in a future election, he needs my (and yours and everyone elses) vote this year. And every other LP candidate (with the exception this year of the tactical move to keep Repubs in Congress as a counter weight to Klinton) needs your vote this year. It is called: Momentum. Sending a message. Voting for principle. Voting for Freedom. I don't want to vote for "the winner." That is not my goal. My goal is to vote for a winner. Dole and Cliton are losers. If you want to vote for "the winner" Bob, I suggest you vote for Clinton. Voting for Dole will most likely put you in the loser's camp and you would have wasted your vote on a loser. At least the Browne supporters will be able to say that they sent a message and helped real freedom and liberty forward a step. The "lesser of two evils" strategy is what has put us in this mess. It is time to change the rules. The Republican Party (and the Democratic Party) have no principles except one -- get elected. Our country has suffered because of this. I do assign more blame to the Democratic Party for the mess our country is in but both parties are guilty. I used to be a Republican until I learned how they screw us and the country. With Brady-Bill Bob (Dole) leading the pack. Bob -- grow up. Stop putting words in peoples mouths and then complaining about them. Stop putting up strawmen for people to bash the LP. If you want to discuss libertarian principles or the LP specifically we can. But only if you want to. best regards Chad ps: I will respond to the post "Libertarians" posted on 9/19/96 to the ROC list when I have a chance to do it justice. I am busy at my day job and evenings trying to get ready for this weekends SLC gun show where I have a table. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: "Reaching Out" Date: 20 Sep 1996 09:19:01 -0700 (PDT) On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: snip > >and imply they are not worthy of your acquaintance nor > > I never said that because it is not true. I take pains to make sure it is > clear that I am only getting on the case of a few obnoxious Libertarians. I > thought I made that clear the other day with a post on that topic - but > apparently you did not read it. > > This, as I have learned being around Libertarians, is a typical stunt - > putting words into someone else's mouth. And I suppose that in pointing this > out, I am being obnoxious. Hmm, he was talking about what you implied. Rather then assume that he meant to put words in your mouth why not assume that he misread what you meant to imply. btw are you implying that -all- Libertarians put words in peoples mouths or just some? > >are they serious about freedom, > > I am beginning to wonder what the Libertarian definition of freedom really > is. It's beginning to sound like garden-variety Anarchy to me. But I am > willing to listen, as long as it is presented in a civilized manner. (That > may be oxymoronic, for Libertarians. :-) Good use of qualification, glad to see it. However, if you want to know what Libertarian policy is I submit that the internet is the worst place to hang out. Try 1 800 682 1776 instead. > >you post stupid conspiratorial messages about the internet and many other > >things that are stupid. > > There you go again, calling me names. Do you seriously characterize this > diatribe right here on your part as civilized discourse? No, he did not call you a name. He said the post you sent was stupid and thats entirely different. I'm not stupid partly because I know I occaisionally send stupid posts. And, sorry if you take it personally (you should not) but suggesting that unreliability in the internet is strange does sort of indicate a lack of understanding of just how IP works. > >You call people who are in the business of working for liberty "agent > >provacateurs". > > The favorite label right now on these lists is "agent provaceteur". Whenever > someone doesn't want to engage in a rational discussion, they label the > other person an AP. Does that seem usefull? It doesnt to me. I usually just assume that someone on the internet who isnt listening either has poor listening skills (in which case "labeling" won't change their problem) or is simpply having a bad hair day (in which case the best answer is a calm 24 hours). > But the shoe fits differently on the other foot, doesn't it, when I start > slinging that label around? Hmm, it sounds like you agree with me that it's a poor tactic. Generally it's best not to engage in poor tactics. It doesnt impress people who regularly do it (they probably wouldnt notice) and it should be beneath you. Two slung arrows does not a teepee make. snip > >Bob. Sometimes you post interesting stuff to ROC. > > There are a lot of people who think my postings are pure nonsense, like the > RKBA Sikh spoof. Lurking Liberals, Rednecks and Libertarians don't seem to > appreciate my style. That leaves most of the rest of the human race, so I > really don't worry about it. This is an interesting reply to his compliment. If I were billing, I'd ask why you felt it necessary to lash out at him when he was being positive about you. Instead I'll point out that Chad is a Libertarian and he just expressed an appreciation of some of your postings. There's a contradiction here. (Mutual "I know I am but what are you" Fest snipped. > Bob Knauer Things are getting a little bit to personal in roc-land these days. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 20 Sep 1996 11:26:05 -0500 >> Direct from the man's mouth: >> >> As Harry puts it: "I will debate with anyone in any venue where the >> media will cover it. We are not trying to get 51% of the vote [this >> time]. We are trying to communciate with the millions of Americans who >> have no interest in any of the major candidates and may not vote >> because no one matches their desires for smaller government." >In a four-way race, Browne could win with as little as 26% of the votes >cast. >Most of the electorate stayed home in 1992, making "none of the aove" the >clear winner over Perot, Clinton, or Dole. In the second sentence quoted >above, Harry Browne implies that the disenfranchised portion of the >electorate could be motivated by his message to go to the polls and cast a >vote for someone who, like themselves, sees government as essentially flawed >and finds no remedy in the tired rhetoric of the single party that has >traditionally governed. ----- I must hand it to you Libertarians - you have perfected the art of rationalization beyond that of any other political group I have ever seen - even better than garden-variety Liberals, who pale by comparison. To construe Browne's statement above to mean that he still thinks he can win the presidency is one of the best convolutions of logic I have seen in many a moon. Keep up the good work! As I have said more than once, if pigs had wings I'd have pork chops on the table tonight. Maybe if I invited a Libertarian to supper sometime, we could go out in the back yard with my 12 ga. and shoot our pork supper right out of the air! Now don't get all upset and accuse me of Lib-bashing. I am just doing to you what you do to me all the time. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 20 Sep 1996 09:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Okay, everybody who thinks Bob and Chad need a time out to explore how they've let small irritation blossom into annoying personal attacks on line raise your hand. ... Thank you. Okay, I think it's perfectly clear that the consensus is we all need to be a little less personal and a little more calm. Please take whatever steps you all need to take to make that happen. Boyd (by the authority vested in this mouse pad) Kneeland ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: "Reaching Out" Date: 20 Sep 1996 11:41:41 -0500 >Hmm, he was talking about what you implied. Rather than assume that he >meant to put words in your mouth why not assume that he misread what you >meant to imply. btw are you implying that -all- Libertarians put words in >peoples mouths or just some? No. Just some. I have made that very clear in several of my posts on this subject. >Good use of qualification, glad to see it. However, if you want to know >what Libertarian policy is I submit that the internet is the worst place >to hang out. Try 1 800 682 1776 instead. Interesting statement - maybe that's why I have formed a negative opinion. BTW, I tried the 800 number, twice - and they still did not send me anything. Then I learned they were having problems. Oh, well. >No, he did not call you a name. He said the post you sent was stupid and >that's entirely different. I'm not stupid partly because I know I >occasionally send stupid posts. And, sorry if you take it personally >(you should not) but suggesting that unreliability in the internet is >strange does sort of indicate a lack of understanding of just how IP works. OK. But let's see if the shoe fits on the other foot. >Does that seem useful? It doesn't to me. I usually just assume that >someone on the internet who isn't listening either has poor listening >skills (in which case "labeling" won't change their problem) or is simply >having a bad hair day (in which case the best answer is a calm 24 hours). Every day is a bad hair day for some of these Flame Twits. >Hmm, it sounds like you agree with me that it's a poor tactic. Generally >it's best not to engage in poor tactics. It doesn't impress people who >regularly do it (they probably wouldn't notice) and it should be beneath >you. Two slung arrows does not a teepee make. True. But after a while someone needs to point out what's going on - and the best way is to fight fire with fire. >> >Bob. Sometimes you post interesting stuff to ROC. >> There are a lot of people who think my postings are pure nonsense, like >>the RKBA Sikh spoof. Lurking Liberals, Rednecks and Libertarians don't >>seem to appreciate my style. That leaves most of the rest of the human >>race, so I really don't worry about it. >This is an interesting reply to his compliment. If I were billing, I'd >ask why you felt it necessary to lash out at him when he was being >positive about you. Instead I'll point out that Chad is a Libertarian and >he just expressed an appreciation of some of your postings. There's a >contradiction here. Whatever. Can't please everybody - and I do not try. >Things are getting a little bit too personal in roc-land these days. Not any more than on occasions paston ROC. But this is a personal topic, especially when you are sincere in wanting to get to the truth, and all you get is stupid flames back for your effort. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 20 Sep 1996 11:52:15 -0500 >Okay, everybody who thinks Bob and Chad need a time out to explore how >they've let small irritation blossom into annoying personal attacks on >line raise your hand. >... >Thank you. >Okay, I think it's perfectly clear that the consensus is we all need to >be a little less personal and a little more calm. Please take whatever >steps you all need to take to make that happen. >Boyd (by the authority vested in this mouse pad) Kneeland ----- I have no problem with that. But I want the record to show that I did not call Chad's posts "stupid", as he did mine, and I did not make any direct personal statements about him, by name or by implication, as he did me. He has had essentially nothing nice to say about me, even though most of you know that my intentions are good in this regard, unless you want to include that condescending statement that "some" of my posts are OK. I save direct personal statements for the PMS Flame Twits, and I have never regarded Chad to be one of them. Actually I am a bit surprised that this thread generated the kind of response it did from him. The responsibility is for you Libertarians to weed out the real trouble causers in your own Libertarian ranks. All that I and others have been trying to tell you (but you won't listen, it seems) is that each time some idiot hides behind the Libertarian movement to spray people with flames, it hurts your cause, not ours. But apparently it is Libertarian tradition to flame the messenger. Some thanks I get for trying to point this important problem out to you. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 20 Sep 1996 11:20:04 -0600 >>Okay, everybody who thinks Bob and Chad need a time out to explore how >>they've let small irritation blossom into annoying personal attacks on >>line raise your hand. >>... >>Thank you. >>Okay, I think it's perfectly clear that the consensus is we all need to >>be a little less personal and a little more calm. Please take whatever >>steps you all need to take to make that happen. >>Boyd (by the authority vested in this mouse pad) Kneeland > >----- > >I have no problem with that. But I want the record to show that I did not >call Chad's posts "stupid", as he did mine, and I did not make any direct >personal statements about him, by name or by implication, as he did me. He >has had essentially nothing nice to say about me, even though most of you >know that my intentions are good in this regard, unless you want to include >that condescending statement that "some" of my posts are OK. > May I point out that it was a Mr. Bob Knauer that started posting to ROC flames and messages about Libertarians of the sort called "Why we should hate Libertarians" and that sort of stuff and came across very condescending in all his posts about that. Many of these posts were actually from other lists that were redirected to ROC for some unknown reason. He came out and said that libertarians were basically worthless (sorry, I didn't keep the posts so I can't quote him). The accusations were laughable but I ignored them but they didn't die. Finally I replied. The condescending nature of almost all of Bob's posts concerning libertarians and Libertarians and also his replies to my eventual responses to him is pitiful. But if the shoe fits. (I also seem to remember another mailing list that Mr. Knauer was ejected from -- his abusive postings seem to not be limited to ROC). I only called Mr. Knauers post stupid after his (at the time) latest condescending and abusive post on Libertarians and about me in general. I thought it was stupid when I got it but had no desire to say anything public about it. I just ignored it. Half the ROC postings seem to come from him and often they are paranoid posts that are laughable. Some are interesting and useful and very welcome. Too bad we get bombarded with both. The goal is to restore a measure of freedom and liberty in our country. ROC is supposed to allow us to trade ideas and hints and techniques on how to organize and be active. It is not to forward paranoid delusions to (like wondering if Bubba is afraid to fly) nor is to flame people (why we should hate them) with whom you have disagreements even though they are your best hope at achieving your goal (unless your goal is to slowly lose whatever freedom you now enjoy). And an arrogant and condescending attitude is the last thing that ROC needs. Back to the Libertarian issue: I can't disagree that there are probably a few obnoxious Libertarian people out there. The same way that there are a few obnoxious Republicans (and lots of obnoxious Democrats :-). But publically accusing Libertarians as being obnoxious and not worthy and the enemy and all that is counter productive, obnoxious in and of itself, and down right stupid and btw. false. (But remember: When you shoot at someone, expect to be shot back at) best regards Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: approved: Non-member submission from [freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)] - Date: 20 Sep 1996 12:02:12 -0600 >Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:46:38 -0400 >X-Sender: freematt@bronze.coil.com >Message-Id: >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >To: liberty-and-justice@pobox.com, roc@xmission.com, act@efn.org, > snetnews@alterzone.com, hammernet-l@teleport.com, > "R. Knauer-AIMNET" >From: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) >Subject: Libertarianism: The Path to Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom > >Libertarianism > >The Path to Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom > > By Jarret Wollstein > > (Revised Apr 94) > > ISIL EDUCATIONAL PAMPHLET SERIES > > > >Would you like to live in a society of peace, prosperity and freedom? Would >you like to earn a lot more money than your parents, be free to do whatever >you want that doesn't harm others, and see the threats of violence and war >largely disappear? Would you like to live in an age of artistic freedom and >rapid scientific progress in which anything seems possible? > >Such a world is not only possible, it is a part of our history. For nearly >fifty years, between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the beginning of >World War I in 1914, the United States was the freest, most prosperous >society on earth. Living standards rose nearly 5% a year. The average >American's income was six times higher at the end of the period than at the >beginning. > >There was little restriction upon personal, economic and artistic freedom. >There was no income tax, no military draft, little government regulation of >business, and no prohibition of drugs. > >Independent schools and private charities made education available for all, >and helped those in need. And, except for the brief Spanish-American War, >the nation enjoyed the longest period without foreign wars in our history. >Nearly anything seemed possible. Illiterate immigrants who started with a >pushcart became millionaires through hard work. > > > > Living standards are falling and violence has become epidemic > >America of the 1990s is far removed from the America of the 1890s, both in >time and in spirit. Today's social landscape is one of deterioration, >violence and mounting fear. > >Living standards are falling, and each year's college graduating class >finds fewer and fewer jobs as high taxes and regulations devastate our >economy. Few young adults can now afford to buy their own homes, save for >their childrens' education, or build security for their retirement. > >Violence has become epidemic. Murder is now the leading cause of death >among young black men. One in four college women report they were the >victim of rape or attempted rape. And nearly 25% of all American families >are now victimized by theft or vandalism every year. > >The threat of superpower warfare has declined. But weapons of mass >destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- continue to spread to >the world's most repressive regimes, many of which have been supported by >U.S. military and economic aid. > > > > Liberty is required for any peaceful and prosperous society > >What has changed in America in the last 80 years? Why has this nation >changed from one of the most prosperous and progressive on earth to one of >increasing deterioration and violence? "The cause dear friend, lies not in >the stars, but in ourselves." America is declining because American's have >largely abandoned our libertarian heritage. > >Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and America's other founders understood >the values required for a free, peaceful and prosperous society: individual >liberty, economic freedom, and limited government. > >Liberty means the freedom to control your own life, to work and play as you >choose, to keep what you earn, to practice the religion of your choice, to >speak freely, and to associate voluntarily with others. > >Liberty can flourish only in an environment of tolerance, voluntary >association, and mutual respect for the lives and property of others. You >can have liberty for yourself only if you grant it freely to everyone else. > >The genius of America was that our government was created as a protector of >our fundamental human rights. America's founders well understood that >government's immense power can be used to destroy as well as to protect; >that when government uses force against its own peaceful citizens, it >becomes just another criminal gang. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights >were designed to protect us from government. > >Our libertarian ideal, that government exists to protect our rights, was >never fully realized. Our legislatures, police and military have frequently >crossed the line from defenders of our liberty to violators of it. But the >previously slow erosion of our rights has recently become a raging torrent, >and our heritage of liberty is being obliterated. > > > > The government now takes 70% of your income. > >If you're typical, you now spend six months a year working to earn enough >just to pay your taxes. And that's only the beginning. > >According to Dr. James Payne's study "Costly Returns: The burdens of the US >tax system," for every dollar that the IRS collects in taxes, we pay an >additional 65 cents in compliance costs -- tax accountants, attorneys, tax >software, etc. > >When you add the 35% of your income you pay directly in taxes, 22% you pay >indirectly in compliance costs, and another 13% you lose as a result of >economic regulations, over 70% of your income is now taken from you by the >government. > > > > Our Economy is being destroyed by stifiling regulation > >In the state of California, it takes 80 government licenses to open a small >business. In Washington, D.C. it costs $7,000 in fees to operate a >pushcart. In New York City, a "medallion" to operate a taxicab costs over >$150,000. > >In Hawaii, a homeless man who tried to earn a little cash by taking >pictures of tourists with his pet parrot, was arrested and his parrot >confiscated because he didn't have a business license. > >Over 50,000 pages of new regulations are now published in the Federal >Register every year. That's in addition to state and local regulations. > >Goods and services that could improve your life are being banned, >confiscated, and regulated out of existence. > > > > Everything you own can now be confiscated by police without trial > >You no longer have a right to your own property. Over 200 federal and >thousands of state civil-asset forfeiture laws authorize police to >confiscate everything you own without trial or even without charging you >with a crime. > >In Volusia County, Florida, police regularly stop motorists and ask "How >much cash are you carrying?" If the answer is more than a few hundred >dollars, they routinely seize it, along with your car, if it's an expensive >one. In the last four years, these legal "highway robberies" have brought >in over $8 million for Volusia County. > > In Washington, D.C., police confiscated the home of Helen Hoyle -- a >69-year-old grandmother. Police claimed an anonymous informant told them >Helen's grandson sold unidentified illegal drugs to an unidentified buyer >from her front porch two years earlier. > >Cars, homes, businesses, pocket cash, bank accounts, and pensions are now >confiscated from over 5,000 innocent Americans like you every week. >According to a Pittsburgh Press study, in 80% of the cases no one is ever >charged with a crime. > >Even if you are totally innocent of any crime, there is little chance you >will ever get your confiscated property back. Under civil-forfeiture laws >you are presumed guilty, and you must prove your innocence and pay $5,000 - >$100,000+ legal expenses out of your own pocket -- after your home, bank >accounts or business have been seized. > > > > Police can now beat or kill you with virtual impunity > >According to 60 Minutes, Oakland Housing Authority Police routinely rob >public housing residents, plant drugs on them, beat them, and then arrest >them. In Oakland, on an average night, 42 people are admitted to hospital >emergency rooms after police beatings. But they're lucky. > >In California, "Multimillionaire rancher Donald Scott, 61, was shot to >death when 26 DEA agents, LA County sheriffs deputies and National Park >Service officers raided his 200-acre Malibu spread looking for marijuana >they never found. > >"Annie Rae Dixon, 84, bedridden with pneumonia in Tyler, Texas, [was] shot >to death by police in a 2 a.m. raid last January. An officer said his >pistol accidently went off when he kicked down her bedroom door. No drugs >were found." (Both quotes from USA Today, 1-11-93). > >There are now dozens of such deadly police "mistakes" every week. If an >anonymous informant claims without proof that you have illegal drugs or >firearms in your possession, that now gives police a virtual license to >kill you and your family. > > > > To restore prosperity, freedom and peace to America, we must > restore our libertarian heritage > >We must return to the principles of tolerance and respect for the rights of >others. Activities that are crimes for individuals -- theft, assault, >kidnapping, intimidation and murder -- must be crimes for government agents >as well. > >The crushing burden of confiscatory taxes and suffocating regulations must >be lifted from our economy. > >As the revolutions that swept Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union >demonstrated, even authoritarian governments require the consent of the >governed. > >America can again be a land of liberty and unlimited opportunity. This is >what America once was and can be again. Millions of American libertarians >invite you to join us to restore our liberty. > >To learn more about how libertarians can create a world of peace, >prosperity and >freedom, we recommend reading ... > > HEALING OUR WORLD > > by Dr. Mary Ruwart > > In Healing Our World you'll learn how by trying to control others by >force, we end up enslaving ourselves. In Healing Our World you'll also >learn why wealth is unlimited in a free society . . . how legal aggression >(particularly government aggression) destroys jobs and businesses . . . how >laws designed to protect our health kill hundreds of thousands every year . >. . how the free market and strict liability solve environmental problems . >. . how we can end poverty . . . and how we can defend ourselves from >criminals and foreign aggressors without >taxation or harming innocent civilians. > > This book shatters many myths about the benevolence and necessity of >government power. It shows us how we can change the world by changing the >way we treat others, and provides a compelling vision of a free and >peaceful world. > > Healing Our World is available through ISIL for just $14.95 plus $2.50 >shipping & handling. VISA & MasterCard payments accepted. > > Dr. Mary Ruwart is a nationally-renowned AIDS researcher, former Libertarian > Party candidate, and ISIL Director. > > >The International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) is an association >of men and women in over 80 countries promoting individual liberty, >prosperity and peace. An ISIL membership includes our international >newsletter, 27+ issue papers, book/tape catalog, world directory and more >for only $35/yr. > >For a full ISIL information pack with sample newsletter, book catalog and >literature, send $2.00 to cover postage & handling. > > INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY > 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102 USA > Tel: (415) 864-0952 Fax: (415) 864-7506 > > > > > >**************************************************************************** >Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues >Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA >on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) >Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 >**************************************************************************** > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 20 Sep 1996 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT) On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Chad Leigh wrote: snip > >>Okay, I think it's perfectly clear that the consensus is we all need to > >>be a little less personal and a little more calm. Please take whatever > >>steps you all need to take to make that happen. > >>Boyd (by the authority vested in this mouse pad) Kneeland Bob replied in part: > >I have no problem with that. But I want the record to show that I did not snip (and in fact, he did not "snip") Then Chad retorted: > May I point out... snip No, but thanks for asking ; ) Also (for Bob) there is no "record". Life is not a test, you will not have your grades curved and there is no "record" just a couple guys tossing personal insults back and forth that could just as easily be done in email (or skipped). Somebody send me the control address for the roc listserv please Boyd Kneeland (who's mouse pad is obviously vested with only enough authority to save himself). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: News from Ewa Beach] (fwd)] Date: 20 Sep 1996 14:26:49 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------55523C522D69 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This report from Orson Swindle in HI. --------------55523C522D69 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from sys1.dps.net (ether1-dps.vision1.net) by ICSI.Net (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA17475; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:00:50 -0500 Received: from s6.dps.net (s6.dps.net [206.154.203.17]) by sys1.dps.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA15897; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:58:05 -1000 Message-Id: <199609201858.IAA15897@sys1.dps.net> X-Sender: orson@dps.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hey Jim and Dave: Many thanks for the help. Dave Creek did trojan work on the VFW -- nothing should be that hard. A quick update: Some of the endorsements and PAC support that have come my way: VFW NRA and local HRA Vietnam Veterans Small Business Hawaii US Chamber of Commerce Business and Industry PAC Nat'l Federation of Independent Business (600,000 members) Nat'l Auto Dealers Association Nat'l Beer Wholesalers Association (hoo ahhh!) SHOPO -- the local police officers union -- a major coup -- unions, especially public employee unions, are the heart of the Dem machine in Hawaii. Polling results from mid Sept polls in both papers show us gaining significantly and headlined it last week. I am capturing all the changing "undecideds". Abercrombie now under 50% on re-elects, he leads me in "favorables" by only 40 to 37% and his "unfavorables" are 37% while mine only 27%. I picked up 12% points on him since July and papers headlined "Swindle narrows gap on Abercrombie" on front page. I figure we're less than 10 points behind now --- and all of this without running campaign commercials. My commercials began just as one poll ended and the other was being done. The commercials -- a bio piece saying Orson is a nice guy (you all know that, of course!) and then a full page ad and corresponding TV version entitled "10 Reasons to Fire Neil Abercrombie" -- all about his voting record on business, taxes, welfare reform, balancing the budget, term limits, US troops under UN command. A resounding success and should boost us greatly in polls. We've learned Abercrombie has just bought 250,000 in TV. We expect him to assault me personally and misconstrue facts -- it will be Dem machine Hawaii at its worst. It's gonna be painful for me, I'm sure. I am outraising him in money from individuals (over 90% of my donations come from individuals, over 2/3rds from here in Hawaii, and about 80% coming from checks less than 100 bucks. On the other hand, Abercrombie gets 65% of his from PACs -- mostly unions, trial attornies and liberal special interest groups. I've raise more from individuals but he is beating me by 10 to 15 times in the PAC arena. He's a big government Washington DC candidate. I need your help! Get on board. Now or never! GBU and Semper Fi, guys. Thanks so very much. Orson >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii >Content-ID: > > >For Your Information > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:03:43 -0600 >From: Howlin' Blue >Reply-To: loboazul@bluewolf.com >To: noban@mainstream.net >Cc: skipl@pacifier.com, dcreek@pixi.com >Subject: [Fwd: News from Ewa Beach] > >While most of us angels have been dancing on the heads of pins, NOBAN >stalwart Dave Creek in Bumduck on the Beach, Hi-with-ya has been taking >care of business. > >This is in re the Orson Swindle/Neil Abercrombie race. Orson is one of >the really good guys. Neil ain't. Some of you have been asking where >to send or direct campaign $. Orson is a good place to start. If you >need an address email dave at dcreek@pixi.com >Return-Path: >Received: from mail.pixi.com (phoenix.pixi.com) by ICSI.Net (5.x/SMI-SVR4) > id AA11181; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 03:46:03 -0500 >Received: from angurus25.pixi.com (angurus25.pixi.com [204.188.89.41]) by mail.pixi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3/PIXI-5.0) with SMTP id WAA18990 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:43:26 -1000 (HST) >Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 22:41:24 -1000 (HST) >From: Dave Creek >To: "Howlin' Blue" >Subject: News from Ewa Beach >Message-Id: >X-X-Sender: dcreek@imap-server.pixi.com >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >Well, I've done my small part. Orson Swindle got the endorsement from the >Veterans of Foriegn Wars PAC. I started this in '94 when there was an >endorsement of "none" in Hawaii for the '94 election. It's hard to get an >endorsement out here in this democratic stronghold, but Slick Willie and >or UpStateNewYorkDamnYankeeCarpetbagger Neal Abercrombie have the troops >so pissed off that it was doable. >I wasn't able to do anything about Patsy "pink" Mink since she has a >democratic opponent in the primary and that vote is on 21 September. >(I don't understand why the primary is so late). She is our lesser of the >two evils and is a local girl, more in tune with the folks out here. >You might send this on to Richard and Skip if the're still interested. >I've seen posts from Richard, but Skip doesn't seem to be around much. >Now to get Orson elected in the general. Onward and Upward. > >Dave Creek, NH6BA >Ewa Beach, HI >dcreek@pixi.com > > ========================================================================== * HELP ORSON DEFEAT ANOTHER INCUMBENT, LIBERAL DEMOCRAT WHO LOVES BIG GOVERNMENT AND SPENDING YOUR MONEY ON THE WELFARE STATE.* MSC 119 Orson Swindle Orson Swindle for Congress 733 Bishop Street, Ste 170 Honolulu, HI 96813-9383 (808) 523 8683/8678 ** HQ Email: orson96@dps.net Home Page: http://dps.net/~orson96/orson96.html --------------55523C522D69-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: Act(s) of Admission Date: 20 Sep 1996 15:19:20 -0500 NB: This will be my last comment on this subject. I have done my duty to expose a scam mailing list. If people want to believe this bogus mail list, the so-called , is representative of the RT movement, then don't blame me when they find out differently. >>As related below, that's not the way it came down - and he knows perfectly >>well what is going on, too. He's just playing dumb because he does not want >>anyone to know the truth, including you. He knows quite well who I am >>because we exchanged correspondence once. >Ok. I remember now. I was confused since when he was on the list (and being >very disruptive) That old canard is so stale it isn't even worth commenting on, just like the ever-stale "agent provaceteur". By definition, anyone who disagrees with a Mailing List Tyrant will automatically be branded as "disruptive", regardless of what actually transpired. Notice that he won't tell you how he actually conducted himself on the list, because if the truth were known, noboby in their right mind would subscribe. Just don't be all that shocked when get caught on a list full of Anarchists, with a Tyrant for "list owner". >he used the screen name 'Ricky' and not 'Bob Knauer'. He still can't get it right. I always post my full name in the header, as: R. Knauer-AIMNET No "Ricky" whatsoever. But that's just part of his condescending attitude. >>And the part about distributed Net services has to be the biggest crock to >>come along since newbies were allowed to join AOL. > >You mean you don't believe that net services are distributed? You mean El Paso doesn't have at least one ISP with a list server. That alone should tell you something is very wrong. >>But I have no reason to argue this any further. I have my well-formed >>opinions based on the facts, and you are free to formulate yours from the >>same direct experience as I did if you want to. > >Translation: I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with facts. :-) Duh. >>Just do not expect me to sit idly by when people post purported gospel from >>this bogus site, because I happen to believe it does the real RT movement >>great harm. > >Can you tell us what the 'real RT movement' is and where we can find info >about it? It sure isn't . --- There is a underground connecting various list owners - and they share mutual likes and dislikes all the time. I say this because this guy's comments sound very much like the comments I have heard before on other Redneck Lists. Coincidence? Not likely. I did my duty to warn those who don't like bogus lists. So for me, enough said. Caveat emptor! Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Hitler & klintoon Date: 20 Sep 1996 15:25:55 -0500 Something from the past I found while cleaning my disk: Bob Knauer ----- > Similarities between Clinton and Hitler: > ** Came from peasant stock. > > ** Father died while son was still young. > > ** Basic political ideas formed among lower middle class. > > ** Wrote exposition of his political ideas and a clarion > call for future political action (Clinton's letter to ROTC). > > ** Rebelled against the government in his younger life. > > ** Proclaimed to bring about change by legal means. > > ** The political campaign became overnight almost the > strongest force. (Who knew Clinton before 1992?) > > ** He raised his oratory against Democracy, and foreign > powers. > > ** Both by mass propaganda and stealthly political devices > he outmaneuvered his democratic and conservative opponents. > > ** Created nationalistic youth organization. > > ** A panic was produced (by Nazi-made Reichstag fire). > > ** He would use every means of violence and fraud to make > himself ruler. > > ** Once he conquered domestic politics, he went on to > conquer abroad. > > ** Forced massive gun control legislation on citizenry +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 20 Sep 1996 15:59:01 -0500 >I'm not a Libertarian, although I plan on voting for Harry Browne. I don't suppose you would reconsider in light of the overwhelming evidence that you will actually be voting to re-elect klintoon? >It's a valid inference to be drawn from the quote. Your assertion that >Browne said he couldn't win requires a far greater stretch and lacks any >foundation in the actual quote. Then why did Browne chose the term "51%", if not to signify winning? >Maybe you should stop saying that, as it is a meaningless homile. Adding >wings to a pig would not increase (and in fact might lessen) your chances at >a pork dinner. Flightless pigs are far easier to capture and kill. Agreed - it's getting a bit hackneyed, isn't it? Now, about flying pigs, I would think them to be easy to shoot down, low altitude creatures that they are. >You should start saying "If my Grandmother had wheels, she would be a >trolley car." This is a much more colorful and apt way of conveying your >disdain for an opponent's arguement. I may just do that. Thanks. And when people get tired of hearing that one, I'll tell them to fuss at you. :-) >Why would I get upset at anything you said? Just a pre-emptive comment on my part - a survival strategy evoked from being around Libertarians so long :-). >You are nothing to me. And you are nothing to me. >Most ofyour posts (apart from the information you forward, which I always >appreciate and find interesting) consist of Limbaugh-like posturing and name >calling, which affect me not at all. I have to take that as high compliment. Thanks again. >I don't recall having ever addressed you before. HaveI?? I wouldn't know - after all, you are nothing to me, like I am nothing to you. >I also have nothing against Republicans, having been one myself for most of >my life. If the Republican party hadn't been co-opted by special interests >and religous fanatics, there would be no need for a Libertarian party. Did you just discover that Republicans were guilty of these sins? I have always believed them to be politicians. After all, they are the Party of Lincoln. >Republicans would BE Libertarians. Something similar could be said for the >Democrats, but I'll leave it to an ex-Democrat to say it. ??? Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wootan@dmi.net Subject: RE: Act(s) of Admission Date: 20 Sep 1996 14:05:19 -0700 >By definition, anyone who disagrees with a >Mailing List Tyrant will automatically be branded as "disruptive", >regardless of what actually transpired. Happily, I have been traveling again, and have missed this entire episode. I came back to find more mail than I could read so did a wholesale delete of all non-business related mail. (A frequent necessity anymore.) The next time I read in my mail, I found the above comment by Bob Knauer. Although, I have no opinion on all that preceeded this post, I must say, RIGHT ON BOB. I don't even know who you are refering to this time, but I do know that disagreeing with a little Ceasar of a list can be detrimental to your list membership. Even when they later admit to others that you had a good point, and were right, you will NOT be seen as anything but disruptive to that petty tyrant. No reflection to the ROC owner intended or implied. Jerry Wootan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Privacy is a Fundamental Right Date: 19 Sep 1996 15:05:21 -0700 Congress has found that privacy is a fundamental Right. See "fundamental" in Black's Law Dictionary. This means that it is unalienable. See 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq. /s/ Paul Mitchell ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: RevCOAL Subject: Re: L&J: WSJ: New Lexis Database of Names Sparks Outcry on Privacy Date: 20 Sep 1996 18:56:04 -0400 (EDT) On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > Just try getting on their web site - impossible right now. They now have an email address -- send your full name and snail address to: p-trak@prod.lexis-nexis.com, and ask that they remove you. You'll get a form letter acknowledging receipt of your request, plus a lot of whining that they didn't give out anything but names and addresses... ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 20 Sep 1996 16:01:20 -0700 (PDT) On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop wrote: > Hi Skip > > I don't vote to try to anticipate the winner and then cast my vote so I can > say I voted for the winner. You assume things not in evidence Chad - neither do I. > I try to vote for a real winner. That real winner is Harry Browne this > year. You and I have different concepts of winning. My military background no doubt. Harry Browne may be a great potential president, but my tea leaves don't indicate that he will win any political power in 96, and political power is what this battle is all about. > I will vote for the candidate that best > suits my needs and best matches my thoughts on what is needed for our > country's survival. What can Harry do for you/us without political clout. > I refuse to waste my vote trying to anticipate the > winner or to help my enemy get into office because his opponent is also my > enemy. > Again, no "anticipating the winner" going on at my house. If that were the case, I'd be doing the unthinkable, voting for Clinton. > I am not happy about the D and R choices,- - - Who is? Even the Ds and Rs aren't happy with the D and R choices! > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - and I will accept Clinton for 4 > more years. He scares me less than Dole after reading what Dole wants to > do to "fight the War on Drugs." Dole is directly proposing a Police State. > Clinton has only hinted at it. > You worry about the war on drugs and it's implications/manifestations. I'll worry about a Pres who doesn't know the difference between truth and lies, and one who is setting records at ruling by Executive Order - bypassing constitutional checks and balances. Doesn't that worry you about Clinton just a little. In comparison, the Dole threat is a molehill. > And of course, I admit the need to fight a tactical as well as a strategic > war. I support efforts to keep and expand the R control of Congress as a > counterbalance to Clinton. We agree again. > As John Curtis said earlier today: > In other words: "In Gridlock We Trust". > I want more than that in terms of government reform, and that's where we differ I suppose. I am a ROC-er because RKBA is one of my priorities, but it is not the only one, or even the top one. I want a government in DC that will dismantle the big government socialist state that's been abuilding for 40 years. When it's gone, so will be the inclination and political power to challenge any of our rights, including RKBA. Dole's no favorite of mine, but I suggest that 4 more years of Clinton will produce no progress at best, and a great deal of movement in the wrong direction at worst. Regards, Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 20 Sep 1996 17:37:57 -0600 The great Skip Leuschner said: >On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop wrote: > >> As John Curtis said earlier today: >> In other words: "In Gridlock We Trust". >> >I want more than that in terms of government reform, and that's where we >differ I suppose. I am a ROC-er because RKBA is one of my priorities, >but it is not the only one, or even the top one. I want a government in >DC that will dismantle the big government socialist state that's been >abuilding for 40 years. When it's gone, so will be the inclination and >political power to challenge any of our rights, including RKBA. Dole's >no favorite of mine, but I suggest that 4 more years of Clinton will >produce no progress at best, and a great deal of movement in the wrong >direction at worst. > If I believed that Dole had any of these same goals I would support him. But Dole is no friend to dismantling the Federal Government. He is no government reformer. His past history (voting record etc) shows that. He is more interested in "the compromise." I don't think that Dole and Clinton will be much different in end effect in building or dismantling the big socialist state. re-quoting: >Dole's >no favorite of mine, but I suggest that 4 more years of Clinton will >produce no progress at best, and a great deal of movement in the wrong >direction at worst. I believe that Dole will get us no *real* progress in the right direction you hope for, either. At the most he will throw a few crumbs to the peasants to make them believe he is trying to reform government. I do believe that getting the LP more popular and giving them momentum will mean a lot to our country and effecting those goals you mentioned in the long run. A vote in 96 for Browne will have a big effect in the future, but not so much in 96. A vote for Dole in 96 gives us 4 more years of "same old." best regards Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: L&J: WSJ: New Lexis Database of Names Sparks Outcry on Privacy Date: 20 Sep 1996 16:16:00 PDT roc@xmission.com wrote : >On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: >> Just try getting on their web site - impossible right now. > >They now have an email address -- send your full name and snail address >to: p-trak@prod.lexis-nexis.com, and ask that they remove you. You'll >get a form letter acknowledging receipt of your request, plus a lot of >whining that they didn't give out anything but names and addresses... > >;-) > > A cynic might point out that while they say they will remove a person, I have read nothing that suggests that they will not put him back on. Thus the question is: If Joe Public says take me off of your list, do they search the list and remove the entry for Joe Public or do they also create another list with all the names that they have deleted to prevent them from putting them back the next time someone interrogates the list for Joe Public and when he is not there starting automatic crawler programs that go search the public lists / credit information lists and rebuild the information. There is a world of difference between removing for an few hours and making sure the information is not reconstructed at a later time Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: Act(s) of Admission Date: 20 Sep 1996 19:53:53 -0500 >Happily, I have been traveling again, and have missed this entire episode. >I came back to find more mail than I could read so did a wholesale delete of >all non-business related mail. (A frequent necessity anymore.) The next >time I read in my mail, I found the above comment by Bob Knauer. Although, >I have no opinion on all that preceeded this post, I must say, RIGHT ON BOB. Well, thank you. >I don't even know who you are refering to this time, but I do know that >disagreeing with a little Ceasar of a list can be detrimental to your list >membership. Even when they later admit to others that you had a good point, >and were right, you will NOT be seen as anything but disruptive to that >petty tyrant. No reflection to the ROC owner intended or implied. Yes, how true. >Jerry Wootan Good to see you back. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 20 Sep 1996 19:53:49 -0500 >May I point out that it was a Mr. Bob Knauer that started posting to ROC >flames and messages about Libertarians of the sort called "Why we should >hate Libertarians" That was a reply subject - I *never* used such language in any of my posts. >and that sort of stuff and came across very condescending in all his posts >about that. Condescenion, huh? I guess now I am ready for membership in the Libertarian Party. :-) >Many of these posts were actually from other lists that were redirected to >ROC for some unknown reason. He came out and said that libertarians were >basically worthless sorry, I didn't keep the posts so I can't quote him). I guess I am alone in my accusations. Everyone else but me in the Known Universe is a Libertarian. >The accusations were laughable but I ignored them but they didn't die. And they never will until Libertarians kill off all infidels, like me. >Finally I replied. The condescending nature of almost all of Bob's posts >concerning libertarians and Libertarians and also his replies to my eventual >responses to him is pitiful. There you go again - calling me snotty names. Why are Libertarians so obnoxious? >But if the shoe fits. (I also seem to >remember another mailing list that >Mr. Knauer was ejected from -- his >abusive postings seem to not be limited >to ROC). I have been run off *many* mailing lists, not just one. No loss from my point of view - I look upon it as a Red Badge Of Courage. :-) >I only called Mr. Knauer's post stupid after his (at the time) latest >condescending and abusive post on Libertarians and about me in general. So, you do admit that you did call my posts "stupid". At least you are honest, which I suppose is more than some others I have run into. >I thought it was stupid when I got it but had no desire to say anything >public about it. I just ignored it. Then what changesd your mind? If I called all the posts I see on mailing lists "stupid", I would have no friends at all. You see, I do not consider one patriot's perspective "stupid", even if I do not agree with it. I reserve the word "stupid" for PMS Flame Twits(tm). >Half the ROC postings seem to come from him and often they are paranoid >posts that are laughable. Some are interesting and useful and very welcome. I am glad you have been entertained! >Too bad we get bombarded with both. Poor thing, getting "bombarded" with "stupid" posts from Ole Bob Knauer. You gotta learn to take the bad with the good. I did a long time ago :-) >The goal is to restore a measure of freedom and liberty in our country. >ROC is supposed to allow us to trade ideas and hints and techniques on how >to organize and be active. Just fine, as long as you believe in Libertarian doctrine, that is. But dare to raise the question of the hour: ABC vs. LP, and all hell breaks loose. >It is not to forward paranoid delusions to (like wondering if Bubba is >afraid to fly) You seem so upset about that bit of fluff on my part. Do you run a travel agency on the side? >nor is to flame people (why we should hate them) I answered that above. I did not create that subject header - someone else did, and I used it in a reply. That's perfectly alright on Internet mailing lists - or should we become sensitive to "politically correct" headers these days? >with whom you have disagreements even though they are your best hope at >achieving your goal (unless your goal is to slowly lose whatever freedom you >now enjoy). And an arrogant and condescending attitude is the last thing >that ROC needs. Then why do you go out of your way to exhibit it so obviously here? Oh, I must have forgotten, you are the "list-owner" and that gives you special dispensation. And being a Libertarian imparts one of the highest dispensations of all - you can say and do anything you want with impunity. Hell, that's almost as big a privelage as being a Redneck, the highest honor a list-owner can possibly have. >Back to the Libertarian issue: I can't disagree that there are probably a >few obnoxious Libertarian people out there. Condescending of you to admit that there are just a "few". The way I hear it, there are quite a few more than just a "few" - on the Internet, that is. >The same way that there are a few obnoxious Republicans (and lots of >obnoxious Democrats :-). And the Libertarians will not waste one opportuinity to let you know in no uncertains terms that if you are not one of the LP faithful, you are an infidel. You don't believe me? Just bring up ABC vs. LP, and get ready for more diatribes that you ever could imagine. >But publically accusing Libertarians as being obnoxious and not worthy and >the enemy and all that is counter productive, obnoxious in and of itself, >and down right stupid and btw. false. You outdid yourself, getting all that into one sentence. I am sorry I do not have time to try to figure out what you are saying. I have been watching this ABC vs. LP debate for some time now. The main characteristic is that whenever the ABC crowd tries to get a word in edgewise, multiple Libertarians jump all over that lone individual. And nobody else who believes in ABC will come to that person's side (with the sole exception of Niel Dickey the other day, right here on ROC, too). What does that tell you about the nature of this debate? >(But remember: When you shoot at someone, expect to be shot back at) And remember: Where I come from, I *do* shoot back! Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: L&J: WSJ: New Lexis Database of Names Sparks Outcry on Date: 20 Sep 1996 20:05:50 -0700 At 04:16 PM 9/20/96 PDT, Jack@minerva.com wrote: >roc@xmission.com wrote : > >>On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: >>> Just try getting on their web site - impossible right now. >> >>They now have an email address -- send your full name and snail address >>to: p-trak@prod.lexis-nexis.com, and ask that they remove you. You'll >>get a form letter acknowledging receipt of your request, plus a lot of >>whining that they didn't give out anything but names and addresses... >> >> > >A cynic might point out that while they say they will remove a person, I >have read nothing that suggests that they will not put him back on. Thus >the question is: If Joe Public says take me off of your list, do they search >the list and remove the entry for Joe Public or do they also create another >list with all the names that they have deleted to prevent them from putting >them back the next time someone interrogates the list for Joe Public and when >he is not there starting automatic crawler programs that go search the public >lists / credit information lists and rebuild the information. > >There is a world of difference between removing for an few hours and making >sure the information is not reconstructed at a later time > Perhaps a better approach would be to offer to _license_ our names to L-N for use in their database; for, say, $50 per report. Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. 8037 Stone Canyon |counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing Citrus Heights, CA|citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent 95610 |crimes and it appears to produce no increase in kmitchel@gvn.net |accidental deaths. If those states which did not 916-449-9152 (vm) |have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had 916-729-0966 (fax)|adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; |4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults |would have been avoided yearly." Crime, |Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns |John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago -------------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm---------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: L&J: WSJ: New Lexis Database of Names Sparks Outcry on Privacy Date: 20 Sep 1996 20:58:38 PDT roc@xmission.com wrote : >On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: >> Just try getting on their web site - impossible right now. > >They now have an email address -- send your full name and snail address >to: p-trak@prod.lexis-nexis.com, and ask that they remove you. You'll >get a form letter acknowledging receipt of your request, plus a lot of >whining that they didn't give out anything but names and addresses... > >;-) > > As I understand it they used to give out Social Security numbers but stopped because of the intense public discontent. Now, they are just giving name, present address and maybe last address. However, the world is filled with John Smith's as an example and to know for sure which previous address goes with which John Smith is certainly much easier if the Social Security number is tied to each name at each address. At any rate one must consider that it is only a tiny bit less an evasion of privacy to use the social security number to order the information they are giving out than to give out the social security number itself and then one has to wonder if as they say they are only giving out public data where and how did they get the social security number to tie it all together .....or so I believe Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 21 Sep 1996 02:15:13 -0500 At 04:01 PM 9/20/96 -0700, Skip Leuschner wrote: > >> >I want more than that in terms of government reform, and that's where we >differ I suppose. I am a ROC-er because RKBA is one of my priorities, >but it is not the only one, or even the top one. I want a government in >DC that will dismantle the big government socialist state that's been >abuilding for 40 years. When it's gone, so will be the inclination and As do I, sir. >political power to challenge any of our rights, including RKBA. Dole's Well *that* inclination is never truly gone. "Eternal Vigilance" >no favorite of mine, but I suggest that 4 more years of Clinton will >produce no progress at best, and a great deal of movement in the wrong >direction at worst. Likely...Unless the SOB is impeached by a Republican majority in Congress, convicted of multiple crimes, and sent to prison for a good long time (unless one of those convictions be for murder or treason or other federal death penalty crimes) and thus serve as a sterling example of how not to act as President. This could be a good thing in the long run. Assuming of course the republic survives the short run. Who was it that said, something like "whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger" . Sadly, impeachment not very likely. It's never happened before. Perhaps that is part of the problem. I'm afraid we live in "interesting times". The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 21 Sep 1996 09:59:30 -0500 >>I don't suppose you would reconsider in light of the overwhelming >>evidence that you will actually be voting to re-elect klintoon? >I hear this all the time, and I can never grasp it. Assuming that the >Counters of Ballots act honestly and count everyone's vote accurately, could >you please explain the strange political alchemy that will transform my >Harry Browne vote into a Bill Clinton vote. You must have been absent fromthe infamous ABC vs LP wars raging daily on a mailing list near you. The ABC argument is that only *one* vote will defeat klintoon - and that is a vote for Dole. Any other vote, Browne or Pat Paulson or whomever, even a NO-VOTE, is a vote which Dole won't get, and therefore is a vote for klintoon. >> Then why did Browne chose the term "51%", if not to signify winning? > >Browne was never good at math. He only had two weeks of college. Probably make a good president. Look what an Oxford education got us. >The image of the Pig With Wings was introduced by Frank Zappa, who despite >his untimely death, would still make a better president than Dole or >Clinton. I would vote for Pat Paulson if I did not believe it would be a vote for klintoon. But in the real world only one of two people (based on today's circumstances) will become president. >The result is two parties that have become as one--- a party that could be >correctly identified as either Facist or Communist. Mr. Humphrey was right. >There ain't a dime's worth of difference bewteen them. They are the same thing. We have discussed that at length here also. >This is why a lot of politically homeless refugees from both parties are >either abandoning the whole corrupt process and staying home or voting for >someone (Harry Browne! Pull that lever, everyone!) who understands that >government as we know it is the enemy. Nobody is faulting the idealism of Libertarians. I have said that many times. The problem is that a vote for anyone but Dole is a vote for klintoon, and that is not acceptable for any reasons, however noble they may seem. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Silvia174@endor.com" Subject: cookies Date: 21 Sep 1996 11:08:46 -0000 Does anyone know about cookies? I heard that they contain information about the user, so I deleted mine from the netscape program. I also selected the option to be warned if someone tries to give me a cookie and I always decline now. Some websites are very insistent, they try to give me a cookie around 20 times, before they finally stop! Silvia ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 21 Sep 1996 10:16:39 -0500 >OK Bob, You've made your point. Libertarians are closed minded assholes >who are frequently mean to you. I'm sure glad that I'm not one of them! >Damn! That was close! And anybody who asks them for clarification of their ideology. >Now tell us, what is ABC? ABC means Anybody But Clinton. >Who is the ABC running for president? Why should I vote for him or her >rather than Dole, Browne, Clinton, Hagelin, Nader, Perot, or Phillips? The only candidate today who can defeat klintoon is Dole. That's why there is a run on clothes pins in the grocery stores right now. >Who are the Texas ABC candidates? Can I pick up some yard signs or bumper >stickers? ABC would be sufficient, I suppose. >That's exactly I want to know MORE about the vibrant and exciting ABC party. >these guys have REALLY been hosed by the media. They didn't even get a >mention on the debate petitions! A party that repressed by the power elite >must have a compelling message. Be silent no more! This is your forum to >promote the ideals and vision of the ABC. Many before me have commented quite eloquently on ABC and have been summarily flamed by Libertarians for it. There is no idealism associated with having to vote for Dole to keep klintoon out. But it must be done nonetheless, if you are going to be counted among the ranks of responsible citizens. (See the comment about clothes pins above). >I missed the ABC side of the debate. All I got was some stuff about >libertarians being obnoxious. These damn old Libertarians must be censoring >my mail again. No, they don't do things like that. I will give them that - they do play the game above board, unlike Rednecks. The reason is that they tend to come from an educated class of people, unlike Rednecks. >Well, I have encoded this message with a special anti-censorship algorithim. >I guarantee the ABC reply to Libertarianism will reach this list. Give us >the ABC vision, Bob! The Libertarian pig dogs will silence you no more. But they never did silence me or anyone who argued the ABC position (see above.) >Again, what debate? Why the infamous ABC vs. LP debate, of course. You must have just joined these patriot/RKBA lists the other day. >Hit us with your best shot! Fire away! > >No need to thank me, Bob. Getting the Libertarian jackboot off the neck of >the ABC will be its own reward. I don't think that will ever be possible. Libertarians are proponents of Anarchy(*), and they will always be outside the mainstream of American Politics as a result. Bob Knauer (*) anarchy (noun): [Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-] First appeared 1539 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: cookies Date: 21 Sep 1996 08:14:51 PDT roc@xmission.com wrote : > > >Does anyone know about cookies? I heard that they contain information about the >user, so I deleted mine from the netscape program. I also selected the option to >be warned if someone tries to give me a cookie and I always decline now. Some >websites are very insistent, they try to give me a cookie around 20 times, before they finally stop! > > Silvia > > > A cookie was created to allow a web site to save information about you in your machine so that if you connect to the web site again it can skip right up to where you were last looking. Commerce you see is everything. Cookies are necessary for Virtual Malls and of little or no value to those who go to WWW places to get information. As an example if you go to merchant A and decided to buy ten of article X and then look at article Y and decide the price is not quite right you can go to merchant B and compare prices and then return merchant A and also buy some of article Z. Now when you check out from merchant A he knows that earlier you had bought X as well as Z and can create a comprehensive bill. I suppose that it has to be done this way in that when people using ISPs instead of having a hard fixed internet address the virtual mall merchant does not really have anything to tie a particular client to. So far so good .....maybe. When a person connects to a merchant the merchant can ask for the cookie with the merchants ID on it.....and that is seemingly no so bad. On the other hand seemingly the merchant .....or any other WWW site can ask for your entire cookie file and thus obtain a list of all WWW sites you connected to, as well as what you looked at while you were there if those sites created cookes. There seems to be no reason at all why this should be allowed but it does seem to be part of the HTTP protocols. Linda Thompson posted that the easiest way to prevent all of this is to make the cookie file read only. That way NETSCAPE and other navigators will not go ballistic when there is no cookie file but the WWW site you connected to can not write into it and thus can not create any cookies Jack Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: FIRST CAT CAUSES FIRST SNEEZES Date: 21 Sep 1996 10:55:28 -0500 >Don't get me wrong. I am not a Klintonite, but this talk of UNSUBSTANTATED >cocaine use by Ol'Willie is pushing it. I've heard that he does five lines >of coke a day. What's that mean? How much coke does he ingest a day and >how is this substantiated? I have no idea where these allegations come from. It all started with his half-brother, Roger, who made a crack about Buboon's nose being a vacuum cleaner, etc. >If the guy's a dope fiend, were's the proof? Give it time. Dole is pressing for full medical disclosure for good reason >If the Net is going to lead people to the promised land, we need to be more >than the National Inquirer of the 21Century. There is one thing about the Net that makes it unique - rumors get confirmed quickly or they die quickly. Take a related item. There are bogus quotes circulating all over the place which are falsely attributed to the FF. When ever one gets circulated, someone out there comes along ans shoots it down. Now the same is true of rumors - if a rumor has any substance it will be confirmed. If it is blatantly false, it will be shot down right away. That is not to say that rumors are to be taken literally. In the case of Buboon's alleged coke habit, whether it's five lines or one line - that is not the point. If he snorts coke he should not be president. That's the point. >BTW, it IS a shame that Mrs. Klinton wasn't holding the dog when it was >run over by a car. If only she would have let go of the dog just at the right moment so the dog wouldn't have been hurt. I like dogs, but have no use for bitches. :-) Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Hitler & klintoon Date: 21 Sep 1996 10:56:47 -0500 >>> Similarities between Clinton and Hitler: >How about commited suicide instead of being brought to justice? >Ah, one can dream. ----- It looks like that list might not be quite complete. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Hitler & klintoon Date: 21 Sep 1996 11:28:38 -0500 At 03:25 PM 9/20/96 -0500, you wrote: >Something from the past I found while cleaning my disk: > >Bob Knauer > >----- > >> Similarities between Clinton and Hitler: > >> ** Came from peasant stock. Redneck stock in Clinton's case. >> >> ** Father died while son was still young. >> Before he was born in Clinton's case >> ** Basic political ideas formed among lower middle class. >> In the mafia/mob class in Clinton's case. >> ** Wrote exposition of his political ideas and a clarion >> call for future political action (Clinton's letter to ROTC). Comparing that letter to Mein Kampf is a bit of a reach. >> >> ** Rebelled against the government in his younger life. >> >> ** Proclaimed to bring about change by legal means. >> >> ** The political campaign became overnight almost the >> strongest force. (Who knew Clinton before 1992?) >> >> ** He raised his oratory against Democracy, and foreign >> powers. >> >> ** Both by mass propaganda and stealthly political devices >> he outmaneuvered his democratic and conservative opponents. >> >> ** Created nationalistic youth organization. ????? What organization has Slick Created? >> >> ** A panic was produced (by Nazi-made Reichstag fire). >> >> ** He would use every means of violence and fraud to make >> himself ruler. >> >> ** Once he conquered domestic politics, he went on to >> conquer abroad. You mean that expensive wrist slap he gave Saddam? Or those incidents in Somalia and the Dahran bombing? Maybe Haiti. Except, untill he took on the Soviets, Hitler's foreign affairs actions were successfull, can't say the say for *our* imperious leader. >> >> ** Forced massive gun control legislation on citizenry Hitler found most of his ready and waiting for him to use. Clinton has had to do more rolling of his own, so to speak. Hitler did increase gun restrictions, as has Clinton, by exploiting existing law to the fullest. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) The Turnaround Date: 21 Sep 1996 10:28:29 -0700 -snip- >But the thing that is really interesting to me right now is how Bill is >dropping in the polls!! I'm not so sure that it is because people like >Dole, but rather they are seeing through Clinton, finally! -snip- What you're seeing is the orchestrated turnaround designed by the powers that be. This started about a week ago - my business partner and I were absolutely amazed as we watched CNN, etc. It was like a light switch being flipped. All of a sudden, ALL IN ONE DAY, the polls started changing, the Talking Heads started spewing pro-repub stuff and anti-dem stuff (like showing "negative" campaigning on the part of the dems), etc. ON EVERY CHANNEL, ALL ON THE SAME DAY!!! IMO, the Big People have decided that Clinton is no longer viable. And the American sheep (baaa - baaa) will sit in front of their boob tubes and say "Yeah, I guess the people are waking up now, by golly, we've about had enough of that evil Clinton - we want Dole! We want Dole! Which is *exactly* the orchestrated plan. Don & I were astounded that the media would be so blatantly obvious. Folks, we're witnessing something important here; watch closely! - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: cookies Date: 21 Sep 1996 10:40:40 -0700 >Linda Thompson posted that the easiest way to prevent all of this is to >make the cookie file read only. That way NETSCAPE and other navigators will >not go ballistic when there is no cookie file but the WWW site you connected >to can not write into it and thus can not create any cookies > >Jack How do you set it to read only? - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Passive Millimeter Wave Imager Date: 21 Sep 1996 14:36:23 -0500 There was a lot of discussion a while back about the Passive Millimeter Wave Imager, but I never saw anything about its actual perfomance, so I didn't pay much attention. Now there is brief mention of it in the OCT 1996 issue of the NRA's _American Rifleman_. For those who may be interested, I have scanned the very dramatic picture therein (an AP Archive Photo) and placed it on our Web Site at: http://www.aimtec.com/rkba/ This is probably old hat for most of you, but I was really shocked at how that thing could "see" inside your clothing that easily. Spooky to say the least. This thing could tell if a woman (or, I suppose, a man, for that matter :-) is wearing a wired bra or other private, personal under-garments/devices. And with the Minimum-Wage-Moron-On-Quota(tm) "preverts" working that contraption, all sorts of invasions of privacy could routinely occur, all in the name of "fighting terrorism". "As Cuckoo As A Clockwork Orange." Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: James Pate, respected writer??? Date: 21 Sep 1996 15:02:27 -0500 >Bob I think I saw in a previous post that your family just came here >around 1990. No, that's someone else. I, and my family for generations past, have been natural citizens of the US since birth. If in 1990 we had been somewhere else in the world, I doubt if we would have come to the US, given the chance to go elsewhere. Too much tyranny around here to suit me personally. But since we have been here for ages, it falls incumbant on us to defend our country - or leave it. We choose to stay and defend it. >Correct me if I am wrong. Bob you must understand how the Indian feels >about his land, the Indian treaties and the Constitution. The same way I do about my land, my treaties and my Constitution. I have been here the same percentage of my life as you - 100%. >There comes a time if the non-Indians will not uphold the before name >subjects then all that is left is to fight. The reason for this is if >you don't you are dead anyway. Then fight - but make it a bloodless fight. We don't need any more slavery around here. The last Constitutional War, the War Of Northern Aggression, enslaved us enough for generations to come. >Also as most of the older Indians are vets of WWII, Korea and Viet Nam >they know they are living on borrowed time anyway. We all are. If klintoon gets re-elected, compliments of the Libertarians, then our time is indeed up. >You must know that to protect and defend from all, foreign and domestic, >it is our law. Protect all you have to the last man if required. When the JBGTs pull a Waco on you, shoot back. But until then find peaceful means to redress your grievances. >What I am saying does not depend on any god. It is the Indian way. It is the American way too. Now, if all of the people living in the United States behaved like True Americans, as required of them by the Constitution, we would not be in the mess we are in today. >I don't think you are up to just what is out there in the real world. How would you know that - just because I abhor Bloody Revolution and Anarchy doesn't mean I won't fight when the time comes. But this time around I must see that there is a reasonable chance to win - or we will have just repeated history, the price of which will be just more enslavement - like what happened 130 or so years ago. >What you are saying is you can have the big stick and the Indians can >have what is left. I never said anything of the sort. You must have me confused with someone else who immigrated in 1990 or whatever. >Correct me if I am wrong. You are wrong - we are all in this together regardless of our cultural history. We are True Americans first, aren't we? Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: L&J: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 21 Sep 1996 15:09:03 -0500 >Okay, so we start with 200,000,000 "white" people, cut out the >25% that are not old enough to vote, that leaves 150,000,000 and >then cut out the 51% of those that are women, that leaves us with >73,500,000 white males old enough to vote. Even assuming better >voter turnout than anythime in the last 20 years, that will leave >us with only 41,160,000 white male voters. So even if your opinion >is correct, that only means 20,991,600 votes for Bob Dole. I didn't follow that last step, the part where you are putting words in my mouth. Anyway you forgot the deceased, who lately have turned out for elections in better numbers than the living. I assume some of them will vote for Republicans too :-) >So then the question is, can he pick up at least another >25,000,000 minimum needed to have a chance of winning? Where >from? Even your estimate doesn't give him that much from the >largest, best for him, pool of potential votes. So how can he >possibly get them elsewhere? Many women will vote Republican. Many Blacks, men and women, will vote Republican - maybe not a majority in each category, but a significan number nonetheless. Only the FarLeft and Libertarians will re-elect klintoon. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 21 Sep 1996 15:24:35 -0500 >> >> Direct from the man's mouth: >> >> >> >> As Harry puts it: "I will debate with anyone in any venue where the >> >> media will cover it. We are not trying to get 51% of the vote [this >> >> time]. We are trying to communciate with the millions of Americans who >> >> have no interest in any of the major candidates and may not vote >> >> because no one matches their desires for smaller government." >The only problem here Bob, (above and below) is that Browne didn't say, >"I can't win." Or, "I'm not trying to win." So it's far more accurate to >say the statement came straight from your mouth rather than the horse's. ----- I cut & pasted that verbatim, unedited, from an email message I received directly from the Browne Campaign, unless Bill Gate's Clipboard editor is modifying text whenever it spots a Harry Browne quote (Gates is a FarLeft type, so I would not put it past him). I did notice that in an apparent repeat of the same message from the same source (Browne Campaign) a day or so later - or one similar to it - that the quote was absent. And I certainly did not make that up myself, as you seem to be insinuating. But I did say that it implied that Browne is saying he can't win - no insinuation needed there. But with bogus quotes attributed to the FF circulating all over the place, it would not surprise me if that quote above is also bogus. I posted it primarily because I found it highly unusual for a candidate to concede defeat like that so early. Does anyone know if the quote above actually came from Borwone? Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Release: voters disenfranchised Date: 21 Sep 1996 15:27:46 -0500 >>The more the anti-Clinton vote gets split, the more likely Clinton will get >>another four years. I DON'T NEED THAT! >This is a misrepresentation. It sounds like the typical assumption that >there is a certain finite "anti-Clinton vote" who will be "forced" to vote >for whatever candidate opposes Clinton. Further, it ignores the likely >probability that there will also be an "anti-Dole vote" which (except for >the existence of another candidate) might go to Clinton. ----- Then why are the Republicans so opposed to other debaters, and the Democrats so in favor to having the other debaters? Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Debates, was Re: Release: voters disenfranchised Date: 21 Sep 1996 14:43:29 PST On Sep 21, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: >>>The more the anti-Clinton vote gets split, the more likely Clinton will get >>>another four years. I DON'T NEED THAT! > >>This is a misrepresentation. It sounds like the typical assumption that >>there is a certain finite "anti-Clinton vote" who will be "forced" to vote >>for whatever candidate opposes Clinton. Further, it ignores the likely >>probability that there will also be an "anti-Dole vote" which (except for >>the existence of another candidate) might go to Clinton. > >----- > >Then why are the Republicans so opposed to other debaters, and the Democrats >so in favor to having the other debaters? > >Bob Knauer That's an easy one. Clinton wants Perot in the Debate because he'd act as a spoiler, sucking up votes from dole. Dole doesn't want Perot in the Debate for the same reason. Dole _could_ demand that Nader be included as a spoiler for Clinton, but he, (Nader), wouldn't do as good a job on Clinton as Perot would on him, (Dole). If Nader gets into the Debate, Browne, being better supported, would have to be included. Neither Clinton or Dole wants Browne in the Debate because they know he'd be a spoiler grabbing votes from both of them. While we can hope for a pre-election blow up that would give us a Browne/Nader race or possibly Browne/Dole/Nader, we have to remember that of the three, Nader is the best known candidate, which _could_ be just as disastrous as the current Clinton/Dole main choice.....:-( A Browne/Dole main choice we could probably live with, but it's not too likely a pick just yet. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: #liberty IRC Date: 21 Sep 1996 19:26:38 -0500 >I must have discarded the original complaint about getting booted from an >IRC chnl. If you are referring to my comments under the subject header above, I want to make it clear that I was *not* "booted" from the channel. The channel master, one Dr. J., was very cordial, explaining to me that he could not confer full citizenship on me because they had trouble on there before, presumably with Libertarians who wanted klintoon re-elected. I did not like the implied censorship, so I left of my own volition. That is not a reflection on the channel master, but a reflection that I did not care to participate under those conditions. Also, since I am known to frequent a few Libertarian lists, I must be a marked man - guilt by association. No wonder he reacted the way he did. :-) >I've been doing a lot of IRC work for the past two weeks -- I finally >learned enough to start my own channel, and now (thanks to Jeff Huber) I'm >reading up on all the nitty gritty commands and options used to customize >the chnl. Jeff is one of the best around. I am just about to put his USCON.TXT (The Constitution) on the AIMNET RKBA Web Site. It will take a bit of work putting the

tags in and other HTML stuff, and I do want to get right. Including correcting any typos :-( With Netscape you can do your own search for key words: http://www.aimtec.com/rkba/ >So far, the only times I see people getting 'kicked' is when they persist in >a topic that is 'off-topic' for the list OR when they use bad language or >excessive flaming. I appreciate that, but I think IRC still has a structural problems, which promote censorship. >IMO, the newsgroups and IRC channels are 'wide open' modes of communication >-- I can't even stand to look at some of them. Please comment further. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ed Lawson" Subject: Fwd: Westlaw - another big brother database (FWD) Date: 21 Sep 1996 19:31:15 -0500 I have verified the web page listed below and it, as well as the domain appear to be valid. It appears that 'Big Brother' doesn't even need Slick Willie... I guess you would have to be asleep to not expect these databases to exist though... EL ==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE================== Posted to texas-gun-owners by chasm@phoenix.net ( C L Hamilton ) This was forwarded to me by my sister. I'm not sure where she got it, but it is definitely worth checking out. ************************* If you're concerned about the P-TRAK database, you should know there's another large database that may contain your social security number, as well as names of your household members and neighbors. WESTLAW sells a commercial database called "PEOPLE FINDER" which holds detailed personal information on nearly all Americans (WESTLAW claims it contains 160 million people, 92 million households, 69 million telephone numbers, and 40 million deceased-person records). You can read WESTLAW's own description of this product at According to WESTLAW, here's what PEOPLE FINDER contains: "Besides basic name, address and telephone number data, People Finder may provide an individual's age, gender and social security number; the names and ages of other household members; and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of up to 10 neighbors." chasm@phoenix.net Agent .99e.16 Houston, TX X-No-Archive: Yes ===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE=================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Silberger Subject: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 21 Sep 1996 23:45:41 EDT Bob, guess who's come out of the woodwork: Yet one additional obnoxious Libertarian! I was going to keep my cool through this. But you won, because I can't keep cool through it any longer. Here goes: I'm not going to get into the quoted and snipped and requoted, "You said and then I said, but you said, and I said," game, however. I do have my energy limits as far as participatory discourse is concerned. I will try not to be abusive, but I may fail. I probably won't answer abuse. Let me try to make this one shot accurate, then. Shall we, Donald? You Republicans are probably irritated. Your man, Dole, is going to lose, and to lose fairly big. Whether or not he loses at all, however, *I* will lose this coming 05 November. Most likely I will lose when Clinton keeps the Presidency. But I may also lose when Dole takes the Presidency from him. I do not see Dole as superior to Clinton. And I've been following what both of those birds have been up to just as assiduously as most of us. If I had nobody but Dole or Clinton to vote for then I wouldn't vote at all. Some of us Libertarians are obnoxious because we too are irritated. You know, Bob: People who are angry have a hard time acting pleasant. Now, somebody might call these words from my mouth "whining". Okay, then. I'm whining. And, if this is whining then, by God, let it be shrill! We are irritated because whereas it seems to us that our philosophy is quite simple and cleancut, compared with the mishmash we are supposed instead to take seriously and that parades under the banner of Realpolitik, Demopublican kind; nevertheless, despite the simplicity and the consistency of our point of view, we Libertarians and libertarians are (sob sob whine whine) constantly misunderstood. Some folks call us anarchists. Whereas that allegation, when it is properly considered, is not far from the truth; it is lightyears off from the truth as the people calling us anarchists seem to intend by their words. People who wrote the Constitution of the United States were, I believe, a good bit more sympathetic to the correctly formulated anarchist ideal than most people today might assume they were. In fact it is the failure, on the part of most Americans to appreciate the anarchist ideal lurking in the philosophies of many of our Founding Fathers, that largely plops us deep into the political picklebroth in which we today find ourselves. But, let me get down to the Realpolitik bone, and gnaw on it. The FarLeft, which shares with us Libertarians the blame for Dole's probably impending wretched performance at the polls this 05 November, alludes to a bunch which willingly, indeed eagerly, assumed that name, and with which I once considered myself associated. I was wrong then. I didn't really know what that bunch was up to. Telling the truth, I don't really know what you are up to, what your values are. I cannot understand, nor grasp sympathetically, the values of a man who writes that he will vote for Bob Dole because he doesn't want Clinton to retain power. And, yes, I've heard the arguments about what an unusual blight Herr Klintoon is -- all-out assault on our RKBA, the impending Court stuffing with totalitarians instead of the decent sorts whom our decent BobDole would instead appoint, and what a coke-sniffing skirt chaser Bill Clinton in contrast to the upright uptight corpse which is BobDole, a man who never met a principle or an ideal to which he wasn't blind. Give me a coke-sniffing skirt-chasing jerk to a ramrod-up-the-tight-ass jerk almost any day of the week! I'm just trying to communicate to you, Bob, because when you talk about Libertarians you don't know just how obnoxious we really *want* to be (those like me do) in contrast to just how relatively mild-mannered and agreeable and -- what's the word? -- R A T I O N A L we in fact are. I mean, for instance, I believe those 509 out of about 534 Congressmen, Demopublican and Republocrat alike, who voted for the Communications Decency Act belonged out on the street (if not behind bars) Day One after that solemn act of pious hypocrisy. Your Dole doesn't have anything to say publicly. He has only stuff he needs to *avoid* saying publicly, and then also a few stupid meannesses to declare in order to secure the caveman vote. Like, he's opposed to smut, having lost what little ability he ever possessed to enjoy smut without breaking into a pimply sweat of guilt and bodily loathing. We are supposed to applaud that? *You* go ahead and aplaud it. My own two palms will not beat together over BobDole's lugubrious distaste for sex. BobDole's opposed to "drug abuse" -- whatever the tradmarked name he trots out to describe when other people decide what to do with their bodies and with what implements and with what substances to do those deeds. Well, I'm not enthusiastic about the ignorant bastard's dislike of drugs either. But one thing Dole, and his friends, ought *not* to be ignorant about is that what people do to themselves with drugs is simply none of Dole's proper business and none of his friends' business as well. We libertarians don't need a sacred document to prove that fact to us; to us it is as obvious as sunrise itself, and we can't understand those to whom that fact is not similarly obvious. That's where *we* are coming from! You want to know what's behind the obnoxiousness you reported from my political breed? I mean, it isn't as if none of us Libertarians have brains enough to know that we've got to suck up to the powers that be, to give Caesar his due, and to kiss ass if we're going to be in on the political victory celebration this coming January. We know we're losers. The irritation behind our obnoxiousness does not come from the fact that we will lose a Presidential election this coming November. The rage comes from the fact that, once again, the people who run that perennial electoral circus have succeeded in suppressing any actual real discussion of controversial simple serious issues before the somnolent and depressed American electorate -- the minority whose votes will be cast for Clinton or Dole, because the majority won't support the political process at all as it now stands, with their token stamped-from-identical-plastic ballots. The Browne Out is what brings me slavering and screaming out of my skin. It's what makes me want to snap somebody's head off and spit it into the worm garden. This election season is "Shut Up Time", and the National Rifle Association as usual joins the major media in support of that theme. "If you can't speak convincingly for motherhood and apple pie then keep your mouth shut. The American people don't want to hear you. And, by God, they *won't* hear you. We, your mentors, will see to that!" So I don't know "conservative" from "preservative", friend. Maybe c's are my buddies, and maybe they ain't. The "liberals" I used to consider my friends turned out otherwise. Evidently I misunderstood them. I do not intend to misunderstand anybody else due to my old laxity and my tendancy to follow somebody else's lead instead of using the ol' noggin. This old noggin speaks loud and clear to *ME*: It says to me, "Vote for Harry Browne. He's not going to be elected President in 1996, because nowhere near enough citizens are going to be sensible enough to follow this advice which I, thy noggin, unwaveringly offer to thee, Donald. But every vote for Browne which *cannot* be ignored by the many who apparently want to ignore every substantive issue they can get away with ignoring, will be measured and weighed. And, unlike a vote for BobDole, a vote for Harry Browne has a very clear, an unmistakeable, meaning. When that vote gets heavy enough, say up in the two-digit percentage range, then the meaning of that vote is going to start leaking into the mind of the body politic, at which point, I hope, a delightful havoc is going to bust free. You and I have had civil exchanges in the past. I hope that will happen in the future too, Bob. But this is now a public matter, and you have lured me out of my skin and into the fray. The fact is that your BobDole is going to lose by (alas!) a bigger %age of the popular vote than will be accounted for by the votes which Harry Browne will pick up. Harry's being whited out by the media, and know nothinged by the communities which ought to carry him on their shoulders. People see my Harry Browne lapel pin on campus, and ask me, "Who's that?" It's mainly a matter of "name recognition", you see. "Republican? Yep. I know what that is. My daddy was a Republican. Democrat? Those are the other guys -- you know, the poor dark-skinned urban scroungers whom it is my indignity now to have to support with my taxes -- the bad guys." And the Libertarians? Who are they? Oh. They're those loud mouths who get in my way by failing to vote for the guy I'm sure they should vote for, and *would* vote for, too, if they weren't such silly degenerate self-indulgent *idealistic* coffee-klatch-babbling eggheaded nonentities. Just one more of same ilk here, Yours in the hope that if I lay off other people's lives they'll leave me in charge of my own life, Donald Silberger P.S. I would love it if we Libertarians picked up enough of the popular vote this November to account for BobDole's defeat, a defeat which is as important to me as Clinton's is important to me. I'd love it if the vote were 40% for Clinton, 30% for Dole, and 25% for Harry Browne with the remaining 5% bequeathed less to Perot than to Nader, who deserves it. That might conceivably persuade the RNC to pay a little heed to gun owners in the year 2000 than it paid in 1996. Let it palpably hurt to ignore us. Of course, I'd prefer the vote to go 40% for Browne, 30% for Nader, and the rest get fairly evenly divided among the once-major parties and the might-someday-be's who're enlivened by a promisingly competitive future. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Donald Silberger Subject: 51% Date: 22 Sep 1996 01:40:41 EDT And, yes, since you asked: The Browne Campaign did indeed put out an announcement which stated that Browne did not expect to pick up 51% of the popular vote in November. You might read and digest the balance of that announcement instead of jumping with glee at a line you grabbed from it out of context. If you in fact read that entire announcement, instead of mining it for one measly misleading line which you quoted, you might understand where it is that the people supporting the Libertarian cause are coming from. We're not headed for victory because victory is not in our cards now. But, didn't someone else say, "I'd rather be right than President"? I say: I'D RATHER VOTE RIGHT THAN FOR A LOSER WHO DESERVES TO LOSE. The guy you're going to vote for will lose just as completely as my guy will lose. The difference is that your guy's loss will mean nothing, and the votes cast like pearls to Dole will lack substance. You say nothing to anybody with your vote for BobDole. It's a zero statement. If BobDole loses by 7% while Harry Browne picks up 11% then the RNC will be motivated to cover its right flank a little better than it does now. If Browne picks up fewer than 5%, regardless of who wins or by how much, then the cause of liberty in this country will suffer in consequence. It is as clear as that. Buy it or leave it alone. Donald Silberger ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 22 Sep 1996 09:10:48 -0500 >>The only candidate today who can defeat klintoon is Dole. That's why >>there is a run on clothes pins in the grocery stores right now. > >OK, you think Dole sucks, I did not say that - I said he "stinks", for his waffling on the AW Ban Repeal. But he could just as easily change his mind again and be back in the good graces of the pro-RKBA crowd. I expect him ot do that soon, becuase he wants the NRA endorsement. But for now that's one way of keeping the "gun control" debate off the table. The Dems. tried to bring it back, at the first day of their convention, but the Rep. didn't go for that tarbaby. Any attempt to characterize Dole as the same kind of presidential candidate as klintoon is plainly wrong. Dole is not a dope-smoking, whore-hopping, draft-dodging cocaine addict. He is a military war hero, not a cowardly Marxist0-educated/Communist-trained traitor. >, but you're going to vote for him anyway because he >doesn't suck as much as you think Clinton does? You subject yourself to >this slave mentality and you have the nerve to spell Clinton's name with a >"K?" Bill Clinton isn't making you vote for someone you despise....you are. >So I suppose if the Republicans ran Mussolini (or his functional >equivalent...Dornan? Helms? Exon?) you would vote for him too? Keep >sending this balless signal to the Party, and your next choice will between >Stalin (Gephart? Feinstein? Dole? ) and Mussolini. Dole is not akin to Mussolini or Stalin, et al. But keep sending the Libertarian's ball-less signal and we just might end up with klintoon/Hitler/Stalin. BTW when did Exon change party affiliations? I thought he was a Democrat. And don't knock Ole Jesse Helms - he is nearly alone in congress carrying the torch against the UN. >ABC= A Ballless Citizen You would prefer klintoon instead? This is something I have the most difficult time trying to understand - Libertarians would be willing to have klintoon. I would think that to be incomprehensible for a group which purports to want freedom and liberty. Just wait until the first Minimum-Wage-Moron-On-Quota(tm) at the airport does a full body cavity search on your wife because the Passive Millimeter Wave Imager spotted her wearing the "politically incorrect" style of undergarmet that day and she gets "profiled" as a "terrorist suspect". Then tell me how willing to let Buboon get re-elected, just because he is so easy on drugs. I call that "ball-less". >Again with the Rednecks! Some of my best friends are Rednecks. I married a >Redneck, and I wouldn't trade her for a dozen big-haired blonds with >MBA's!!! I could make a comment (crack), but in the spirit of not wanting to be "disruptive" (whatever that means), I will pass. Just remember that I had the chance, I dearly wanted to, but I didn't. :-) >You can't debate an empty podium, Bob. There is no debate because the "other >side" is too busy kissing Republican ass to say anything. Talk about empty podiums (or is it podia?). You can't even get your candidate into the debates. Harry Who??? >So tell us about that mainstream. Does it flow through Waco? Wind its way >down the mountain to Ruby Ridge, past Gordon Kahl's Ranch and through the >Plubaugh's back yard? Does that tributary feed the cooling pool of the >facility where all the plutonium testing was done on american kids from the >forties through the seventies? I hope my boat doesn't spring a leak, cause >something in that river sure does stink. The Libertarian Party does not give a rat's ass about those issues, so quit deceiving yourself. It's far more concerned with legalizing drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc. - IOW, FarLeft issues. The fact that they say they believe in RKBA is the only reason they are tolerated on the Right. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: L&J: Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List Date: 22 Sep 1996 09:22:31 -0500 > From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" , on 9/21/96 3:09 PM: No, Bob Knauer did *not* write the following item - someone else did. > >Okay, so we start with 200,000,000 "white" people, cut out the > >25% that are not old enough to vote, that leaves 150,000,000 and > >then cut out the 51% of those that are women, that leaves us with > >73,500,000 white males old enough to vote. Even assuming better > >voter turnout than anythime in the last 20 years, that will leave > >us with only 41,160,000 white male voters. So even if your opinion > >is correct, that only means 20,991,600 votes for Bob Dole. >I know you snipped this thing, but is this cretin actually asserting that >all "white" (whatever that means) males will actually vote for Bob Dole? >This stuff is getting profoundly wierd. ----- Now, now. Mustn't use direct personal attacks on these lists. I never do. "white" means what the WSJ says it means - they used the term, not me. BTW, your mail client is spamming our download directories with some crap named "ATTRIBS.BND". Must be more droppings from the Master Of The Known Universe, Bill Gates, and his stupid mail software that assumes everyone is using Microsoft products exclusively. What arrogance! Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 22 Sep 1996 09:35:47 -0500 >>>I don't suppose you would reconsider in light of the overwhelming >>>evidence that you will actually be voting to re-elect klintoon? >>I hear this all the time, and I can never grasp it. Assuming that the >>Counters of Ballots act honestly and count everyone's vote accurately, >>could you please explain the strange political alchemy that will transform >>my Harry Browne vote into a Bill Clinton vote. >You must have been absent from the infamous ABC vs LP wars raging daily on a >mailing list near you. >Well...where is that overwhelming evidence you spoke of? No evidence is >before me, and I am whelmed within acceptable levels. Simple, even for a Libertarian to understand. In 1992, klintoon won by 41% of the popular vote. Perot took 19%. QED. >What circumstances? You keep spewing this as if it were the formula for >solving a binomial, but I have yet to hear an adequate description of the >assertion...let alone any exposition of its logical foundation. Why does a >single vote for C cause A to be elected? Nobody said anything about one single vote. Perot took quite a few votes from Bush, which allowed klintoon to win. >Then why perpetuate this gigantic mass deception by voicing your approval of >it at the ballot box? Your vote for Browne won't even show up on the radar screen - and it will help re-elect klintoon. When the Reign of Terror gets underway, we will know who to blame - the FarLeft and Libertarians. >I know. You just don't like them personally because they pissed you off >somehow. Vote for Browne anyhow. He never personally did anything to you, >did he? My concern about Libertarians hardly has anything to do with the poor taste of a few idiots who hide behind the LP shield just to play little flame war games. My concern, stated many times, is much more substantial than that. I do not want klintoon re-elected under any circumstances whatsoever. >I think it is fascinating how this "Klinton" spelling has crept into the >political lexicon. Back in Those Fabulous Sixties, the anti-war folks used >to spell "Amerika" to indicate their disdain for "the Establishment" and its >purportedly facist tendencies. Now we got one of them peace-creep boogers >in the Whitehouse, and the good 'ol boys are spelling HIS name with a "K." >Amerika too, I might add! It's called the Paradigm Shift of the decaades, maybe of the century. Sorta like when Lincoln was looked upon as a hero because he freed the slaves, until people discovered that he was really a cowardly tyrant who enslaved the free. >I've said this more often than Bob has spoken of winged pigs, but >"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." As one person pointed out on another list, the president alone can't change what's happening. But in the case of klintoon, he can certainly go along with it. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 22 Sep 1996 09:36:01 -0500 >>>I don't suppose you would reconsider in light of the overwhelming >>>evidence that you will actually be voting to re-elect klintoon? >>I hear this all the time, and I can never grasp it. Assuming that the >>Counters of Ballots act honestly and count everyone's vote accurately, >>could you please explain the strange political alchemy that will transform >>my Harry Browne vote into a Bill Clinton vote. >You must have been absent from the infamous ABC vs LP wars raging daily on a >mailing list near you. >Well...where is that overwhelming evidence you spoke of? No evidence is >before me, and I am whelmed within acceptable levels. Simple, even for a Libertarian to understand. In 1992, klintoon won by 41% of the popular vote. Perot took 19%. QED. >What circumstances? You keep spewing this as if it were the formula for >solving a binomial, but I have yet to hear an adequate description of the >assertion...let alone any exposition of its logical foundation. Why does a >single vote for C cause A to be elected? Nobody said anything about one single vote. Perot took quite a few votes from Bush, which allowed klintoon to win. >Then why perpetuate this gigantic mass deception by voicing your approval of >it at the ballot box? Your vote for Browne won't even show up on the radar screen - and it will help re-elect klintoon. When the Reign of Terror gets underway, we will know who to blame - the FarLeft and Libertarians. >I know. You just don't like them personally because they pissed you off >somehow. Vote for Browne anyhow. He never personally did anything to you, >did he? My concern about Libertarians hardly has anything to do with the poor taste of a few idiots who hide behind the LP shield just to play little flame war games. My concern, stated many times, is much more substantial than that. I do not want klintoon re-elected under any circumstances whatsoever. >I think it is fascinating how this "Klinton" spelling has crept into the >political lexicon. Back in Those Fabulous Sixties, the anti-war folks used >to spell "Amerika" to indicate their disdain for "the Establishment" and its >purportedly facist tendencies. Now we got one of them peace-creep boogers >in the Whitehouse, and the good 'ol boys are spelling HIS name with a "K." >Amerika too, I might add! It's called the Paradigm Shift of the decaades, maybe of the century. Sorta like when Lincoln was looked upon as a hero because he freed the slaves, until people discovered that he was really a cowardly tyrant who enslaved the free. >I've said this more often than Bob has spoken of winged pigs, but >"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." As one person pointed out on another list, the president alone can't change what's happening. But in the case of klintoon, he can certainly go along with it. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Cookies Date: 22 Sep 1996 10:26:48 -0500 >>Linda Thompson posted that the easiest way to prevent all of this is to >>make the cookie file read only. That way NETSCAPE and other navigators >>will not go ballistic when there is no cookie file but the WWW site you >>connected to can not write into it and thus can not create any cookies >How do you set it to read only? ----- ATTRIB +R Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Hitler & klintoon Date: 22 Sep 1996 10:26:46 -0500 >> Similarities between Clinton and Hitler: >> ** Came from peasant stock. >Redneck stock in Clinton's case. >> ** Father died while son was still young. >Before he was born in Clinton's case >> ** Basic political ideas formed among lower middle class. >In the mafia/mob class in Clinton's case. >> ** Wrote exposition of his political ideas and a clarion >> call for future political action (Clinton's letter to ROTC). >Comparing that letter to Mein Kampf is a bit of a reach. True. But Hitler wasn't Oxford educated either. >> ** Rebelled against the government in his younger life. >> >> ** Proclaimed to bring about change by legal means. >> >> ** The political campaign became overnight almost the >> strongest force. (Who knew Clinton before 1992?) >> >> ** He raised his oratory against Democracy, and foreign >> powers. >> >> ** Both by mass propaganda and stealthly political devices >> he outmaneuvered his democratic and conservative opponents. >> >> ** Created nationalistic youth organization. >What organization has Slick Created? His National Youth Corp. >> ** A panic was produced (by Nazi-made Reichstag fire). >> >> ** He would use every means of violence and fraud to make >> himself ruler. >> >> ** Once he conquered domestic politics, he went on to >> conquer abroad. >You mean that expensive wrist slap he gave Saddam? Or those incidents in >Somalia and the Dahran bombing? Maybe Haiti. Except, until he took on the >Soviets, Hitler's foreign affairs actions were successfull, can't say the >say for *our* imperious leader. I suspect that his Bosnia incursions will meet that description. >> ** Forced massive gun control legislation on citizenry >Hitler found most of his ready and waiting for him to use. Clinton has had >to do more rolling of his own, so to speak. Actually Gun Control Tyrany has been on the books for a long time in congress. klintoon didn't invent Schumer, for example. >Hitler did increase gun restrictions, as has Clinton, by exploiting existing >law to the fullest. And dusting off some old legislation. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 22 Sep 1996 11:15:14 -0500 Donald Silberger wrote (this is a correct attribution, for a change): >Bob, guess who's come out of the woodwork: Yet one additional obnoxious >Libertarian! I was going to keep my cool through this. But you won, >because I can't keep cool through it any longer. Here goes: Hello, Brother Donald! It's been a while. The infamous ABC vs. LP debate has just been elevated a notch. NB: I am not going to snip any of this, because I want to do justice to Donald's passionate apologetic to Libertarianism. My comments are sprinkled among his paragraphs below. >I'm not going to get into the quoted and snipped and requoted, "You said >and then I said, but you said, and I said," game, however. I do have my >energy limits as far as participatory discourse is concerned. I will >try not to be abusive, but I may fail. I probably won't answer abuse. Nobody would think of abusing anyone on these lists, would they? We're all civilized people here. >Let me try to make this one shot accurate, then. Shall we, Donald? >You Republicans are probably irritated. Your man, Dole, is going to lose, >and to lose fairly big. You have been brainwashed by the Eastern Liberal Establishment up there in New Yawk. Nobody down here concedes anything like that. In fact, I predict the "November 1996 Landslide" for the Republicans. One poll shows Dole ahead of klintoon by 11% points in Texas. Ole Newt came out the other day predicting a large increase in Rep. seats in the House. >Whether or not he loses at all, however, *I* will >lose this coming 05 November. Most likely I will lose when Clinton keeps >the Presidency. He won't so don't fret so much. >But I may also lose when Dole takes the Presidency from >him. I do not see Dole as superior to Clinton. It's not a matter of Dole being "superior" to klintoon. Dole is a "lesser evil" than klintoon. The classic Anarchist's solution to the dilemna of imperfect politicians is to get rid of them, unless the "Perfect Candidate" comes along, a non-politician like Harry Browne with no track record to criticize. I bought that same crap about Perot, and look who got elected - Mr. Gun Control Tyrant Himself. Never Again!!! >And I've been following >what both of those birds have been up to just as assiduously as most of us. >If I had nobody but Dole or Clinton to vote for then I wouldn't vote at all. >Some of us Libertarians are obnoxious because we too are irritated. So that's what it is - I thought it was PMS, or as one astitute person suggested, a Bad Hair Day. :-) >You know, Bob: People who are angry have a hard time acting pleasant. Now, >somebody might call these words from my mouth "whining". Okay, then. I'm >whining. And, if this is whining then, by God, let it be shrill! >We are irritated because whereas it seems to us that our philosophy is >quite simple and cleancut, compared with the mishmash we are supposed >instead to take seriously and that parades under the banner of Realpolitik, >Demopublican kind; nevertheless, despite the simplicity and the consistency >of our point of view, we Libertarians and libertarians are (sob sob whine >whine) constantly misunderstood. >Some folks call us anarchists. Whereas that allegation, when it is properly >considered, is not far from the truth; it is lightyears off from the truth >as the people calling us anarchists seem to intend by their words. I do not believe that Libertarians really want a repeat of the War Of Northern Aggression. That was a bunch of Anarchists in the Confederacy and they fought for the noblest of causes too - preservation of the Constitution. But they lost - and we have been slaves ever since. >People who wrote the Constitution of the United States were, I believe, >a good bit more sympathetic to the correctly formulated anarchist ideal >than most people today might assume they were. In fact it is the failure, >on the part of most Americans to appreciate the anarchist ideal lurking >in the philosophies of many of our Founding Fathers, that largely plops >us deep into the political picklebroth in which we today find ourselves. >But, let me get down to the Realpolitik bone, and gnaw on it. >The FarLeft, which shares with us Libertarians the blame for Dole's >probably impending wretched performance at the polls this 05 November, Not going to happen, except in New Yawk, and maybe a couple other FarLeft strongholds. I don't even think klintoon will even carry CA. Anyway, are you forgetting the bombshells that are about to go off? If it can be shown that klintoon is really a cocaine addict, as is rumored all over the place, who do you think is going to vote for him - especially when he will be forced to resign before the elections. algore will then run as the last candidate of the about-to-become-defunct Democrat Party. >alludes to a bunch which willingly, indeed eagerly, assumed that name, >and with which I once considered myself associated. I was wrong then. >I didn't really know what that bunch was up to. Telling the truth, I >don't really know what you are up to, what your values are. I cannot >understand, nor grasp sympathetically, the values of a man who writes >that he will vote for Bob Dole because he doesn't want Clinton to retain >power. And, yes, I've heard the arguments about what an unusual blight >Herr Klintoon is -- all-out assault on our RKBA, the impending Court >stuffing with totalitarians instead of the decent sorts whom our decent >BobDole would instead appoint, and what a coke-sniffing skirt chaser >Bill Clinton in contrast to the upright uptight corpse which is BobDole, >a man who never met a principle or an ideal to which he wasn't blind. >Give me a coke-sniffing skirt-chasing jerk to a ramrod-up-the-tight-ass >jerk almost any day of the week! That's what bothers me most about Libertarians - their willingness to accept klintoon. > I'm just trying to communicate to you, >Bob, because when you talk about Libertarians you don't know just how >obnoxious we really *want* to be (those like me do) in contrast to just >how relatively mild-mannered and agreeable and -- what's the word? -- >R A T I O N A L we in fact are. I mean, for instance, I believe those >509 out of about 534 Congressmen, Demopublican and Republocrat alike, >who voted for the Communications Decency Act belonged out on the street >(if not behind bars) Day One after that solemn act of pious hypocrisy. Not all Republicans voted for that - and those who did quickly got the message. BTW, did you know Teddy Kennedy was opposed to the CDA and voted accordingly in the senate? Would you vote for him assuming you lived in MA? >Your Dole doesn't have anything to say publicly. He has only stuff he >needs to *avoid* saying publicly, and then also a few stupid meannesses >to declare in order to secure the caveman vote. Like, he's opposed to >smut, having lost what little ability he ever possessed to enjoy smut >without breaking into a pimply sweat of guilt and bodily loathing. We >are supposed to applaud that? *You* go ahead and aplaud it. My own two >palms will not beat together over BobDole's lugubrious distaste for sex. >BobDole's opposed to "drug abuse" -- whatever the tradmarked name he >trots out to describe when other people decide what to do with their >bodies and with what implements and with what substances to do those deeds. I am opposed to legalization of drugs. I am for de-criminalization of drugs. Are you saying you want to legalize drugs, so anybody can take drugs who can afford to, maybe even at taxpayers' expense? Is our society ready for people driving motor vehicles under the influence of heroin, speed, etc.? Alcohol is bad enough, much less very strong psychotropic substances in every day life. No thanks. >Well, I'm not enthusiastic about the ignorant bastard's dislike of drugs >either. But one thing Dole, and his friends, ought *not* to be ignorant >about is that what people do to themselves with drugs is simply none of >Dole's proper business and none of his friends' business as well. We >libertarians don't need a sacred document to prove that fact to us; to us >it is as obvious as sunrise itself, and we can't understand those to whom >that fact is not similarly obvious. That's where *we* are coming from! >You want to know what's behind the obnoxiousness you reported from my >political breed? I mean, it isn't as if none of us Libertarians have >brains enough to know that we've got to suck up to the powers that be, >to give Caesar his due, and to kiss ass if we're going to be in on the >political victory celebration this coming January. We know we're losers. >The irritation behind our obnoxiousness does not come from the fact that >we will lose a Presidential election this coming November. The rage >comes from the fact that, once again, the people who run that perennial >electoral circus have succeeded in suppressing any actual real discussion >of controversial simple serious issues before the somnolent and depressed >American electorate -- the minority whose votes will be cast for Clinton >or Dole, because the majority won't support the political process at all >as it now stands, with their token stamped-from-identical-plastic ballots. >The Browne Out is what brings me slavering and screaming out of my skin. >It's what makes me want to snap somebody's head off and spit it into the >worm garden. This election season is "Shut Up Time", and the National >Rifle Association as usual joins the major media in support of that theme. >"If you can't speak convincingly for motherhood and apple pie then keep >your mouth shut. The American people don't want to hear you. And, by >God, they *won't* hear you. We, your mentors, will see to that!" >So I don't know "conservative" from "preservative", friend. Maybe c's are >my buddies, and maybe they ain't. The "liberals" I used to consider my >friends turned out otherwise. Evidently I misunderstood them. I do not >intend to misunderstand anybody else due to my old laxity and my tendancy >to follow somebody else's lead instead of using the ol' noggin. >This old noggin speaks loud and clear to *ME*: It says to me, "Vote for >Harry Browne. He's not going to be elected President in 1996, because >nowhere near enough citizens are going to be sensible enough to follow >this advice which I, thy noggin, unwaveringly offer to thee, Donald. But >every vote for Browne which *cannot* be ignored by the many who apparently >want to ignore every substantive issue they can get away with ignoring, >will be measured and weighed. And, unlike a vote for BobDole, a vote for >Harry Browne has a very clear, an unmistakeable, meaning. When that vote >gets heavy enough, say up in the two-digit percentage range, then the >meaning of that vote is going to start leaking into the mind of the body >politic, at which point, I hope, a delightful havoc is going to bust free. >You and I have had civil exchanges in the past. I hope that will happen >in the future too, Bob. But this is now a public matter, and you have >lured me out of my skin and into the fray. I am a very civil person, as anyone can attest to. >The fact is that your BobDole is going to lose by (alas!) a bigger %age >of the popular vote than will be accounted for by the votes which Harry >Browne will pick up. WRONG! Dole won't carry New Yawk City or other FarLeft enclaves, but he certainly will take a lot more than you are willing to concede. >Harry's being whited out by the media, and know >nothinged by the communities which ought to carry him on their shoulders. >People see my Harry Browne lapel pin on campus, and ask me, "Who's that?" >It's mainly a matter of "name recognition", you see. "Republican? Yep. >I know what that is. My daddy was a Republican. Democrat? Those are >the other guys -- you know, the poor dark-skinned urban scroungers whom >it is my indignity now to have to support with my taxes -- the bad guys." >And the Libertarians? Who are they? Oh. They're those loud mouths >who get in my way by failing to vote for the guy I'm sure they should >vote for, and *would* vote for, too, if they weren't such silly degenerate >self-indulgent *idealistic* coffee-klatch-babbling eggheaded nonentities. Jeez - you must not think very much of fellow Libertarians. I actually feel much differently than that about Libertarians as a group. For example, I am even willing to make an effort to point out the errors of their ways, something I don't waste time on with the FarLeft. >Just one more of same ilk here, >Yours in the hope that if I lay off other people's lives they'll leave me >in charge of my own life, >Donald Silberger > >P.S. I would love it if we Libertarians picked up enough of the popular >vote this November to account for BobDole's defeat, a defeat which is as >important to me as Clinton's is important to me. That, in a nutshell, is what bothers me about Libertarians - their seeming willingness, as expressed so suscuinctly by you right here, to allow that Total P.O.S. to be re-elected. >I'd love it if the >vote were 40% for Clinton, 30% for Dole, and 25% for Harry Browne with >the remaining 5% bequeathed less to Perot than to Nader, who deserves it. >That might conceivably persuade the RNC to pay a little heed to gun owners >in the year 2000 than it paid in 1996. Let it palpably hurt to ignore us. If klintoon gets re-elected, and, God forbid, he gets control of congress, the ensuing lame duck Reign of Terror will be so irreversible, that your scenario about year 2000 won't obtain. That's what scares the Living Shit(tm) out of me. >Of course, I'd prefer the vote to go 40% for Browne, 30% for Nader, and >the rest get fairly evenly divided among the once-major parties and >the might-someday-be's who're enlivened by a promisingly competitive future. Nader? Ralph Nader? Have you lost your everloving mind, man!? Now you are saying that Libertarians could live with Ralph Nader on the political scene. I give up. It's hopeless. Totally beyond redemption. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 22 Sep 1996 10:21:11 -0600 >The problem is that a vote for anyone but Dole is a vote for klintoon, and >that is not acceptable for any reasons, however noble they may seem. > >Bob Knauer > Many of us strongly believe that Clinton==Dole and Dole==Clinton when it gets to the basics of freedom. In other words, a CLinton Presidency is not going to be ( much) worse than a Dole Presidency would. So it doesn't matter which one you vote for. Hence, vote for real freedom. Make a real difference in our country. Vote for Browne. Dole will be a disaster for freedom, for RKBA, for this country. Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: cookies Date: 22 Sep 1996 10:21:14 -0600 >Does anyone know about cookies? I heard that they contain information about the >user, so I deleted mine from the netscape program. I also selected the >option to >be warned if someone tries to give me a cookie and I always decline now. Some >websites are very insistent, they try to give me a cookie around 20 times, >before they finally stop! > > Silvia I wouldn't worry about cookies personally. There is much more information about you elsewhere in this wide world that is much more interesting. My WWW site, The Electronic GunShop uses them if it can so that when you come back and want to post a classified ad a second time you don't have to remember what your id was that was assigned to you. While a site may be able to get a list of all your cookies (I haven't tried this so I don't know) it may not do them much good. The cookies couldn't be linked in most cases? to you the living breathing human except by the site that put them there and only if you gave them that info some other way. The chances are of this causing you any sirt if problems is very very remote. You can look at the "cookie" file and see what sort of info they are keeping. Usually it is just an id number or the last time you where there or the page you were on when there. Anyway, I personally wouldn't worry about them but if you want to worry much has been said about ways of trying to defeat them. best Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 22 Sep 1996 10:27:36 -0600 Mr Knauer quoting Mr. Silberger >>Of course, I'd prefer the vote to go 40% for Browne, 30% for Nader, and >>the rest get fairly evenly divided among the once-major parties and >>the might-someday-be's who're enlivened by a promisingly competitive future. > >Nader? Ralph Nader? Have you lost your everloving mind, man!? Now you are >saying that Libertarians could live with Ralph Nader on the political scene. > >I give up. It's hopeless. Totally beyond redemption. > > > I think what Mr. Silberger is saying is not that he would prefer Nader from a philosophic viewpoint but rather Nader and gang work on principles, however misguided those principles are, as opposed to the power hungry non-principled and un-principled jack *sses we have now in the Democrat and Republican parties. And principled folks, whowever wrong, deserve more respect than whores. best Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Kriho Trial to be Mockery of Justice (9/20/96) Date: 22 Sep 1996 12:34:26 -0400 >Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 18:04:57 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Kriho Trial to be Mockery of Justice (9/20/96) > >ACTION ALERT: Please post and distribute this announcement freely! > >For immediate release: September 20, 1996 > >Contact: Joe Vigorito, Colorado Legal Eagles > Email: joe@eagle-access.net > Phone: (303) 258-3990 >For background info. on the case, email: jrights@welcomehome.org > > Kriho Trial to be "Mockery of Justice" > > In what may turn out to be one of the most unfair trials in >American history, Laura Kriho has been scheduled for trial on >October 1, 1996. Kriho has been charged with contempt of court >for allegedly deliberating "improperly" when she served on a jury >recently. Former prosecutor and First Judicial District Chief >Judge Henry Nieto assigned himself the case last week after the >original judge, Kenneth Barnhill, recused himself. In court on >Friday, Judge Nieto ruled that Kriho could not have the trial re- >scheduled to give her adequate time to prepare her defense, that >Kriho would not be tried by a jury but by himself, and that the >prosecutor probably would not be dis-qualified from the case. These >rulings will make Kriho's trial a mockery of justice. > In the first ruling, the judge denied a defense motion to >re-schedule the trial for a later date. Paul Grant, defense >attorney for Kriho, argued that the defense had not had enough >time to prepare their case. Grant argued that it was a complex >case, the "first case like it in the history of the U.S.", and >that more time was needed to research and file motions, to >interview witnesses, to raise money and to prepare Kriho's >defense. > Grant also argued that he needed an opportunity to discover >the extent of communications about Kriho's case between the judge >and the prosecutor. Grant argued that Judge Barnhill, the >original judge who started the contempt proceedings, could not >have known which juror to prosecute if he hadn't been >communicating with the prosecution. Grant contended that such >communications would be an improper compromise of the >independence of the prosecution and of the judge and that such >cooperation would violate Kriho's right to a fair trial. > In addition, Grant wanted an opportunity to explore >communications about the case among judges in the district. >Grant argued that the prosecution of Kriho seems to be based on >theories espoused by Judge Frederic Rodgers, another Gilpin >County judge. Grant produced an article written by Judge Rodgers >which appeared in the summer issue of the "Judge's Journal". The >article described theories about how to prosecute >"obstructionist" jurors and falsely described Kriho's case. The >article may have been written before Barnhill even signed the >contempt citation against Kriho. > Grant pointed out that Judge Rodgers' article proposes a new >theory for prosecuting jurors and that theory is contained in the >contempt citation against Kriho, further indicating collaboration >between the prosecutor and the court. Grant said Kriho has a >right to know how Rodgers' theories became the basis for her >prosecution. > Grant asked Judge Nieto to compel the state to disclose any >communications about Kriho's case between Judge Barnhill, other >judges, and the prosecutor. Judge Nieto refused to allow Grant >to interview Judge Barnhill about these alleged communications. >Judge Nieto said there were "other avenues" for pursuing these >allegations and that it was not relevant to Kriho's case. > Jim Stanley, deputy district attorney, opposed the motion to >re-schedule the trial, saying it was a very "simple" case and >should go forward as scheduled. Judge Nieto ruled in favor of >the prosecution, agreeing it was a "simple" case and that it was >important to the citizens of Gilpin County to get this case >resolved quickly. Judge Nieto said the defense should have had >adequate time to prepare and that the case would go forward on >October 1. (This was changed from the original trial date, >September 30, due to a scheduling conflict of Judge Nieto.) > Grant was surprised that Judge Nieto would not allow him to >interview Judge Barnhill to determine the extent of his >communication with other judges and the prosecutor. Earlier in >the hearing, Judge Nieto had denied a defense request to have >expert witnesses testify on jury rights and jury behavior. Grant >said, "The judge has already denied us the right to defend Laura >against the charge that she had a hidden agenda when she served >on the jury by not allowing our expert witnesses to testify. >Now they are refusing to allow us to explore their hidden agenda >by not allowing us to interview Judge Barnhill." > Defense attorney Grant also argued a motion to disqualify >Jim Stanley as the prosecutor. Grant plans to call Stanley as a >witness, since Stanley was the original prosecutor on the trial >in which Kriho was a juror. Stanley argued he didn't need to >testify because everything he ever said at the trial was in the >trial transcripts. Grant refused to let his client be "tried by >transcript" and offered evidence to Judge Nieto, a witness >statement from a juror, that said Stanley had talked to jurors >outside the courtroom. > Judge Nieto decided not to rule on the motion to disqualify >Stanley, pending an interview of Stanley by defense attorney >Grant to determine what, if any, communication Stanley had with >other jurors that was not on the court record. > Judge Nieto also denied a defense motion to preserve Kriho's >trial by jury. The prosecution had granted Kriho a jury trial on >August 16 at her arraignment. Prosecutor Stanley said he had >changed his mind since then and now would not seek a jail term of >more than 6 months. (According to Colorado's contempt rule, the >defendant in a contempt of court proceeding does -not- have a >right to a jury trial unless a sentence of more than 6 months >might be imposed.) > Defense attorney Grant argued that the prosecution's attempt >to withdraw the jury trial was obviously a trial strategy >maneuver. Grant also argued that, since 11 other jurors will be >testifying against Kriho, that the court should grant her a jury >trial so it would have the appearance of fairness to the public. > Judge Nieto ruled in favor of the prosecution, denying Kriho >a trial by jury. Nieto stated that Kriho should be glad the jail >term could not exceed six months. > Kriho said, "To deny me a jury trial leaves little doubt >about the outcome of the trial. I can't imagine how I can ever >get a fair hearing in front of any judge in this district when >they have all probably read Judge Rodgers' article. It looks >like they intend to make my case a demonstration case, based on >Rodgers' article, so that they will be free to prosecute other >jurors who want to acquit based on reasonable doubts." > A motions hearing on Kriho's case has been set for Friday, >September 27. At that hearing Judge Nieto will rule one the >motion to disqualify the prosecutor. If Judge Nieto rules in >favor of the defense, a special prosecutor will be appointed. A >continuance would then be granted in the trial to give the new >prosecutor time to prepare. Judge Nieto will also rule on other >motions entered by the defense. > ### > > What you can do: > >******* ATTEND LAURA'S HEARING AND TRIAL ******** > It is very important to for Laura to have a large show of >support at her motions hearing and trial. Come be a witness to this >mockery of justice. > ** Friday, September 27 1:30 pm Motions Hearing > ** Tuesday, October 1 8:30 am Bench Trial Begins > >Directions to Gilpin County Justice Center > The justice center is located on Colo. Hwy. 46 (Golden Gate >Canyon State Park Road) about a half a mile east of Colo. Hwy. >119. Colo. Hwy. 46 is about halfway between Black Hawk and >Rollinsville on Colo. Hwy. 119. > Please call to confirm that the court appearances have not >been re-scheduled. > Gilpin County Court Clerk > (303) 582-5522 > >2) Donate to Laura's legal defense fund. This is a very >important case to all those who wish to preserve the jury system. >Jurors cannot be allowed to be poisoned by the courts with the >threat of prosecution for expressing reasonable doubt and >deliberating "improperly". > >Donations to Laura's defense fund can be made to: >Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund >c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) >Box 1272 >Parker, CO 80134 >(303) 841-9649 >pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > >3) Offers of legal assistance from serious attorneys can be made >to Paul Grant (303) 841-9649. > >4) Call these stations and ask them to cover Laura's controversial trial. > > Denver Area Television Stations >KWGN (Ind. - Ch. 2) (303) 740-2855 >KCNC (CBS - Ch. 4) (303) 830-6464 FAX 830-6380 kcncnews4@aol.com >KMGH (ABC - Ch. 7) (303) 832-0200 FAX 832-0119 >KUSA (NBC - Ch. 9) (303) 871-1499 FAX 698-4700 >KRMA (PBS - Ch. 6) (303) 892-6666 FAX 620-5600 > > National Broadcast Media >CNN (404) 827-1500 FAX (404) 681-3578 >Court TV ???? > > >4) Write a letter to the editors of these local papers. Mention >Laura's court dates and ask people to come. Letters should be >short (200-250 words). Include your address and phone number. > >***** Daily Newspapers ****** >Denver Post >1560 Broadway >Denver, CO 80202 >Phone: (303) 820-1010 >Fax: (303) 820-1369 >Email: letters@denverpost.com > >Rocky Mt. News >400 W. Colfax >Denver, CO 80204 >Phone: (303) 892-5000 >Fax: (303) 892-5499 >Email: letters@denver-rmn.com > >Daily Camera >P.O. Box 591 >Boulder, CO 80306 >Phone: (303) 442-1462 >Fax: (303) 449-9358 >Email: news@dailycamera.com > >Colorado Daily >P.O. Box 1719 >Boulder, CO 80306 >Phone: (303) 443-6272 >Fax: (303) 443-9357 >Email: talbot@bcn.boulder.co.us >Online Edition: http://bcn.boulder.co.us/media/colodaily > >Longmont Times-Call >350 Terry Street >Longmont, CO 80501 >Phone: (303) 444-3636 >Fax: (303) 772-8339 >Email: none > >**** Weekly Newspapers ***** > >Weekly Register-Call >Box 609 >Central City, CO 80427 >Phone: (303) 582-5333 >Fax: (303) 582-3932 >Email: none > >Mt. Ear >P.O. Box 99 >Nederland, CO 80466 >Phone: (303) 258-7075 >Fax: (303) 258-3547 >Email: mtn-ear@indra.com > >Boulder Weekly >690 S. Lashley Lane >Boulder, CO 80303 >Phone: (303) 494-5511 >Fax: (303) 494-2585 >Email: bweditor@tesser.com > >Westword >P.O. Box 5970 >Denver, CO 80217 >Phone: (303) 296-7744 >Fax: (303) 296-5416 >Email: editorial@westword.com > > >5) Copy and distribute this announcement. > > Thank you for all your support! >A great public outcry can help stop this mockery of justice and > preserve the Constitution for our children. > > "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by > man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its > constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson (1789) > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be removed from this mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > (303) 841-9649 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: #liberty IRC Date: 22 Sep 1996 14:22:24 -0500 At 07:26 PM 9/21/96 -0500, rcktexas@popd.ix.netcom.com wrote: > >Jeff is one of the best around. I am just about to put his USCON.TXT (The >Constitution) on the AIMNET RKBA Web Site. It will take a bit of work >putting the

tags in and other HTML stuff, and I do want to get right. >Including correcting any typos :-( You can get a copy already in html format at: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html they also have all the amendments at : http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html No point in re-inventing the wheel, so to speek. I also have another html version of the Bill of Rights with another file containing the rest of the the Amendments. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ("Doug McKay" ) Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Imitation SSN??? Date: 22 Sep 1996 12:57:46 -0700 --snip-- >Wouldn't be a lot of fun if that anytime you are asked for your SSN# >you made one up?? I'm not suggesting that you falsify you IRS forms >or official stuff like that.. But just some of the really silly folks >that seem to want a SSN these days.. A while ago, on this or another list, somebody mentioned that they always give a "fake" SSN that, years ago, used to always be on imitation SS cards inside of new wallets. Apparently it was decided that this particular SSN would never be *really* used so it could be used for stuff like this. I'll forward this to other lists, and hopefully the person will respond that originally posted it. It would be nice to give out when the folks at the video store, etc., ask for your SSN when they have *no* legal right to do so. - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 22 Sep 1996 13:34:33 PDT roc@xmission.com wrote : >Bob, guess who's come out of the woodwork: Yet one additional obnoxious >Libertarian! I was going to keep my cool through this. But you won, >because I can't keep cool through it any longer. Here goes: > >I'm not going to get into the quoted and snipped and requoted, "You said >and then I said, but you said, and I said," game, however. I do have my >energy limits as far as participatory discourse is concerned. I will >try not to be abusive, but I may fail. I probably won't answer abuse. > >Let me try to make this one shot accurate, then. Shall we, Donald? > >You Republicans are probably irritated. Your man, Dole, is going to lose, >and to lose fairly big. Whether or not he loses at all, however, *I* will >lose this coming 05 November. Most likely I will lose when Clinton keeps >the Presidency. But I may also lose when Dole takes the Presidency from >him. I do not see Dole as superior to Clinton. And I've been following >what both of those birds have been up to just as assiduously as most of us. >If I had nobody but Dole or Clinton to vote for then I wouldn't vote at all. > >Some of us Libertarians are obnoxious because we too are irritated. You >know, Bob: People who are angry have a hard time acting pleasant. Now, >somebody might call these words from my mouth "whining". Okay, then. I'm >whining. And, if this is whining then, by God, let it be shrill! > >We are irritated because whereas it seems to us that our philosophy is >quite simple and cleancut, compared with the mishmash we are supposed >instead to take seriously and that parades under the banner of Realpolitik, >Demopublican kind; nevertheless, despite the simplicity and the consistency >of our point of view, we Libertarians and libertarians are (sob sob whine >whine) constantly misunderstood. Well I must confess that my view of Libertarians is that they have the right to do anything they want .....and the rest of us get to pay to clean up after them. So, I devoted some time this morning to try and find out exactly what their positions were by going to their WWW site( www.lp.org). That certainly reinforced my belief that all they really believe in is CHAOS. When I went to the USTAXPAYERS site on one copy I got tens of thousands of bytes of platform to play with / edit / examine. At the Libertarian site I had to do a seprate copy and make a new file for each tiny subject: PURE CHAOS. Here is what I found under health care >[Libertarian Party Platform] >HEALTH CARE >We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We oppose >the efforts of Washington politicians to place all the spending on health >in American society within a federally-planned overall health budget. A new >national health budget will necessitate not only federal price controls on >health care services -- with all the waiting lines and distortions that >accompany price controls -- but also rationing of health care. The >bureaucratic, top-down system called "managed competition" that is to >determine what-gets-spent-on-what cannot escape being a political scramble >by special interests seeking health dollars and could never be an adequate >substitute for completely free competition in the medical marketplace. Ah! The wonderful concept of completely free competition. Of course one would think that in a system of perfectly free competition the poor would do completely without health care ....tho so far one can not tell >We advocate the complete separation of medicine and State. Recognizing the >individual's right to self-medication, we seek the elimination of all >government restrictions on the right of individuals to pursue alternative >forms of health care. Individuals should be free to contract with >practitioners of their choice for all health care services. We oppose any >government infringement upon the practitioner-patient relationship through >regulatory agencies or contracted review organizations. We condemn the >practice of criminally prosecuting medical practitioners under the >anti-trust laws. Ah! The great freedom of contracting with practioners of their choice .... as long as they have money .....and if they do not well nothing is said >We oppose any form of compulsory National Health Insurance, including >mandatory health insurance benefits required of employers by the >government. We favor abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs. We also ********* ** ******** *** ******** >oppose any state or federal area planning boards whose stated purpose is to >consolidate health services or avoid their duplication. We support the >removal of all government barriers to medical advertising, including >prohibition of publication of doctors' fees and drug prices. We further >support the elimination of laws requiring prescriptions for the dispensing >of medicines and other health-related items. Certainly can not object to that but it does cause one to wonder who is going to vote for it. After you leave out all having health care courtesy of Medicare and Medicaid you really expect 40% of the vote. One feels all libertarians not only advocate drugs but use them constantly >We condemn efforts by government to impose a medical orthodoxy on society. >We specifically condemn attempts by the F.D.A. to restrict the use of >vitamins, herbs, and other supplements. Until such time as the tyrannical >and futile drug prohibition is repealed, we advocate immediate >reclassification of all drugs, particularly marijuana and heroin, to make >them available for medicinal use. >We oppose the attempt by state and local governments to deny parents the >right to choose the option of home births and to discourage the development >of privately funded women's clinics. We call for the repeal of all laws >that restrict the practice of lay midwifery or that permit harassment of >lay midwives and home birth practitioners. We also call for the repeal of >all medical licensing laws, which have raised medical costs while creating >a government-imposed monopoly of doctors and hospitals. >Since a person's body is his or her own property, we favor repeal of the >existing prohibition on the commercial sale and purchase of body parts. And since you are so opposed to Police we can hardly wait for the headlines where people are knocked on head and dragged away to be cut up for body parts >We favor the deregulation of the health insurance industry, and oppose >government-imposed limits on its use of genetic and other screening and >testing methods. We oppose laws that limit the freedom of contract of >patients and health care professionals, and laws regulating the supply of >legal aid on a contingency fee basis. We also oppose subsidy of malpractice >insurance through public funds. We call for the repeal of laws forcing >health care professionals to render medical services in emergencies or >other situations. >We recognize that AIDS is a dread disease of epidemic proportions. But >governmental proposals to combat it present an unprecedented threat to >individual liberty and often encourage the spread of the disease. We oppose >all government-mandated AIDS testing. We are opposed to FDA restrictions >which make it difficult for individuals to secure treatment for this >disease. We also call for the decriminalization of hypodermic syringes, >especially since sharing needles is now a major means of transmission of >the disease. We oppose government-mandated contact tracing and state >intervention into the private medical records of individuals. We are >opposed to efforts by the government, especially the postal service, to >restrict the dissemination of AIDS education material. We support the >rights of all individuals to freedom of association including the right not >to associate. And we see how many writers of this platform must themselves be divorced from reality AIDS is a lifestyle problem. It is not a disease. It is simply the end result of all the filthy habits that Libertarians propose and push. >We condemn attempts at the federal, state, or local level to cripple the >advance of science by governmental restriction of research. We oppose >subsidies to, or restrictions of, medical education. We call for an end to >government policies compelling individuals to submit to medical >experiments, treatment, and testing. We condemn compulsory hospitalization, >compulsory vaccination, and compulsory fluoridation. As interim measures, >we advocate dollar-for-dollar tax credits to any individual or group >providing health care services to the needy or paying for such services. >Tax credits should also be made available for private grants to medical >education and medical research. TAX CREDITS! The mind boggles. Paragarph after paragraph on how all have the right to do what they want / destory themselves any way they wish and now we see just as I thought while Libertarians are for the right of all to abuse their bodies as they wish and all the competition of the free market they are also in favor of totally trampling all over the free market by providing TAX CREDITS so that those too poor to be a market in can compete for medical services. And yet you had this wondrous thought >>We are irritated because whereas it seems to us that our philosophy is >>quite simple and cleancut, How pray tell can anything so self-INconsistent be quite simple and cleancut >Because all individuals should have full responsibility and control of >their own lives, we support the right of terminally or hopelessly ill >persons to end their lives. Ah! Full Responsibility and control of their own lives. Really sounds like one who has ODed on DRUGS you push so hard is really trying to take his own life and that 911 should not respond. Or when a drunk lies in the gutter is he not taking full responsiblity for his life and deciding to end it and in agreement with the above should he / she just not be left to rot there .....until the cloud of flies becomes too much of a nuisance for others. However, one can not tell because in this simple and clearcut policy all the important issues are glossed over >We support the freedom to use living wills and >durable medical powers of attorney in which individuals declare the manner >in which they are to be treated and the procedures for disposal of their >remains. In the absence of such wills and the ability for the individual to >choose (e.g. coma) the matter should be decided by such person or persons >as the individual may have clearly preferred, with whatever guidance they >may desire. In keeping with the principle of non-coercion, no individual >shall be forced to either continue or terminate life sustaining care. This >right does not entitle individuals to force medical professionals or others >to assist them in ending their lives or in continuing life support. >Because existing tax policy has dampened price competition and consumer >cost-consciousness in the medical industry, we would provide not only tax >breaks for employer-provided health plans (whose value is not currently >taxed as income), but also individual tax credits so that families can >choose their own health plans. And again while on the one hand all have full responsiblity of what they do to their body IF THEY CAN NOT PAY THE DAMAGE OTHERS WILL HAVE TO since TAX CREDITS CAN BE USED TO BUY MEDICAL TREATMENT. Really now! If this is a simple clear cut philosophy what would a complicated philosophy be But it gets worse and worse. What follows is what I found under TAXES in the same WEB page >[Libertarian Party Platform] >TAXATION >Since we believe that all persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their >labor, we oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible >collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights. Specifically, we: >a. recognize the right of any individual to challenge the payment of taxes >on moral, religious, legal, or constitutional grounds; >b. oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital >gains taxes; >c. support the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and oppose any increase >in existing tax rates and the imposition of any new taxes; >d. support the eventual repeal of all taxation; and >e. support a declaration of unconditional amnesty for all those individuals >who have been convicted of, or who now stand accused of, tax resistance. >As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion >should be terminated immediately. >We oppose as involuntary servitude any legal requirements forcing employers >or business owners to serve as tax collectors for federal, state, or local >tax agencies. >We oppose any and all increases in the rate of taxation or categories of >taxpayers, including the elimination of deductions, exemptions, or credits >in the spurious name of "fairness," "simplicity," or alleged "neutrality to >the free market." No tax can ever be fair, simple, or neutral to the free >market. >In the current fiscal crisis of states and municipalities, default is >preferable to raising taxes or perpetual refinancing of growing public >debt. I tend to like most of the above. However, I have great difficulty with the horrible inconsistency of doing away with all taxation in one section and using tax credits to fund medical care which currently amount to over one sixth of the total GDP. If a person has no TAXES how does a credit against nothing pay for health care. You are after all a mathematician. Don't these frightful inconsistencies drive you to drink / drugs ....or maybe they already have. Be that as it may I am eagerly awaiting your *crystal clear explanation* of how all are supposed to take full responsibility for the damage they do their own bodies while tax credits will be available to pay for health care and yet more interesting how tax credits can pay for anything if no one has to pay any taxes. Bad as the present mess is one feels that jumping from known frying pan to totally inconsitent fire is not getting anyplace Jack > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Imitation SSN??? Date: 22 Sep 1996 14:54:59 -0700 Here's the answer to my SSN question, folks - use it in good health - Monte >> A while ago, on this or another list, somebody mentioned that they always >> give a "fake" SSN that, years ago, used to always be on imitation SS cards >> inside of new wallets. Apparently it was decided that this particular SSN >> would never be *really* used so it could be used for stuff like this. >> >> I'll forward this to other lists, and hopefully the person will respond >> that originally posted it. >It wasn't me, but I had a copy of the SSN faq, a very interesting >document talking about how the SSN has been misused. It has since >been posted to the web at www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/ssn.faq.html > >Try these numbers: >078-05-1120 - the number printed in the wallets, well known by people >who really need your SSN, but good enough to get by clerks etc. > >987-65-4320 to > -4329 - numbers now used for advertisements. > >Also, anything with all zeros in a field, or anything above 800 is >unused. - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Imitation SSN??? Date: 22 Sep 1996 14:34:01 PST On Sep 22, Liberty or Death wrote: >--snip-- >>Wouldn't be a lot of fun if that anytime you are asked for your SSN# >>you made one up?? I'm not suggesting that you falsify you IRS forms >>or official stuff like that.. But just some of the really silly folks >>that seem to want a SSN these days.. > >A while ago, on this or another list, somebody mentioned that they always >give a "fake" SSN that, years ago, used to always be on imitation SS cards >inside of new wallets. Apparently it was decided that this particular SSN >would never be *really* used so it could be used for stuff like this. > >I'll forward this to other lists, and hopefully the person will respond that >originally posted it. > >It would be nice to give out when the folks at the video store, etc., ask >for your SSN when they have *no* legal right to do so. Ok, here you go. 078-05-1120 There are others, but I don't know them. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Good Bill Passes In California!!! (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1996 07:40:53 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 72624.1306@compuserve.com, 72602.3053@compuserve.com, 72674.1166@compuserve.com, 70325.1312@compuserve.com, AFirster@aol.com, act@efn.org, BratPuppy@aol.com, C405@aol.com, cduke@csn.org, cedarcar@ix.netcom.com, ChrisACE@aol.com, clarkm@cnct.com, constitution@earthlink.net, converse@techline.com, cooley_stephen@smtp2.space.honeywell.com, DDavistedd@aol.com, DixyYankee@aol.com, Drschell@nando.net, ESaladin@aol.com, EduktorMI@aol.com, e.mueller@juno.com, eplurib@first.megalinx.net, erik.kocher@airpower.com, EWCHIEF@aol.com, fija@channel1.com, forman@netcom.com, FreeAmeric@aol.com, Freedude@olywa.net, fribbles@lights.iii.net, fsjjk@aurora.alaska.edu, gdk@ccomp.inode.com, GPAULC@aol.com, Geomoto@aol.com, glenn@logoplex.com, gra96@admin.inetport.com, GvMeLbty@www.tnis.net, HenryM4306@aol.com, Homestay@netcom.com, iii@indirect.com, JAdam2594@aol.com, jeb@nwcs.org, jeffr@netpath.net, jgwmson@slider.unm.edu, Jlof@aol.com, Josgood@acronet.net, Joyce1@ix.netcom.com, jross@rosseng.com, jss@patlink.mv.com, simsj@esn126.scra.org, kcjones@eskimo.com, l.lee26@genie.geis.com, LEVINLAW@aol.com, LIBERTY89@aol.com, LibertyGrl@aol.com, Linda_Collette@brown.edu, loganv@earthlink.net, M9776@erols.com, Manchue@aol.com, MrBeat@aol.com, MSPANJAN@aol.com, NOSHER@aol.com, nssc@inlink.com, PAgler@aol.com, pfw@usa.net, phappley@ford.com, PilgrimCpt@aol.com, Pwatson@utdallas.edu, pc-man@netaxs.com, Rdy4Battle@aol.com, rkoz@gnn.com, RSayles@aol.com, RDWIG@aol.com, Rkbaesq@aol.com, roc@xmission.com, rodcole@cole.com, rwvm81a@prodigy.com, serra_semco@msn.com, steve.washam@wwwhbbs.com, talk@4bypass.com, Telanderso@aol.com, TheBanner2@aol.com, thomas.lindly@engineers.com, timr@efn.org, tomclay@mindspring.com, tootie@peoples.net, USAFeature@gnn.com, village6@juno.com, whig@pobox.com *************************************************** THE LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION, DRAFTING, EDITING AND RESEARCH SERVICE (LEADERS) P.O. Box 3245; Frederick, MD 21705 =====PUBLISHER OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP MAGAZINE===== 301-293-0001 Leaders@aol.com 301-759-1010 Leader Mag@aol.com http://logoplex.com/shops/leaders/ *************************************************** TO: Priority Recipients RE: AB 3086, California Occasionally, we win a big one! The State of California has passed a bill that should be considered a model for other states. Credit Assemblyman Keith Olberg for following through and pushing this bill. This short and sweet education bill agruably does more to improve the political awareness of California's graduating students than most could have hoped for. It requires the teaching of the Constituiton--in its entirety --along with numerous other pieces of the original intent puzzle, to students. The bill was amended several time during its trek through the legislative process. It was changed for the better, with the final version requiring the reading and teaching of George Washington's Farewell Address, The Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation. Give California's Legislature an "A" for the favorable vote! The bill passed the Senate on August 20, and the House on August 30, according to California's bill tracking office. AB-3086 is now awaiting the Governor's signature. Following is the text of the bill. THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 51230 is added to the Education Code, to read: 51230. As a part of the course in American government and civics required for high school graduation pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 51225.3, all pupils shall read and be taught all of the following: (a) The Declaration of Independence (b) The United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (c) The Federalist Papers (d) The Emancipation Proclamation (e) The Gettysburg Address (f) George Washington's Farewell Address. SECTION 2. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this act shall become operated on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 23 Sep 1996 07:45:15 -0500 >Many of us strongly believe that Clinton==Dole and Dole==Clinton when it >gets to the basics of freedom. In other words, a CLinton Presidency is not >going to be ( much) worse than a Dole Presidency would. So it doesn't >matter which one you vote for. Hence, vote for real freedom. Make a real >difference in our country. Vote for Browne. >Dole will be a disaster for freedom, for RKBA, for this country. ----- Can you back up that last statement, in particular the RKBA part, with facts? Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: TOSN: newsflash: Judge abridges parental rights (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1996 07:59:50 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:34:03 -0700 >From: "Dave Hathaway" (by way of Dale Miller ) > >Hillary's Village is taking more and more responsibility for kids who >are put in public school. At least one judge in Texas says that >parents give up their rights when they drop their kids off at school! >Read this one and weep. God help us all. > > >JUDGE REDEFINES ROLE OF PARENTS: (American Family Association >Journal, September 1996, page 9) It's official. Public schools are >now the parents for our children, at least according to a federal >judge. Federal district Judge Melinda Harmon made that determination >in a Texas case where a child was questioned by Children's Protective >Services (CPS) officials without his parents' knowledge. During that >interrogation, the boy was forced to strip so a female CPS Worker >could check for signs of the paddling the boy's parents allegedly >administered. When the youth's family found out about the case, they >immediately filed suit against the school district. In finding for >the school district, Judge Harmon ruled that "parents give up their >rights when they drop the children off at public school." > >+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- >You may be removed from The Other Side of the News mailing list at >any time by sending email to dhathaw@cris.com with the subject >Unsubscribe Other Side. Please direct comments to Mark E. Howerter >at otherside@misslink.net. Old articles can be found at: > http://www.cris.com/~dhathaw/otherside/ > finger dhathaw@finger.cris.com for the PGP public key >+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > > > **************************************************** "If ten thousand people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing" -- Anatole France (rec'd from Karen Scarborough) **************************************************** Harvey Wysong, National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Assn. 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 23 Sep 1996 07:27:55 -0600 >>Many of us strongly believe that Clinton==Dole and Dole==Clinton when it >>gets to the basics of freedom. In other words, a CLinton Presidency is not >>going to be ( much) worse than a Dole Presidency would. So it doesn't >>matter which one you vote for. Hence, vote for real freedom. Make a real >>difference in our country. Vote for Browne. > >>Dole will be a disaster for freedom, for RKBA, for this country. > >----- > >Can you back up that last statement, in particular the RKBA part, with facts? > >Bob Knauer > Dole passed the Brady Bill after it was dead. Dole pledged support for an assault weapons repeal. Now he says he would VETO it if Congress were to pass one. Those are just two offhand. If one were to take time to extensively look at his voting record and his statements of the last billion years and also see who he supported for the Supreme Court one would probably find further evidence. However, I have not done that so cannot say. Re: freedom Howlin Blue I believe, or someone else posted a week or two ago, Dole's big Police State ideas he wants to implement in the US in his misguided drug war ideas. I believe he supported the CDA and other loss of freedom bills. The above are all just offhand. Extensive research on this would probably expose a lot more. He heas no principles. He even said he would do whatever it takes to become President. He vacillates almost as fast as Clinton does on issues. best regards Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: #liberty IRC Date: 23 Sep 1996 08:34:20 -0500 I am the one who originally commented on #liberty (see below). I would like to join you discussion, but I will not do so under the terms of second-class citizenship. When I last joined, the channel moderator gave +o status to everyone who joined but me. When I inquired about that, he said they had trouble before. Not wanting to be implicated in any "trouble", whatever that means, I just left. There is something intrinsically wrong with IRC when it permits setting up two classes of citizenship in an *open* discussion group - and since you are promoting it here, I take that to mean it is *open*. I can understand the reasons for +o status in a *closed* group, but then I would never join a closed group in the first place. Also, BTW, I could not find mIRC on TUCOWS. They have rearranged things to the point that it is almost impossible to find anything there. I used their search feature and got nowhere. Maybe it is fixed now, but it wasn't about a week or so ago. I finally found mIRC thru Alta Vista. Finally, FWIW, your email address hangs when I tried to send this message on Netcom. That is likely Netcom's screwup, but I thought you might want to know. Bob Knauer ----- David Arndt wrote: >To whoever made this post, > >This is the first that I'm hearing about >anyone being "booted" from #liberty or >"not being given full citizenship" (whatever >*that* means - op status, perhaps?) on >the #liberty channel. > >Anyway, as you have pointed out, the IRC >is a wide open medium - and being on the >IRC, #liberty inherits this attribute... this is >a good thing, IMO. And although #liberty is >definately oriented toward a free-minds, free- >markets, libertarian type of attitude, it does >the discussion no service to exclude those of >opposing viewpoints. I don't know if this is >what happened, but I *would* be interested to >hear what actually happend on the #liberty >channel to prompt this thread of conversation. > >In Liberty (for #liberty), > > - Dave Arndt > >PS: >I have no official role with the #liberty channel, >other than being one of the original participants, >and a volunteer "marketeer" on their behalf. Nobody >can actually "own" this stuff - unless they run the >server, of course! -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] Fwd: Strapped NRA Lays Off Workers (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1996 08:41:00 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --------------------- Forwarded message: .c The Associated Press By RICHARD KEIL Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- In signs of continuing financial trouble, the National Rifle Association has laid off 30 workers and suspended production of its weekly cable television program, according to NRA officials. Two NRA board members said the gun lobby has furloughed almost 10 percent of its roughly 400-employee work force in recent weeks. The group also is relocating staff in its headquarters building to free space to rent to other companies, one board member said. The goal: to generate enough rental revenue to help cover payrolls in coming months. ``There is no other reason for this than money problems,'' said one of the board members. The members spoke on condition their names not be used. NRA spokesman Bill Powers would not comment on layoffs beyond an Aug. 26 press release that said the NRA was putting renewed emphasis on grass-roots initiatives. ``To meet the growing demand for the many programs of NRA, we must continue to empower our members ... in the communities where our members live, rather than from a building near Washington's beltway,'' the release quoted Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president. That same day, LaPierre sent a letter to NRA board members notifying them of the group's ``ongoing efforts to streamline headquarters operations.'' In that memo, he announced the association's restructuring into seven divisions, with the popular Hunter Services division slated for elimination. And in an accompanying document, he said the changes mean ``less of a demand for staff at NRA headquarters.'' ``Just as other major organizations and companies seek to improve efficiency, so too should the NRA,'' LaPierre wrote. Cancellation of the television show, which cost the NRA at least $310,000 in 1995, is another sign of financial problems at the lobbying group, which has depleted most of its cash reserves and run deficits during much of the 1990s. ``Our contract was up in July, and right now they're showing reruns,'' said NRA spokesman Chip Walker. ``We're exploring our options right now, and we'll have to wait and see what happens.'' Since December 1994, the NRA has aired the hour-long public affairs show on the populist, conservative-oriented National Empowerment Television cable network, which reaches 12 million homes nationwide. Reruns have been running since July 30, when the old contract expired. The key reason the contract was not renewed, NRA officials said, is that NET requested a significant rate increase. ``What they want to do, we would have real trouble paying for,'' one NRA official said. While production of new shows has been suspended, NET general manager Bob Swanner said both groups ``are exploring future options'' in hopes of a new deal. Swanner acknowledged the program's cost was one item under negotiation but said many others were as well, including the program's content and its broadcast schedule. The NRA's financial woes stem from a multimillion-dollar campaign aimed at boosting membership. The plan, which cut into cash reserves, backfired amid negative publicity. Last year, as membership reached 3.5 million, former President Bush quit the NRA after a fund-raising letter referred to federal agents as ``jack-booted government thugs.'' Since then, membership has dropped to about 2.8 million. At the end of 1995, according to NRA financial records, the group's liabilities exceeded its assets by $44 million. It reported it had about $49 million in cash and investments on hand at the end of 1995. But the bank holding the mortgage on its new headquarters in Fairfax, Va., requires the NRA to keep $36 million in cash, an arrangement that means the NRA can spend none of that reserve for day-to-day operations. NRA officials said the now-expired arrangement with NET cost about $150,000 per year, while production costs amounted to at least $160,000 in 1995 alone. NRA officials said NET initially asked the gun lobby to boost its payments to $1 million per year, then dropped the asking price to $750,000. AP-NY-09-23-96 0105EDT Copyright 1996 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without prior written authority of The Associated Press. To edit your profile, go to keyword NewsProfiles. For all of today's news, go to keyword News. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Fwd: NSSC Doc Berit Kjos - Habitat II (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1996 08:43:43 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --------------------- Forwarded message: CC: PawlRevere@aol.com >X-Authentication-Warning: shell1.inlink.com: nssc owned process doing -bs >Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 11:11:33 -0500 (CDT) >From: Nick Ivanovich >X-Sender: nssc@shell1 >To: uwsa >Subject: NSSC Doc Berit Kjos - Habitat II > >Please forward this important information to your networks. > >Nick Ivanovich, >National Coordinator, >NATIONAL STATE SOVEREIGNTY COALITION >"Information/Acton, Of By and For the People" > >Visit our New NSSC homepage: >http://ai2a.net/~ldelcelf/nssc2.htm >* * * * * * * * * * >(Begin Document) > > NATIONAL STATE SOVEREIGNTY COALITION > "Information & Action....Of, By and For the People" >Please Distribute Doc. 117 9/21/96, pg 1 of 3 >Note: BERIT KJOS, in St. Louis, Thursday, Sept 26th, 7pm, >2210 McKelvey Rd., Maryland Heights > > THE UNITED NATIONS - HABITAT II - ISTANBUL CONFERENCE >by Berit Kjos, > Bicycles instead of cars? Dense Apartment clusters instead of single >Homes? Community rituals instead of churches? "Human rights" instead of >religious freedom? The UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat >II) which met June 3-14 in Istanbul, painted an alarming picture of the 21st >century community. The American ways -- free speech, individualism, >travel, and Christianity -- are OUT. A new set of economic, environmental, >and social guidelines are IN. Citizenship, democracy, and education have >been redefined. Handpicked civil leaders will implement UN "laws," >bypassing state and national representatives to work directly with the UN. >And politically-correct "tolerance" -- meaning "the rejection of dogmatism >and absolutism: as well as "appreciation" for the world's religions and >lifestyles -- is "not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal >requirement." > Hard to believe? Not for veteran UN observers who faced boos and >hisses for expressing concern in open UN assemblies. Nor for pro-family >members of NGOs (non-government organizations) who faced exclusion >from public dialogues for opposing feminist commander Bell Abzug and >her radical agenda. And not for those who watched the ecstatic welcome >given Fidel Castro and his anti-American diatribe. Yet our President and >our non-elected American delegates, headed by U.S. Secretary Henry >Cisneros, endorse this revolutionary plan, and our U.S. Department of >Education is already establishing the framework for its local >implementation. Why? What is happening? > PRO-COMMUNIST IDEALS - "We are the world and the world >does not yield to masters nor to suicidal policies," declared Castro, >concluding his June 14 plenary remarks aimed at Western capitalist >nations. "The world does not accept that a minority of selfish, insane and >irresponsible people lead it to annihilation." "Fidel, Fidel..." shouted the >audience. The thunderous applause followed him all the way back to the >cuban section on the other side of the hall, where fans lined up to shake >his hand. >"Why are you so enthusiastic?" I asked some of his fans after the session. >"Because he stood up to America," someone answered. "Because he is a >living myth," explained another. He was a simple guerrilla, fighting for the >oppressed against rich and powerful." "Fighting for the oppressed..." the >UN claims that mission, but third-world women who have faced its abusive >birth control practices tell a different story. Like the Communist Manifesto, >the alluring UN promises designed to win support cloak an agenda that >shows little compassion once power has been won. > In fact, Communist ideology permeated major NGO workshops, >official UN literature, and the organizational guidelines for local >communities. Entering the huge "Best Practices: exhibition of model cities, >visitors immediately faced wall-sized pictures and elaborate models of >Chinese housing projects and community plans. Displays from the rest of >the world shared the strips along the outer perimeter of the cavernous hall. >Behind the huge Chinese section, visitors watched Turner Broadcasting >videos. Featuring Jane Fonda who once brought anti-American greetings >to North Vietnam, each film taught a politically-correct plan for personal >empowerment; a roomful of men learn to use Singer sewing machines; >women are trained to run a collective construction company; a sad mother >holding a crying baby brings a politically-correct message: "Baby Miguel's >life would be different if his mother was educated and working." A tough >Jamaican supervisor at a women's collective shouts, "We don't want to >make babies, we want to make money! We can become meaningful people >to society without having children! We must produce, not reproduce!" > POPULATION CONTROL - The Turner-Fonda message matches >the feminist agenda. Former U.S. Congresswoman Bella Abzug, who had >led the onslaught on traditional values at the 1995 UN conference in >Beijing, now helped engineer an official partnership between UN leaders, >national delegates, and NGOs that support the UN gender agenda. >Stationed around the world, her feminist troops promise to serve as >watchdogs, making sure "civil society' implements their program for >indoctrinating students with feminist ideology. Inspired by the spirits of >earthy goddesses such as Athena and Istar whom they worshipped in >Beijing, they have little tolerance for Christians and others who oppose >their agenda. > "We want to change things," declared Abzug. "We'll be on executive >boards. We want the participation of NGOs on the Security Council." She >serves the globalist purpose well. Mobilizing worldwide rebellion against >Christian values, pushing birth control and gender-role equity for every >family, demanding sex education for every student, and requiring >international surveillance to monitor compliance, her followers are >speeding the global revolution. Like countless other UN partners, they are >winning by propaganda, intimidation, and growing popular consent. Note >that population control means controlling people, not merely births. >Regarded as international law, the Habitat-Agenda negotiated in Istanbul >includes all the intrusive action plans outlined at former UN world >conferences. "We want to ensure that previously endorsed language [from >former UN conferences] is upheld and incorporated into this document," >declared Henry Cisneros, U.S. Secretary for Housing and Urban >Development (HUD) who led the U.S. delegation.... Training in global >citizenship would begin with the universal education system outlined at the >1990 UN World Conference on Education for All. It matches Goals 2000, >America's version of the international education system. Already molding >minds around the world, the UN plan for "lifelong learning: indoctrinates >young and old with the socialist ideology and earth-centered spirituality >designed to create solidarity, an essential element to the envisioned world >of peace. > SOLIDARITY - Traditional beliefs simply don't fit the UN vision for >the 21st century communities. To find more universal values, Habitat >leaders convened a day-long "dialogue" on the meaning of Solidarity at the >elegant Ciragan Palace in Istanbul. The official list of 21 panel members >included former Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek, historian Arthur >Schlesinger, Jr., and Maurice Strong who led the 1992 UN conference on >environment. "I have gathered leaders with tremendous wisdom and >prestige," began Habitat Secretary-General Wally N'Dow. They are >bringing the spiritual dimension -- the only ingredient that can bind >societies together." He had chosen an American moderator who would add >credibility to the discussion: Robert MacNeil (of MacNeil-Lehrer), "one of >the spiritual lights of the media industry today." > This hand-picked "interfaith group" left little doubt that solidarity >meant a universal shift to the new globalist-New Age paradigm (or world- >view). "Change your whole way of thinking, because the new order of the >spirit is confronting and challenging you," said Millard Fuller, President of >Habitat for Humanity. Citizenship for the next century is learning to live >together," said Federico Mayor, Director General of UNESCO. "The 21st >century city will be a city of social solidarity... We have to redefine the >world...[and write a new] social contract." We should stop bemoaning the >growth of cities," added Dr. Ismail Scragledin, vice President of the World >Bank. "It's going to happen and it's a good thing, because cities are the >vectors of social change and transformation. Let's just make sure that >social change and transformation are going in the right direction." Later he >added, "The media must act as part of the education process that counters >individualism." > The heart of lifelong education would be spiritual training. "What's >needed is an interfaith center in every city of the globe,: said James >Morton, dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine, who >organized the panel. "The new interfaith centers will honor the rituals of >every...faith tradition: Islam, Hinduism, Jain, Christian [a cross-less version >that blends with other beliefs]...and provide opportunity for sacred >expressions needed to bind the people of the planet into a viable, >meaningful, and sustainable solidarity." (The Cathedral of St. John the >Divine is home to the Gaia Institute, the Temple of Understanding, the >Lindesfarne Assoc. and the National Religious Partnership for the >Environment which is currently mailing "education and activity kits" to >53,000 American congregations.) > SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - The guiding principle of the >new universal education system is "sustainable development." People >everywhere must be taught "facts" about environmental "risks" that are >sensational enough to scare them into compliance. They must be >persuaded to accept unthinkable limits on consumption, land use, >transportation, and family size. Everyone must protect resources for future >generations, say UN leaders, but they agree that the real meaning of >sustainability is based on the E's: Environment, Economy, and Equity, >which point to a redistribution of the world's resources -- money, energy, >water, and people - in order to create global equality. History has shown >the emptiness of these promises. Long ago the Communist Manifesto >announced a proletarian revolution which would empower the poor by >redistributing wealth. Everyone would be equal. Men and women alike >would join the socialist workforce, and children would be trained by the >state. > It happened! All but the leaders became equally poor, and all the >children were indoctrinated with an anti-Christian socialist philosophy. >Morally and economically, the masses sank to the level of the lowest >common denominator. The similarities between the Communist Manifesto >and the UN agenda (outlined in the Beijing Declaration and incorporated >into the Habitat Agenda) should be a call to action. Both revolutions -- > >* Use psychology and sociology to establish the victimhood, blame and >anger needed to fuel the revolution. * Use education to conform minds >to the new ideology. * Use synthesis (blending opposing views into >compromise beliefs that match new goals) to produce group consensus. >* Promise economic equality to seduce the masses. * Spread hatred >toward "extremists" who refuse to compromise. > >The Communist Manifesto led to religious, moral and economic >bankruptcy. Yet UN-led activists and their U.S. partners are determined to >fulfill their utopian vision. > IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN - The U.S. Network for Habitat II >is one of a myriad of national and international UN organizations >committed to carry out the UN plan in local communities. "The Network >is a forum for making sure people are heard," explained one of its leaders. >"Its role is to tie together the messages from all six UN conferences into >practical action." "Partnerships will be increasingly important," he >continued, 'people in faith communities can help us. We use the African >proverb: 'It takes a village to raise a child.' Collaboration that >links...government, the private sector, and the civil sector." > Do you see the resemblance to the "People's Government" that >characterized the local "soviets" in the former USSR? Lenin knew he >couldn't win through representative democracy, so he organized local >assemblies called Soviets. linked through a national federation of Soviets, >each local Soviet was ruled by the uneducated proletariat, the "raw >material to be molded by an audacious leader" skilled in the use of >propaganda. Private merchants, landlords, and priests were excluded from >leadership. The chosen elites were supervised and disciplined by rulers at >a high level. Few dared complain. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in 'The Law >of the Soviet State', "There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, >and so on for the foes of socialism." > THE UN PLAN MATCHES U.S. PLANS - The UN agenda fits well >into the policy-making framework already being established in U.S. >communities. Three official plans for transforming cities show how UN >tactics for change work hand-in glove with U.S. strategies. In 1995, school >districts from coast to coast were asked to use Education Secretary Riley's >'COMMUNITY ACTION TOOLKIT' to change public opinion and win >support for Goals 2000. In 1996 two similar plans for local transformation >were introduced: > * 'LOCAL AGENDA 21 PLANNING GUIDE,' he Habitat II action >plan based on Agenda 21, the environmental program negotiated at the >1992 UN World Conference on Environment and Development. > * 'SUSTAINABLE AMERICA: A NEW CONSENSUS,' report by >the President's Council for Sustainable Development. > The striking similarity among the three plans suggest an alarming >cooperation between the UN and U.S. authors. All three share the >following buzzwords or concepts: partnerships, consensus, lifelong learning, >baselines or benchmarks, monitoring, assessment, data gathering, systemic >change, system thinking, social development, etc. All stress the need to >measure, assess, and monitor progress. All are designed to bypass >traditional government and govern people through a form of "citizens" or >"grassroots participation: which the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to as >"totalitarian democracy" and Communist leaders have called "People's >Government." In the U.S. this system is already bypassing both state and >national representative governments. As in Lenin's Soviets, neither UN >forums nor the U.S. community meetings on education will acknowledge >dissenting voices. Resisters are silenced by trained facilitators who only >record voices that echo the "right" ideology...... > NSSC, PO Box 29106 - St. Louis, MO 63126 > 314-843-3457 V, 314-843-0110 Fx, nssc@inlink.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: Good Bill Passes In California!!! (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1996 09:07:00 -0500 >THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: [snip] > (c) The Federalist Papers ===> (d) The Emancipation Proclamation ===> (e) The Gettysburg Address ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ They just had to ruin a good thing pandering to those who think Mr. Democracy is a hero. Who in their right mind would ever want to read that crap anyway? Now they are going to poison school children's minds with this lunacy about Lincoln being such a great "hero" for "freeing the slaves". Why don't they instead ask the real slaves in the South what they think of the Great Masturbator. The truth will never come out about that Tyrant if this keeps happening. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 23 Sep 1996 09:30:24 -0500 >>>Dole will be a disaster for freedom, for RKBA, for this country. >>Can you back up that last statement, in particular the RKBA part, with >>facts? >Dole passed the Brady Bill after it was dead. Dole pledged support for an >assault weapons repeal. Now he says he would VETO it if Congress were to >pass one. >Those are just two offhand. >If one were to take time to extensively look at his voting record and his >statements of the last billion years and also see who he supported for the >Supreme Court one would probably find further evidence. However, I have >not done that so cannot say. >Re: freedom >Howlin Blue I believe, or someone else posted a week or two ago, Dole's big >Police State ideas he wants to implement in the US in his misguided drug >war ideas. >I believe he supported the CDA and other loss of freedom bills. >The above are all just offhand. Extensive research on this would probably >expose a lot more. >He has no principles. He even said he would do whatever it takes to >become President. He vacillates almost as fast as Clinton does on issues. ----- I personally don't believe Dole is all that bad, but I have been know to be wrong before. The fact that he is a politician to begin with means he has several strikes against him. But this time I am asking for hard facts, from both sides, before I will accept he is "just the same as klintoon". Remember that my position in the ABC vs. LP debate is that the only vote that will keep klintoon from being re-elected is a vote for Dole. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean I support Dole. Is there not one person out there who can defend Dole? Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Good Bill Passes In California!!! (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1996 10:48:20 EDT On Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:07:00 -0500 "R. Knauer-AIMNET" writes: >>THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: > >[snip] > >> (c) The Federalist Papers > >===> (d) The Emancipation Proclamation >===> (e) The Gettysburg Address > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >They just had to ruin a good thing pandering to those who think Mr. >Democracy is a hero. Who in their right mind would ever want to read >that >crap anyway? > >Bob Knauer Bob, Boy!! You don't cut no body no slack no way. GIVE EM HELL! Gary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Definition Of Politics Date: 23 Sep 1996 10:06:10 -0500 From LOTD. Bob Knauer +++++ Definition Of Politics Son: Dad, I have a special report for school. Can I ask you a question? Dad: Sure son, what's the question? Son: What is politics? Dad: Well son, let's take our home for example. I am the wage earner, so let's call me the management. Your mother is the administrator of the money, so let's call her the government. We take care of you and your needs, so let's call you the people. We'll call the maid the working class and your baby brother the future. Understand? Son: I'm not really sure dad, I'll have to think about it. That night, the boy is awakened by his baby brother's crying, so he went to see what was wrong. Discovering that the baby had a heavily soiled nappy, the boy went to his parent's room and found his mother fast asleep. He than went to the maid's room, where, peeking through the keyhole, he saw his father in bed with the maid. The boy's knocking went totally unheard. The boy went back to his room and went to sleep. The next morning... Son: Dad, I think I understand politics. Dad: That's great son, explain it to me in your own words. Son: While the management is screwing the working class, the government is fast asleep, the people are being completely ignored and the future is full of shit. +++++ -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Charles Duke, Term Limits Deception Date: 23 Sep 1996 09:02:03 -0700 > September 23, 1996 > SENATOR DUKE > (719) 481-9289 > > By Senator Charles R. Duke > Colorado District 9 > > ONE IF BY LAND, TWO IF BY SEA > > It is the nature of freedom that we must be reminded >occasionally of the necessity to fight for it. Freedom is not a >God-given right that we can simply achieve, and, then, having >done that, put it aside and move on to other things. > We are admonished by the words of John Philpot Curran, "The >condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal >vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the >consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." > Thus, if we choose to avoid struggles for freedom, if we >choose to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye towards infringements >of freedom, if we all tiptoe merrily along pretending we are >free, then servitude is our destiny and our reward. It was no >more true in 1790, when originally spoken, than it is today. > In 1994, an entire national movement towards liberty began >with the nation's first Tenth Amendment Resolution, of which this >writer is proud to have been the sponsor. Across the nation, >serious transgressions of liberty by our oppressive federal >government were exposed and opposed. State after state joined >Colorado in telling the federal government to "cease and desist, >effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its >constitutionally delegated powers." > The power mongers in Washington didn't follow those >directives, of course, but the resolutions did wake them up. In >1995, they greatly speeded up their agenda for the abolition of >freedom. They returned with a Conference of States, a clever >ploy to replace our Constitution with one more suited to a >tyrannical, strong, central federal government. > Fortunately, citizen's groups across the nation discovered >the ploy soon enough to impact its implementation and managed to >derail that effort. Many who participated in that opposition >effort were rewarded by having their assets seized and some have >even been arrested. Tyrants do not lose gracefully, to say the >least. > Now, in 1996, the pirates are back again, this time flying >under the colors of term limits as a a disguise. It appeared as >an Initiative, or citizen's petition, in many states. The issue >will appear before voters this November in 17 states, those >being Alabama, Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, >Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, >Oregon, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. > Buried in the text of the issue is a command to state and >federal legislators to support resolutions calling for an >Article V Constitutional Convention. Because of this, it is >believed the issue is not about term limits at all. Colorado, >for example, already has term limits on both state and federal >legislators. Why do we need another? > This issue is a carefully camouflaged attempt to coerce our >nation into a Constitutional Convention. Its proponents assure >us that, while that may be true, there is nothing to fear from >this, since any output of a Con-Con would have to be ratified by >the states. > This, too, is cleverly deceptive. The proponents are >counting on your making the mental leap that "ratification" >means a vote in the state legislature. That just isn't >necessarily true. > An investigation of Article V reveals the following >language, "...when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths >of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths >thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be >proposed by the Congress..." Hence, an amendment to our >Constitution, even a complete replacement of our Constitution, >can be ratified by ratifying conventions, bypassing the state >legislatures entirely. > Since the Congress can specify the mode, it is assumed that >Congress could also specify how delegates to a ratifying >convention would be chosen. Legally entitled to choose >delegates or not, Congress is likely to do so. The people >could not even sue Congress for remedy, since the courts would >decline to intercede by declaring the issue to be of a political >nature, not a legal one. > Does it surprise you that, of the 17 states which have been >targeted for this effort, 10 have adopted formal legislation >regarding the Tenth Amendment? It should not, by now. > There is much more of a heinous nature in the "term limits" >proposals. The time is now for the American people to wake up >and realize our nation is being stolen from us right before our >eyes. Simple defeat of the proposal is certainly warranted, but >hardly seems sufficient for the skulduggery involved. > End > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Witnesses Confirm Missile Took Down TWA 800 (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1996 12:24:37 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- jw-rh@ix.netcom.com, bigred@duracef.shout.net, jlavis@communique.net, liberty@gate.net, vikbob@halcyon.com, rwb@daka.com, cato@cato.org, akimery@citizen.infi.net, pwatson@utdallas.edu, garb@ix.netcom.com, maddog6@flex.net, edb@interport.com, wdmann@ix.netcom.com, germanic@netcom.com, eric@remailer.net, sandfort@crl.com, loboazul@icsi.net, bdolan@use.usit.net, fathom9@aol.com, defraud@tpi.net, L.L.Grabbe@theol.hull.ac.uk, JMcCorm215@aol.com, jdtabor.uncc@uncc.campus.mci.net, zns@interserv.com, tbyfield@panix.com, drdean@bio.win.net, rpedraza@sierra.net, kalliste@aci.net Witnesses Confirm Missile Took Down TWA 800 by J. Orlin Grabbe An article from the *New York Post* (reproduced below) cites FBI interviews with 154 credible witnesses that a missile took down TWA Flight 800. In my original post on the subject, "The Downing of TWA Flight 800," on July 23, I said the normal normal procedure for personnel who have received intelligence training (in this case Syria-trained terrorists) would have been to fire the missile from a small boat off shore. In subsequent posts, "Bill Clinton's Choo-Choo" and "The Phosphorous-Headed Missile and TWA Flight 800", I clarified that the missile was targeted at the center, or belly, fuel tank. A couple of months later, the *Post* now comes belatedly comes to the same conclusion: "Law-enforcement sources said the hardest evidence gathered so far overwhelmingly suggests a surface-to-air missile -- with the sophisticated ability to lock on the center of a target rather than its red-hot engines -- was fired from a boat off the Long Island coast to bring down the airliner July 17." Only two details are lacking for the *Post* to have the entire story. First, they need to disregard the FBI's falsified figure of 13,700 for the altitude at which the plane was hit (the real number is about 7,600 feet). Secondly, they need to figure out it was the forward end, or head, of the missile that was glowing. As noted in a *New York Times* article about one of the missile photographs, "It is in a roughly horizontal position, although its left end is tilted downward. Its right end seems to be brightly lighted." ("Is that a Missile? Snapshot on Night of Air Crash Turns Hot," New York Times, August 26, 1996). And why was the elevated end, or head, of the missile glowing? As I previously reported, the ordinary head of the Stinger had been replaced with two small attachments--the first one containing a different guidance system that allowed the missile to lock-in on the center fuel tank, the second one being a phosphorous head that was designed to blow up fuel tanks in a violently effective manner. The post article follows. New York Post September 22, 1996 TWA Probers: Missile Witnesses "Credible" By MURRAY WEISS Criminal Justice Editor More than 150 "credible" witnesses -- including several scientists -- have told the FBI and military experts they saw a missile destroy TWA Flight 800, The Post has learned. Sources provided startling new details from the frustrating two-month probe -- persuading agents to acknowledge that the witnesses' accounts point toward a missile: The FBI interviewed 154 "credible" witnesses -- including scientists, schoolteachers, Army personnel and business executives -- who described seeing a missile heading through the sky just before Flight TWA 800 exploded. "Some of these people are extremely, extremely credible," a top federal official said. Sources said the witnesses lived or were vacationing along Long Island's South Shore in Nassau and Suffolk counties when they saw the object heading toward the sky. "When we asked what they saw and where they saw it, the witnesses out east pointed to the west, and the people to the west pointed to the east ," one source said. FBI technicians mapped the various paths -- points in the sky where the witnesses said they saw the rising "flare-like" object -- and determined that the "triangulated" convergence point was virtually where the jumbo jet initially exploded. Struck by the number and confidence of the witnesses, the FBI sat down many of the witnesses with U.S. military experts, who debriefed them and independently confirmed for the FBI that their descriptions matched surface-to-air missile attacks. "The military experts told us that what the witnesses were describing was consistent with a missile," a federal official acknowledged. "They told us, "You know what they are describing is a missile.' " Law-enforcement sources said the hardest evidence gathered so far overwhelmingly suggests a surface-to-air missile -- with the sophisticated ability to lock on the center of a target rather than its red-hot engines -- was fired from a boat off the Long Island coast to bring down the airliner July 17. That theory would have the attackers launching their missile from a boat and fleeing north into Canada during the confusion immediately after the explosion. Investigators are reviewing an anonymous threat received after the Oct. 1, 1995, conviction of radical sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, a law-enforcement source said. The threat was that a New York area airport or jetliner would be attacked in retaliation for the prosecution of the sheik, convicted of plotting to blow up major New York City landmarks. Investigators have been unable to find definitive evidence proving any of their three key theories: missile, bomb planted in the plane or a mechanical malfunction. On Friday, the bomb theory took another tumble when the FBI revealed the plane had carried explosives within a year of the crash as part of a training exercise for drug-sniffing dogs. That revelation could explain how traces of explosives were found on wreckage of the downed Boeing 747. The overriding obstacle for investigators probing the missile theory has been the fact that Flight 800's engines show no signs of missile damage. But military experts told the FBI several modern heat-seeking missiles -- in the hands of terrorists in Africa and available to their Middle East counterparts -- target a plane's "central mass." These missiles -- launched from a shoulder harness or a small pad -- different from the Stinger missiles that Afgani freedom fighters used against the Russians -- are equipped with a super-sophisticated heat- seeking device and are able to reach higher targets. TWA 800 exploded at 13,700 feet -- the upper limit for the newest of these portable-type missile systems. Military experts pointed the FBI to man-portable missiles such as the SA -14 Gremlin, SA-16 Gimlet and SA-18 Grouse -- equipped with "proportional convergence logic" systems that are "sensitive enough to home in on airframe radiation" once it nears its target, rather than isolated hot spots. Copyright 1996, N.Y.P. Holdings Inc. September 23, 1996 Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: RE: Good Bill Passes In California!!! (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1996 10:50:22 -0700 (PDT) >X-Sender: rcktexas@popd.ix.netcom.com >Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 09:07:00 -0500 >To: liberty-and-justice@majordomo.pobox.com, act@efn.org, roc@xmission.com, > snet.hammer@ix.netcom.com, tab@hollyent.com >From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" >Subject: RE: Good Bill Passes In California!!! (fwd) >Sender: owner-roc@xmission.com >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: roc@xmission.com >X-UIDL: b76ce7fb5dab9497302ba6f5f40bec52 > >>THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: > >[snip] > >> (c) The Federalist Papers > >===> (d) The Emancipation Proclamation >===> (e) The Gettysburg Address > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >They just had to ruin a good thing pandering to those who think Mr. >Democracy is a hero. Who in their right mind would ever want to read that >crap anyway? > >Now they are going to poison school children's minds with this lunacy about >Lincoln being such a great "hero" for "freeing the slaves". Why don't they >instead ask the real slaves in the South what they think of the Great >Masturbator. > >The truth will never come out about that Tyrant if this keeps happening. > >Bob Knauer Bob, Considering we don't live in a perfect world, and ours seems to be going from bad to worse, overall, I think this bill will do a lot of good in opening the minds of our young and expose them to some basic concepts long ago suppressed. I agree, item (d) may not be such a good idea, but five out of six is a prety healthy statring point - a lot more than I would have ever hoped for. (a) The Declaration of Independence (b) The United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (c) The Federalist Papers (d) The Emancipation Proclamation (e) The Gettysburg Address (f) George Washington's Farewell Address. Even 35 - 40 years ago, I was not exposed to The Federalist Papers, nor to George Washington's Farewell Address. So, I'd say it's progress. Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 23 Sep 1996 12:58:49 -0500 >>>Of course, I'd prefer the vote to go 40% for Browne, 30% for Nader, and >>>the rest get fairly evenly divided among the once-major parties and >>>the might-someday-be's who're enlivened by a promisingly competitive >>future. >>Nader? Ralph Nader? Have you lost your everloving mind, man!? Now you are >>saying that Libertarians could live with Ralph Nader on the political >>scene. >>I give up. It's hopeless. Totally beyond redemption. >> >I think what Mr. Silberger is saying is not that he would prefer Nader from >a philosophic viewpoint but rather Nader and gang work on principles, >however misguided those principles are, as opposed to the power hungry >non-principled and un-principled jack *sses we have now in the Democrat >and Republican parties. And principled folks, whowever wrong, deserve more >respect than whores. ----- That's what bothers me most about Libertarians after my prime concern, namely, Libertarians re-electing klintoon). You guys have sold your soul to the Devil by saying that sort of thing regarding Nader of all people. That guy is a friggin' Marxist if anybody ever saw one. Next thing I'll hear from Libertarians is that we should revere Butt-Rose Butt-Rose Goofy, the Supreme Commander of the NWO - just because he is so "principled". Have you Libertarians lost your everloving minds out there? You're going to give Jesse Helms and me both heart attacks! Hitler had "principles" - lots of great "principles", too. All you had to do back then was ask him, and he would have bent your ear for hours about how his "principles" were going to produce the "master race." Does that mean our Jewish Libertarian friends have to embrace Hitler - because he was so "principled" Hackneyed as it may be, this old saw is approrps (albeit slightly paraphrased: "The Road To Hell Is Paved With 'Principles'". Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: Good Bill Passes In California!!! (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1996 13:48:40 -0500 >>>THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: >> >>[snip] >> >>> (c) The Federalist Papers >> >>===> (d) The Emancipation Proclamation >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>===> (e) The Gettysburg Address >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I forgot to underline both items by Lincoln. >Considering we don't live in a perfect world, and ours seems to be going >from bad to worse, overall, I think this bill will do a lot of good in >opening the minds of our young and expose them to some basic concepts long >ago suppressed. I agree, item (d) (see above) >may not be such a good idea, but five out >of six is a pretty healthy statring point - a lot more than I would have >ever hoped for. > > (a) The Declaration of Independence > (b) The United States Constitution, including the Bill > of Rights > (c) The Federalist Papers XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-rated: (d) The Emancipation Proclamation XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-rated: (e) The Gettysburg Address > (f) George Washington's Farewell Address. > >Even 35 - 40 years ago, I was not exposed to The Federalist Papers, nor to >George Washington's Farewell Address. So, I'd say it's progress. How true! The other items are a good start. But we don't need any Tyrant Worship either. My concern is that the other items are going to shout outload that the United States was once a Constitutional Republic, and Lincoln's "works" are going to say that the US is some kind of Tyranical Democracy. That glaring contradiction will screw up the student's minds to no end. On the next march on Washington I want everyone to bring a pidgeon and take it to the Lincoln "memorial". Throw some bread crumbs in the Ole Tyrant's lap, and let the pidgeons decorate it as it should be. For my part I mught just begin filing his ugly edifice off of pennies. :-) Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 23 Sep 1996 13:57:56 -0500 (CDT) Well, if it is principles that you want what was wrong with Buchanan, or what is wrong with the American Tax Payers party? They all have principles and are pro gun and pro constitution! No, No, my friend Mr. Silberger (and he is a friend atleast until the shooting starts) does not want principles, he wants licentiousness. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > >>>Of course, I'd prefer the vote to go 40% for Browne, 30% for Nader, and > >>>the rest get fairly evenly divided among the once-major parties and > >>>the might-someday-be's who're enlivened by a promisingly competitive > >>future. > > >>Nader? Ralph Nader? Have you lost your everloving mind, man!? Now you are > >>saying that Libertarians could live with Ralph Nader on the political >>scene. > > >>I give up. It's hopeless. Totally beyond redemption. > > >> > > >I think what Mr. Silberger is saying is not that he would prefer Nader from > >a philosophic viewpoint but rather Nader and gang work on principles, > >however misguided those principles are, as opposed to the power hungry > >non-principled and un-principled jack *sses we have now in the Democrat > >and Republican parties. And principled folks, whowever wrong, deserve more > >respect than whores. > > ----- > > That's what bothers me most about Libertarians after my prime concern, > namely, Libertarians re-electing klintoon). > > You guys have sold your soul to the Devil by saying that sort of thing > regarding Nader of all people. That guy is a friggin' Marxist if anybody > ever saw one. > > Next thing I'll hear from Libertarians is that we should revere Butt-Rose > Butt-Rose Goofy, the Supreme Commander of the NWO - just because he is so > "principled". Have you Libertarians lost your everloving minds out there? > You're going to give Jesse Helms and me both heart attacks! > > Hitler had "principles" - lots of great "principles", too. All you had to do > back then was ask him, and he would have bent your ear for hours about how > his "principles" were going to produce the "master race." Does that mean our > Jewish Libertarian friends have to embrace Hitler - because he was so > "principled" > > Hackneyed as it may be, this old saw is approrps (albeit slightly > paraphrased: "The Road To Hell Is Paved With 'Principles'". > > Bob Knauer > > -- > > ************************************************** > A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing > Corporation World Wide Web Publishing > > http://www.aimtec.com/ > ************************************************** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fritz Sands Subject: RE: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 23 Sep 1996 12:26:06 -0700 I prefer principled licentiousness. Hasn't this gotten silly enough? Look -- Dole is going down the tubes, unless there is a hell of a last-minute revelation about Rose Law Firm or Vince Foster or something. And, if you haven't noticed, while Dole may not be as pure an anti-gun-owner as Clinton, he has clearly demonstrated that he will sell you down the river for spare change. Fritz >---------- >From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu[SMTP:lball@unlinfo.unl.edu] >Sent: Monday, September 23, 1996 11:57 AM >To: roc@xmission.com >Subject: Re: The FarLeft and the Libertarians > >Well, if it is principles that you want what was wrong with Buchanan, >or what is wrong with the American Tax Payers party? They all have >principles and are pro gun and pro constitution! No, No, my friend >Mr. Silberger (and he is a friend atleast until the shooting starts) >does not want principles, he wants licentiousness. > >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu >> >> >>>Of course, I'd prefer the vote to go 40% for Browne, 30% for Nader, and >> >>>the rest get fairly evenly divided among the once-major parties and >> >>>the might-someday-be's who're enlivened by a promisingly competitive >> >>future. >> >> >>Nader? Ralph Nader? Have you lost your everloving mind, man!? Now you are >> >>saying that Libertarians could live with Ralph Nader on the political >>>>scene. >> >> >>I give up. It's hopeless. Totally beyond redemption. >> >> >> >> >> >I think what Mr. Silberger is saying is not that he would prefer Nader >>from >> >a philosophic viewpoint but rather Nader and gang work on principles, >> >however misguided those principles are, as opposed to the power hungry >> >non-principled and un-principled jack *sses we have now in the Democrat >> >and Republican parties. And principled folks, whowever wrong, deserve >>more >> >respect than whores. >> >> ----- >> >> That's what bothers me most about Libertarians after my prime concern, >> namely, Libertarians re-electing klintoon). >> >> You guys have sold your soul to the Devil by saying that sort of thing >> regarding Nader of all people. That guy is a friggin' Marxist if anybody >> ever saw one. >> >> Next thing I'll hear from Libertarians is that we should revere Butt-Rose >> Butt-Rose Goofy, the Supreme Commander of the NWO - just because he is so >> "principled". Have you Libertarians lost your everloving minds out there? >> You're going to give Jesse Helms and me both heart attacks! >> >> Hitler had "principles" - lots of great "principles", too. All you had to >>do >> back then was ask him, and he would have bent your ear for hours about how >> his "principles" were going to produce the "master race." Does that mean >>our >> Jewish Libertarian friends have to embrace Hitler - because he was so >> "principled" >> >> Hackneyed as it may be, this old saw is approrps (albeit slightly >> paraphrased: "The Road To Hell Is Paved With 'Principles'". >> >> Bob Knauer >> >> -- >> >> ************************************************** >> A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing >> Corporation World Wide Web Publishing >> >> http://www.aimtec.com/ >> ************************************************** >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: caps@visigenic.com (Cap Schwartz) Subject: Re: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 23 Sep 1996 13:00:10 -0700 Oh, shit. Now you've done it. Why'd you have to go and suggest that my party is inconsistent and unclear? Now I'll have to vote for a Democrat. And here I thought Clinton was promising to provide us with Dole-Metzenbaum --oops, I mean Brady!--II, while Dole was promising to veto repeal of the black weapons ban that he helped enact and Harry Browne was promising to dismantle the BATF, and now you tell me that there is chaos and inconsistency in the platform of the only party dedicated to individual liberty. Damn! Well, can't vote for them. That's a real blow. PURE CHAOS. Can't even be organized. How can we expect them to run a government as complicated as this one? Well, I guess I should choose the lesser of two evils, then. Clinton for President! WHAT? DOLE? I should vote for a man who considers my closest friends third-class citizens, who promises outright to escalate the attack on the Bill of Rights, and who pledges allegiance to anything except integrity? No, thanks. I'll stick by the enemy I know, the one closer to indictment and jail, the cokehead himself, ol' whatshisname! cAp_ Oh, I almost forgot: Don't clean up after me, okay? You've done quite enough already. >Well I must confess that my view of Libertarians is that they have the right >to do anything they want .....and the rest of us get to pay to clean up after >them. So, I devoted some time this morning to try and find out exactly what >their positions were by going to their WWW site( www.lp.org). That certainly >reinforced my belief that all they really believe in is CHAOS. When I went >to the USTAXPAYERS site on one copy I got tens of thousands of bytes of >platform to play with / edit / examine. At the Libertarian site I had to do a >seprate copy and make a new file for each tiny subject: PURE CHAOS. > >Here is what I found under health care > >>[Libertarian Party Platform] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 23 Sep 1996 15:33:03 -0500 Fritz Sands wrote: >I prefer principled licentiousness. We know that - you work for the Master Of The Known Universe - so you can afford to be licentious. Whether it is a part of the (unwritten) Libertarian Part platform is another matter. >Hasn't this gotten silly enough? Look -- Dole is going down the tubes, >unless there is a hell of a last-minute revelation about Rose Law Firm >or Vince Foster or something. Something? You want Something - I'll give you Something. Here, try this on for size: How about all those rumors out there that klintoon is a cocaine addict. How about all those newspapers which are talking about it too. If it is indeed true, and it comes out in a certified medical report, then klintoon's goose is cooked. Nobody in their right mind, not even the FarLeft, would vote for a cocaine addict to run the Free World. But don't expect the bombshells to go off tomorrow - the Republicans know all too well what an October Surprise is. >And, if you haven't noticed, while Dole >may not be as pure an anti-gun-owner as Clinton, he has clearly >demonstrated that he will sell you down the river for spare change. He has? Care to back that up with facts? FACTS, not rhetoric, please. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: RE: Good Bill Passes In California!!! (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1996 14:17:03 PST On Sep 23, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: >>>>THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>>> (c) The Federalist Papers The thing that needs doing now, is adding the "Anti-Federalist Papers" to that list. You know, where the BOR came in..... -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: RE: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 23 Sep 1996 14:54:35 -0600 Bob Knauer said: >Fritz Sands wrote: >>And, if you haven't noticed, while Dole >>may not be as pure an anti-gun-owner as Clinton, he has clearly >>demonstrated that he will sell you down the river for spare change. > >He has? Care to back that up with facts? > >FACTS, not rhetoric, please. > Bob. It was already mentioned by me earlier today -- Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban. Chad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fritz Sands Subject: RE: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 23 Sep 1996 16:33:18 -0700 >---------- >From: R. Knauer-AIMNET[SMTP:rcktexas@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Monday, September 23, 1996 1:33 PM >To: roc@xmission.com; liberty-and-justice@majordomo.pobox.com; act@efn.org; >snetnews@alterzone.com; hammernet-l@teleport.com; tab@hollyent.com >Subject: RE: The FarLeft and the Libertarians > >Fritz Sands wrote: > >>I prefer principled licentiousness. > >We know that - you work for the Master Of The Known Universe - so you can >afford to be licentious. Yep. Ain't it grand. Do you have a problem with financial independence or something? >How about all those rumors out there that klintoon is a cocaine addict. How >about all those newspapers which are talking about it too. Good luck on the rumors. It's a frail reed to hold on to, but keep holding on. I don't think that there will be any revelation about Clinton's choices in recreational drugs. Oh, I imagine he's snorted a few lines in his time. But I'll bet he has the sense to have not done so in a long time. You may not know this, Bob, but many people find cocaine to be just not all that addictive. > >>And, if you haven't noticed, while Dole >>may not be as pure an anti-gun-owner as Clinton, he has clearly >>demonstrated that he will sell you down the river for spare change. > >He has? Care to back that up with facts? > >FACTS, not rhetoric, please. Bob Dole's interview on Larry King is a good starting point. "Let's keep the gun ban.". Wow, that's comforting. Fritz > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: berg stephen erik Subject: RE: Good Bill Passes In California!!! (fwd) Date: 23 Sep 1996 19:29:12 -0500 (CDT) I have sat in on political science classes where the implied powers, the elastic clause, and the commerce clause were used to explain that the feds could do whatever they damn well please. This seems strange to me, since if this were the case, there is no reason to put in a procedure for amending the Constitution. The Congress could just pass the needed legislation. the president could just issue an executive order (edict), or the fed courts could hand down a ruling in order to effect any needed regime changes. In fact, there is no need for a Constitution in the first place. Just having a statist teacher leading a discussion of these documents, and having the students stumble through reading them is not sufficient to reverse the slide into tyranny. There are a lot of people who like intrusive government, until it is too late, and it is ***their*** door getting kicked in during the wee hours. Those of us who have been shafted by the ruling elite have a different perspective from those who view the nanny state as the closest thing to the perfect regime. I doubt that the California initiative is going to do anything worthwhile. It appears to be conservative "feel good" legislation. Steve z931086@corn.cso.niu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 23 Sep 1996 19:52:09 -0500 >Gee, it sounds like the libertarians believe the same things the >founding fathers believed. No government interference in our economy, >no socialist programs that redistribute wealth, and more personal >freedom. I you call that chaos, move to communist China where you'll >be better off. ----- Yes, the Libertarians do have some important things to say. Too bad they hide them behind Lonnytarian rhetoric. It has been my contention all along that Libertarians on the Internet are the LP's worst nightmare. That is based not only on my personal experience, but that of many others as well. Some of you have already spoken out on this - I am certian there are several others, a bit more shy, who could say the same basic thing. You see, people like me will tolerate just so much of that condescending, obnoxious attitude from certain kinds of Libertarians before we say enough is enough! For Libertarians to be effective on the Internet, they must purge their ranks of PMS Flame Twits and their similar types. Then we might just be able to have rational discourse here. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: Good Bill Passes In California!!! Date: 23 Sep 1996 20:19:37 -0500 >>Now they are going to poison school children's minds with this lunacy >>about Lincoln being such a great "hero" for "freeing the slaves". Why don't >>they instead ask the real slaves in the South what they think of the Great >>Masturbator. >>The truth will never come out about that Tyrant if this keeps happening. >We are rewriting the bill for submission to other states, substituting >Madison's notes of the Convention of 1787 for the Lincoln writings. >Thank you for your comments. >Harold W. Bolinge ----- Faaaaan-tastic! Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Pro-RKBA Dole ??? Date: 23 Sep 1996 20:33:52 -0500 Chad: Someone asked if you were a pro-RKBA person and I replied that I had every reason to believe you were. The reason that was brought up is you made some statement about how Dole was so anti-RKBA, Brady Law and such, that he wondered about *your* pro-RKBA credentials. You see, he says that there is absolutely no evidence that Dole was responsible in any way for the Brady Law and prior to the latest flap over what is purported to be Dole's "position" on AW Ban Repeal (he just as well could have said that to defuse that emotional issue), there is no evidence that Dole has *ever* been anti-RKBA. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Gun Owners of America and Larry Pratt Date: 23 Sep 1996 21:32:19 -0500 (CDT) Does anyone have either an email address or "800" for larry Pratt or Gun Onwers of America? Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Approved: Non-member submission from [Brad Dolan ] -- Re: Date: 23 Sep 1996 22:10:03 -0600 Brad's ISP changed email return addresses on him so his stuff bounced. He is straightening it out. here is is note: >Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 23:56:51 -0400 (EDT) >From: Brad Dolan >To: roc@xmission.com >Subject: Re: Pro-RKBA Dole ??? >In-Reply-To: <199609240132.SAA24000@dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com> >Message-ID: >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > >On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > >> Chad: >> >> Someone asked if you were a pro-RKBA person and I replied that I had every >> reason to believe you were. >> >> The reason that was brought up is you made some statement about how Dole was >> so anti-RKBA, Brady Law and such, that he wondered about *your* pro-RKBA >> credentials. >> >> You see, he says that there is absolutely no evidence that Dole was >> responsible in any way for the Brady Law and prior to the latest flap over > > >The mysterious "someone" needs to do his homework. Bob Dole, George >Mitchell, and possibly one other assh^H^H^H^Hsenator somehow magically >passed it all by themselves, by "unanimous consent." Saw it on C-SPAN. > > >> what is purported to be Dole's "position" on AW Ban Repeal (he just as well >> could have said that to defuse that emotional issue), there is no evidence >> that Dole has *ever* been anti-RKBA. >> > >AW ban wouldn't have passed without minority leader Dole's help. > >Brad Dolan >... another (small-"l") libertarian type who would vote for Ralph >Nader or Ron Paul (prior Libertarian candidate) but never, ever for Bob >Dole. > > > > >> Bob Knauer >> >> -- >> >> ************************************************** >> A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing >> Corporation World Wide Web Publishing >> >> http://www.aimtec.com/ >> ************************************************** >> >> > ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: Pro-RKBA Dole ??? Date: 23 Sep 1996 22:19:07 -0600 >Chad: > >Someone asked if you were a pro-RKBA person and I replied that I had every >reason to believe you were. > >The reason that was brought up is you made some statement about how Dole was >so anti-RKBA, Brady Law and such, that he wondered about *your* pro-RKBA >credentials. > >You see, he says that there is absolutely no evidence that Dole was >responsible in any way for the Brady Law and prior to the latest flap over >what is purported to be Dole's "position" on AW Ban Repeal (he just as well >could have said that to defuse that emotional issue), there is no evidence >that Dole has *ever* been anti-RKBA. > >Bob Knauer > I think I am very pro RKBA. Donated lots of money to NRA and other groups and to candidates. Talk it up whenever I can. Flew to DC for the 94 Rally and was the only person from Utah there. Wrote lots of letters to the editor to the Utah papers. Started and run ROC (with Larry Ball -- my original idea was for a firearms activism list) and UTAH-FIREARMS mailing lists. NRA member. Joined the LP because of RKBA (ie, interest in RKBA led me to ask for LP literature and I realized they spoke to me on many issues). RE: Dole. As Brad Dolan mentioned: It is well known that in late 94 that the Brady Bill wass effectively DEAD. Brady Bill Bob and Sen Mitchell and one other chap were on the Senate floor near to Thanksgiving. They were the only ones there. They brought it up and agreed to pass it through some sort of decree. Ask Larry Pratt about this. The latest AW "flap" is also serious. Very serious. He promised us in no uncertain terms he would work on repeal. He sat on it and then after leaving the Senate came out FOR the ban and promised a VETO if it were to pass his desk as President. At least Newt kept his promise and brought up a vote on the issue. He may be a politician but he can keep promises (and Newt realizes why he is speaker of the house. Dole forgot who made him Senate Majority Leader). best regards Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Pro-RKBA Dole ??? (fwd) Date: 24 Sep 1996 00:34:46 -0400 (EDT) On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > Chad: > > Someone asked if you were a pro-RKBA person and I replied that I had every > reason to believe you were. > > The reason that was brought up is you made some statement about how Dole was > so anti-RKBA, Brady Law and such, that he wondered about *your* pro-RKBA > credentials. > > You see, he says that there is absolutely no evidence that Dole was > responsible in any way for the Brady Law and prior to the latest flap over The mysterious "someone" needs to do his homework. Bob Dole, George Mitchell, and possibly one other assh^H^H^H^Hsenator somehow magically passed it all by themselves, by "unanimous consent." Saw it on C-SPAN. > what is purported to be Dole's "position" on AW Ban Repeal (he just as well > could have said that to defuse that emotional issue), there is no evidence > that Dole has *ever* been anti-RKBA. > AW ban wouldn't have passed without minority leader Dole's help. Brad Dolan ... another (small-"l") libertarian type who would vote for Ralph Nader or Ron Paul (prior Libertarian candidate) but never, ever for Bob Dole. > Bob Knauer > > -- > > ************************************************** > A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing > Corporation World Wide Web Publishing > > http://www.aimtec.com/ > ************************************************** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gerald Walls Subject: Gingrich, Dole Favor Restricting Gun Owner's Rights Date: 23 Sep 1996 23:40:33 -0700 I noticed an interesting article in the 9/15 Sunday RAG (Republic and Gazette). It seems that Clinton is proposing taking away the Constitutionally-protected rights of those who have been convicted of certain misdemeanors, to wit: denying those convicted of any "crime" (felony [already denied] or misdemeanor) related to "domestic violence" the right to possess handguns. Clinton is urging Dole to press the Congress to pass the legislation. What do the gun owners' friends, the Republicans, have to say to this? Paraphrased: Gingrich: I'm normally against gun control, but there won't be any problem passing this. Dole: I think they shouldn't be able to possess *any* firearms. How about that? Don't forget that these are the people on *our* side (ha ha!). Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending those who beat their spouses, man or wife. But this would apply to someone who was in a loud argument and was hauled off by the police. Don't forget that in a lot of cities the policy is that if the police show up to a domestic violence call then someone is going to spend the night in jail. About eight or nine years ago a friend of mine spent the night in jail because during a loud argument with her live-in boyfriend she slapped him! (She fought the charge and it was dropped when the officer failed to appear *in court*. This was fortunate for her because she was being considered for a commission in the Air National Guard and she told me that she could have been disqualified if convicted.) If you remember a few years back the anti-gunners introduced a bill or an amendment to a bill that would have denied anyone ever convicted of a "violent crime" the right to bear arms. When people realized the very broad scope of this bill (a man who spent time in the stockade for a World War II fist fight would be affected) this bill was defeated. This is just a nice-ified version of the same thing. After a while all "violent people" will be included. Then, if we can't trust these people, how can we trust anyone irresponsible enough to have committed any misdemeanor. "I'm sorry, sir. But 20 years ago you were stopped for DUI. Even though you've been a perfect citizen since, society considers you too irresponsible. I can't sell you this gun." Cool, huh? Progression of gun control: 0. Everyone (well, if you were white) not in jail can own a gun. Most need it to hunt and survive. (Of course, in the South blacks are denied their rights even after Emancipation to make it easier to control them, which is the *real* reason for "gun" control.) 1. Certain cities declare that you can't carry a gun in city limits. 2. Some places deny the right to carry a concealed firearm. 3. Feds decide that anyone who wants to own a machine gun has to register and pay a tax. 4. Feds decide felons cannot own a firearm. 5. Feds decide we can't allow mail-order firearms because a felon might get one. 6. Feds decide that no one under 18 can own a long gun (rifle/shotgun) and no one under 21 can own a handgun, or ammo respectively. 7. Feds decide that no one may own a *new* machine gun. People who are found with an unregistered machine gun are charged with, among other things, tax evasion for not paying the machine gun tax, which the BATF refuses to collect even when offerred. 8. Feds decide that only guns with a "sporting" purpose may be imported. Of course, they ignore the fact that many of the guns they ban from import are routinely used in sanctioned target matches. 9. Feds decide that no one may own any new gun that "looks" like a machine gun. They get mad when firearms manufacturers change the looks a little to sell the same gun. 10. Feds decide that anyone who wants a handgun has to wait five days or pass a background check. ============================Present Day============================== 11. Feds decide that anyone convicted of "domestic violence" (can this include psycological abuse?) are denied their right to own a handgun. 12. Feds decide that all guns should be treated the same, expanding (10) and (11). 13. Feds decide that (11) should include any "violent crime," including misdemeanors such as 40-years-past fist fights. 14. Feds decide that the instant background checks performed under (10) should be logged for "statistical purposes." 15. Feds decide that (11) should include any misdemeanor. 16. Feds decide that if a person wants more than four guns then they must get an "arsenal" permit and submit to annual inspections, for safety reasons. 17. Feds decide that the logged checks under (14) are a good way of warning neighbors that an undesirable may be in their neighborhood, so a database is created. They create classifications where someone with one or two guns causes a generic warning to be mailed to all neighbors without specifically identifying the undesirable. Three to four guns causes the name to be posted. An arsenal causes police to visit each neighbor in person and show the neighbor a picture of the undesirable. After all, this worked great when introduced for sex offenders. Neighbors approve. "Just think! I never would have known that Mr. Johnson owns *three* firearms! Now I can keep my children safe!" 18. Feds decide that (11) should include any repeated infraction. Obviously, if someone keeps speeding then they have no respect for the law and government and are irresponsible and can't be trusted with a firearm. 19. Feds decide that statistics show that most people who get one ticket eventually get another, so why wait? Expand (11) again. 20. Feds decide no one needs an arsenal for sporting reasons. New arsenal permits are denied. 21. Feds decide no one needs a handgun for sporting reasons. Handguns can only be owned by demonstrated-need permit. 22. Feds decide that only non-military-calibre rifles are sporting. 23. Feds decide that sportsters only need five round mags. (Oops! Out of order! We already have this one!) 24. Feds decide that rifles are too powerful and require permits for "high-power rifles," as defined by law. 25. Feds decide that sportsters only need two rounds in a shotgun. 26. Feds decide that bolt-action and pump-action rifles and shotguns are more sporting than semi-autos. 27. Feds decide that no one can demonstrate *real* need for a handgun. New permits are denied. 28. Feds decide that lower-powered, "sporting" rifles are cruel to game because it takes too long for the game to die. A shotgun with a deer slug gives better results. You can still keep your rifle for decoration, though. 29. Feds decide that a true sportsman only needs one shot. 30. Feds decide that firearms make bad decorations and can be stolen. Offer to buy them back or waive the *new tax* of $100 annually per firearm if you store the gun at an approved and bonded storage facility. 31. Feds decide to *require* firearms to be stored at (30)'s facility. Tax is no longer waived. 32. Feds decide, after that unfortunate rash of storage facility break ins, to require that firearms be stored at the local police station. 33. Feds decide that, due to the recent rash of militia activity, firearms can only be checked out of the police station during hunting season when you show your hunting license. 34. Feds decide that, due to the militia group that took over a police station and had to be napalmed, it would be better to store the firearms at *regional* facilities that can be better protected. Allow six to eight weeks processing time to get your firearm. Come on! Stop whining! You know when hunting season is! We *are* letting you keep it at the police station each night for up to two weeks during the hunting season! (Ignore the conspiracy fanatics who claim this was a set up. The reason only two bodies were found was that the intense heat cremated them. Yeah! That's it! There really were 30 militia members in there. We swear.) 35. Feds decide that it is very expensive to store these firearms. The tax in (30) is increased to $250 annually per firearm. 36. Feds decide that all new guns must be "smart guns" that can only be fired by the owner and must disable themselves within 100 yards of a Police Officer's personnal locating transmitter. 37. Feds decide to increase the (30) tax to $1000 annually per firearm. Annual checkout and verification of smart guns is expensive. You must be present at this annual inspection. Most can't afford the tax & travel and sell their gun to the Government. 38. Feds decide that old firearms without the smart shutoff may only be kept if "historically significant." 39. Feds decide to close most regional centers and to leave open only four centers: New England, California, Illinois, and Georgia. Since you must pick up your gun in person to use it and must be present at the annual inspection, only those who can afford the travelling keep their guns. Everyone else sells them to the Government. Very few now own a firearm. 40. Feds raise the (30) tax to $2500 annually per firearm. We can't have the normal citizen subsidizing those oddballs causing the Government to incur unnecessary expenses. Only a few still own a gun. These people *must* have some sort of psyco attraction to these objects to incur these expenses, or be very rich. 41. Feds decide that it is "unfair" that only rich people have guns. Guns are outlawed after opinion polls show that the average citizen agrees. 42. Feds decide that anyone having an illegal gun will get a mandatory 30 years in Gun Prison. Repeat offenders or those possessing a gun during the commission of any violent crime are to be executed. 43. Feds decide to extend (42) by removing the word "violent." 44. Feds decide that the Sedition laws aren't strong enough. Too many people are stirring up unrest by complaining about the Government. Anyone who criticizes the Government *must* be double-plus ungood. 45. Feds decide to extend (42) by adding "or misdemeanor" after "crime." 46. Feds decide to revamp (42) by making mere possession a capital offense. 47. Feds decide that since there is a surprisingly large number of people being arrested that a Federal Gun Judge shall be appointed to each region with the ability to pass summary judgement. 48. Feds decide that the wait is too long. In order to ensure a speedy trial (oh, and fair, too) a Federal Gun Officer is appointed to each police precinct. 49. Feds decide that since there is no acceptable excuse for possessing a firearms that the arresting officer should take the offender back to the precinct where the Federal Gun Officer shall hear both sides of the story. After the due process of this fair hearing there shall be an immediate execution carried out by two shots into the back of the head. 50. Feds decide that the offender's family shall be charged $100 for the execution: $75 labor, $15 for wear and tear of Government property, and $10 for the two bullets. The fee is waived for those on welfare. THE END -- **My Opinions Only**| Who is John Galt? | Outlaw criminals, not firearms. Gerald Walls | NRA Life Member | Don't blame me. I voted Libertarian. "Law-abiding adults should always be free to own guns to protect their homes." -- Bill Clinton in 1994 State of the Union Address gw84778@goodnet.com (preferred) walls@saifr00.ateng.az.honeywell.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/walls/ Minister of Redundancy Minister and Holder of Past Knowledge The e-mail addresses gw84778@goodnet.com, walls@saifr00.ateng.az.honeywell.com, walls@compuserve.com, and 73577.253@compuserve.com may not be used for advertising commercial goods without prior request from the address or without the payment of US$50.00 per incident. Sending commercial advertisements to any of these addresses shall be deemed acceptance of these terms. Invoices will follow. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 24 Sep 1996 06:28:08 -0500 >>I don't think that will ever be possible. Libertarians are proponents of >>Anarchy(*), and they will always be outside the mainstream of American >>Politics as a result. > >Please tell me what section of the LP platform contains >the anarchy plank. I haven't seen it anywhere yet. ----- That's a fair question. Notice that I said "Libertarians are proponents of Anarchy" above. I did not say the *LP* was. This whole thread has been about Loonytarians misrepresenting the LP and doing so in a very obnoxious, condescending manner too. Rid your ranks of the PMS Flame Twits(tm) so we can discuss Libertarian philosophy/politics with you in a manner reflective of true LP dogma. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Dole's Record Date: 24 Sep 1996 06:43:26 -0500 >I think I am very pro RKBA. Donated lots of money to NRA and other groups >and to candidates. Talk it up whenever I can. Flew to DC for the 94 Rally >and was the only person from Utah there. Wrote lots of letters to the >editor to the Utah papers. Started and run ROC (with Larry Ball -- my >original idea was for a firearms activism list) and UTAH-FIREARMS mailing >lists. NRA member. Joined the LP because of RKBA (ie, interest in RKBA >led me to ask for LP literature and I realized they spoke to me on many >issues). That's what I thought - I will pass this on. >RE: Dole. As Brad Dolan mentioned: It is well known that in late 94 that >the Brady Bill wass effectively DEAD. Brady Bill Bob and Sen Mitchell and >one other chap were on the Senate floor near to Thanksgiving. They were the >only ones there. They brought it up and agreed to pass it through some sort >of decree. Ask Larry Pratt about this. Does that mean Dole actually passed it? Or was it yet anither of the Great Compromiser's tactics to keep an even worse thing from happening? >The latest AW "flap" is also serious. Very serious. He promised us in no >uncertain terms he would work on repeal. He sat on it and then after >leaving the Senate came out FOR the ban and promised a VETO if it were to >pass his desk as President. At least Newt kept his promise and brought up >a vote on the issue. He may be a politician but he can keep promises (and >Newt realizes why he is speaker of the house. Dole forgot who made him >Senate Majority Leader). I still want to believe that this is just a sneaky maneuver to circumvent open debate over Gun Control, which the Demagogue-In-Cheif would win outright. What would you do to defuse that issue, anyway? I just find it incredible that Dole would do something that foolish - piss off the NRA and its members - without some overriding concern. But I could just as easily be fooled as the next guy. I know that Dole's compromising ways do not sit well with many folks (I am one of them), but then politics in Washingtonm is crooked to begin with, so why beat a dead horse for being a crook in Washington. I think Dole stinks to high heaven, but I fear klintoon's re-election more than anything, so I am forced to put the Ole Clothes Pin on come Election Day. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Gingrich, Dole Favor Restricting Gun Owner's Rights Date: 24 Sep 1996 07:45:00 -0400 (EDT) Yeah, I tried to send this on the topic but the first attempt went into the bit bucket. bd *************************************************************** Gingrich (and Dole?) join Clinton in misdemeanor gun-grab AP, 9/16/96: House Speaker Newt Gingrich promised Sunday to support legislation barring those convicted of domestic violence from obtaining a handgun. At the same time, pressure for such legislation grew as four Democratic senators urg[ed] Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole to come out for a ban. "I'm very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns," Gingrich said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I think that's a very reasonable position." The Georgia Republican said such legislation would pass the House in the closing weeks of the current session. President Clinton endorsed the idea during his whistlestop train trip to the Democratic nominating convention in Chicago in August. [...] On Friday, Lautenberg and Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and John Kerry of Massachusetts wrote Dole, asking him to use his influence to pass the legislation. Dole retired as Senate majority leader to run for president. "Without your direct intervention, it now seems unlikely that the Republican congressional leadership will protect battered wives and abused children from gun violence," they wrote. They said that Dole was "in a unique position to persuade Speaker Gingrich" to approve the gun ban. [...] You know, next year (and probably the forseeable future) is likely to be hell, but I am going to enjoy watching Newt get relegated to the back bench again. bd *********************************************************************** On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Gerald Walls wrote: > I noticed an interesting article in the 9/15 Sunday RAG (Republic and > Gazette). It seems that Clinton is proposing taking away the > Constitutionally-protected rights of those who have been convicted of > certain misdemeanors, to wit: denying those convicted of any "crime" > (felony [already denied] or misdemeanor) related to "domestic violence" > the right to possess handguns. Clinton is urging Dole to press the > Congress to pass the legislation. What do the gun owners' friends, the > Republicans, have to say to this? > > > Paraphrased: > > Gingrich: I'm normally against gun control, but there won't be any > problem passing this. > > Dole: I think they shouldn't be able to possess *any* firearms. > > > How about that? Don't forget that these are the people on *our* side > (ha ha!). > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Gingrich, Dole Favor Restricting Gun Owner's Rights Date: 24 Sep 1996 07:05:14 -0500 (CDT) The misdemeanors described should maybe be reclassified as felonies. I think that Klinton and Kids have put their finger on a real problem. If you are a drunk or otherwise social malcontent that goes around losing your temper and beating on others, I think that you should not be allowed to have a gun. A violent person is a violent person and I carry and possess guns to prtect myself from such a numbskull. Also, such a person has placed himself outside of our social law by abusing the rights of others. By definition such a person is an outlaw. He has no civil rights or liberties in my opinion. You libertarians need to come to earth. There is a need for society and society's laws. There is a need to enforce them. The liberties that we claimed in our Dec of Independence were not to be guaranteed to malefactors. For proof of this read the document. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution were not intended for all. They are declarations of the restraints on government to protect the rights of the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE are the same PEOPLE that took title to our government in the Dec of Ind. These people are the law abiding people of the land. They are the ones who uphold the socisl covenant. What is the social covenant? It is our commitment to one another to protect each others life, liberty, equality and pursuit of happiness. The covenant is embodied in our law, although some law can infringe upon those rights. I discussed the current state of political events with a friend yesterday who is a fire chief. On the issue of RKBA he stated that we did not have a right to own guns like AK 47's. What that said to me is that we have not educated the public on the purpose of the second amendment. How does is protect the basic rights of the law abiding American citizen? We need to develope such a doctrine rather than whining about the "rights" of spouse beaters and killers. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > I noticed an interesting article in the 9/15 Sunday RAG (Republic and > Gazette). It seems that Clinton is proposing taking away the > Constitutionally-protected rights of those who have been convicted of > certain misdemeanors, to wit: denying those convicted of any "crime" > (felony [already denied] or misdemeanor) related to "domestic violence" > the right to possess handguns. Clinton is urging Dole to press the > Congress to pass the legislation. What do the gun owners' friends, the > Republicans, have to say to this? > > > Paraphrased: > > Gingrich: I'm normally against gun control, but there won't be any > problem passing this. > > Dole: I think they shouldn't be able to possess *any* firearms. > > > How about that? Don't forget that these are the people on *our* side > (ha ha!). > > Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending those who beat their spouses, man > or wife. But this would apply to someone who was in a loud argument and > was hauled off by the police. Don't forget that in a lot of cities the > policy is that if the police show up to a domestic violence call then > someone is going to spend the night in jail. About eight or nine years > ago a friend of mine spent the night in jail because during a loud > argument with her live-in boyfriend she slapped him! (She fought the > charge and it was dropped when the officer failed to appear *in court*. > This was fortunate for her because she was being considered for a > commission in the Air National Guard and she told me that she could have > been disqualified if convicted.) > > If you remember a few years back the anti-gunners introduced a bill or > an amendment to a bill that would have denied anyone ever convicted of a > "violent crime" the right to bear arms. When people realized the very > broad scope of this bill (a man who spent time in the stockade for a > World War II fist fight would be affected) this bill was defeated. This > is just a nice-ified version of the same thing. After a while all > "violent people" will be included. Then, if we can't trust these > people, how can we trust anyone irresponsible enough to have committed > any misdemeanor. "I'm sorry, sir. But 20 years ago you were stopped > for DUI. Even though you've been a perfect citizen since, society > considers you too irresponsible. I can't sell you this gun." > > Cool, huh? > > Progression of gun control: > > 0. Everyone (well, if you were white) not in jail can own a gun. Most > need it to hunt and survive. (Of course, in the South blacks are > denied their rights even after Emancipation to make it easier to > control them, which is the *real* reason for "gun" control.) > 1. Certain cities declare that you can't carry a gun in city limits. > 2. Some places deny the right to carry a concealed firearm. > 3. Feds decide that anyone who wants to own a machine gun has to > register and pay a tax. > 4. Feds decide felons cannot own a firearm. > 5. Feds decide we can't allow mail-order firearms because a felon might > get one. > 6. Feds decide that no one under 18 can own a long gun (rifle/shotgun) > and no one under 21 can own a handgun, or ammo respectively. > 7. Feds decide that no one may own a *new* machine gun. People who are > found with an unregistered machine gun are charged with, among other > things, tax evasion for not paying the machine gun tax, which the > BATF refuses to collect even when offerred. > 8. Feds decide that only guns with a "sporting" purpose may be > imported. Of course, they ignore the fact that many of the guns > they ban from import are routinely used in sanctioned target > matches. > 9. Feds decide that no one may own any new gun that "looks" like a > machine gun. They get mad when firearms manufacturers change the > looks a little to sell the same gun. > 10. Feds decide that anyone who wants a handgun has to wait five days or > pass a background check. > ============================Present Day============================== > 11. Feds decide that anyone convicted of "domestic violence" (can this > include psycological abuse?) are denied their right to own a > handgun. > 12. Feds decide that all guns should be treated the same, expanding (10) > and (11). > 13. Feds decide that (11) should include any "violent crime," including > misdemeanors such as 40-years-past fist fights. > 14. Feds decide that the instant background checks performed under (10) > should be logged for "statistical purposes." > 15. Feds decide that (11) should include any misdemeanor. > 16. Feds decide that if a person wants more than four guns then they > must get an "arsenal" permit and submit to annual inspections, for > safety reasons. > 17. Feds decide that the logged checks under (14) are a good way of > warning neighbors that an undesirable may be in their neighborhood, > so a database is created. They create classifications where someone > with one or two guns causes a generic warning to be mailed to all > neighbors without specifically identifying the undesirable. Three > to > four guns causes the name to be posted. An arsenal causes police to > visit each neighbor in person and show the neighbor a picture of the > undesirable. After all, this worked great when introduced for sex > offenders. Neighbors approve. "Just think! I never would have > known > that Mr. Johnson owns *three* firearms! Now I can keep my children > safe!" > 18. Feds decide that (11) should include any repeated infraction. > Obviously, if someone keeps speeding then they have no respect for > the > law and government and are irresponsible and can't be trusted with a > firearm. > 19. Feds decide that statistics show that most people who get one ticket > eventually get another, so why wait? Expand (11) again. > 20. Feds decide no one needs an arsenal for sporting reasons. New > arsenal permits are denied. > 21. Feds decide no one needs a handgun for sporting reasons. Handguns > can only be owned by demonstrated-need permit. > 22. Feds decide that only non-military-calibre rifles are sporting. > 23. Feds decide that sportsters only need five round mags. (Oops! Out > of order! We already have this one!) > 24. Feds decide that rifles are too powerful and require permits for > "high-power rifles," as defined by law. > 25. Feds decide that sportsters only need two rounds in a shotgun. > 26. Feds decide that bolt-action and pump-action rifles and shotguns are > more sporting than semi-autos. > 27. Feds decide that no one can demonstrate *real* need for a handgun. > New permits are denied. > 28. Feds decide that lower-powered, "sporting" rifles are cruel to game > because it takes too long for the game to die. A shotgun with a > deer > slug gives better results. You can still keep your rifle for > decoration, > though. > 29. Feds decide that a true sportsman only needs one shot. > 30. Feds decide that firearms make bad decorations and can be stolen. > Offer to buy them back or waive the *new tax* of $100 annually per > firearm if you store the gun at an approved and bonded storage > facility. > 31. Feds decide to *require* firearms to be stored at (30)'s facility. > Tax is no longer waived. > 32. Feds decide, after that unfortunate rash of storage facility break > ins, to require that firearms be stored at the local police station. > 33. Feds decide that, due to the recent rash of militia activity, > firearms can only be checked out of the police station during > hunting > season when you show your hunting license. > 34. Feds decide that, due to the militia group that took over a police > station and had to be napalmed, it would be better to store the > firearms > at *regional* facilities that can be better protected. Allow six to > eight weeks processing time to get your firearm. Come on! Stop > whining! > You know when hunting season is! We *are* letting you keep it at > the police station each night for up to two weeks during the hunting > season! (Ignore the conspiracy fanatics who claim this was a set > up. > The reason only two bodies were found was that the intense heat > cremated > them. Yeah! That's it! There really were 30 militia members in > there. > We swear.) > 35. Feds decide that it is very expensive to store these firearms. The > tax in (30) is increased to $250 annually per firearm. > 36. Feds decide that all new guns must be "smart guns" that can only be > fired by the owner and must disable themselves within 100 yards of a > Police Officer's personnal locating transmitter. > 37. Feds decide to increase the (30) tax to $1000 annually per firearm. > Annual checkout and verification of smart guns is expensive. You > must be present at this annual inspection. Most can't afford the > tax > & travel and sell their gun to the Government. > 38. Feds decide that old firearms without the smart shutoff may only be > kept if "historically significant." > 39. Feds decide to close most regional centers and to leave open only > four centers: New England, California, Illinois, and Georgia. Since > you must pick up your gun in person to use it and must be present at > the annual inspection, only those who can afford the travelling keep > their guns. Everyone else sells them to the Government. Very few > now > own a firearm. > 40. Feds raise the (30) tax to $2500 annually per firearm. We can't > have the normal citizen subsidizing those oddballs causing the > Government to incur unnecessary expenses. Only a few still own a > gun. > These people *must* have some sort of psyco attraction to these > objects > to incur these expenses, or be very rich. > 41. Feds decide that it is "unfair" that only rich people have guns. > Guns are outlawed after opinion polls show that the average citizen > agrees. > 42. Feds decide that anyone having an illegal gun will get a mandatory > 30 years in Gun Prison. Repeat offenders or those possessing a gun > during the commission of any violent crime are to be executed. > 43. Feds decide to extend (42) by removing the word "violent." > 44. Feds decide that the Sedition laws aren't strong enough. Too many > people are stirring up unrest by complaining about the Government. > Anyone who criticizes the Government *must* be double-plus ungood. > 45. Feds decide to extend (42) by adding "or misdemeanor" after "crime." > 46. Feds decide to revamp (42) by making mere possession a capital > offense. > 47. Feds decide that since there is a surprisingly large number of > people being arrested that a Federal Gun Judge shall be appointed > to each region with the ability to pass summary judgement. > 48. Feds decide that the wait is too long. In order to ensure a speedy > trial (oh, and fair, too) a Federal Gun Officer is appointed to each > police precinct. > 49. Feds decide that since there is no acceptable excuse for possessing > a firearms that the arresting officer should take the offender back > to the precinct where the Federal Gun Officer shall hear both sides > of the story. After the due process of this fair hearing there > shall > be an immediate execution carried out by two shots into the back of > the > head. > 50. Feds decide that the offender's family shall be charged $100 for > the execution: $75 labor, $15 for wear and tear of Government > property, and $10 for the two bullets. The fee is waived for those > on welfare. > > THE END > > -- > **My Opinions Only**| Who is John Galt? | Outlaw criminals, not > firearms. > Gerald Walls | NRA Life Member | Don't blame me. I voted > Libertarian. > "Law-abiding adults should always be free to own guns to protect their > homes." > -- Bill Clinton in 1994 State of the Union Address > gw84778@goodnet.com (preferred) > walls@saifr00.ateng.az.honeywell.com > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/walls/ > Minister of Redundancy Minister and Holder of Past Knowledge > > The e-mail addresses gw84778@goodnet.com, > walls@saifr00.ateng.az.honeywell.com, > walls@compuserve.com, and 73577.253@compuserve.com may not be used for > advertising > commercial goods without prior request from the address or without the > payment of > US$50.00 per incident. Sending commercial advertisements to any of > these > addresses shall be deemed acceptance of these terms. Invoices will > follow. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Your Tax Dollars At Work (fwd) Date: 24 Sep 1996 07:56:28 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [The Washington Times] Front Page Published in Washington, D.C. September 23, 1996 Focus on Politics LAWSUIT'S HORROR STORY ALL TOO TYPICAL, IRS FOES SAY By Valerie Richardson THE WASHINGTON TIMES DENVER One fateful afternoon three years ago, Carol Ward did what most taxpayers only dream of doing: She mouthed off to the Internal Revenue Service. Her son Tristan had been audited, and Mrs. Ward had accompanied him to a meeting with a revenue agent. As the agent, Paula Dzierzanowski, questioned him about the family's chain of children's clothing stores, Mrs. Ward became increasingly irritated. "This broad was doing something she wasn't qualified to do --it was obvious she knew nothing about retail," Mrs. Ward said. "So I said to her, 'From what I can see of your skills, the country would be better served if you were dishing out chicken-fried steak on an interstate somewhere in West Texas with your clanky jewelry and big hair.' "At that point, I left," she recalled. "Three weeks later, my life was over." What happened next sounds as if it were lifted straight from the pages of Kafka. Mrs. Ward said she was targeted by agents who proceeded to shut down her business, force her into bankruptcy and ruin her reputation by publicly accusing her of being a drug dealer. The agency later admitted it was a mistake, but by then it was too late, Mrs. Ward said. She took her case to court, filing an $8.5 million lawsuit against the agency that culminated in a seven-day trial here in U.S. District Court. A verdict in her case, which concluded Wednesday, is expected sometime next month. A spokesman for the IRS declined to comment because the case is pending. The trial's disturbing disclosures come as the tax-collecting agency tries to deflect a mounting barrage of criticism aimed at curbing its broad powers. Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole drew cheers at the party convention last month when he vowed to "end the IRS as we know it." The Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, signed by President Clinton in July, raised the ceiling on allowable damages in cases of agency abuse from $100,000 to $1 million. Last month, a congressional commission on restructuring the agency held its first hearing. Over the years, IRS officials have repeatedly said they will cooperate with reform efforts. Still, some critics say the reformers have yet to address the most pressing problems. "The IRS is masterful at covering itself from investigation and protecting its people in cases of some really egregious wrongdoing," said Shelley L. Davis, a former IRS historian whose book on the agency, "Unbridled Power," is slated for publication in March. "If everything Carol Ward says is true, it's a pretty shocking story." Mrs. Ward is convinced the IRS targeted her for persecution in order to settle a personal score. On April 19, 1993, the IRS entered a jeopardy assessment against her for $324,889. Agents froze her assets, seized her family's stores and plastered signs on the doors claiming the owners were suspected of drug smuggling, she said. Soon after, the agency revised the amount due to $3,400. Before the agency would accept the money, however, she says they insisted she sign a "closing agreement" in which she confessed to a series of tax crimes and promised not to sue. Mrs. Ward refused. Instead, she launched a one-woman crusade against the IRS, taking her story to the local media. She elicited the help of Sen. Hank Brown, Colorado Republican, and Rep. Patricia Schroeder, Colorado Democrat. After two months, the agency agreed to take the check -- but refused to release her assets unless she signed the agreement. She never did, but she finally got her assets back after arriving at the agency's Colorado Springs office with reporters from "Inside Edition" and the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph. That would have been the end of it, she said, but for one incident. As the case garnered more publicity, Gerald Swanson, director of the agency's Colorado Springs office, appeared on a local radio show and rehashed accusations that she was a tax deadbeat. While all this was playing out, she says, her family was falling apart. Her 70-year-old mother was afraid to leave her house for fear agents would seize it, and her 15-year-old daughter stopped attending school to escape the whispers of classmates. Mrs. Ward says the stress caused her to suffer a grand mal seizure, resulting in the loss of sight in her right eye. In her lawsuit, Mrs. Ward accused the agency of illegally releasing details of her private tax matters to the public. Justice Department attorneys for the IRS denied that the signs placed on her stores contained unauthorized disclosures, although Mrs. Ward brought in witnesses saying that they did. Attorneys for the IRS admit that disclosures in the radio interview and a fact sheet sent to "Inside Edition" were unauthorized, but they say damages should be limited to $1,000 per incident. Mrs. Ward is asking instead for $5 million in punitive damages and $3 million in actual damages, plus $500,000 to compensate her for the seizure. During the trial, Mrs. Ward was accused of making matters worse with her uncooperative, temperamental behavior. "Their No. 1 argument is that 'We didn't do it, and even if we did, she deserved it,'" Mrs. Ward said. One of the agency's most persistent critics, Rep. James A. Traficant Jr., Ohio Democrat, has been fighting for a decade for legislation to shift the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS in civil tax cases. He's convinced the Ward case is not an isolated incident. "He hopes the Carol Ward incident is a fluke, but we have heard testimony and testimonials from all kinds of people who have been used and abused by the IRS," said Traficant aide Charlie McCrudden. "This type of thing happens all the time. It's hard to know how often because there are people who are afraid of the IRS and they would rather pay than fight." Mrs. Ward agreed. "Everyone would love to talk back to the IRS like I did, but everyone's afraid to," she said. "All this was was a cat fight between two women. One had police power and one didn't." **************************************************** If at first you don't secede.... **************************************************** Harvey Wysong 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 23 Sep 1996 08:24:16 -0700 Don, Good post! Nice to see you in print again. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 24 Sep 1996 07:35:21 -0600 >>>I don't think that will ever be possible. Libertarians are proponents of >>>Anarchy(*), and they will always be outside the mainstream of American >>>Politics as a result. >> >>Please tell me what section of the LP platform contains >>the anarchy plank. I haven't seen it anywhere yet. > >----- > >That's a fair question. > >Notice that I said "Libertarians are proponents of Anarchy" above. I did not >say the *LP* was. > >This whole thread has been about Loonytarians misrepresenting the LP and >doing so in a very obnoxious, condescending manner too. > >Rid your ranks of the PMS Flame Twits(tm) so we can discuss Libertarian >philosophy/politics with you in a manner reflective of true LP dogma. > Bob, get off of your high horse. The only "very obnoxious, condescending manner" is yours around here. Yu fit the bill perfectly. Back to our regularly scheduled programming. Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: Dole's Record Date: 24 Sep 1996 07:35:26 -0600 >>RE: Dole. As Brad Dolan mentioned: It is well known that in late 94 that >>the Brady Bill wass effectively DEAD. Brady Bill Bob and Sen Mitchell and >>one other chap were on the Senate floor near to Thanksgiving. They were the >>only ones there. They brought it up and agreed to pass it through some sort >>of decree. Ask Larry Pratt about this. > >Does that mean Dole actually passed it? Or was it yet anither of the Great >Compromiser's tactics to keep an even worse thing from happening? It was already effectively DEAD. How can a worse thing happen if the bad thing is already DEAD? Besides, I'd rather not compromise and take my chances on the worse thing. Compromise is what got us where we are. Whittle away sslowly our rights. I'd rather take the chance at losing a few and winning a few instead of alwats losing. Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: Gingrich, Dole Favor Restricting Gun Owner's Rights Date: 24 Sep 1996 07:35:28 -0600 >The misdemeanors described should maybe be reclassified as felonies. >I think that Klinton and Kids have put their finger on a real problem. > If you are a drunk or otherwise social malcontent that goes around >losing your temper and beating on others, I think that you should not >be allowed to have a gun. > >A violent person is a violent person and I carry and possess guns to prtect >myself from such a numbskull. Also, such a person has placed himself >outside of our social law by abusing the rights of others. By >definition such a person is an outlaw. He has no civil rights or >liberties in my opinion. Larry -- you are missing the point of those who oppose this action. If these things they are doing ARE *really bad* then reclassifiy them as a felony. If they aren't worth being a felony, they are not worth restricting someones firearmsrights over. This is really an attempt to gradually make everyone not have guns. And *some* felony things should automatically be expunged from a persons record after X years of no more convictions And complaints. Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: caps@visigenic.com (Cap Schwartz) Subject: Re: Gingrich, Dole Favor Restricting Gun Owner's Rights Date: 24 Sep 1996 07:27:48 -0700 At 07:05 AM 9/24/96 -0500, Larry wrote, in part: >The misdemeanors described should maybe be reclassified as felonies. >I think that Klinton and Kids have put their finger on a real problem. > If you are a drunk or otherwise social malcontent that goes around >losing your temper and beating on others, I think that you should not >be allowed to have a gun. > Who is it that gets to decide that I am a drunk? Can you assess me as a social malcontent? By what right? By what omniscience? It seems obvious (but I guess it's not) that I must be prepared to face the consequences of my actions; that, if I beat on others I am likely to be beaten in turn, or worse. Or should I not be allowed to possess money, for fear I use it for some not yet defined, but surely evil purpose. Are you arguing here that passing a law against possessing a firearm is going to prevent me from further wrongdoing. >A violent person is a violent person and I carry and possess guns to prtect >myself from such a numbskull. Also, such a person has placed himself >outside of our social law by abusing the rights of others. By >definition such a person is an outlaw. He has no civil rights or >liberties in my opinion. A violent person? Same questions as above. It's becoming clearer, now: a person is not entitled to participation in society if you judge him to have ever committed, or been inclined to commit, an act of which you disapprove. No? Then tell me, please, who is to judge, based on my actions, that I am a particular kind of person. > >You libertarians need to come to earth. There is a need for society >and society's laws. There is a need to enforce them. The liberties >that we claimed in our Dec of Independence were not to be guaranteed >to malefactors. For proof of this read the document. The Bill of >Rights in the Constitution were not intended for all. They are >declarations of the restraints on government to protect the rights of >the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE are the same PEOPLE that took title to our >government in the Dec of Ind. Define malefactor, please. It's become clear to me that this term is to be applied to anyone who, in your judgment, is not very nice. Clear, also, is your notion of limiting freedom to those who meet your standards. Somehow, I doubt I would meet them. > >These people are the law abiding people of the land. They are the >ones who uphold the socisl covenant. What is the social covenant? It >is our commitment to one another to protect each others life, liberty, >equality and pursuit of happiness. The covenant is embodied in our >law, although some law can infringe upon those rights. Nonsense. My social covenant is to do you no harm. > [unpasted] cAp_ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: RE: Good Bill Passes In California!!! (fwd) Date: 24 Sep 1996 11:21:00 -0400 This is totally non-consequential, but it warmed my heart to get to pick up one of those little booklets containing the U.S. Constitution from some Army Sargent at a State Fair here in New Hampster. I just hope that that Sargent has read it and takes it seriously. Good for California. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Pro-RKBA Dole ??? Date: 24 Sep 1996 11:46:21 -0400 > >The reason that was brought up is you made some statement about how Dole was >so anti-RKBA, Brady Law and such, that he wondered about *your* pro-RKBA >credentials. > >You see, he says that there is absolutely no evidence that Dole was >responsible in any way for the Brady Law and prior to the latest flap over >what is purported to be Dole's "position" on AW Ban Repeal (he just as well >could have said that to defuse that emotional issue), there is no evidence >that Dole has *ever* been anti-RKBA. > This is absolutely wrong. The Brady Bill was dead, dead, dead in the August session as it had been successfully filibustered and Dole brought it back -> it literally would not have been voted on without Dole's approval. Check out Congressional Quarterly, check out any reliable news source - Dole brought it back from the dead after a totally successful filibuster. His statements on the AW Ban are incontravertible: I've heard the audio clip and seen a printed version. He does not want to repeal the Ban, he would veto repeal if it passed. He's a little less anti-RKBA than your average random Democrat, but that's about the best you can say. Both his actions and words reflect this. Here is what Kemp, his running mate, had to say: "Mr. [Tim] RUSSERT: '...Should we have a ban outlawing all automatic [sic] weapons?' Mr. [Jack] KEMP: 'There is no reason for people-- I mean, I believe in the constitutional right to own guns, but you don't need low-- you know, you don't need assault weapons [sic] like AK-47 submachine guns [sic] or UZIs to be a hunter or a legitimate sportsman.' Mr. RUSSERT: 'So just ban them?' Mr. KEMP: 'Ban it any way you can.'" --interview on _Meet The Press_ 3/7/93 My opinion is: Its ok to vote for Dole, the lesser evil, if you want to: A. fight Clinton B. *maybe* swing your State to Dole C. see Clinton's popular majority as low as possible. D. want to see a 15% cut in your taxes. I would recommend, for your future sanity, that you vote for Dole *with your eyes open*. He doesn't give two figs for RKBA, whatever. Dole is just a policeman who *sometimes* will stay bought. In other words, a slightly less odorous piece of dog shit. ciao, Jack Curtis P.S. I plan on voting for the creep. I don't have much hope of an October Surprise. The clock is ticking on this, we have one week to October. Optimum time for a surprise is probably 10 days before the election. If you want to do some good, send a check to the campaign of Bob Smith, incumbant Republican for the NH Senate seat. He's honest and pro-RKBA (helped run the WACO hearings). His oponent is a lying sack-of-you-know-what Dick Swett - Swett is an ex-rep, backed by big money from California. Swett campaigned as pro-RKBA, responded to all letters as pro-RKBA, and lied *to me personally* within 24 hours of voting pro AW ban. We voted him out of the House, now he is coming back to the Senate. We need to kill this guy's political ambitions once again, as he is a proven anti-RKBA liar. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Gingrich, Dole Favor Restricting Gun Owner's Rights Date: 24 Sep 1996 08:28:29 -0700 Larry, Pardon me, if you would, for signing in here. In your statement: >>>>>>> I discussed the current state of political events with a friend yesterday who is a fire chief. On the issue of RKBA he stated that we did not have a right to own guns like AK 47's. What that said to me is that we have not educated the public on the purpose of the second amendment. How does is protect the basic rights of the law abiding American citizen? We need to develope such a doctrine rather than whining about the "rights" of spouse beaters and killers. <<<<<<< What I find disturbing is the logic used by the fire chief. It is not so much a matter of education, as it is a matter of misplaced ideals. Far too many people in this nation, attribute power to those who are in positions of authority, as though it were a 'Right' of office. These people in office, have acquired a 'mantle of supremacy' that exceeds the original intent of the law. Ergo - by that defective reasoning, a person in law enforcement has the 'Right' to any arm of issue and is seen as having more Rights than the citizen., whereas the citizen who in reality is more powerful by virtue of conferring the power to operate within the law - and to enforce it, is seen as inferior in that regard. Your friend is operating under the assumption, that government entities are more powerful than the citizens who have empowered them. That logic is extremely faulted, when upon examination one inspects the fact that citizens cannot give authority to a government entity that they themselves do not have. By way of the same reasoning, the government can neither proclaim a power not allowed it, nor deny a Right the citizens have allowed it. Thus, any weapon that can be utilized by an official of government, can also be utilized by the citizen. By extension of the 9th and 10th amendments (U.S. Const.), the People reserve the powers to themselves that are not specifically allowed to the government. Note that, allowed does not in any way mean ceded or surrendered. By that reasoning then, power allowed is also power retained, or reserved for personal considerations. Ed In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we have more laws against freedom than those that protect it. If this country is so damned free, why are there so many things I can't do without breaking some idiotic law? >>>eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com<<< "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus, Roman Senator and historian (a.d. 56-115) >>>A kind thank you to: David Gonzalez <<< The 2nd Amendment IS THE reset button for the United States Constitution. >>>("Doug McKay" ) <<< A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights -- These are the ORIGINAL Contract with America. Beware of Imitations. Accept No Substitutes. Insist on the Genuine Articles. >>>Thanks in part to: John Gear (catalyst@pacifier.com)<<< "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters >>>A hearty thanks to: foolery@bright.net<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Gingrich, Dole Favor Restricting Gun Owner's Rights Date: 24 Sep 1996 13:07:56 -0400 >The misdemeanors described should maybe be reclassified as felonies. >I think that Klinton and Kids have put their finger on a real problem. > If you are a drunk or otherwise social malcontent that goes around >losing your temper and beating on others, I think that you should not >be allowed to have a gun. > >A violent person is a violent person and I carry and possess guns to prtect >myself from such a numbskull. Also, such a person has placed himself >outside of our social law by abusing the rights of others. By >definition such a person is an outlaw. He has no civil rights or >liberties in my opinion. > If the violence is egregious enough to eliminate an inalienable right (self-defense) for *life*, then it is violent enough to be a felony charge, and prosecuted as such. This misdemeanor stuff is just the thin edge of the wedge. Massachusetts is considering a bill that would ban firearms ownership for people under a restraining order. Any spouse (usually a women) can get a restraining order on her testimony *with no previous history of violence and without any evidence*. That's the next step in the wedge. Don't kid yourself. Jack Curtis Clinton and Dole are both dog shit, just pick your flavour. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Fwd: ONE IF BY LAND, TWO IF BY SEA (fwd) Date: 24 Sep 1996 12:12:14 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --------------------- Forwarded message: CC: budrowe@earth.inwave.com >Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 22:41:19 -0600 (MDT) >From: Charlie Duke >Subject: >To: Distribution list for weekly columns <73424.745@compuserve.com>, > 73543.2304@compuserve.com, arleneb@bulldog.afsc.k12.ar.us, > blackjack@fatalerr.com, BudLidMan@aol.com, butterb@connecti.com, > callsd@aol.com, david@databahn.net, EASTERISLE@aol.com, > ghostpwr@dmi.net, glassguy@lamar.ColoState.EDU, hometown@fn.net, > jeremiah@usa.net, lin@clark.net, netgod@rmii.com, > nosbigs@ix.netcom.com, nryder@capecod.net, nssc@inlink.com, > powens19@mixcom.com, rkl@mooseware.com, silbergd@npvm.newpaltz.edu, > troy@denim.csn.net, truchti@execpc.com, village6@juno.com, > wea@allmax.com, winter@alaska.net > > September 23, 1996 > SENATOR DUKE > (719) 481-9289 > > By Senator Charles R. Duke > Colorado District 9 > > ONE IF BY LAND, TWO IF BY SEA > > It is the nature of freedom that we must be reminded >occasionally of the necessity to fight for it. Freedom is not a >God-given right that we can simply achieve, and, then, having >done that, put it aside and move on to other things. > We are admonished by the words of John Philpot Curran, "The >condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal >vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the >consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." > Thus, if we choose to avoid struggles for freedom, if we >choose to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye towards infringements >of freedom, if we all tiptoe merrily along pretending we are >free, then servitude is our destiny and our reward. It was no >more true in 1790, when originally spoken, than it is today. > In 1994, an entire national movement towards liberty began >with the nation's first Tenth Amendment Resolution, of which this >writer is proud to have been the sponsor. Across the nation, >serious transgressions of liberty by our oppressive federal >government were exposed and opposed. State after state joined >Colorado in telling the federal government to "cease and desist, >effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of its >constitutionally delegated powers." > The power mongers in Washington didn't follow those >directives, of course, but the resolutions did wake them up. In >1995, they greatly speeded up their agenda for the abolition of >freedom. They returned with a Conference of States, a clever >ploy to replace our Constitution with one more suited to a >tyrannical, strong, central federal government. > Fortunately, citizen's groups across the nation discovered >the ploy soon enough to impact its implementation and managed to >derail that effort. Many who participated in that opposition >effort were rewarded by having their assets seized and some have >even been arrested. Tyrants do not lose gracefully, to say the >least. > Now, in 1996, the pirates are back again, this time flying >under the colors of term limits as a a disguise. It appeared as >an Initiative, or citizen's petition, in many states. The issue >will appear before voters this November in 17 states, those >being Alabama, Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, >Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, >Oregon, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. > Buried in the text of the issue is a command to state and >federal legislators to support resolutions calling for an >Article V Constitutional Convention. Because of this, it is >believed the issue is not about term limits at all. Colorado, >for example, already has term limits on both state and federal >legislators. Why do we need another? > This issue is a carefully camouflaged attempt to coerce our >nation into a Constitutional Convention. Its proponents assure >us that, while that may be true, there is nothing to fear from >this, since any output of a Con-Con would have to be ratified by >the states. > This, too, is cleverly deceptive. The proponents are >counting on your making the mental leap that "ratification" >means a vote in the state legislature. That just isn't >necessarily true. > An investigation of Article V reveals the following >language, "...when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths >of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths >thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be >proposed by the Congress..." Hence, an amendment to our >Constitution, even a complete replacement of our Constitution, >can be ratified by ratifying conventions, bypassing the state >legislatures entirely. > Since the Congress can specify the mode, it is assumed that >Congress could also specify how delegates to a ratifying >convention would be chosen. Legally entitled to choose >delegates or not, Congress is likely to do so. The people >could not even sue Congress for remedy, since the courts would >decline to intercede by declaring the issue to be of a political >nature, not a legal one. > Does it surprise you that, of the 17 states which have been >targeted for this effort, 10 have adopted formal legislation >regarding the Tenth Amendment? It should not, by now. > There is much more of a heinous nature in the "term limits" >proposals. The time is now for the American people to wake up >and realize our nation is being stolen from us right before our >eyes. Simple defeat of the proposal is certainly warranted, but >hardly seems sufficient for the skulduggery involved. > End > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) U.S. Incarcerated 1.6 Million People in 1995 (fwd) Date: 24 Sep 1996 12:56:11 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive Posted mnovickttt Mon Aug 19 20:34:51 1996 U.S. Incarcerated 1.6 Million People in 1995, Report Says )From Associated Press WASHINGTON--The number of men and women in the nation's prisons and jails climbed to nearly 1.6 million last year, culminating a decade in which the U.S. rate of incarceration nearly doubled, the Justice Department reported Sunday. By the end of 1995, 1 out of every 167 Americans was in prison or jail, compared to 1 out of every 320 a decade earlier, according to the department's Bureau of Justice Statistics. The world's highest incarceration rate has seesawed in recent years between the United States and Russia, with both far outdistancing other nations. The bureau said that as of Dec. 31 there were 1,078,357 men and women in federal and state prisons, which usually house sentenced prisoners serving more than one year. That was an increase of 86,745 over the previous year, or 8.7%, slightly above the average annual growth rate during the last five years. As of June 30, 1995, the most recent date for which figures are available, there were 507,044 men and women in local jails, which normally hold people awaiting trial or serving less than one-year sentences. That was an increase of 20,570, or 4.2%, slightly below the average annual growth rate during the last five years. The total number of inmates in custody has more than doubled since 1985, up 113%. The rate of incarceration has grown from 313 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1985 to 600 inmates per 100,000 in 1995. Local jails added 41,439 beds in the 12 months preceding June 30, 1995, which put their population at 7% below capacity on that date. Copyright Los Angeles Times -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) Patterns for U.S. Government Cover Ups (fwd) Date: 24 Sep 1996 12:57:53 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive Patterns for U.S. Government Cover Ups It is increasingly clear that the Arkansas Horrors -- bank fraud, land flips, money laundering, cocaine trafficking, unsolved deaths -- are being covered up by official U.S. government investigations. D'Amato's Senate hearings never touched the Arkansas Development Finance Authority loans, that were allegedly used to launder cocaine profits from Mena. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr nibbles at the Whitewater land deal and assorted bank frauds, but has avoided crimes with more direct implications against the Clintons, such as Castle Grande, Coral Reinsurance and Mena. And the deaths of many, such as Luther Parks and Vince Foster, remain full of mysteries. Today we see many Democrats claiming that the Whitewater investigations are witch hunts -- that the Clintons are innocent of all charges. The evidence argues otherwise. It is interesting to hear Republicans saying the same thing about scandals related to the Reagan and Bush administrations. These congruent attitudes may be due to the similar methods used by U.S. government investigators probing Whitewater, as well as the October Surprise and Iran-contra scandals. These patterns for cover ups serve to whitewash the crimes, rather than reveal the truth and bring the guilty to justice. It is as if Clinton is using the Reagan/Bush playbook to make the public believe he did no wrong. As a matter of fact, there is reason to believe that all these crimes are connected. The October Surprise resulted in the shipment of billions of dollars worth of U.S. military equipment to Iran.(1) The Iranian contacts used for these weapons transfers became the openings that Oliver North turned to in the Iranian arms for hostages initiatives. The Contra side of Iran-contra included Mena, which was the money generator for the corruption in Arkansas that gave Bill Clinton the financial clout to become President. The October Surprise and Iran-contra scandals demonstrated that ruthless grabs for power and money by Washington power masters will go unpunished. Time and again, those seeking truth and justice were chastised for challenging the official verdicts. Now we see it repeated with Whitewater. Disinformation is critical for U.S. government officials to be able to commit crimes with impunity. Chris Ruddy, investigating Whitewater, and Robert Parry, reporting on the Contra cocaine smuggling and the October Surprise, faced professional character assassinations. On closer examination, it is apparent the media assassins were reporting disinformation.. Mike Wallace of 60 MINUTES examined Foster's death. He attacked Chris Ruddy, rather than review the evidence. Wallace never questioned the official government cover story and never mentioned the mountains of evidence that contradict the cover story. Former CIA man, turned journalist, Steve Emerson in the NEW REPUBLIC, asserted that the October Surprise evidence Parry had uncovered was all fabrications. Emerson claimed he had George Bush's uncensored Secret Service records "proving" Bush was not in Paris in October, 1980 making a deal with the Iranians.(2) The problem is that it was Emerson who fabricated evidence. He never had Bush's uncensored records.(3) The last time we heard from him, Emerson was claiming Islamic radicals had blown up the Oklahoma City Federal Building. I wonder what happened with that disinformation. Records that remain secret could either prove or discredit allegations. The time of Helen Dickey's phone call to Little Rock announcing Foster's death would either show the official cover story as plausible or false. Those records have not been released. George Bush's Secret Service records for October, 1980 are powerful evidence as to whether the October Surprise deal was made or not. After 16 years, the pertinent information is still classified. There were boxes of evidence ignored by Whitewater, October Surprise and Iran-contra investigators. Whitewater prosecutors have yet to touch the documentation behind loans made by the Arkansas Development Finance Authority. ADFA loaned out hundreds of millions of dollars, ostensibly to finance industrial expansion in Arkansas. All loans had to be approved by Gov. Clinton. It is unknown where the funding for ADFA came from, since the state legislature never budgeted any funds. It is alleged the money was from cocaine smuggled into Mena. (4) IRS investigator William Duncan turned over boxes of documentation on money-laundering in Arkansas to Iran-contra Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh and Whitewater special prosecutor. Both official investigators ignored the evidence. The October Surprise also had boxes of evidence ignored by the Congressional Task Force. Robert Parry found them stored inside a converted Ladies Room in Capitol Hill. It turns out that the French (5) and Soviet governments (6) knew the deal William Casey and Reagan campaign operative had made the deal to keep the Teheran American Embassy hostages until after the 1980 election, in exchange for massive shipments of American weaponry. Parry reports this evidence on The Consortium. http://www.delve.com/consort.html It is not unusual in National Security-related crimes for perpetrators to refuse turning over subpoenaed evidence, or finding it much later after investigators found it by other means, such as Hillary's billing records. Caspar Weinberger did the same thing, withholding his diaries until 1992. His diary gave Walsh the evidence to indict Weinberger on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury. President Bush, in his final days, pardoned Weinberger before trial.(7) We'll see how Hillary gets off the hook. Considering how National Security crimes are consistently covered up, I expect Hillary to remain unindicted, despite the evidence. Both Whitewater and the October Surprise used investigators with secret conflicts of interest. Independent Counsel Starr and his law firm were involved in litigation with the RTC, while simultaneously investigating the RTC's response to several failed S&Ls connected with Clinton. His power to investigate the RTC while in litigation with the RTC is a clear conflict of interest. Yet he did not recuse himself from the position of Whitewater special prosecutor. It was known that Congressional October Surprise Task Force investigator Lawrence Barcella had received $2 million in legal fees from the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. What was not known, because the FBI wiretap records had been secret until recently, was that weapons middleman Cyrus Hashemi received "money from BCCI (is) to come in from London on Concorde." This call was in February, 1981 when tons of American arms were flowing to Iran. BTW, Hashemi received $3 million payment from a lawyer and long-time friend of George Bush. At the same time, Hashemi was a business partner with John Shaheen, a close friend of William Casey. None of this is mentioned in the October Surprise Task Force report.(8) Richard Ben-Veniste is the Democratic Counsel for the Senate Banking Committee investigating Whitewater. He had been the defense attorney for cocaine smuggler, DEA informant and CIA asset Barry Seal. Seal is a central figure in allegations that the CIA was importing cocaine through Mena. Ben-Veniste is in an excellent position to block any inquiries into the drug smuggling or money-laundering through Arkansas, plus he likely knows what the details were from braggart Barry Seal.(9) This is reminiscent of Iraqgate when Bush administration Attorney General William Barr named Carlos Cardoen's defense attorney as U.S. Attorney for Miami just after Cardoen was indicted in Miami for shipping cluster bombs to Iraq, allowing Cardoen's attorney to investigate Cardoen.(10) Stifling dissent, especially by Congressmen, is critical to keeping the lid on the cover up. Rep. Mervyn Dymally (D-CA) wanted to write a formal dissent to Barcella's October Surprise Task Force report. He questioned the absurd alibis and twisted logic Barcella used to conclude there was no October Surprise. Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN) warned Dymally he would "come down hard" if his recalcitrant colleague refused to back off from writing a dissenting opinion. The next day, Hamilton fired the staffers working on Dymally's Africa subcommittee. Dymally relented. (11) This incident makes me wonder if there was any Republican pressure on Sen. Lauch Faircloth when he missed the testimony of Helen Dickey. Faircloth was not there to challenge Dickey as to the time she discovered that Vince Foster was dead. Her testimony contradicts the sworn testimony of two Arkansas state troopers. If Dickey was lying, and the troopers are correct, then Foster died much earlier than the official version of events. Democrats are using the filibuster to block an extension of the Senate Whitewater hearings. Sen. Robert Dole had used the technique to block the October Surprise investigation. (12) So long as each Party, in turn, can exercise uncontrolled power, resulting in crimes without punishment, then the United States will suffer. Citizens must raise their voices in a bipartisan chorus demanding that this corruption STOP! Larry (1) Hersh, Seymour, "Reagan Is Said to Have Let Israel Sell Arms to Teheran," NEW YORK TIMES, December 8, 1991. (2) Emerson, Steve and Furman, Jesse, "The Conspiracy that Wasn't," NEW REPUBLIC, November 18, 1991. (3) Parry, Robert, TRICK OR TREASON: THE OCTOBER SURPRISE MYSTERY, New York, Sheridan Press, 1993, ISBN 1-879823-08-X, pg. 277-278 (4) Reed, Terry and Cummings, John, COMPROMISED: CLINTON, BUSH AND THE CIA, 1994, pg. 143 (5) Parry, Robert, "October Surprise X-Files (Part 2): The Ladies' Room Secrets," THE CONSORTIUM, December 21, 1995, Vol.1, No. 2 http://www.delve.com/consort.html (6) Parry, "October Surprise X-Files (Part 1): Russia's Report," THE CONSORTIUM, December 11, 1995, Vol.1, No. 1 (7) Walsh, Lawrence, Independent Counsel, FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS, August 4, 1993, Volume 1, pg.405, 414-415. (8) Parry, "October Surprise X-Files: Bill Casey's Iranian," THE CONSORTIUM, December 31, 1995, Vol. 1, No. 3 (9) Editorial, "The Cover-Up Filibuster," WALL STREET JOURNAL, March 11, 1996. (10) Friedman, Alan, SPIDER'S WEB: THE SECRET HISTORY OF HOW THE WHITE HOUSE ILLEGALLY ARMED IRAQ, New York, Bantam Books, 1993, ISBN 0-553-09650-8, pg. 220 (11) Parry, "October Surprise X-Files: Lies Spun into History," THE CONSORTIUM, March 14, 1996, Vol. 1, No. 8 (12) Ibid. ************************************************************************* These sites are filled with facts about CIA covert operations how they work against the best interests of the citizens of the United States. David Feustel's great archive on CIA cocaine smuggling: http://www.mixi.net/~feustel/ Lisa Pease's Real History Archives: http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/ Bob Parry's The Consortium is filled with important investigative reporting that the mainstream media won't touch: http://www.delve.com/consort.html Whitewater & Vince Foster site: http://www.cris.com/~dwheeler/n/whitewater/whitewater-index.html Covert Action Quarterly home page: http://www.worldmedia.com/caq/ Federation of American Scientists' library of U.S. intelligence documents http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/ ************************************************************************* -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) Re: White House questioned about Mena (fwd) Date: 24 Sep 1996 12:58:56 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >--------------------------------------- >MICHAEL MCCURRY; WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN; >REGULAR WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING; >MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 >--------------------------------------- > (excerpt) > MCCURRY: Anything else? Any other subjects? > Yes, ma'am? > QUESTION: You know, all this talk that we're getting every five >minutes about the Republicans saying that Clinton hasn't done enough >against the -- to curb narcotics. > Why doesn't he answer that? Why doesn't he come out and say -- >the last two or three days around here there's been documents evidence >that it was George Bush and Oliver North and the CIA that was bringing >in the narcotics, and they're still doing it. The CIA is still >bringing in the narcotics through Mena, Arkansas. > Now why isn't the damn -- the devil doesn't -- excuse me for >saying that. But why in the world doesn't Clinton come out and say >that the Republicans are the ones who have been bringing in the >narcotics? > MCCURRY: Well, the president is on the -- the first part of that >question. The president is satisfied, as Director Deutch has >indicated, that they are conducting an independent review of those >allegations at the CIA and that is underway, as has been announced. > Secondly, the president is... > QUESTION: Why aren't you saying what you said just a minute... > MCCURRY: What I've just said, is as director of Central >Intelligence John Deutch has said and assured members of Congress, an >independent inspector general at the CIA is looking into some of the >allegations that you just referenced. > On the first... > QUESTION: They're looking into the allegations? > MCCURRY: They are... > QUESTION: Isn't that what you said? That they are looking into >the allegations? > MCCURRY: They are conducting an independent inspector general's >review of the matter. > On the first part of the question, the president is happy to talk >about his record during the time he has been president, and frankly >his commitment going back all the years he's been in public service, >to combat drug trafficking and drug use. > And this president has requested more funding from the Congress >for anti-drug efforts than his predecessors did. He has put together >a drug strategy, now, at the leadership of a four-star general. He >has supported the death penalty for drug kingpins. And he's worked >vigorously to combat drug use and spoken to the issue publicly. > QUESTION: Well, why doesn't just come out and tell the >Republicans after all, you have been bringing them in for years? > MCCURRY: Well, I believe that's what we're in the process of >doing. I think we are attempting as effectively as you can during a >political season in which many misbegotten charges get made, to rebut >some of that information. > Helen? > QUESTION: Director Deutch said that he's... > MCCURRY: Helen? > QUESTION: ... waiting some allegations that the inspector >general... > (UNKNOWN): Come on, Sarah. Put a sock in it. > QUESTION: ... to find something, all he has to do is turn around >in his office and find it. > MCCURRY: Well, we've -- that's exactly what he's doing. Come on MEDIA -- you alleged watchdogs for the people! Get to the truth! Don't let this story be covered up -- again! Larry $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ The CIA cocaine smuggling on behalf of the Contras through Mena, Arkansas corrupted the Presidencies of Bill Clinton, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. For details, see: ftp://pencil.cs.missouri.edu/pub/mena/ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: hillary_2.html (fwd) Date: 24 Sep 1996 13:18:13 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media [from the publishers of pc magazine - zd internet magazine - free] Free Premiere Issue of ZD Internet Magazine _________________________________________________________________ Monday September 23 10:29 PM EDT FDIC Links Hillary to Madison Guaranty Deal WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Hillary Rodham Clinton's legal billing records suggest she helped draft a sham deal under which Madison Guaranty savings and loan evaded regulations and deceived bank examiners, government banking regulators said in a report made public Monday. The supplemental report by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s inspector general followed a renewed investigation launched after the mysterious discovery of Mrs. Clinton's Rose Law Firm billing records at the White House last January. The records showed work done by Mrs. Clinton in the mid-1980s for Madison, which was headed by the Clintons' partners in the failed Whitewater real estate development, James and Susan McDougal. The FDIC report was made public without comment by Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, a New York Republican, and appeared to back up conclusions on the land deal made in the final report of D'Amato's Senate Whitewater Committee, which harshly criticized the first lady. The inspector general said entries in Mrs. Clinton's billing records and other evidence suggested that she and law firm partner Webster Hubbell helped facilitate payment of $300,000 in commissions to Hubbell's father-in-law Seth Ward, a ``straw byer'' of land owned by Madison. ``The method of the payment of the commissions evaded regulations designed to protect the safety and soundness of the institution and violated the integrity of its books and records,'' the new report said. ``Further, Madison Guaranty used a document drafted by Clinton to deceive federal bank examiners as to the true nature of payments to Ward.'' The report said that Madison apparently conceived a May 1, 1986, option agreement setting out an arrangement under which Ward was to purchase a parcel of land in a property known as Industrial Development Corp. to further the purpose of concealing from bank examiners' payments to Ward. The option was drafted by Mrs. Clinton. The report also noted that during the summer of 1988, prior to a suit by Ward against Madison, Mrs. Clinton ordered destruction of all of her files related to the IDC transaction, including a file labeled ``Ward option.'' When the Rose Law Firm solicited legal work from the Resolution Trust Corp., the government savings and loan cleanup agency, and the FDIC, it did not disclose any information on the work done for Madison by Mrs. Clinton or Hubbell, the report said. _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 24 Sep 1996 17:58:11 -0400 At 07:35 AM 9/24/96 -0600, you wrote: >>>>I don't think that will ever be possible. Libertarians are proponents of >>>>Anarchy(*), and they will always be outside the mainstream of American >>>>Politics as a result. >>> >>>Please tell me what section of the LP platform contains >>>the anarchy plank. I haven't seen it anywhere yet. >> >>----- >> >>That's a fair question. >> >>Notice that I said "Libertarians are proponents of Anarchy" above. I did not >>say the *LP* was. >> >>This whole thread has been about Loonytarians misrepresenting the LP and >>doing so in a very obnoxious, condescending manner too. >> >>Rid your ranks of the PMS Flame Twits(tm) so we can discuss Libertarian >>philosophy/politics with you in a manner reflective of true LP dogma. >> > >Bob, get off of your high horse. The only "very obnoxious, condescending >manner" is yours around here. Yu fit the bill perfectly. > >Back to our regularly scheduled programming. > >Chad > After watching this debate(?) over the last few years(or so it seems), I must concurr with Chad on this one. Tom >------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- >Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! >Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) >http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com >http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface >Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and >Activism Info >--------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- > > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Gingrich, Dole Favor Restricting Gun Owner's Rights Date: 24 Sep 1996 17:21:05 -0700 Great post (below). This is one of the CORE things that Americans have forgotten. The book I was touting a while ago, "Uncommon Sense," explains it in great detail, but this post sez it in a great nutshell. - Monte > What I find disturbing is the logic used by the fire chief. It is >not so much a matter of education, as it is a matter of misplaced ideals. > Far too many people in this nation, attribute power to those who >are in positions of authority, as though it were a 'Right' of office. These >people in office, have acquired a 'mantle of supremacy' that exceeds the >original intent of the law. > Ergo - by that defective reasoning, a person in law enforcement has >the 'Right' to any arm of issue and is seen as having more Rights than the >citizen., whereas the citizen who in reality is more powerful by virtue of >conferring the power to operate within the law - and to enforce it, is >seen as inferior in that regard. > Your friend is operating under the assumption, that government >entities are more powerful than the citizens who have empowered them. > > That logic is extremely faulted, when upon examination one inspects >the fact that citizens cannot give authority to a government entity that >they themselves do not have. > By way of the same reasoning, the government can neither proclaim a >power not allowed it, nor deny a Right the citizens have allowed it. > > Thus, any weapon that can be utilized by an official of government, >can also be utilized by the citizen. > By extension of the 9th and 10th amendments (U.S. Const.), the >People reserve the powers to themselves that are not specifically allowed >to the government. Note that, allowed does not in any way mean ceded or >surrendered. > By that reasoning then, power allowed is also power retained, or >reserved for personal considerations. > >Ed > >------------------------------------------------------- >In the land of the free and the home of the brave, >we have more laws against freedom than those that >protect it. >If this country is so damned free, why are there so many >things I can't do without breaking some idiotic law? >>>>eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com<<< >------------------------------------------------------- > "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." > Tacitus, Roman Senator and historian (a.d. 56-115) >>>>A kind thank you to: David Gonzalez <<< >------------------------------------------------------- >The 2nd Amendment IS THE reset button for the United States Constitution. >>>>("Doug McKay" ) <<< >A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, >the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. >------------------------------------------------------- >The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and >the Bill of Rights -- These are the ORIGINAL Contract with America. >Beware of Imitations. >Accept No Substitutes. >Insist on the Genuine Articles. >>>>Thanks in part to: John Gear (catalyst@pacifier.com)<<< >------------------------------------------------------- >"You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of >your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you >people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the >greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters >>>>A hearty thanks to: foolery@bright.net<<< > > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: Re: The FarLeft and the Libertarians Date: 24 Sep 1996 20:44:18 -0500 >You know I'm a Libertarian, but I hope you don't lump me in with the asshole >sect of my party. ;-) ----- You have been one of the few who has not degenerated to condescention, much less obnoxioushenss or assholishness, classic Loonytarian traits. That's why I do not DEL your posts. Keep up the good work - the real LP out there is depending on you and others like you. There is a message buried in all this LP rhetoric, but right now there is a bit too much noise for it to come thru - like people calling me "stupid" just because I do not accept their rhetoric offhand. I do not believe I am "stupid", nor do I believe I deserve being called "stupid" just because I am not a Loonytarian Sheeple. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Lewis Glendenning Subject: Re: Why we should hate Libertarians Date: 24 Sep 1996 18:33:32 -0700 (PDT) I trust you expect the same of your fellow Republicans. Lew Glendenning rlglende@netcom.com "Ideology? We don't got no Ideology. We don't need no stinkin Ideology! We have a CONSTITUTION!" The CONSTITUTION, the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, and NOTHING BUT the CONSTITUTION. On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > >Only a moron would assert that has anything to do with "secret" > >balloting. > > > >I can see why the ever-vacuous Mr. Hammer gets so little response > >to his "probing" questions. > > ----- > > He does not mince words, does he? > > This thread, at least for me, has a well-meaning purpose. See if you agree. > > I want to see people who fight tyranny do so with a broader appeal. When a > handful of "pothead Libs" butt in and spam a legitimate discussion, it does > not serve the best interests of either the Libertarian movement or the cause > of liberty. > > You LP faithful know exactly what I am talking about, because many of you > have written online and offline pointing out that a few obnoxious people do > not speak for the majority of LPers. True, we all know that. > > But you also have to realize that we who would like to engage in rational > discourse with LPers do so very reluctantly because the obnoxious will chime > in and spam the discussion, and - *most importantly* - you LPers don't do > anything to stop it. That is taken as tacit approval for the obnoxious > tactics, which gives LPers the deserved or undeserved bad reputation. > > There are several areas left to discuss/debate, but who in his right mind > would want to waste time in flame wars? So, I ask you to police your ranks > when someone represents themselves as an LPer in an obnoxious manner. > > Bob Knauer > > -- > > ************************************************** > A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing > Corporation World Wide Web Publishing > > http://www.aimtec.com/ > ************************************************** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Dole's Record Date: 24 Sep 1996 20:47:39 -0700 At 06:43 AM 9/24/96 -0500, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: > >>RE: Dole. As Brad Dolan mentioned: It is well known that in late 94 that >>the Brady Bill wass effectively DEAD. Brady Bill Bob and Sen Mitchell and >>one other chap were on the Senate floor near to Thanksgiving. They were the >>only ones there. They brought it up and agreed to pass it through some sort >>of decree. Ask Larry Pratt about this. > >Does that mean Dole actually passed it? Or was it yet anither of the Great >Compromiser's tactics to keep an even worse thing from happening? The only other possibility was that the Brady Bill would die then and there. Dole passed it virtually single-handedly. >>The latest AW "flap" is also serious. Very serious. He promised us in no >>uncertain terms he would work on repeal. He sat on it and then after >>leaving the Senate came out FOR the ban and promised a VETO if it were to >>pass his desk as President. At least Newt kept his promise and brought up >>a vote on the issue. He may be a politician but he can keep promises (and >>Newt realizes why he is speaker of the house. Dole forgot who made him >>Senate Majority Leader). > >I still want to believe that this is just a sneaky maneuver to circumvent >open debate over Gun Control, which the Demagogue-In-Cheif would win >outright. What would you do to defuse that issue, anyway? I might make some temporizing noncommittal statement, but I wouldn't be quite so obvious and dogmatic about it as Dole was. Face facts; while he may not be as bad as Clinton, Dole is no friend of gun owners - and neither is Jack Kemp. Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. 8037 Stone Canyon |counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing Citrus Heights, CA|citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent 95610 |crimes and it appears to produce no increase in kmitchel@gvn.net |accidental deaths. If those states which did not 916-449-9152 (vm) |have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had 916-729-0966 (fax)|adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; |4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults |would have been avoided yearly." Crime, |Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns |John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago -------------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm---------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: RE: Re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 25 Sep 1996 05:44:16 -0500 >It astounds me that one can cram so much ignorance into a single post. And your post is a perfect example. See, Sports fans, Lonnytarians can't be civil - it's just against their nature. >While I agree that Clinton is probably the sorriest excuse for a statesman He's far worse than that - he's a Fascist Tyrant. >we've seen in quite a while, I don't understand this irrational fear and >hatred of the man. Why don't we stop playing the political game long >enough to examine a few basic facts, and make our decisions objectively >rather than emotionally? You want facts - basic facts? Try this on for size: He has legislation already in committee to ban guns and ammo outright. That alone ought to make you fear him a big bunch. But he lieks drugs, so he's OK in your book. You would trade in RKBA so you can use drugs. >In the first place, the only "overwhelming evidence" that I see supports >the notion that BOTH major parties are too entrenched in big money and >big politics to reflect any interest of the people, at least at the >national level. When neither party can seriously be said to address >the concerns of a majority of its constituents, a third party makes sense. Yeah, I know, when... When politicians stop acting like politicians, I suppose. >I have a few qualms with the Libertarian platform, but all in all I >think it's a party worthy of support, which is a hell of a lot more than >can be said for the Republicrats. Ask 100 people who is running on the LP ticket, and 99 of them will ask back: "The Libertarian Party - never heard of it" The LP is simply unknown in mainstream America. >EVEN IF WE LOSE, even if (gasp) Clinton wins, if enough people vote >Libertarian, there is an excellent chance that people will take the >idea of a third party more seriously in subsequent elections. Perot got 19% last time, and people still don't take third parties seriously. >Even with say 20% of the vote, Get real. Browne won't even show above 1%. All Perot can muster is 5% and he's a household word. >the media would be forced to cover the Libertarians after the election. The media won't be forced to do anything the media doesn't choose to do. >The more popular votes they have, >the more likely that reporting will be at least somewhat objective, for >how can it be said that an entire fifth of the citizenry are "far right >extremists?" If and when... >If Clinton _is_ reelected, it's not the end of the world. You obviously do not know what you are talking about. Do you know how many Gun Control laws he will pass from his lame-duck bully pulpit if re-elected? But you probably don't care about gun rights, do you? Drug use is far more important to you. That's why klintoon is OK in your book. >This is not a game, and you don't always have to be on the winning team. >Bear in mind that there are many of us who still believe in America, with a >'c', and one president is not going to be able to change that. Yeah, that's what we all thought until one day we woke up and had the Brady Law and the AW Ban/Magazine Capacity Law shoved down our throats - so a handful of rotten demagogues could beat their chests in front of the hoplophobes in their district. >Also, Perot pointed out recently that if you look at exit polls taken on >the day of the 92 election, Perot voters were evenly split between Bush >and Clinton when asked who they would have voted for had they not voted >for Perot. The idea that Perot is the only reason Clinton is in office >might seem common-sensical, but it has no base in fact. Perot also said he could win the election on Election Day in 1992. His credibility just sank to near zero when he said that. >Finally, I think it should be pointed out that Bob Dole is a liar. >Examine his voting record. Bob Dole is a politician. You don't like politicians, especially those who don't like drugs, so you think the non-politician, Harry Browne, is going to your salvation, because he likes drugs. Think again. Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Mainline Media Indicts Hillary (fwd) Date: 25 Sep 1996 08:21:35 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- C O N S E R V A T I V E C O N S E N S U S (tm) ***************************************************************** Events * Analysis * Forecasts * Commentary * Readers' Opinions ***************************************************************** N E W S F L A S H ::: World, National, Regional Distribution: World Editor's Desk COPYRIGHT 1996 by Conservative Consensus, ISSN 1074-245X. QUOTATION and redistribution are encouraged, for private, non-commercial use, provided nothing is changed and our headers and trailers remain intact. V2XC57 MAINLINE MEDIA INDICTS HILLARY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and Webster Hubbell drew up sham legal documents and defrauded taxpayers out of over $2 million dollars, The Washington Post reported today (24 Sep 96). The information comes from Hillary's mysterious billing records which "reappeared" in the White House several months ago, after being sought by subpoena for several years. The Post revealed: The legal work [Hillary Clinton] performed along with Hubbell allowed Hubbell's father-in-law Seth Ward, a Madison real estate consultant and longtime client of the Rose Law Firm, to collect commissions in a way that "evaded regulations designed to protect the safety and soundness of the institution, and violated the integrity of its books and records.. Further, Madison Guaranty used a document drafted by Clinton to deceive federal bank examiners as to the true nature of the payments to Ward." The Post cites as its source a supplement to an earlier Federal Deposit Inspector General's report on the failure of Madison Guaranty. The report was written by Patricia M. Black, deputy inspector general of the FDIC. The Post continues: The inspector general found that Clinton and Hubbell performed work that "appears to have facilitated the payment of substantial commissions to Ward, who acted as a straw buyer for Madison in a large land purchase at the Castle Grande development. The S&L was barred by federal thrift regulations from purchasing the land outright... Rose failed to disclose that its partners had represented Madison when it took a case on the FDIC's behalf. Nor did it disclose Hubbell's family ties to Ward, the Madison executive whose loans were cited in the government lawsuit as risky, insider deals that helped bring donw the S&L. When federal bank examiners reviewed Madison's books, the firm tried to hide the $400,000 in commissions due Ward. In the end: ...bank examiners found the land was sold at a grossly inflated price to Madison employees and insiders, financed with Madison loans borrowers had no personal obligation to repay. Most pocketed the money, and taxpayers lost some $2 million on what the government said were "sham" sales. The IG report finds that Hillary Clinton and Webster Hubbell were party to a complex series of transactions that advanced Ward the cash. The Post concludes: "In May 1986, Hillary Clinton prepared the option stating that the S&L would pay Ward $400,000 for 22.5 acres. The government eventually sold the land for $38,000." [The full Washington Post story is "FDIC Report Cites 1986 Legal Work By Hillary Clinton, by Susan Schmidt, Staff Writer.] _________________________ ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: Hillary Clinton has previously testified under oath that she "cannot remember" the work detailed in the mysterious billing records. Lies under oath are perjury, which is punishable with prison time. DAVID KENDALL, Hillary Clinton's attorney, said the report "does not allege that Mrs. Clinton did anything wrong." One wonders what Mr. Kendall would consider wrong? The IG'S findings will now be sent to Andrew C. Hove, FDIC Vice Chairman, who will decide if there was a conflict of interest that merits agency action against the Rose Law Firm. One can only hope that Mr. Hove has a somewhat more traditional view of right and wrong, perhaps as shared by the people who paid the $2 million that Mrs. Clinton looted from Madison Guaranty. PRESIDENT CLINTON, in an interview yesterday [23 Sep 1996] on PBS with Jim Lehrer, said that the Republicans are out to get him and the first lady. "Isn't it obvious?" he responded, when asked. Neither did President Clinton rule out pardoning his friends and associates. THE WHITE HOUSE said this new report "sticks to the FDIC's original conclusion and does not recommend legal action." But as the Post wrote, "the FDIC made no finding about legal action but it is not the role of that office to do so." THIS NEWSPAPER has long forecast that President Clinton would not stand for reelection. As recently as our 18 Jun 1996 issue we wrote in The Enemies List: The recent convictions in Little Rock of Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, and Clinton business partners Jim and Susan McDougal on a variety of fraud charges are instructive into the mentality that prevailed in the centers of power in that state while Governor Clinton held office. The picture that emerges is one of felonious politicians in collusion with the up-and-coming elite of the Arkansas business and financial community. The record shows that together they colluded against the taxpayers and citizens of Arkansas and the United States, who were defrauded rather than represented. Indeed, Arkansas' citizens were by now accustomed to having their noses wiped in the mess at the same time they were forced to pay back what their Arkansas mafia stole. LATER IN that same issue, commenting on McDougal's conviction, we wrote: The defendants were convicted of arranging a fraudulent loan from Madison Guarantee S&L, which the McDougal's ran, using that loan to defraud the Small Business Administration into loaning more money through Judge David Hale, and using the proceeds to finance loans to McDougal, Tucker and President Clinton. These "loans" were never repaid... THE PATTERN is similar: "loans" that are never repaid, because they were never intended to be repaid -- except by taxpayers. THE PATTERN of a cover up is also evident. In 2 Jun 1995 we reported: INTERNAL TREASURY DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS ON WHITEWATER were subpoenaed by Kenneth Starr. Treasury supervises the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was investigating Whitewater losses at Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan. Sources disclosed: Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen requested and received a copy of the draft report nine days before the investigation was complete. Presidential aides made at least four attempts to obtain witness depositions before the investigation ended. Lloyd Cutler, White House counsel at the time, acknowledged that he and Secretary Bentsen agreed 'well before' the inspector general turned over the depositions that such a transfer would occur. Cutler said he didn't know why the inspector general wasn't informed of such an agreement. Despite an agreement they would keep the depositions confidential, White House attorneys used the documents to intimidate witnesses due to testify before Congress. [ap] And: WEBSTER HUBBELL made seven phone calls to the US attorney Paula Casey in Little Rock, after government regulators sent the prosecutor criminal referrals about Madison Guaranty and Whitewater. Some of the calls came after Hubbell said he had recused himself from the investigation. The Clintons were named in the criminal referrals as witnesses. Mr. Clinton's gubernatorial campaign was listed as a possible beneficiary of funds from Madison Guaranty. [ap twt] This is not the behavior of people who have nothing to fear. In that same issue we suggested: IT DOES NOT look good for Mr. Clinton. For over a year now, we have tried to prepare subscribers for the likelihood that Whitewater is much bigger than what has been exposed in Little Rock, and is referred to in the mainline press... " In our 28 September 1994 Election Report, we correctly forecast Republican control of the Congress. We also warned that "Congress, under the Republicans, will move forthwith to full- scale Whitewater hearings. The explosive nature of the accusations against the Clintons, and the sheer volume of them, are likely to spill out of whatever committee that begins them and soon consume the entire Congress." AS WE WROTE then, "We stand by that forecast." We do not expect President Clinton to stand for reelection. ========================= UNLIMITED ACCESS: Be sure to visit our Website and read the next issue of our serialized book review -- Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House, by Gary Aldrich. http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html FREE SUBSCRIPTION: Get the full story, not just the media spin! Send us an email with SUBSCRIBE as the subject. In the first line of your message, put the words SUBSCRIBE CONSENSUS-L Your Name. Email to: CONSENSUS-L-REQUEST@eskimo.com YOU WILL receive 8-12 news releases monthly (no mail from other subscribers). Our unique analysis gives you the story behind the headlines. We cover events affecting: *** The US Constitution * US & World Security * Political Corruption Individual Liberty * World Financial Markets * Religious Freedom *** __________________________________________________________________ Advertising Rates, news tips, editorial and other questions Conservative Consensus * ccnrs@eskimo.com * jinks@u.washington.edu __________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) CLINTON: Mena, CIA, cocaine non-news (fwd) Date: 25 Sep 1996 12:30:27 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [ Article crossposted from alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater ] [ Author was alt.ww ] [ Posted on Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:57:58 -0500 ] [ Original subject: Some of our outrage seems to be missing ] September 24, 1996 Focus on Politics By Wesley Pruden Mena is definitely the little airport that could, and it's certainly the little airport that won't go away. Mena, a little town tucked between Rocky and Ink so far back in the Ouachita National Forest of western Arkansas that you need a C-130 or a limousine fit for a governor to get there comfortably, is back in the news, even though everyone is trying hard not to say the word "Mena." A report in the San Jose Mercury News -- that the CIA deliberately flooded Southern California with cocaine, and crack cocaine, in the 1980s as a means of financing the war against the Communists in Nicaragua when a dithering Congress couldn't make up its mind whether to finance the counterrevolution with public money -- has set off two new investigations. The Mercury News didn't say how the cocaine got from South America to Southern California, but those hip to the story, and millions are, already know. Stories, some of them merely tales, have abounded for years that the CIA, which was running the guns to the Contras in Nicaragua, either knew about or coordinated the shipments of cocaine coming back on return arms flights. This was said to have been going on during the Reagan and Bush administrations, but nobody, not even Lawrence Walsh, has put evidence of anything wrong on the table. This was also during the Clinton years in Little Rock. Nobody has proved anything about that, either. Lots of stories about the stories have appeared in newspapers here and overseas. The three-part series in the San Jose paper sank almost without a trace in the other media, but it was picked up by black talk-radio hosts, including Joe Madison in Washington and Dick Gregory in Los Angeles, and the story, embroidered almost hourly, has become a booming industry on the Internet. Then the Congressional Black Caucus picked it up, and now nearly everybody in Black America is talking about it. Serious people aren't supposed to take it seriously, but a lot of serious people do. Bill Raspberry, a thoughtful and cautious columnist at The Washington Post, concedes that he doesn't know enough "even to have a rational opinion on the veracity of the report that has been sweeping the country over the Internet." But he also concedes that almost nothing is any longer unthinkable. The pols in both parties are saying careful things. Newt Gingrich says the public deserves to know whether there's nothing to the story (he might have said the public deserves to know whether there's anything to the story). Ross Perot suggests that the government inquiries might cover up rather than expose the details. Bob Tyrrell's new political biography, "Boy Clinton," cites L.D. Brown, an Arkansas state trooper who was once Bill Clinton's driver, bodyguard and confidant, as his source for accusing Mr. Clinton of being up to his scarlet nose in the traffic at the Mena airport. Trooper Brown, a seasoned drug investigator, tells of agreeing to a suggestion by Mr. Clinton, the governor of Arkansas at this time in late 1984, that he try out as a CIA operative. He describes a trip to South America with the late Barry Seal, a CIA contract pilot who was later killed by the Colombian drug cartel. They returned to Mena with two duffel bags containing money and cocaine. "... as soon as Brown returned to Little Rock," Mr. Tyrrell, the editor of American Spectator magazine, writes, "he approached Clinton and asked, 'Do you know what they're bringing back on those planes?' Clinton froze. 'They're bringing back coke,' Brown told him. ... Clinton told Brown not to worry, adding, 'That's Lasater's deal. That's Lasater's deal.'" Dan Lasater was a Little Rock bond daddy, known for his lavish parties in Little Rock where cocaine was passed around as if after-dinner mints. He eventually went to prison for it. Patsy Thomasson, who ran his business while he was in prison, is now deputy director of personnel at the White House. How these little wheels turn. The Democrats are afraid the Republicans will ask too many questions. The Republicans are afraid the Democrats will ask too many questions. Something happened at the Mena airport but nobody wants to ask. If a newspaper columnist or a talk-show host asks he might get a letter or telephone call from a friend, telling him to back off. But Kenneth Starr is asking questions, and Rep. Jim Leach, chairman of the House banking committee, promises to ask questions. They would no doubt prefer witnesses with the credibility of the pope, Mother Teresa and Billy Graham, but may have to settle for people who once worked for the CIA. So far only a few black men and women, who no doubt have some of the story and maybe a lot of it wrong, feel outrage. God bless 'em. Moral outrage, once an American virtue, is no longer cool. It was last seen on the obit page. Copyright =A9 1996 News World Communications, Inc. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "R. Knauer-AIMNET" Subject: BYE! Date: 25 Sep 1996 20:14:26 -0500 After more than one year on ROC (I joined on 6/16/95), the list owner just told me that *99%* of my posts were "OFF TOPIC". Not 98%, not 97%, not even 95% - but a full *99%*! That really SUCKS!!! And all of it OFF TOPIC, TOO, according to the list owner!!! Hell, I can't blame you all for bitching! Been good knowing you -keep in touch, you hear, BYE! Bob Knauer -- ************************************************** A I M N E T Advanced Internet Marketing Corporation World Wide Web Publishing http://www.aimtec.com/ ************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: Re: BYE! Date: 25 Sep 1996 19:38:26 -0600 >After more than one year on ROC (I joined on 6/16/95), the list owner just >told me that *99%* of my posts were "OFF TOPIC". > >Not 98%, not 97%, not even 95% - but a full *99%*! > >That really SUCKS!!! And all of it OFF TOPIC, TOO, according to the list >owner!!! > >Hell, I can't blame you all for bitching! > >Been good knowing you -keep in touch, you hear, > >BYE! > >Bob Knauer > Hi All For the record: In a private mail to Bob, I believe as a reply to something: I DID say that 99% of Bob's posts were off topic for ROC. I ALSO said that everyone else's posts were 99% off topic. And that that was not a problem and I was not complaining about it. I also said that off topic meant not directly activism related*. Which describes most of ROC. I did NOT ask Bob to leave and said that I wouldn't unless foul language or other problems surfaced that could not be overcome any other way. When I told Bob his posts were 99% off-topic I was not castigating him (I mentioned everyone else had the same problem, that it was not a real problem, and I mentioned what ON TOPIC was supposed to mean) regards Chad ROC maintainer *if you go back and read the purpose of ROC it is not as an information place nor a social club but for organizing and discussing ways to be organized and active to Restore Our Constitution. It has become mainly a social club for people striving to fix things in the USA in the direction of Constitutional government and freedom and liberty. As such, ROC has become a place for like minded people to trade information pertaining to thie aim. But not a lot of practical activism. That is what was meant by OFF TOPIC. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: RE: Re: Browne Says He Can't Win Date: 25 Sep 1996 19:15:41 -0700 At 05:44 AM 9/25/96 -0500, R. Knauer-AIMNET wrote: >>It astounds me that one can cram so much ignorance into a single post. > >And your post is a perfect example. See, Sports fans, Lonnytarians can't be >civil - it's just against their nature. > Neither, it appears, can you. Your baseless tirade against Libertarians is becoming boring. >>While I agree that Clinton is probably the sorriest excuse for a statesman > >He's far worse than that - he's a Fascist Tyrant. > >>we've seen in quite a while, I don't understand this irrational fear and >>hatred of the man. Why don't we stop playing the political game long >>enough to examine a few basic facts, and make our decisions objectively >>rather than emotionally? > >You want facts - basic facts? Try this on for size: He has legislation >already in committee to ban guns and ammo outright. That alone ought to make >you fear him a big bunch. > >But he lieks drugs, so he's OK in your book. You would trade in RKBA so you >can use drugs. Libertarians don't like drugs, or druggies. But we especially dislike _government abuses_ which the "war on some drugs" has fostered. Among those abuses is Slick Willie's war on guns. You want to keep your guns? Good; so do I. Why not end the civil liberties abuses by eliminating the government powers that fuel them? > >>If Clinton _is_ reelected, it's not the end of the world. > >You obviously do not know what you are talking about. Do you know how many >Gun Control laws he will pass from his lame-duck bully pulpit if re-elected? >But you probably don't care about gun rights, do you? Drug use is far more >important to you. That's why klintoon is OK in your book. Broken record, Bob.... It's not true and you know it. >>Finally, I think it should be pointed out that Bob Dole is a liar. >>Examine his voting record. > >Bob Dole is a politician. You don't like politicians, especially those who >don't like drugs, so you think the non-politician, Harry Browne, is going to >your salvation, because he likes drugs. Think again. You _do_ have an obsession with drugs, don't you? Most Libertarians don't. Browne doesn't like drugs, and he doesn't like abortions. But he especially doesn't like government control of either one. A government that's powerful enough to ban drugs, is powerful enough to ban guns. And _will_. Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. 8037 Stone Canyon |counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing Citrus Heights, CA|citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent 95610 |crimes and it appears to produce no increase in kmitchel@gvn.net |accidental deaths. If those states which did not 916-449-9152 (vm) |have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had 916-729-0966 (fax)|adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; |4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults |would have been avoided yearly." Crime, |Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns |John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago -------------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm---------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] FIJA> JN Makes a major front page (fwd) Date: 26 Sep 1996 08:15:24 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reply-To: tjeffoc@sirius.com Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org Precedence: junk X-Comment: DRCTalk is the planning forum for DRCNet. The dirty words 'Jury Nullification" finally made it to the front page of a mjor daily newspaper. The fun is just beginning: Tuesday, September 24, 1996 Page A1 =A9 1996 San Francisco Chronicle Some Jurors Revolt Over 3 Strikes Penalty prospects sway their verdicts Harriet Chiang, Chronicle Legal Affairs Writer Last of Two Parts When Henry Jackson Jr. heard the court clerk announce in May that he had been found guilty of possessing a rock of cocaine, he stood up in a rage, lifted and then dropped the defendant's table. ``I want you all to know you put me away for 25 to life!'' he cried out to the jurors. The Los Angeles judge ordered Jackson to be quiet, but he contin ued his tirade, accusing police of setting him up. ``That ain't right!'' he yelled as bailiffs dragged him out of the courtroom. When the jurors were polled to confirm their verdict, two changed their minds, including the foreman. Over the protests of prosecutors, the trial ended in a hung jury. The two jurors' abrupt change of heart when they realized the severe punishment that accompanied Jackson's crime illustrates one of the unexpected reactions to California's controversial three- strikes law: juror rebellion. Two years ago, California voters, fed up with career criminals on the loose, overwhelmingly passed the ``three strikes, and you're out'' law to lock up dangerous felons for life. The law requires a minimum sentence of 25 years to life for third-time felons with two prior convictions for serious or violent crimes. Felons with one prior conviction for a serious or violent crime receive a mandatory sentence of double the standard penalty. The most recent felony -- or what prosecutors commonly call the ``trigger strike'' -- does not need to be a serious or violent offense. But in counties throughout the state, jurors in three-strikes cases have been shocked by the law's sweeping brand of justice. They have been outraged to learn their guilty verdict for criminals caught with a few dollars worth of drugs or a stolen six-pack of beer has meant penalties of 25 years to life behind bars. And in some cases, when jurors have learned of the potential consequences of their verdicts, they have taken the law into their own hands. ``It's a phenomenon that's happening up and down the state,'' said Superior Court Judge J. Richard Couzens of Placer County, a member of the policymaking Judicial Council who travels throughout the state teaching judges about the three- strikes law. Although jury revolts are not rampant, Couzens said, ``it's enough of a problem that it's being spoken of rather openly in judicial and legal circles.'' There are no numbers or surveys, but anecdotes are being told from Los Angeles County, where several defendants have been set free, to Santa Clara County, where jurors have shown up at sentencing hearings to plead for leniency for felons they have convicted. In some cases, juries have ignored the evidence and returned hung verdicts -- and sometimes even acquittals. Citizen defiance of the law in the jury box has been a part of American justice since colonial times. In trials involving Southern civil rights cases and Vietnam War protesters, jurors have ignored the law and returned not-guilty verdicts they said reflected a greater justice. ``It's a concept of jury mercy,'' said Alan Scheflin, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law who has written several articles on jury nullification, an unorthodox procedure where the jury disregards the evidence and delivers a judgment on a broader issue. ``The jury is exercising its voice as the conscience of the community.'' In a Yolo County courtroom recently, jurors who found a defendant guilty passed along a note accompanying their verdict to the judge, asking him to have mercy. Anthony Ortiz had been caught red-handed with $8 worth of methamphetamine in his pocket after he was stopped for riding a bike without a headlight. With two prior felonies, a ``third-strike'' conviction would mean a minimum of 25 years to life behind bars. That potential sentence upset the jury, which generally is not allowed to know or to consider the punishment a defendant is facing. But Ortiz's attorneys were able to let the jurors indirectly know that Ortiz was facing his third strike. Afterwards, jurors said they tried to rely on reason and not emotion. ``But you can't help but consider the consequences,'' said the forewoman of the Yolo County jury, Maril Revette Stratton, in explaining the note to the judge. ``And the consequences, we believed, were way out of line with the crime.'' The jurors, including several who had voted for the initiative, ``assumed that it was meant to take serious violent career criminals off the street and put them in jail,'' said Stratton, who has served on several other juries in which she voted to convict. She described the group as heartsick over the decision and frustrated by what she called a ``miscarriage of justice.'' Last month, a judge struck one of Ortiz's prior three strikes convictions and sentenced him to six years in prison. Legal experts say they are not surprised by the juries' reaction to the three-strikes law. ``It's easier for people to vote for the three-strikes law when they're faced with the chaos around them,'' said Karen Jo Koonan, a trial consultant with National Jury Verdict West, an Oakland jury consulting company. ``But it's much more difficult (to support the law) when you're in the courtroom dealing with a real human being.'' Many jurors are hesitating to punish felons caught in the broad net of the three-strikes law for petty thefts or minor drug violations. By law, jurors must not discuss or even consider the penalty a defendant is facing, except in death penalty cases. In three- strikes cases, jurors generally are not even told of the potential penalty. However, judges say that it is not hard for them to catch on when the prosecutor points out the prior burglary convictions of a defendant. ``Jurors aren't stupid,'' said Superior Court Judge William Pounders of Los Angeles. ``They can add two and one and come up with three.'' In Los Angeles County, where three-strikes cases are clogging the trial courts, Pounders says, there have been several cases of jurors returning a not guilty verdict after learning of the potential sentence. Jackson's outburst prompted the Los Angeles judges to change the rules so that jurors now must review the written verdict form to confirm their vote before their decision is announced, so an abrupt change of heart won't affect the verdict. Judges in San Francisco, the only county where voters did not support the three-strikes measure, have grappled with the flip side of the dilemma: jurors who mistakenly believe they are dealing with three-strike cases and return hung verdicts for defendants who are not facing 25 years to life. Superior Court Judge Lucy McCabe said judges now are asking potential jurors about their opinions on the sentencing law and, if both lawyers agree, informing them that the three- strikes law is not involved. In Santa Clara County, Judge Leonard Sprinkles said that it has become routine in three- strike cases for at least a few jurors to speak out against the sentence. Sprinkles has even had jurors show up at a sentencing hearing, asking him to strike a prior conviction or refrain from levying a heavy sentence. ``The only time that it's ever happened is in a three-strikes case,'' he said. Defense lawyers, meanwhile, have come up with a host of ways to capitalize on such jury sympathy, realizing that jury nullification may offer the best chance for their clients. One lawyer began his opening statement by telling jurors that there were three things wrong with the case, and then proceeded to write on a board ``Strike One, Strike Two, Strike Three . . .'' Another attorney casually walked into court carrying a folder with the words ``three strikes'' written on top. Still another lawyer posed this question to the jury during his closing argument: ``In 25 years from now will you have an abiding conviction that justice was served?'' Some have even tried baseball analogies, comparing the defendant with the batter. Judges have been unamused. ``At first they didn't get it,'' said Los Angeles Deputy Public Defender Al Menaster of the judges. But now, he said, they are starting to threaten lawyers with contempt if they refer to the three-strikes law. A more simple, if less creative, way to inform jurors about a defendant's criminal record is to have the defendant testify about his prior convictions. Revealing a defendant's prior missteps with the law is a switch from the traditional defense strategy of keeping that information out of court for fear that it will prejudice the jurors. Lawyers admit it's a gamble, but with three-strike cases, they say, it has become a strategy of last resort in seemingly hopeless defenses. San Diego Deputy Public Defender Jack Hochman said he has taken to trial cases that have appeared futile, including one defendant who was caught on videotape shoplifting and then confessed. When defendants are facing 25 years to life, he said, ``there's no reason to go to trial except (to hope) for nullification.'' Prosecutors say that jurors who give three-strike felons a break are ignoring their sworn oaths to focus only on a defendant's guilt or innocence. ``It really undermines how our criminal justice system is set up,'' said Lawrence Brown, executive director for the California District Attorneys Association. He said that jurors are acting out of misguided intentions because they only hear about the prior strike convictions and do not see a defendant's complete rap sheet. Brown said that most jurors are so frustrated with crime that they are willing to convict repeat offenders. He called the defense tactic of exposing a defendant's prior convictions a risky move that could easily backfire. But judges say that enough jurors have been speaking out against the blanket justice of the three-strikes law for the Legislature to take notice and consider new restrictions on a judge's ability to toss out a prior strike conviction. Pounders sees the jury response as a justification for allowing judges to step in and reduce a sentence in the right cases. ``The public is telling us in their votes in the jury room how they feel about the law,'' he said. ``They're saying: `I do not want this penalty for a minor offense.' '' Sprinkles believes that jurors are responding to what they perceive as a growing gap between law and justice. ``As you begin to make the system more arbitrary and unknown, it puts pressure on jurors to do what they feel is just, as opposed to what the law is,'' the veteran judge said. ``Hopefully, you want the two to be the same.'' ---------------------------- Very well put. The greater the gap between the ideal of justice and what is happening in our court rooms, the greater the need for JN.The Bench and the Bar needn't fear JN unless their system is a travesty. Tom O'Connell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: FWD from Mike Kemp :) Date: 26 Sep 1996 09:55:35 -0700 Forwarded message: >To All: > As I have oft remarked, there are those in the media who DO have >a clue. Following is a posting which I received a while back, the account >of a New York media person's experience while lounging on a beach with, >as it is described, a member of the New York *urban intelligentsia.* > The names are altered to protect the innnocent, and my apologies >for the crude language- but ya'll know how them Yankee media folks >are. :D > However, neither this alteration nor the *language* changes the >fact that I thought that I had hurt myself laughing and rolling on the >floor when I first read it, nor the fact that I chortle a bit every time >I see it even yet. > *Hail, Caesar! We who are about to die salute you!* > >In Liberty, >Mike Kemp >---------------------------------------------------------------- >forwarded message follows: >> >> Tell ya what, I'll send you my old license plate surround that says >>"Support your right to drive home." >> >> Out here on Fire Island, where I've lived for the last ten years, some >> people consider this federally occupied territory. >> >> No driving without a permit. ID cards to get past a federal checkpoint. >> Videotapes when you go PAST the checkpoint, just to make sure no one is >> cheating. >> >> Oh. We used to only get one round trip home per day or be ticketed. Now it >> is two. But if you live here, you have to get on a waiting list to get a >> permit to bring a four by four down the beach to get home. >> >> You guys think you have problems with guns? What a joke! Today our vehicles, >> tomorrow our nation. I once interviewed Abcde Fghijklm, and afterwards >> tried to explain this place to her. That woman will believe anything bad >> about the >> federal gov't. I told her about our driving regulations. She thought I had >> lost my mind or that perhaps that I was making a joke at her expense and >> quit speaking to me. > >(a common occurence, shared by most of the patriot community- Kemp's >comment) > >> >> Only thing I can't figure out is the black helicopters. I've seen them >> now three times, coming down the beach real low, real slow, in the surf >> line. If I didn't know they didn't exist, I'd think they were trying to >> evade radar staying low and/or by looking like pleasure craft. >> >> I was sitting next to a member of the urban intelligencia a couple weeks >> back and, as one of the black helicopters came down the beach about 30 >> feet up and >> and 50 feet out, she said, "What's that black helicopter doing here?" >> >> I said it was a Black Helicopter. "I thought helicopters were supposed to >> have markings, like numbers and what they are" "They do," I said. >> "Otherwise >> they're not Black Helicopters." Pretty smart for an intellectual. >> >> What's a Black Helicopter? she asked. I explained to her that right-wing >> conspiracy nut cases believe that Black Helicopters are part of a >> UN/Communist/Jacobin/Illuminati/homosexual/lesbian KnightsTemplar plot to >> take over the United States, aided and abetted by Hillary & Chelsea >> Clinton. Goofy. >> >> Oh, she said. >> >> But, I said, she shouldn't worry because there was no such thing as Black >> Helicopters. I told her that an FAA guy I once talked to said that there >> were >> some really dark green military helicopters with markings that didn't have >> enough contrast so that when the light hit them just right, they looked like >> they were black. >> >> She got upset. "Listen, I was 50 feet away from that goddamn thing and and >> the fucking sun was shining on it and it was fucking black and it didn't >> have any goddamn fucking markings." >> >> Hey, if you say so, I said. I didn't see any black helicopter. > > > WHO'S ON FIRST? WHAT'S ON SECOND? I DON'T KNOW. > No, he's on third. >Kemp > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: BYE! Date: 26 Sep 1996 13:45:30 -0400 Bob, bob, come back!! You just got on a roll there. It's bad taste to end a flame war by leaving. We all miss you. Post some substantive stuff for a while and then flame again! Flame wars are cyclical. Its a Net thing. Keep it in perspective. Each of our votes is worth less than $5.00; the sum total of our internet postings is probably worth $1.00. ciao, jcurtis (translation: everyone is taking this way too seriously, its like the Trotskyites arguing with the Leninists). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) CLINTON: 1996-09-24 Remarks by the President in Freehold, NJ Date: 26 Sep 1996 13:00:22 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.reform Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Keywords: Business, Crime, Economy, Education, Election-Campaign, Environment, Document-Id: PDI://OMA.EOP.GOV.US/ THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary (Freehold, New Jersey) ______________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release September 24, 1996 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE PEOPLE OF MONMOUTH COUNTY Battlefield Monument Monmouth County Courthouse Freehold, New Jersey 3:25 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, in the back, for being here. Thank you, way down under the trees, for being here. Mayor Wilson, it's great to be in Freehold. It's great to be in Monmouth County. It's great to be here with all of you. (cut) You know, I was told this morning when I got up to come to New Jersey, after I went to the United Nations -- I'll say more about that in a moment -- that this magnificent monument commemorates George Washington's defeat of a British general in 1778 named Sir Henry Clinton. (Laughter.) And I thought I would tell you here in the presence of these Revolutionary War reenactors who come from the Delaware Valley -- and they did a great job today, let's give them a hand. (Applause.) That may have happened in 1778, but in 1996, Clinton is on the right side of the battle for America's future. (Applause.) And so is Bob Torricelli. (Applause.) You know, I've watched Bob Torricelli in Congress for four years now. I've watched him fight for legislation. I saw him sponsor legislation to require 48 hours as a minimum stay for new mothers and their newborns -- he and Senator Bradley did that, and it's going to be the law of the land within about 48 more hours, I believe, when the Congress passes that. It took four long years, but I thank him for that. (Applause.) I saw him sponsor legislation that I have embraced to expand the Brady Bill. The Brady Bill, which was also opposed by the leaders of the other party in Congress, basically says you have to wait five days while we do a background check before you get a handgun. Now, when we passed the Brady Bill there was all this screaming and yelling that we would be taking people's guns away. And three years later every hunter still has the same gun, but 60,000 felons, fugitives and stalkers were not able to get handguns. Bob Torricelli was right, and they were wrong. (Applause.) And, now, he and I believe that the Brady Bill ought to be modestly extended to say if you have beaten up your spouse or your child you shouldn't get a handgun, either. And I think New Jersey agrees with that. (Applause.) (CUT) We want to build a bridge to the 21st century of responsibility, which means that we have to continue to resist the efforts to stop our anticrime program. You want to know what a big issue is in the Senate race here and in this Congress race? For reasons that absolutely elude me, after four years of a declining crime rate, when our strategy embodied in the 1994 Crime Bill to put 100,000 police on the street, have three strikes and your out and other tough penalties, ban the assault weapons and give our kids some prevention programs -- that strategy was written by law enforcement officers all over America -- for reasons the elude me, for the last two years the leaders of the other party in Congress have done everything they can to repeal it, to stop the 100,000 police program in its tracks. I do not understand that. But if you want a reason to support these two men, that's a good one. We've got the crime rate coming down four years in a row. If we can bring it down four more years in a row, it might just be bearable for Americans. I think we should finish the job of putting 100,000 more police officers on our street. And I hope you'll help me build that bridge to the 21st century. (Applause.) I hope you'll help Bob Torricelli expand the Brady Bill to cover those people who abuse those people who abuse their spouses and their children. They should not have guns. Torricelli was right -- four more years and we'll get that done. I hope that you will help us to do things, in short, that will say to the American people, we want everybody to be more responsible. (CUT) Ladies and gentlemen, I have loved being here today. I'm sorry that some distant ancestor of mine strayed in the Revolutionary War. Probably was just being loyal to where he was born. Two hundred years later, I'm mighty proud to be here with you, proud to be representing the people of New Jersey, grateful for the support you have given me, and asking you to think among yourselves not about party, not about politics, but about what you want our country to look like when we start a new century in a new millennium, and what you want America to be like when your children are your age. That is all that matters. I believe, as strongly as I can say, that if you want the kind of America I believe you do, we've got to build a bridge to the future. We can revere our past, but we can't recapture it. The best days of America are still ahead. The children in this audience today, many of them will do jobs that have not been invented yet. Some of them will do work that has not been imagined yet. All we have to do is to build the right kind of bridge that's broad enough, big enough and strong enough for all of us to walk across. I hope you will help me build it. Thank you and God bless you all. (Applause.) END 3:48 P.M. EDT -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: fwd: A Wish (fwd) Date: 26 Sep 1996 15:31:01 -0500 (CDT) This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --BeyondBoundary_6_Thu_Sep_26_14:37:33_1996__3D6C Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subj: A Wish As President Clinton was walking on a beach one day, his foot tripped on a partially buried bottle. Picking it up, Bill rubbed it to expose the label. Suddenly a cloud poured from the bottle and a huge genie appeared. "Thank you - oh, thank you for saving me from the prison I've been in. I've been in there for hundreds, yes, hundreds of years. As a expression of my overwhelming gratitude I will grant you one wish." Mr. Clinton, being a world leader, knew exactly what to ask for. "Peace in the Mideast!" he quickly replied. The genie seemed confused. "Mideast... Mideast... I can't seem to remember... can you help me out a little?" The President quickly has a world map brought over and he carefully points out the affected area of the globe, recounting briefly the long-standing geopolitical instability of the area. The genie's eyes widen and he says "Oh, yes. Now I remember. The Mideast! Whew. That's a tough one. You know, they've been fighting over there quite literally for millennia. I hate to admit it, but I think that's more than I can handle. I'm sorry. Can you wish for something else?" Clinton, obviously crestfallen at such a missed opportunity, can think of only one other wish: "Could you make the American people like my wife?" The genie pauses thoughtfully, then says, "Let me see that map again." --BeyondBoundary_6_Thu_Sep_26_14:37:33_1996__3D6C-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] Gun Control Emergency !!! (fwd) Date: 26 Sep 1996 16:49:04 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I received a fax today from a state level grass roots organization that is something that effects Gun Owners nationwide, so I am retyping it in it's entirety, If they pass this you could lose your right to own a firearm if you spank your child Al ############################################################ Gun Control Emergency: Final Vote Coming Soon ! Late Session Push is Major Step in Federal Anti-Gun Program DOMESTIC CONFISCATION & GUN ROADBLOCKS PASS SENATE Gingrich Moving Measures Through House in Gun Rights Sellout Georgia gun owners were shocked to learn the U. S. Senate approved Gun Roadblock & Domestic Confiscation legislation in a surprise move on Thursday, September 12. The measures were added as riders to the Treasury Appropriations Bill, H.R. 3756. These provisions are major steps in the long term program to eliminate private firearms ownership. Georgia Senators Sam Nunn & Paul Coverdell voted for both amendments. The action now shifts to the U. S. House of Representatives where last week a stunning sellout occured: House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA_6) called Domestic Confistication "very reasonable," and DECLARED HE WOULD PUSH IT THROUGH THE HOUSE. This puts the lie to his promise last year that he would "prevent gun control legislation from coming to the floor" on his watch. Here are the facts about this surprise last-minute anti- gun drive in Congress. DOMESTIC CONFISCATION ######################## * The largest wholesale firearms confiscation effort in decades, this provision bans hundreds of thousands of Americans from owning firearms for life, and orders their guns seized. Persons convicted of a misdemeanor would be added to the list of "prohibited persons" barred from purchasing, or possessing firearms under federal law. For now this only applies to domestic dispute misdemeanors, but it sets a very bad precedent, since previously only felons have been stripped of their rights to own firearms. * The judicial process for misdemeanors has many fewer safeguards than the process for major crime. Many persons have pled guilty to a misdemeanor, and paid a small fine, simply to avoid the legal expense of fighting it. * Also known as the Lautenberg-Kennedy amendment, the Domestic Confiscation provision passed the Senate 97-2. Originally introduced as a seperate bill, S.1632, it failed to advance earlier this year. A misinformation campaign suggesting it would only ban handgun sales to "wifebeaters" led to it's resurgance. Actually, the measure prevents many victims of Domestic abuse from keeping a gun in their home. * The BATF is ordered to draft REGULATIONS FOR THE SEIZURE OF FIREARMS under the new law. Confiscation also applies to persons convicted of local ordinances purporting to deal with "family violence." Some areas use such laws to prosecute parents for spanking their children. GUN ROADBLOCKS ################## * Sets up thousands of gun ban zones across roads statewide where local police or the BATF can arrest unsuspecting drivers who have a firearm in the car. This federal law overides all state-level legal protections of your gun rights. Victims will face 5 YEARS IN PRISON. * Also known as the Kohl amendment, it passed the senate 72-27. Reenacts the School Zone Gun Ban Law ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. The provision creates GUN BAN ZONES NEARLY ONE HALF MILE in diameter around every school. * Anyone without a Georgia pistol carry license driving through a zone with a loaded firearm not in a locked container or rack faces 5 years in prison. Many Georgians, who were previously able to drive freely with guns (loaded with no round in the chamber) in their car, either in plain view or in the glove compartment, will be "VICTIMIZED IN GUN TRAPS" manned by anti-gun local police and/or BATF agents WHAT YOUR CONGRESSMAN DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ####################################################### In exchange for Clinton signing the Welfare Reform bill, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans are selling out your gun rights. In August, every Representative in Georgia voted for H.R.3953 taggant safety study bill to register gun owners through ammunition sales (except for Sanford Bishop, D-Ga-2, who didn't vote at all). But with elections around the corner, most of the reps. should come to their senses and vote against Gun Roadblocks and Domestic Confiscation---- if you "educate" them. You need to get on your Representatives now--- the battle will be over when congress adjourns in 10 days. Call the voter regristration office in your county if you need to get the name of your Rep. HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO ######################### (1) Call Washington toll-free on the Congressional Hotline at (800)-962-3524 ask for your Representatives office. Tell them you oppose the Gun Roadblock and Domestic Confiscation provisions passed by the Senate and which are now before the House. (2) Post or Distribute copies of this fact sheet. (3) Be sure to vote this fall. Hold incumbents accountable. False friends are the most damaging enemy. Don't worry to much about who's elected this time---there'll be more elections. A revolution is taking place at the polls---throw out the phony politicians to clear the way. ACT NOW TO STOP GUN ROADBLOCKS & DOMESTIC CONFISCATION This voter information fact sheet @1996 Citizens for Safe Government, Inc. P.O. Box 7245, Atlanta, Ga. 30357 (404) 841-9057, Founded in 1989, CSG is a 501(c)(4) non-profit single issue state-level grass-roots citizens group working against the long-term program to eliminate private firearms ownership. CSG is not affiliated with any political party. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: barr/lautenberg Date: 26 Sep 1996 18:52:45 -0600 Here's a fax I just received Anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) wants to amend the 1968 Gun Control Act to strip the gun ownership rights of anyone convicted of a misdemeanor “crime involving domestic violence.” But his overly broad language will end up stripping gun rights of people who have never committed a violent crime, in or out of the home. Because it is built on 50 different state laws, Lautenberg’s federal proposal is only as strong as the weakest state law -- or the most vague one. Something as innocuous as one former roommate making a harassing phone call to another for overduue rent will, under Lautenberg, cost the caller his or her Second Amendment rights. The House will consider new language offered by U.S. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.). Among other improvements, the Barr amendment ensures due process and ensures that offenders who are government officials are not shielded from the prohibition by their office. Above all, the Barr substitute ensures that crimes covered must have as an element the “use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, against an intimate partner of the offender.” In short, Barr replaces the wide net of Lautenberg that could catch innocent Americans and rob them of their Second Amendment rights. Anti-gunners will mount a strong offensive -- supported by the White House -- to kill the Barr language and restore the Lautenberg Amendment. The House will vote any time in the next few days. A vote in the Senate follows soon thereafter. Call your Senators and Congressman. Urge them to vote YES on BARR and NO on LAUTENBERG. Call the House and Senate at (202)-224-3121! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: What is your trigger point? (fwd) Date: 26 Sep 1996 19:41:25 PST Try _this_ one out on a few appropriate people! On Sep 26, Gene Gross -- Personal Account wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi All, With the sell out in Congress of our Second Amendment, I've been wondering if this will be the trigger point for many. That is, will this get them up off their duffs and out onto the streets, so to speak, taking their anger and outrage to the government. For those in Georgia, are you going to finally wake up and realize that none of your Senators and nearly none of your Representatives are pro-Constitution, pro-freedom, pro-people, or pro-God!? Will you now get on the stick and vote them out!? For everyone, what is your trigger point? At what point will you finally get up and out? When will you become an activist and fight by whatever legitimate means available to end this slide into tyranny and serfdom? Tomorrow, I'll be calling my Representative and telling him not to vote for this betrayal of our Second Amendment rights. And I won't hesitate to remind him that it was gun owners who helped to get him elected in 1994 over the Democratic candidate. He needs our vote to stay in office. And I intend to pass the word to every gun owner across the state -- that should light a fire under some people who have slacked off since 1994. Folks, for me, the trigger point was when I saw the size of the federal debt and realized that we could never pay it off!! And I don't for one minute buy the argument that we only owe that to ourselves!! We owe it to the Federal Reserve and other similar banking institutions -- none of which are part of the federal government. Right now, if you took all of the debt in this nation, government, corporate, and individual debt, we are facing a debt balloon of some $20 trillion!! And then if you add in the derivatives market that helped to bankrupt Orange County, CA, we are faced with a total debt of over $40 trillion. Now in case anyone here hasn't heard how I explain this, let me give you some idea of just how much one trillion dollars really is. If you had started a business at the time of Christ, kept that business open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year from then to now, and each day you lost $1 million, you would still need another 700 years to reach your first trillion in loses!! Or put another way, if you took brand new thousand dollar bills, stacked them tightly on top of each other, you would have a stack 63 miles high when you reached $1 trillion!! The total combined debt in this nation is $40 trillion, more than the current value of all American assets!! There is no way that we can cover this massive debt. When I saw this, the debt levels were much lower, but even then I knew we couldn't pay it off, and the government was still borrowing money to finance their profligate spending programs. On top of that, they were passing Draconian forfeiture and seizure laws that were originally intended to go after drug dealers, but stories were already coming out about how these laws and regulations were being used against innocent Americans! I dawned on me that they had found a way to help finance their spending without raising taxes so rapidly. And that tore it, because they were violating our rights in order to keep their power! I then became involved in fighting to replace all liberal/left-wing fascists regardless of party. And I've been at it ever since. So, what is, or was, your trigger!!? Ciao, Gene [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: CWD--Wiretap In the Night (fwd) Date: 27 Sep 1996 00:33:17 -0400 (EDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- CyberWire Dispatch // September // Copyright (c) 1996 // Jacking in from the "Smoked Filled Room" Port: Washington, DC -- Federal provisions funding the digital telephony bill and roving wiretaps, surgically removed earlier this year from an anti-terrorism bill, have quietly been wedged into a $600 billion omnibus spending bill. The bill creates a Justice Department "telecommunications carrier compliance fund" to pay for the provisions called for in the digital telephony bill, formally known as the Communications Assistance in Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). In reality, this is a slush fund. Congress originally budgeted $500 million for CALEA, far short of the billions actually needed to build in instant wiretap capabilities into America's telephone, cable, cellular and PCS networks. This bill now approves a slush fund of pooled dollars from the budgets of "any agency" with "law enforcement, national security or intelligence responsibilities." That means the FBI, CIA, NSA and DEA, among others, will now have a vested interest in how the majority of your communications are tapped. The spending bill also provides for "multipoint wiretaps." This is the tricked up code phase for what amounts to roving wiretaps. Where the FBI can only tap one phone at a time in conjunction with an investigation, it now wants the ability to "follow" a conversation from phone to phone; meaning that if your neighbor is under investigation and happens to use your phone for some reason, your phone gets tapped. It also means that the FBI can tap public pay phones... think about that next time you call 1-800-COLLECT. In addition, all the public and congressional accountability provisions for how CALEA money was spent, which were in the original House version (H.R. 3814), got torpedoed in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Provisions stripped out by the Senate: -- GONE: Money isn't to be spent unless an implementation plan is sent to each member of the Judiciary Committee and Appropriations committees. -- GONE: Requirement that the FBI provide public details of how its new wiretap plan exceeds or differs from current capabilities. -- GONE: Report on the "actual and maximum number of simultaneous surveillance/intercepts" the FBI expects. The FBI ran into a fire storm earlier this year when it botched its long overdue report that said it wanted the capability to tap one out of every 100 phones *simultaneously*. Now, thanks to this funding bill, rather than having to defend that request, it doesn't have to say shit. -- GONE: Complete estimate of the full costs of deploying and developing the digital wiretapping plan. -- GONE: An annual report to Congress "specifically detailing" how all taxpayer money -- YOUR money -- is spent to carry out these new wiretap provisions. "No matter what side you come down on this (digital wiretapping) issue, the stakes for democracy are that we need to have public accountability," said Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. Although it appeared that no one in congress had the balls to take on the issue, one stalwart has stepped forward, Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.). He has succeeded in getting some of the accountability provisions back into the bill, according to a Barr staffer. But the fight couldn't have been an easy one. The FBI has worked congress relentlessly in an effort to skirt the original reporting and implementation requirements as outlined in CALEA. Further, Barr isn't exactly on the FBI's Christmas card list. Last year it was primarily Barr who scotched the funding for CALEA during the 104th Congress' first session. But Barr has won again. He has, with backing from the Senate, succeeded in *putting back* the requirement that the FBI must justify all CALEA expenditures to the Judiciary Committee. Further, the implementation plan, "though somewhat modified" will "still have some punch," Barr's staffer assured me. That includes making the FBI report on its expected capacities and capabilities for digital wiretapping. In other words, the FBI won't be able to "cook the books" on the wiretap figures in secret. Barr also was successful in making the Justice Department submit an annual report detailing its CALEA spending to Congress. However, the funding for digital wiretaps remains. Stuffing the funding measures into a huge omnibus spending bill almost certainly assures its passage. Congress is twitchy now, anxious to leave. They are chomping at the bit, sensing the end of the 104th Congress' tortured run as the legislative calender is due to run out sometime early next week. Then they will all literally race from Capitol Hill at the final gavel, heading for the parking lot, jumping in their cars like stock car drivers as they make a made dash for National Airport to return to their home districts in an effort to campaign for another term in the loopy world of national politics. Congress is "going to try to sneak this (spending bill) through the back door in the middle of the night," says Leslie Hagan, legislative director for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. She calls this a "worst case scenario" that is "particularly dangerous" because the "deliberative legislative process is short-ciricutied." Such matters as wiretapping deserve to be aired in the full sunlight of congressional hearings, not stuffed into an 11th hour spending bill. This is legislative cowardice. Sadly, it will most likely succeed. And through this all, the Net sits mute. Unlike a few months ago, on the shameful day the Net cried "wolf" over these same provisions, mindlessly flooding congressional switchboards and any Email box within keyboard reach, despite the fact that the funding provisions had been already been stripped from the anti-terrorism bill, there has been no hue-and-cry about these most recent moves. Yes, some groups, such as the ACLU, EPIC and the Center for Democracy and Technology have been working the congressional back channels, buzzing around the frenzied legislators like crazed gnats. But why haven't we heard about all this before now? Why has this bill come down to the wire without the now expected flurry of "alerts" "bulletins" and other assorted red-flag waving by our esteemed Net guardians? Barr's had his ass hanging in the wind, fighting FBI Director Louis "Teflon" Freeh; he could have used some political cover from the cyberspace community. Yet, if he'd gone to that digital well, he'd have found only the echo of his own voice. And while the efforts of Rep. Barr are encouraging, it's anything from a done deal. "As long as the door is cracked... there is room for mischief," said Barr's staffer. Meaning, until the bill is reported and voted on, some snapperhead congressman could fuck up the process yet again. We all caught a bit of a reprieve here, but I wouldn't sleep well. This community still has a lot to learn about the Washington boneyard. Personally, I'm a little tired of getting beat up at every turn. Muscle up, folks, the fight doesn't get any easier. Meeks out... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: important local races in NH - Smith and Bass Date: 27 Sep 1996 11:22:14 -0400 Gentlefolk, I'm cross posting this, as the author includes important contact information. Senator Smith cosponsored the Waco hearings, even if you didn't like the squishy outcome, at least the bastards had to lie on TV. Congressman Bass is the guy who displaced Dick Swett. Swett's lied to me personally (and to hundreds others) hours before voting *FOR* the AW ban, as a rep. Swett's father-in-law is a bigname in CA politiics and is drawing in Democrat contributions nationally. Arnie Arneson is the Democrat woman who is strongly anti-RKBA and pro a NH income tax (what an idiot). I just sent another $50 check to Smith, please consider a donation. A loss in either the House or Senate of a pro-gun voice is a major loss. Thanks for your consideration. Jack Curtis We know things are bad for you all in the PROM, but things are even bleaker here in what used to be "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire. Forget presidential politics for a moment and imagine the House and Senate in the hands of the Democrats, whose main party plank is Gun Control. In fact, it's their main beam! Sen. Bob Smith (NRA A*) and Congressman Charlie Bass (NRA A) are running against Dick Swett (NRA F) and Arnie Arneson (NRA F), respectively. The A-rated republicans are in dead-heat races with the F-rated democrats, right here in NH! One poll shows Swett ahead of Smith by 3 pts!!! The AFL-CIO and NEA have been spending millions in NH to defeat Smith and Bass. They are spending millions to defeat your 2nd Amendment rights. We know you can't vote up here, at least until y'all move up here (looks like we need all the pro-gun votes we can get), but, please, please, please send $1, $5, $25, anything you can to offset the huge amounts of money the big unions are spending in New Hampshire. Bass for Congress 26 North Main Street Suite 4 Concord, NH 03301 Bob Smith for US Senate 173 South River Road Unit 3 Bedford, NH 03110 Please feel free to cross-post to any and all pro-gun or pro-liberty lists. Regards, Tony camuso@star.enet.dec.com "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state." -- Part 1, Article 2-a, of the New Hampshire Constitution -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] UN Flag Raising Protest, October 24 in Lansing, Michigan! (fwd) Date: 27 Sep 1996 12:40:36 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Join us to protest the raising of the United Nations flag over City Hall in Lansing, Michigan! The flag will be raised by the mayor of Lansing on October 24, right across the street from the state capital. There will be speakers beginning at 8:30am and the flag will be raised at 9:00am. We hope to see you there, even if you do not live in Michigan. There were over 500 people there last year, let's make it 1000 this year! I'll bring the digital camera for all those who are unable to make it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: An Interesting Read Date: 27 Sep 1996 14:21:43 -0600 Forwarded without comment other than to say I-10 doesn't run through little rock. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: oops Date: 27 Sep 1996 14:24:01 -0600 Being an idiot, I forgot to include the piece I was forwarding. 9/16/94 This file is the "Boot Hill" of the liberty forum. It contains a listing of suspicious deaths/suicides surrounding Clinton, BCCI, Inslaw, and the Ives/Henry murders. The names have been segregated into three categories including: 1. Ives/Henry 2. Inslaw 3. Clinton Related Any additional information either enhancing or refuting this data is welcome at E-mail 74013,3235@compuserve.com. Distribution of this material is encouraged. Ives/Henry 1. Kevin Ives/ Don Henry - Initial cause of death reported to be resulting from falling asleep on railroad tracks in Arkansas on Aug. 23, 1987. This initial ruling was reported by state medical examiner Fahmy Malak. It was later determined that Kevin died from a crushed skull and that Don had been stabbed in the back prior to being placed on the tracks. Rumors indicate that they might have stumbled upon the Mena drug operation. 2. Keith Koney - held information on the Ives/Henry deaths. Died in a motorcycle accident resulting from a car chase in July 1988. 3. Keith McKaskle - held information on the Ives/Henry deaths. Was stabbed to death in Nov. 1988. 4. Gregory Collins - held information on the Ives/Henry deaths. Died from a gunshot wound to the head in Jan. 1989. 5. Jeff Rhodes - held information on the Ives/Henry/McKaskle deaths. Burned body was found in trash dump in April 1989. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, some body mutilation. 6. James Milan - held information on the Ives/Henry deaths. Was decapitated; state examiner Fahmy Malak initially ruled death by natural causes. 7. Richard Winters - Suspect in the deaths of Ives/Henry. Killed in a robbery in July 1989 which was subsequently proved to be a setup. 8. Jordan Kettleson - held information on the Ives/Henry deaths. Found shot to death in the front seat of of his pickup on June 1990. INSLAW Inslaw was a small software company whose software (PROMIS) was allegedly stolen by the Dept. of Justice. Tactics utilized by the Dept. of Justice during this procurement eventually forced Inslaw into bankruptcy. The lawsuits and ensuing investigations resulted in many deaths as itemized in the following listing: 1. Larry Guerin - Was killed in Feb. 1987 while investigating the Inslaw case. 2. Alan Standorf - Electronic Intelligence employee for the National Security Agency was a source of information to Danny Casalaro who was investigating Inslaw and BCCI. His body was found in the backseat of his car at Wash. National Airport on Jan 31, 1991. 3. Dennis Eisman - Attorney involved in the Inslaw case. Found shot to death on April 5, 1991. 4. Danny Casalaro - Free lance reporter and writer who was investigating Inslaw, BCCI and the October Surprise. Found dead in his bathtub in his Sheraton Hotel room in Martinsburg, Virginia on Aug 10, 1991. His wrists were slashed 10 times and the documentation on the cases he was working on was missing. 5. Ian Spiro - Held supporting documentation for grand jury proceedings on the Inslaw case. His wife and 3 children were found murdered on Nov 1, 1992 in their home with gunshot wounds to the head. Ian's body was found several days later in a parked car on the Borego Desert. Death was determined to be ingestion of cyanide. FBI report indicated that Ian had murdered his family and committed suicide. 6. John Crawford - Attorney with information on Inslaw. Died from a heart attack in Tacoma in April 1993. 7. Paul Wilcher - Investigator and attorney was found dead in Wash. DC on July 23, 1993. Shortly before his death he had sent a 105 page letter to Atty. General Janet Reno releasing information on CIA secret operations. Clinton Related Deaths The following list includes names of individuals who were associated/involved with Clinton, Whitewater and Mena drug operations. 1. Susan Coleman - Reportedly became pregnant after an affair with Clinton in the late 70's. Problem was becoming a campaign issue in a Clinton election bid. Susan was found dead with a gunshot wound to the head at 7 1/2 months pregnant. Death was an apparent suicide in July 1978. 2. Victor Raisner - National Finance Co-chair of Clinton for president. Died in an airplane crash on July 30, 1992. 3. R. Montgomery Raiser - Involved with Clinton campaign. Died in airplane with Victor. 4. Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee. Was found dead due to unknown causes in Hotel Room on Sept. 24, 1992. 5. Paula Gober - Clinton Speech interpretor. Died in a car accident on Dec. 9, 1992. 6. Jim Wilhite - Associate of Mark McClarty's former firm. Died in a skiing accident on Dec. 21, 1992. 7. Steve Willis, Robert Williams, Todd McKeahan, Conway Lebeau - Clinton bodyguards who were killed in Waco on Dec 28, 1992. 8. Brian Hassey, Timothy Sabel, William Barkley, Scott Reynolds - Clinton escort/bodyguards died in a helicopter crash on May 19, 1993. 9. Vincent Foster - Whitehouse Deputy Counsel and personal friend of the Clinton's. Apparent suicide. Died from a gunshot wound to the mouth on July 20,1993. 10. Jon Parnell Walker - Investigator for the RTC looking into the linkage between Whitewater and Madison S&L. Fell from the top of the Lincoln Towers bldg. on Aug. 15,1993. 11. Stanley Heard, Steven Dickson - Members of the Clinton health care advisory committee. Died in a plane crash on Sept. 10, 1993. 12. Jerry Parks - Chief of security for Clinton's National Campaign headquarters in Little Rock. Generated an extensive file on Clinton's affairs in the 80's. Bullet ridden body found on I-10 outside Little Rock on Sept. 26 1993. Several witnesses who initially came forward now have short memories. 13. Ed Willey - Clinton Fundraiser. Died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on Nov. 30, 1993. 14. Gandy Baugh - Lasater's attorney committed suicide on Jan 8, 1994. Baugh's partner committed suicide on Feb. 8,1994. 15. Herschell Friday - Member of presidential campaign Finance Committee. Died in an airplane explosion on March 1, 1994. 16. Ronald Rogers - Died on March 3, 1994 just prior to releasing sensitive information to a London Newspaper. Undetermined cause of death. 17. Kathy Ferguson - 38 yr. old hospital worker whose ex-husband is codefendant in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. Held information supporting Paula's allegations. Died of an apparent suicide on May 11, 1994 from a gunshot wound to the head. 18. Bill Shelton - Arkansas police officer was found dead of an apparent suicide on Kathy Ferguson's(his girlfriend) grave on June 12, 1994. from a gunshot wound to the back of the head. 19. Stanley Huggins - 46 yr old principal in a memphis law firm who headed a 1987 investigation into the loan practices of Madison Guaranty S&L. Died in Delaware in July 1994, reported cause of death was viral pneumonia. 20. Calvin Walraven - 24 yr old who was a key witness in the trial of Jocelyn Elder's son's drug case. Was found dead in his apartment with a gunshot wound to the head. Tim Hoover a Little Rock spokesman says no foul play is suspected. 21. Paul Olson - was a key Federal witness in several Chicago drug trials. Died in a Sept 8, 1994 USAir airplane crash while returning from being interviewed for two days by federal investigators. This section is reserved for those individuals who have spoken out with specific information and have received death threats and/or have survived murder attempts. 1. Gary Johnson - Former Attorney for Larry Nichols who had videotaped Clinton entering Jennifer Flowers apartment on numerous occasions. Nearly beaten to death with dislocated elbows and ruptured spleen. 2. LJ Davis - Investigative reporter who had information in the inner workings of the Rose Law Firm was viciously beaten on Feb. 1994. 3. Dennis Patrick - Involved with multi-million dollar transactions with Lasater's firm. Has survived 3 attempts on his life. 4. Larry Nichols - Star of the Clinton Chronicles tape. Has received numerous death threats. 5. Terry Reed - Author of "Compromised" documenting drug running operations in Mena. 6. Rodney Stich - Author of "Defrauding America" a pattern of related scandals. Includes discussions on BCCI, October Surprise, Inslaw and a discussion of corruption within the Dept. of Justice. 7. Darlene Novinger - Former FBI operative who holds sensitive information on the current and previous administrations' drug operations. Husband was murdered in March 1987 when she went public with initial reports. Her father died July 8, 1993 four hours after Darlene was a guest on the Tom Valentine show. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: The ten truths of tyranny. Date: 27 Sep 1996 12:24:20 -0700 (PDT) I'm not sure what a "TPD" is, but this one seems to be right on target for my ROC/RKBA friends. Skip ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following was the lead in today's TPD Probably the first thing that should be taught to all children ...... mountainguy@usa.pipeline.com (Joe Friday) sent: The Ten Truths of Tyranny by Matt Giwer (c) 1994 1) Any law the electorate sees as being open to being perverted from its original intent will be perverted in a manner that exceeds the manner of perversion seen at the time. 2) Any law that is so difficult to pass it requires the citizens be assured it will not be a stepping stone to worse laws will in fact be a stepping stone to worse laws. 3) Any law that requires the citizens be assured the law does not mean what the citizens fear, means exactly what the citizens fear. 4) Any law passed in a good cause will be interpreted to apply to causes against the wishes of the people. 5) Any law enacted to help any one group will be applied to harm people not in that group. 6) Everything the government says will never happen will happen. 7) What the government says it could not foresee, the government has planned for. 8) When there is a budget shortfall to cover non-essential government services the citizens will be given the choice between higher taxes or the loss of essential government services. 9) Should the citizens mount a successful effort to stop a piece of legislation the same legislation will be passed under a different name. 10) All deprivations of freedom and choice will be increased rather than reversed. Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: An Interesting Read Date: 27 Sep 1996 12:04:46 PDT roc@xmission.com wrote : >Forwarded without comment other than to say I-10 doesn't run through >little rock. > > > but you did not forward anything. The two lines above are all there is Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: caps@visigenic.com (Cap Schwartz) Subject: Re: The ten truths of tyranny. Date: 27 Sep 1996 13:16:55 -0700 A TPD is a lot like a "I-10". (at least, that's what mr. bohan told me.) cAp_ At 12:24 PM 9/27/96 -0700, you wrote: > >I'm not sure what a "TPD" is, but this one seems to be right on target for >my ROC/RKBA friends. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: The ten truths of tyranny. Date: 27 Sep 1996 15:43:36 -0600 Cap Schwartz wrote: > > A TPD is a lot like a "I-10". > (at least, that's what mr. bohan told me.) > cAp_ Dear cAp-: .|. Have a nice weekend. ;{H> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: The ten truths of tyranny. Date: 27 Sep 1996 13:19:15 PDT roc@xmission.com wrote : >A TPD is a lot like a "I-10". >(at least, that's what mr. bohan told me.) >cAp_ > > >At 12:24 PM 9/27/96 -0700, you wrote: >> >>I'm not sure what a "TPD" is, but this one seems to be right on target for >>my ROC/RKBA friends. > > > Actually TPD stands for the Political Digest. It abstracts all sorts of sources and sends hundreds of thousands of bytes a day to the avid reader TPD (THE POLITICAL DIGEST) which contains political articles only and will average about 150 K. TPDL (THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE) which will average about 50 K and will be selected articles out of the TPD. There will NOT be anything in TPDL that is not in TPD. TPDP (THE POLITICAL DIGEST PLUS) which is all Commentary's and Editorials from all over the nation, plus selected other articles that we find interesting. This will average about 250 K. TPDW (THE POLITICAL DIGEST WEEKLY) which is selected material out of TPD and TPDP for each week. This comes out every Monday. Estimated size may be as much as 500K. TPDL is delivered by e-mail and all of the others are delivered by attaching them to an e-mail message. People on Juno can only receive TPDL, because they do not allow attachments. To receive THE POLITICAL DIGEST for one ful calendar month free, just send an e-mail message with the word subscribe TPD for the long version or TPDL for the short version or TPDP for the PLUS version or TPDW for the weekly version, or any combination, in the subject line to wdmann@ix.netcom.com. To stop receiving the TPD just send an e-mail message with Unsubscribe in the subject line to wdmann@ix.netcom.com. Thank you. First Full Calendar Month No Charge. __________________ Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] Peace, Prosperity and Freedom (fwd) Date: 27 Sep 1996 16:31:34 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>Would you like to live in a society of peace, prosperity and freedom? Would >>you like to earn a lot more money than your parents, be free to do whatever >>you want that doesn't harm others, and see the threats of violence and war >>largely disappear? Would you like to live in an age of artistic freedom and >>rapid scientific progress in which anything seems possible? >> >>Such a world is not only possible, it is a part of our history. For nearly >>fifty years, between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the beginning of >>World War I in 1914, the United States was the freest, most prosperous >>society on earth. Living standards rose nearly 5% a year. The average >>American's income was six times higher at the end of the period than at the >>beginning. >> >>There was little restriction upon personal, economic and artistic freedom. >>There was no income tax, no military draft, little government regulation of >>business, and no prohibition of drugs. >> >>Independent schools and private charities made education available for all, >>and helped those in need. And, except for the brief Spanish-American War, >>the nation enjoyed the longest period without foreign wars in our history. >>Nearly anything seemed possible. Illiterate immigrants who started with a >>pushcart became millionaires through hard work. >> >> >> >> Living standards are falling and violence has become epidemic >> >>America of the 1990s is far removed from the America of the 1890s, both in >>time and in spirit. Today's social landscape is one of deterioration, >>violence and mounting fear. >> >>Living standards are falling, and each year's college graduating class >>finds fewer and fewer jobs as high taxes and regulations devastate our >>economy. Few young adults can now afford to buy their own homes, save for >>their childrens' education, or build security for their retirement. >> >>Violence has become epidemic. Murder is now the leading cause of death >>among young black men. One in four college women report they were the >>victim of rape or attempted rape. And nearly 25% of all American families >>are now victimized by theft or vandalism every year. >> >>The threat of superpower warfare has declined. But weapons of mass >>destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- continue to spread to >>the world's most repressive regimes, many of which have been supported by >>U.S. military and economic aid. >> >> >> >> Liberty is required for any peaceful and prosperous society >> >>What has changed in America in the last 80 years? Why has this nation >>changed from one of the most prosperous and progressive on earth to one of >>increasing deterioration and violence? "The cause dear friend, lies not in >>the stars, but in ourselves." America is declining because American's have >>largely abandoned our libertarian heritage. >> >>Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and America's other founders understood >>the values required for a free, peaceful and prosperous society: individual >>liberty, economic freedom, and limited government. >> >>Liberty means the freedom to control your own life, to work and play as you >>choose, to keep what you earn, to practice the religion of your choice, to >>speak freely, and to associate voluntarily with others. >> >>Liberty can flourish only in an environment of tolerance, voluntary >>association, and mutual respect for the lives and property of others. You >>can have liberty for yourself only if you grant it freely to everyone else. >> >>The genius of America was that our government was created as a protector of >>our fundamental human rights. America's founders well understood that >>government's immense power can be used to destroy as well as to protect; >>that when government uses force against its own peaceful citizens, it >>becomes just another criminal gang. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights >>were designed to protect us from government. >> >>Our libertarian ideal, that government exists to protect our rights, was >>never fully realized. Our legislatures, police and military have frequently >>crossed the line from defenders of our liberty to violators of it. But the >>previously slow erosion of our rights has recently become a raging torrent, >>and our heritage of liberty is being obliterated. >> >> >> >> The government now takes 70% of your income. >> >>If you're typical, you now spend six months a year working to earn enough >>just to pay your taxes. And that's only the beginning. >> >>According to Dr. James Payne's study "Costly Returns: The burdens of the US >>tax system," for every dollar that the IRS collects in taxes, we pay an >>additional 65 cents in compliance costs -- tax accountants, attorneys, tax >>software, etc. >> >>When you add the 35% of your income you pay directly in taxes, 22% you pay >>indirectly in compliance costs, and another 13% you lose as a result of >>economic regulations, over 70% of your income is now taken from you by the >>government. >> >> >> >> Our Economy is being destroyed by stifiling regulation >> >>In the state of California, it takes 80 government licenses to open a small >>business. In Washington, D.C. it costs $7,000 in fees to operate a >>pushcart. In New York City, a "medallion" to operate a taxicab costs over >>$150,000. >> >>In Hawaii, a homeless man who tried to earn a little cash by taking >>pictures of tourists with his pet parrot, was arrested and his parrot >>confiscated because he didn't have a business license. >> >>Over 50,000 pages of new regulations are now published in the Federal >>Register every year. That's in addition to state and local regulations. >> >>Goods and services that could improve your life are being banned, >>confiscated, and regulated out of existence. >> >> >> >> Everything you own can now be confiscated by police without trial >> >>You no longer have a right to your own property. Over 200 federal and >>thousands of state civil-asset forfeiture laws authorize police to >>confiscate everything you own without trial or even without charging you >>with a crime. >> >>In Volusia County, Florida, police regularly stop motorists and ask "How >>much cash are you carrying?" If the answer is more than a few hundred >>dollars, they routinely seize it, along with your car, if it's an expensive >>one. In the last four years, these legal "highway robberies" have brought >>in over $8 million for Volusia County. >> >> In Washington, D.C., police confiscated the home of Helen Hoyle -- a >>69-year-old grandmother. Police claimed an anonymous informant told them >>Helen's grandson sold unidentified illegal drugs to an unidentified buyer >>from her front porch two years earlier. >> >>Cars, homes, businesses, pocket cash, bank accounts, and pensions are now >>confiscated from over 5,000 innocent Americans like you every week. >>According to a Pittsburgh Press study, in 80% of the cases no one is ever >>charged with a crime. >> >>Even if you are totally innocent of any crime, there is little chance you >>will ever get your confiscated property back. Under civil-forfeiture laws >>you are presumed guilty, and you must prove your innocence and pay $5,000 - >>$100,000+ legal expenses out of your own pocket -- after your home, bank >>accounts or business have been seized. >> >> >> >> Police can now beat or kill you with virtual impunity >> >>According to 60 Minutes, Oakland Housing Authority Police routinely rob >>public housing residents, plant drugs on them, beat them, and then arrest >>them. In Oakland, on an average night, 42 people are admitted to hospital >>emergency rooms after police beatings. But they're lucky. >> >>In California, "Multimillionaire rancher Donald Scott, 61, was shot to >>death when 26 DEA agents, LA County sheriffs deputies and National Park >>Service officers raided his 200-acre Malibu spread looking for marijuana >>they never found. >> >>"Annie Rae Dixon, 84, bedridden with pneumonia in Tyler, Texas, [was] shot >>to death by police in a 2 a.m. raid last January. An officer said his >>pistol accidently went off when he kicked down her bedroom door. No drugs >>were found." (Both quotes from USA Today, 1-11-93). >> >>There are now dozens of such deadly police "mistakes" every week. If an >>anonymous informant claims without proof that you have illegal drugs or >>firearms in your possession, that now gives police a virtual license to >>kill you and your family. >> >> >> >> To restore prosperity, freedom and peace to America, we must >> restore our libertarian heritage >> >>We must return to the principles of tolerance and respect for the rights of >>others. Activities that are crimes for individuals -- theft, assault, >>kidnapping, intimidation and murder -- must be crimes for government agents >>as well. >> >>The crushing burden of confiscatory taxes and suffocating regulations must >>be lifted from our economy. >> >>As the revolutions that swept Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union >>demonstrated, even authoritarian governments require the consent of the >>governed. >> >>America can again be a land of liberty and unlimited opportunity. This is >>what America once was and can be again. Millions of American libertarians >>invite you to join us to restore our liberty. >> >>To learn more about how libertarians can create a world of peace, >>prosperity and >>freedom, we recommend reading ... >> >> HEALING OUR WORLD >> >> by Dr. Mary Ruwart >> >> In Healing Our World you'll learn how by trying to control others by >>force, we end up enslaving ourselves. In Healing Our World you'll also >>learn why wealth is unlimited in a free society . . . how legal aggression >>(particularly government aggression) destroys jobs and businesses . . . how >>laws designed to protect our health kill hundreds of thousands every year . >>. . how the free market and strict liability solve environmental problems . >>. . how we can end poverty . . . and how we can defend ourselves from >>criminals and foreign aggressors without >>taxation or harming innocent civilians. >> >> This book shatters many myths about the benevolence and necessity of >>government power. It shows us how we can change the world by changing the >>way we treat others, and provides a compelling vision of a free and >>peaceful world. >> >> Healing Our World is available from the Unlimited Thought Bookstore >>in San Antonio, 210 525-0693, or through ISIL for just $14.95 plus $2.50 >>shipping & handling. VISA & MasterCard payments accepted. >> >> Dr. Mary Ruwart is a nationally-renowned AIDS researcher, former >>Libertarian Party candidate, and ISIL Director. >> >>The above is from: >> >>Libertarianism >> >>The Path to Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom >> >> By Jarret Wollstein >> >> (Revised Apr 94) >> >> ISIL EDUCATIONAL PAMPHLET SERIES >> >> >>The International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) is an association >>of men and women in over 80 countries promoting individual liberty, >>prosperity and peace. An ISIL membership includes our international >>newsletter, 27+ issue papers, book/tape catalog, world directory and more >>for only $35/yr. >> >>For a full ISIL information pack with sample newsletter, book catalog and >>literature, send $2.00 to cover postage & handling. >> >> INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY >> 1800 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102 USA >> Tel: (415) 864-0952 Fax: (415) 864-7506 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Juror's Historic Trial Scheduled - Oct. 1 Date: 28 Sep 1996 08:44:08 -0400 Forwarded for anyone who might be interested in attending Tom >Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 20:44:34 -0600 (MDT) >From: Jury Rights Project >X-Sender: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com >To: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Juror's Historic Trial Scheduled - Oct. 1 > > In court on Friday (9/27), Judge Henry Nieto ruled against >motions presented by the defense to disqualify the prosecutor and to >dismiss the case against Laura Kriho. > The trial of Laura Kriho wil take place on October 1st at 9 am at the >Gilpin County Justice Center. Laura is being charged with contempt of >court for allegedly deliberating "improperly" when she served on a jury >recently. > Laura's trial will be the first ever like it in the history of >the U.S. Eleven other jurors will testify against her. However, her >attorney will not be allowed to question the judge or the prosecutor on >her case. And she has been denied a jury trial. > Laura's trial will be a landmark case in that it will be decideed >whether or not juros can be prosecuted for their deliberations. If she >is convicted, all jurors must fear prosecution for their actions and >beliefs when they serve on a jury. This has never happened before and >will send a chilling message to the citizens of our republic. Laura's >conviction will allow judges to have fully-controlled juries. This >cannot be tolerated!! > If you can, please come to Laura's trial on Oct. 1st. A strong >show of support will be important to show the court that this prosecution >is outrageous. This is very important. > >Tuesday, October 1st, 9 am >Gilpin County Justice Center >Hwy. 46 (Golden Gate Canyon State Park Road) >One mile east of Hwy. 119 >From Boulder, take 119 through Nederland to Colo. 46. >From Denver, Hwy. 72, Hwy. 46, Hwy. 6, or I-70 all connect to Hwy. 119 > > >About 40 people attended Laura's motion's hearing on Sept. 27. >We would like to have 100 people at her trial. >Please, spread the word!!!!!!!! > >Call the Gilpin County Court Clerk to confirm trial has not been >re-scheduled. (You never know). >(303) 582-5522 > >Welcome to the Gilpin County Star Chamber >The Court of Star Chamber > The Star Chamber was inititiated in 1487 in England. The >Star Chamber was a court which had extraordinary powers. It was >composed of members of the king's privy council. The Star >Chamber used torture to extract confessions and was apt to treat >as corrupt any verdict of acquittal which it considered as >against the weight of the evidence. There are many examples of >the Star Chamber punishing jurors with heavy fines and >imprisonment for this offense. > The Star Chamber was abolished in 1641, but its spirit >lives on in 1996 in Gilpin County. > > >Please come on Oct. 1.!!!! > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be removed from this mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen > http://www.transport.com/~mschmitz/laura.html > Donations to support Laura's defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) > Box 1272, Parker, CO 80134 > pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > (303) 841-9649 > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Michigan Militia Corps Weekly Update (3-29) (fwd) Date: 30 Sep 1996 00:17:26 PST On Sep 30, Gene Gross -- Personal Account wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Please excuse any typos as this text is converted from a fax. Weekly Update - A publication of the Michigan Militia Corps Volume 3 Issue 29 September 26, 1996 The Taking of America by Karen Lee Bixman "Welcome to Death Valley International Biosphere." This sign, posted at the entrance of Death Valley National Park in the California desert alerts visitors that Death Valley is no longer a national park. Along with 48 other national park sites throughout the country, Death Valley has come under the guise and control of a United Nations advisory board that now supersedes the authority of the United States Park Service. If this scenario sounds like an Orwellian plot, too unbelievable to be true, realize that while the American people have busied themselves in the essentials of raising their families and earning a living, our politicians in Washington have literally "given away the farm." The Biosphere Reserve Program was the creation of the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Conceived in 1971, the objective of the program was to designate world-wide sites for preservation and to protect the biodiversity of chosen sites on a global level. As in the case of Death Valley, and other sites within the United States, each biosphere is divided into three different sections: (1) Wilderness zones (2) Buffer zones, and (3) Cooperation zones. The wilderness area is designed to be the habitat of plants and animals; human inhabitancy or human intrusion is forbidden. A buffer zone surrounds the wilderness area: limited access is permitted within this zone. The Cooperation zone will be allocated as the only site where humans will be allowed to live. The Sierra Club is but one of the 126 environmental organizations that work hand-in-hand with the United Nations to enact the environmental-global agenda. UNESCO passed resolution 1296 in 1968, which grants consultative status to organizations like the Sierra Club which allows them to participate in UN environmental activities. In December 1972, UN Resolution 2997, which was adopted by the general assembly, created the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). This program has remapped the world into bioregions and is responsible for all of the environmental policy changes that have occurred globally in the last 20 years. Ideas spawned by the "chosen" 126 environmental groups are advanced by the UNEP. It is the plan of the Sierra Club, the United Nations, and those followers of the "Green Agenda," to actually re-structure our society, as we now know it, and to relocate the human population of the United States within these bioregions. The time estimate given for the re-structuring is 50 to 100 years. Therefore, when private citizens are robbed of their land, be it in the form of new legislation such as the Desert Wilderness Protection Act, or through land taking by the EPA, realize that the redistribution of the human population out of the "wilderness zones" has begun. [Ed. Note: It is not only begun, but is well advanced. According to a map in National Geographic, fully 1/3 of the land in the United States belongs to the federal government.] According to the plan, each of these 21 bioregions will be governed by bioregional councils. Although in its infancy stage, the setting up of such a council is taking place in the U.S. South in conjunction with the Smoky Mountain National Park in Tennessee. In effect, when these councils come into play, local, state and national government will not be able to intervene with their enforcement. It will be under the strong arm of the UN that environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, Natures' Conservancy and other green organizations will be given the green light and will be the enforcement arm of these councils at the local level. Another hoax perpetuated against the American people has been the implementation of the World Heritage Treaty signed by Richard Nixon on November 21, 1972, ratified by the Senate and entered into force on December 17, 1975, this UN treaty was drafted during the general conference of UNESCO in 1972. It addresses the cultural and natural heritage of lands throughout the world and contends that they're endangered and are being threatened by social and economic conditions. The treaty states, "Therefore, it is incumbent that the international community participate as a whole to use these heritage sites." Sites that qualify for protection under the title "Cultural Heritage" include any "monuments, archaeological works, buildings, and landscapes which have universal value from a historical, aesthetic or ethnological point of view." Sites that qualify for protection under the description "National Heritage" include "aesthetic views, geographical formations and acres of threatened habitat of species of animal and plants or natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of science, conservation or natural beauty." The treaty language is so vague that any property in the world can be rendered a Heritage site if the governing committee so deems. The actual property does not need to be a historical site in the true sense of the word, but, if for example, the site is of exceptional beauty, such as The Lake of the Ozarks, in Missouri, or for that matter, Yosemite National Park in California, the site can be classified a Heritage site and removed from public use. Recently, an example of the World Heritage Committee flexing its international arm of control, was felt when Yellowstone National Park was s elected as a World Heritage site. For the past two years, the Crown Butte Company, owner of The New World Mine, had been undergoing an Environmental Impact Survey (EIS) in preparation of opening its gold mine outside the confines of Yellowstone National Park. According to Crown Butte owner, Joe Baylis, the mine was in compliance with all U.S. regulations. "In fact," stated Baylis, "new technology by the company actually serves to clean up the existing mine waste in the area." In July of 1995, however, a report by the Heritage Committee made reference to several threats to the park, such as deforestation by a religious group, tourism impacts and wildlife policies. Other concerns mentioned were "tourists overcrowding and threatening grizzly bears." Bernard von Droste, Director of the World Heritage Committee states "Park managers in Yellowstone and elsewhere must also figure out ways to manage people who may otherwise love this park to death." In light of statements made by von Droste, popular recreation areas and other national parks could soon find their way on the World Heritage Committee hit list. In September of 1995, fearing that the New World Mine would pass its EIS and be allowed to open, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt appealed to the Heritage Committee to declare Yellowstone a World Heritage site. In December of 1995, the World Heritage Committee complied. William Perry Pendly, an environmental attorney with the Mountain States Legal Foundation, stated in the February issue of The New American magazine that Yellowstone was threatened by the New World Mine. "One of the misconceptions promoted by the mine's opponents is that it is right next to the park and that it would leave tailings and mine residue nearby, which would defile the park. But it is separated from Yellowstone by three mountain ridges. It is an area which has been mined since white men first went West and people have been smelting ore there since about 1870." As has been the norm with the establishment of International Biospheres, the World Heritage Treaty also calls for the taxing of private property as well. In the case of Yellowstone, this argument is now being made by environmentalists that the ecosystem of Yellowstone extends tar beyond the border of the 2.3 million acre park. Tony Bemosky of the Mountain State Resources Center at Montana State University stated that there is general agreement that the ecosystem encompasses parts of Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, an area of between 14 to 18 million acres. The UN environmental agenda has been avidly supported and advanced by the Clinton administration. The Ecosystem Management Plan promoted by Vice President Al Gore, calls for 50 percent of the land within the United States to be returned to wilderness. Twenty federal agencies are being used to implement this plan and the EPA is the enforcer. Through executive order, Bruce Babbit and his Department of the Interior, in September of 1993, created the Office of National Biological Survey. This survey will attempt to record the location of each species of plants and animals located throughout the United States. The end result will be a written record that will be used against the population whereby the EPA will then be justified in removing humans from areas where "endangered species" are located. Through UN treaties and government proposals, the American people are being robbed of their most precious freedom, the right to own land. One can only hope that the populous, once armed with the facts, will rise up and eject these unconstitutional treaties, along with any governing body who would propose such a massive threat to the sovereignty of our country Am. Surv. Guide, September 1996 UN "Reform" Not the Answer by John F. McManus In a flurry of activity that called to mind westward bound settlers circling their wagons and preparing for the Indians to attack, supporters of the United Nations have stepped up their defense of the world body. On August 19th, a prestigious task force convened by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) released a report warning that U.S. hostility to the UN was damaging both the UN and the best interests of the United States. It certainly appears that the Get US out! of the United Nations campaigns aimed at alerting the American people to the dangers of the UN are enjoying much success. Consider that in its coverage of the CFR task force report, the pro-UN Houston Chronicle lamented: "Some Americans, including not a few members of Congress, mistakenly fear that the United Nations is the tool of an insidious conspiracy to institute a one-world government." The findings in the CFR report were drawn from discussions the CFR sponsored in five American cities where over 80 diplomats, government officials, professors, and journalists gathered to assess the current perception of the UN. The report ultimately claimed that unnamed politicians in the U.S. and elsewhere had been covering up their own failures by misrepresenting recent UN actions in Somalia and Bosnia. These findings were released at a UN headquarters press conference conducted by CFR senior fellow Morton Halperin, a former government official who for decades actively associated with a network of hard-core Marxist organizations, including the Soviet-connected Institute for Policy Studies. Halperin claimed that "poll data all show that the United Nations has much stronger support in the United States than... Congress or the Executive." Announcing that he planned to present the report to Congress and that he would brief its members, Halperin urged both Congress and the Administration to "come together with a realistic appraisal of the UN." Former Deputy Secretary of State, John Whitehead, who now serves as chairman of the United Nations Association of the United States, joined Halperin at the news conference to voice his support for the UN. Whitehead claimed that worldwide resentment toward the U.S. has "never been as high as it is today over United Nations issues," and that his rising tide of anti-Americanism stems from "our refusal to pay our [UN] dues [and] our rather brutal discarding of the Secretary-general." More evidence of growing antipathy toward the UN was provided by, of all publications, the September-October issue of The CFR journal Foreign Affairs. Therein Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), in an article entitled "Saving the UN," demanded either that the UN "reform" or that "I, for one, will be leading the charge for U.S. withdrawal." Helms, who had never before written an article appearing in the CFR journal, criticized the UN's "overgrown bureaucracy," its "vastly expanded" peacekeeping operations, and the threatening assertion given by Secretary- General Boutros-Ghali that "the time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty... has passed." He claimed, however, that the UN should get back to its original purpose of "helping nation-states solve problems." The calls for reform or repair of the UN reminds us of previous claims that the Kremlin-led Soviet Union wasn't all bad and should merely be reformed. The United Nations was designed by its founders to be a world government, not a forum where nations could solve disputes. As far back as July 19, 1952, the Pro-UN Saturday Review told its readers what the underlying designs of the organization really were, touting the UN agency UNESCO; "If UNESCO is attacked on the grounds that it is helping to prepare the world's peoples for world government, then it is an error to burst forth with apologetic statements and denials. Let...by all means affirm it from the housetops." In December 1985, World Federalist Association vice President John Logue testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee: "It's time to tell the world's people not what they want to hear, but what they ought to hear. What they ought to hear is that it we really want to have peace and promote justice, we must reform, restructure, and strengthen the United Nations and give it the power and authority and funds to keep the peace and promote justice. The Security Council veto must go. One nation, one-vote must go. The United Nations must have taxing power or some other source of dependable revenue. It must have a large peacekeeping force...in appropriate areas, particularly in the area of peace and security, it must be able to make and enforce law on the individual." "Reforming" the world-government-to-be on New York City's East River will only serve to make it more efficient, or to quell the American people's concerns about the world body. How could it be otherwise, with the CFR shaping the debate for "reform?" The only course for America is to withdraw before national sovereignty has been completely swallowed up. The New American. Sept. 30, 1996 Don't Forget!!!!!! UN protest day in Lansing on October 24th. Everyone needs to get involved so we can make this the BEST EVER. THE NATION IS WATCHING US! Let's be a GOOD example! LetĘs show them how it's done! [The UN flag is being raised by the mayor of Lansing, Michigan (the capitol of our state) that day. We need all the people we can get there to protest this. Last year we had 500 people protesting, lets make it over 1000 this year! e-mail jeffs@gr.cns.net or visit http://mmc.cns.net/unprot.html if you want further info.] Jeff S. PFC CMRM, 15th Brigade - Kent county Central Michigan Regional Militia Home Page: http://mmc.cns.net "...Stage III...would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively stregthened U.N. peace force ...The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited...All other armaments would be destroyed..." -Department of State publication number 7277 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: CIA-DRUGS-JUDGES-JUSTICE (fwd) Date: 30 Sep 1996 08:13:15 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS Dear M R, From the Department of Diligent Research, Kay sends the following article. Read it carefully. There is a little quiz at the end. And the quiz counts toward your final grade. -- Harvey ================================== Sun, 29 Sep 1996 The Boston Globe Motion Six Years Ago Alleged Tie Between Crack Sales and CIA Associated Press, 09/28/96; 17:48 LOS ANGELES (AP) - A court motion filed six years ago alleged that sheriff's deputies turned up a link between the CIA and drug dealers in Los Angeles, echoing new allegations that have spawned federal inquiries However, evidence of that link mysteriously disappeared from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, according to the lawyer who filed the motion. And although the motion was publicly reported at the time, a judge ordered lawyers not to discuss the alleged CIA connection on grounds it was not related to the case in which the motion was submitted, a corruption trial involving sheriff's deputies. Similar claims of a relationship between the CIA and drug dealers were made in a recent series of articles by the San Jose Mercury News, which alleged that the CIA funneled profits from domestic sales of crack cocaine to a group of Nicaraguan Contra rebels. The Justice Department is investigating the claims, as are members of Congress. Rep. Julian C. Dixon, a California Democrat and member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Friday that he had received a copy of the 1990 motion but had yet reviewed it. The motion was filed by lawyer Harland W. Braun, who represented one of several deputies accused of skimming money from drug deals and filing false tax returns. His motion claimed that deputies found evidence of the CIA link in 1986 at the home of an alleged money launderer believed to have ties to a major drug ring. "Officers discovered films of military operations in Central America, technical manuals, information on assorted military hardware and communications, and numerous documents indicating that drug money was being used to purchase military equipment for Central America,'' the motion said. The motion alleged the deputies also encountered a man who identified himself as a CIA agent. Braun said the deputies booked property they had seized as evidence, but federal agents later removed it. "Mysteriously, all records of the search, seizure and property also 'disappeared' from the Sheriff's Department,'' Braun wrote. At the time, sheriff's officials denied Braun's allegations and prosecutors accused him of floating the issue to distract from evidence against his client, who ended up serving prison time. No one was available to comment Saturday, said sheriff's spokesman Gabe Ramirez. The motion drew news media coverage when it was filed in 1990, but U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie, at prosecutors' request, issued a gag order barring Braun and other trial lawyers from discussing the matter. Rafeedie said that even if Braun's allegations were true, they were not relevant to the corruption case against the deputies. ================================= http://www.boston.com/globe/ap/cgi-bin/retrieve.cgi?%2Fapwir%2Fnation%2F%2F2 72%2F052 ================================= Alright, M R, here it is, the FIRST MULTIPLE RECIPIENT QUIZ!! (1) The evidence submitted to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department "disappeared." Which of these answers best explains the phenomenon? (a) The property clerk is very disorganized and just made a mistake; (b) During the long, pre-trial delay, microbes consumed the evidence; (c) After a discussion with some gentlemen from the CIA, the property clerk chose to live. (2) The judge ordered lawyers not to discuss the alleged CIA connection because (a) He can't stand unpleasantness in the courtroom; (b) He didn't want to see the jurors get confused; (c) He follows the old axiom "Let the chips fall where they may."; (d) After a discussion with some gentlemen from the CIA, the Judge chose to live. (3) The evidence which was removed from the Sheriff's custody by federal agents is now (a) Shredded and sitting in a landfill; (b) Ashes; (c) Sitting in a safe in the Rose Law Firm. (4) Which of the following statements was most likely made by the defendant? (a) "I'm glad I being tried in the good ol' U.S. of A. where an impartial judge, who has been appointed for life, will see to it that I receive a fair and impartial trial and will see to it that the jury is apprised of all facts relative to the case."; (b) "Golly, with a man like Edward Rafeedie presiding at the trial, I can't see why I need a jury!"; (c) "The jury would probably just get confused, if I were introduce all that evidence about the CIA running drugs out of Central America and into the inner cities of America. You know, jurors aren't very bright. And they aren't as trustworthy as judges."; (d) All of the above. The correct answers are (c), (d), (c), and (d). If you got all answers correct you are a bitter, anti-government cynic. -- The Professor **************************************************** "...So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrranize will do so; For tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles opon sleeping men." -- Voltarine de Cleyre **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: ORWELL'S 1984 REVISITED (fwd) Date: 30 Sep 1996 08:14:25 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS Dear M R, Our good friend R.J. Tavel is an attorney and the FIJA coordinator for Indiana. He sends this well written article which illustrates why Thomas Jefferson warned, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." If you'd like see the trend reversed, join FIJA and help us reform the judicial system. E-mail me and let me tell you about our organization. -- Harvey Postscript: O'Connor was appointed by whom? Is there really much difference between the judicial appointments of the two parties? ================================== On June 24, 1996, while the press was presenting today's version of the Roman "bread and circuses" (the Olympic games in Atlanta), the United States Supreme Court quietly voted 7 to 2 to limit our Sixth Amendment's guarantee to trial by jury. In Lewis v. United States, 95-6465, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority of the Court said: "...We conclude that no jury trial right exists where a defendant is prosecuted for multiple petty offenses. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to a jury trial does not extend to petty offenses, and its scope does not change where a defendant faces a potential aggregate prison term in excess of six months for petty offenses." Just as in Indiana's constitutional provision for jury nullification, the Sixth Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution refers to "all criminal" cases, not some criminal cases. Likewise, the courts of Indiana routinely water down and in many cases blatantly contravene the charter of its existence and bar defense lawyers from instructing the jury on their right to nullify the law. Now the U. S. Supreme Court has made "...the most serious incursions on the right to jury trial in the Court's history, and it cannot be squared with our precedents." (Justice Kennedy writing for the minority of the Court) Over-zealous prosecutors will now have a field day prosecuting stacking misdemeanor charges against defendants everywhere just as they have done for decades with felony charges in the commonly used ploy of "charge bargaining" whereby the defendant is cowered into plea bargaining by the sheer magnitude of multiple penalties for a single act. Furthermore, politically-motivated judges who, after all, are paid and appointed by politicians are NOT impartial and are not free to rule against bad law as juries traditionally are free to, and have been doing for generations. The Supreme Court has rewritten the Constitution to suit the political ends of the White House. Welcome to Orwell's 1984. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Tavel's Self Help Legal Clinic and Sovereign Library is the Homepage of R. J. Tavel, J.D Libertarian Mediator Check out the free online legal help with Pro Se manuals, actual pleadings, reference tools, international media contact tools, and more: http://www.iquest.net/~rjtavel "If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every Post-War American president would have to be hanged." Noam Chomskey "There are no magic answers, no miraculous methods to overcome the problems we face, just the familiar ones: honest search for understanding, education, organization, action that raises the cost of state violence for its perpetrators or that lays the basis for institutional change--and the kind of commitment that will persist despite the temptations of disillusionment, despite many failures and only limited successes, inspired by the hope of a brighter future." Noam Chomskey For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, J.D. **************************************************** "...So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrranize will do so; For tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles opon sleeping men." -- Voltarine de Cleyre **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Child Stolen, Medial Treatments Forced (fwd) Date: 30 Sep 1996 08:16:02 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 07:07:03 -0700 >From: Jan Farmer >Subject: Girl ordered returned to Texas custody=20 > >http://www.startext.net/news/doc/1047/1:FRONT5/1:FRONT5092796.html > [- StarText.Net Home ][- Community News ][- InterAct ][- Market Place ] > >Updated: Friday, Sep. 27, 1996 at 00:12 CDT > >Girl ordered returned to Texas custody > >By Chris Vaughn >Star- Telegram Staff Writer > >An Ontario family court judge ended an almost monthlong custody and medica= l >battle over a seriously ill Fort Worth girl yesterday, ordering 10-year-ol= d >Rachel Stout returned to Texas child welfare officials Tuesday. > >Justice David Main also awarded temporary custody of Rachel to the >Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, meaning that Steven Stout >does not have custody of his daughter in Canada or Texas. > >But another battle is developing about where Rachel will be taken Tuesday = -- >to a hospital in either Fort Worth or Dallas, or to the Mayo Clinic in >Minnesota, where Stout wants her to be treated. A Tarrant County judge is >expected to rule at 2 p.m. Monday. > >Last night in an interview with KTVThannel 11, Stout said he wants to avoi= d >surgery "unless it is absolutely necessary. There are no easy decisions wh= en >it comes to doing what's best for your child." > >The KTVT reporter said Rachel appeared to be free of pain and in no danger= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H. BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: CIA-DRUGS-JUDGES-JUSTICE (fwd) Date: 30 Sep 1996 11:07:54 EDT Harvey, I got all answers correct. So if that makes me an anti government cynic, then so be it. ghb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] SOME LAWYERS ARE WORTH SAVING (fwd) Date: 30 Sep 1996 13:17:05 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- September 30, 1996 SENATOR DUKE (719) 481-9289 By Senator Charles R. Duke Colorado District 9 SOME LAWYERS ARE WORTH SAVING Recently, this writer was invited to an annual convention of a group one would not expect: the Colorado Bar Association. Normally, this is a relatively closed shop in that it usually includes only lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and the ever-present special interests unique to the profession of lawyering. The overall event featured special seminars that covered a broad range of subjects. Frequently, there were several seminars being conducted simultaneously, so the attendees had to pick and choose a particular event of interest. The seminar which necessitated my presence was itself most unusual for lawyers. Titled, "Worlds in Collision: The Legal System's Encounters with Political Groups," the seminar focused on our legal system's ability to cope with political "crimes," as opposed to criminal issues. My particular assignment was as the moderator of a group of four professionals in this arena. One of the group even quipped, "You have to know we have an unusual group when Senator Charles Duke is asked to moderate!" His poke at my uncompromising stand on the Constitution and other issues was ignored, but drew a round of laughter, anyway. Our panelists were expected to be split pro-con on groups such as The Order, We the People, and, more recently, The Freemen of Justus Township in Montana. That, however, turned out not to be the case, in that all panelists were more or less critical of these political groups. The panelists were: Kevin Flynn, a reporter for the Rocky Mountain News and author of a book about The Order, which was tied to the murder of the extremist liberal talk show host Alan Berg; Lee Foreman, a well-known Denver defense attorney, who represented Bruce Pierce, from The Order, in that same murder trial; Bill Mateja, a U.S. Attorney from Lubbock, Texas, who prosecuted several members of the group called We the People for a variety of financial crimes against judges, attorneys, and bankers; and Marleen Langfield, a special prosecutor in the Colorado Attorney General's office and who directed a multi- jurisdictional task force to investigate and prosecute several members of the We the People group in Colorado. There were light moments such as when Bill Mateja talked for more than 15 minutes, with several admonitions by me, that his time had expired. Each speaker was, you see, limited to seven minutes. When he finally did stop, my comment was, "That just goes to prove our point that, if you give the federal government an inch, they will take a mile!" Almost every attendee in the room, which was said to be the only standing-room-only event in the entire conference, did have a sense of seriousness about them in learning to deal with government prosecution of political crimes, which are said to be crimes that are committed in the furtherance of political issues. By the questions, some attendees knew full well that a few of these political issues were approaching crisis proportions in our rather unstable political world of today. The fact that some were aware was, for this writer, surprising. My charge to the panelists and the audience was that the chief concern of many of these groups is that dreaded "C" word, the word that strikes fear into the hearts of judges everywhere, the Constitution. The inability to use the Constitution by defendants is part of the worrisome overall phenomenon that 3 out of 4 Americans do not trust their government today. For some, they heard for the first time that the gold- fringed flag draped in nearly every courtroom in the country was not considered to be an authentic American flag. This flag represents an "admiralty" court, as opposed to a constitutional court, to most of these political groups. Such courts are also considered by these groups to be illegal and treasonous. My presentation also explained that many of these groups have grave concerns about the lack of concern by the current judiciary about constitutional issues and sought "Common Law" solutions to the "rogues in robes," as the judiciary is referenced by some of them. Most attendees had no clue as to alternatives to the Common Law to relieve the deepening contempt of the judiciary felt by political prisoners. On balance, the dialogue was beneficial. The understanding of some for our unstable political system was refreshing. The willingness of some to have empathy for constitutionally focused defendants was unexpected. The interest of some to help find solutions to these and other problems was encouraging. Mind you, we should not believe that the entire legal profession is willing to undergo a metamorphosis to help save the country from tyranny, but at least a few brave souls were willing to take that crucial first step on a journey of a thousand miles. End ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] Rep. Waters Responds To Los Angeles - Mena Connection (fwd) Date: 30 Sep 1996 13:23:14 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html >From: Washington Weekly > > > > ALLEGATIONS OF CIA PROVIDING DRUGS TO AMERICAN CITIES > Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) > House of Representatives - September 27, 1996 > > >Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have been involved in >trying to move the investigations that finally have been agreed >to in order to get to the root of the facts and allegations that >have been unveiled in the San Jose Mercury News under the heading >`Dark Alliance,' written by investigative reporter Gary Webb. > >It has been an interesting journey over the past two weeks. Over >the past 2 weeks, not only have we begun to ask questions about >these revelations; we are bombarded with requests to send more >information to individuals all around this Nation. > >I held a community meeting down in South-Central Los Angeles and >reached out to about 75 community leaders. About 250 showed up. >During the Congressional Black Caucus weekend here in Washington, >I had a workshop. Over 3,000 people showed up at the workshop. >This morning, I was up in Baltimore for the Human Rights >Commission that was meeting there. Seven hundred people were >there. This afternoon the Howard students rallied down near the >Reflecting Pool. They had a good turnout. > >The major press has now gotten involved. Just this evening Tom >Brokaw on NBC did quite an extensive piece. Included in that >piece was John Kerry and information about his investigation. > >I have continued to reach out. People are calling me with all >kinds of information. I began to look in the archives, just to >see what is there, and discovered some very interesting things. > >I decided to look in the diary that is in the archives of Oliver >North. I discovered that there was a notebook entry, for example, >on a conversation with Robert Owen, who was his liaison with the >Contras, dated August 9, 1985. The discussion covers a plane >being used by Mario Calero, brother of the head of the FDN >Adolpho Calero, based in New Orleans, to ferry supplies to the >Contras in Honduras. > >This is what the notation said: `Honduran DC-6 which is being >used for runs out of New Orleans is probably being used for drug >runs into the United States.' > >These are his diary notations that are in the archives. There are >many more. It seems as it we are going to spend many, many hours >on this. > >Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield? > >Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from California. > >Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentlewoman would yield for a question, >was the gentlewoman clear that Oliver North was noting that to >move against it? > >Ms. WATERS. When I checked with the DEA, who he was supposed to >give the information to, nobody has a record. > >Mr. ROHRABACHER. It was a secret operation. He wouldn't be >telling any one. Do any of the allegations being made, and >obviously there are some very bad characters involved with drug >dealing on various sides of various issues, but did any of these >drug shipments go through Mena Airport at a time when President >Clinton was Governor of Arkansas? > >Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we are going to find >out exactly where they went. What is interesting about one of the >introductions to the John Kerry committee report was, everybody >knew that there were drug runs. Several agencies of the Federal >Government had distinct knowledge that drugs were being flown >into the United States, and the proceeds were being used to fund >the Contras. > >My point is this: Whether the CIA or the DEA or the Justice >Department or anybody knew and did nothing, turned their heads, >allowed it to go on, or directly participated in it, they are >guilty of undermining the citizens of this country. They are >guilty of creating the devastation of many of the communities in >this country. > >We are going to proceed with these investigations. I am going to >spend considerable time looking in the archives, going through >Oliver North's diaries, looking at information that surfaced in >newspapers during the period of time this was going on. We are >going to get to the bottom of this. > >I am pleased about the involvement now of many of our churches, >schools that are coming on line, universities that are getting >interested, community groups that are calling from all over. >People are calling from the so-called right and the left. > >We have citizens who say, `Ms. Waters, I do not agree with you on >a lot of things, but I agree with you on this. We want you to >stick with it, to stay with it. We are outraged at the idea that >our government could have known, could have been involved with >this, could have been a part of a plot.' > >Mr. Speaker, this is just the beginning. I will be with you often >as we unveil this information about CIA, DEA, involvement in drug >trafficking in America. > > > http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: FOP (fwd) Date: 30 Sep 1996 13:27:49 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Joe Horn <6mysmesa@1eagle1.com> This is a post from the National Police List that exemplifies the tone on the list since FOP sold all its members out to Clinton. Identity of the writer is removed. Joe Horn -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >To: Multiple recipients of list POLICE-L >I've been away the last couple of weeks. I presume that the members of >Police-L have continuing to come to grips with the vital issues of the day >in usual fashion. I further presume the FOP sellout to Slick Willie was >hashed about. I myself used it to illustrate how law enforcement today is >nothing more than a collection of self-serving blue collar types without a >hope of ever making it anywhere near professional status. > > On the one hand we have the various chiefs and shurfs selling their souls >like hookers on Colfax Avenue, willingly performing administrative fellatio >on anyone in DOJ who has a few of those billions of "Crime Bill" Bux; on the >other we have the FOPsters calling Slick Willie the 'best friend' we in >copdom have today. Perhaps he is so, which merely illustrates the dire >straits of The Job. I am at a loss as to how Charlie arrived at this >conclusion. It sounds suspiciously like the Saigon Commandos tallying up >body counts and jockying for face time with the Big Cheeses for 'career >enhancement'....while the grunts bled out in the paddies. How about it, all >you FOPsters out there....tell me what Slick Willie has done for law >enforcement that makes him my bestest buddy in the whole wide world. I saw >the Head FOPsters and some tails standing behind them clapping and >applauding. (A 'tail' is a minor functionary...the dog begs, gets its >handout, and the tail wags).I recall one sergeant in his splendiferous >uniform, clapping madly, giving the very erroneous impression that 'real >cops' are all the way on this one. Tain't so, and l continue to let everyone >I deal with know it tain't so...and further, what a collection of pols the >FOPsters really are. One wonders at what sweet deal is in the wings for this >little cashout. > >On the one hand cops seem to dun the welfare system.....and don't say you >don't, cuz ya duz.....yet there is no bigger collection of welfare leeches >in the country than cops, or at least po-lease departments, going after all >that free federal money. Shucks, you don't even have to have more kids to >get more money. Just someone who can do some 'creative writing' and spew >warm, fuzzy stuff and rearrange statistics. > >All that free social services money for the welfare leeches has led (we all >know) to a welfare mentality, where the professional welfare recipient >expects...demands...money for nothing. > >The alleged 'Crime Bill' is law enforcement's welfare system. Fill out >creative grant applications, vote for the right guy, and you get free money >to play with. That the money is uselessly employed and contributes little if >anything to solving either coppery's problems or community problems is >beside the point. Wait a minute.... > >Nope....ain't there. I just went out and looked. Ain't not even one cop much >less a hunnert thousand out there. Even if there was, he (or more likely, >she...Slick Willie's minions were looking for minority female cops when he >was here) would probably be a National Park Service Ranger out on >Shackleford Island, harassing horses or some other serious thing. > >Eight billion bux as I recall...and there is a still a pile of that left. >Follow the cash to find the reasons for the vote....or....perhaps Charlie is >going to be rewarded with some Kibbles and Bits....er....a 'position' over >in DOJ? BJA? Special White House Advisor on Line Officer Affairs? (Heh heh >heh...Slick Willie...'affairs'...heh heh heh). No! I know! How >about.....Drug Czar! > > I could be wrong, of course. Am I? > >Speaking of Presidential Moves...read a good editorial the other day in the >Carteret News-Times....any wagers as to whether or not Susie gets her reward >for silence in the form of a presidential pardon? > >Higher standard my Aunt Nettie's bustle. FOP just joined the long line of >whores snuffling at the trough. They don't even have to inhale...and....when >will we see the FOPsters doing MTV pitches for Bill? Snickering over 'Well, >Mr. President, would you inhale today?" > >Cool. Salt and Peppa, Bill on sax, Charlie on the piccolo...and Tupac, >dubbing in from The Beyond. Maybe Ice T....yeah....Ice T, Ice Cube, Charlie, >and Bill...all dapping and rapping about dope...with the Krew from Death Row >doing the doowa.... > >My Official Candidate. > >Too Kewl. > >"Oh bother", said Pooh, confusing his Preparation H with his FOP membership >card. > > -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: piml] Rep. Waters Responds To Los Angeles - Mena Date: 30 Sep 1996 17:27:12 -0700 At 01:23 PM 9/30/96 -0500, pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: >To: piml@mars.galstar.com >Subject: piml] Rep. Waters Responds To Los Angeles - Mena Connection > >> ALLEGATIONS OF CIA PROVIDING DRUGS TO AMERICAN CITIES >> Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) >> House of Representatives - September 27, 1996 >>We have citizens who say, `Ms. Waters, I do not agree with you on >>a lot of things, but I agree with you on this. We want you to >>stick with it, to stay with it. We are outraged at the idea that >>our government could have known, could have been involved with >>this, could have been a part of a plot.' I'm flabbergasted. I've never agreed with Waters ever before, but _this_ I agree with; anything the government has done along these lines deserves to be investigated and the culprits horsewhipped and hanged. Ken Mitchell |"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. 8037 Stone Canyon |counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing Citrus Heights, CA|citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent 95610 |crimes and it appears to produce no increase in kmitchel@gvn.net |accidental deaths. If those states which did not 916-449-9152 (vm) |have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had 916-729-0966 (fax)|adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; |4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults |would have been avoided yearly." Crime, |Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns |John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago -------------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm---------------- !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Drugs Date: 30 Sep 1996 18:21:31 PST Regardless of who's supplying them, the solution to the "Drug Problem" is so simple, everyone's missing it. 1. Educate the kids to be against it. 2. Re-Legalize it. 3. Give the addicts all they want, a years supply at a time, any time they want it. Sooner or later they'll OD. End of problem, (self solving). This solution costs much less in time, money, and loss of Freedom, than anything anyone else has come up with. Think of it as evolution in action. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry.