From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: Army urban training, SugarLand Texas Date: 01 Nov 1996 02:17:25 EST On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:06:46 -0600 (CST) pwatson@utdallas.edu writes: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >----- Begin Included Message ----- >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >From: Gene Orrico >Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 09:02:53 -0800 >Subject: Discussion:re: Army urban training, SugarLand TEXAS > >Questions for the Army: > >"This is a necessary Army practice," >Nuchia said. "There's no danger to the > public." > > I can't believe what I am thinking. > >Gene Orrico > > >************************************************ > Did I hear someone whisper, shhhhh _conspiracy_? Nah can't be. Right!!! ghb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 Nov 1996 00:58:21 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 will have additional evidence if the Station is cheating on their Public File. 5.a. Go to the Public Library and look up "Standard Rate and Data Services" (SRDS) "Directory of National Advertisers." It is found in many major Libraries (in the business/reference stacks), and lists EVERY current advertiser, who the players are at both the company and advertising agency(s), and the appropriate telephone and fax (and probably E-Mail by now) addresses. If your Library doesn't have it, it can be requested. Otherwise you can watch their commercials for a few days to a week, listing all their advertisers. There are other references that have the addresses for the nation's business headquarters too. look them all up and pass the addresses and phone/FAX numbers etc., around so that everyone can bitch to the sponsors. IF enough people do that, it'll get back to the Station. Tell them if the Station continues their nastiness you'll _consider_ changing to brand(X), (otherwise they'll just write you off as a loss). 5.b. The above, (5.a.), can be a lot easier and less time consuming if you're dealing with a newspaper's or a magazine's ads, as they are right in front of you for the listing. 6. If they put on something good or even just more reasonable, call and compliment them on it, but do _not_ send any kudos to their FCC file, or write to them about it. That way they have to keep it up and hope, as there is nothing good in the file or in writing that they can show the FCC to justify their Station's License. 7. Federal Communications Commission, Complaints and Compliance Division Room 6218, 2025 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 FAX: 202-653-9659 FCC Attn: Edythe Wise -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | The _only_important_difference_ between Nazi-ism, Fascism, weapon in every | Communism, Communitarianism, Socialism and (Neo-)Liberalism hand = Freedom | is the _spelling_, and that the last group hasn't got the on every side! | Collective brains to figure it out. -- Bill Vance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Publisher to Release Secret Gulf War Data on Internet (fwd) Date: 01 Nov 1996 07:57:28 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *caveat lector*. This means, "reader beware." In other words, it is up to the reader to form her/his own judgements as to the following. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Report: Publisher to Release Secret Gulf War Data on Internet Associated Press, 10/31/96; 06:20 NEW YORK (AP) - More than 200 government documents about Iraqi chemical weapons removed from a Defense Department Internet site earlier this year are expected to be made public again, The New York Times reported today. Publisher Bruce Kletz, of Washington-based Insignia Publishing, told the newspaper he would defy the Pentagon and the CIA and make the documents available on his Internet site beginning Friday. The 226 documents detail the possible release of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons near American troops during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the newspaper said. The documents were available earlier this year on a Defense Department Internet site known as Gulflink, but were removed at the CIA's request. Kletz declined to tell the Times how he obtained the documents. He said he decided to publish the papers on the Internet because he was convinced government leaders are ``trying to hide the documents only to avoid political and personal embarrassment.'' Kletz also plans to publish a book by a former CIA analyst, Patrick Eddington, who has accused the CIA of sitting on classified documents that showed American troops were exposed to Iraqi chemical weapons during the war. CIA spokesman Rick Aborn said he did not know whether the agency would consider legal action to block the documents' release. A Defense Department spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said the department had no comment on Kletz's plans. Insignia Publishing's Internet site: http://www.insigniausa.com. _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: What do Rep. Dornan, Impeachment and Congress Sine Die adjournment , have in common? Something big is going on??? Date: 01 Nov 1996 08:43:03 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html >From: Washington Weekly >Subject: Rep. Dornan: I am preparing papers of indictment > > > > FOLLOW THE MONEY AND LOOK AT THE NOSE > Rep. Bob Dornan (R-CA) > House of Representatives - September 26, 1996 > >[Rep. Bob Dornan held a total of three one-hour special orders >last week focusing on the President and his talk of pardons to >convicted Whitewater associates. In the present speech he >describes his papers of impeachment and reads from Roger Morris >and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard] > >[...] > >But he will get his day in court. I was going to remind him that >Paula Corbin Jones had her day in court and he will have his day >in court because I am filing impeachment papers. I have got >lawyers working on them and have been for about 5 or 6 months, >and this may be the crowning issue, this may be the straw on the >camel's back, telegraphing pardon messages to people. It is >unbelievable. > >When you see somebody with a big red bulbous nose and doctors >tell me it is not allergies; that makes your eyes water. The nose >only swells from alcohol or from tearing up your nasal passages >with cocaine. When you see that, you will know that that is a >person who has caused--Nancy Reagan had it right, just say no-- >who has caused a thousand young police officers to be killed in >Colombia in the last year, calendar year 1995. This year we are >running ahead of a thousand young men. > >[...] > >But only in this Congress, the 104th Congress, was the office of >the President and the office of the Vice President put under the >rules, thereby damaging the separation of powers. I can assure >you after I file charges of impeachment, articles of impeachment, >and I can do it from zero to 1,000, after that, I will move when >we reassemble, God willing I am back and you are back, I will >demand in our rules from our leadership to finally show the guts >to go back to the way this existed for over 200 years, and have >this separation of powers so that the offices of the President >and the Vice President are no longer included in our rule XVIII >that demands civility between ourselves. http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html Does Congress know something we don't? >>Return-Path: >>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 96 10:44:01 EST >>From: Scott_D._Ploehn@glfn.org (Scott D. Ploehn) >>Subject: Fwd: SINE DIE >> >> >>What's up with this? >> >>> More News from our Congress What's Going On Here??? >>>=20 >>> Some interesting information came to my attention. >>> Evidently the 104th Congress adjourned "sine die" this month. >>> Now, if anyone out there is like me, they're wondering just >>> what "sine die" means and why it is significant. The >>> significance arises when we take a look at history and >>> discover that the last (and most recent) time that this was >>> done was just before the Civil War after which Lincoln >>> declared war without a sitting Congress. To further arouse my >>> curiosity, Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. defines "sine die" >>> as without day, without assigning a day for a further meeting >>> or hearing. Hence, a final adjournment: final dismissal of a >>> cause..."=20 >>>=20 >>> The mystery deepens even more when you consider the >>> following excerpts from the Congressional Record.=20 >>>=20 >>> (1) CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE=20 >>> (Senate - October 03, 1996) >>>=20 >>> Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if there is no further >>> business to come before the Senate, I now move that the >>> Senate stand in adjournment sine die under the provisions of >>> House Concurrent Resolution 230, or until 6 p.m., Friday, >>> October 4, if the House fails to adopt House Concurrent >>> Resolution 230. And God be with you all.=20 >>>=20 >>> The motion was agreed to, and at 6:54pm, the Senate=20 >>> adjourned sine die, conditioned on the House concurrence,=20 >>> in the Senate amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 230.=20 >>> (2) From the Congressional Record of October 4, 1996.=20 >>> H12300: "SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT"=20 >>>=20 >>> Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the work of >>> the 2nd session of the 104th Congress has been completed. >>> Pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 230, as amended, I >>> move that the House do now adjourn. The SPEAKER pro tempore >>> (Mr. WALKER). In accordance with the provisions of House >>> Concurrent Resolution 230, as amended, the Chair declares the >>> 2d session of the 104th Congress adjourned sine die. >>>=20 >>> Thereupon (at 2 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.) pursuant >>> to House Concurrent Resolution 230, as amended, the House >>> adjourned. Many will now ask, (as did I) "What is House >>> Concurrent Resolution 230? The text is as follows. >>>=20 >>> H.Con. Res. 230 Agreed to October 4, 1996 >>>=20 >>> One Hundred Fourth Congress of the United States of America >>> AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of >>> Washington on Wednesday the third day of January, one >>> thousand nine hundred and ninety-six. Concurrent Resolution >>> Providing for the sine die adjournment or the second session >>> of the One Hundred Fourth Congress.=20 >>>=20 >>> Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),=20 >>> that when the House adjourns on the legislative day of=20 >>> Wednesday, October 2, 1996, Thursday, October 8, 1998, or=20 >>> Friday, October 4, 1996, on a motion offered pursuant to=20 >>> this concurrent resolution by the Majority Leader, or his=20 >>> designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on=20 >>> the second day after Members are notified to reassemble=20 >>> pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, and=20 >>> that when the Senate adjourns on Wednesday, October 2, 1996,=20 >>> Thursday, October 3, 1996, or Friday, October 4, 1996, on a=20 >>> motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by the=20 >>> Majority Leader, or his designee, it stand adjourned sine die,=20 >>> or until noon on the second day after members are notified to=20 >>> reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution.=20 >>>=20 >>> Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate, >>> acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of >>> the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify >>> the Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to >>> reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest >>> shall warrant it.=20 >> >>>It appears that H. Con Res. 230 gives >>> Congress the option of reconvening the 104th Congress (not >>> the 105th that will be elected next month) whenever they feel >>> it is necessary. Without this resolution, the sine die >>> adjournment would have been a permanent adjournment of the >>> 104th Congress. Since I have been able to find no reference, >>> in history, to this having been done before, I can only >>> wonder why it was done this time. I don't have the answers so >>> maybe we should be asking the Members of Congress. >>>=20 >>> =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- >> >> > =09~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum, Indiana-FIJA, Inc.=20 >=A0=A0=09 Url: http://www.iquest.net/~rjtavel=20 >=09=09************************* >Not a high-tech law firm brochure. Dr. Tavel's Self Help Clinic and >Sovereign Law Library is also 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=09************************* > "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, inspire= d >by the hope of a brighter future."=20 > >=09"If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every Post-War American >president would have to be hanged." -- Noam Chomskey >=09=09For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, J.D. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: The Ignored Truth (fwd) Date: 01 Nov 1996 11:31:08 -0600 (CST) ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From freedomh@spectra.net Fri Nov 1 11:13:40 1996 X-Sender: freedomh@spectra.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Lines: 241 "Sorry for the length - and the interesting thing here is that if you had attacked Dole I would be writing the same type of stuff lambasting Clinton. I do not live in a biased world I live in a sadly realistic one." -wjpbr@aol.com The above conclusion to the following letter strikes at the beltway buckle painfully well. It was forwarded to Freedom House by the USTP. Tuesday, vote your conscience. What is left for us is that victory can be measured by personal integrity, hope, and resolve. Those things will not come from the Clinton or Dole camp, but for each of us when we can go home Tuesday night and say, "Almighty God, I did my best. It is in your hands." Dave Delany Freedom House -------------forwarded message-------------- From: Wjpbr@aol.com Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 18:22:36 -0500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- THE IGNORED TRUTH ABOUT BOB DOLE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Very close to being the truth but reality is that electing either (Bill Clinton or Bob Dole) is catastophic: I never said that the Clinton administration was honest - as I do not believe that it is so. I objected to the one sided nature of your comments. Some information follows pertaining to Mr. Dole (whom I believe to be no better or worse than Mr. Clinton). In August, 1993, the FEC levied what FEC spokesman Scott Moxley said was "the largest civil penalty we've ever had against a presidential campaign" against Senator Dole's 1988 presidential campaign. The Dole campaign paid a fine of $100,000, publicly admitted to such violations as taking contributions from corporations, illegally using corporate jets, and violating state-by-state spending limits. Among the violations were: 1.Overspending by $304,065 in the Iowa primary and by $284,084 in the New Hampshire primary; 2.Improperly accepting $64,043 from corporations; 3.Improperly accepting $239,131 from 418 different individuals, each of whom had already contributed the maximum primary contribution ($1000). 4.Spending $41,887 in exploratory funds in Iowa and $5,359 in New Hampshire, when the maximum allowed for testing the waters research and polling is $5,000 per state. 5.Improperly allowing Campaign America, Dole's PAC, to spend $47,247 on campaign-related activities (PAC limit is $5000.) 6.Failure to pay in advance for use of corporate aircraft. 7.Failure to report receipts and disbursements of 18 "delegate committees" in Dole campaign reports. 8.Eleven other respondents agreed to pay civil penalties of about $23,000. Furthermore: Aqua-Leisure Industries, a sporting goods company whose chairman (Simon Fireman) is also the Dole campaign's national vice-chairman of finance. Fireman just plead guilty to laundering contributions to Dole by handing out envelopes with $1000 in cash to employees, so they could make contributions beyond what Fireman was allowed to give. He was fined $1 million, his company was fined $5 million, and he got 6 months of house arrest inlieu of jail time because he cooperated with authorities. The Kansas City Star's excellent investigative series absolutely nails this illegal scheme. Check their articles out. At least three of the 40 employees or relatives who contributed say that the company's executive assistant handed some workers stacks of $100 bills so they could return with checks made out to "Dole For President." The workers' bank statements show cash deposits equal to their donations, on the same day. 14 of the 35 employees gave $1000 or $2000. $1000 donations were received even from low paid employees such as a secretary, a bookkeeper, and a warehouse foreman. 5 of the donators even said they were Democrats or favored Clinton over Dole. The following is typical: This is NOT an isolated incident. Last year, 50 donations of $1000 each came from workers and families of Empire Sanitary Landfill, a Pennsylvania company whose principal owners are under indictment for tax fraud. All 50 donations were made the same day -- May 3, 1995 -- a week before Dole brought a bill to the Senate floor that preserved the company's ability to import trash from other states. (The bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly but failed in the House.) Unlike Aqua Leisure, none of the employees interviewed has admitted that they were reimbursed, but low- level employees including a secretary, a cook, an account clerk and a purchaser all gave $1,000. In 1988, the FEC found that several executives at Birdview Satellite Communications and their wives were reimbursed for contributions to Dole's Senate campaign. Dole's campaign was not fined, but Dave Owen, long time Dole associate who was Dole's top fund-raiser in his 1988 presidential race, was fined. Dole immediately dumped Owen and blamed him for the problems. Dole said "I don't have a problem. Dave Owen has a problem."Similarly, when the Aqua-Leisure allegation surfaced, Dole said "If somebody did that, they're in deep trouble." Look at the example of Dwayne Andreas, and the company he runs, Archer Daniels Midland company -- Dole's major benefactors. (Archer Daniels is an agricultural giant that recently settled government charges of price-fixing and bribery by paying over 100 million in fines). What has Dole received? Hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign money, plus dozens offlights on ADM's jets at little or no cost. Plus speaking fees, and large donations to Dole's special foundations set up to evade donation limits, including $100,000 to the Better America Foundation. Shortly after Elizabeth Dole took over the Red Cross, ADM gave a solid million dollars to the Red Cross, which certainly made her job easier. Plus, Bob and Liddy enjoy an exclusive luxury condo in Florida that Dwayne Andreas helped them get. And ADM gave $1,572,268 in "soft money" to the Republican Party. This much is clearly documented. What has Archer Daniels received? Lots. Dole helped arrange and protect a $3.5 BILLION tax credit for ethanol (54 cents per gallon.) Archer Daniels makes 60% of this ethanol and receives $2 billion directly from this tax credit. (They also have given Clinton $270,000 and he has helped the company as well.) Dole's own office issued a press release last year calling him "Senator Ethanol." In 1990, Dole held a trade bill hostage until the House agreed to extend the ethanol tax credit, and put duties on imported ethanol. In 1991, Dole added an amendment to a highway bill making it harder for refiners to supply methanol, the chief competitor of ethanol. In 1993, he pushed the Bush Administration into issuing new regulations that increased the role of ethanol in government clean air programs. Dole has defended his role in ethanol by saying it helps Kansas farmers, who produce a lot of corn, and the press has generally bought this argument. But ethanol accounts for a tiny percentage of corn use, and many economists doubt that the ethanol program has any effect on corn prices at all. Besides ethanol, Dole has delivered a lot to ADM. He used his considerable clout to protect price supports on sugar, which make ADM's competitive product -- corn syrup --more profitable. He got ADM board member Jack Vanier's daughter a job with the federal Agriculture Department in 1988, and hired Andreas' granddaughter himself in 1994. Way back in 1971, according to a Nixon White House memo, Andreas' son-in-law got an EPA job after Dole "absolutely insisted" on it. And Dole supports the Export Enhancement Program, a corporate subsidy that gave ADM more than $134 million between 1985 and 1995. None of these examples are unique in any way But the fact that they have been ignored while the Clinton gang gets toasted? doesn't seem correct some how. More? Bob Dole also pioneered another form of corporate support. Company jets at his beck and call, from such supporters as ADM (at least 35 flights just since 1993, over $120,000 worth), US Tobacco, Federal Express (at least 29 flights), Carl Lindner's American Financial Corp., and NTC Group (at least 15 flights.) He pays only the cost of a first class plane ticket, and gets a plane and crew, waiting on his whim, to take him and staff around the country, so he can raise lots MORE money from big contributors at fund raisers and campaign events. The Wall Street Journal reports that "Dole aides have a Rolodex full of businesses willing to fly the candidate around for the price of a first-class ticket", and has flown Air Corporate "at least 250 times since 1993." Dole's Kansas campaign chairman essentially admitted this was a major donation when he told the Journal it would be prohibitively expensive to charter these planes at full price. Charter flights actually cost between $5,000 and $20,000 per flight, while first class tickets are generally around $1,000. This practice is not illegal, in part because Bob Dole keeps blocking campaign finance reform. But anyone who thinks that it is not a hidden donation, or that the corporations don't expect anything in return, have to be kidding themselves. more? In 1988, Dole's presidential candidacy slowed down after revelations of investments made on behalf of his wife's blind trust. His campaign finance chairman, David Owen, who also was handling the trust's investment, was forced out of the campaign and was sent to prison in 1994. The controversy involved an office building purchased in 1986 by the trust, which put up $350,000 in cash and a $1 million mortgage. A year after the purchase, the trust sold half of the building for a total of $804,000 and the buyer's agreement to pay half the remaining loan. The buyer was former Dole aide John Palmer, who earlier that year had obtained a $26 million Army contract. Dole has acknowledged lobbying the Small Business Administration to help Palmer get a contract as a minority business owner. Sounds absolutly Whitewaterish - but more recent. Dole also has been forced to answer questions about his wife's 1982 purchase of an oceanfront condominium in Bal Harbour. The Wall Street Journal reported that the couple bought the condo for $150,000 from Dwayne Andreas, chairman of Archer Daniels Midland, one of the world's largest agribusiness concerns. The newspaper reported that condo is actually worth $190,000 and that sale of the building could bring the Doles as much as $300,000. Sorry for the length - and the interesting thing here is that if you had attacked Dole I would be writing the same type of stuff lambasting Clinton. I do not live in a biased world I live in a sadly realistic one. Find out what's in it for you! Send along your snail mail address: Suggested $20 subscription for a year of the REAL THING! <>< Member: SPECLUSA For an on line subscription, send the message "subscribe" freedomh@spectra.net. Copyright: Dave Delany's Freedom House "The Lamp is Lit. Welcome Home." 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 PO Box 212 Conklin, NY 13748 ><> "If it's not a baby, then you're not pregnant!" ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) BILL CLINTON & THE DNC DO INDONESIA (fwd) Date: 01 Nov 1996 12:59:09 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Missy Kelly's 9/10/96 letter to the Editors of WSJ Interactive with JQPs comments in []: Lippo Group is one of the largest contributors to the Democratic Party, via one Arief Wiriandinata, eh? According to your editorial "The November Stall", 9/6/96, Wiriandinata is married to the daughter of Hashim Ning, a co-investor of the Lippo Group. Ah yes, Lippo Group, right? They own Lippo Bank of California. You know Lippo Bank. It's run by James Riady who attended the pre-inaugeral economic summit in Little Rock [representing Lippo Bank, the only foreign company at the affair], the Asian-Pacific Economic conference in Seattle in Nov. 1993 [where he shared a breakfast table with then WH Chief of Staff Mack McLarty], a June 1994 salute to Vice President Al Gore in Washington, and was on hand for Clinton's November 1994 visit to Indonesia. You know James Riady, right? Mochtar Riady's son, and former President of Worthen Bank of Arkansas. You know Mochtar Riady, right? The right hand man of General Suharto of Indonesia, also a major investor of Lippo Group, and formerly a major shareholder in Worthen Bank. You know Worthen Bank, right? Jackson Stephens of Stephens, Inc. of Little Rock and Riady garnered controlling interest in Worthen 1984, through Lippo Group. Later, Lippo Group and Stephens tried to buy BCCI Hong Kong when it was put on the auction block after the Bank of Credit and Commerce imploded in global scandal. You know BCCI, right? The bank that illegally entered the American banking system when they secretly bought control of Financial General Bankshares...You know Financial General Bankshares, right? The bank that Stephens tried to takeover on behalf of BCCI principals? In April, 1981 the Federal Reserve was assured by the influential Washingtonians that the Arab backers were merely passive investors, and FBG's takeover was given the green light. Director of that Federal Reserve Board was Jack Ryan. You know Jack Ryan, right? Ryan ran the RTC without the benefit of Congressional vetting after Roger Altman resigned in shame for giving the White House a series of "heads-ups' regarding the RTC/ Whitewater referrals. [Who exactly was April Breslaw referring to when she told RTC investigator Jean Lewis that higher-ups would like the Whitewater referrals to disappear?] Jack Ryan conveniently "forgot" to include in his public resume that he worked for Arky, Fried, etc. from February 1985 to September 1986. Arky, Fried tied into the S&L scandals of the 1980's. Stephen Arky, the "Arky" of Arky Fried, committed suicide in July 1985. Ryan has declined to be interviewed regarding this period of his life. Curious name that: Arky. That's the same name of the mysterious $53 million account found at BCCI's commodities unit that no one could ever account for. It operated from October 1984 to September 1985. Which brings us back to BCCI. You know, the bank controlled by Arabs who used D.C. insiders Clark Clifford and Robert Altman as front men? You know, Altman and Clifford, right? They were indicted on the BCCI scandals and represented at various times by the lawyers, Robert Fiske, Robert Bennett, and Jamie Gorelick in BCCI related litigation. You know this trio of Fiske, Bennett and Gorelick, right? Fiske was the first Independent Counsel assigned to investigate Whitewater, and who's only released finding was that Vincent Foster commit suicide in Fort Marcy Park; Bennett is now the Clinton's personal lawyer, and Jamie Gorelick is #2 at the Department of Justice [and is going to head the CIA, apparently, in a commemorative reunion between the BCCI players and Langley]. Ah, the Department of Justice. Webb Hubbell used to be #3 at the DOJ and was very much involved when they gave BCCI principal Swaleh Naqvi a most gracious "sweetheart" deal. You recall Nagvi? Not only was he #2 at BCCI, but he was also a defendant with Arkansas' Jackson Stephens in the 1978 lawsuit that resulted from Stephens' first attempt to secretly gain control of FGB for the Arab backers. Systematics was also a defendant. You know Systematics, right? Stephens controlled Systematics at the time. Their defense brief in the BCCI litigation was signed by Hillary Rodham [Clinton] and Webb Hubbell. You know, Webb Hubbell...the guy who was "employed" by Lippo Group between the time he resigned from the Department of Justice in disgrace and the time he plead guilty to federal charges which landed him in jail for a couple of years. Which brings us back to Lippo Group. Even though to this day neither the White house nor Commerce departments will release the list of people who went on the infamous junket to Jakarta in 1994 [litigation is in progress], Lippo Group was one of the contract recipients. You know Jakarta, right? That's where Mochtar Riady came from before he suddenly decided to move to Little Rock, Arkansas. That's where Dwight Harlan lives and serves as a "consultant". You know Dwight Harlan, right? Dwight Harlan served as the President of Jim Guy Tucker's Castle Sewer & Water...the utility that Tucker bought in a $1.2 million dollar deal that the Government says was fraudulent. You know Tucker, right? He was found guilty and was supposed to serve 4 years behind bars but got paroled before going to jail, and still faces charges regarding his cable company and dealings in Plantation, Florida. You know Tucker's cable company, right? The one whose former general manager was Dwight Harlan. You remember the indictment, right? Both Jim Guy Tucker and John Haley are defendants. You know John Haley? He's the former husband of Maria Haley. You know Maria Haley? When she served under then Governor Clinton in Arkansas she was in charge of international business development. Now she's a director of the Export-Import Bank. You know Ex-Im Bank, right? They signed the $40 billion of commercial transactions that were negotiated on Clinton's Jakarta trip in 1994. [begin JQP insert] John H. Haley, partner in the Little Rock firm of Arnold, Grobmyer & Haley P.A., one of three firms representing Jim Guy Tucker. One of the firm's specialties is international business. Maria Haley, John Haley's former wife, was appointed by President Clinton to be Director of the Export-Import Bank, which dished out a $900k letter of credit to James Riady. Mr. Haley's firm is represented "of counsel" in DC by ROBERT A. BLAIR (P.C.). Here's a little something that mentions Mr. Robert Blair: SIDEBAR: NEWS OF THE PROFESSION Manatt, Phelps Beefs Up D.C. Office National Law Journal (p. A05, col. 2) March 13, 1995 CONGRESS SHOULD only be so bipartisan: Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a 160-lawyer, four-office firm based in Los Angeles, beefed up its Washington, D.C., outpost with Jack Buechner, a Missouri Republican who spent two terms in the U.S. House (serving for two years as GOP strategy whip under then-Whip Newt Gingrich), and Robert Blair, a managing trustee of the Democratic National Committee. Copyright 1995, The New York Law Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Here's a profile of Manatt, Phelps and Phillips: STATEMENT OF PRACTICE: General Civil and Trial Practice in all Courts. Banking and Financial Services; Bankruptcy and Creditors' Rights; Corporate Finance and Securities; Election and Campaign; Entertainment; Environmental; Estate Planning, Executive Compensation and Employee Benefits; Family; Fashion Industry; Federal, State and Local Government; Government Contracts; Healthcare; High Technology; Insurance; Intellectual Property; International Trade and Customs; Labor and Employment; Land Use; Legislative and Administrative; Motion Picture and Television; Music; New Media; Real Estate; Sports; Tax; White-Collar Criminal Defense. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OTHER OFFICES - - - - - - - Washington, D.C. Office: 1500 M Street, N.W., Suite 700. Telephone: 202-463-4300. Fax: 202-463-4394. Nashville, Tennessee Office: 1233 17th Avenue South. Telephone: 615-327-2600. Fax: 615-327-2044. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MEMBERS OF FIRM CHARLES T. MANATT (P.C.). Chairman, International Foundation for Electoral Systems. Chairman, Greater Washington Board of Trade's International Business Council. Served as Chairman of Democratic National Committee and Co-Chairman of the 1992 Clinton/Gore campaign. (Also at Washington, D.C. Office). Practice Areas: Government. Email: cmanatt@manatt.com THOMAS D. PHELPS (P.C.). Member: California Bankers Association (Member, Federal Government Relations Committee); Western Independent Bankers Association; Japan America Society of Southern California. Practice Areas: Corporate Securities, Financial Services. Email: tphelps@manatt.com GORDON M. BAVA (P.C.). Born Stockton, California, February 12, 1948; admitted to bar, 1974, California. Education: Georgetown University School of Foreign Service (B.S.F.S., magna cum laude, 1970); University of Southern California (J.D., 1974). Member, Board of Directors, Public Counsel. Member: Los Angeles County and American Bar Associations. Practice Areas: Corporate Law; Securities Law; Financial Institutions Law; Mergers and Acquisitions. Email: gbava@manatt.com Gordon Bava happens to be the attorney for The Lippo Bank of Caifornia, in Los Angeles. And guess who used to be a partner in the firm of Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips? None other than Mickey Kantor, the new Secretary of Commerce. (Just an aside: While Maria Haley was still in the White House, she is purported to have provided solace and comfort to one Helen Dickey, who was allegedly running around, yelling about how Vince Foster had shot himself in his car in the parking lot.) [end JQP insert] But this has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. Just because Jackson Stephens and Worthen Bank saved his career when the Bevill, Bresler scandal broke and Clinton was facing state losses of $52 million which threatened his career; just because Worthen saved his candidacy in 1992 with an "unusual" $3 million line of credit when his campaign was broke; just because Clinton's wife was involved in BCCI litigation, just because so many of the BCCI cast of characters have been appointed by President Clinton to serve him in a myriad of positions; just because the Jim Guy Tucker charges weave in and out of Bill's financial dealings, business partners and close friends; just because Vincent Foster's brother-in-law Beryl Anthony is the lobbyist for the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, where Lippo runs the show, and Foster's sister serves as a high ranking DOJ attorney; just because Webb Hubbell was working for Lippo Group, and in the office next to Michael Cardozo at G. Wm. Miller; just 'cause Cardozo and Hubbell were the guys who "coincidentally" met Foster at the Eastern shore the last weekend of his life; just 'cause Clinton anointed Tucker his successor as Governor of Arkansas, well, heck folks...This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. Sincerely, Missy Kelly -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ken L. Holder" Subject: Re: (fwd) Today ma butter knife! Tomorrow....? (fwd) Date: 01 Nov 1996 11:30:44 -0800 At 07:38 PM 10/31/96 -0800, dgilbow@olympus.net (Delbert Gilbow) wrote: >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>From: Survivor >>Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:04:44 -0800 >> >>Corpus Christi, Texas >> >>A seventh grader caught at school with a knife she used to slice apples has >been >>suspended for two weeks and must finish the semester at a disciplinary school. >Keerist, what in hell has happened to common sense in this country. Screw >the bastards. A butter knife for hell's sake?????????????????????????????? Yes. There is a book about this: _The Death of Common Sense_ by I forget who. Short book, quick read, kinda unsatisfying, but he nails down the problem real good. -- Ken Holder kholder@liberty.com http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Clinton & the Russian Mafia Date: 01 Nov 1996 13:59:34 -0600 Chris Ruddy's story on Clinton and the Russian Mafia is off the spike. After the wire services refused to carry it the New York Post picked it, this morning. I've been told that it's going to show up on ABC news, tonight. This is the one where Clinton is photographed with the guy the CIA believes is in charge of smuggling weapons grade nuclear material out of the former Soviet Union to places like NKorea, Iraq, Iran, et al. They had a "private two minute meeting". Seems the guy's been to a couple democratic bashes and invited to others. Could this be a first of november october surprise? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Clinton & the Russian Mafia Date: 01 Nov 1996 15:41:43 -0500 >I've been told that it's going to show up on ABC news, tonight. This is >the one where Clinton is photographed with the guy the CIA believes is >in charge of smuggling weapons grade nuclear material out of the former >Soviet Union to places like NKorea, Iraq, Iran, et al. They had a >"private two minute meeting". Seems the guy's been to a couple >democratic bashes and invited to others. > >Could this be a first of november october surprise? I'm not holding my breath. The question at lunch was "what could Clinton do over the weekend to blow the election?" The winning entry was: "Murder Hillary". If Bubba had helped the guy load up a truckload of nuclear devices and one had been detonated in St. Petersburg, then, yeah, that would be a surprise. I don't think you can communicate what the scandal is, why it is important fast enough to convince a significant number of the electorate to *not* vote for Clinton. In a somewhat wierd turn of events the number of Trick or Treaters visiting my house in scenic southern NH was exactly 3, which is about 15% of last years. so the question is, will the voter turn out be as low, given the expected forgone conclusion at the top of the ticket, and will this be enough of a factor to save the R majority in the House? ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Clinton & the Russian Mafia Date: 01 Nov 1996 15:09:11 -0600 John Curtis wrote: > > so the question is, will the voter turn out be as low, given the > expected forgone conclusion at the top of the ticket, and will this > be enough of a factor to save the R majority in the House? > > ciao, > > jcurtis > > Expect some surprises. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Clinton & the Russian Mafia Date: 01 Nov 1996 16:36:32 -0500 >Expect some surprises. Please elaborate. I've been hearing about surprises now for quite some time and the prospect is at least entertaining. However, this "I've got a heartfelt desire for a surprise, so a surprise must appear" shit is getting old. ciao, jcurtis P.S. its pretty clear that Clinton is a graft gathering demagogue who lies uncontrollably, but none of this seems to move people, so what surprise (other than slapping the cuffs on him) do you expect? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: CIA-Drugs-Mena-AFDA-Coral Reinsurance-Lippo-Democratic party Date: 01 Nov 1996 16:04:44 -0600 (CST) Friday 11-96 Just heard old Joe call in to David Golds KLIF 570AM talk radio show here in Dallas. Joe has been a long time caller, I have heard him for the last 3 years. Joe is a retired (CIA) Air America pilot from the Texas panhandle area who flew with Berry Seal and all the Mena Arkansas stuff. He has been a very reliable source. Joe said the current Lippo Group contributions were just a washing of their own money. The drug money from the Mena Arkansas Jackson Stephens operations were deposited in the AFDA Arkansas Finance and Development Authority that was started by Bill Clinton. AFDA would deposit the money in the Coral Reinsurance company down in Barbados. It then would be transferred to the Lippo bank and then sent to the Democrat Party washed clean from the drug running. Regards, Paul Watson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Clinton & the Russian Mafia Date: 01 Nov 1996 16:23:03 -0600 John Curtis wrote: > > P.S. its pretty clear that Clinton is a graft gathering demagogue who > lies uncontrollably, but none of this seems to move people, so what > surprise (other than slapping the cuffs on him) do you expect? > > Among the surprises I excpect include clinton losing the election and the r's gaining seats in both houses. Maybe a significant number of seats. Others among them would be for a couple of sitting D senators to lose and the number two D in the house, the right honorable (har-D-har-har) David Bonior to be not re but de-elected. Others would be a gain of four house seats in texas, at least one flaming house lib in CA to bite the dust, maybe two, unfortunately, neither are Henry Waxperson, and...oh, hell, that's enough surprised for one election. The above is based on personal analysis of the way the polls are moving and on conversations with people in the areas working in campaigns. I'll grant you it's one man's opinion but it's based on a rational interp of data, not wishful thinking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cap Schwartz" Subject: Re: Clinton & the Russian Mafia Date: 01 Nov 1996 14:34:39 -0800 You mean you think that Dole is the CIA's next pick for President?! Yikes! (as the saying goes) cAp_ >"private two minute meeting". Seems the guy's been to a couple >democratic bashes and invited to others. > >Could this be a first of november october surprise? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: (fwd) Today ma butter knife! Tomorrow....? (fwd) Date: 01 Nov 1996 19:32:31 -0800 At 11:30 AM 11/1/96 -0800, Ken L. Holder wrote: >At 07:38 PM 10/31/96 -0800, dgilbow@olympus.net (Delbert Gilbow) wrote: >>>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>A seventh grader caught at school with a knife she used to slice apples has >>been >>>suspended for two weeks and must finish the semester at a disciplinary >school. >>Keerist, what in hell has happened to common sense in this country. Screw >>the bastards. A butter knife for hell's sake?????????????????????????????? > >Yes. There is a book about this: _The Death of Common Sense_ by I forget who. >Short book, quick read, kinda unsatisfying, but he nails down the problem >real good. _The Death of Common Sense_, by Philip K. Howard. You can get a summary of a recent lecture by him in the "Imprimis" newsleteer of Hillsdale College. A free subscription to "Imprimis" is available; check out http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/imprimis.html. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm "Roaming the world as a foreign correspondent for more than a decade, I was able to observe how a variety of vastly different nations organized themselves economically. The inescapable conclusion was that no politician anywhere on the planet has ever actually created a rupee's worth of prosperity." Louis Rukeyser, "Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street" newsletter, Nov 96 !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: (fwd) Today ma butter knife! Tomorrow....? (fwd) Date: 01 Nov 1996 21:38:53 -0800 >Yes. There is a book about this: _The Death of Common Sense_ by I forget who. >Short book, quick read, kinda unsatisfying, but he nails down the problem >real good. > >-- >Ken Holder I'll second that; it's an excellent book. - 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 Dolan Subject: My crystal ball Date: 02 Nov 1996 13:37:55 -0500 (EST) I've said it before and - as the country music song goes - "that's my story and I'm stickin' to it." (1.) I think Clinton wins. (2.) I think Democrats pick up House seats. Perhaps enough to take control, perhaps not. Here's a stream-of-consciousness ramble on why I think so: First, I halfway believe the polls. I know that the media sometimes manipulate polling - I saw what they did to Perot in '92. However, if they report results that later turn out to have been wildly wrong, it will undercut their already minimial credibility. So I think they will slant, shade and manipulate, but they probably won't skew the D-R contest poll results by a lot. Here's some of the latest Clinton-Dole poll data: >AP 11/1/96 > >NEW YORK (AP) -- Two national tracking polls released Friday found President >Clinton maintaining a bare majority among likely voters as the 1996 campaign >nears an end. The surveys differed on how badly Republican challenger Bob Dole >was trailing. > >In the ABC News survey, 51 percent said they would vote for Clinton if the >election were today, 40 percent for Dole and 7 percent for Ross Perot of the >Reform Party. > >The Gallup poll for CNN and USA Today had the race Clinton 52, Dole 34, >Perot 10. > >[...] > >The Dole campaign on Friday was touting another national tracking poll that >suggested a closer race. The survey by the John Zogby Group for the Reuters >news agency had Clinton at 42 percent, Dole 37 percent and Perot 8 percent in >an average of sampling Tuesday through Thursday. > >John Zogby said he suspects his Clinton finding is lower than in the other >surveys because he weights his results so that Republicans and Democrats are >represented about equally. ABC and Gallup do not weight by party >identification; their samples include more Democrats than Republicans. > >Zogby's poll also had far more undecided voters -- 11 percent -- than ABC >and Gallup did. Other factors -- including different sampling methods, question >wording and ways of screening for likely voters -- can also cause variations >among results of different polls. Let us note here that Zogby is admitting to fudging the results according to his own view of how many Democrats and Republicans there *ought* to be. Unless Zogby has concurrent valid research showing what those percentages are, this is indefensible. So I (sort of) believe ABC and Gallup and reject Zogby. Having beat up on Zogby, let me mention that he did manage to stumble onto an interesting finding, that has been generally ignored: > Reuters, 10/30 1227 U.S. voters resigned or cynical; no outrage > >WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Bob Dole's angry question -- "Where is the outrage in >America?" -- has found some uneasy answers from U.S. political experts who >find indifference, cynicism and resignation dominant among U.S. voters. [...] >Pollster John Zogby believes voters feel a sense of resignation about their >own lives and the country's politics, as indicated by one arresting >statistic: a large slice of Americans answer "no" when asked if their current >job pays less than their last job. >At first this sounds like good economic news, but on further examination >Zogby found that many of these respondents were on their second low-paying >job, having already weathered a drop in income years before. >"We're moving into a period of adjusted expectations," he said by >telephone. "It's one thing if you're clobbered over the head with a hammer >once ... When you're clobbered the second time the odds are there's going to >be some permanent damage." [...] This is why I think Republicans are going doing poorly and will continue to do poorly: Since they have deliberately abandoned their potential "anti- government" constituencies, they can only speak credibly to people who *want* *something* *from* *government*. The Democrats, by happy (for them) historical accident, still have the best reputation for dispensing government largesse to sundry citizens groups in exchange for votes. This looks more appealing to some (many?) than the Republican reputation for dispensing government favors to big business. *Especially* *to* *ordinary* *people* *whose* *lives* *are* *going* *to* *hell*. Before somebody takes me to task for unfairly characterizing the Republican Party, see p. A24 of the 10/31/96 WSJ wherein the Republicans admit their big-business-booster reputation is grounded in fact (as they make a very thinly veiled extortion threat that big business better cough up more campaign contributions): Despite the grumbling, Republicans are expected to outspend Democrats this year; the Republican Party has raised about $12 million more than the Democratic Party thus far. Even so, Republicans are fuming about a recent drop-off in contributions from big business, just as Democrats' chances to retake the House have improved. That last-minute shift could have consequences, Republican leaders warn. "On a personal level, people's memories won't fail them," said Republican Conference Chairman Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, referring to GOP lawmaker's eagerness to assist big business. "My interest in helping someone who has done everything to hurt us is about zero," he added." [...] Republicans say they are especially distraught because their legislative agenda over the past two years, esuch as passing telecommunications reform, often benefitted large corporations. [...] Contrary to the mantra of every political guru in the known universe, I think the times favor Democrats. At least until people realize that Democrats are are now indistinguishable from Republicans, are also corporate suck- ups, and won't dispense any more handouts. Or until the Republicans take a genuine interest in the anti-govs. Then, who knows? If I'm wrong Tuesday, send me a big helping of crow. Brad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: My crystal ball Date: 02 Nov 1996 13:11:17 -0600 Brad Dolan wrote: > > >John Zogby said he suspects his Clinton finding is lower than in the other > >surveys because he weights his results so that Republicans and Democrats are > >represented about equally. ABC and Gallup do not weight by party > >identification; their samples include more Democrats than Republicans. > Let us note here that Zogby is admitting to fudging the results > according to his own view of how many Democrats and Republicans there > *ought* to be. Unless Zogby has concurrent valid research showing what > those percentages are, this is indefensible. So I (sort of) believe > ABC and Gallup and reject Zogby. There is a logic here that escapes me. Zogby polls equal numbers of R's and D's and that's fudging, in fact it's "indefensible". Pravda and Izvestia poll more Democrats and that's fair and valid. It would seem to me if you could find a pollster that polled more Libertarians Harry Brown would be in the lead. Before you say, yeah but there are more democrats than republicans, remember that Zogby polls "likely voters". In order to qualify as a likely voter you have to have voted in the last election. Just being registered isn't good enough. %ages of R's and D's who actually vote are within a point or two of each other. So I fail to see how Zogby is 'indefensible". In fact, it seems to me that the kind of polling you defend is like standing outside of a Baptist Church on Sunday morning and asking folks what church do they belong to. Ask 70 people in a town of 7000 and conclude 100% of the town, +- 5% pts for error, are Baptists. If I'm missing something, explain it to me. As you say, we'll see on Tuesday. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ken L. Holder" Subject: Fwd: Has the Time for Revolt Passed?! Date: 02 Nov 1996 11:16:51 -0800 >From: phauer@ix.netcom.com (Peter Hauer) >Subject: Has the Time for Revolt Passed?! >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 16:35:48 -0800 >To: ca-firearms@lists.best.com > > I just got off the phone from a representative of the Lawyers' >Second Amendment Society. Contrary to what previously appeared on >the CA Friearms list, the Hickman case did NOT self >destruct due to some clerical error by the plaintiff's lawyer. >ALso, the case did NOT die because Hickman moved out of state. > > In reality, the Hickman appeal to the Supreme Court failed because >the Supreme Court refused to re-consider the 9th circuit decision, >(which found that the second amendment does not protect any >"individual" right to bear arms). The Supreme Court simply >chose to not hear the case, and so let the 9th circuit's decision >stand! > > So if you live in the jusrisdiction of the 9th cittcuit, you >DO NOT HAVE any right to own a gun unless you are part of the >_organized_ state militia or national guard. This is the >final word on the subject because the Supreme court has decided >to let that evil, (illegal) ruling stand. > > Apparently, the Supreme Court is going to let us all cook slowly >like frogs in the pot. As each Circuit eventually rules that the >2nd amendment is not an individual right, the Supreme Court will just >continue to refuse to hear any appeal. Eventually, the 2nd Amendment >will slowly die the proverbial "death of a thousand cuts." > >THE FOLLOWING IS PURELY FOR ACADEMIC AND THEORETTICAL DISCUSSION: > Why was there not an armed arrest of the 9th circuit judges? >(Of course I am not advocating this; just asking why it did not occur) >Why didn't gun owners and other patriots arrest and try these >"judges" themselves? In short, why was there no outcry for >revolution? ....Perhaps because we have already lost the battle! > > If we still had the revolutitonaly spirit of our forefathers, >the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Hickman case would >have sparked a call to arms. Instead, it sparked a call to whine and >moan on the internet. Obviously we have lost the fighting >spirit needed to protect our God-given liberties. I'm sorry to sound >so judgemental. I too am guilty of cowardice, for failing to act >decisively. I am also sorry to sound so pessimistic, but I see no >reason to be hopeful. > > I hope I am wrong. Please advise if you can think of any reason to >still hope. VTY Pete Hauer > > "Extremism in defense of Liberty is no vice!" > >Dear FBI/ATF agent who is wasting tax dollars by reading this message, > When you come to my house to kill me for writing this >anti-government message, please be sure not to also shoot my wife. >(She is the lady with long black hair.) She has no political opinions, >and so is exactly the kind of person you want to keep alive. >So, please aim carefully! Or at least, make sure that Lon Horiuchi >is on vacation that day. Thanks guys......Peter Hauer > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: RZogby Date: 02 Nov 1996 14:47:42 -0600 The RZ just out has clinton at 42.4, dole at 38.6, perot at 8.4, undecided at 9.0 and 'others' at 1.6. Margain of error, three points. That's Clinton up by 3.8 or a statistical dead heat. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: My crystal ball Date: 02 Nov 1996 22:56:42 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, Howlin' Blue wrote: > > > There is a logic here that escapes me. > > Zogby polls equal numbers of R's and D's and that's fudging, in fact > it's "indefensible". > > Pravda and Izvestia poll more Democrats and that's fair and valid. > > It would seem to me if you could find a pollster that polled more > Libertarians Harry Brown would be in the lead. > > Before you say, yeah but there are more democrats than republicans, > remember that Zogby polls "likely voters". In order to qualify as a > likely voter you have to have voted in the last election. Just being > registered isn't good enough. %ages of R's and D's who actually vote > are within a point or two of each other. > > So I fail to see how Zogby is 'indefensible". In fact, it seems to me > that the kind of polling you defend is like standing outside of a > Baptist Church on Sunday morning and asking folks what church do they > belong to. Ask 70 people in a town of 7000 and conclude 100% of the > town, +- 5% pts for error, are Baptists. > > If I'm missing something, explain it to me. We've chatted about this before. You can, of course, define a "likely voter" in a number of ways and get differing results. The media used precisely this trick to understate Perot's support in '92. My _Statistical Abstract_ says that about 50% of people *say* they are Democrats and 40% *say* they are Republicans. Talk is cheap but in '92 (I think you need to look at presidential election years) several percent more people actually voted "D" than "R." In '88, George managed to beat an idiot, but there were several percent more actual voters for Congressional "Ds" than "Rs." I think Zogby's assumption that there are now equal numbers of "Ds" and "Rs" is weak. Maybe he's got a boatload of data to support this assumption, but I haven't seen it or heard about it. > > As you say, we'll see on Tuesday. > > Yeah. bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Death of Common Sense Date: 02 Nov 1996 23:28:58 -0500 FYI Some more info on referenced book; "The Death of Common Sense"- How Law is Suffocating America Copyright 1994 by Philip K. Howard Hardcover Edition Published by Random House 205 pp ISBN 0-679-42994-8 Regards, Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: My crystal ball Date: 02 Nov 1996 22:30:23 -0600 Brad Dolan wrote: > > I think Zogby's assumption that there are now equal numbers of "Ds" and > "Rs" is weak. Maybe he's got a boatload of data to support this > assumption, but I haven't seen it or heard about it. I don't think so. I believe all he uses is the '94 data. In 94 there were a couple points more people who claimed to be democrats than there were people who claimed to be republicans, even though the R's took the marbles. Because of the change in congress, that is considered to be an anomoly by some and a realignment by others. Zogby obviously considers it to be a realignment and plots his grid accordingly. PIT and APTBNL (pravda, izvestia, tass and a player to be named later) consider it an anomoly and pretend nothing happened. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Hilary in Chains Date: 03 Nov 1996 05:17:02 -0600 >From the London Sunday Times Whitewater heads the spectre of corruption haunting the Democrats, writes James Adams [Image] © Clinton with Loutchansky Smell of scandal that could leave Hillary in handcuffs In the latest twist to a corruption scandal swirling around Bill Clinton, a photograph has emerged that shows him at a Democratic fundraising event with a businessman who has been the target of an undercover operation by MI6. The president was photographed with Grigori Loutchansky, who runs an international conglomerate, Nordex, described by John Deutch, head of the CIA, as "an organisation associated with Russian criminal activity". Loutchansky and Nordex have consistently denied any involvement in criminal activity. Clinton used their meeting in October 1993 to discuss problems involved in making Ukraine a nuclear-free state. He asked Loutchansky, a Latvian, to act as an intermediary in discussions between America and Ukraine. Nearly two years later, Loutchansky was again invited to a fundraising dinner with Clinton in Washington. The invitation was withdrawn after the CIA gave a warning about his connections with Nordex. "Loutchansky did come to an event, a dinner with the president," said Amy Weiss Tobe, a spokeswoman. "We did send him a letter inviting him to the July 1995 dinner, but after the letter was sent we learnt he had problems." Clinton is already under fire for raising millions of dollars from overseas supporters alleged by Republicans to have received lucrative contracts. The latest revelation is further ammunition for critics who are calling for an independent investigation of the Democrats' election fundraising. Donations from Indonesia are being linked to a softening of Clinton's policy on human rights abuses in the country, and a lucrative power contract in China was awarded to a company that had also provided generous support. At the heart of the scandal is Ron Brown, the late commerce secretary, who died in a plane crash earlier this year. Evidence is emerging that Brown extracted money for the party in return for trade deals and soft loans. "We are headed for a second Watergate with all this stuff going on," said Ross Perot, the maverick billionaire election candidate. "A constitutional crisis in 1997. And for two years nothing's going to happen while we fool around with this." Janet Reno, the attorney-general, is expected to order an inquiry. If its remit extends to every dollar raised by the Democratic party and every aspect of government policy in the past four years, the new Clinton administration could be largely paralysed. Even as Clinton is sworn in for his second term in January, his lawyers will be in the Supreme Court arguing that he should not have to respond to a sexual harassment suit brought by Paula Jones until he leaves office in four years' time. Jones claims that Clinton asked her up to his room at a Little Rock hotel in 1991, exposed himself and asked her to perform a sexual act. Given Clinton's record of such behaviour, many believe the charges are true. But for the past three years the president has successfully used the courts to delay a trial. If the Supreme Court finds against him, then the administration will face the prospect of having Clinton's sexual his tory and intimate personal details publicly paraded. While that may be the most embarrassing of the next administration's legal woes, it is certainly not the most serious. Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who has been investigating the Whitewater scandal for the past two years, is ready to file new charges against a number of people, including White House officials. He has not issued any indictments in the past three months as he did not want to be accused of playing party politics. But with the election over, the writs will be served. Exactly who will be charged is not known but there is a long list of potential suspects, given that Starr's investigations have steadily broadened to include the firing of the workers in the White House travel office, the suicide of Vince Foster, the deputy White House counsel, and the use of secret FBI files by White House officials. Top of Starr's target list is Hillary Clinton, who has been investigated on charges of obstructing justice and perjury. If the Democrats won control of Congress, she would almost certainly not be indicted. However if, as expected, the Republicans retain control, the possibility of Hillary in handcuffs will arise. Even if Starr does not attack her directly, several members of her personal staff and other White House officials are in his sights. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Hillary in Chains Date: 03 Nov 1996 06:12:00 -0700 (MST) Hillary in handcuffs ...=20 ... has a nice ring to it. Hillary in chains ... ... has an even better ring to it. This marriage does not bode well. Pity. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 05:17 AM 11/3/96 -0600, you wrote: >>From the London Sunday Times > >Whitewater heads the >spectre of >corruption haunting >the Democrats, >writes James Adams > > [Image] =A9 > > Clinton with Loutchansky > > Smell of scandal that could leave Hillary > in handcuffs > > In the latest twist to a corruption scandal > swirling around Bill Clinton, a photograph > has emerged that shows him at a Democratic > fundraising event with a businessman who > has been the target of an undercover > operation by MI6. > > The president was photographed with Grigori > Loutchansky, who runs an international > conglomerate, Nordex, described by John > Deutch, head of the CIA, as "an > organisation associated with Russian > criminal activity". Loutchansky and Nordex > have consistently denied any involvement in > criminal activity. > > Clinton used their meeting in October 1993 > to discuss problems involved in making > Ukraine a nuclear-free state. He asked > Loutchansky, a Latvian, to act as an > intermediary in discussions between America > and Ukraine. > > Nearly two years later, Loutchansky was > again invited to a fundraising dinner with > Clinton in Washington. The invitation was > withdrawn after the CIA gave a warning > about his connections with Nordex. > > "Loutchansky did come to an event, a dinner > with the president," said Amy Weiss Tobe, a > spokeswoman. "We did send him a letter > inviting him to the July 1995 dinner, but > after the letter was sent we learnt he had > problems." > > Clinton is already under fire for raising > millions of dollars from overseas > supporters alleged by Republicans to have > received lucrative contracts. The latest > revelation is further ammunition for > critics who are calling for an independent > investigation of the Democrats' election > fundraising. > > Donations from Indonesia are being linked > to a softening of Clinton's policy on human > rights abuses in the country, and a > lucrative power contract in China was > awarded to a company that had also provided > generous support. > > At the heart of the scandal is Ron Brown, > the late commerce secretary, who died in a > plane crash earlier this year. Evidence is > emerging that Brown extracted money for the > party in return for trade deals and soft > loans. > > "We are headed for a second Watergate with > all this stuff going on," said Ross Perot, > the maverick billionaire election > candidate. "A constitutional crisis in > 1997. And for two years nothing's going to > happen while we fool around with this." > > Janet Reno, the attorney-general, is > expected to order an inquiry. If its remit > extends to every dollar raised by the > Democratic party and every aspect of > government policy in the past four years, > the new Clinton administration could be > largely paralysed. Even as Clinton is sworn > in for his second term in January, his > lawyers will be in the Supreme Court > arguing that he should not have to respond > to a sexual harassment suit brought by > Paula Jones until he leaves office in four > years' time. > > Jones claims that Clinton asked her up to > his room at a Little Rock hotel in 1991, > exposed himself and asked her to perform a > sexual act. Given Clinton's record of such > behaviour, many believe the charges are > true. But for the past three years the > president has successfully used the courts > to delay a trial. > > If the Supreme Court finds against him, > then the administration will face the > prospect of having Clinton's sexual his > tory and intimate personal details publicly > paraded. > > While that may be the most embarrassing of > the next administration's legal woes, it is > certainly not the most serious. Kenneth > Starr, the independent counsel who has been > investigating the Whitewater scandal for > the past two years, is ready to file new > charges against a number of people, > including White House officials. > > He has not issued any indictments in the > past three months as he did not want to be > accused of playing party politics. But with > the election over, the writs will be > served. > > Exactly who will be charged is not known > but there is a long list of potential > suspects, given that Starr's investigations > have steadily broadened to include the > firing of the workers in the White House > travel office, the suicide of Vince Foster, > the deputy White House counsel, and the use > of secret FBI files by White House > officials. > > Top of Starr's target list is Hillary > Clinton, who has been investigated on > charges of obstructing justice and perjury. > If the Democrats won control of Congress, > she would almost certainly not be indicted. > However if, as expected, the Republicans > retain control, the possibility of Hillary > in handcuffs will arise. > > Even if Starr does not attack her directly, > several members of her personal staff and > other White House officials are in his > sights. > > =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 Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com =20 ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: berg stephen erik Subject: Re: My crystal ball Date: 03 Nov 1996 14:11:17 -0600 (CST) We just covered this in a class I assist in. Both parties have lost strength in the past several decades. There is a slightly greater number of D's than R's. There are more independents now. Some lean to the D's, and some to the R's. Some are ambivalent. The battle now is for this independent voter group. If they do not make up their minds, they frequently just do not vote at all. Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: My crystal ball Date: 03 Nov 1996 14:51:41 -0700 (MST) At 02:11 PM 11/3/96 -0600, you wrote: >We just covered this in a class I assist in. Both parties have lost >strength in the past several decades. There is a slightly greater number >of D's than R's. There are more independents now. Some lean to the D's, >and some to the R's. Some are ambivalent. The battle now is for this >independent voter group. If they do not make up their minds, they >frequently just do not vote at all. > >Steve Or they cannot vote, because of an unconstitutional practice by the State Governments: [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] For Immediate Release November 2, 1996 State Citizens Cannot Vote by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved (November 1996) PAYSON, ARIZONA. A state Citizen will be denied the chance to vote on Tuesday, if the State of Arizona has its way. Paul Andrew Mitchell, Counselor at Law and federal witness, has been using every administrative means available to register as a "Qualified Elector" for next Tuesday's general election. There is only one problem: he is not a federal citizen, and the voter registration form requires that he certify, under penalty of perjury, that he is a federal citizen. Moreover, the penalty for falsifying information on an Arizona voter registration affidavit is a class 6 felony conviction. Mitchell has been researching the federal constitution and statute laws full-time for 7 years now. Among his findings is a discovery of several court cases which held that Americans can be state Citizens without also being "citizens of the United States," or "federal citizens," as they are also called in the legal dictionaries. Mitchell has come to believe that the federal government has lately become a criminal enterprise, relying upon blatant extortion to collect money and coerce cooperation from the American People. He wants no part of the federal government, until and unless its agents start obeying American Laws never repealed. Mitchell is also working to restore integrity to the American court system. As Counselor at Law in a federal case in which a grand jury had subpoened the books and records of an Arizona pure trust, Mitchell's research led him to find further flaws in the federal Jury Selection and Service Act, the law which Congress passed to select and convene federal grand and trial juries. In one section of this law, Congress makes it a federal policy that all citizens shall have the opportunity to serve on federal grand juries and federal trial juries. Then, 4 sections later, Congress makes it a requirement that jury candidates be federal citizens before they are qualified to serve. There is no mention of state Citizens anywhere in this Act, and no regulations have been promulgated for it either. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled, more than once, that class discrimination in the selection of juries is grounds for disqualifying the entire jury, even if the individual jurors are otherwise qualified. Imagine if the law said that only women could serve on federal juries; this would be a clear case of class discrimination, because men would be systematically excluded as a class. Because there are two classes of citizenship in America, not one, the Jury Selection and Service State Citizens Cannot Vote: Page 1 of 2 Act is unconstitutional for limiting jury service to one and only one of those two classes of citizens. So, if you are a state Citizen who is not also a federal citizen, you can't vote, you can't serve on a grand jury, and you can't serve on a trial jury either. Paul Mitchell is now faced with some very difficult choices. As a political activist, with degrees in Political Science and Public Administration, and seven years of constitutional research under his belt, and with proof of his birth to American parents within one of the several Union States, he is now denied any voice in the management of his state and federal governments. He cannot vote, he cannot serve on a grand jury, and he cannot serve on a trial jury. And, of course, the government contends that it can continue to tax such a man, without representation within the Congress. "No taxation without representation" was a proud rallying cry for many Americans who eventually defeated the British in the Revolutionary War, despite enormous odds. Mitchell recently escalated the matter by filing a formal written Notice and Demand with Arizona Governor Fife Symington, to order that state's Attorney General to register Mitchell as a qualified elector. Rumor has it that the AG is refusing to disclose the registry of state Citizens who now inhabit the Arizona Republic. Mitchell tried to confirm this rumor by demanding that he be added to the registry, so that he may have an opportunity to choose his representative in the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. Courts have ruled that the Right to choose our representatives is a fundamental Right, and Congress has made it a felony to deprive Citizens of any of their fundamental Rights, in the federal criminal code (18 U.S.C. 242). After receiving Mitchell's Notice and Demand, someone in the Governor's office sent Mitchell another voter registration affidavit: FOR U.S. CITIZENS ONLY -- IT IS A CLASS 6 FELONY TO FALSIFY THIS FORM! There was no return address on the envelope which bore the form, through U.S. Mail. It is also a crime to put fraudulent material into the U.S. Mail. Mitchell is preparing to sue the State of Arizona, and all government employees who have chosen to ignore this problem, soon after Tuesday's election, if Arizona cannot come up with a way to get Mitchell to the polls by the time they close on Tuesday. Paul Andrew Mitchell may soon become the Susan B. Anthony of the Twentieth Century. Common Law Copyright Paul Andrew Mitchell Counselor at Law, federal witness and Citizen of Arizona state All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice November 2, 1996 # # # State Citizens Cannot Vote: Page 2 of 2 =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Bullet found Date: 03 Nov 1996 12:30:17 -0700 At 18:12 -0700 5/16/96, Jerry Roe wrote: >Jerry Wootan wrote: > >>I just heard on the radio that after three years, investigators have >>found the >>bullet that killed Randy Weavers won. Accordingly, they will now >>_finally_ be >>able to determine which gun killed him. ---snip--- Just wondering here, has anything else developed about this item, or has it just expired? Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Brit Police taking lessons from BATF, or is that FBI? Date: 03 Nov 1996 17:58:26 -0600 Fresh from talk.politics.guns >From: Gouldie@msn.com (Christopher Gould) >Subject: UK shooters rights >Date: 3 Nov 96 09:37:13 -0800 > >On Oct. 31 the police raided the home of the secretary of the UK >Shooters Rights Association and took away some guns for 'forensic >examination' - perhaps the same guns they took away several times >before for various unconvincing reasons. TV reports of this were >sensationalist and included serious aspersions about Mr. Laws private >life and employment history which, mindful of the laws of libel, I >will not repeat here. Mr. Law is currently on vacation in the USA and >could not defend himself against these allegations. By some strange >co-incidence the UK government published its proposals for more >oppressive gun laws on Nov. 1 - including a requirement that all >owners of handguns must report to their local police station to >surrender their guns , in exchange for as yet unspecified >compensation, with ten years prison if you don't comply. A free >country ? Sieg Heil. 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 Subject: Bullet found Date: 03 Nov 1996 17:44:38 -0800 At 12:30 PM 11/3/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 18:12 -0700 5/16/96, Jerry Roe wrote: >>Jerry Wootan wrote: >> >>>I just heard on the radio that after three years, investigators have >>>found the >>>bullet that killed Randy Weavers won. Accordingly, they will now >>>_finally_ be >>>able to determine which gun killed him. > > ---snip--- > > Just wondering here, has anything else developed about this item, >or has it just expired? > >Ed Hi Ed, This may be old "news", but the last I heard, one FBI agent confessed to obstruction of justice, and went state's evidence. I forget his name, and I may be wrong about the crime he admitted. That's the best I can do right now. I am in the throes of deciding what to do about Gulf War Syndrome. My parents' next-door neighbor have it, it is contagious, and the last thing I want to do to my parents in their retirement is to quarantine them out of self-defense. They have already lost two sons, and I am the only one left. This is getting almost too much to bear. I am praying hard; I feel a giant warrior emerging from my soul, and he is not wielding a sword. He is wielding a powerful Word -- called Truth. /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) Need Cases of Failure to Stop / Police Abuse Date: 03 Nov 1996 18:34:16 -0800 Forwarded from l&j; if you can help him, please reply directly to: ******** pnet@uscom.com - Monte >Dear Friends, > >I was arrested in Pennsylvania early in the morning of Sun Oct 27, 1996 and >charged with (among other erroneous things) "Attempting to Flee or Evade >Police Officer". This is a misdemeanor. > >Basically what I did was after the cop turned on his flashing lights (a >marked police car, but I didn't know if it was a real police or not at the >time), I proceeded at a slow rate of speed, with my flashers on until >arriving at the nearest public, well-lighted place, which was a >Seven-Eleven store. Prior to my arrival however, the cop pulled in front of >me, blocking both lanes of traffic and I drove around him. This happened >twice since I was going slowly. > >My attorney considers this a serious mistake on my part and other local >contacts have told me that this is an extremely 'hot' issue since several >women motorists were recently raped and murdered by police during traffic >stops and, as a result, many women are feeling that they shouldn't have to >risk their lives stopping for police. > >Naturally the police and local judges don't like this trend of people >failing to stop and feel like they have to come down hard and assert their >demand that you MUST stop immediately otherwise criminals will think they >don't have to stop and there will be chaos. > >My reason for not stopping was purely out of a fear for my life and property. >I fully intended to stop as soon as I could find somewhere safe, with a witness. >It did not intend to 'flee' or 'evade' but I am told that the local judges >will not be at all sympathetic and I may not be able to get a jury trial. > >It may end up that my lawyer can swing a deal since I have some 'chips' in >the sense that the police stole $100 cash from my wallet in the process, >etc. > >But it may also happen that the DA (who is apparently a high-profile >politician) may want to throw the book at me if they think they can use >this case to set a good precedent that citizens have no right not to stop >immediately when the flashing lights come on. > >I could end up in prison over this so I am sending out the call for help. >My preliminary hearing is Wed, Nov 6. > >If anyone knows of any cases where any motorist failed to stop immediately >and proceeded, as I did, to a safe place first, I need to know about that >case. > >Also, if you know of other cases of motorists who HAVE stopped immediately >and suffered police abuse as a result, please also let me know since this >would help to substantiate that I had a good reason to be afraid. > >In particular, I remember hearing about a case fairly recently (I think it >may have been in Florida) where a gang was found who had police uniforms, >badges, guns and even MARKED POLICE CARS WITH FLASHING LIGHTS AND SIRENS >and they had been stopping people posing as legitimate police officers and >perpetrating crimes on the unsuspecting motorists. This case was foremost >in my mind when I failed to stop but I don't remember where I heard about >it. I would really like to track this down. > >Thank you - please distribute this mail as widely as possible. > >- Tom Paine > > > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Unsub info - send to liberty-and-justice-request@pobox.com with "unsubscribe" >in body (not subject) of the msg. List-Owner - Mike Goldman > - 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: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Prediction Date: 03 Nov 1996 22:37:24 -0500 Since everyone is predicting let me join in the fun. Should Bill Clinton lose the upcoming election, Hillary will file for divorce within 6 months. Margin of error +/- 3 months. Regards, Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Prediction(s) Date: 03 Nov 1996 21:08:08 -0700 (MST) At 10:37 PM 11/3/96 -0500, you wrote: >Since everyone is predicting let me join in the fun. > >Should Bill Clinton lose the upcoming election, Hillary will file for >divorce within 6 months. Margin of error +/- 3 months. > >Regards, >Dennis Dear Friends, I will venture to predict that if, and when, a special grand jury gets a hold of any records from the Performance Management and Recognition System, that heads will begin rolling down the full length of Pennsylvania Avenue, through the storm drains, and right into the AMF pin spotters at Pentagon Lanes, Arlington, Virginia. You think I am kidding, don't you? Margin of error here: zero percent. /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: Clinton & the Russian Mafia Date: 04 Nov 1996 10:57:24 -0500 Blue, If even half this comes true, I will be "a happy camper". > >Among the surprises I excpect include clinton losing the election and >the r's gaining seats in both houses. Maybe a significant number of >seats. Others among them would be for a couple of sitting D senators to >lose and the number two D in the house, the right honorable >(har-D-har-har) David Bonior to be not re but de-elected. > >Others would be a gain of four house seats in texas, at least one >flaming house lib in CA to bite the dust, maybe two, unfortunately, >neither are Henry Waxperson, and...oh, hell, that's enough surprised for >one election. > I think that: 1. R control of House and Senate 2. Clinton wins, but with less than a popular majority are real possibilities. I also think that the chances of a Clinton resignation are about one out of four, over Filegate, Lippogate, and/or perjury charges against Hillary. my best informed guesses, washed carefully of wishful thinking. ciao, Jack Curtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: My crystal ball Date: 04 Nov 1996 11:23:10 -0500 Well, mines a little dusty also, but I do think that the income gap between people who are following information-intensive careers and those in more traditional careers is widening, and this may favor Democrats. I also think that there is a notion that a Republican Congress should be balanced by a Democratic President. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Yucks Date: 04 Nov 1996 11:27:54 -0500 Well, my kids and I (age 3.5 and 6.5) are going to stand outside the local polling place (til they get bored) holding their home made signs that say: "Bill Clinton : Liar, Liar Pants on Fire" with illustration of flaming pants. and "Kids, They're Crazy" Gotta love it. If it swings just one vote, its worth it. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Clinton & the Russian Mafia Date: 04 Nov 1996 10:56:04 -0600 Well, like the monkey said when the train ran over his tail, "It won't be long, now." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: Re: Clinton & the Russian Mafia Date: 04 Nov 1996 11:35:24 -0900 John Curtis wrote: > > Blue, > > If even half this comes true, I will be "a happy camper". > > > > >Among the surprises I excpect include clinton losing the election and > >the r's gaining seats in both houses. Maybe a significant number of > >seats. Others among them would be for a couple of sitting D senators to > >lose and the number two D in the house, the right honorable > >(har-D-har-har) David Bonior to be not re but de-elected. > > > >Others would be a gain of four house seats in texas, at least one > >flaming house lib in CA to bite the dust, maybe two, unfortunately, > >neither are Henry Waxperson, and...oh, hell, that's enough surprised for > >one election. > > > > I think that: > 1. R control of House and Senate > 2. Clinton wins, but with less than a popular majority > > are real possibilities. > > I also think that the chances of a Clinton resignation are about > one out of four, over Filegate, Lippogate, and/or perjury charges > against Hillary. > > my best informed guesses, washed carefully of wishful thinking. > > ciao, > > Jack Curtis Clinton will have to be impeached, will have to be shown that he will lose the trial, and will plea-bargain a pardon as part of the deal. Clinton will be impeached. He already has far more evidence of obstruction of justice against him than Nixon ever did. We only need the emotional storm, which the media has resolutely blanketed. Fortunately, Clinton has a lot of bad judgement surrounding him, and hubris always reighs. So, they will do something to provide the match, and our guys in the House will provide the powder. Assuming the R's keep control of the House and Senate, of course. Me, I vote for Browne. He stands for the Constitution, which I haven't even heard mentioned in this campaign. Lew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) RON BROWN (fwd) Date: 04 Nov 1996 13:41:33 -0600 (CST) found at http://www.guam.net/jeffevans/istuff/stufa.html from Christian Crusade Newspaper "Bill Clinton came to Washington promising there would be no stain on his administration -- it would be free of graft, corruption or any hint of wrongdoing," notes Jamie Dettmer, writing in the conservative journal Insight on the News. "The highest ethical standards would be applied rigorously. Nominees for Cabinet posts would be expected to meet stringent codes of conduct, boasted the president's then-transition director Warren Christopher. There would be no Iran-Contra or Watergate scandals to poison the Clinton presidency. Four days after the election the president- elect promised 'the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic.'" However, even before Brown entered office, an air of suspicion hung over his business affairs. "A noted wheeler-dealer whose networking skills were more impressive even than Clinton's," writes Dettmer, "Brown had done little to dispel the general wariness about his commercial practices. In a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, the chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Pennsylvania Republican Bill Clinger, complained, "For over a year, in response to direct questions posed to the secretary, I have received inaccurate, incomplete and misleading responses, or no response at all" from Brown. In one instance, Brown failed to meet a request from the committee for information about ties between his immediate family members and Corridor Broadcasting Corp, which is owned by Texas entrepreneur Nolanda Hill. According to Clinger, Brown's daughter, Tracy, and his daughter-in-law, Tamara, both received money from Corridor, a firm that defaulted on almost $40 million in loans held by government agencies and is itself the subject of an inquiry by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. At the center of the complicated allegations against Brown was the charge that he hid from Congress $400,000 he received from another Hill firm, the First International Communications Corp. According to Brown, there was no obligation on him to declare the $400,000 since it came in several different checks throughout 1993 and was a payment by Hill for his stake in First International. Clinger claims Brown failed to release "any information to support his contention that these payments were part of divestiture" transactions. Brown, in fact, had invested no money in the company when he became a partner in 1990. Brown's role at First International was to provide political connections. He gave Hill an entree to the highest circles of Democratic politics. Through Brown, then chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Hill was appointed to serve on the party's convention-site selection committee. Did Brown's help stop there, before he entered office? Clinger's aides have been trying to discover who secured an invitation for Hill to a select White House lunch in the summer of 1993. Hill was the only guest at the lunch with the president who was not a CEO of a company listed among the Fortune 500. Congressional investigators also are intrigued by a memo Hill wrote on May 13, 1993, asking Brown to arrange a meeting with Commerce officials for a business associate, John Foster. Clinton had tried to make a case that the press and Congress should not concern itself about any alleged wrongdoing committed by Cabinet members prior to entering government. That has been one of his and Hillary's biggest defenses in the Whitewater case. However, charges were surfacing that Brown had been guilty of impropriety while in office. In particular, he failed to disclose his financial stake in another business, Kellee Communications Inc. Congressman Clinger claims that Brown's connections with Kellee posed a conflict of interest with his role as Commerce secretary. Kellee has major pay-phone contracts with AT&T. Brown has helped AT&T win telecommunications-equipment deals overseas. The allegation is that as Secretary of Commerce, Brown was still lining his pockets, making deals that made millions of dollars for him and his family In documents sent to Reno by Clinger, he says that as Commerce secretary, Brown "invited AT&T executives to accompany him to Saudi Arabia. This trip, coupled with other efforts by the secretary, culminated in the signing of a $4 billion contract for AT&T.... Although the Saudi contract may not have had a direct financial impact on Kellee, it resulted in increased good will toward the secretary, and presumably, Kellee Communications. This enhanced good will was an important factor enabling Kellee to expand its AT&T joint venture." Clinger says Brown was corrupt. He rejects the liberals' claim that Republicans were being overzealous in their pursuit of Brown. "I don't think we are overdoing things at all," he says. "There is ample justification for our investigations and there is a lot to be looked at. In Brown's case, there are strong indications that abuses happened after he became Commerce secretary." The Clinton administration has had its embarrassments. "Hardly a month has passed without some new controversy rocking the administration," notes Dettmer. "First it was the travel office scandal, followed by Whitewater and the incidental departures from government of White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman and Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell." Hubbell went to jail. "In all, five probes are underway," notes Dettmer. "Three are into the financial affairs of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown who, until recently, had been slated by the president to head his re-election bid. Former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, who contributed greatly to rallying the black vote for Clinton in Southern states during the 1992 campaign, is the subject of an ongoing independent-counsel inquiry." Transportation Secretary Federico Pena is accused of using his influence to help his former investment firm secure a Los An contract. HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros understated the payments he made over a three-year period to his former mistress, Linda Medlar, a political fund-raiser. Cisneros told FBI agents checking his background before Senate confirmation hearings that he gave money to Medlar from 1990 to 1992 as compensation for her difficulty in securing a job after their affair had become public. He said he never paid her more than $2,500 at a time and that yearly totals never exceeded $10,000. In fact, several of his payments exceeded $2,500, and the yearly totals were between $42,000 and $60,000. In all, he gave Medlar over $200,000. Espy dutifully resigned. Clinton was able to wash his hands of him. But Brown would not. He refused to go. With the re-election campaign in full-swing now, there was vast potential for him to embarrass the Clintons. And so, somehow, he has died in a plane crash. All over the nation, flags are at half-mast. He is being declared a national hero and a role model for small children. That's a lot better for Bill Clinton than if a sitting cabinet member were jailed. An unrelenting, yearlong probe by Clinger had led to an extensive array of detailed allegations against Brown, including charges that he violated federal laws by filing inaccurate financial disclosure reports that failed to indicate income received from First International and that that Brown had illegally supplemented his federal salary, engaged in potential conflicts of interest and provided false information to Congress about his financial circumstances. What about the accusations that he accepted bribes from the North Vietnamese Communists -- in order to get the Clinton administration to drop its trade embargo? A Vietnamese-American, Binh T. Ly, who is living in Florida, said Brown accepted $700,000 to help lift the U.S. trade embargo against Vietnam. Then days later, he told the press the FBI "told me that I should take serious precautions because my life is in danger." Ly told a news conference that the FBI told him "that my life has been threatened.'' Ly said Nguyen Van Hao, a former Communist Vietnamese government official who was his business partner, had arranged a $700,000 payment to Brown. Ly passed an FBI polygraph test, but acknowledged that he had no evidence to support his allegations. Was there anything to the case? According to the media watchdog group Accuracy in Media, Republicans were about to charge Brown with perjury in his denials of accepting the North Vietnamese bribes. "Congressional Republicans are raising the specter that Commerce Secretary Ron Brown committed perjury in his oft-changed explanations about a purported $700,000 bribe offer from a Vietnamese businessman," reported AIM. "In a startling new development, a person described as 'close to the National Security Council' told Congressmen that Brown lied when he denied that he or his staff were involved in the Clinton Administration's easing of trade restrictions on Vietnam. "This is in direct conflict with what Brown told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Brown made clear at the outset of the hearing that he did not intend to discuss allegations by Ly Thanh Binh, a Vietnamese-American businessman from Florida, that he was offered $700,000 to help in normalizing U.S.-Vietnam economic relations. The man on whose behalf the overture was supposedly made was Nguyen Van Hao, an official of the communist government." Brown told the Committee, "I am not going to answer any questions bearing on the grand jury investigation in Miami. All I am here to talk about today are trade issues." Rep. Dan Burton (R.-Ind.) then asked Brown: "Can you tell us, Mr. Brown, about any involvement that you or your staff may have had in relation to trade negotiations or the possibility of trade negotiations with the Republic of Vietnam?" "I had no involvement with those, Congressman," Brown replied. Burton then repeated his question in tighter form, asking whether any of Brown's subordinates participated in talks. Again, Brown gave a categorical denial, saying, "I answered that in the negative, Congressman." He continued that "we're not going to have internal discussions about internal policy formation." Soon after Brown's testimony, Burton received a visit from a man he described as "a fellow who is close to the National Security Council" who "thought this issue needed to be clarified and illuminated." Burton gave this account in a floor speech: On June 14, a "notice of principals meeting" was sent to secretaries of the various departments involved in international trade, setting a "secretaries meeting" for 2 P. M. on June 16 in the White House situation room to discuss a Vietnam options paper. As the source told Burton, there are three levels of NSC meetings: the "experts' level," at the bottom rung, where technical issues are discussed; the "deputies' level," where issues are clarified; and the "principals' level," which includes the secretaries of departments. The June 16 "principals' level" meeting to which Brown was invited involved an options paper on Vietnam which had been discussed at the lower two levels. The NSC source told Burton that Brown would have been briefed on the options paper prior to the June 16 meeting. In any event, the secretaries had two options before them when they gathered at the White House. According to Burton, "Option 1-A was to allow international financial initiatives, but to ease the embargo, to start the racheting down of the embargo, so we could start normalizing relations with Vietnam. The majority of those at the National Security Council approved that, but not the Department of Commerce. "The Department of Commerce supported Option No. 2 [which was to] lift the block on international financial institutions, and to totally, completely, lift the embargo on Vietnam. "And do you know who pushed this the hardest? The Department of Commerce. Mr. Brown said he didn't know anything about it, he said he never discussed it with anybody in his department, and yet at this deputies' meeting his department was pushing harder, almost totally by itself, than anybody else to completely remove that embargo with Vietnam." The Indiana Republican's staff alerted Congressional reporters about the content of the speech, which was seen on C-SPAN and printed in the Congressional Record. But the media ignored Burton's explosive revelations -- particularly his charges that Brown's conflicting answers on Vietnam put the Clinton Administration in jeopardy of miring itself in scandal. "This could be another Watergate, or worse," Burton declared. "It stinks to high heaven." Burton noted that Brown's story about the Binh allegations has changed several times on significant points: A spokesman for Brown denied that the Democratic politician had ever met Hao, a denial which Brown personally gave to several Washington reporters in the summer. Then, however, Brown admitted having met with Hao three times, including having dinner with him, giving him a tour of the Commerce Department, and sending him a Christmas card. Brown, both personally and through a spokesman, at first denied having read a letter Hao sent to Saigon outlining a discussion he held with Brown about the $700,000 fee. But as Burton pointed out, Brown later said, "'Yes, I believe I did read the letter from some government official over there.'" Burton continued, "It was the Prime Minister of Vietnam. So he has been caught in two or three falsehoods already." Based on his interviews with Binh, Burton also gave fresh details of the deal Brown allegedly tried to make with the Vietnamese. He said, "One of these items, according to Mr. Ly [Binh] was that Mr. Brown would have exclusive contractual rights to American businesses that went over there from the Vietnamese side. "In other words, he was to get a cut of the 100 or 150 American businesses that he would take into Vietnam, and he would be in essence, the beneficiary of any profit made by the Vietnamese government, or at least a percentage of that. "In addition, Mr. Ly [Binh] indicated there was going to be huge oil-drilling exploration taking place, and that Vietnam had the third-largest oil reserves in the world... and that Mr. Brown was going to get royalties off of all the oil that was sold by the Vietnamese Government to the United States, and other entities." According to Burton, Binh protested such lucrative fees being given to Brown and tried to pull back from the deal. Whereupon, he said, Hao admonished him to be quiet, and he would also be given a percentage of any profits. Later, a concerned Binh spoke with a friend in Louisiana, a father figure, who told him, "You ought to get out of that, because it is corrupt and a lot of people could go to jail." At this point Binh broke with Hao and began talking with the FBI, the media and Congressional staff members. Then there were the charges that Brown was a slumlord -- also very embarrassing to the Democrats and to Clinton. "It has been argued in this age of contemporary politics that the Republican Party is the party for the wealthy," wrote Herb London in the conservative digest Human Events before Brown was killed. "The GOP is presumably at war with working class America. Perhaps the most ardent and effective rhetorician for the Democrats in the political class war is Ron Brown, presently commerce secretary and formerly chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Brown rarely gives a speech without making reference to Republican insensitivity to the plight of the poor. It is his stock-in-trade. "Recently, however, it was reported that Secretary Brown reaped a generous tax break by investing in an apartment complex declared partly 'unfit for human habitation' in Landover, Maryland. Housing inspectors for the county investigating the houses owned in part by Brown found trash, debris, used condoms and human waste in and around the buildings. Officials also noted broken windows, rotting door frames and wrecked vehicles on the property. "Brown, already under investigation by the Justice Department for several of his business relationships, invested $71,000 in this Landover housing project in 1983 and enjoyed approximately $175,000 in tax write-offs in the years that followed. Brown claims he is a passive investor and doesn't know anything at all about the housing project. A. Bruce Rozet, whose firm bought the company that manages the apartments, there would be no reason for him [Brown] not to know the property he invested in.' "Last October, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros charged that Rozet 'got filthy rich off this program and he left filthy places behind him for people to live in.' No mention of Ron Brown was made in that speech." "There is something quite remarkable about this story, which first appeared in the Los Angeles Times. As yet no one has mentioned the fact that the Democratic leader best known for beating the drums of class warfare is engaged in an investment designed to reduce his tax burden and, in the process, exploit the poor and put him in the position of being a slumlord," writes London. "This, after all, is the same Ron Brown who accuses Republicans of using a cut in the capital gains tax as a way of assisting wealthy patrons. This is the same Ron Brown who contends that the Newt Gingrich-led Congress is taking advantage of poor children and unwed mothers. "Surely someone out there in medialand must recognize the gross hypocrisy in this man. Yet, thus far, there has only been conspicuous silence. Could it be that Democrats and media panjandrums, who rely on a stereotypical view of the protagonists in the class war of their making, don't know how to digest the imbroglio of one of their faithful? It is hard to imagine a similar response from the press corps if Newt Gingrich, to cite one example, were caught in a similar flim-flam tax deal. "If the Democrats wish to play the class-warfare theme song, the Republicans should play it as well. This time the lyrics should include Ron Brown's investment strategy that has led directly to the privation and misery of the people he invariably claims to defend." But now, no defense has to be made of Ron Brown. He has received a hero's burial. And you can just imagine the criticism that is going to rise against the conservative media for sullying the memory of a martyr, fallen warrior and hero. Even if he was about to embarrass the Clintons just before his very convenient and timely death. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ken L. Holder" Subject: Re: Hillary in Chains Date: 04 Nov 1996 14:15:13 -0800 At 06:12 AM 11/3/96 -0700, Paul Mitchell wrote: >Hillary in handcuffs ... >... has a nice ring to it. >Hillary in chains ... >... has an even better ring to it. Heh. Consider: HILLARY BEHIND BARS -- by L. Neil Smith -- Presented to the Colorado Libertarian Party State Convention April 29 - May 1, 1994 Roundup Ranch, Sedalia, Colorado All of us remember, if we're old enough, or if we watch NICKELODEON on a regular basis, a young TV situation comedy character, already dishonest and cynical at an early age, who would do anything, lie, cheat, steal, or suck up disgustingly to the principal character's mother and father -- "What a lovely dress you're wearing, Mrs. Cleaver!" -- in order to get whatever it was he wanted. Now we all know that the actor who PLAYED that character grew up and became something else -- a California highway patrolman, someone told me -- but the character, Eddie Haskell, grew up and became Bill Clinton. Which is how we find ourselves living in a "Haskellocracy" and the reason we need to find our way back out again. My purpose this evening is to suggest how we're going to do that. ***** Ladies and gentlemen, in September of last year, when I delivered what I sometimes refer to as my "default keynote address" to the Libertarian Party National Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah, I tried to make my remarks the distilled essence of thirty-two years of careful thought and hard experience in the movement. What I said then, in the light of what had happened just that summer, thanks to that ciger-smoking old maid on PCP, Janet Reno, in Waco, Texas, was that for the foreseeable future, the Libertarian Party could do worse -- much worse -- given the direction of events and the temper of the times, than to emphasize political issues related to the Second Amendment -- to the individual right to own and carry weapons -- even at the expense of all other issues combined. I pointed out that another well-known old maid, George Bush, had lost the 1992 election -- exactly as I had predicted he would at the very height of his Gulf War popularity -- by a number of votes smaller than the number of single-issue Second Amendment voters he and his party had chosen to betray on several occasions. I proposed that we Libertarians pursue those single-issue voters aggressively, by the relatively simple expedient of embracing a sufficiently principled and progressive Second Amendment position, and do with them TO the Republicans what Socialist Norman Thomas did to the Democrats in 1928: scare them into co-opting our position and maybe even some of our principles. Without delivering the same speech here, I then defined "a sufficiently principled and progressive Second Amendment position" by proclaiming that we Libertarians should: (A) "outbid" the Republican Party, who are in the process of crumpling the Second Amendment up and pitching it in the dumpster of history along with the rest of the Bill of Rights; and (B) "outbid" the National Rifle Association, whose principal distinguishing characteristic, since 1934, has been a palpitatingly spineless compulsion to surrender in the face of enemies like Diane Feinstein, Janet Reno, Hillary Clinton -- or even Shirley Temple. I said we can accomplish this by promising single-issue voters NOT just to resist all proposed and pending gun control legislation -- which I referred to as "victim disarmament" laws -- NOT just to repeal or nullify every one of the twenty thousand victim disarmament laws already on the nation's books at every level of government, BUT by promising to arrest, indict, try, convict, and imprison every city councilman, every county commissioner, every state legislator, every U.S. Congressman, and every Senator -- past or present -- who ever helped to write those victim disarmament laws into those books, along with every police chief, every sheriff, every governor, and yes, every President -- not to mention First Ladies and Attorneys General -- who ever enforced them. Most of us have understood for a long time that by denying individuals unencumbered exercise of their inherent human right to own and carry weapons, people like Hillary and Janet are morally responsible for atrocities like the Long Island Railway shootings. Now we'll hold them LEGALLY responsible, as well. Never forget that we are the good-guys, we of the American productive class, and they, the parasitic politicians and bureaucrats, Hillary and Janet, are the bad-guys. They are the criminals. It is against the law -- the highest law of the land -- to enact or enforce statutes or ordinances mandating victim disarmament, or for that matter any other breach of the Constitution. Along the way I observed that this tactic, offering to jail politicians, will work because those it addresses most directly tend to place punishing their enemies ahead of anything else they might achieve through the political process, and that in this instance, we could go along with that, and remain solidly within principle. But for us, I concluded, we Libertarians who are "higher-minded" and NOT so vindictive, having acquired the support of those single-issue voters, we could go on to generalize the tactic into an overall strategy both principled and pragmatic. The Bill of Rights, I reminded my audience, is a LAW -- the highest law of the land -- and it needs to be ENFORCED. For the foreseeable future then, "Bill of Rights ENFORCEMENT" should become the MISSION STATEMENT of the Libertarian Party. ***** Now there's a TRICK here which knowledgeable Libertarians should be onto already: if you look at the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, "The powers not delegated to the UNITED States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.", or if you look at the Ninth Amendment, which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.", you'll discover at least three fascinating things: First, that even the Federalists, the very WORST of the Founding Fathers from a standpoint of decentralized authority and individual freedom -- even Alexander Hamilton and John Jay and James Madison, the villains of my books -- were rabid Libertarians, compared to any political point of view today except our own; I said "AT LEAST" three fascinating things", because these Amendments also demonstrate (parenthetically in the present context) that the gentlemen Federalists and their colleagues and contemporaries understood what very few, including Supreme Court nominees, appear to understand today: that the document, the Constitution, is NOT the source of rights -- they would have sneered at an idiot notion like that -- but merely an acknowledgement of them for political purposes. These Amendments are also all the evidence anyone needs that the Framers clearly understood the essentially NEGATIVE character of political rights -- "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask in what ways it's going to leave you the hell alone" -- although I've often wished they'd been savvy or prescient enough to drive that point home by calling the first ten Amendments the "Bill of Limitations" (on government power) rather than the "Bill of Rights". Second, to return to my original line of argument, that the unmistakable character of the WORST of the Founding Fathers, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, demonstrates that it is we Libertarians -- not liberals and not conservatives -- who are the only legitimate heirs to the intellectual and political legacy they established; And third, that if these two Amendments alone, the Ninth and the Tenth, are stringently and energetically enforced, we will HAVE the Libertarian society that we've all been working toward for so long, and that anything else we hope to accomplish along those lines will amount to little more than "fine tuning". "For the foreseeable future, 'Bill of Rights ENFORCEMENT' should become the MISSION STATEMENT of the Libertarian Party." Let me tell you, THAT turned out to be a message more powerful than the medium that carried it. Before I knew it, at least partly as a result of my speech in Salt Lake City, I was being asked to talk everywhere. Publications of both a Libertarian and non-Libertarian character wanted me to write for them. My latest novel PALLAS was selling better than anything I'd ever written. Four of my earlier works were suddenly about to be reprinted. My publisher and largest bookseller were purchasing radio spots to promote my work. In fact, was offered my own radio show. And I was asked again and again, by an astonishingly wide variety of individuals, not IF but WHEN I was going to run for a particular political office. There are even those who claim -- among them, a freelance columnist now working on a story about it for the WALL STREET JOURNAL -- that my speech has already changed the course of history, since the delegates and leaders of one state Libertarian Party who heard it went home and initiated a referendum on concealed weapons carry which was promptly co-opted into law by Republicans in the legislature. Now while all of this good stuff was going on, I was beginning to worry just a little bit. Here I'd spent the last fifteen years trying to motivate people, both Libertarian and non-Libertarian alike, to create a Libertarian society, and the appropriate method, I'd always believed, was what Ayn Rand called "concretization": persuading people, Libertarian and non-Libertarian alike, to envision that Libertarian society as vividly, and in as much detail as possible. That technique had worked quite well in my 1978 campaign for the state house of representatives. The same technique had made my first novel, THE PROBABILITY BROACH, a "cult classic" among Libertarians and their fellow-travellers, and that, in turn had brought thousands of individuals into the Libertarian movement. My problem was that the prospect of a political party willing to punish and humiliate their enemies was not only motivating conservatives in a new way -- that, after all, was the whole reason I'd thought the idea up in the first place -- but its effect on my "higher-minded" fellow Libertarians appeared to be an entire order of magnitude greater than anything I'd ever tried on them before. I had a long talk with a friend of mine, that member of our movement who has risen higher in the newspaper business than any other individual. I asked him, are we Libertarians really as MEAN, deep down inside, as conservatives? In a movement already full of anarcho-hyphen-this and minarcho-hypen-that, had I created a NEW hyphenation: fascisto-hyphen-libertarianism? The sonofabitch LAUGHED at me. Then I recalled the light of new hope I'd seen dawning in the eyes of my comrades when I talked with them about jailing politicians and bureaucrats who abuse the Bill of Rights, and I recalled the tone of voice they used when they talked with me, and I knew they weren't such a bad lot, after all. They were responding the same way people had when Jack Kennedy said we were going to the Moon. They weren't moved as much by the thing itself as by what it implied; they didn't care much about the Moon, but they had a good idea what being able to reach it meant, for the American economy, for American technology, for American morale. ***** Let's take a few moments to examine EXACTLY what my proposed new strategy means ... Ladies and gentlemen, we are living today in a period of what I call "DEPLORABLY SOLVED PROBLEMS". Poverty and unemployment are a "deplorably solved problem": all that's required is to eliminate the taxes and regulations with which government burdens America's productive machinery and within an amazingly short time everyone in the country will be wealthy by today's standards. The trouble is that politicians like Hillary don't want the problem solved, because that would leave them without anyone to "help", and bureaucrats like Janet don't like the solution because it leaves them without a job. Likewise, drugs are a "deplorably solved problem": all that's required is to repeal the unconscionable and unconstitutional laws that turn a nickel's worth of plant-squeezings into a hundred dollars' worth of anti-music, crack babies, turf wars, and devastated inner cities. The trouble is that precisely the same artificially multiplied profits that feed the street gangs and the overseas drug lords also fund the drug czars and whole branches of government, and, as with poverty, none of those who profit from it want to see the problem solved. So we come at last to violent crime, which is another "deplorably solved problem". The theory of an armed society which I expressed seventeen years ago in my first novel is no longer merely a theory: in Florida, where violent crime has plummeted forty percent since it became easy to carry a concealed weapon, in Vermont, which was recently declared the safest state to live in because it was always easy to carry a concealed weapon, the theory of an armed society has been experimentally, scientifically proven beyond the palest shadow of a doubt. Violent crime is a solved problem: the solution is Bill of Rights enforcement. I recall a time, back in the 60s, when politicians would crow and strut and struggle to claim credit for a statistically meaningless fluctuation in the crime rate of only four percent. To them, to almost anybody living at the time, an unmistakable drop of forty percent would have appeared impossibly Utopian. Yet today, when America has seen it happen (and more to the point, seen what CAUSED it to happen) what it all means to politicians like Hillary and bureaucrats like Janet is not the arrival of the Millenium, but an unmitigated catastrophe: evidence that their crowing doesn't make the sun rise; and the threat of a proportional reduction in their BUDGETS of forty percent. Violent crime is a solved problem: the solution is Bill of Rights enforcement. And increasingly, it's clear that rather than learning something useful from what's happening around them, rather than learning to live with crime as a solved problem and going on from there, politicians and bureaucrats are willing to enlist the aid of the hopelessly, putrescently corrupt mass media to lie and distort the truth in order to deprive Americans of yet another peace dividend. Violent crime is a solved problem: the solution is Bill of Rights enforcement. Don't talk to me -- don't let anyone talk to you -- about "vigilantism"; what America has NOW is vigilantism. What it has now is the Ku Klux Kops: dimwitted thugs in obsessive black nylon, running around inflicting one perverted brutality after another on innocent people at the behest of senile transvestites in long dresses -- what my wife calls "the Grand Dragons of the Supreme Court". By contrast, what we Libertarians advocate is Law and Order: abject government compliance with the Bill of Rights -- the highest law of the land -- decent, productive men and women of the Constitutional community joyfully taking up the burden of their own physical security along with that of their children. Violent crime is a solved problem: the solution is Bill of Rights enforcement. We KNOW the solution to violent crime, and the only thing that keeps that solution from going to work right here, right now, for each and every of us, is Republican Senator Hank Brown, and those like him, who have apparently discarded whatever it was they once believed in. There are no words in the English language adequate to express the contempt which all decent individuals must feel toward those like Senator Brown who would rather go on seeing people die in the streets than to relinquish the control he fondly imagines he has over their lives. Violent crime is a solved problem: the solution is Bill of Rights enforcement. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are the exclusive property of the American people they were written to protect; NOT of the mass media, the so-called "fourth branch of government" who believe there's only one Amendment, the First, and that it only applies to them, NOT of the executive branch, NOT of the legislative branch, certainly NOT of the judicial branch of the very institution which they were written to protect the American people FROM. The Supreme Court has been a particularly wretched custodian of the Bill of Rights because of the inherent conflict of interest involved in their unconstitutional monopoly on the interpretation of it, and the fact that they haven't got a clue, and never had, regarding what the Bill of Rights is all about. Twenty years ago, the Libertarian Party national platform committees of which I was a member called for outright abolition of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, on the grounds, among other things, that the Framers of the Constitution never intended America to have a national police force. Naturally, the few outside the Party who paid attention to that particular plank thought we Libertarians were crazy, but, as usual, they were wrong and we Libertarians were right. It is now time, in the light of the murders Ruby Ridge and Waco, for the Libertarian Party to lead other political parties in calling for -- in demanding -- the disarming of all federal agencies. This time, the public will listen, and from now on, if there's something these agencies want that can be obtained by the legitimate application of force, let them consult local law enforcement. If that had been the case last summer, all those people, men, women, and little children would be alive today. The one and only thing left that can save the American republic from the Democratic Party -- which is the polite euphemism we customarily employ when we really mean "the socialists" -- is the Libertarian Party. Likewise, the Libertarian Party is the only thing that can save the American republic from Republicans -- which, increasingly, is a euphemism we employ when we really mean "fascists". ***** Case in point: Denver radio host and columnist Ken Hamblin pleads with his listeners not to let the issue of gun ownership and self-defense become the "property" of Libertarians, because the Libertarian Party will never amount to anything, since none of its candidates has ever gotten more than five percent, and in any case, Libertarians are all nut cases who refuse to stop at stop-signs. The reason Hamblin gives for his assessment of our collective sanity -- that we oppose child labor laws -- betrays not only an embarrassing ignorance on his part of economics and history, and an astonishing inability to jettison the left-wing baggage he arrived on the pro-freedom scene with so recently, but that he has rendered himself, quite as deliberately as any "egg-sucking dog liberal" or darktown gang-banger, incapable of further learning in this area, because the facts would only disrupt his low-resolution picture of the world. My guess is that Hamblin has been commiserating with his Republican pals in the legislature, whimpering about the pressure Libertarians are putting on them to do the right thing, in the right way, about gun ownership and self-defense. Of course that's our job, as a third party out of power, and from his injured tone, it appears that we're succeeding at it. In the long run, if the Republicans continue to fail to perform, they'll be out and Libertarians will be in -- but never mind all that. I also suspect that his recent, very unbecoming hysteria over the Second Amendment rally on the capitol steps was really about four hundred dollars he had demanded, to speak for a few minutes, which the Libertarian rally organizers politely -- and wisely -- forbore to pay him. If Hamblin would occasionally stop talking and LISTEN for a change -- neither of which seems to be in his job-description or his character -- he would learn that the issue of gun ownership and self-defense have never belonged to anybody BUT Libertarians, who kept it alive all by themselves for more than twenty years (starting when only nut cases were interested in it, long before trendy neo-conservatives like Hamblin decided to stick a delicate toe in) while time after time, the NRA dullwittedly fumbled the ball and the Republicans treacherously sold us out. When I started my first novel, back in 1977, I was the only writer on the entire planet -- aside from one other self-designated Libertarian, Robert A. Heinlein -- to advocate a universally armed populace. But Hamblin won't listen; he'd rather suck up to the boys in blue and to Republican politicians, overlooking the fact that, if Martin Luther King had followed his advice in the 1950s -- to avoid an independent effort, stick with major parties, champion only "respectable" notions regardless of the truth -- there would still be two sets of public bathrooms and drinking fountains everywhere. Hamblin has come about as far, intellectually, as anyone can reasonably expect a human being to travel in a single lifetime. To give him his due, he managed the great leap from liberalism to neo-conservativism, but by his own admission, he's an "old guy" and he doesn't appear to have another leap, great or otherwise, left in him. In many respects he remains a liberal and still "thinks" with some internal organ other than his brain. Like Rush Limbaugh, if he used both halves of his brain he'd be a Libertarian by now, and he knows it, and it hurts. To David Segal, who organized the rally that so deeply offended Hamblin and his sensitive listeners, I say that the only thing more satisfying than being praised for your success is being denounced for it; you may be uncertain as to the sincerity of the former, but never of the latter. Robert LeFevre used to say that what we have in this country is a choice between left-wing socialists and right-wing socialists. More and more today it appears that Bob was wrong. What we have is a choice between right-wing and left-wing FASCISTS. My advice to Dave, and to other Colorado Libertarians is that we waste not another moment on Ken Hamblin. He's just another fascist, right-wing or left-wing, whose PUNITARIAN answer to everything is to put more people in jail. He's no black Rush Limbaugh as he claims, he's just a black Newt Gingrich. And, as such, he's made himself a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. ***** We have no time left to spend in a futile attempt to persuade those who willfully misunderstand everything we have to say. For the most part, hearts and minds on the other side are closed for good. Spend your time and energy gathering up those who already agree with us, or who already have a reason to travel with us, and we will not only win over the formerly recalcitrant and attract new individuals willing and eager to be of real help, we will achieve victory. Be warned that at the moment, many of our conservative fellow-travellers are all but useless to us -- and to themselves. They can't see that the legislative fever-pitch at which things are preceding in Washington represents desperation on the part of the Marxist trash in the White House, who know full well that this is the last chance in the world they're ever going to get to run things. Our conservative fellow-travellers would rather swap paranoid delusions with one another about United Nations forces riding invisible helicopters from Mars, than roll their sleeves up and do some real work. They'd rather whine like what P.J. O'Rourke calls "bedwetting liberals", they'd rather wring their hands and bemoan their fate, than plan and execute a counterstrike in this culture-war they talk about incessantly. All it seems they can do lately is whimper about the horrible things Hillary and Janet have done to us already; the horrible things Hillary and Janet are doing to us now; and the horrible things Hillary and Janet are about to do to us -- instead of concentrating on doing it back! Perhaps we can begin the therapy they need to get them out of this funk by teaching them that the words "conservative" and "Republican" are fully separable. Don't waste too much effort trying to explain Libertarian positions to them on issues like abortion or the War on Drugs -- and NEVER make excuses or apologies. We're right and they're wrong. Instead, tell your increasingly angry and disenfranchised conservative friends that we're not asking them to MARRY us. We're not asking them to have our baby. We're not asking them to agree with us on each and every issue. We're not asking them to BECOME Libertarians. We're not even asking them to join the Libertarian Party. We're asking them to hire us to do a job -- by consistently voting for Libertarian candidates -- a job no other party seems willing to do: enforce the Bill of Rights. The fact is, our own longtime customary practice of blindly persuading individuals to join the Libertarian Party -- or of persuading individuals to join the Libertarian Party blindly -- without fully understanding exactly what Libertarianism and the Libertarian Party are all about, must be brought to an immediate halt. On at least two occasions -- the Ed Clarke campaign and the Ron Paul campaign -- it has come THAT close to destroying us as an institution and we must now begin to repair the damage by emphasizing "service to clients" -- that is, keeping promises to voters -- rather than membership in a club, and by educating each and every newcomer in what it really means to be a Libertarian. If you want to do something, and you're not up to public speaking or to electoral politics, then help create a permanent system of education internal to the Libertarian Party. ***** It's important to act now. Come 1996, the Republicans -- who've gotten it right precisely once in thirty-five years, and couldn't locate their own overly-developed posteriors with both hands and a city block full of Klieg lights -- will trundle out the same menagerie of drooling retards and moral cripples they've inflicted on us, and on themselves, for so long, complacent in the false belief that Hillary will have performed so badly by then that Bill will be a pushover. Or is it the other way around? In any case the Republicans may offer us William Bennett, the most soft-spoken and thoroughly evil figure in contemporary politics, who consciously, deliberately, rejected Libertarianism and makes Darth Vader seem like Barney the dinosaur. They may offer us Robert Dole. What is it about Bob Dole that always makes me want to reach for a garland of garlic, a crucifix, a mallet, and a sharpened wooden stake? Has anybody ever seen Bob Dole's reflection in a mirror? They may offer us Jack Kemp, who was so determined to reverse the years of liberal excesses and abuses within the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, to take everything done by his Democratic predecessors and turn it around, that he forgot that HUD turned around and SPELLED in reverse is "DUH". They may offer us Dick Cheney, whose only virtue is that he isn't quite as blandly stupid as all the others. They may offer us Dan Quayle, whose only virtue is that he isn't quite as blandly stupid as Dick Cheney. It all depends on the polling data. Libertarians have principles; they don't DO polling. REPUBLICANS do polling, which is why they're running away from the Second Amendment -- and from the entire Bill of Rights -- as fast as their nasty little legs can carry them, instead of leading the nation back to the basic civilities afforded by the Constitution. One great problem Libertarians suffer is that we are often secretly -- or not so secretly -- more willing to see Republicans elected than Democrats. There are understandable reasons for this, philosophical, psychological, and historic but it has to stop, for equally cogent reasons both principled and pragmatic. As an example, it should be clear now that what seemed to be a tactical victory for Libertarians in Georgia two years ago was really a strategic loss. When Paul Coverdell, Republican candidate for the United States Senate, was forced into a run- off with his Democratic opponent, Wyche Fowler -- thanks to the presence of a strong Libertarian candidate -- the Libertarian should never have endorsed the Republican. It may have altered the course of history, but it gained us nothing -- certainly not the gratitude of Republicans who helped bury the truth afterward -- not at the time it happened, nor afterward in crucial votes like the Clinton budget, the Brady Bill, or the Feinstein amendment. Perhaps it would help if I listed a few anti-gun, and therefore anti-Bill of Rights Republicans for you -- people who've recently made statements or cast votes against the Second Amendment: late party chairman Lee Atwater, William Bennett, Sarah and Jim Brady, William F. Buckley, George Bush, Senator John Chaffee, William Colby of the Nixon-era CIA, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, former cabinet secretary Jack Kemp, Republicans of the New Jersey Senate, Republicans of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Republicans of the U.S. Senate in general, Richard M. Nixon, Edwin O. Welles, also of the Nixon-era CIA, columnist George F. Will, California governor Pete Wilson, and New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. Only by repeatedly preventing the election of Republicans like these can we Libertarians make our case for Bill of Rights enforcement; and anyway it's better to elect the socialist scum you know than risk another betrayal of the Constitution at the increasingly vile and duplicitous hands of the Republican Party. As Paul Atreides reminds us, "The power to destroy a thing is the power to control a thing." Presently we Libertarians will be able, and in each and every case must prove willing, to assure the victory of a liberal Democrat, no matter how repulsive, over a Republican, in every single election until the Republican Party begins to straighten up and fly right -- or becomes as extinct as the dodo. Tell your Republican friends that if they truly wish to reform their "Grand Old Party", they must be willing to punish it. Tell them that we Libertarians are offering our services as a bludgeon -- or a rattan cane, if you prefer. Tell them, in a phrase they understand, that if they spare the rod, they'll spoil the child. Tell them, in a phrase they at least claim to understand, that they must be willing to DESTROY the Republican Party in order to save it. Tell them they must GET RIGHT WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Don't temporize, don't euphemize, don't let them rationalize any longer. Tell them to BE REAL -- AND BE REDEEMED. Ask them what ever happened to whatever it was they once believed in. I am a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, but not a happy one. To that organization and its leaders, I would say, don't bargain for us any more in Congress or the nation's legislatures; don't write legislation you imagine isn't quite as bad as whatever the bad-guys have in mind; don't wheel and deal for us. You're not up to it; every time you try it, you wind up getting shafted. You wind up getting US shafted. WE wind up getting shafted. Try sticking to a principle; try sticking to the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights. Try being, for the first time since 1934, what the liberal media say you are: unbending, determined, indomitable, obdurate, persistent, resolute, stubborn, tenacious, uncompromising. And if you don't know what any of those words mean -- past performance implies strongly that you don't -- try looking them up. In the meantime, don't bargain for us any more, and don't do us any favors. To the nation's politicians and bureaucrats, to the Pat Sullivans, the Dottie Whams, the Regis Groffs, the Tom Nortons, the Wellington Webbs, the Roy Romers, the Hank Browns, the Patricia Schroeders, the Bill Bennetts, the Jack Kemps, the Janet Renos, the Hillary Clintons, and to everyone else like them across America, I advise them to get out their almanacs or encyclopedias right now, blow off the dust, and bone up on the Bill of Rights. From this moment forward they're being watched by millions of eyes, and they have vastly more at stake, here, than simple re-election. Early in the 21st century, they may find themselves serving time in prison for something they've ALREADY done -- or failed to do. Let Hillary and Janet do the worrying, about the horrible things we're about to do to them! "The laying of a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring war against natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the concern of every Man whom nature hath given the Power of feeling ... " So said our philosophical ancestor, Thomas Paine, in COMMON SENSE. One way or another, America is going to wind up with a political party that will ENFORCE the Bill of Rights -- just as soon as the Republicans decide whether they or we Libertarians will put Hillary and Janet and all their little friends behind bars, not for Whitewater capers, not even for Vincent Foster, but for "Crimes against the Constitution". Whenever you begin to feel discouraged, I want you to imagine an old lady twenty years from now, tall, stoop-shouldered, wearing thick glasses and a dikey haircut, shuffling along with a canvas bag hung over her shoulder, one of those sticks in her hand with a nail in one end, picking up bits of paper trash as part of her hundred thousand hours of public service, cleaning up America's shooting ranges. Party on, Janet! And party on, Hillary. America -- or at least Joe-Bob Briggs -- loves movies about "Bimbos Behind Bars". Let's see how they like the real thing! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Yucks Date: 04 Nov 1996 17:30:22 -0800 > Well, my kids and I (age 3.5 and 6.5) are going to stand outside > the local polling place (til they get bored) holding their > home made signs that say: > > "Bill Clinton : Liar, Liar Pants on Fire" with illustration > of flaming pants. > > and > > "Kids, They're Crazy" > > > Gotta love it. > > If it swings just one vote, its worth it. > > jcurtis Good for you, John - I LOVE 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: Brad Dolan Subject: just what we #$%^&* needed from big brother.... (fwd) Date: 05 Nov 1996 08:18:04 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- .NEW SYSTEM LINKS LENDERS, IRS .The Internal Revenue Service is developing an electronic program to link .mortgage lenders with the IRS, allowing them to exchange e-mail comparing .stated earnings on the mortgage application with actual tax return .information for the previous couple of years. If the cross-check turns up a .more than $10,000 discrepancy between the earnings claimed on the application .and those declared for tax purposes, the IRS has the option of pursuing the .loan applicant via an audit. IRS has targeted the system at self-employed .borrowers, who often declare high earnings in order to qualify for a larger .loan, but lower earnings when it comes to paying taxes. "Who knows what .their real incomes are?" asks one mortgage broker. (St. Petersburg Times 2 Nov 96 D5 courtesy of Edupage) -- one of the few things we all share: the utter, corrosive contempt for our elected officials. Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly, and for the same reason. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Latest from Charles Duke Date: 05 Nov 1996 06:27:51 -0800 > November 4, 1996 > SENATOR DUKE > (719) 481-9289 > > By Senator Charles R. Duke > Colorado District 9 > > AMERICA FOR SALE > > There once was a time in America when we had a Federal >Trade Commission (FTC) that would intercede on our behalf to >prevent any one company from monopolizing an entire business >segment. The reason for this watchdog group was very >straightforward: a monopoly by a single company will almost >always degenerate into simple greed and produce skyrocketing >consumer prices for that business segment. > This monopolistic practice is usually never a long term >view by the robber barons who pursue them. Usually these MBA >wonders only want to look good for now, this quarter, or maybe >at the most, this year. By then the multi-million dollar >performance bonuses will be safely tucked away in a Swiss bank >account, so who cares if the long term consequences of such >myopia are destructive? There will always be more little guys >to replace those that get trampled, anyway. > In case you have been living under a rock for the last >year, you have no doubt noticed that the big fish are getting a >lot bigger these days by consuming a lot of little fish. In >communications, health care, banking, transportation, and now >telephony, almost every day brings news of another mega-deal, >with the chief execs seeming to go out of their way to make >their deal more mega than the last one. > It would be perhaps tolerable if all these corporate >tyrants were Americans. It would actually be good if at least a >few of these deals produced more jobs for Americans. >Unfortunately, neither of these wishful hopes are true. In >almost every deal, foreign interests are heavily involved and >the key players are actually lauded for all the jobs that can be >eliminated, meaning layoffs, in the tens of thousands per deal. > The latest deal involves British Telecom putting forth a >proposal to buy the 80% of MCI Communications that they didn't >already own. If you were listening for a very loud whistle- >blower in the FTC or anyplace else to cry foul, don't hold your >breath. Anyone who stands in the front of one of these freight >trains just gets run over. > Some say the day is coming when there will only be one >telephone company in the world, along with one airline (British >Airways is making a major play for U.S. Air and other airlines), >one bank, one car company, and so forth. Like governments, big >businesses have a very strong desire to get even bigger, usually >at the expense of a lot of little businesses. > How does a new long-distance service get started when >confronted with the virtually limitless resources of BT? The >answer is simple, in case you haven't guessed it: they don't. >So this practice fits well with the widening separation between >the haves and the have-nots that has been going on in this >country for some time. > It is ultimately destructive since greed also ultimately >consumes its host. In some societies, this trend towards >monopolistic businesses is a sure sign of the final stages of >that society before it disintegrates into anarchy. There is >little or nothing that can be done to stop the cycle. It is in >the natural order of things. > Some of us, though, are deeply saddened by this purchase of >America by foreign interests. Maybe we should have a >Constitutional Amendment to stipulate that no non-citizen or >company owned by non-citizens of our country can have >consolidated ownership of more than 49% of any domestic real >property. > This is already the case in a number of other countries, >but it may be too little and too late to save America. We may >have to just put it up there on the shelf, along with all the >other good ideas that will die as competition is strangled to a >temporary death. > 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: November 1996 Phyllis Schlafly Report (fwd) Date: 05 Nov 1996 11:06:11 -0600 (CST) ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From eagle@eagleforum.org Mon Nov 4 19:03:46 1996 The Phyllis Schlafly Report -- Vol. 30, No. 4 * Box 618, Alton, Illinois 62002 * November 1996 -- Some Goals of the New World Order The phrase "New World Order" was not invented by President George Bush, but it was popularized by him in 1990 in order to resuscitate the then-moribund United Nations and make it a sponsor of his Gulf War. Like Saddam Hussein, the New World Order concept survived the Gulf War intact. "New World Order" has become a handy label to describe the various policies that challenge American sovereignty in the economic, political, diplomatic, and even educational venues. It's the underlying ideology behind trade policies that export American jobs and encourage illegal political contributions from foreigners. It's even the philosophy behind the trendy fads in public schools, such as multiculturalism, school-to-work, and global education. The 1996 presidential campaign generated a lot of talk about moving America into the 21st century. But neither candidate addressed the fundamental issue: Will average Americans then enjoy a higher or a lower standard of living? The crux of this issue is whether U.S. policy should give preference to American workers and their jobs over non-American workers and their jobs. This jobs/trade issue is fundamental to the hope of our citizens to live the American Dream. The Republican Platform adopted in San Diego (which some leaders boasted that they had not read, but which enunciated the views of grassroots Republicans) endorses a policy of "free and fair trade." The Platform's authors understood that the explosion in our trade deficit to an all-time high, including the $34 billion trade deficit with China alone, is "siphoning American wealth into the hands of foreigners." The Platform criticizes Bill Clinton's "hollow agreements" for subsidizing competition with U.S. industries and financing socialism in less developed countries, and accurately states that those agreements discriminate against U.S. industries and agriculture. Bob Dole appeared temporarily to endorse this message. In his San Diego acceptance speech, he said: "We must commit ourselves to a trade policy that does not suppress pay and threaten American jobs. By any measure the trade policy of the Clinton Administration has been a disaster; trade deficits are skyrocketing, and middle-income families are paying the price." Unfortunately, Dole failed to develop this popular theme on the campaign trail. "Free trade" has become the mantra of a strange-bedfellow coalition of old-right libertarians, Silicon Valley's nouveau riche supporting Clinton, multinational corporations riding the bulls in the stock market, politicians of both parties who receive contributions from the above, and those who are making such big money in faraway places like Indonesia and Korea that they can write checks for $200,000 and $400,000 to the Democratic National Committee. The advocates of free trade constantly try to paint themselves as "conservatives" who support less government and more free market; and they describe their opponents as favoring more government regulation. But that's false. Free trade was never the policy of conservatives or Republicans prior to Richard Nixon's dramatic opening to China. Nixon lost all claim to conservative credentials when he instituted price and wage controls and said "we are all Keynesians now." The benefits of what is called free trade are the direct result of federal trade and tax laws that are skewed to benefit some interests at the expense of others. These laws (mostly designed by highly paid lobbyists) have silently restructured our economy through trade treaties (falsely called "agreements" so they wouldn't have to muster a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate), high income and estate taxes on the middle class, and virtually unrestricted immigration. The result has been the destruction of a large part of our manufacturing base and the massive loss of jobs that can support a family. Whereas in 1955 one wage earner could support a family, the average household now requires both spouses to be income producers. This change in our social structure is as massive and important as the much-commented-on giant increases in divorce and illegitimacy rates. When Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich pushed NAFTA and GATT through Congress, the advocates of those treaties promised that Mexico would become a large and profitable market for U.S. exports. It has proved just the reverse. Our $16 million merchandise trade deficit with Mexico has hit an all-time high, and Mexican imports are putting American tomato, avocado, and citrus farmers out of business. Free-trade lobbyists have kept taxes high on the average worker in order to subsidize both imports of foreign products, which drive American industries out of business, and imports of foreign workers, who take jobs away from Americans. Entire industries have been rigged to hire foreign workers (often disguised as "temporary") on the false claim that there are no qualified Americans. Since 1990, six million legal immigrants have been brought into the U.S. work force, many in managerial and professional jobs. U.S. corporations find this profitable because they usually don't pay full-time wages and benefits. The most promising job prospects for Americans in the year 2000 are reported to be as cashiers, janitors, waiters, and prison guards. Wal-Mart today employs about the same number of workers who held good jobs with the big three automakers in 1975. But 30 percent of Wal-Mart employees work only part time, and the majority of its full-time workers earn only a dollar or two above the minimum wage, with no health benefits or pensions. Meanwhile, accountants and nurses are coming in from the Philippines, civil engineers to design roads and bridges from Iran, apparel industry workers from Cambodia and China, computer programmers from India, and health-care aides from Russia. ========================================================== An End to Nationhood? The ambitious plans of New World Order advocates go far beyond moving us into a global economy where American workers compete with Asians willing to work for 25 or 50 cents an hour. A political world order is also part of their agenda. The Republican Platform identified this goal by quoting the words of Bill Clinton's Rhodes scholar buddy, Strobe Talbott, who wrote in Time Magazine that "nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single global authority." (Time, July 20, 1992) The sovereignty issues show how out of touch the Republican leadership in Congress, led by Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich, are with grassroots Republicans. Dole and Gingrich joined with Bill Clinton to ratify GATT in a lame-duck session in December 1994, an act which officially put the United States into the World Trade Organization (WTO), a sort of United Nations of Trade. The same bipartisan triumvirate put through the scandalous Mexican Bailout, which was the costly consequence of the 1993 NAFTA mistake. But the Platform (written by grassroots Republicans and not read by Bob Dole) promises that "Republicans will not subordinate United States sovereignty to any international authority," and specifically promises that "Republicans will not allow the World Trade Organization to undermine United States sovereignty." In its first case, the World Trade Organization ruled against the United States. Surprise, surprise! At issue was the Clean Air Act's strict limits on pollutants in gasoline, which Venezuela and Brazil were unable to meet. In the name of "free trade," they took their complaint to the WTO and won. The adverse WTO ruling was embarrassing to the Republican leaders in Congress who had promised conservatives that such an attack on our sovereign right to make our own laws would never happen. It was even embarrassing to President Clinton and his U.S. Trade Representative, Mickey Kantor, who had promised the liberals that the WTO would never diminish our environmental regulations. A global tax is another New World Order goal. U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali wants to finance the nearly bankrupt United Nations by imposing a global tax on foreign exchange transactions. A tiny rate of 0.5 percent would produce an incredible $1.5 trillion, while an even smaller rate of 0.05 percent would produce $150 billion. He is even toying with imposing a surcharge of $1.50 on all international airline tickets. One of the chief promoters of these far-out notions for global taxes is the Clinton-appointed administrator of the U.N. Development Program, James Gustave Speth. Some claim that Boutros-Ghali is floating the global tax in order to shame the United States into paying the $1.4 billion the U.N. claims we owe. Some are suggesting that, if we don't pay up, the U.N. should cut off our U.N. voting rights, hit us with late-payment charges, and impose a ban on hiring U.S. citizens for U.N. jobs. But Americans don't think we are getting our money's worth from our payments to the U.N. Our assessments are 25 percent of the regular U.N. budget and 31 percent of the peacekeeping costs. The Republican Platform assures us that Republicans will not allow any international organizations to "infringe upon either the sovereignty of the United States or the earnings of the American taxpayer." Will Republicans stick by their word? The conviction of Army Specialist Michael New is another New World Order item that just won't go away. New was court-martialed and convicted for refusing to wear the U.N. uniform on a so-called "peacekeeping" expedition to Macedonia. The other 550 servicemen in his unit donned U.N. helmets, replaced their U.S. I.D. card with a U.N. I.D. card, and dutifully marched off to Macedonia, where Americans have no business being in the first place. When Specialist New's commander gave the U.N.-uniform order to the 550 troops on October 2, 1995 in Schweinfurt, Germany, the only authority he cited consisted of "U.N. guidelines," "National Command Authority," "U.N. Charter," "Domestic Law," "Commander in Chief," and "U.N. Security Council Resolutions." New argued that the order to alter his uniform was a violation of the Army's regulation against wearing any unauthorized insignia, decoration, medal or uniform. New said, "I am not a U.N. soldier. I am an American soldier." We wonder why the Clinton Administration didn't simply reassign New to some other duty, since the twice-decorated soldier has an exemplary record and was willing to obey any order to go anywhere in the world so long as he could wear a U.S. uniform. It seems clear that Clinton was determined to carry out this first step in transforming American soldiers into U.N. soldiers and didn't want to let one soldier stand in the way of taking America into the New World Order. ========================================================== Why No Defense Against Missiles? In the first Clinton-Dole television debate, Bob Dole let Bill Clinton get by with his boast that "no nuclear missiles are pointed at U.S. children." Dole could have retorted that a Russian general told CBS's 60 Minutes that he could retarget the powerful Russian ICBMs in a matter of minutes. The United States has no system capable of shooting down ballistic missiles, whether they are from Russia or some rogue nation. That's an appalling default of leadership, since the U.S. government's number-one constitutional duty is to "provide for the common defense." The reason we have no defenses against incoming ballistic missiles is our slavish adherence to the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty. Written by Henry Kissinger and signed by Richard Nixon in 1972, it is today highly dangerous to U.S. security. It should have been held unconstitutional when it was signed because it pledged the United States government not to defend Americans against nuclear attack, despite the fact that national defense is the prime duty of our government. Thirty-one years ago in 1965, I was privileged to be escorted with a small group through NORAD, the great hole in a Colorado mountain where our government headquartered its systems designed to track any object that might attack our nation from the skies. It was awesome to view what American scientific genius had developed and to know that our U.S. Armed Services had such precise technology to track and warn of any unfriendly action from the bad guys of the world. After the tour was completed, the officer in charge took us into a small room and carefully closed the door for privacy. I'll never forget his words: "If NORAD receives information that the Soviets have launched a nuclear missile at the United States, do you know what we have to shoot it down with? Not a cotton-pickin' thing." I was shocked; and 31 years later in 1996, it is shocking that America still has no defense against enemy missiles. Despite the trillions of dollars we have spent on the military, despite all the offensive weapons we have built to kill civilians on enemy soil, we still have no way to shoot down incoming enemy missiles and save American lives. The theory behind the 1972 ABM Treaty was Mutual Assured Destruction, popularly known by its acronym MAD. Each of the superpowers was supposedly deterred because of the knowledge that a massive launch by one side would be followed by massive retaliation, and that would assure the destruction of both countries. MAD was based on the rationale that the leaders of the two superpowers were rational and would act from a mutuality of self-interest and deterrence. However, the biggest threat today comes from the "non-deterrables" (Libya, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea), countries that don't like us and behave in ways that we don't find rational and can't predict. Ronald Reagan tried to remedy our nation's nuclear nudity when, on March 23, 1983, he called for building a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). He asked the crucial question, "Would it not be better to save lives than to avenge them?" Ted Kennedy immediately ridiculed this as "Star Wars" and the liberal media, chanting those words like a Greek chorus, obligingly made sure that the false name stuck. Faced by the implacable opposition of the Democratic Congress and the media, Ronald Reagan was not able to build SDI. But his announced determination to go forward with developing and deploying an anti-missile system was the principal reason why he won the Cold War without firing a shot. The reasons why SDI has never been built are political (the liberals just don't like it and the Democrats don't want to give Reagan credit for it), technical (a slavish adherence to the 1972 ABM Treaty), and false claims that it would be too costly. The rationale of the ABM Treaty is obsolete; it is a Maginot Line mentality. In 1972 the terrible ICBMs could only be built by the superpowers that had a sophisticated technological base. Now, 24 years later, we are in the era of the "poor man's missiles" that can be built and launched relatively inexpensively, and might even be bought at bargain-basement prices from cash-hungry Russians, who still have over 9,000 strategic nuclear missiles and 18,000 tactical nuclear weapons. The Russian political situation is very volatile, control over those weapons of mass destruction is uncertain, and some 25 nations are ambitious to join the nuclear club. The cost argument doesn't stand up, either. SDI wouldn't cost any more than the relatively inefficient systems we are currently using to protect limited, designated areas overseas. SDI's cost is not excessive compared to the cost of other protections such as air superiority (hundreds of billions for the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 and F-22), or command of the sea (hundreds of billions for aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and submarines), or superior ground forces (tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, and helicopters). SDI can be paid for by transferring funds from less important federal purposes, including less effective military projects. Some people seem to think that the short-lived and victorious Gulf War is the model for all future wars. But just imagine how different it would have been if Saddam had had a long-range nuclear ballistic missile. Would we have dared to send our troops against Iraq if American cities were exposed to retaliation by the dictator President Bush described as a madman? Continuing to try to adhere to the ABM Treaty means imposing on ourselves restrictions that do not apply to potential enemies. The United States should withdraw from the ABM Treaty immediately, as permitted in Article XV, and then build the most effective, affordable defenses that current technology permits. Our government has taken the extraordinary step of closing off Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. to protect the President against any possible bomb threat, however remote. American citizens need protection, too, the kind of protection in their homes and cities that SDI will provide. ========================================================== China Doesn't Deserve MFN It is ridiculous to allow Communist China to enjoy the same trading privileges with U. S. markets that friendly countries enjoy, a status called Most Favored Nation (MFN). China has stolen billions (not just millions) of dollars worth of U.S. intellectual property, thumbed its nose at signed trade agreements, and sold our weapons technology to rogue dictators. China locks up citizens who dare to speak out for freedom and forces women to undergo late-term abortions. China continues to persecute Tibet, uses slave labor to produce goods for export, and shows contempt toward any self-government for Hong Kong. China even tried to threaten Taiwan's democratic election process by firing rockets at the island, and issued a veiled threat against Los Angeles. China's expanding economy is financed by a $34 billion trade surplus with the United States that has cost Americans 700,000 jobs. This trade surplus is partially based on stealing our products (computer software, video films, musical recordings, compact disks, other intellectual property, books, etc.) instead of buying them. Pirated CDs and CD-ROMs are made in China in an estimated 31 government-licensed plants. China itself can use only about two percent of the CDs produced, so the rest go into the international market and cheat U.S. companies out of sales. China signed an agreement to stop this theft in February 1995, and reaffirmed its promises in 1996, but little has changed. China defiantly rejects the whole concept of copyrights and trademarks. China has made so much money from U.S. trade that it is trying to buy SS-18 strategic missiles, components and technology from Russia or Ukraine. SS-18s are the biggies that can reach the United States from a launch on the other side of the world. One of the most outrageous Chinese "businesses" was selling weapons at a 400 percent mark-up to U.S. big-city gangs that want to wipe out their rivals. It was a sophisticated worldwide operation that must have enjoyed the complicity of the Chinese government. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) finally did something useful. They arrested seven Chinese Communist agents for smuggling 2,000 AK-47 automatic assault rifles into the United States in violation of our gun control laws. Those arrested had direct links to China's Defense Ministry and Deng Xiaoping's son-in-law. To conceal the source of the weapons, the money had been laundered through Beijing's state-run bank in Hong Kong. In the 18-month U.S. sting operation, the Chinese discussed with our undercover agents the future sale of explosives, anti-tank rockets, and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft systems capable of knocking planes out of the sky. One Chinese boasted he could bring 300,000 AK-47s into the U.S. (New York Times, May 24, 1996, page A7) Selling all kinds of weapons is big business for Communist China. It has sold missiles to Iran and nuclear reactor technology and materials to make enriched uranium to Pakistan. The internationalist claque that continually calls for "free trade" ignores the fact that China has slapped a 30 percent tariff on goods it imports from the United States. In China, the ruling clique threatens to "punish" U.S. companies if we dare to criticize the $2 billion piracy of our intellectual property. Americans are looking for leaders who understand that the sovereignty issues are crucial to the continued freedom and independence of the United States. ================================================================================ Crisis in the Classroom: Hidden Agendas and Grassroots Opposition is an informative television documentary that will help you understand the key education issues and why they are so important for our children and our nation. 58 min. $25.00 For your copy of this Eagle Forum Special Television Report, simply enclose a gift of $25 or more and send it to: Eagle Forum PO Box 618 Alton, Illinois, 62002 Or you may call our toll-free number to order your copy by credit card: 1-888-500-5262 or 618-462-5415 http://www.eagleforum.org ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Voter Statistics & Analysis (fwd) Date: 05 Nov 1996 11:17:41 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Below (between the two dashed lines) is a list of the candidates and partys in the 1992 election, and the votes they received. This information is from: "The World Almanac And Book Of Facts" Copyright (C) 1995 by Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. Below that, is some further information based on that list, and some analysis. Study this information, and think carefully about what it means. Candidate Party Votes Bill Clinton Democrat 44,908,254 George Bush Republican 39,102,343 Ross Perot Independent 19,741,065 Andre Marrou Libertarian 291,612 Write-in 177,207 James "Bo" Gritz Populist/America First 98,918 Lenora Fulani New Alliance 73,248 Howard Phillips U.S. Taxpayers 42,960 John Hagelin Natural Law 37,137 Ron Daniels Independent 27,396 Lyndon LaRouche Independent 25,863 James Mac Warren Socialist Workers 22,883 Drew Bradford Independent 4,749 Jack Herer Grassroots 3,875 Helen Halyard Workers League 3,050 John Quinn Brisben Socialist 2,909 None of the Above (Nevada Only) 2,537 John Yiamouyiannis Independent 2,199 Delbert Ehlers Independent 1,149 Jim Boren Apathy 956 Earl Dodge Prohibition 935 Eugene Hem Third Party 405 Isabelle Masters Looking Back Group 327 Robert J. Smith American 292 Gloria Estella La Riva Workers World 181 Total based on addition of this list 104,572,450 Total given in almanac 104,552,736 Discrepency 19,714 Total votes: Not for Bill Clinton 59,664,196 Not for George Bush 65,470,107 Not for Ross Perot 84,831,385 Not for Andre Marrou 104,280,838 For someone other than Clinton or Bush 20,561,853 Total population of US in 1992 248,709,873 Number of people in the US who didn't vote for: Bill Clinton 203,801,619 George Bush 209,607,530 Ross Perot 228,968,808 Andre Marrou 248,418,261 Do the math. Will the 3rd party candidate of your choice win ? If Klinton wins, because a substantial portion of people decide to vote for the 3rd party of their choice, better start saving your money now. Because the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action is going to need it. Do the right thing. Vote for Dole & hold your breath. Enough said, I'm all through. Don Koehn ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) VOTE! Communist leads push for turnout to oust GOP (fwd) Date: 05 Nov 1996 13:02:41 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive (Reprinted from the November 2, 1996 issue of the People's Weekly World. May be reprinted or reposted with PWW credit. For subscription information see below) By Fred Gaboury NEW YORK - From the evergreen shores of Puget Sound to the purple sage brush-covered plains of southwest Texas; from Boise east to Indianapolis and then west to Phoenix, the labor movement is mobilizing a final push to pick up the additional 19 seats needed to change the balance of forces in the 105th Congress. Although conditions may vary, congressional districts in Washington, Texas, Idaho, Indiana and Arizona are among the 86 districts targeted by the AFL-CIO's Labor '96 campaign to break the right-wing grip on Congress. And in each of them, state labor councils, backed by more than 130 field organizers dispatched from AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, are mobilizing get out the vote campaigns as the final countdown to "E-Day" begins. And not to be outdone, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, his associate officers and members of the AFL-CIO Executive Council are crisscrossing the country in a non-stop campaign urging union members and their families to "vote like a worker" for candidates who stand with working families. "A year ago they said we were history - now we're making history," Sweeney said. Daniel Grove, communications assistant of the 175,000-member Washington State Labor Council, said the council has more than 2,000 union activists signed up to ring door bells, make phone calls and drive people to the polls on election day. "We have a good chance of picking up three of those 19 seats," Grove told the World. Then, pointing to the three- hour time differential between east and west coasts, he said he feared that many voters might stay home if the television networks announce a presidential winner too early. "If that happens, there's a danger that 'they' will vote and our people will stay home. There's more to this year's election than the presidential contest," he added. Grove said the battle lines were particularly sharp in districts represented by Linda Smith, a darling of the religious right, and Randy Tate, the poster boy of the 73- member Gingrich Gang elected in 1994. "All in all, the council has mailed out more than three-quarters of a million pieces of direct mail to union members in the state. Now comes the payoff." Indiana's 8th CD, where Rep. John Hostettler rode Gingrich's Contract on America to victory in 1994, is another of the districts targeted by Labor '96. And Charles "Chuck" Deppert, president of the Indiana State AFL-CIO, is shooting for 1,000 election-day volunteers. "I've only been president for 10 years," Deppert said. "But interest and activity around this election is double anything I've seen in those years." He said he was going to challenge Grove to a "turn out the vote" contest. "We'll see who gets the best turnout of volunteers." Deppert attributes the new found energy of the rank and file and the so-far success of Labor '96 to "our ability to keep the issues up front. We beat back Gingrich & Co. on Medicaid and Medicare, on the TEAM Act and forced them to increase the minimum wage. We've been able to hold them accountable for their votes and to keep issues of need on the front burner in every campaign from the courthouse to the White House." Although he has drawn the ire of the state's labor movement, Hostettler is not the most notorious of the three Gingrichites elected from the Hoosier State in 1994. That distinction belongs to Mark Souder, the Fort Wayne businessman and vice president of the freshman class. It was Souder who, when asked about the impact a government shutdown would have, replied, "We don't know and we don't care." Deppert said that although the 8th was a key race, the federation was working to defeat the gubernatorial bid of Indianapolis' GOP Mayor Steve "Mr. Privatizer" Goldsmith, in favor of Frank O'Bannon, presently the state's lieutenant Governor. The battle to defeat the most vulnerable of the Gingrich Gang is also underway in Idaho's 1st Congressional District, now represented by Helen Chenoweth, an unrepentant Gingrichite and apologist for the armed militia. Randy Ambuehl, president of the Idaho State AFL-CIO, said Chenoweth voted "right"only two times in 1996. "But," he hastened to add, "she's no worse than the other three members of Idaho's Congressional delegation. In 1995 the four of them had a combined score of zero." Ambuehl blasted Chenoweth's 20-year history as a behind-the- scenes operative in Republican circles. "She was a leader in the campaign to dump Sen. Frank Church and helped bring about the far right shift of the party," he said, adding that she was "the second dimmest bulb in the House of Representatives". Because of the size and mountainous terrain of the district and a state federation with fewer than 14,000 affiliated members, Labor '96 has been forced to run a decentralized campaign in the effort to unseat Chenoweth. "The district runs 600 miles from the Canadian border to the Nevada state line and 250 miles west from the Wyoming line. We have to depend on local unions to carry on most of the educational work," Ambuehl said. 'We have seven coordinators working with the locals and now we're concentrating on getting out the vote on Nov. 5." Bill Hogan, COPE director for the Arizona State AFL-CIO, calls J.D. Hayworth, the carpetbagger sportscaster turned congressman from Arizona's 6th District, the "biggest blowhard in Congress." Hayworth's district is high on the list of Labor '96, Hogan, told the World. "He voted with Newt Gingrich more than 90 percent of the time." Arizona, which has increased its number of congressional seats every 10 years since 1960, is rock-ribbed Republican with Ed Pastor the only Democrat among its six U.S. representatives. Three of the five GOP members were elected in 1994 and all have voting records similar to Hayworth. Hogan sees voter turnout as the key factor in determining the outcome of Tuesday's election. "We've done our educational work," he said. "Now the job is to get working people and their families out to the polls." Hogan said the state federation will have more than 1,000 people working as volunteers on election day. "That's more than the combined turnout of all elections in the last 20 years," he added. No campaign is more complicated that the Senate race in Texas that pits Democratic challenger Victor Morales against Phil Gramm, the ultra-right Republican incumbent. "The state runs 900 miles north and south and another 900 east and west" Joe Gunn, president of the Texas AFL-CIO, said in voice showing the signs of wear and tear. Morales, a high school teacher making his first run for public office, won an upset primary victory, besting the candidate endorsed by both the state AFL-CIO and the Democratic Party. Gunn bemoaned the fact that the Democratic Senatorial Committee had waited until only days before election day to provide Morales with money for TV ads - and then sent a bare $150,000. "They came down with their jets the day after he won the primary and then left," he said. "Morales refuses to take PAC money so that also complicates the situation," Gunn continued. "He might have been able to win the primary by traveling around the state in a white pickup truck but that's no longer news. Money may not be everything but it sure helps." Gunn said polls show Morales behind but that Gramm's approval rating is below the 50 percent generally considered a safe margin for an incumbent. Gunn said Morales has a secret weapon. "Many of our Spanish-speaking voters barely have enough money to buy groceries, let alone to have a telephone. These folks aren't included in the polls and, if they turn out, they may make it possible for Morales to squeak by. Labor '96 has not only helped release the energies of the rank-and-file trade unionists, it has also drawn the fire of the right wing. Outfits like the Heritage Foundation and the Weekly Standard magazine have launched a non-stop attack on the fact that the AFL-CIO' has put $35 million into its education, registration and get-out-the-vote campaign. A recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that financial contributions by business interests during this election cycle are at least seven times greater than the $35 million the AFL-CIO has invested in Labor '96. The same study said that this year's presidential race will cost $800 million, three times the amount spent in 1992. Another $800 million will be spent on races of the House and Senate. ##30## ************************************************************ *** * Read the Peoples Weekly World * ********* **** * Sub info: pww@igc.apc.org * **** * **** 235 W. 23rd St. NYC 10011 *** * ** **** * $20/yr - $1-2 mos trial sub * **** * *** * * ********* ************************************************************ Tired of the same old system: Join the Communist Party, USA Info: CPUSA@rednet.org; or (212) 989-4994; or http://www.hartford-hwp.com/cp-usa ************************************************************ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) Chinese "intelligence gusher" (fwd) Date: 05 Nov 1996 13:03:16 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 11:15 AM ET TIME Magazine: November 3, 1996 White House Made Huang a "Must Hire" at Commerce WASHINGTON, D.C.: The White House sent John Huang's name to Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown as a "must hire" because he had "deep Arkansas connections and was well known to the President," TIME Magazine reports. And even before Huang joined the Commerce Department, he enjoyed special treatment from his friends in the West Wing. Huang received a top-secret security clearance while still a private citizen. TIME has obtained an official memo waiving the need for Huang to undergo a full background check before receiving the clearance. "Huang is granted this waiver," said the one-page document signed by the personnel-security chief of the Commerce Department, "due to the critical need for his expertise in the new Administration [by] Secretary Brown." David Harris, a former top official in the Canadian intelligence service who has studied the infiltration of Chinese spies into North American commerce, describes Huang's free pass as "horrendous." It is particularly disturbing, Harris says, because the $6 billion Lippo Group financial conglomerate, Huang's former employer, shared ownership with the Beijing government of a bank in Hong Kong, and could have opened an intelligence gusher to the People's Republic. Copyright Time Inc. 1996. All Rights Reserved. -- Regards, Allan J. Favish http://members.aol.com/AllanF8702/page1.htm -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) CLINTON ACCUSED OF TAKING $400K BRIBE (fwd) Date: 05 Nov 1996 13:04:10 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- not to be used for commercial purposes Clinton accused of accepting a $400,000 contribution bribe Sun 11/03/96 09:37:06 pm By Alison Young Knight-Ridder Newspapers (KRT) DETROIT - A Detroit area Chaldean family gave President Bill Clinton about $400,000 during an Oct. 21 fund-raiser at the Fox Theatre that people in attendance said was arranged to persuade Clinton to ease international sanctions against Iraq. The event, organized by Bloomfield Township businessman Samir Danou, brought together many members of the area's Chaldean community. They paid as much as $10,000 per couple to the Democratic National Committee for the chance to speak privately with the president and urge leniency for their homeland. Chaldeans are Christian Iraqis. The Detroit area is home to the largest Chaldean community outside Iraq. Danou, 54, an Iraqi native who is not registered to vote in Tuesday's election, introduced the president and was the night's ``main money man,'' according to another businessman who helped sell tickets. Danou's niece Julie Danou of West Bloomfield Township, who attended the reception and dinner, said Sunday the family made a campaign contribu- tion to Clinton of $400,000 to $500,000. ``It was to help Iraq, to help the people there, to open sanctions,'' Julie Danou said. She said the president was responsive and promised to work toward ``lifting the embargo and help send food and medicine to the kids and the Iraqi people.'' The United Nations has imposed sanctions that, in effect, have cut Iraq off the international economic community since the United States and other nations defeated Iraq in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. U.N. officials recently acknowledged that 4,500 children under 5 die in Iraq each month from starvation or disease. The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee have been criticized by Republicans, Reform Party candidate Ross Perot and campaign watchdog groups for accepting large contributions from busi- nessmen and individuals with ties to Indonesia and South Korea. Last week, DNC officials acknowledged they had made mistakes and pledged to look more closely into the backgrounds of big-money donors. Although there is no indication that the money Clinton raised at the Fox came from foreign sources, Republicans on Sunday blasted the event as tantamount to influence peddling. ``It fits the pattern we're seeing of foreign contributions to influence U.S. foreign policy,'' said Republican National Committee spokesman Ed Gillespie in Washington. ``The word is out in the international community: If you need to buy hamburgers, go to McDonald's. If you need to buy foreign policy, go to the DNC.'' ``Our foreign policy is for sale to the highest bidder,'' said John Long, executive director of the Michigan Dole-Kemp campaign. ``This is just further evidence of sleaze and corrup- tion from the Clinton White House.'' But organizer Danou, a developer who has several businesses based in Trenton, also has been a heavy contributor to Republican campaigns, records show, including donations of at least $75,000 to the Michigan GOP over the last three years and $1,000 to Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole. Craig Sutherland, press secretary for the Clinton-Gore campaign in Michigan, said Clinton did not benefit directly from the fund-raiser. Regarding the Danous, ``Whatever contribution they gave, they gave to the Democratic Party, not the Clinton campaign,'' Sutherland said. Democrats said the fund-raiser, which was closed to the press, reaped about $800,000 for the party. People of backgrounds other than Chaldean also attended. DNC officials could not immediately provide details Sunday on the theme of the Detroit fund-raiser. Deputy White House press secretary Barry Toiv said Clinton discussed Iraq with individuals at the event. ``He basically restated our policy'' toward Iraq, Toiv said, which is that the United States has long had a humanitarian interest in easing sanctions, but also that much of what happens to Iraq depends on the behav- ior of its leader, Saddam Hussein. Samir Danou did not respond to repeated requests for an interview last week. Records show that he came to Detroit from the Iraqi capital of Baghdad in 1965 and married a U.S. citizen in 1967. It is not clear from records whether he is a U.S. citizen, but he is not registered to vote. Clinton campaign press secretary Joe Lockhart said Sunday night that a background check done prior to the fund-raiser showed that Danou was a U.S. citizen. Karim Toma of Bloomfield Hills said he helped Danou sell tickets for the Fox event, but that Danou ``was the main money man'' in terms of fund-raising and personal giving. Federal campaign finance laws limit the amounts individuals, companies or organizations can give to candidates or their political committees. But those limits are easily avoided. For example, donors can give unlimited amounts for party-building activities. Toma, a registered Republican, said Chaldeans support Clinton this election because he is the candidate most receptive to their concerns about U.S. policy toward Iraq. ``The Iraqi people are dying,'' Toma said. ``The Clinton administra- tion is more responsive to the Arab and Chaldean community than any other administration.'' Toma said the fund-raiser gave him the opportunity to have a brief private conversation with Clinton during which he urged the president to support passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 986, which would allow Iraq some relief from the sanctions by allowing it to sell a limited amount of oil for money to buy food and medicine. Some Detroit area Chaldeans said Danou was helped in selling tickets for the Fox event by his brother, Jack Danou. ``They claimed to have access to Clinton to lift the embargo against Iraq,'' said a Detroit area Chaldean who received a ticket pitch. For $1,000, a ticket-buyer could attend a cocktail reception with Clin-ton. For $10,000, a couple could attend a smaller dinner, speak private- ly with the president, and have a photo taken with him. Jack Danou did not return calls for comment Sunday. His daughter, Julie Danou, said her father and uncle had been working toward holding a party for Clinton for more than two years and had made numerous calls and some trips to Washington to arrange it. According to Federal Election Commission records, Samir Danou gave a total of $51,500 to Democratic and Republican candidates from Janu- ary 1995 through June 1996. Records show a $1,000 contribu- tion to Clinton's re-election campaign, and $1,000 to Dole. He's given $25,000 during the last two years to the Republican National Committee, $2,000 to Republican Sen. Spencer Abraham, $1,000 to Democratic Sen. Carl Levin - and $1,000 to Levin's Republican challenger, Ronna Romney. He's given $500 to U.S. Rep. Dick Chrysler of Brighton and an equal amount to Democratic U.S. Rep. John Dingell of Dearborn. Danou has qualified for the state GOP's Team Michigan by donating $25,000 to the party in each of the last three years, said executive director David Kochel. The most recent donation was in April, Kochel said. ``We consider him a solid supporter,'' Kochel said. ``But I would point out that there is a significant difference between a regular, major donor ... and handing the president almost half a million dollars a week before the election.'' Danou came to the United States on a student visa to finish studies in civil engineering at Wayne State Uni versity and establish businesses that would allow other family members to join him in this country, according to records filed in Oakland County Circuit Court. In October 1967, as Danou completed his studies, he married his wife, Mary, a natural-born U.S. citizen, allowing him to immediately become a legal permanent resident. His mother, Shamama Danou, joined him that same year, and older brother Jack (formerly known as Yacoub) Danou arrived in 1973. Other family mem- bers followed. Beginning with a jewelry store in Ferndale and a few grocery stores, Samir Danou has since started more than 16 corporations - including Trenton-based Danou Enterprises and Danou Ventures - with businesses ranging from real estate development to supermarket management and international trade. Danou Enterprises has the World Trade Center license for the Detroit region. X X X Staff writers Dawson Bell, Tim Doran and Jeff Martin contributed to this report. X X X (c) 1996, Detroit Free Press. Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services. AP-NY-11-03-96 2237EST -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ken L. Holder" Subject: Fwd: An British gunner's advice to Americans Date: 05 Nov 1996 11:11:44 -0800 >Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 21:42:58 -0800 >From: Joshua Greenland >To: ca-firearms@lists.best.com >Subject: An British gunner's advice to Americans > >Date: 04 Nov 96 17:03:57 EST >From: Steven Kendrick/UK <73612.2132@CompuServe.COM> >To: GunTalk >Subject: Missing the forest for the trees > >Having been on Guntalk since I think 1993, I would like to say something, so >indulge my ramblings. > >It is my now confirmed opinion that gun owners are too sophisticated for >politicians. > >I constantly read on here, rec.guns, my own list, etc, about how this law means >that, how this act will do whatever, how the Government won't be able to do >whatever because of this, etc. > >And then a lot of you become exceptionally esoteric, delving into the >metaphysics of it all, talking about God, race and all the rest of it. > >The simple fact of the matter is that politicians don't give a toss. > >You may say, "The Government will never be able to take my guns because they are >not registered, we have rights, we outnumber them etc." > >Rubbish. If you say these things you are being utterly naive. > >If you seriously think the Second Amendment is worth anything you are wrong. >What matters is that you make people _believe_ that it is worth something. > >We have a Bill of Rights in the UK. I can guarantee you 99% of the population >have never heard of it, let alone read it. It is not even published anymore by >HM Stationary Office because there is so little interest in it. > >There may be half a million hardcore gun enthusiasts in the US, but try keeping >your guns when the people have been brainwashed with do-gooder nonsense, and >it's you against 263 million people. If you think you and half a million gun >owners can defeat the armed forces of the US while lacking public support, you >are wrong. > >Try hiding your guns when shooting is less socially acceptable than smoking, and >the Government has "hotlines" for your neighbours to rat on you. And they will >be warmly rewarded and regarded as heroes for turning in what the general public >see as a "nutter". > >Politicians couldn't care less about your rights. They would wipe their >backsides with the Bill of Rights if they thought it would win them votes. > >The only thing they understand is _power_, your ability to turf them out of a >job, your ability to make their lives hell. If you are strong, they will leave >you alone. If you are weak they will walk all over you. > >If you are strong, they will do what Bill Clinton is trying to do, turn public >opinion against you, because you point out flaws in his vote winning strategies. > >If every criminological study ever written showed that more guns = more deaths, >I can guarantee you if the NRA had 20 million members who wrote to their members >of Congress and voted on the gun issue alone there would be virtually no gun >laws in the United States. > >Attacking or even bothering with people like Sarah Brady is a waste of time. >They are what Lenin described as "useful idiots". Clinton has no secret agenda. >He is not a communist, he is not a totalitarianist. He just wants to use the >sympathy for crime victims to win him votes so he gets a nice cushy job. So he >supports more gun laws. Clinton is too dense to have the intellectual honesty >to be a dictator. > >To expect dictators to emerge in the TV-saturated/fastfood driven society we >live in is wholly unrealistic. The fervor of revolution perished long ago. > >If you spend time trying to figure out the socialist/UN/NWO strategy of Clinton, >you are wasting your time, because he doesn't have one. All you will find is >the ingredient list of a quarter pounder with cheese. > >Speaking to members of Parliament in this country has been an eye-opening >experience. The only ones truly committed ideologically to a gun ban are quite >simply at the low end of the IQ scale. They fail to see the illogic of it >because they cannot think logically. > >Others are misinformed. So you inform them, and they turn into the next type - > >Most MPs I have spoken to know full well that a gun ban will not make one iota >of difference in terms of public safety. They support it solely because they >think the public supports it, ergo they will more likely get re-elected if they >support a ban. > >They agree whole-heartedly with your facts, they acknowledge that you are >correct, but in the end, you have only one vote, the press hysteria has created >many more votes for the opposing opinion, and they don't give a damn about your >rights, your guns, or you. > >The ones who agree with you fall into their own classes - > >The first is the one who has an interest in your issue, in this case he/she is a >gun owner. > >The second is the one who sees votes in supporting a minority cause because he >will get money and other things out of you. > >The third is the rarest breed of all, the politician with PRINCIPLES. And in my >experience, nearly all of them are not running for re-election. > >I can guarantee you that the newspaper headlines the day after I fail to turn my >guns in and the police haul me away will make me out to be a "crazed firearm >enthusiast, a cancer in the local community", but I no longer care anymore, >because my conscience is frankly worth more than all the newspapers in this >country put together. > >So tomorrow, get out there and VOTE and show you are strong. > >Steve. > >"Liberty does not consist in mere general declaration of the rights of men. It >consists in the translation of those declarations into definite action." - >Woodrow Wilson, July 4, 1914. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: PMRS Date: 05 Nov 1996 13:23:14 -0700 (MST) >[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] > > > c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 > Tucson [zip code exempt] > ARIZONA REPUBLIC > > November 5, 1996 >Mr. Kenneth Starr >Independent Counsel >1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. >Suite 490-North >Washington, D.C. >Postal Zone <20004> > >Subject: IRS Kick-Backs to President from the > Performance Management and Recognition System > ("PMRS") > >Dear Mr. Starr: > >I have evidence in my possession which implicates President >William Jefferson Clinton in the receipt of illegal IRS kick- >backs from a defunct federal program called Performance >Management and Recognition System ("PMRS"). As of yesterday, the >Alta Vista search engine found some 20 documents on the Internet >which mention this system. > >To obtain more information about PMRS, I have already submitted a >Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to the Department of >the Treasury for all financial records of the PMRS. Quite to my >surprise, Mr. Mark L. Zolton wrote back to explain that some >records do not exist, because the rewards were paid in cash. > >For your information, I have decided to become rather politically >active in this matter. Enclosed please find my essay entitled >"The Kick-Back Racket: Performance Management and Recognition >System," which I enclose for your consideration and review. > >Please accept this as my firm offer to testify before a competent >and qualified federal grand jury in this matter. I wish this >matter to be investigated fully, and that is the main reason why >I have brought it to your attention at this time. > >If I can assist you, or any others in your office, in the course >of investigating PMRS, please contact me immediately. > >Thank you very much for your consideration. > >Sincerely yours, > >/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. > >Counselor at Law, federal witness >and Citizen of Arizona state > >enclosures > >copy: Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit > > > # # # > > > c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 > Tucson [zip code exempt] > ARIZONA REPUBLIC > > November 5, 1996 >Mr. Gerald R. Ryan >Special Assistant >Assistant Chief Counsel >Disclosure Litigation >Department of the Treasury >"Internal Revenue Service" >Washington, D.C. > >Subject: FOIA for PMRS records Control Number: 249346-96 > >Dear Mr. Ryan: > >Thank you for your letter to me, dated October 24, 1996. > >As you can see from my original FOIA request, dated July 26, >1996, (copy attached), I requested certified copies of the PMRS >records. My FOIA appeal was based, in part, on your >organization's failure to provide certified copies, so as to >render them admissible in a court of law, if necessary. > >Secondly, Mr. Mark L. Zolton, Tax Law Specialist in the FOIA >Branch, wrote to me on September 12, 1996, explaining that my >original FOIA request was not specific enough to allow you to >conduct a search for the records that are of interest to me. A >transcription of his letter is attached, for your information. >Evidently, Mr. Zolton needed specific years for which I was >interested in obtaining records. I timely responded to Mr. >Zolton in writing on September 19, 1996 (see attached). > >Thirdly, Mr. Zolton's letter contained an amazing admission that >awards made under PMRS took the form of cash payments or quality >step in-grade promotions. If there are no records of said cash >payments, this raises the ugly specter of widespread federal >income tax evasion by recipients of these cash payments, >including possibly the President. The American People have a >right to know who received these cash payments, when, and how >much. The FOIA imposes no requirement upon me to demonstrate >relevance or materiality of these records, however. > >Therefore, I am entirely unsatisfied with the response(s) of your >organization to date, and demand that you refrain from closing >your administrative appeal file in this matter. > >Finally, please be advised that I do not accept U.S. mail from >the federal government, or from any of its agencies, assigns, >colorable trusts, or instrumentalities, with two-letter federal >abbreviations (e.g. "AZ") or with unqualified ZIP codes. Since >you may not have known this, I have made an exception solely for >the purpose of explaining my position and future intent to you. >This is to inform you that I will refuse any such mail from you >in the future, unless it is directed to the correct mailing >location shown above. Please see USPS Publication #221 for >details. > >Thank you very much for your consideration. I will look forward >to your continued cooperation in this matter. > >Sincerely yours, > >/s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. > >Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness >and Counselor at Law > > >copies: The Internet > Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit > > > # # # > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: OUTING THE TROLLS Date: 05 Nov 1996 13:18:31 -0800 This includes Linda Thompson's reply to someone who is probably a government plant in the militia. Read it all, even though it's long; you'll be glad you did. Her reply is a good example of exactly why I stick up for Linda when others consider her loony. Linda is on our side, and she knows of what she speaks. - Monte >>Linda, >> >>Aren't you the one who called for all Militiamen to converge on >>Washington at once ARMED and arrest all of our Politicians there? You >>were going to LEAD the attack, huh, (when you called yourself "Adjutant >>General" of the Militia)? Wouldn't you call that an act of an >>irresponsible fool (provocateur) to encourage our Militiamen to do >>something so STUPID....Give me a break, Linda! You're so obvious it's >>pathetic. How much were you paid to provoke that STUPID IDEA? Or are you >>that STUPID? Linda, you need to quit holing up in the office and get off >>of the net and pay more attention to your husband and children, they >>need you more there at home where you belong AND YOU NEED TO STAY OUT OF >>MATTERS THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT, THAT would a RESPONSIBLE thing for >>you to do. You OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING when MILITARY >>PROCEEDURES ARE CONCERNED! If the Militiamen would have done what you >>had suggested, they would have been slaughtered. You need to go back to >>home making. Learn to make some good meals for your family. Bake some >>cookies, be a good wife and mom. Quit trying to DIVIDE AND CONQUER OUR >>PEOPLE. You have been a miserable failure at uniting this country. Leave >>those of us alone who are trying to UNITE THE MILITIA. It (uniting) needs >>to be done so quit running your mouth causing dissention and >>discouragement and division. IF you really CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR >>COUNTRY, SHUTUP. >> >> Sincerely, >> Walt Williams >> > >Let's examine what you've said. > >(1) What you claim, above, was never claimed, until a year after what I >actually did, and only by the media propagandists. Why is that? > >(2) What actually occurred: > > (a) We held a militia assembly, where people assembled, >peacefully, with arms, to demonstrate that people can exercise the first and >second amendment simultaneously. > > This occurred on April 3, 1993. > >Subsequently, I appeared on over 900 radio and TV programs talking about >"What is the militia?" > >At that time, virtually no one knew what "militia" meant or that it was part >and parcel of the law of all our states, the U.S., and had an actual >meaning, history and purpose. They do now. > > (b) I was able to well illustrate several other points: Our >military has been put under a centralized command. Most of the fighting >forces have been sent out of the country. Who will be called to "put down" >the people who go to Washington? In other words, people had to consider >things they had not ever considered. Do you know the answers? > > >(3) I sent letters to every Congressman by certified mail, demanding each >take an AFFIRMATIVE step to demonstrate that he or she was going to act >Constitutionally. Many did do that. Many did not. The last election spoke >for itself. > >(4) The call for the march was no different than what we had already done >on April 3, 1993: >A call to a lawful exercise of First and Second Amendment rights, >simultaneously, not, as you hysterically and wrongly characterize it. > >Hysterical and ignorant people, media mostly, have done, as you have above, >something of a chicken-little, the sky is falling, knee-jerk type of >response (long AFTER the fact). > >They would not mention it beforehand. Why? Because it was, of course, >perfectly legal. It was, of course, just as the April 3, 1993 demonstration >had already shown, a method by which Americans would be exercising two >Constitutionally protected rights at once. > >Most people rightly anticipated the government would respond brutally (which >is why we never planned to go, but merely to call it, discuss it, and people >could ACKNOWLEDGE THAT POINT.) LOOK AT WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT *** THE >GOVERNMENT *** when you claim **I** am to "blame" for "calling people to be >annihilated" (for exercising Constitutionally protected rights.) Are you >talking about me, or about the government? Who would be wrong? > >Yes, people had to think about it and come to one conclusion and one >conclusion only. The government would, INDEED, respond brutally. It would >have been no different than the effect at Tiennamen Square -- demonstrating >for the whole world, conclusively, that the United States is under military >rule. > >Were you so afraid that would be the result? Of course you were. > >Was that point made? Did people understand it? Yes, of course they did. > > We got the benefit of this conclusion, without >bloodshed. > >The idea itself was so "outrageous" that I got to go on more radio shows and >explain what the militia is. > >Yes, indeed, I've "divided" America. The division is between the ignorant >who want to cry and whine about how "dangerous" the militia is, and those >who know what our Constitution is about. > >Of course, I had done so very little at that point that no one had heard of >me, right? Obviously not. How could anything I said have had any impact? >Did it? Of course, it did. > >By acknowledging that you even heard of it, you belie what I had done >before, to be able to now use what was done, to try to attack me. It is >amazing to me that you attack me, and not the government that produces your >conclusion, when you claim to uphold the Constitution. > >The effects and what was achieved, were a very, very obvious success. > >That there are still people such as yourself, trying to claim it was an >effort to "get people killed" when quite obviously, it was the most >effective educational effort our side ever had, helps us to identify who the >propagandists are. > >Thanks for the confirmation. > >Here's one of my free speech FAQ's in furtherance of your education: > >>Wait a minute! What happened to free speech, widgie or caji or >whatever >youre name is? > >Your letter provides an excellent example of why AEN News, with whom I am >affiliated, and CAJI, to whom you addressed your letter, were created: The >desperate need for education among ordinary people in this country who don't >even realize they have been taught lies, or worse, nothing, about their >rights in this country. > >Let's start with a simple slogan that everyone learned: "We have freedom of >speech in this country." > >In this one slogan, I can prove that very few people in this country know >anything whatsoever about their rights, or their Constititution, and that >the majority of the people in this country were subjected to brainwashing -- >fed propaganda, intended to DEFEAT our Constitution -- in our public >schools, just as was done in Russia. > >After the defeat of the British, the country functioned for about 20 years >without a Constitution at all. A lot of work went into formulating a form >of government, one of whose primary purposes was to prevent the government >from becoming a dictatorship or monarchy telling the people what to do or >using military or police powers to dominate the people. No, in this >country, the people in government were supposed to be the servants. > >The Constitution was drawn up as a list of powers that We, the People, gave >to the people we decided to allow to govern us. > >It is like a menu or a laundry list of things we have told the government it >can do. > >If a power is not listed in the Constitution, then the government doesn't >have it. > >That wasn't good enough, though. The original states who had to approve the >Constitution would not pass it because they knew that when people are given >any power, they get heady with that power, so that the government could not >be trusted to stay inside the limits of the powers in the Constitution. > >So the States demanded that a "Bill of Rights" be added to the Constitution. >This was a list of ten items that the people said, "Government, in case you >have any ideas about over-stepping the list of powers you have there in that >Constitution, here's a list of absolute, God-given rights that We, the >People, had before we created you, and that we have no matter what, that you >cannot touch, that you cannot infringe." > >That list of ten basic rights is also called the first ten amendments to the >Constitution, though in actuality, they were not amendments at all, because >the Constitution was not passed and could not be passed, until these 10 >items were added. > >The Preamble to the Bill of Rights is often left off most versions of the >Constitution these days, but that Preamble very plainly says, "Because we >were worried about the likelihood that corrupt bastards running the country >would take it over and start abusing their powers, we decided to be a little >more specific about the rights of the people that are absolute, so here's a >list of rights that are absolute, that are retained by the people." > >Now, does the Constitution "grant" you rights? No, it does not. It >declares rights you were BORN with, that you already have. > >Your rights are like your arms and legs. They are yours, you are born with >them, they are part of you. When you delare your rights, as was done in the >Bill of Rights, it is no more than saying, "I have arms and legs! They >exist! Even if you cut them off, they are still mine! If you try to cut >them off, I will fight you to the death!" > >The Bill of Rights is a declaration in exactly the same way of the rights >that we all have, that we are born with, that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe. > >If the GOVERNMENT attempts to cut off any of these rights, there is no >argument about it, if it is a right protected in the Bill of Rights, then >the government has overstepped its legal authority and is acting unlawfully. > >That is the purpose of the Constitution -- to define the limits of the power >of government. > >So when you say you have a RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH -- yes, you are born with a >right to speak freely. > >But that right is only PROTECTED against the GOVERNMENT trying to prevent >you from speaking, when we speak of a "Constitutionally protected" right. >Protected by what? The Constitution. The declaration that says, >"Government, if you overstep these powers, or if you try to touch these >rights, you are overstepping your legal authority." > >But when it comes to your speaking in a public forum or to other people, so >long as no government entity is involved, you are on your own. > >You cannot "enforce" your "right to speak" against anyone EXCEPT the >government. You can force the government to stop interfering with you in >any way shape or form. > >You cannot force any other person to listen to you, though, except through >persuasion. > >You are perfectly free to create your own arena to speak, just as CAJI has >done here. Obviously no one can prevent you from speaking until the cows >come home. > >Likewise, no one is obliged to GIVE you a forum to speak, nor to listen to you. > >Why? Because in the context of one person versus another in "free speech" >you have equal and opposing rights. You must win by being most persuasive, >loudest, smartest, presenting the best arguments, saturating the potential >audience -- whatever method works. > >The only thing you CAN'T do is harm another person in the process ("speech" >is not considered a "harm:" I'm speaking of hitting, pushing, shoving, >etc.). At the point that you cause physical harm, the government can, in >fact, step in, and haul you off. > >So when you "demand" to exercise your "right of free speech" in a privately >owned building, you look a little stupid. > >The person who owns the building can kick you out as a trespasser and tell >you to go find a public sidewalk. > >That is what you have done here. You have demanded your "free speech" in a >privately owned forum. > >Go to the sidewalk, boy. > >You have also shown that to you, the words "free speech" were nothing but a >slogan, because you did not know that insisting on "free speech" is >enforceable only when the government is trying to prevent you from speaking. > >The government cannot even come in and play referee between two people in a >shouting match of speech? Why not? Because it is THE GOVERNMENT that is >forbidden from interfering with anyone's -- either side of any argument -- >right of speech. > >So why didn't you learn this in school, eh? You learned a slogan, but now >what it meant. This is true for most of the country. Why? Because >communists -- real, died in the wool, communists, people who want to >overthrow our Constitutional Republic, have taken over the country, >including the now nationalized curriculums and books that are "allowed" in >our schools. > >I bet you think this is a "Democracy," too, don't you? > >This country is NOT NOW AND NEVER HAS BEEN A DEMOCRACY AND IT IS NOT >SUPPOSED TO BE. > >What is a democracy? It is three wolves and a sheep voting on what is for >dinner. That is pretty fine if you are a wolf, but not so great if you are >a sheep. > >It is a country run by "popular opinion" polls, or "popular" vote. It means >that 51% of the people run the lives of the other 49%. > >It is, like communism, a country where the work of many, goes to the benefit >of the few. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his >needs." That is one of the 10 points in the Communist Manifesto, in case >you think it sounds good. > >If you are one of the people in a group that only represents 2% of the >country, in a democracy, you will never have equal representation in Congress. > >That is why this country was founded as a REPUBLIC. The people were to >elect officials who would then cast their votes EQUALLY, on behalf of ALL >their constituents. You aren't supposed to get a "proportional >representation" -- so that you would only count 2% if you were in a 2% >group. No, your representative is to represent you, and all his >constituents, EQUALLY. > >So every time you hear that puke of a President we have talk about how we >must "spread democracy" to the world, he is laughing at your ignorance. He >is MOCKING you, because you are a dumbass, most of the people in this >country are as big a dumbass as you are, and HE KNOWS IT. > >I cannot claim any special brilliance here. I was as big a dumbass as you >are now, even after going through law school. I did not have any idea what >the Constitution was about or how this country is supposed to run. > >I only found out by forcing myself to find out after I learned we had drug >runners running the country and I wanted to find a way to get them out of >office. I realized I had no idea how to go about that. Then, as I tried to >find out, I kept discovering just exactly how totally ignorant I was. It >was shocking. > >But I realized that I'm a basically intelligent person, as I am sure you >are, too. So it occurred to me, WHY didn't I know these things? I retained >most of the important things I was taught in school, as you probably did, >too. You can read, write, do math. We weren't TAUGHT these things in school > >You cannot hold government officials accountable when you do not know what >it is they are SUPPOSED to be doing. > >They RELY on that. > >Which is EXACTLY why we are now living under a dictatorship, where we have >people, just as you have done, who are so totally ignorant of how this >country is supposed to function, that they will willing shriek when the >corruption is exposed that "You can't defile the holy Gods of power in this >country! That's sedition!" > >No, dummy, that's REAL free speech and that's it's purpose: TO EXPOSE >GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION. > >Then they will turn to the government, as if it is their big daddy and say, >"Daddy, make him stop!!" > >Like children, dependent and pathetically weak and ignorant, the masses have >elevated the government of our once proud country to a dictatorship, >allowing the corrupt people who have literally bought their way to power, to >dominate us, to threaten force against us, to call the citizens "criminals" >who dare to speak out against abuses of power. > >Do you realize that most slaves didn't want to be freed? Why? Because they >did not know any better. They had been deliberately kept in ignorance and >under domination and force for so long, they were AFRAID TO BE FREE. What >would they do without a roof over their head, without someone to provide >their meals, with no job provided by the master? Who would protect them? > >This is where we are today in this country. > >People go to work, they pay taxes, they submit. Not because they LIKE it, >but because they are AFRAID NOT TO. They are afraid, like you, to QUESTION. >They don't want to be seen as "seditious" and face the gestapo! > >Their fear, like yours, is so great, that they want to appear to be like the >tattle-tale in school, the first to "run to the teacher" and proclaim who >those "bad boys" are, to curry favor, so THEY won't be scrutinized. > >That's cowardice, that's fear. That's the hallmark of a true slave. > >In a free country, people are in fact free to speak out, and to expose the >corrupt officials in government. > >In this country, it is not only our right, it is a LEGAL DUTY to repel >tyranny, to put down the forces who have in fact overthrown our >CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. > >Those people in government trying to create a nationalized, federally >dominated government, who have given this country over to "global" treaties, >have already overthrown our Constitution. > >I doubt you noticed. >=============================================== > >> You are quilty of sedition and plotting to overthrow the U. S. >>Government. > >============================================== > >Look up "sedition." It is "speaking." And it is "speaking against the >government." No where will you find a more clear example of the exact type >of speech that the First Amendment protects than speech which speaks against >the government. > >There was no "sedition" law in this country until after the trial of Aaron >Burr for treason. He was acquitted after having gone around the country, >organizing armed men for the express purpose of killing political enemies -- >many of whom were, in fact killed, and there was a great deal of fighting as >a result of his efforts. > >Burr's political enemies then passed the "sedition" law in response to his >acquittal. > >However, you are obviously confused about what the "U.S. government" is. >You seem to believe that the people who are in power in our government, >whether legitimately or not, are "the government" and because they are in >power, why, they must be Godlike, perfect, and somehow infallible in their >decisions. > >Here's a statement I'm sure you will find "seditious:" > > We, the People, are the rightful masters of both the Congress and >the Courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who >have perverted it." > >I say that all the time. It's on the window of my office. > >But I can't take credit for it. Abraham Lincoln said it originally. > >That you believe people should not speak out when they see corrupt people >running the government, makes me wonder what happened to your ability to think. > >That you believe any human being, bestowed with power through the now >extremely corrupt, bought and paid for political system of this country, is >to be trusted is the most amazing thing I have seen lately. > >We do not have a monarchy in this country, nor a legal dictatorship. I can >shout, "The President is a murdering, drug laundering, asshole!" to the >rooftops, if I so desire, and print the details of his murderous, drug >running past for all to see. And that is exactly what I do. > >=================================================== > > >> You also preach violence and hatred against U.S. citizens. > >================================================== > >Do you have even one example of this, or are you parroting what you have >been told in the media? > >I know you are parroting what you have heard, because what you have said >above, is a flat lie. > >It is also one of those statements designed to get a knee-jerk reaction that >our very controlled press -- which is full of people whose actual JOB it is >to overthrow this country and I can prove that -- are good at creating. > >They make statements that fuzzy-headed people like you will read and react, >"OH NO!" Because you don't think. > >How does a person "preach violence?" > >I suppose if there were someone saying, "Go out and smash everything you >see, kill everything!" that might be "preaching violence." I have never >heard anyone do this. I doubt you have, either. > >Are you referring to people who say, "Arm yourself and prepare to defend >yourself, your family, and this country?" > >It is amazing to me that there are people who will gasp at the people who >have recognized that force may be necessary to defeat the corruption, yet >they say nothing about the conditions that have led us to this point. > >If you are so opposed to "violence" or "preaching violence," why haven't you >spoken out against all the SWAT teams in the country, equipped now with >their own machine guns and even tanks? > >If you are so opposed to "violence" in this country, why haven't you >demanded that the ATF, who routinely brutalizes people, be shut down? > >If you are so opposed to "violence" in this country, where were you when the >Deified people in power were running over children, men, and women in their >own home, in tanks, in living color on national television? > >If you are so opposed to "violence" in this country, why haven't you said >anything as our President sends our young men to war and has the GALL to >call it "peacekeeping?" > >If you are opposed to the overthrow of our country, then why haven't you >spoken out against the treaties approved, such as NAFTA and GATT? > >If you are opposed to the overthrow of this country, then why haven't you >DEMANDED that those people who have overthrown our government be removed >from office? You can readily tell who they are by what they do. Remember >that "list" of their powers, the Constitution? Remember that list of >rights of the People that the people in government cannot touch? If they >try to limit any of those rights, then they are NOT OPERATING WITHIN THE >CONSTITUTION. They all swore an oath to uphold that Constitution, too. >Have you demanded that those who are trying to DISARM this country be >removed from office? > >Have you demanded that those who have allowed unlawful seizures of people's >property be removed from office? > >Have you demanded that those who have passed laws giving more and more >tyrannical powers to themselves be removed from office? > >Have you even so much as spoken up to ASK that those who are using those >SWAT teams and TANKS on the citizens in this country, be removed from office? > >No, I thought not. Yet, those of us who have the courage to do this, must >also deal with the pisswilly and ignorant craven cowards, like you, who want >to "run to the teacher," to be seen as being on the side of power, even when >that power is being used evilly, and to pervert the government. > >That is how the nazis took over Germany -- people like you helped them. >They wanted to run to the teacher and turn in those "terrible criminals," >those "Jews" who the nazis said were "stockpiling weapons, abusing children, >and were a fanatic religious cult." > >That's right, run, run, turn in everyone. You might be safe from the nazis >running this government now for awhile yourself. > >But don't bet on it, bunkie. But by the time you realize it, you won't have >any guns to protect yourself. You will have run to the center of town to >turn them in, and you will have turned in all your neighbors who had them. > >People like me, like Bill, like most of the people in this network, will >already be long dead. > >There will be nobody but people like you left. The spineless cowards who >ran to the teacher. The slaves who are afraid to be free, who wouldn't >know what to do if their master, their "government" didn't tell them. > >I'll die free. You'll be alive, to the extent that what you do can be >called "living." > > >> Why >>arent you in jail? > >Because, unlike you, the people running the government, who have overthrown >the government, and violate their oaths everyday, know that what we are >saying is right. > >They also know that we have an absolute right to defend ourselves, and our >country, and they know that WE know. > >You see, that's the difference between slaves like you, who aren't in jail >because you are a snivelling coward, and people who are free because they >are willing to insist on it. > > >>You are a traitor to the United States. > >Since you've demonstrated your abysmal ignorance of what the "United States" >is, what its laws are, and what the Constitution means, how are you in any >position to make such a claim? > >What is a "traitor?" It is someone who undermines the Constitutional >Republic of the United States, aids and comforts her enemies. > >People who demand that public officials UPHOLD the Constitution -- which is >what I do, what Bill does, and many others -- are demanding that this >government operate Constitutionally. We are doing our utmost to UPHOLD the >government of the United States against obvious traitors. > >But you see, you have to rely upon what you are told, because you are not in >a position to know that you have been lied to. > >You don't know the Constitution. You don't know when the people in our >government have sold our country out, as they have done, and sold you, and >your children, into a heritage of slavery. > >> I'll forward this to the local authorities and the FBI. > >They'll note that you are a willing, compliant, spineless little slave. >They'll nod. They'll know that you can be easily scared. When they need >anything, you can be counted on to give it to them, with hardly any coercion. > >You are one of the willing and ignorant slaves. > >You castigate me for my speech. You castigate me for putting out facts. > >You have called me a traitor for telling the truth. > >That speaks volumes about you. > > > - 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: please remove me Date: 05 Nov 1996 16:41:47 -0700 (MST) Will the people (or robots) who just recently subscribed me to: NSWPP-CSU please remove me immediately! Thank you. /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: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: OUTING THE TROLLS Date: 05 Nov 1996 17:58:22 -0600 (CST) I read what Walt Williams said, and I tried to read stupid Linda's response, but as I have been the butt of her lies in the past I got only through the first few lines and decided to take time out to retch. I side with Williams and I ain't know government plant, though Linda in the past has accused me of it. Linda is a dangerous left wing hysterical radical. She is no friend to RKBA or the Constitution. I agree with Walt Williams, Shut up, Linda, shut up, or better yet go to Washington and by using your self as the model show us what you wanted to do to our government leaders on the nearest light pole. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Fact or Fiction Date: 05 Nov 1996 16:40:43 -0800 Forwarded from elsewhere...I, of course, hereby state that it is for entertainment purposes only, and that I do not, personally, advocate the following activities... - Monte >. >. >. >The following note and story is from Russell Smith: >========================================================= > >To my fellow Patriots, > >The following document is my contribution to this years Crime Boss Elections. > >I for one have never believed that the court system works, but I may be >mistaken, could >there ever be a just trial in America again. > >As Walt Disney put it -- Sometimes dreams do come true! > > God save America, from Washington D.C. > >In the Fight for Freedom, > >Russell Smith >NTCMC6@IADFW.NET > >Remember the document that gave birth to a Free Nation, it still lives in >the heart of >Free Men -- The Declaration of Independence > >The Strange Disappearance Of Assemblyman Schwartz > >by B. Franklin Quill >copyright 1994 > > >THE NEWS > >Saturday, April 30, 1994 >Headline -- The Sacramento Sentinel -- >Assemblyman Delayed In Arriving Home > >The wife of California State Assemblyman Sheldon Schwartz, reported that he >had not returned to his home in La Putah by Friday, April 29, following the >weekly session of the State Legislature. Assemblyman Schwartz represents >the Eighty-First Assembly District. Mrs. Schwartz was not yet worried about >her husband, as he was known to sometimes stop overnight when driving home >from Sacramento, but he had not yet telephoned her as was his practice. >Assemblyman Schwartz had recently been in the news as the co-author of a >controversial bill to ban the sale, possession and use of handguns in the >State of California. > >Sunday, May 1, 1994 >Headline -- The Sacramento Sentinel -- >Whereabouts Of Assemblyman Cause For Alarm > >Sylvia Schwartz, wife of State Assemblyman Sheldon Schwartz, stated to >authorities that her husband, who represents the Eighty-First Assembly >District, had not yet returned to his home in La Putah since the adjournment >of the State Legislature last Thursday evening. It was his custom to call >her if delayed by a meeting or if he elected to stay overnight along the way >when driving home. The Assemblyman sometimes chose to drive rather than to >go by plane. Inquiries to various State officials could give her no >assurance. She has alerted the State Police and the Highway Patrol. > >Monday, May 2, 1994 >Headline -- The Sacramento Sentinel -- >Car Of Missing Assemblyman Found Abandoned > >The car driven by missing California State Assemblyman Sheldon Schwartz, was >found abandoned at Lucerne, a small resort community at Clear Lake, in Lake >County. The car, a 1994 Buick Roadmaster, was registered to the State of >California and bore the license number A81. There were no signs of foul >play. The keys were in the ignition, and the car was completely out of gas. >There was speculation that the car had been stolen from another location and >left at Lucerne by a joyrider. A state-wide search is being conducted for >the missing Assemblyman. > >Monday, May 9, 1994 >Headline -- The Sacramento Sentinel -- >No Trace Yet Found Of Missing Assemblyman > >Assemblyman Sheldon Schwartz, of the Eighty First Assembly District, has >been missing since Friday, April 29, following the close of the Legislative >session. Authorities revealed that the Assemblyman's car was found >abandoned at Lucerne, in Lake County, with the keys in the ignition and no >fuel left in the tank. The car offered no evidence of foul play, but there >is speculation that something sinister -- ranging from capture by space >aliens to kidnapping by criminals for unknown motives -- has befallen the >Assemblyman. The Assemblyman was not known to be wealthy. He had been in >the news lately for leading the recent legislative effort that outlawed >assault rifles, and was currently co-sponsoring additional legislation to >outlaw the possession and use of handguns in California. > >Monday, May 9, 1994 >Headline -- The Sacramento Sentinel -- >Search For Missing Assemblyman Called Off > >Two weeks after his disappearance, the search for missing California State >Assemblyman, Sheldon Schwartz, who has represented the Eighty First Assembly >District for the last eight years, has been virtually abandoned. >Assemblyman Schwartz has been missing since the close of the legislative >session on April 28, 1994. His State car was found abandoned in good >condition with the keys in the ignition and no fuel left in the tank, at >Lucerne, in Lake County, a place far off the Assemblyman's known route of >travel. > >His wife and two adult children haven't given up hope for the Assemblyman's >safe return, theorizing that he might be suffering from memory loss induced >by stress from his vigorous efforts to co-sponsor and pass a bill to deny >California citizens the possession and use of handguns. It is hoped that >anyone with knowledge of the Assemblyman's whereabouts would come forward >with useful information leading to a re-opening of the official investigation. > > >THE TRUTH > >It went off without a hitch. The van simply followed the Assemblyman's car >until he pulled into a small restaurant in Modesto. Two of the men even got >out of the van parked alongside his car and went into the restaurant and had >dinner themselves, ordering a sandwich to go for the third man in the van. > >When Schwartz came out it was a quick, easy maneuver to force him into the >back of the van at gunpoint. It was dark enough so that apparently no one >saw them. > >They arrived at the lodge deep in the woods in the foothills, with Schwartz >bound and gagged, but not blindfolded. It didn't matter what he saw for he >was not coming back. > >He was taken into the well furnished lodge, and told to make himself at home >by the three men, who formally introduced themselves. He was offered food >and drink, shown where he could sleep, and made aquatinted with the >facilities. Schwartz was fifty-four years of age, with gray hair and a >cunningly intelligent face. He knew he was kidnapped, but he couldn't >understand why. Since his kidnappers were well dressed, seemed to be men of >substance who treated him with some degree of gentility, he began to relax >and note his surroundings with the view of later giving authorities a >complete description... until he was seated in a chair and told exactly what >he was to do and what was going to happen to him. > >"Mr. Schwartz, you are the co-author of an Assembly Bill, are you not, which >proposes to further restrict the possession and use of handguns in California?" > >A puzzled, hesitant, "Yes..." > >"And were you instrumental in securing the passage in the State Legislature >of a law purporting to make illegal the possession and use of certain >firearms classified as assault rifles?" > >"Yes." > >"Then you will be furnished with a copy of the United States Constitution, a >copy of the Constitution of the State of California, a law dictionary and an >English language dictionary. You will be kept here for three days, properly >fed and otherwise accommodated. If, at the end of that time you can show us >where either document authorizes you and your legislative colleagues to >disarm California citizens, we will take you to your home unharmed and >surrender ourselves to the authorities. If you cannot show us such >language, in either document, you will be summarily hanged. Your three days >will start tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM." > >"WHAT...!" > >"Starting tomorrow! We will discuss your findings with you at the end of >three days. Come with us now, and we will show you your grave." > >The stunned Assemblyman was shown his neatly dug grave, a few yards from the >lodge, and began to understand that this wasn't a dream, that his captors >meant serious business. Needless to say it didn't do much for his >equanimity, so after a sleepless night he began, for the first time in his >life, to actually read the Constitutions to which he had taken a solemn oath >to bear true faith and allegiance, and which he had contracted to support >and defend. > >Desperately he read them over and over again for three days and half of >three nights. No luck! Nothing there giving any agency of government >lawful power to disarm the people. Nothing! > > >THE TRIAL > >"Mr. Schwartz, what are your findings? What is your defense?" > >"Well I think the California Supreme Court once said that, since the >California Constitution does not contain specific language giving the people >the right to keep and bear arms, under the police power of the State, the >Legislature could regulate their possession and use." > >"Ah, Assemblyman Schwartz, did you read Article I, Section 1 of the >California Constitution where it says -- 'All people are by nature free and >independent and have inalienable rights'. Among these are enjoying and >defending life, liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, >pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness and privacy.'?" > >"Yes...I read that." > >"Then, can you please tell us, how can life and liberty be defended, >property protected and safety pursued without a weapon adequate to the task? >Isn't taking away the means of exercising a right equivalent to taking away >the right itself?" > >"Well, ahh...." > >"And, did you read Article I, Section 24, which simply says -- 'This >enumeration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained >by the people'?" > >"Yes, I read that. But what difference does it make?" > >"Well, Mr. Schwartz should it not have occurred to you -- and the judges of >the Supreme Court -- that the right to keep and bear arms, that is, the >right of defense of liberty, person and property, with firearms if >necessary, was a retained right which did not have to be specifically >enumerated?" > >"But what about the 'police power'? What about that?!" > >"Well, Mr. Schwartz, what is the so-called 'police power'? Did you read >Article II, Section 1 of the California Constitution, which says: > >'All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted >for their benefit, and they may reform it when the public good may require.'? > >"'All political power' includes the legislature, executive and judicial >powers, the police power and the power of the people to defend their power. >It means that no political power is inherent in government, which has only >those powers specifically delegated to it in the Constitution, and no other >powers. So, tell us Assemblyman Schwartz, did you, or the judges, read >anywhere in the Constitutions where the State was delegated power, in >specific language, to disarm the very citizens who created the State?" > >"Well...not exact...." > >"Police power is a gimmick, a judicial invention designed to circumvent >Article II, Section 1. The only power a policeman has to carry a gun is the >power the people have delegated to him, and the people cannot delegate a >power which they, themselves, do not possess. In giving their public >servants the power to carry guns, they do not give them the authority to >take their own guns away from them, unless they commit crimes by violating >the rights of others. No, Mr. Schwartz, in view of Article I, Section 1, >police power is only to be used to enforce the rights of citizens, not usurp >them." > >"By the way, you were apparently wise enough not to challenge the plain >language of the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution." > >"You only had to look up the word 'militia' to understand the Second >Amendment of the Federal Constitution, which says: '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.' You recognized from your >intense research that the militia is a body of armed citizens -- not the >national guard -- so the security of a free state, depends on a militia. >And the militia, and therefore the security of a free state, depends on its >citizens being armed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms existed >long before the Constitution was written." > >"The Ninth and Tenth Amendments also acknowledge that the states and the >people retained rights not specifically delegated in the Constitution, and >that those rights existed long before the Constitution was written." > >"But you men are doing something unlawful. You have no right to kidnap me >or... or hang me. You . . . you are guilty of a conspiracy! > >"Yes... it is unlawful... but we are desperate men who are engaged in a last >resort to put down an open rebellion and an open conspiracy against us; a >conspiracy by intransigent lawmakers and judges who are acting in concert to >thwart the rights and liberties which, by their oaths, they themselves have >contracted to protect." > >"It is you and your colleagues who are outlaws. Your oaths mean nothing. >You are impervious to reason. You scoff at history and care nothing for the >future. Why this is so, we do not know. Perhaps it is power that makes you >selfish and corrupt." > >"In any event, we go beyond the law to preserve the law by putting down your >defiant rebellion against it. Far more dangerous to freedom than the >criminals in the streets with guns, are the faithless servants in high >places who subvert the nation by willfully converting the power of >government to their own interests." > >"But, we won't take the last few minutes of your life on earth to make a >manifold list of the Constitutional violations that the subversive lawmakers >and judges are treasonously foisting upon us. It is not in our natures to >utilize underworld tactics in this fashion. If you had done the honorable >thing you wouldn't now be here." > >"But... this is vigilantism!" > >"Yes, it is. It is a form of warfare. A guerrilla defense against the >insidious war of subversion that you and your colleagues constantly wage >against us. There are more than three of us, by the way. If we are >apprehended, others will continue. This is just a start. You just happen >to be the first to be brought to this archaic form of justice." > >"You're rank cowards! All of you!" > >To a certain extent that may be true, but if we are caught we will >undoubtedly be executed and we are willing to take that risk. You, on the >other hand, had no thought of ever being held accountable for your >perfidious, unauthorized acts. You and the unconscionable rebels in the >courts and the legislative halls of the nation think of yourselves as >utterly immune to retribution. You hide behind the laws against murder and >mayhem. You are protected by your SWAT teams, your helicopters and tanks. >This is nothing but pure cowardness on your part. We have thought long and >hard about this and, if necessary, are willing to give our lives to defend >the Constitution and this nation. As we said before, if you had not >betrayed your nation, you wouldn't be here." > >"By the way, did you leave your keys in your government car? We heard on >the radio that it was found at Clear Lake in Lake County." > > >THE VERDICT > >"May God have mercy on your treacherous soul.". > > - 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: OUTING THE TROLLS Date: 05 Nov 1996 17:08:29 -0800 >I read what Walt Williams said, and I tried to read stupid Linda's >response, but as I have been the butt of her lies in the past I got >only through the first few lines and decided to take time out to >retch. > >I side with Williams and I ain't know government plant, though Linda >in the past has accused me of it. Linda is a dangerous left wing >hysterical radical. She is no friend to RKBA or the Constitution. > >I agree with Walt Williams, Shut up, Linda, shut up, or better yet go >to Washington and by using your self as the model show us what you >wanted to do to our government leaders on the nearest light pole. > >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu Sorry to hear that, Larry; it's a pity you were unable to read the whole post. Sometimes Linda comes across as a bit strange, but when she's on I'd put her up against anybody. Anybody. I've seen her write some of the most articulate pro-constitution information that I've seen anywhere. And I firmly believe she's on our side. - 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: boydk Subject: Re: OUTING THE TROLLS Date: 05 Nov 1996 19:36:27 -0800 (PST) Actually, wether someone is a "plant" or not ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: ack, ignore my last (was Re: OUTING THE TROLLS) Date: 05 Nov 1996 19:42:24 -0800 (PST) Meant to cancel that last post but since I started I'll finish. If someone -is- an agent provocateur then the only thing needed for success is for a bunch of old timers to divert the discussion to bickering about the existence of provocateurs. My recommendation (like somebody asked ; ) : Shut up about it. "Deciding" publicy that someone is an agent won't have any result. If they're locked off a list they'll simply sign on with a new username. If they're not, then the bandwidth spent on that topic is iretrievably lost. When the game is futile the only correct answer is not to play. Boyd CLAW secretary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: People v. United States: removal ORDER Date: 05 Nov 1996 21:26:15 -0700 (MST) [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] [transcription] MONTANA SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY People of the United States ) of America, ex relatione ) Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) Cause No. 2721 ) Petitioners, ) ) -vs- ) Order ) United States et al., ) ) Respondents. ) _________________________________ The Plaintiff has filed in the above-entitled action a document which he calls, among other things, a Petition for Removal. This Court has previously, on July 22, 1996, dismissed the action with prejudice as being frivolous. It is this Court's opinion that the Clerk of Court has no discretion once a petition for removal is filed. Therefore, the Court orders the Clerk of Court of Garfield County to transmit Court File 2721 to the Clerk of the United States District Court, Room 5405, Federal Building, 316 North 26th Street, Billings, Montana, 59101 for appropriate action and to serve a copy of this Order on the United States Attorney, Box 1478, Billings, Montana, 59103 and the Plaintiff, Paul Andrew Mitchell, P.O. Box 80446, Billings, Montana, and Paul Andrew Mitchell, 2509 North Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona, and to create another file No. 2721 to file a copy of this Order. Dated this 28th day of October, 1996. /s/ KENNETH R. WILSON, DISTRICT JUDGE =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Fact or Fiction? Fiction, assuredly Date: 05 Nov 1996 21:43:19 -0800 At 04:40 PM 11/5/96 -0800, you wrote: >Forwarded from elsewhere...I, of course, hereby state that it is for >entertainment purposes only, and that I do not, personally, advocate the >following activities... > >- Monte >>. >>The following note and story is from Russell Smith: >>========================================================= >> >>To my fellow Patriots, >> >>The following document is my contribution to this years Crime Boss Elections. >> >>I for one have never believed that the court system works, but I may be >>mistaken, could >>there ever be a just trial in America again. >> >>The Strange Disappearance Of Assemblyman Schwartz >> >>by B. Franklin Quill >>copyright 1994 >> >> >>THE NEWS >> >>Saturday, April 30, 1994 >>Headline -- The Sacramento Sentinel -- >>Assemblyman Delayed In Arriving Home >> >>The wife of California State Assemblyman Sheldon Schwartz, reported that he >>had not returned to his home in La Putah by Friday, April 29, following the >>weekly session of the State Legislature. Assemblyman Schwartz represents >>the Eighty-First Assembly District. A hoax/joke/prank/troll, to be sure. There are only 80 Assembly districts here in California. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm "Roaming the world as a foreign correspondent for more than a decade, I was able to observe how a variety of vastly different nations organized themselves economically. The inescapable conclusion was that no politician anywhere on the planet has ever actually created a rupee's worth of prosperity." Louis Rukeyser, "Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street" newsletter, Nov 96 !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Outrage of the Week Date: 06 Nov 1996 00:55:17 -0500 Who says it can't get any worse. Money's tight these days for our cash strapped cities. Dennis --------------------------------------------------------------------- METER MAD "CINCINNATI—A 62-year-old woman was handcuffed and jailed for sticking coins in other people's expired parking meters as a police officer was about to ticket the cars. " 'That's not a pretty picture down there at that jail,' said Sylvia Stayton, a grandmother of 10. "Putting money in a meter once it has expired is against the law in Cincinnati even if it's your own car. Stayton said she just wanted to do a good deed. "Stayton said she was walking near her home Thursday when she saw Officer Edward Johnson ticketing cars. She said she asked Johnson whether he had recorded a car's license plate yet. " 'He said, 'Is this your car?' and I said, 'No,' ' Stayton said. 'So I put a nickel in the meter and a dime in the next one. Then he said, 'That's against the law! You're under arrest!' "Stayton said she walked away, thinking Johnson was joking. 'He walked up behind me and slapped the handcuffs on—he jerked my arm up behind me!' she said. "She was charged with obstructing official business and disorderly conduct and spent three hours in jail before her daughter posted $1,900 bail. She pleaded innocent. "The charges carry a total of up to four months in jail and $1,000 in fines. —The Associated Press via Individual Inc., MSNBC October 26, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: HAPPY GUY FAWKES DAY! (fwd) Date: 06 Nov 1996 01:30:43 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On this day in 1605 the Gunpowder Plot was foiled. Guy Fawkes and his compatriots had intended to blow up Parliment. The English celebrate it because Guy Fawkes failed. I celebrate it because he tried. :-) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: More Urban Warfare Training Date: 06 Nov 1996 00:31:30 -0600 Funny that we went through the entire cold war, preparing to fight in an increasingly urbanized Europe, yet never seemed to need to do this sort of thing. Oh the odd "bombing" raid on Omaha by flights of B-47s, B-52s and what not, so high that few even took notice, but not troops on the ground in the cities, with explosions, shooting, etc, both real and simulated. MILITARY EXERCISES SET FOR S. FLORIDA Troops to practice Night Navigation _______________________________________________________ Taken from the Sun Sentinel -11-5-96 Peek out your window in the middle of the night later this month and you just might see heavily armed soldiers dropping out of dark helicopters. But please, don't shoot. It's just your government conducting secret military exercises. The troops, elite Army and navy warriors, will practice "night urban navigation training" in the Fort Lauderdale area between Nov 18 and Nov 27. The Army won't say how many helicopters or troops will be involved. And they won't say what they will be doing. It's all hush-hush. The Army doesn't discuss specifics, said George Grimes, spokesman of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command. The U.S. Army Command includes Special Forces, Rangers and psychological warfare specialists based at Fort Bragg, N.C. The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment from Fort Campbell, Ky., will fly helicopters out of Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. Also taking part in the exercises will be the Navy's elite commandos, known as SEALSs. Despite efforts to keep the exercises a secret, word got out when a memo was written by City Manager George Hanbury to FOrt lauderdale City Commissioners. Hanbury tried to maintain the veil of secrecy:"This information is not intended for public release at this time," Hanbury wrote. But the memo is public record under Florida Law. Assistand City Manger Pete Witschen said the notification was largely a "matter of courtesy. The Army did not have to ask the city's permission and did not get into safety and other specifics with the city, he said. "At this point, we don't have any concerns about safety,"he said. Urban warfare training is not new to South FLorida. Last year Special Forces trrops from Fort Bragg invaded a hotel in Miami Beach. Sources said at the time that it was the Army's anti-terrorist commandos, known as Delta Force. Grimes would not discuss Delta Force or whether the group would be involved this time. "It's routine training,"Grimes said. Note also that " The Army did not have to ask the city's permission and did not get into safety and other specifics with the city" 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: (fwd) Terrorist ties OK at Clinton White House (fwd) Date: 06 Nov 1996 07:37:56 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Terrorist ties OK at White House [Alamoudi] Abdurahman Alamoudi (center) poses with Vice President Al Gore and President Bill Clinton during a White House visit on June 14. Records show that Alamoudi, head of the American Muslim Council, has actively participated in or sponsored militant Islamic conferences featuring some of the leaders of the most violent Middle Eastern terrorist groups and their front organizations in the United States. By Steven Emerson SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW Imagine the president of the United States inviting to the White House the comrades of one of the top international terrorists in the world, a terrorist chieftain who has orchestrated mass murder against scores of innocent civilians, including American children. Or visualize a picture of first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton warmly greeting a top leader of an American branch of a radical Islamic terrorist front group. Or think of the vice president of the United States happily embracing a top Islamic militant leader who has championed the terrorist mastermind behind the World Trade Center bombing, a plot that was designed to kill 50,000 American people. Unfortunately, you do not need a wild imagination to conjure up these images. These meetings actually occurred within the past year, as evidenced by the photos that accompany this article. These pictures were reprinted from the pages of radical Islamic periodicals. Although the administration of President Bill Clinton has publicly touted its war on international terrorism, which has included new counter-terrorism laws and resources for the FBI, it has simultaneously courted and embraced militant Islamic groups in the United States. These groups have openly promoted, supported and championed Islamic terrorist groups that have targeted Jews, Christians and moderate Muslims around the globe. Indeed, during the past year, the Clinton administration has openly welcomed i nto the White House known U.S.-based representatives of foreign Islamic militants - even arranging special receptions for these guests. During the past decade, radical Islamic groups representing the entire spectrum of militant terrorist organizations - including the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Algerian Islamic Salvation Front and Egyptian Jihad - set up shop in the United States to raise funds, recruit new members, publish and disseminate their propaganda and even organize terrorist operations. ``These radical terrorist groups found that the United States, the freest country in the world, was the best place to organize and build up their terrorist movements,'' said Oliver Revell, former head of the FBI's counter-terrorist investigations. He added: ``In recent years, Hamas and other terrorist groups found they can manipulate the American public and politicians hiding under non-profit `religious charities,' self-defined religious umbrellas and the politically correct buzzword of `human rights.''' Unlike the stereotypical picture of gun-toting terrorists, American-based militants set up ``front'' organizations projecting the false facade of representing all Muslims or pretending to serve as ``human and civil rights'' organizations for Muslims. But, says professor Khalid Duran, a Muslim specialist in fundamentalist Islam, ``The only rights these groups are protecting are the rights of terrorists to carry out mass murder.'' [Hillary Clinton] TWO MAJOR GROUPS IN U.S. During a White House reception, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton receives a copy of the Koran from Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of the Council on American Islamic Relations. Hooper has openly defended Hamas, the Sudanese National Islamic Front and other violent anti-American terrorist groups. Among the two major groups fronting for or championing radical Islam in the U.S. are the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, and the American Muslim Council, or AMC, both headquartered in Washington, D.C. Records and documents obtained from both the White House and the internal publications of the groups themselves show that CAIR and AMC have been invited repeatedly into the White House by the president, the first lady and Vice President Al Gore. Curiously, the White House met with these groups despite an abundance of available material showing these groups to be tied to terrorist movements. Even after the meetings with the radical Islamic groups were publicly exposed in a Wall Street Journal article by this writer in March 1996, the White House continued to meet with the militants. The question is why. Does the White House consider these groups to be representative of all Muslims? If so, that is a terrible slur on American Muslims and Muslims wor ldwide who abhor violence and want nothing to do with the extremist fringes of radical Islam that represent no one but themselves. Does the White House consider these militants to be simply legitimate members of the ethnic and political American mosaic? If so, why doesn't the White House extend the same courtesy to other groups and invite officials of the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation or Louis Farrakahn's Nation of Islam into the White House? Does the White House believe it can turn these groups into moderates? If so, the record shows that the meetings have only emboldened the radical Islamic groups into more aggressive support for terrorists. Was the White House duped into believing these groups were ``moderate?'' If so, such a deception would have meant that the White House did not pursue one iota of vetting of these groups before they were welcomed into the White House inner sanctum. Even assuming such a deception could have occurred the first time these groups were invited, how could the White House ignore subsequent public statements and articles attesting to the radical agenda of these groups? For the time being, we may not know the answers to these questions. But the public has a right to know in the future. A LOOK INSIDE CAIR [Gore] Vice President Al Gore shakes hands with Nihad Awad, founding head of the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR has openly and covertly championed the most violent international terrorists in the world today. Here's a sketch of these groups, starting with the Council on American Islamic Relations. [Rahman] CAIR, established in 1994 in part with funds from radical Persian Gulf donors, says its agenda is to protect ``Muslim civil rights.'' In fact, it has openly and covertly championed the most violent international terrorists in the world today. These include Musa Abu Marzuk, the Palestinian Hamas commander now being held in an American prison and awaiting extradition to Israel, and Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, serving a life sentence for orchestrating a mass murder conspiracy that included the World Trade Cente r bombing. The conspiracy, according to the presiding judge, would have resulted in the most civilian casualties on American soil since the Civil War. (Fortunately, the plot was interdicted by the FBI before a second set of planned bombings could be carried out.) CAIR's officers include one Islamic official who was listed by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing and other officers who have called for the destruction of American society and have promoted blatant anti-Semitism. In addition, CAIR has sponsored the visits of radical fundamentalists to the United States, including Jordanian Islamic Action Front official Bassam al-Amoush. Speaking at a Muslim conference in downtown Chicago in December 1994, al-Amoush op enly called for the killing of Jews. Federal records show that CAIR was created by a Texas-based group, the Islamic Association for Palestine, an organization that Revell has deemed a ``Hamas front.'' The Islamic Association for Palestine has issued Hamas communiques calling for suicide bombing operations, produced and distributed terrorist-training tapes glorifying the killing of ``infidels,'' and published some of the most virulent anti-Semitic and anti-American screeds. Until he became the founding head of CAIR, Nihad Awad was a top official of the Islamic Association of Palestine. While Awad was an officer, someone in that group's Dallas-based office, according to telephone records released in the World Trade Center bombing trials, was in contact with the conspirators behind the bombing. In 1994, Awad declared at a university symposium in Florida: ``I am in support of Hamas. ... I know that this movement as an Islamic movement has not been objectively reported in the United States ... '' Accordingly, both Awad and Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's communication director, have repeatedly attacked as ``anti-Muslim'' journalists and others who have written about the terrorism committed by Hamas and other radical Islamic terrorist groups. Hooper has openly defended Hamas, the Sudanese National Islamic Front and other violent anti-American terrorist groups by claiming that articles critical of these organizations or which expose their American connections are ``smears against Islam.'' Recently, CAIR has begun to organize street protests against news organizations that write about the history of militant Islam - going to the point of lambasting anyone who refers to ``fundamentalist Islam'' or to the concept of a jihad (holy war) in Islam as guilty of ``defaming Muslims.'' The other group repeatedly wined and dined at the White House is the American Muslim Council, whose head is Abdulrahman Alamoudi. Both the president and the vice president have invited Alamoudi into the White House, and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton allowed the American Muslim Council this year to organize a reception for itself at the White House, even selecting all the participants. In addition, the AMC has provided "talking points" for the first lady for her syndicated column and speeches. A LOOK INSIDE AMC What does the American Muslim Council stand for? AMC has repeatedly championed and supported Hamas and its leaders, routinely declaring that Hamas ``is not a terrorist group'' and claiming that U.S. efforts to clamp down on terrorist funding in America are ``anti-Islam.'' Following the 1995 arrest of Hamas terrorist commander Musa Abu Marzuk, Alamoudi became Marzuk's primary defender. ``I know the man, he is a moderate man on many issues,'' Alamoudi was quoted in the Washington Post, adding, ``This (arrest) is an insult to the Muslim community.'' Soon, Alamoudi began organizing Marzuk's defense fund. Earlier this year, Alamoudi stated on Arabic television, ``I have known Musa Abu Marzuk before and I really consider him to be from among the best people in the Islamic movement, Hamas. ... I work together with him.'' The AMC has collaborated closely with known Hamas and Islamic Jihad front groups such as the Virginia-based United Association for Studies and Research, or UASR, and the Florida-based World and Islam Studies Enterprise. (The latter group has now shut down and is under federal investigation for serving as a terrorist command and control center in the United States.) Records show that Alamoudi has actively participated in or sponsored militant Islamic conferences, featuring some of the leaders of the most violent Middle Eastern terrorist groups and their front organizations in the United States. One such radical gathering, at which Alamoudi was a speaker along with known terrorists from the Middle East, was held in Virginia in 1991. Alamoudi has closely worked with UASR, distributing its materials and co-sponsoring its conferences. At an October 1993 conference co-sponsored by AMC and UASR, Democratic U.S. Rep. Robert G. Torricelli of New Jersey was the guest speaker. Beyond support for Hamas, the AMC has provided office space to the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front, organized press conferences for visiting officials of the Sudanese National Islamic Front (an organization defined as ``terrorist'' by the State Department), lauded the electoral victory of the radical Islamic Turkish Refah Party (known for its open anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism), championed the radical Iranian-trained anti-American mujahedeen (holy warriors) in Bosnia, portrayed President Clinton's m eeting with Salman Rushdie as an insult to Muslims comparable to the Holocaust against the Jews, and attacked the media for exposing militant Islam's repression of women and their human rights. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- About the writer Steve Emerson is a terrorism expert who has investigated the activities of radical Islamic groups in the United States. A former correspondent for both U.S. News and World Report and Cable News Network, Emerson was executive producer of the award-winning 1994 documentary "Jihad in America," is the author of four books on the Middle East and counter-terrorism, and has testified frequently before Congress on the threat of Islamic groups to the United States.RH wrote: -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: FWD: ALERT! Army Urban Training in Fort Lauderdale (fwd) Date: 06 Nov 1996 08:01:02 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subj: ALERT! Army Urban Training in Fort lauderdale Please distribute widely: MILITARY EXERCISES SET FOR S. FLORIDA Troops to practice Night Navigation _______________________________________________________ Taken from the Sun Sentinel -11-5-96 Peek out your window in the middle of the night later this month and you just might see heavily armed soldiers dropping out of dark helicopters. But please, don't shoot. It's just your government conducting secret military exercises. The troops, elite Army and navy warriors, will practice "night urban navigation training" in the Fort Lauderdale area between Nov 18 and Nov 27. The Army won't say how many helicopters or troops will be involved. And they won't say what they will be doing. It's all hush-hush. The Army doesn't discuss specifics, said George Grimes, spokesman of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command. The U.S. Army Command includes Special Forces, Rangers and psychological warfare specialists based at Fort Bragg, N.C. The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment from Fort Campbell, Ky., will fly helicopters out of Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. Also taking part in the exercises will be the Navy's elite commandos, known as SEALSs. Despite efforts to keep the exercises a secret, word got out when a memo was written by City Manager George Hanbury to FOrt lauderdale City Commissioners. Hanbury tried to maintain the veil of secrecy:"This information is not intended for public release at this time," Hanbury wrote. But the memo is public record under Florida Law. Assistand City Manger Pete Witschen said the notification was largely a "matter of courtesy. The Army did not have to ask the city's permission and did not get into safety and other specifics with the city, he said. "At this point, we don't have any concerns about safety,"he said. Urban warfare training is not new to South FLorida. Last year Special Forces trrops from Fort Bragg invaded a hotel in Miami Beach. Sources said at the time that it was the Army's anti-terrorist commandos, known as Delta Force. Grimes would not discuss Delta Force or whether the group would be involved this time. "It's routine training,"Grimes said. _______________________________________________________________ In the capacity of People For Sovereignty I called the Mayor's office and the Board of Commissioners and left a message addressing the War Powers Act and the fact that we "the people" were not deliriously happy at this prospect. I made enough noise and spouted enough "constitutional righteousness" to warrant a call back. How timely this is, as we are putting together War Powers Petition of Grievance meetings throughout the state after a very successful initial one in Tampa a couple weeks ago. Please contact me if you are interested in working with Dr. Shroeder and the several wonderful groups in the South Florida area in removing this from our lives. This process will be conducted throughout legally and with quiet determination. We hope to unburden our constitution and take back our freedoms as quietly and peacefully as possible. For Liberty and the Constitution, Carol Lido People For Sovereignty & Restoration South Florida -- 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: (fwd) Stealing the VOTE (fwd) Date: 06 Nov 1996 12:59:46 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy POLLGATE -- HOW THE NETWORKS MANIPULATED THE '92 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION -- WHO STOLE THE AMERICAN VOTE? By Nicki Myers Unique in American history, the 1992 presidential campaign was waged by three equally viable candidates rather than two: George Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. Today in the heat of the 1996 sprint for the Oval Office, researchers look back at that polling data, arguing that pollsters "use techniques often ill-equipped to measure a third party challenge." So says The Media Studies Center, an affiliate of the Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan foundation dealing with free press and free speech. Their research paper referred to Perot's 1992 campaign as a "pollster's nightmare" and that those polls consistently measured his support five percentage points lower than his actual election percentage of 19 percent. Even more revealing are the events which occurred on or about October 28, 1992, that turned the American voter about-face and a feisty billionaire Texan out of the White House. THE MOST BIZARRE WEEK IN POLITICAL POLLING >From the book, The Politics of American Discontent, this week is described as one of the most bizarre in the modern history of political polling. The best-known and oldest name in public polling, the Gallup Organization, changed their method of gathering their basic data. It changed the results overnight to Clinton as the probable winner by a huge margin with 43 percent, 38 percent for Bush, and 19 percent for Perot. Immediately following these results, the networks followed suit in observance of the surprising plunge of Perot's poll numbers. Gordon S. Black and Benjamin D. Black, the authors, called Gallup "wrong by the largest margin in its history. Something was very wrong at the House of Gallup, and that something detracted from the campaign and the polling enterprise." Here is the answer as presented by Steve Denari, former chairman, Perot '92 Chicago IL Campaign Headquarters, as it occurred during the last days of the campaign. According to Denari, a Perot volunteer, CNN released two polls simultaneously, the latter poll was not aired. Earlier CNN had released a poll showing Clinton 40 percent, Bush 38 percent, Perot 16 percent with the guideline "likely voters," a major departure from the poll numbers just days before. The next day, Denari called CNN to ask for a definition of "likely voter," and was told by CNN that the count was made of voters who had voted in BOTH the last primary in their state as well as the last presidential election, thereby eliminating any voter not yet registered for the primary election or was unable because Perot was not on the ballot in that state, and any voter who did not vote or was unqualified to do so at the time of the last presidential election. It is estimated that such a definition would include only about half of the voters. Denari further states that the CNN representative revealed that a second poll was taken of those voters who did not vote in the last presidential election or state primary, but who DID intend to vote in the 1992 election. THAT POLL RESULTED IN THESE TOTALS: PEROT 57 PERCENT, CLINTON 24 PERCENT, BUSH 13 PERCENT. When confronted with the reason this poll was not aired, CNN informed Denari that the results were "unreliable because those polled might not vote this year as in past years." With the election only days away, the efforts of Perot's volunteer army, many of whom confirmed the poll interviews, were futile. The other networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC fell into lock step with their report of Perot's descent to 19 percent and less. At that point it became a two-man race. The Chicago IL campaign headquarters analysis breakdown: CNN "Likely Voter" (approx. half of voters) Perot Bush Clinton 16% 38%' 40% CNN "Unlikely Voter" (approx. half of voters) Perot Bush Clinton 57% 13% 24% Average of "Likely and Unlikely" Voters; i.e. Whole Perot Bush Clinton 37% 26% 32% Dallas Perot '92 Poll of 89,000 voters, 18% Undecided (Subtract Perot's 50% as example) Perot Bush Clinton (9%) (4.5%) (4.5%) CNN less "Undecideds" - rounded to whole numbers Perot Bush Clinton 26% 22% 28% Dallas less "Undecideds" Perot Bush Clinton 27% 25% 29% In a recent interview, Frank Newport, editor in chief Gallup Organization, commented that the "most likely" voter explanation that occurred during the remaining week before the election was "distorted information," as the procedure was a complex one. According to Newport, a total sampling of 1000 contacts for broadcast of national results is considered an effective poll, and can be accomplished in three or four hours, based on their collection methods and evaluation. He also informs that CNN, as well as the other networks, are Gallup subscribers and defray a portion of the expense to conduct the Gallup polls. He holds high regard for national weekly magazines, such as Time and Newsweek, in their coverage of poll results. On the use of the term, "certain" voters, he was unable to provide an explanation, as Gallup does not use that terminology. Many contacts to CNN, which broadcast last July a national standing of the presidential candidates' percentages as "certain" voters, resulted in their having no information on the term. Mary Clette, of NBC's Meet the Press, Washington bureau, was unfamiliar with the term in polling interviews. The term "certain" voters is well recognized by pollsters and campaigners industry-wide, and defined as voters who have participated in the last four elections, either major or general elections. This would be discretionary among each pollster. In a firsthand contact with the Washington State Perot '92 headquarters during the last days of the election, it was a frenzy of many volunteers who were experiencing for the first time participation in a presidential campaign. Dallas national headquarters asked for each state's office to make 1000 random phonecalls from telephone books by volunteers irrespective of time of day and geography. At best, a 40,000 sampling was anticipated, far less than actual total sampling of more than 89,000. Two questions were asked: "Are you a registered voter? If the election were held today, for whom would you vote?" According to Gordon Black, the pollster who worked for Ross Perot after he reentered the race, he absolutely believes that the polling profession caused Perot, whose polling numbers indicated he was the most popular presidential candidate, to lose the election. In mid-July, without ever having officially declared himself as a candidate, Perot quit the race, and the Democrats recognized Perot had no chance. Two and one-half months later, his shocked and angry supporters refused to give up, and his poll numbers were single digits. By mid-October after the first presidential debate, his numbers climbed even higher than it had been during those placid days of summer. The press believing Perot had no chance, picked up the cudgel and went to work on his character, demeanor, and with surgical precision did some creative editing of his sound bytes. But by mid-July with Perot out of the running, the news media had stopped doing their job, that of investigation of the candidate. Had Perot been a serious contender, the media would have been more attentive. At the same time, the media had crowned Clinton the "Comeback Kid." THE KEY QUESTION NOT ASKED According to Gordon Black, the professional pollster, the industry failed by not asking the question that should have been asked and never was: "Regardless of who may win, who would you actually prefer to win the presidency?" The results would have shown that Perot was favored by more people than Bush or Clinton, and by the posing of this question, indicated that Perot was moving forward, or was at least competitive with the other two candidates. The question alone would have encouraged more people to vote for him and could have decided his place in the White House. This glitch is discussed in detail in the book, "Superpollsters," by David W. Moore, vice president and managing editor of the Gallup Poll. It is now popularly known that the 1992 exit polls showed clearly that voters would have changed their vote if they had thought Perot had a chance to win, followed by Clinton and then Bush. Recently,William Schneider, CNN political analyst, in a September 21, 1996 broadcast of "Inside Politics," aired this exit poll result: In 1992 the actual vote was: Clinton 43%, Bush 38%, Perot 19% CNN 1992 Exit Poll: "Would you have voted for Perot if he had a chance to win?" Yes 36% No 64% CNN 1992 Exit Poll The vote for Perot if voters believed he could win Perot 36 percent Clinton 34 percent Bush 30 percent THE WASTED VOTE SCENARIO Pollsters commonly use a technique of asking for a choice rather than a preference. If the voter believes that the favorite candidate, is not likely to be the elected one, the voter will move toward the second choice as the one that would be the winner of the election. The voter wants to be included in the success of that candidate. From these answers comes the "most likely" voter interview by the pollsters. They should have been asking throughout the campaigns which candidate the voter preferred, regardless of whether it was believed there was a chance to win. Bill Rakes, a CPA and political polls dilettante of Oak Park IL, brings the point even closer home with his analysis that voters seek out a least-favorite candidate, thereby protecting their remaining two options of the candidate they may actually like but has less chance to win, and the candidate they visualize could be the real winner. During the last several days of the 1992 campaign, Bush was not going away quietly and moving up in the polls inch by inch. Then something happened. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger's notes were released along with the indictment about the Iran-Contra events. Now four years later, asking the question many times about this event, the conclusion offered is that it made little or no impact due to the intensity of the campaign, and there is some disagreement about how much gap narrowed between the support of Bush and Clinton. WHY WE NEED POLLS Without this gauge of public opinion polls, the voter is not secure enough, using the information available, to decide which one of the three candidates is losing. The voter can only guess, based on history, that the independent candidate is the most likely to be the one with the least chance of winning. However, the poll must be properly conducted. The voter needs to know the total number of samples, the major questions asked, the sources (pollster/organization), and geographical data. Otherwise, it's open season on deception. In an interview with James Hebert, owner and founder of an 18-year-old polling organization, Hebert Research, Inc. in Bellevue WA, he sees no new trends on the horizon industry-wide, and has growing concerns that the industry has become so political. Hebert further states that he has been pressured rigorously by "prominent senior national political individuals in order to persuade him to get around the questions in the interviews. It becomes a critical issue in dealing with fundraising of the parties. There are pressures on how the questions are posed, using the response rates to advantage, and leading questions with the intent to get answers." He remarked that one of his former clients, well-known in the statewide political scene and former member of the State Legislature, a republican, queried, "How do you do these polls? Well, keep working with the questions until we get the answers." Hebert comments further that he sees this kind of activity as widespread. "I am concerned and torn with my direction as a businessman. I have to make a living. I am saddened; polls can be a positive contribution. I don't have to like their candidate. There is just disenchantment and one more alienation." Hebert Research, Inc. employs seventy full-time non-subcontract employees to "protect the integrity of my organization." He maintains 2,000 contractors, primarily for custom research tasks. MSNBC, Bill Gates' Microsoft on-line network, in Hebert's same hometown, announced in late July the national poll percentages for presidential candidate Dole, referring to a "Michigan state poll." No other data provided. Pollster Hebert ended the interview with this comment, "I cannot help but think of the line from Camelot with Queen Guinevere and King Arthur saying to each other, "What are the little people thinking today?" Leadership should come from within this profession." (END) Nicki Myers, a freelance journalist, draws on past careers in aerospace, radio broadcasting, politics and experiences in Appalachia and Third World countries. She now lives in Bellevue WA. Email Averitas@aol.com -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Conservative Info Distribution Date: 06 Nov 1996 14:10:34 -0800 Hello folks, and my apologies for this semi-spammage - but it's important, and we need your help :) My partner and I have started a corporation, Media Access, with the plan of essentially doing for small conservative publications nation-wide what the Associated Press does for the bought-and-paid-for mainstream media. We're almost ready to go public with our plan but we're looking for more alternative publications to become associates. The goal is to build an association of credible publications to instantaneously distribute the most important stories all over the country in an effort to challenge the credibility of dominant media associations in the minds of the American public. I believe that if we're going to keep America from going down the tubes completely, the key is in educating the public. Most people at this point have a "feeling" that they're not getting the whole truth from the network news or their newspapers, but they don't know where to turn for the truth; we'd like to remedy that. If any of you have a local conservative newspaper/magazine/talkshow/e-zine/ etc., please let me know how to contact them; we'll take it from there. We desperately need to get the truth out to the people in America, and I think we may have stumbled on a major way to accomplish that. Much thanks, and my apologies to those who see this on more than one mailing list; but it's important enough to risk the wrath of the Spam Police in this case :) - 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: sabutigo Subject: Re: Conservative Info Distribution Date: 06 Nov 1996 20:34:59 -0800 (PST) At 02:10 PM 11/6/96 -0800, you wrote: >Hello folks, and my apologies for this semi-spammage - but it's important, >and we need your help :) > >My partner and I have started a corporation, Media Access, with the plan of >essentially doing for small conservative publications nation-wide what the >Associated Press does for the bought-and-paid-for mainstream media. > >We're almost ready to go public with our plan but we're looking for more >alternative publications to become associates. The goal is to build an >association of credible publications to instantaneously distribute the most >important stories all over the country in an effort to challenge the >credibility of dominant media associations in the minds of the American >public. > >I believe that if we're going to keep America from going down the tubes >completely, the key is in educating the public. Most people at this point >have a "feeling" that they're not getting the whole truth from the network >news or their newspapers, but they don't know where to turn for the truth; >we'd like to remedy that. > >If any of you have a local conservative newspaper/magazine/talkshow/e-zine/ >etc., please let me know how to contact them; we'll take it from there. We >desperately need to get the truth out to the people in America, and I think >we may have stumbled on a major way to accomplish that. > >Much thanks, and my apologies to those who see this on more than one mailing >list; but it's important enough to risk the wrath of the Spam Police in this >case :) > > >- Monte > > Life Advocate magazine e-mail address 72262.3024@compuserve.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: *** STARR, MCRANIE & SPAIN CONVICTED!!! Date: 06 Nov 1996 20:59:54 -0800 They've convicted Bob Starr & the other two innocent militia members. God help us all - these men were TOTALLY INNOCENT, and the paid BATF informant admitted *UNDER OATH* that he planted the bomb-making materials without Bob Starr's knowledge. America is gone. - Monte >Mike Kemp forwards: >> Update: Georqia Militia (Macon) >> The Jury returned guilty verdicts against all three defendants. >> Sam Wilson united States Ass't District Attorney confirmed his pleasure >> over the jury findings an stated that the three were "guilty of a plot >> to start a B0B war against the government ... and even at the Summer >> Olympics". The three militia members were found guilty of the following >> Federal charges: possessing pipe bombs and conspiring to use threm the >> against the government. The Jury did NOT, however, find the guilty on >> other charges such as conspiring to use the pipe bombs against PEOPLE' >> (specificly) . The Government was rather bothered by this particular >> jury finding. McRaney, Starr and Spain will be sentenced in 60 days. >> They have been remanded to the Atlanta Penn. Federal prosecutors >> announced they can receive a maximum sentence of 17 -22 years each. >> The Channel 2 - Atlanta News Team - taped wives an family members of >> the three Militia men collasping on the sidewalks in grief. >> ------------------------------------- > > > - 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: Re: Roger Cravens Date: 07 Nov 1996 21:08:38 -0700 (MST) I am going to answer this message point-for-point: At 03:00 AM 11/3/96 -0600, you wrote: > >>Dear Mr. Phipps, Sr., >> >>You have missed the whole point. > >I have not missed the point. You are consumed with a crusading hatred that >causes you to fire blindly from the hip at anything you perceive to be >"governmental". You generally hit the wrong target and appear to be a >blithering fool at the same time. I did not fire blindly. Senator Riegle has testified before Congress that the CDC knew about the Gulf War Syndrome before the conflict began. That was my reason for asking by what authority employees within the CDC spend a good portion of their working day screening incoming email, and reposting it to various "patriot" lists. Citizens are entitled to know by what authority government employees do what they do. > >>What is his authority for doing >>what he does, using CDC resources? > >His use of his e-mail priviledges are between him & his employer. Thank god >there are people like Roger Cravens in government. I object to this statement, because he works for a federal lab, and he is using federal funds to work there. > >>This is a reasonable question. > >There is nothing reasonable in your childish attack and call for "discipline". You can use the words "childish" and "attack" all day long, but you are not addressing the point here: what is the authority? If he has no authority, then he should stop using public funds to do what he is doing. Period. I don't care if it is politically PERFECT. That is not the point. He is setting a very bad example for the freedom movement to be using public funds for his own political purposes. > >>It does not matter one bit whether >>his posts are "politically correct" >>or "politically incorrect". > >I have not brought up the question of political correctness, I am responding >to an attack on a person who dispenses usefull information & who enjoys the >well deserved respect of reasonable persons. He does not deserve respect if he is using public funds to do a job for which there is no authorization in law. Federal funds must be expended pursuant to Acts of Congress. It says so in the Constitution. > >>That matter is entirely irrelevant >>to the point, which is authority. > >?????? "authority", yes. > >>And so, I am prepared to disagree >>with you, also because the CDC has >>now been implicated directly in >>the Gulf War Illnesses. These >>illnesses are contagious, and >>now threaten the entire American >>population, regardless of age, >>sex, or race, religion, or >>political status/opinion. > >Roger Cravens is NOT the CDC, he is a computer technician. See answer #1. He is employed by the CDC, is he not? > >>Do you now see why I am so concerned? > >What I and others see is a person who has some good ideas, means well, but >has become unable to discern the proper target for action. You need a long >rest and a good shrink in order to get back on track. Your insults will get you nowhere, so you may as well stop them right now. He may be well intentioned, but he was unable to disclose the authority for his use of CDC resources to be doing what he is doing. Therefore, I am entitled now to proceed on the basis of the presumption, unrebutted, that he has no authorization, lawful or otherwise. Moreover, ever since the CDC was directly linked to the Gulf War Illnesses, every last employee of that complex now must ask themselves if, and how, they might be connected to premeditated murder and genocide. This is at least as bad as anything the Nazis did in World War II. The U.S. Court of Claims amended their local rules years ago, in anticipation of a rush of wrongful death suits resulting from ... a federal innoculation program. Did you know about this? Contact attorney Jeffrey Thayer and legal researcher Richard McDonald for a copy of the videotape they made on this subject. I was shocked; Richard told me it was evidence of premeditated murder. I now believe him, even though it was very difficult for me to believe him at the time he made that videotape. > >>Let Roger do what he does on his own time, >>from his own home, on his own computers, >>as so many of the rest of us do. >>Is this asking too much? > >One who appears so out of control & unable to manage himself should not try >to manage the lives of others. Is it too much to ask that you mind you own >business? Let him do it at home, on his own time, as so many of the rest of us do. > >>Are you not offended deeply by the >>imminent loss of many lives, because >>of the vaccines administered to >>American troops who served in Desert >>Storm? I am not only offended; >>I am horrified. The U.S. Court of >>Claims has proof in their local >>rules that they fully anticipated >>a huge number of wrongful death >>claims -- from innoculations of >>Americans. > >There are currently about 6 conspiracy theories ranging from innoculations, >to experiments, to chemicals used by the Iraquis & everything in between >floating around on this one. When a former U.S. Senator testifies before Congress that the CDC knew about these tainted vaccines before they were administered, I would say that we have in that testimony probable cause to investigate premeditated murder and genocide. Yes. Calling it a "conspiracy theory" doesn't add one iota to the debate; that is only a worthless label, designed to discourage people from considering a perfectly valid hypothesis. What better place to design a deadly virus, than right under our noses in a federal center for disease control. Ya, that's "control" all right; I call it planned and premeditated. Now, THAT'S real control. They involve charges against the CIA, the >Dept. of Defense, the CDC and a host of other possible perps. I am speaking here to the CDC, not to any of these other organizations. So far, I >haven't seen Roger Cravens charged in any of these conspiracies and I doubt >we will. I have not charged him, I have only asked him a reasonable question, namely, what is his authority to be doing what he is doing? I am still waiting for an answer. The question is your silly and offensive attack on Roger Cravens. >You asked for action, you're getting it. Ad hominem arguments do not move me. I am sorry. > >>Wake up, man! > >I am awake & functioning normally. Try it, you might like it. More ad hominem. What do you know about the Gulf War Illnesses? > >>I hope you don't make a soft landing >>on the wrong side of the fence, when >>all the dust settles out from this >>desert storm. If I were you, I would >>head to a competent doctor at once, >>and have a serious private conference >>with him (her) about preventative >>measures. > >Paul, I have read your postings for some time now. You obviously are >passionate about your beliefs & committed to righting what you perceive as >wrongs. I say the following in a sincere effort to help. I must question your motives here, after your personal and ad hominem attacks, repeated over and over ad nauseam, above. If you want to fight, then let's have it out right here. If my parents come down with GWS because I did not get proof to them fast enough that this thing is contagious, then I will have a direct cause of action. The last thing I want in this world is to quarantine my parents in their old age, after all that they have been through. > >You need to take a deep breath & take stock of what you are becoming. Look >carefully at the preceeding statement of yours as well as several of the >others you have made here & recently. I & I alone decide how I will land >and I take the consequences of my landings. I don't allow the government or >you to control my landings. How I handle my health & what doctor I use is >my decision. Not if we are dealing with a possible pandemic, because if you do not take the necessary precautions in the face of pretty damning evidence, then you may be facing quarantine yourself, and your community may find it necessary to quarantine you against your will. What do you know about epidemiology? Have you seen the movie "Outbreak"? It is not yours or the governments. You have developed the >habit of trying to manage everyone's business which makes you as >authoritative as the government you constantly berate. I am an advocate against federal government abuses, which are now running rampant. If American soldiers were innoculated with a tainted vaccine, and if that vaccine is directly linked to the Gulf War Illnesses, when the French soldiers have not contracted it simply because they did not get injected with the same vaccine, then the federal government has an awful lot of explaining to do, particularly when evidence is not coming forth that this thing is horribly contagious, causing wives to become deathly ill, and also causing serious birth defects. I can direct you to a nurse from the Army Nursing Corps who got wind of a tained vaccine, and went to her General. The General told her to administer the vaccine anyway, even after she told him that. Do you think may be we should subpoena this nurse, and get her deposition? I say yes. > >As I attend Mass tonight, I will give thanks that a runaway government has >within its ranks reasonable people who are also concerned. I will be >thankful for a CDC employee who cares enough to spend time disseminating >useful info not otherwise available; No taxation without representation! No expenditure of public funds without acts of Congress. This is the supreme Law of the land, like or not. You keep justifying it because it is "useful info not otherwise available." That is debatable, to say the least. But, even if it is "useful info not otherwise available," there is no end to the scope of expenditures which could be justified under this rubric you have just invented. I will offer a prayer for those >members of the BATF who had the guts to protest the actions at Waco & to >resign, even though there has been a media black out on their heroism; I >will express gratitude for the Libertarians who work for the IRS and work >tirelessly to expose & correct the crimes committed in that agency. I could >go, but won't. BATF is another subject entirely. I don't wish to go off on this tangent with you right here. > >Thank God that in 30 years of working for 2nd admendment, Libertarian and >other causes for freedom, I haven't come to the sorry point where I can't >tell the difference between a government agency and a good person who >happens to work for the government. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If the man has no authority to expend public funds in the manner in which he does, then he is stealing from the American People. There is no gray area, I am sorry to say. Get help before it's too late & leave >sources of good information alone. There are millions of sources of good information; just where do you stop with this maxim? When the public treasury is totally looted, the way it has been for this and that wild and crazy idea over the last 80 years? What you are saying is that the end justifies the means, and I am adamantly opposed to such a doctrine. It is situational ethics, and your spiritual guides should tell you that such a belief is flatly wrong, morally, ethically, and legally. Why don't we have ALL CDC employees disseminating information which you consider valuable, and do so without any authorization? Would that make the world a better place? I think not. The contrary is closer to the truth. While Roger is broadcasting a high rate of pre-selected muck-racking to his many lists, private and public, others within his same organization were, evidently, plotting and suppressing evidence of a deliberate, premeditated program to innoculate American soldiers with a deadly, infectious disease, which now threatens their families directly, including spouses, children, siblings, grand parents, cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandchildren, not to mention neighbors, co-workers, and church members. The thing is spread by casual contact; intimate contact is not required. What more do we need as a nation to understand that we are under biological attack, and the gulf war was an excuse to expose Americans beyond the range of typical public health measures we enjoy here in the several States. The Desert Storm was a witch's brew of death, now brought home to roost in our own backyards, in our own churches, and in our own living rooms. This is very very ugly. So, I agree to disagree, and I also agree to have a full public airing of this horrific matter: 10,000 deaths so far from GWS, and the number is still climbing. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >Bob Phipps =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: My, my Date: 08 Nov 1996 00:20:39 -0500 (EST) Reuters 11/7/96 TWA Flight 800 shot by US missile, Salinger says NICE, France, Nov 8 (Reuter) - Former White House adviser Pierre Salinger said on Thursday that a U.S. Navy missile accidentally shot down the TWA airliner which crashed off New York in July killing all 230 people aboard. Salinger told airline officials at a meeting here that an agent of the U.S. Secret Service gave him a document in Paris showing the airliner had entered an area where the U.S. Navy was carrying out missile tests. "The airliner was not the target of an attack...It was shot down by a missile fired from a U.S. Navy vessel," he said. [...] He made his comments to some 100 airline officials from 20 countries attending a meeting in the French Mediterranean resort of Cannes. He said he had passed on his information to an unspecified U.S. television network which did not broadcast it. He accused the U.S. government of clamping a news blackout on the crash. Investigators are still dredging the seabed off Long Island for evidence to explain the crash. They have established that a fuel tank exploded but not what set off the blast and there has been no official verdict on the disaster. A missile, a bomb and a mechanical fault have all been suggested. [My, my. Gore in '97? -bd] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: algore AlGore ALGORE Date: 08 Nov 1996 00:02:17 -0800 algore! AlGore!! ALGORE!!! UGH UGH UGH /s/ Paul Mitchell all rights reserved all Rights reserved also At 12:20 AM 11/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >Reuters 11/7/96 > >TWA Flight 800 shot by US missile, Salinger says > > NICE, France, Nov 8 (Reuter) - Former White House adviser Pierre Salinger >said on Thursday that a U.S. Navy missile accidentally shot down the TWA >airliner which crashed off New York in July killing all 230 people aboard. > Salinger told airline officials at a meeting here that an agent of the U.S. >Secret Service gave him a document in Paris showing the airliner had entered an >area where the U.S. Navy was carrying out missile tests. > "The airliner was not the target of an attack...It was shot down by a >missile fired from a U.S. Navy vessel," he said. What Navy vessel? That should be fairly easy to identify, yes? I know a few Captains who would never have obeyed such a blatantly criminal Order; one in particular helped bombard Iwo Jima from an off-shore battleship. He was my boss for over a year. I predict that heads will roll when this gets exposed fully. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >[...] > > He made his comments to some 100 airline officials from 20 countries >attending a meeting in the French Mediterranean resort of Cannes. > He said he had passed on his information to an unspecified U.S. television >network which did not broadcast it. He accused the U.S. government of clamping >a news blackout on the crash. > Investigators are still dredging the seabed off Long Island for evidence to >explain the crash. They have established that a fuel tank exploded but not what >set off the blast and there has been no official verdict on the disaster. > A missile, a bomb and a mechanical fault have all been suggested. > > >[My, my. Gore in '97? -bd] > > > > ==================================================================== [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: TWA Missile Attack - Friendly Fire? (fwd) Date: 07 Nov 1996 22:38:04 PST And for this we get "Anti-Terrorist" legislation that terrorizes the Citizenry and mucks up our Rights? Spread it far and wide kiddies. Bury your Congress Critters with it till they repeal it in self defence. "On Nov 7, Terry Walker wrote:" [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi All, Something to think about! In his grip, Ann >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 96 22:04:24 EST >From: Spirit Of Truth Page >Subject: TWA Missile Attack - Friendly Fire? (fwd) >To: Spirit Of Truth Page > >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >Date: Thu, 07 Nov 96 22:00:32 EST >From: Spirit Of Truth Page >Subject: TWA Missile Attack - Friendly Fire? > > >Somehow the network news services missed this one... > > > "Flight 800 Shot by U.S. Missile, Salinger Says" > >NICE, France (Reuter) - Former White House adviser Pierre Salinger >said Thursday that a U.S. Navy missile accidentally shot down the TWA >airliner which crashed off New York in July killing all 230 people >aboard. > >Salinger told airline officials an agent of the U.S. Secret Service >gave him a document in Paris showing the airliner had entered an area >where the U.S. Navy was carrying out missile tests. > >"The airliner was not the target of an attack...It was shot down by a >missile fired from a U.S. Navy vessel," he said. > >He said the airliner had taken off late from New York and was flying >lower than its scheduled altitude of 20,000 feet to steer clear of >another aircraft. > >The airport control tower, in "a tragic error," failed to inform the >Navy, Salinger said. > >"The truth must come out," he said. > >U.S. officials repeatedly have denied rumors that TWA Flight 800 was >accidentally brought down by a missile fired by American military >forces and speculation that the Clinton Administration was covering it >up. > >James Kallstrom, the FBI official heading the investigation, denounced >the so-called "friendly fire" theory last month, calling it an >"outrageous accusation." > >Salinger, 71, was press spokesman for the late president John F. >Kennedy and later Paris bureau for the U.S. television network ABC. > >He made his comments to some 100 airline officials from 20 countries >attending a meeting in the French Mediterranean resort of Cannes. > >He said he had passed on his information to an unspecified U.S. >television network which did not broadcast it. He accused the U.S. >government of clamping a news blackout on the crash. > >Investigators are still dredging the seabed off Long Island for >evidence to explain the crash. They have established that a fuel tank >exploded but not what set off the blast and there has been no official >verdict on the disaster. > >A missile, a bomb and a mechanical fault have all been suggested. [------------------------- 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 Date: 08 Nov 1996 05:47:18 -0700 (MST) [transcription] 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 reponse 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 descibing 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, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness and Counselor at Law # # # =========================================================== 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: SAFAN NO. 124. There's Some Truth in All Lies Date: 08 Nov 1996 05:54:14 -0700 (MST) > STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW! > S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 124, November 7, 1996 > >THERE'S SOME TRUTH IN ALL LIES >by Peter Kawaja (pkawaja@dnet.net) > >There's some truth in all lies, you just have to know what to look for. >Read this News Article First: > >RESEARCH TEAM IDENTIFIES GENETIC MATERIAL IN GULF WAR-ERA VETERANS: Mounting >Scientific Evidence Shows Gulf War Vets Were >Exposed to Chemical Agents >Tampa, FL, October 7, 1996 -- > >The detection of genetic material found in the blood of Persian Gulf >War-era veterans was announced today at a national conference >sponsored by the National Gulf War Resource Center. The study, >led by research microbiologist Dr. Howard B. Urnovitz, is an >important step in determining the potential research course, >consequences, and treatments for Gulf War veterans. > >Persian Gulf War Related Illnesses (PGWRI) have similarities to >illnesses associated with exposure to organophosphate poisons, such >as chemical nerve agents, as well as many epidemics described under >a variety of names related to epidemic fatigue syndromes (EFS). EFS >have, in some cases, been described following specific viral infections. >The ongoing study tested whether veterans suffering from PGWRI also >had evidence of infections associated with EFS. > >"This study strongly supports the concept that microbiological markers >may be associated with this veteran population," said Dr. Urnovitz, >Chief Science Officer of Berkeley-based Calypte Biomedical. "We >expect these findings to lead to the development of a diagnostic tool >that would help identify individuals who may be susceptible to Persian >Gulf War Related Illnesses." "We already know that the veterans >appear to have immune anomalies that might put them at risk for >common infections. The results of this present study suggest that RNA >can be isolated from the serum of Gulf War veterans that appear to >share some similarity to the enterovirus family. No similar RNA was >found in the control civilian group," Urnovitz concluded. > >The study examined whether military personnel who developed >symptoms of PGWRI had the presence of genetic material related to >the group of viruses known as enteroviruses. > >Enteroviruses belong to a common virus family (there are several >hundred different types ranging from common cold viruses >(rhinoviruses) to those viruses that cause paralytic polio) and use >RNA as their genetic material. Microbial agents can be detected by >testing for genetic material that makes each agent unique. Serum was >collected from subjects of three groups: > - 22 randomly selected non-military civilians > - 36 subjects deployed to the Persian Gulf > [23 from California and 13 from Arkansas] > 8 soldiers from Arkansas who were not deployed > >Using the new technology known as "gene amplification," the sera >were analyzed for the presence of "nucleic acid bands." The >presence of several unique bands were observed in 19 of 23 of the >deployed California veterans, 10 of 13 of the deployed Arkansas >veterans, 8 of 8 of the Arkansas non-deployed veterans, and 1 of 22 >non-military civilians. > >Analyses of the nucleic acid sequences indicated that they may be >related to the enterovirus family. The results of the study also indicate >that some aspect of military service may predispose individuals to the >possibility of developing these Persian Gulf War related Illnesses. > >The eight soldiers who were not deployed are apparently healthy, >indicating that other factors related to the Persian Gulf War experience >are required to trigger an onset of illness. >______________________________________________________________________ >This insert added by Peter Kawaja : >"are required to trigger an onset of illness" ?? , say WHAT, you sure ? > (remember the excerpt from Peter Kawaja's US MILIITARY ALERT ?: >(immediately following)... "They" can "activate" GWS anytime by a >missing ingredient, and those who are not already dead or deathly >sick, WILL BECOME SICK and need the antidote or die. You have been >lied to - it is laying dormant in most of you, (those who are not already >exhibiting signs of illness from the Gulf). >______________________________________________________________________ >Dr. Marie Chow, Professor of Microbiology, Immunology and >Pathology at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, one of >the investigators of the Arkansas group, and a known enterovirus >expert, cautioned that "while an actual virus has not been identified, >this is an important first step in trying to determine what contributions >microorganisms may play in the development of PGWRI. We still have >a significant way to go before we understand the complexity of this >multifactorial disease. There are clearly many factors underlying >these symptoms." > >[by Peter Kawaja insert : Now the lies - er, damage control. Chemical Weapons >are NOT contagious, BIOLOGICALS are ! Read it and weep.] >One critical factor may be the exposure of veterans to chemical agents. >"This was the most toxic battlefield in the history of modern warfare. >Studies since World War I show that individuals exposed to chemical >agents and related poisons have manifested symptoms similar to those >of the Gulf War veterans," said James J. Tuite, III, an international >security consultant and former director of the U.S. Senate Banking >Committee investigation into the arming of Iraq and the health effects >of the Persian Gulf War. > >"The high explosive weapons used to destroy Iraqi chemical >munitions sites and secondary fires forced skyward vapors and toxic >by-products from chemical agents. Weather patterns moved them as >fallout over U.S. and coalition soldiers. As favorable conditions >developed, the heavier-than-air gases fell to the ground where their presence >was confirmed by multiple scientific techniques," he added. > >Tuite noted that other factors, including some preventive medicine >measures and other occupational hazards could have exacerbated the effects of >this toxic fallout. Supported by a growing body of literature, >these exposures may have caused many of the veterans to develop a >chronic autoimmune neurologic disease. > >Dr. Robert Garry, Professor of Microbiology at the Tulane University >Medical School, and a known expert in the discovery of novel human >viruses and autoimmune neurologic diseases, emphasizes the >importance of this study. "If a virus is found to be associated with this >disease, significant resources need to be dedicated to learn whether >these microbes [ AHAAAAAAA - yes microbes, that's the ticket ! / insert >by PK] are contributing to the illnesses of returning veterans and their >families, as well as birth defects in their children after the war." [ so >it IS contagious, thank you very much - by PK ] > >"Studies designed to detect microbial agents associated with >organophosphate-induced delayed neuropathies and epidemic fatigue syndromes >are important to understand the chronic diseases from >which many veterans suffer," said Urnovitz. "These symptoms would >appear different than the acute symptoms of toxic chemical exposure." >"PGWRI are not only multifactorial, but are probably multi-hit illnesses - >that is illness development actually requires a combination of several >events. > >[ read my lips, not George Bush's. >"They" can "activate" GWS anytime by a missing ingredient, and >those who are not already dead or deathly sick, WILL BECOME SICK >and need the antidote or die. You have been lied to - it is laying >dormant in most of you, (those who are not already exhibiting signs >of illness from the Gulf). Insert by PK ]. > >This study is important because it identifies a measurable factor which >may be associated with a potential hit. Clearly additional research >must be done to identify the other "hits" and to determine the role of >these findings in PGWRI," said Dr. Susan Guba, Assistant Professor of >Medicine and Pathology at the University of Arkansas for Medical >Sciences and the Little Rock Department of Veterans Affairs Medical >Center, and study coordinator for the Arkansas group. "We are seeing >many symptoms of chronic diseases that have always been considered >to have some viral component to them. It will be important to see if >research yields the identity of a possible virus so that we can consider >antiviral therapies as a possible treatment modality," said Dr. Jean >Higashida, Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of >California-Davis, Chief of Rheumatology, Veterans Affairs Northern >California Health Care System, and principal study coordinator for the >California veterans group. Dr. Urnovitz received his Ph.D. in >Microbiology/Immunology at the University of Michigan Medical >School in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He began studying the origins of >PGWRI in 1994. Dr. Urnovitz founded Calypte Biomedical (CALY: >NASDAQ small cap) which recently obtained a FDA license for its urine >test for antibodies to the AIDS virus. [ AIDS ? virus ? Hmmmmm. - >there will be more, stay tuned. Insert by PK ] > >[ in spite of overwhelming evidence, they still tell you to your face, >it was chemical and perhaps from oil fires, they're just not sure - and >won't be for the next 20 years or until the NWO makes its move on >the US] >::::::::::::::::: >A L E R T > >I am receiving reports of Patriots/Constitutionalists/etc. - "Sites" >being removed from the NET unexplainedly. In other words, going >down and no one has information about them. > >EVERYONE - BOLO > keep your eyes open and ears peeled for >ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. Question any event - but more >importantly, do something about it - > >PASS THE INFORMATION ALONG. > >As always, this is no time for rumors and warnings because of an >individual's personal convictions or dreams. We are talking about >reporting INCIDENTS - REAL things that have actually happened, not >what you think or feel "is going to happen". > >People, I do not wish to alarm anyone. But in these days, >INFORMATION and COMMUNICATION between ourselves is critical. >If your power goes down, check your phone lines and call out to make >sure your line is actually working and notify someone else in another >county, and other state. Just a brief phone call, a few pennies. > >Everyone should have a "good-buddy" in another part of town/county/ >state - and we all should be staying in CLOSE TOUCH with each other >from this date forward ! > >If BOTH your power and phone line is down, get out of your home >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > SAFAN %Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 > Reply to: SafanNews@aol.com > SAFAN Internet Newsletters are posted on the Internet > http://feustel.mixi.net >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Innerarity Subject: PROBE OF INS NATURALIZED CRIMINALS TO GO FORWARD Date: 08 Nov 1996 08:32:57 -0500 Reply-To: alerts@nra.org Originator: general-rkba@nra.org Sender: rkba-alert@Mainstream.net NRA CrimeStrike's CrimeWatch Weekly Breaking news on critical crime-fighting issues, policies and legislation Vol. 2, No. 24 November 6, 1996 Election Won't Stop Probe Of Claims INS Naturalized Criminals The allegation that the nation's crime problem has been made more difficult by the naturalization of as many as 100,000 aliens with criminal records during the Clinton administration's Citizenship USA program is one crime issue certain to survive yesterday's presidential election. The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee revealed last week that a review of 14,577 of 50,692 records supplied by the FBI found 5,014 (34.4%) had at least one conviction. Of those, 1,073 (7.5%) had felony convictions that would automatically disqualify an individual, a committee source told The Washington Times. But the INS says its own still incomplete review had found only about 1,300 of those naturalized between Aug. 31, 1995, and Sept. 30, 1996, had possibly disqualifying criminal records. Nearly 1 million were naturalized in that period. "With all of the allegations about the Clinton administration's misuse of the INS and the naturalization program, it's urgent that Congress get to the bottom of this matter," said CrimeStrike Director Elizabeth Swasey. She noted that last week Legal Times, a newspaper serving the Washington, D.C., legal community, reported on a series of INS practices criticized by the Justice Department's Inspector General, including an allegation that INS deports only half of those against whom it has deportation orders. CrimeStrike Petition Drives Keep Two More Killers Behind Bars Two killers poised for release from prison before being targeted by NRA CrimeStrike's "Keep Killers in Prison" program have been denied parole, the 33rd and 34th successful parole blocks since the program began in 1993. The North Carolina Parole Commission denied parole last week for Charles W. Blalock, who was convicted of the brutal 1984 murder of Larry Grant Walker. CrimeStrike assisted the victim's mother stop Blalock from going free after he had served just 12 years of his life sentence. "I appreciate all of the help that CrimeStrike gave to our family," Mrs. Shirley Kenion said. "I believe your presence at the meeting with the parole board made a difference," she told CrimeStrike, "and I especially appreciate all the time your members took in gathering signatures on petitions." NRA members gathered more than 2,500 signatures on petitions opposing Blalock's parole, 280 of them from lawmen. In a second CrimeStrike parole block effort, this week the Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board denied parole for Ricky Lavalle Crook, who was convicted of the stalking-murder his 25-year-old estranged wife Michelle Barker-Crook in Little Rock in 1992 (see CWW 10/8/96). Crook has served just four years of his 20-year murder sentence. Volunteers gathered nearly 400 signatures on petitions opposing his release in just a week. They were given to the board by Michelle's mother, Maureen Barker, who was accompanied by CrimeStrike staffers. Dire Inmate Projections For CA 3-Strikes Law Were Wrong, State Says California corrections officials have sharply reduced their prison population projections, reducing estimates for the year 2000 by 49,000 inmates. Rather than the 230,000 projected at the turn of the century, prison authorities now put their estimate at 181,000. Doomsday forecasts that the state's two-year-old Three Strikes and You're Out law would dramatically increase the inmate population are being proven wrong. "There is no doubt that the impact of three strikes is not as great as it was expected," explained Jerry Becket, who heads the state corrections agency's estimates and statistics section. The 181,000-inmate projection by the year 2000 still represents an anticipated increase of 40,000 inmates. Despite the lower projection, California authorities say they will need four new prisons with 23,000 beds by 2001, The Los Angeles Times reported. Gov. Pete Wilson has sought funding for six new prisons at a cost of $2 billion, but the legislator has balked. The state now has 32 prisons. A slowing of the crime rate and two-strikes sentences averaging less than five years are among factors credited with the lower estimate. More than 22,000 criminals have been sentenced under the law, about 19,600 under two-strikes provisions that double sentences and another 2,500 under three-strikes sentences of 25 years to life in prison. Eight Victories For Victims' Rights Voters in eight states approved Victims' "Bills of Rights" constitutional amendments on Tuesday. NRA CrimeStrike endorsed each of the issues, which unofficial results showed generally passed by strong majorities. The new states joining the 21 others with constitutional victim protection include Connecticut, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Virginia. A publication of NRA CrimeStrike 11250 Waples Mill Rd. Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel.800.868.4411; Fax 703.267.3992; HTTP://www.nra.org Reproduction permitted with credit Source materials available. =+=+=+=+ 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 -----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: TWA 800/Salinger (fwd) Date: 08 Nov 1996 07:55:24 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 23:33:27 -0800 >To: cs@oak.oakland.edu >From: rayheizer@value.net (Ray Heizer) >Subject: TWA 800/Salinger >Sender: owner-cs@oak.oakland.edu >Precedence: bulk >Errors-To: majordomo-owner@oak.oakland.edu > >I added Drudge too, below. Sorry of duplicate post: > >>Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 01:24:08 -0500 (CDT) >>From: BRENDA JINKINS 383-4248 >>Subject: TWA 800/Salinger >>To: rayheizer@value.net > >> >> Ray- >> >> My radio news had a bit on this, not mentioning the Paris Match >> article. >> >> BCJ >> =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 >> >> Pierre Salinger claims he has document proving that a Navy missile >> shot down TWA Flight 800 >> >> >> Copyright =A9 1996 Nando.net >> Copyright =A9 1996 The Associated Press >> >> PARIS (Nov 7, 1996 11:18 p.m. EST) -- Former newsman Pierre >> Salinger said Thursday he has a government document proving that >> the U.S. Navy accidentally shot down TWA Flight 800 while >> conducting missile tests off Long Island. >> >> Salinger, a foreign correspondent for ABC News from 1978 until >> 1993, said he received the document "from an important person linked >> to the government who showed me what happened ..." >> >> Spokesmen for the Navy and FBI heatedly denied Salinger's charge >> that a U.S. missile caused the explosion that brought down the plane, >> killing all 230 people on board. >> >> FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom, who is heading the criminal >> investigation: "We have looked at this thoroughly and we have >> absolutely not one shred of evidence that it happened or it could have >> happened." >> >> Kallstrom urged Salinger to turn over the document to the FBI "as >> soon as possible." >> >> Salinger refused to disclose to the AP who wrote the document, except >> to say to say that he got it from "a person who got it from a person >> in the Secret Service." >> >> Salinger, who served as press secretary for President Kennedy, spoke >> in a telephone interview from his hotel in Cannes. Earlier Thursday, h= e >> made his claims public in a speech to a meeting of airline industry >> officials. >> >> "The truth must come out," Salinger told some 150 executives of the >> Air Promotion Group. About 40 airlines, including American carriers, >> are linked to the group, Salinger said. >> >> He said his information is that the Navy was testing missiles off >> the coast of Long Island on July 17, and had been told planes would >> be flying higher than 21,000 feet. >> >> The Navy was unaware that because another commercial plane was flying >> above it, Flight 800 was flying at 13,000 feet, Salinger said. >> >> Asked if the document was sufficiently convincing to justify his >> charges, Salinger replied: "The document is something that is highly >> accurate. It has highly accurate information in it." >> >> The FBI received dozens of calls from people claiming to have seen a >> missile at the time of the explosion. Rumors that the aircraft was sho= t >> down by friendly fire also have abounded on the Internet. >> >> Authorities have said there is no basis for the rumors. They maintain >> that the evidence collected so far has not proven what caused the >> explosion, and that three theories still exist: mechanical failure, a >> bomb or a missile. >> >> Lt. Cmdr. Rob Newell, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, said the Navy'= s >> only aircraft in the area was a P-3 Orion anti-submarine plane, which >> does not carry missiles. >> >> He said the nearest warship, the USS Normandy, an Aegis-type missile >> cruiser, was 185 miles to the south. "The Normandy couldn't even see >> the TWA plane," Newell said. >> >> Salinger told the AP he had had the document in question for about >> six weeks but decided to go public with it after the media ignored a >> story in Paris Match magazine last week examining the missile theory. >> >> =1A >> >> - - - - > >>X-Sender: drudge@lainet.com >>Mime-Version: 1.0 >>X-Priority: 1 (Highest) >>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 22:14:22 -0800 >>To: drudge@lainet.com >>From: DRUDGE REPORT >>Subject: DRUDGE REPORT BREAK 11/7/96 20:36 PST >> >>DRUDGE REPORT BREAK >>11/7/96 20:36 PST >> >>'DOCUMENT SHOWS FRIENDLY FIRE' SAYS FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SEC. >> >>Pierre Salinger claims that a Secret Service agent recently gave him a >>document showing that TWA Flight #800 had entered an area where the U.S. >>Navy was carrying out missile tests. >> >>The news rocked the wires and caused a full-media fire late Thursday nigh= t. >> >>'The airliner was not the target of a (terrorist) attack...It was shot do= wn >>by a missile fired from a U.S. Navy vessel,' the former White House advis= er >>and ABC newsman told a large group attending an aviation conference in Ni= ce, >>France. >> >>'The truth must come out!' implored Salinger. >> >>He claims to be in possession of an official report that says: #800 took >>off late from New York and was flying lower than its scheduled altitude o= f >>20,000 feet, trying to steer clear of another aircraft; the airport contr= ol >>tower mistakenly allowed the craft to enter airspace of active Navy's wargames. >> >>'We heard that too,' e-mailed a producer of PARAMOUNT'S HARD COPY to the >>DRUDGE REPORT. HARD COPY was the first to broadcast a photograph of an >>apparent missile streaking in the sky near the craft. >> >>'We've never seen official documentation of the friendly fire >>scenario...it's always been the popular theory for many of the 125 witnes= ses >>who say the saw the rocket going up in the sky.' >> >>For months, the 'friendly fire' story has been getting tremendous play on >>the talkradio underground and Internet Usenet groups. >> >>It is widely believed that Salinger shared the 'top secret' document whi= ch >>outlines specifics of the disaster to his former employer, ABC NEWS. The >>network refused to broadcast it. >> >>Salinger also accused the U.S. government of instigating a news blackout = on >>the real reasons for the crash. >> >>The issue will surely be raised at Friday's presidential news conference. >> >>MATT DRUDGE IN LOS ANGELES 11/7/96 20:36 PST >> >>X X X X > > > >This mailing list is processed through Majordomo at Oakland University. >If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail >to majordomo@oak.oakland.edu. In the message body put: unsubscribe cs > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: TWA 800: THE CAT IS OUT !! (fwd) Date: 08 Nov 1996 07:54:49 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuter excerpt: TWA flight 800 shot by US missile, Salinger says 20:37 Nov 07, 1996 EST NICE, France, Nov 8 (Reuter) - Former White House adviser Pierre Salinger said on Thursday that a U.S. Navy missile accidentally shot down the TWA airliner which crashed off New York in July killing all 230 people aboard. Salinger told airline officials an agent of the U.S. secret service gave him a document in Paris showing the airliner had entered an area where the U.S. Navy was carrying out missile tests. ``The airliner was not the target of an attack...It was shot down by a missile fired from a U.S. Navy vessel,'' he said. He said the airliner had taken off late from New York and was flying lower than its scheduled altitude of 20,000 feet to steer clear of another aircraft. The airport control tower, in ``a tragic error,'' failed to inform the Navy, Salinger said. ``The truth must come out,'' he said. Get the full scoop: http://guide-p.infoseek.com/Content?arn=a2635LBY017reulb-19961107&qt=flight+ 800+shot+by+u%2Es%2E+missile%2C+salinger+says&sv=PC&col=NW IAN: When I think of the avalanche of vicious ad hominem abuse I took in the newsgroups for simply suggesting EXACTLY what Former White House adviser Pierre Salinger has now come out and said to be true from first hand knowledge, it proves what a bunch of fact- blind GovtMedia news feeding and worshiping zombies most people are. This PROVES we are feed a pack of lies; this PROVES that the U.S. media is guilty of a conspiracy to suppress the truth in defense of the U.S. govt because all the facts necessary to reach the this just revealed truth have been there from day one (notice that this news comes from Reuters in England); and this proves that the bulk of conspiracy researchers quickly and accurately divulged the real scoop and were smeared viciously for doing so. If you want to get closest to the truth, research conspiracy theory sources. I laid this TWA 800 GovtMedia scam story all out, see: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/decree.htm Also see my (9/28/96) TWA 800 article in The Goddard Chronicles at DEEP TIMES: http://www.copi.com/articles/Goddard/ Hell, ya got to toot your horn a little, particularly after being sh*t on so much for getting the truth out, for example: The current issue of GEORGE Magazine smears people who suggest that the govt may have shot-down TWA 800 as clueless paranoids. They even quote me. Yet I gave them the facts, culled right out of quickly disappearing media quotations, that 156 witnesses re- ported seeing a missile hit the plane and GEORGE Magazine censored these facts that they had in hand, and then they turn around and call those who know the facts, which they also know, "clueless." It's a naked con job. As Former White House adviser Pierre Salinger just said: ``The truth must come out.'' Yet I'll bet this report too will just disappear, and anyone who remembers it will also be a "clueless paranoid nut case." ************************************************************************ IAN GODDARD Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Penthouse article on Mena Date: 08 Nov 1996 10:26:16 -0500 I first saw this pointer on Conspiracy Nation, re: the recent article on Mena in Penthouse magazine. This is accessible at: www.penthousemag.com. Generally the article reads like pure propaganda, and somehow manages to use the testimony of a convicted drug felon, now in prison (Mr. Bottoms) to imply that: 1. The Republicans have woven the Mena story out of whole cloth. 2. The R's have interfered with DEA investigation of the drug cartels to keep Mena alive. 2. American Spectator is a right-wing extremist rag. 3. Emmett Tyrell is creating a pure smear campaign. Among other things, we are asked to believe that the whole Mena exercise was an elaboration based upon the facts that: 1. Mr. Barry Seal and Mr. Bottoms were smuggling drugs into various small air strips in the South. 2. Mr. Bottoms purchased a large plot of land north of Mena for recreation and built a small air strip on it. He and his father (in-law?) did some target shooting there. The whole thing was not credible. The article engaged in poo-poohing the statements of L.D. Brown and Tyrell's book "Boy Clinton", based upon solely the statements of a convicted drug felon. I would suggest that anyone interested in Mena read the book "Boy Clinton", as it explores L.D. Brown's credentials as a narcotics investigator for the Arkansas State Police, his desire to join the CIA, encouraged by Clinton, his application to the CIA, examination and interview. Brown then went on a subsequent flight with Barry Seal out of Mena to Central America. He saw small arms transported down and coolers of "medical supplies" coming back and believed that he was witnessing a CIA blessed operation. Brown was paid cash in an envelope for the flight. Barry Seal then showed Brown a package of cocaine (in his car) so Brown would know what was coming back. Brown was outraged and went direct to Clinton who uttered the famous phrase "that's Lasater's deal". Tyrell provides copies of Brown's application and responses from the CIA in an appendix to the book. So, we are asked to choose between: 1. The unsubstantiated testimony of a convicted drug felon, in jail, with nothing to lose. and 2. The statements of a State Police officer and former narcotics investigator who is endangering his career in a one-party State and who offers documents substantiating how he came to believe he was in the CIA's employ, and details of the flight. What do you think the jury is apt to decide? Do you think this will ever make it to a jury? As a final thought, do you think it was a coincidence that this article appears after the election, smearing a sordid story that it is now safe for the re-elected President to spin? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: TWA 800: THE CAT IS OUT !! (fwd) Date: 08 Nov 1996 10:48:20 -0500 >The current issue of GEORGE Magazine smears people who suggest >that the govt may have shot-down TWA 800 as clueless paranoids. >They even quote me. Yet I gave them the facts, culled right out >of quickly disappearing media quotations, that 156 witnesses re- >ported seeing a missile hit the plane and GEORGE Magazine censored >these facts that they had in hand, and then they turn around and >call those who know the facts, which they also know, "clueless." >It's a naked con job. > As a side comment, the recent issue of GEORGE also interviews Willie Horton (you remember, the convicted killer who terrorized and raped a Maryland couple while on parole) and presented Ol' Willie as a victem of the Bush political commercial. Pretty damn twisted logic on their part, when the convicted killers and rapists are the victems, but certainly nothing new. The lastest Weekly Standard (rather mainstream R political rag, published by William Kristol) had an article on how Christian political thinkers are having a discussion on the legitimacy of the current government (termed a regime) and the possibilities for moral people to live under depraved rule or else, make revolution. Interesting times. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: STUNG Date: 08 Nov 1996 09:56:19 -0700 (MST) >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 08:22 EST >X-Sender: lindat@iquest.net >From: lindat@iquest.net (Linda Thompson) >Subject: STUNG > >Re: So-called "Militia bombing" convictions > >Despite the propaganda about the jury and the trial that was coming out of >Macon throughout the trial of Bob Starr in Georgia, the source of most of >the "we'll win" and now the "it's a miscarriage of justice" posts was Nancy >Lord. > >It is significant to know the lengths that were gone to in this case to >secure the conviction, aside from the obvious that evidence was planted by >ATF and the informants and that the infomants were paid $50,000.00. > >As an attorney, I believe the Defense attorneys, Nancy Lord, and Buafo were >instrumental in the convictions > >For starters, any federal trial is "rigged" to an extent, because most >federal judges seem to be secondary prosecutors, rather than being >impartial. So the best one can hope for is a judge who at least attempts to >afford the defendant an adequate opportunity to present his case. To his >credit, the judge in this case appeared to be doing that. I knew the >prosecution had little to offer by way of actual evidence, so I focused my >examination of the trial upon other aspects, primarily, the defense. > >Any federal defense attorney knows that jury selection is of PRIMARY >importance. > >The jury pool (the mass of people who are called in, and from which jurors >are then selected) itself can be "rigged" so it is important to learn how >the juror pool was called in. The people in the juror pool are supposed to >be "representative" of the general population. > >I did not hear of any challenge to the juror pool (from which jurors were >chosen) in advance, which is something that should ordinarily be done, >particularly when the jury pool does not appear to be representative of the >population, i.e., Macon is about 50% black. The jury pool was not 50% >black, not even 10% black. Why? > >Was the juror pool chosen from the "voter registration" lists? How many >people didn't show up? (The pool is no longer "representative" even if they >were chosen from the voter registration list if enough didn't show up). >There are various such challenges that can be made, depending on what was done. > >I once got a jury pool that was made up of 90% people who were EMPLOYED BY >THE GOVERNMENT (or their spouses were), I kid you not. How was this >possible? 70% of the "registered voters" were government employees in that >particular area, so the "voter registration list" was *not* "representative" >of the population as a whole. > >The juror pool is then asked questions by the judge as attorneys for both >sides listen and watch. The judge can ask whatever he wants to ask; >however, it is customary for him to ask questions submitted by the >attorneys, so again, the attorney's role in preparing these questions is >critical to determining which jurors should or should not be left to sit on >the trial. From the judge's questioning, the attorneys "strike" various >jurors, until there are 12 (plus 1-3 "extras") left. This is called "jury >selection." > >Lord was removed from the case before the jury selection began, but the >questions to be submitted to the judge to ask the jurors are prepared in >advance as the trial is developed, so she should have had these questions >prepared before she was removed; likewise, Buafo would have prepared such >questions and should have made challenges to any jurors that were struck off >the jury by the government. > >I did note that people who were "members of NRA" or various groups were >apparently excluded for cause or by peremptory strikes by the government's >attorneys. > >This sort of strike of a juror is subject to a challenge by the Defense that >it is wholly illegal for the government to eliminate jurors based on >"creed." That objection cannot be used against Defense strikes, but it can >be used against the government. No one made it and good jurors were likely >completely excluded without a whimper. > >If no objection is made, it is hard to raise the issue as a reason for a new >trial on appeal; however, "fundamental errors" (blatent errors or which >violate Constitutional rights) can sometimes be raised on appeal anyway. An >objection, however, preserves the error. If no objection is made, it is >difficult to appeal it as "error." This is why it is extremely important >for an attorney to know the various objections and make them. > >The Barker brothers were paid $50,000.00. That's not chump change for most >people. Testimony showed that ATF and the Barker brothers planted evidence >in Starr's backyard when he wasn't home and didn't know about it. > >Lord is hired as the attorney. She asks me to help. I wrote the initial >responses filed with the court and she signed them (from which she was >written up as a "patriot attorney"). I then heard from the propagandists >denouncing me for "not helping" (Jeff Randall being one, when he most >assuredly knew that I had, in fact, helped, so this was a most obvious >effort by Randall), while I could not say anything about it. > >When Jeff's "good friend" Mike Kemp was arrested for pot, it was Jeff who >publicly declared that Mike did what he was accused of. Mike was convicted >about the same time as Starr, too. It was also Jeff who tried to undermine >the Good Ol' Boys tapes by claiming they had been "altered," though he later >was the one to publicly take credit for causing the stink. (He did not, it >was Rich Hayward, Mike Kemp and Mike Seibert who did and it was Rich Hayward >who filmed the Good Ol' Boys information). When something can't be >undermined, it is Jeff's practice to take credit for it, instead. On the >Starr case, Jeff Randall also functioned as the "investigator." Another clue. > >I mention this because I worked with Lord on a previous case where the >defense was actively undermined (by an operative, not Lord) to a degree I >had never seen before, ever, but it appeared to me then that she was part of >the problem, too. In the previous case I worked on in which Lord assisted, >I was lead counsel and could exercise quite a bit of control over the way >the case progressed, but it took every bit of tenacity I had just to hold >onto the case. It was phenomenal what I was hit with in that case by the >primary operative. It was a successful defense in that the primary target >ended up with 2 years (will serve 8 mos), when he faced 10 years, and the >other intended targets of a "conspiracy" were never charged, but that is a >damning commentary, too. I had to FIGHT like a dog to get this guy "only" 2 >years and keep 8 other people out of the picture? And I *wasn't* fighting >with the prosecution, but with the operative (I did not at first realize the >operative was an operative), and to a degree, with Lord and some law clerk >she brought into the equation who was a pain in the butt. > >This was why I would not come on this case -- it appeared to be being >actively undermined from the beginning and to be used as a vehicle to take >down the credibility of as many patriots at once as possible (i.e., JJ >Johnson being but another example, and my being an intended target as well). > >I have no explanation for why Bob Starr chose to hire Lord, given her >already established history at that point in the Michael Hill case, other >than it should have been obvious. > >Sex as a Weapon: > >The operative in the previous case I worked on, who was supposedly a very >close friend of the defendant, had been brought in precisely to befriend the >defendant and set up everyone. In that case the operative represented she >was "common law married" to the defendant, which further complicated things. > >I note that using women to sleep with men to "befriend" them has become >something of a theme of the female operatives. (This is a tried and true >military intelligence operating tactic so I don't see why this should >surprise anybody). > >Are some men really this stupid that they fall for it? Yes. Even after >being totally screwed and then screwed over by these women who set them up >and did them in, I know three men who still think those woman wouldn't hurt >them, love them, etc. Two are in prison as a direct result, too, and they >still don't get it. > > >Setting up the Incompetent with the All Too Willing: > >In the previous case I worked on and another I did not work on but am >familiar with, I have determined the feds target people who are slightly >"off" and hope to rope in others into a "conspiracy" that is developed by >placing a key informant next to the nutty person. The key informant is >credible and recruits all the others into the "conspiracy." > >The others do not need to actually participate in any "conspiracy" for this >to occur and need do nothing more than appear at a meeting, for instance. > >The informant will have had lots of opportunities for "private" >conversations with the "nut," which are tape-recorded, and will be played >for the jury, as the "nut" confides his deepest secret desires to his "good >friend," the informant, or babbles idiot plans and nonsense in a fit of >pique, inspired, but not taped, by the informant, who tapes the target's >responses. Picture how these tapes will sound to a jury. Gads. > >The other "conspirators" will never know about these tapes until the trial. >The "informant" however, will be the key person who says, "He said this to >me" (play the tapes) and "all these other people went along with his plan." >(Tying in the "co-conspirators.") and the informant will say the others >"came to this meeting" to hear about the plans. Bingo, now, everyone's in a >big "conspiracy." > >It is a pretty standard formula being used by the feds. Remember, at trial, >the operative no longer appears to be the target's "friend." The informant >is the government's friend. The informant will be taught how to present >himself to the jury and appear even more credible, like he was trying to >"save" the public from some dire harm, just "doing his public duty." > >See how that looks? The most "credible" witness is on the government's >side, looking like a good samaritan. He will explain how it pains him to >tell all these terrible things about his FORMER "good friend," the target. > >At the defense table, the jury will see the "nut" or target and his >"co-conspirators" and the jury will hear the babbling and crazy >"confidential" tapes played, as they look at the "nut" and his "friends" >while the "good-guy informant" tells them how all these folks were planning >to do nasty terrible things. The "good-guy informant" of course will be >backed up by "good-guy law enforcement" who will parade a lot of evidence, >whether it is relevant or not, to support this public bastion of integrity, >their informant, emphasizing how good his work was. > >The Ray Lampley case is a good example of this that most are familiar with. >I'd say the Freemen case probably presents another such example. The "viper >militia" case may also be another case in point, but I do not have enough >details about that to be sure. The W. Virginia case is definitely another >example. The New Hampshire/Connecticutt case is the clearest example I've >seen anywhere. > >Under the best of circumstances, this is a tough kind of case to win, >because it is not much different than a witch trial. Get enough people >pointing fingers crying, "WITCH!", at a somewhat nutty person who may even >like being called a witch, and what's the defense? > > >Prepare to throw the fight: > >Back to how a case is undermined. > >In the previous case, and in the Starr case, Lord screws a key defense >witness, JJ Johnson, compromising the witness, and thereby compromising the >defense (and JJ Johnson's credibility). > >Starr's case was the third case and third witness in six months she did this >with of which I am aware, thus, I tend to believe the problem is Lord. She >also did not take herself off any of the cases after this occurred, either, >which means that, in the middle of trial, had any of these witnesses been >called, picture what the OTHER side could have done to those witnesses with >a few well-placed questions. > >Next, in Starr's case, Lord goes out and gathers two of the most damning >pieces of evidence introduced at the trial against these men (pipes and tape >with fingerprints). Whether these things were innocuous or not (McCranie is >a plumber, after all), doesn't matter. The government obviously will and >DID claim they were "PROOF!" > >Lord PUBLICLY comments "Starr said they would be found there." (Revealing a >client confidence and implicating Starr). These comments were reprinted in >newspapers, in case the jury pool missed them. > >By gathering evidence, which attorneys do *NOT* do, she made herself a >witness, which she knew. She should have removed herself from the case >immediately, but did not, resulting in a 2 month trial delay (while Starr >was in jail) and resulting in the defense having inadequate time to prepare. > >Her co-counsel had to be removed because of a cocaine habit. I do not know >who selected the cokehead as co-counsel. > >The evidence gathered by Lord was introduced at trial. The defense could >not very well OBJECT to its introduction because that would result in Lord >being called by the prosecution, to "authenticate" the evidence (prove where >it came from) so it could be introduced and it would have come in anyway, >and using Starr's own attorney to do it. > >Thus, the prosecution was able to introduce the evidence without the >ordinary objections that could have been used to get the evidence excluded >had it been found by law enforcement. More importantly, it might never have >BEEN found had she not gone out to get it. If found, it would have been >subject to a lot of different challenges, not the least of which would have >been the obvious, "WAS IT PLANTED?" (Other evidence was shown to have been >planted). > >Who planted it? Since it was "found" by the Defense Attorney, that in >itself raises questions that should have been asked, but couldn't be, >without putting Starr's own attorney on the stand, i.e., "Nancy, did you >plant the evidence?" "No, Bob Starr said it was there." Starr would be >screwed either way. > >If the defense challenged the evidence, how does it look for Starr's >attorney to be going out to get this "innocuous" evidence? Was she maybe >planning to hide it? Starr can then be implicated by innuendo. It won't do >any good to point out that it's only plumbing pipe and McCranie's a plumber. >If it was so unimportant, what was she doing there getting it? That's what >the government would do with that scenario. Starr is screwed, either way. > >And the pipes had "chemical residue" on them when they were introduced at >trial. When did that get on the pipes? Was it planted? Could that be >challenged? Nope. See above. See how important this evidence became and >how easily it was done? > >Thus, no questions can be asked, and this damning evidence comes in that >cannot be shown to have been planted. > >If it has "chemical residue" on it at trial, what challenge can be made to >how and when it got there? None. > >It then has the double-whammy of making the other, known planted evidence >look not-so-bad. The jury thinks, after all, they got this evidence that >wasn't planted, didn't they? The known "planted" evidence becomes >irrelevant. It isn't needed to "prove" anything and it doesn't hurt the >government because they got the other evidence -- from Nancy Lord -- in, >without the jury learning anything other than what the government said it meant. > > >Throw the fight: > >Last, but not least, I do not know how Starr got the attorney he ended up >with at trial, but she was black, in Macon, Georgia. I grew up in Georgia >and regardless of the progress affirmative action has made or how things >"ought" to be if all were right with the world, one can expect some racial >animus in Macon, when the jury is predominantly white. > >She had a shaved head and a pony-tail thing and wore star-wars clothes, >likewise probably not a wise move in Macon, Georgia. > >Comments I have received from a well-informed patriot attending the trial >were to the effect that Buafo was not interested in any of the technical >aspects of the so-called "bomb making" chemical (which is an innocuous >chemical, non-explosive, used in hand-held, homemade fireworks, like >fizzle-sticks) and did nothing to challenge ATF's claims that the chemical >was "explosive." (It's legal to own 10 pounds of this "explosive," which is >not "explosive," and is used in all sorts of harmless homemade fireworks). > >The initial pleadings I wrote were laid to develop the theme that speech is >not a crime, nor is possessing an accumulation of legal items, absent any >intent, a crime, and that the ATF has a history as lying scumbags with bad >information who cultivate criminal activity, with a secondary theme of lack >of jurisdiction. > >I did not hear that any effort was made to develop these themes, i.e., to >challenge jurisdiction, discredit ATF with voluminous information about >their long history of lying and setting up crimes, or to show that these >items were normal, legal household items and that their possession and >speech, without more, are not crimes. > >Jury instructions, given to jurors before they leave to deliberate guilt or >acquittal, are also of crucial importance. These, too, are prepared by the >attorney and provided to the judge and argued, if the judge refuses to give >them. > >=================== > >Now three guys who actually did nothing to harm anyone anywhere, are looking >at 20-30 years in federal slave labor camps, their families and lives destroyed. > >I get criticized (mostly by the propagandists) for "outing" the fed trolls, >claiming I see boogey-men in the closets. > >Well, no, I don't. I see less than 20 known operatives, doing their >damnedest to rope good people into criminal convictions and it's the same >ones, over and over. > >The federal government has an unlimited budget. ADL makes more than >$400,000 (that it publicly admits) QUARTERLY and SPLC has a 60 million >dollar trust fund. Just how hard do you think it is for them to fund >operatives with $50,000 in chump change? When they have spent, as you have >seen, millions upon millions of dollars in media propaganda and lobbying, to >get legislation passed, what is another $500,000 to pay for a couple dozen >operatives? > >Parsons at Tri-States was paid. The Barker brothers were paid. Now you >have this proof in court records that the Barker brothers were paid and even >put into a witness protection program. How hard is it to figure out? Clue >up, folks. > >ATF, ADL, and SPLC now have something to "write" about, an actual militia >"conviction," which they never had before. You saw the mileage in the >propaganda they wrote before, that was nothing but lies. Picture the >spinmeisters with this. > >Their money was well spent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > =========================================================== 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: PMRS update Date: 08 Nov 1996 10:03:52 -0700 (MST) [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA REPUBLIC November 5, 1996 Mr. Kenneth Starr Independent Counsel 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 490-North Washington, D.C. Postal Zone <20004> Performance Management and Recognition System ("PMRS") Dear Mr. Starr: I have evidence in my possession which implicates President William Jefferson Clinton in the receipt of illegal IRS kick- backs from a defunct federal program called Performance Management and Recognition System ("PMRS"). As of yesterday, the Alta Vista search engine found some 20 documents on the Internet which mention this system. To obtain more information about PMRS, I have already submitted a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to the Department of the Treasury for all financial records of the PMRS. Quite to my surprise, Mr. Mark L. Zolton wrote back to explain that some records do not exist, because the rewards were paid in cash. For your information, I have decided to become rather politically active in this matter. Enclosed please find my essay entitled "The Kick-Back Racket: Performance Management and Recognition System," which I enclose for your consideration and review. Please accept this as my firm offer to testify before a competent and qualified federal grand jury in this matter. I wish this matter to be investigated fully, and that is the main reason why I have brought it to your attention at this time. If I can assist you, or any others in your office, in the course of investigating PMRS, please contact me immediately. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law, federal witness and Citizen of Arizona state enclosures copy: Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit # # # c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA REPUBLIC November 5, 1996 Mr. Gerald R. Ryan Special Assistant Assistant Chief Counsel Disclosure Litigation Department of the Treasury "Internal Revenue Service" Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Ryan: Thank you for your letter to me, dated October 24, 1996. As you can see from my original FOIA request, dated July 26, 1996, (copy attached), I requested certified copies of the PMRS records. My FOIA appeal was based, in part, on your organization's failure to provide certified copies, so as to render them admissible in a court of law, if necessary. Secondly, Mr. Mark L. Zolton, Tax Law Specialist in the FOIA Branch, wrote to me on September 12, 1996, explaining that my original FOIA request was not specific enough to allow you to conduct a search for the records that are of interest to me. A transcription of his letter is attached, for your information. Evidently, Mr. Zolton needed specific years for which I was interested in obtaining records. I timely responded to Mr. Zolton in writing on September 19, 1996 (see attached). Thirdly, Mr. Zolton's letter contained an amazing admission that awards made under PMRS took the form of cash payments or quality step in-grade promotions. If there are no records of said cash payments, this raises the ugly specter of widespread federal income tax evasion by recipients of these cash payments, including possibly the President. The American People have a right to know who received these cash payments, when, and how much. The FOIA imposes no requirement upon me to demonstrate relevance or materiality of these records, however. Therefore, I am entirely unsatisfied with the response(s) of your organization to date, and demand that you refrain from closing your administrative appeal file in this matter. Finally, please be advised that I do not accept U.S. mail from the federal government, or from any of its agencies, assigns, colorable trusts, or instrumentalities, with two-letter federal abbreviations (e.g. "AZ") or with unqualified ZIP codes. Since you may not have known this, I have made an exception solely for the purpose of explaining my position and future intent to you. This is to inform you that I will refuse any such mail from you in the future, unless it is directed to the correct mailing location shown above. Please see USPS Publication #221 for details. Thank you very much for your consideration. I will look forward to your continued cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness and Counselor at Law copies: The Internet Judge Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit # # # 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 reponse 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 descibing 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, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness and Counselor at Law # # # At 08:41 AM 11/8/96 -0600, you wrote: > Paul: > >Where did you get my address from? Does the bottom of this sugget you are >an attorney? Is there any recourse for this? And one thing I would really >like to know. When they put up Arizona for Clinton, I almost messed my >drawers. How the heck could that happen? > > The Kick-Back Racket: > Performance Management and > Recognition System > > by > > Paul Andrew Mitchell > All Rights Reserved > (October 1996) > > >Larry Perrault > > =========================================================== 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: The Ultimate Urban Legend Date: 08 Nov 1996 12:18:53 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Craig Shergold is a 10 year old boy who is dying of cancer. Before he dies, he would like to set the world record for receiving the most Neiman-Marcus Cookie Recipes. You can help Craig by sending an irate fax to LEXIS-NEXIS demanding that they remove all traces of your mother's maiden name from their executive washroom wall. They will respond by sending e-mail labeled "goodtimes" to the computer controlling Craig's life support equipment. When Felippe Linz, the technician operating the computer opens this mail, his hard drive will be overwritten with thousands of credit card invoices for $250.00, erasing the last bit of evidence that Hillary was seen on the grassy knoll when JFK was shot, thus allowing world domination by Bill Gates and his tri-lateral commission cronies who are eating fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches in the black helicopters with Elvis. -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Part 12, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum (fwd) Date: 08 Nov 1996 13:27:55 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Text Excerpt 12, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum Entire html text of the Museum currently available at home.overthe.net/pub/showtime/wm1-1f01.zip. Or contact . Excerpted by Carol Valentine from http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum. Images omitted. Missing Heads and Other Problems [Note to readers: Many of the official autopsy reports of the Branch Davidians, autopsy photographs, and official diagrams showing the locations of body recoveries are available for viewing at the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum website. Unfortunately, this documentation cannot be included in a text excerpt.] According to the Autopsy Reports, ten to twelve people whose remains were found in the concrete room died from suffocation or blunt force trauma as a result of "structural collapse." These people were: Judy Schneider (Mt. Carmel Doe 51); Unidentified (Mt. Carmel Doe 51A); Audrey Martinez (Mt. Carmel Doe 55); Crystal Martinez (Mt. Carmel Doe 57); Unidentified teenager (Mt. Carmel Doe 59); "Martin Child" (Mt. Carmel Doe 61); Chanel Andrade (Mt. Carmel Doe 62--suffocation, but structural collapse not mentioned); Jones Twin (Mt. Carmel Doe 63); Cyrus Howell Koresh, (Mt. Carmel Doe 67-2 --"probably" suffocation due to structural collapse); Rachel Howell Koresh (Mt. Carmel Doe 67-3); Rachel Sylvia (Mt. Carmel Doe 67-6); and Mayannah Schneider (Mt. Carmel Doe 70) As we have just seen, there was no structural collapse. Therefore, these 10 to 12 people must have died from different causes and under different circumstances. But the Autopsy Reports reveal that these bodies underwent severe mangling with limbs "sheared" off, trunks severed, skulls shattered, and bodies pulped into unrecognizable shapes. Since the concrete room did not collapse, how and where were the bodies mangled? Was the mangling a cause of death, or were the corpses mangled after death? These questions are now open. The question of false death certificates is also raised. False information on death a certificate is a very serious fraud on the court. We have already seen that during the 1994 San Antonio trial of the Branch Davidians, Dr. Nazim Peerwani said some people inside the concrete room died of suffocation because they were under sleeping bags or blankets when the structure collapsed (Transcript, pg. 6029). Let us for the moment put aside the fact that the concrete room did NOT collapse. Dr. Peerwani's testimony still raises questions because the Autopsy Reports indicate that many who died as a result of "structural collapse" were found without heads! Look at the Autopsy Reports for Judy Schneider (Mt. Carmel Doe 51); "Martin Child" (Mt. Carmel Doe 61); Rachel Howell Koresh (Mt. Carmel Doe 67-3); Rachel Sylvia (Mt. Carmel Doe 67-6); and Mayannah Schneider (Mt. Carmel Doe 70.) Cyrus Howell (Mt. Carmel Doe 67-2), eight years old, was also found without a head. The rest of his remains were shattered and charred. The cause of his death is listed as "probably suffocation due to overlie and burial in structural collapse (cannot rule out trauma to the head)." What happened under the (alleged) sleeping bags and concrete rubble to cause suffocation victims to lose their heads? If the victims were buried under rubble, their heads would have been held securely in place. Moreover, it is hard to image how the heads or bodies could have been charred or burned off in any fire that broke out after the (non-existent) collapse, because fire cannot penetrate concrete. Unidentified Mt. Carmel 51A, a two-year-old, died of both suffocation due to the structural collapse and smoke inhalation. Yet a skull was the only part of that young child ever found. What happened to the body under the (alleged) sleeping bags and rubble? Dr. Peerwani and defense attorney Tinker painted a picture of mothers taking children into the concrete room and covering them with sleeping bags, blankets, etc., to protect them from the CS gas on April 19. However, let's look at the testimony of Texas Ranger Sgt. Coffman who was responsible for collecting evidence in the concrete room. It was he who found the bodies. When defense attorney Tinker asked if many or all of the bodies had blankets and towels over them. Sgt. Coffman's answer was this: Coffman: "No sir. Only a few did." (Transcript, pg. 936) Nor do the Autopsy Reports support the picture painted by Mr. Tinker and Dr. Peerwani. The corpse of Joseph Martinez, eight years old, (Mt. Carmel Doe 52) came to the morgue in a body bag which contained a pillow case lining; the corpse of Rachel Koresh (Mt. Carmel Doe 67-3) came to the morgue in a body bag which contained a fragment of table cloth; the corpse of Hollywood Sylvia (Mt. Carmel Doe 67-4), one year old, came to the morgue in a body bag containing a baby's quilt; and the corpse of Mayannah Schneider (Mt. Carmel Doe 70), two years old, was delivered to the morgue with debris that contained a charred blanket. This and other evidence contained in the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum demonstrates that the story that "the women and children went to the bunker to escape the CS gas and died when the bunker collapsed" story is a fabrication. The women and children did not die "when the bunker collapsed;" they did not die of suffocation due to concrete falling on sleeping bags; they did not suffer blunt force trauma as a result of the falling concrete from the "collapsed bunker." Their bodies were decapitated and mutilated under other conditions. Next: Text Excerpt 13, When Did They Die? http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum or http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum SkyWriter@Public-Action.com Postal Address: Carol A. Valentine, Public Action, Inc., PO Box 10933, Burke, VA 22009 Copyright 1996 by Carol A. Valentine, on loan to Public Action, Inc. All commercial rights are reserved. Full statement of terms and conditions for copying and redistribution is available in the Museum Library. "Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum," "SkyWriter," and the skywriting logo are trademarks of Public Action Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: STUNG (fwd) Date: 08 Nov 1996 13:30:18 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Re: So-called "Militia bombing" convictions Despite the propaganda about the jury and the trial that was coming out of Macon throughout the trial of Bob Starr in Georgia, the source of most of the "we'll win" and now the "it's a miscarriage of justice" posts was Nancy Lord. It is significant to know the lengths that were gone to in this case to secure the conviction, aside from the obvious that evidence was planted by ATF and the informants and that the infomants were paid $50,000.00. As an attorney, I believe the Defense attorneys, Nancy Lord, and Buafo were instrumental in the convictions For starters, any federal trial is "rigged" to an extent, because most federal judges seem to be secondary prosecutors, rather than being impartial. So the best one can hope for is a judge who at least attempts to afford the defendant an adequate opportunity to present his case. To his credit, the judge in this case appeared to be doing that. I knew the prosecution had little to offer by way of actual evidence, so I focused my examination of the trial upon other aspects, primarily, the defense. Any federal defense attorney knows that jury selection is of PRIMARY importance. The jury pool (the mass of people who are called in, and from which jurors are then selected) itself can be "rigged" so it is important to learn how the juror pool was called in. The people in the juror pool are supposed to be "representative" of the general population. I did not hear of any challenge to the juror pool (from which jurors were chosen) in advance, which is something that should ordinarily be done, particularly when the jury pool does not appear to be representative of the population, i.e., Macon is about 50% black. The jury pool was not 50% black, not even 10% black. Why? Was the juror pool chosen from the "voter registration" lists? How many people didn't show up? (The pool is no longer "representative" even if they were chosen from the voter registration list if enough didn't show up). There are various such challenges that can be made, depending on what was done. I once got a jury pool that was made up of 90% people who were EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT (or their spouses were), I kid you not. How was this possible? 70% of the "registered voters" were government employees in that particular area, so the "voter registration list" was *not* "representative" of the population as a whole. The juror pool is then asked questions by the judge as attorneys for both sides listen and watch. The judge can ask whatever he wants to ask; however, it is customary for him to ask questions submitted by the attorneys, so again, the attorney's role in preparing these questions is critical to determining which jurors should or should not be left to sit on the trial. From the judge's questioning, the attorneys "strike" various jurors, until there are 12 (plus 1-3 "extras") left. This is called "jury selection." Lord was removed from the case before the jury selection began, but the questions to be submitted to the judge to ask the jurors are prepared in advance as the trial is developed, so she should have had these questions prepared before she was removed; likewise, Buafo would have prepared such questions and should have made challenges to any jurors that were struck off the jury by the government. I did note that people who were "members of NRA" or various groups were apparently excluded for cause or by peremptory strikes by the government's attorneys. This sort of strike of a juror is subject to a challenge by the Defense that it is wholly illegal for the government to eliminate jurors based on "creed." That objection cannot be used against Defense strikes, but it can be used against the government. No one made it and good jurors were likely completely excluded without a whimper. If no objection is made, it is hard to raise the issue as a reason for a new trial on appeal; however, "fundamental errors" (blatent errors or which violate Constitutional rights) can sometimes be raised on appeal anyway. An objection, however, preserves the error. If no objection is made, it is difficult to appeal it as "error." This is why it is extremely important for an attorney to know the various objections and make them. The Barker brothers were paid $50,000.00. That's not chump change for most people. Testimony showed that ATF and the Barker brothers planted evidence in Starr's backyard when he wasn't home and didn't know about it. Lord is hired as the attorney. She asks me to help. I wrote the initial responses filed with the court and she signed them (from which she was written up as a "patriot attorney"). I then heard from the propagandists denouncing me for "not helping" (Jeff Randall being one, when he most assuredly knew that I had, in fact, helped, so this was a most obvious effort by Randall), while I could not say anything about it. When Jeff's "good friend" Mike Kemp was arrested for pot, it was Jeff who publicly declared that Mike did what he was accused of. Mike was convicted about the same time as Starr, too. It was also Jeff who tried to undermine the Good Ol' Boys tapes by claiming they had been "altered," though he later was the one to publicly take credit for causing the stink. (He did not, it was Rich Hayward, Mike Kemp and Mike Seibert who did and it was Rich Hayward who filmed the Good Ol' Boys information). When something can't be undermined, it is Jeff's practice to take credit for it, instead. On the Starr case, Jeff Randall also functioned as the "investigator." Another clue. I mention this because I worked with Lord on a previous case where the defense was actively undermined (by an operative, not Lord) to a degree I had never seen before, ever, but it appeared to me then that she was part of the problem, too. In the previous case I worked on in which Lord assisted, I was lead counsel and could exercise quite a bit of control over the way the case progressed, but it took every bit of tenacity I had just to hold onto the case. It was phenomenal what I was hit with in that case by the primary operative. It was a successful defense in that the primary target ended up with 2 years (will serve 8 mos), when he faced 10 years, and the other intended targets of a "conspiracy" were never charged, but that is a damning commentary, too. I had to FIGHT like a dog to get this guy "only" 2 years and keep 8 other people out of the picture? And I *wasn't* fighting with the prosecution, but with the operative (I did not at first realize the operative was an operative), and to a degree, with Lord and some law clerk she brought into the equation who was a pain in the butt. This was why I would not come on this case -- it appeared to be being actively undermined from the beginning and to be used as a vehicle to take down the credibility of as many patriots at once as possible (i.e., JJ Johnson being but another example, and my being an intended target as well). I have no explanation for why Bob Starr chose to hire Lord, given her already established history at that point in the Michael Hill case, other than it should have been obvious. Sex as a Weapon: The operative in the previous case I worked on, who was supposedly a very close friend of the defendant, had been brought in precisely to befriend the defendant and set up everyone. In that case the operative represented she was "common law married" to the defendant, which further complicated things. I note that using women to sleep with men to "befriend" them has become something of a theme of the female operatives. (This is a tried and true military intelligence operating tactic so I don't see why this should surprise anybody). Are some men really this stupid that they fall for it? Yes. Even after being totally screwed and then screwed over by these women who set them up and did them in, I know three men who still think those woman wouldn't hurt them, love them, etc. Two are in prison as a direct result, too, and they still don't get it. Setting up the Incompetent with the All Too Willing: In the previous case I worked on and another I did not work on but am familiar with, I have determined the feds target people who are slightly "off" and hope to rope in others into a "conspiracy" that is developed by placing a key informant next to the nutty person. The key informant is credible and recruits all the others into the "conspiracy." The others do not need to actually participate in any "conspiracy" for this to occur and need do nothing more than appear at a meeting, for instance. The informant will have had lots of opportunities for "private" conversations with the "nut," which are tape-recorded, and will be played for the jury, as the "nut" confides his deepest secret desires to his "good friend," the informant, or babbles idiot plans and nonsense in a fit of pique, inspired, but not taped, by the informant, who tapes the target's responses. Picture how these tapes will sound to a jury. Gads. The other "conspirators" will never know about these tapes until the trial. The "informant" however, will be the key person who says, "He said this to me" (play the tapes) and "all these other people went along with his plan." (Tying in the "co-conspirators.") and the informant will say the others "came to this meeting" to hear about the plans. Bingo, now, everyone's in a big "conspiracy." It is a pretty standard formula being used by the feds. Remember, at trial, the operative no longer appears to be the target's "friend." The informant is the government's friend. The informant will be taught how to present himself to the jury and appear even more credible, like he was trying to "save" the public from some dire harm, just "doing his public duty." See how that looks? The most "credible" witness is on the government's side, looking like a good samaritan. He will explain how it pains him to tell all these terrible things about his FORMER "good friend," the target. At the defense table, the jury will see the "nut" or target and his "co-conspirators" and the jury will hear the babbling and crazy "confidential" tapes played, as they look at the "nut" and his "friends" while the "good-guy informant" tells them how all these folks were planning to do nasty terrible things. The "good-guy informant" of course will be backed up by "good-guy law enforcement" who will parade a lot of evidence, whether it is relevant or not, to support this public bastion of integrity, their informant, emphasizing how good his work was. The Ray Lampley case is a good example of this that most are familiar with. I'd say the Freemen case probably presents another such example. The "viper militia" case may also be another case in point, but I do not have enough details about that to be sure. The W. Virginia case is definitely another example. The New Hampshire/Connecticutt case is the clearest example I've seen anywhere. Under the best of circumstances, this is a tough kind of case to win, because it is not much different than a witch trial. Get enough people pointing fingers crying, "WITCH!", at a somewhat nutty person who may even like being called a witch, and what's the defense? Prepare to throw the fight: Back to how a case is undermined. In the previous case, and in the Starr case, Lord screws a key defense witness, JJ Johnson, compromising the witness, and thereby compromising the defense (and JJ Johnson's credibility). Starr's case was the third case and third witness in six months she did this with of which I am aware, thus, I tend to believe the problem is Lord. She also did not take herself off any of the cases after this occurred, either, which means that, in the middle of trial, had any of these witnesses been called, picture what the OTHER side could have done to those witnesses with a few well-placed questions. Next, in Starr's case, Lord goes out and gathers two of the most damning pieces of evidence introduced at the trial against these men (pipes and tape with fingerprints). Whether these things were innocuous or not (McCranie is a plumber, after all), doesn't matter. The government obviously will and DID claim they were "PROOF!" Lord PUBLICLY comments "Starr said they would be found there." (Revealing a client confidence and implicating Starr). These comments were reprinted in newspapers, in case the jury pool missed them. By gathering evidence, which attorneys do *NOT* do, she made herself a witness, which she knew. She should have removed herself from the case immediately, but did not, resulting in a 2 month trial delay (while Starr was in jail) and resulting in the defense having inadequate time to prepare. Her co-counsel had to be removed because of a cocaine habit. I do not know who selected the cokehead as co-counsel. The evidence gathered by Lord was introduced at trial. The defense could not very well OBJECT to its introduction because that would result in Lord being called by the prosecution, to "authenticate" the evidence (prove where it came from) so it could be introduced and it would have come in anyway, and using Starr's own attorney to do it. Thus, the prosecution was able to introduce the evidence without the ordinary objections that could have been used to get the evidence excluded had it been found by law enforcement. More importantly, it might never have BEEN found had she not gone out to get it. If found, it would have been subject to a lot of different challenges, not the least of which would have been the obvious, "WAS IT PLANTED?" (Other evidence was shown to have been planted). Who planted it? Since it was "found" by the Defense Attorney, that in itself raises questions that should have been asked, but couldn't be, without putting Starr's own attorney on the stand, i.e., "Nancy, did you plant the evidence?" "No, Bob Starr said it was there." Starr would be screwed either way. If the defense challenged the evidence, how does it look for Starr's attorney to be going out to get this "innocuous" evidence? Was she maybe planning to hide it? Starr can then be implicated by innuendo. It won't do any good to point out that it's only plumbing pipe and McCranie's a plumber. If it was so unimportant, what was she doing there getting it? That's what the government would do with that scenario. Starr is screwed, either way. And the pipes had "chemical residue" on them when they were introduced at trial. When did that get on the pipes? Was it planted? Could that be challenged? Nope. See above. See how important this evidence became and how easily it was done? Thus, no questions can be asked, and this damning evidence comes in that cannot be shown to have been planted. If it has "chemical residue" on it at trial, what challenge can be made to how and when it got there? None. It then has the double-whammy of making the other, known planted evidence look not-so-bad. The jury thinks, after all, they got this evidence that wasn't planted, didn't they? The known "planted" evidence becomes irrelevant. It isn't needed to "prove" anything and it doesn't hurt the government because they got the other evidence -- from Nancy Lord -- in, without the jury learning anything other than what the government said it meant. Throw the fight: Last, but not least, I do not know how Starr got the attorney he ended up with at trial, but she was black, in Macon, Georgia. I grew up in Georgia and regardless of the progress affirmative action has made or how things "ought" to be if all were right with the world, one can expect some racial animus in Macon, when the jury is predominantly white. She had a shaved head and a pony-tail thing and wore star-wars clothes, likewise probably not a wise move in Macon, Georgia. Comments I have received from a well-informed patriot attending the trial were to the effect that Buafo was not interested in any of the technical aspects of the so-called "bomb making" chemical (which is an innocuous chemical, non-explosive, used in hand-held, homemade fireworks, like fizzle-sticks) and did nothing to challenge ATF's claims that the chemical was "explosive." (It's legal to own 10 pounds of this "explosive," which is not "explosive," and is used in all sorts of harmless homemade fireworks). The initial pleadings I wrote were laid to develop the theme that speech is not a crime, nor is possessing an accumulation of legal items, absent any intent, a crime, and that the ATF has a history as lying scumbags with bad information who cultivate criminal activity, with a secondary theme of lack of jurisdiction. I did not hear that any effort was made to develop these themes, i.e., to challenge jurisdiction, discredit ATF with voluminous information about their long history of lying and setting up crimes, or to show that these items were normal, legal household items and that their possession and speech, without more, are not crimes. Jury instructions, given to jurors before they leave to deliberate guilt or acquittal, are also of crucial importance. These, too, are prepared by the attorney and provided to the judge and argued, if the judge refuses to give them. =================== Now three guys who actually did nothing to harm anyone anywhere, are looking at 20-30 years in federal slave labor camps, their families and lives destroyed. I get criticized (mostly by the propagandists) for "outing" the fed trolls, claiming I see boogey-men in the closets. Well, no, I don't. I see less than 20 known operatives, doing their damnedest to rope good people into criminal convictions and it's the same ones, over and over. The federal government has an unlimited budget. ADL makes more than $400,000 (that it publicly admits) QUARTERLY and SPLC has a 60 million dollar trust fund. Just how hard do you think it is for them to fund operatives with $50,000 in chump change? When they have spent, as you have seen, millions upon millions of dollars in media propaganda and lobbying, to get legislation passed, what is another $500,000 to pay for a couple dozen operatives? Parsons at Tri-States was paid. The Barker brothers were paid. Now you have this proof in court records that the Barker brothers were paid and even put into a witness protection program. How hard is it to figure out? Clue up, folks. ATF, ADL, and SPLC now have something to "write" about, an actual militia "conviction," which they never had before. You saw the mileage in the propaganda they wrote before, that was nothing but lies. Picture the spinmeisters with this. Their money was well spent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: STOCKMAN NEEDS EVERYONES HELP (fwd) Date: 08 Nov 1996 14:36:33 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com Due to the Supreme Court decision striking down race-based Congressional districts, Congressman Stockman had to participate in a runoff type of primary on November 5th. He was the top vote-getter (it was CLOSE), and the top two go head-to-head on December 10th. Steve Stockman has been the A number one pro-gun Congressman of the 104th Congress. He was one of the few with the cajones to vote against both terrorism bills and against the taggants study. It is important to the gun rights community to help Stockman get re-elected. Both HCI and the AFL-CIO are spending big bucks to try to knock him out of Congress, and the AFL-CIO is providing a hundred or more volunteers to work against him. I have had the pleasure of hearing him give a lecture about how he defeated Jack Brooks. Steve Stockman is very intelligent and very clever, and he can be a powerful ally if he can retain his seat. Please, if you can, send contributions to: Friends of Steve Stockman P.O. Box 57135 Webster, TX 77598 Per federal election law, you must include the following information with your check or else Steve can't use it: Your name Your address Your profession Your employer's name Your employer's address The nature of your company's business Regards, Chris BeHanna Director, New Jersey Self Defense Coalition NJ-RKBA List Maintainer P.O. Box 239 behanna@syl.nj.nec.com Milford, NJ 08848-0239 kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen. Why is Lon Horiuchi still breathing? PGP 2.6.1 public key available GUNS SAVE LIVES -- 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: New York Post 11-07-96 (fwd) Date: 08 Nov 1996 14:35:35 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.nypostonline.com/news/news3.htm "http://www.nypostonline.com/news/news3.htm"> We'll All Pay For This Tragic Victory By RAY KERRISON AMERICA has committed the unthinkable and the unpardonable -- it has knowingly and deliberately elected a president it believes is dishonest, untruthful and un-trustworthy.

Never in the history of the republic have the people invested so much in one so undeserving.

Exit polls from Tuesday's presidential balloting affirm that a decisive 58 percent of the voters regard President Clinton as unprincipled, deceitful and a liar.

Yet they re-elected him and deposited their political destiny in his hands. They opted for a rogue president. It is incomprehensible.

It is also a brutal awakening. Clinton's re-election has shattered one of the nation's most enduring treasures: its idealism.

There are no excuses. The electorate was not gulled. They knew whom they were voting for. They knew the record, but they voted for Clinton anyway.

In doing so, they not only rewarded malfeasance, but effectively endorsed infanticide and high taxes, dismissed infidelity and sexual harassment, ignored cover-ups, perjuries and the defiling of the office.

This is a new day for Americans, unlike any other in their history, a day that may come back to haunt them. Choices have consequences.

The question now is: How long will it be before the Clinton White House comes crashing down?

Republican control of the House and Senate guarantees that the misconduct, scandals, obstruction of justice and money grubbing connected to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton will be pursued with renewed vigor.

How long will it be before Clinton pardons his cronies, like Susan McDougal, and sets off a national revolt? Or, if he dallies, how long before the crooks start "singing" to save their skins?

How long before Democrats themselves rise up against a leader who has killed them at the ballot box and stripped them of power?

Look at the sad-sack array: Teddy Kennedy, Richard Gephardt, David Bonior, Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, Tom Daschle, Barney Frank, et al. Clinton sold them all down the river on issues like welfare. With Republicans retaining control of Congress, they are plucked like ducks. No committee chairs, no big money to redistribute, no clout, nothing. They are reduced to a minority of impotent onlookers.

There has to be a lot of fury rippling through the ranks of the Democratic Party.

How long before organized labor takes inventory and blows a gasket? The poor workers in the labor movement were press-ganged to cough up $35 million in dues to overthrow the Republican grip on Congress.

What do they have to show for it? Zip. The truckers, the factory hands, the office workers and all the others have been taken to the cleaners. The union bosses gambled and lost everything. No celebration parties for them.

Even the victors themselves, Bill and Hillary, rest uneasily.

Clinton, with just 49 percent of the vote, failed even to secure a simple majority. What's more, voters have encircled him with Republican wagons.

Inside, they're sweating bullets. Will Hillary be indicted, and, if so, when? Will the president himself be snared on scandals yet to unfold? Reporters in Arkansas said this week that the Clintons can hardly bear the anxiety of waiting -- waiting for independent counsel Kenneth Starr to make a move.

The Clintons may yet live to rue the day they were re-elected -- not to mention the media that supported them and the legions of women who fell in behind them.

Trouble is brewing, and Bill's buddies are all running for the exits -- Perry, Christopher, Panetta, O'Leary.

The Republicans did not escape serious damage. The Bob Dole campaign was a disaster, which will set off recriminations. Its resolute refusal to engage the culture issues -- the chief defining difference between the parties -- cost it dearly.

Congress remains solidly pro-life. Preliminary analysis of the returns by National Right to Life shows that the pro-life movement was boosted by a net gain of two seats in the Senate, but suffered a loss of six seats in the House.

What's interesting is that three new pro-life Democrats are going into the House. Equally, two high-profile, pro-choice Republicans, William Weld and Richard Zimmer, both lost.

The last word belongs to David Brinkley, the unchallenged icon of the TV-news business, who worked his last presidential election this week.

Said Brinkley, "Bill Clinton doesn't have a creative bone in his body. Therefore, he is a bore, and will always be a bore." = = Copyright ©1996, N.Y.P. Holdings Inc. = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: FAA to Begin Testing "Holographic" Full-Body Security Scanning (fwd) Date: 08 Nov 1996 14:39:52 -0600 (CST) > > Date: Sun, 27 Oct 96 15:15 PST > From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator) > Subject: "Holographic" Full-Body Security Scanning > > According to an article in the Oct-Nov 1996 issue of "Compressed Air" > magazine (a wonderful Ingersoll-Rand publication that covers a very wide > range of topics), the Federal Aviation Administration is planning to begin > testing the use of a full-body "holographic" imaging system at a U.S. > airport next year. > > The system (an earlier version of which was discussed previously in the > PRIVACY Forum), actually uses millimeter waves (~30 Ghz) to quickly (within > a few seconds) generate a "naked" image of the scannee. The device has been > under development for a number of years and appears to be evolving rapidly. > The transmitted millimeter radiation passes through clothes but bounces off > the body or other objects (e.g., everything from loose change to firearms, > hidden money packets, etc.) > > Outside of the rather obvious broader privacy implications of such a device, > two special issues should also be considered. First, even though the > millimeter radiation used is non-ionizing (e.g. less energetic than x-rays), > there is considerable controversy about the health risks of exposure to > non-ionizing radiation at these wavelengths. The statement is made that the > system is similar in exposure to supermarket "door opener" microwave > scanners, though this seems somewhat difficult to accept given the > completely different scanning requirements of the two devices. > > But another problem may be even more likely to concern the public at large > about such equipment. As the photographs included with the article show all > too clearly, the device generates quite detailed "nude" images. It is > decidedly uncertain how people will feel about being required to pass > through a system that creates instant 360 degree naked pictures, possibly > archived to tape as well! The promoters of the system suggest that using > "same-sex" operators would alleviate these concerns. Excuse me, but are we > all living on the same planet? Talk about needing a reality check... > > I have no doubt that there might be special situations where such a device, > as an alternative to "pat-downs" or other intrusive personal searches, could > be useful. But broadscale deployment of such systems in airports as a > routine body scanning procedure seems unlikely to be acceptable to most of > the public. > > --Lauren-- > > > **************************************************************************** > 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: Dick_Stephan@krinfo.com (Dick Stephan) Subject: Re[2]: TWA 800/Willie Horton Date: 08 Nov 1996 13:50:56 -0800 The "WILLIE HORTON" issue has been/is being abused by the Democrats even worse than here indicated. Actually, the Horton campaign issue was authored by none other than our beloved VP, Al Gore when he was running for Pres against Dukakis in 1988. Democrats were also the ones to first identify Horton's race, by the way. Excerpts below: COMEBACK KID MAY FIND LIABILITIES COME BACK TOO BALTIMORE MORNING SUN (BS) - Sunday, July 19, 1992 By: ROGER SIMON Edition: Final Section: News (National and Foreign) Page: 2A Word Count: 744 MEMO: COLUMN: ROGER SIMON TYPE OF MATERIAL: COMMENTARY . . . It was Al Gore who, in 1988 during the Democratic presidential primary in New York, first brought up Willie Horton in a debate with Michael Dukakis. Dukakis sloughed it off. It was an old issue, an issue he had dealt with in Massachusetts. But the Republicans managed to breathe a little life into that dead issue. And it should come as no surprise, by the way, that it was Gore who tried to wound Dukakis with Willie Horton . Gore has a reputation for being willing to exploit anything to win. In 1988, he exploited the rift between Jews and blacks in an attempt to win New York. (He lost badly and dropped out of the race.) And just last week, in his acceptance speech before the Democratic convention, he exploited in gruesome detail the accident that nearly killed his son, Al Jr. I know Gore was just trying to show how warm and sensitive he is. But it is one thing to spend 30 days at the bedside of a son who is near death and it is quite another to exploit it on national TV for the purpose of gaining the White House. GORE'S RESUME RAISED QUESTIONS IN '88 CAMPAIGN Washington Times (WT) - Thursday, July 16, 1992 By: Michael Hedges THE WASHINGTON TIMES Edition: Final Section: NATION Page: A6 Word Count: 695 TEXT: The last time Al Gore was heavily scrutinized, when he was a presidential candidate in the fall of 1987, he took a succession of hits for marijuana use and appearing to exaggerate his military and journalistic exploits. Mr. Gore also was the first to raise the so-called Willie Horton issue, skewering his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, in April 1988 over his weekend prison furlough program. . . . Don't you just love the hypocrisy? ******************************* >The current issue of GEORGE Magazine smears people who suggest >that the govt may have shot-down TWA 800 as clueless paranoids. >They even quote me. Yet I gave them the facts, culled right out >of quickly disappearing media quotations, that 156 witnesses re- >ported seeing a missile hit the plane and GEORGE Magazine censored >these facts that they had in hand, and then they turn around and >call those who know the facts, which they also know, "clueless." >It's a naked con job. > As a side comment, the recent issue of GEORGE also interviews Willie Horton (you remember, the convicted killer who terrorized and raped a Maryland couple while on parole) and presented Ol' Willie as a victem of the Bush political commercial. Pretty damn twisted logic on their part, when the convicted killers and rapists are the victems, but certainly nothing new. ..... Interesting times. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: UPDATE: TWA FBI Press Conference (fwd) Date: 08 Nov 1996 17:20:45 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- P R E S S C O N F E R E N C E H I G H L I G H T S By Ian Williams Goddard >From my notes taken. James Kallstrom, FBI Assistant Director and head spokesman in the FBI's investigation of the TWA 800 case, at a Press Conference (11/08/96) said: "We're here to... protect national security." "We're not going to sweep anything under the rug." "Nothing is off the table." "The US military did not shoot the plane." He swept away all claims of military culpability as "irresponsible... total unadulterated nonsense," and said that such claims are hurtful to the victims. When asked if he had heard of the National Guard being involved, as opposed to the Navy, he instantly swept this theory away saying: "I've never heard of this... it's total nonsense." After the news feed suddenly went black, popping in and out a few times, it returned and Hillel Cohen, a reporter from the International Worker's World, was heard to ask, "Why isn't the Navy a suspect... we want an independent investigation." Kalstrom, pointing to Cohen, said: "Remove that man." Whereupon approximately 12 security agents swiftly escorted Cohen for the room. The man did ask his question prior to the question period, however, this looked pretty bad, as Cohen was not shouting or being overtly disruptive and could have just been told, "I'll take your questions later." Other highlight statments of Kallstrom: "If it's a criminal act by deranged people, we want to bring these people to justice." What if it was a military snafu by nonderanged military people ? I guess then we don't want to bring those people to justice. ? When asked if the FBI had tried to contact Former White House adviser Pierre Salinger, Kallstrom sheepishly replied: "We're working on this." Then he very sheepishly smiled, AS IF to say "we've not really tried to contact him... sorry." *** Navy Admiral Edward Kristensen, when asked if the area from which witnesses saw a missile fly up from the ocean hitting the plane is ever used by the navy for missiles test firing, as Salinger's evidence suggests, Kristensen said that the area is: "Not typicality used for missile training." When pressed further on this point later on in the conference he said: "Not to my knowledge have missiles been fired there." Each answer is vague. Considering that he is the top Navy official in charge of this issue, it's amazing that he cannot, after these allegations have been floating about for weeks, give a positive yes or no answer. This must lead one to speculate that he knows there is information available that the area has been used for test firings and that he cannot therefore say "no" without being shown to have lied. *** An agent from the U.S. Secret Service, Brian Gimlet, called to speak because on media report said Salinger had procured the documents from an SS officer, spoke very briefly simply stating that the Secret Service knows nothing. *** Jim Hall, head of the NTSB investigation of the TWA 800 case came in late and basically ripped into reports of military culpability saying: "Mr. Salinger's unfortunate statements are causing incredible pain and confusion for those who lost loved ones." Hall said that they "deplore" Mr. Salinger's "irresponsible statements." How is it that some suggesting that some people or groups may be suspects is good and for those who lost loved ones as it would bring the guilty to justice, but suggesting that other groups may be culpable is suddenly a cruel attack upon the grieving families?? How odd indeed. Mr. Hall was very irate about and visibly steamed with any suggested that the Navy could be involved. One can see that they are objectively investigating all possibilities. That is all for now. ************************************************************************ IAN GODDARD Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: algore AlGore ALGORE Date: 08 Nov 1996 17:39:07 -0800 At 12:02 AM 11/8/96 -0800, you wrote: >>Reuters 11/7/96 >> >>TWA Flight 800 shot by US missile, Salinger says >> >> "The airliner was not the target of an attack...It was shot down by a >>missile fired from a U.S. Navy vessel," he said. > >What Navy vessel? >That should be fairly >easy to identify, yes? >I know a few Captains >who would never have >obeyed such a blatantly >criminal Order; one in >particular helped bombard >Iwo Jima from an off-shore >battleship. He was my >boss for over a year. >I predict that heads >will roll when this gets >exposed fully. Salinger isn't accusing the Navy of _deliberately_ shooting down TWA 800; he's saying that the Navy, while firing missiles in a test area, _accidentally_ hit the airliner. The Navy, if I understood the report correctly, was told that any airliner would be above FL230, while TWA 800 was only at about 13,000 ft., 10,000 feet lower. The government denies it, of course, but no better explanation has yet surfaced. Personally, on odd numbered days I believe that it was shot down by a missile, as Salinger suggests. On even numbered days, I suspect that it was hit by a meteor. Either would account for the trail of light that has been reported as hitting the aircraft, and it's _damned_ difficult to tell from a distance whether something is coming down or going up, at night..... Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm "Roaming the world as a foreign correspondent for more than a decade, I was able to observe how a variety of vastly different nations organized themselves economically. The inescapable conclusion was that no politician anywhere on the planet has ever actually created a rupee's worth of prosperity." Louis Rukeyser, "Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street" newsletter, Nov 96 !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: PMRS update Date: 09 Nov 1996 05:33:08 -0800 Paul, The subject line on PMRS has been around the block several times now. I have received every one of them. My question is, how many time do I have to receive a post before I just ignore its poster? While your information is indeed newsworthy, and important, peppering the list with the same old information every so often serves nothing more than a form of harrasment, since we are somewhat 'forced' to read the contents of each post to discover if new information has been released. My time, as with everone else's is important. If we are made to waste it on repetitious posts that contain nothing new, we cannot devote more time to where it will do more good. Have a heart, and consider your acts. 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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: PMRS update Date: 09 Nov 1996 09:29:56 -0700 (MST) Dear Mr. Totty, It was an experiment, in more ways than one. I wanted to keep posting the material -- knowing that people don't always read, or fully understand, their email the first time -- until I got some kind of response, ANY kind of response from recipients. And so, in a nation with an incarceration rate twice that of South Africa, which is second in prisoners per capita, the answers I have received most often are: "Take me off your list!" and "Have a heart -- get lost." Quite a few of these "requests" have come from members of the press and broadcast media. What does that tell you? Maybe fascism is making a strong comeback, right in our own backyards, yes? Not one American has even ventured to ask, "What can I do to help with this?" Not one. This is truly shocking, particularly when one of those who told me to "Get lost" then comes screaming for help, because now they have been targeted by IRS, or BATF, or FBI, or who knows what. And, of course, I am expected to be kind, courteous, efficient, professional, humane and, above all, generous. "Oh, Mr. Mitchell, we all thought you worked for free." Aren't we so proud to be Americans? It's no wonder that so many people in foreign countries hate our guts. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 05:33 AM 11/9/96 -0800, you wrote: > Paul, > > The subject line on PMRS has been around the block several times now. > I have received every one of them. My question is, how many time do >I have to receive a post before I just ignore its poster? > > While your information is indeed newsworthy, and important, >peppering the list with the same old information every so often serves >nothing more than a form of harrasment, since we are somewhat 'forced' to >read the contents of each post to discover if new information has been >released. > > My time, as with everone else's is important. If we are made to >waste it on repetitious posts that contain nothing new, we cannot devote >more time to where it will do more good. > > > Have a heart, and consider your acts. > > Ed =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Filipak Subject: Hello from MarkF Date: 09 Nov 1996 11:42:43 -0800 Hello all, I just got on the list this morning. I don't plan on being too active until I get the lay of the land here. But I thought I'd give you my vitals. I'm 50, widowed/divorced, no kids. I'm a computer designer in Silicon Valley, California, and a Vietnam Vet (Air Force). I imagine that I'm different from most of you though. I'm a committed lefty, but definitely an American. But I haven't voted for the system in a long, long time. For a while, I will just be listening in. I would ask one thing though. To keep me from asking a bunch of dumb questions, would some kind person fill me in on the lingo? Thanks, MarkF -- _____ / ___ \ I prefer to keep my email private, putting _________________/ / \ \ it in a PGP ASCII-armored envelope whenever |___ _____________ ) ( ) practical. To initiate privacy between us, | | \ \___/ / email me and request a public key exchange. |___| \_____/ PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: Posse Commitatus Date: 09 Nov 1996 14:17:18 -0700 (MST) Dear Carol, I am not very well informed of Posse Comitatus. Your best bet is to broadcast a general request for assistance, which I will help you do by forwarding this message to all of the lists of which I am a member. Also, do search the Internet, preferably with the Alta Vista search engine, which is unbelievably fast. If you like the results it provides, don't forget to send a thank-you to Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) for developing such a sophisticated technology. They were the company which invented the world's most successful super minicomputer -- the VAX 11-780 and its successors. Now, they have brought Alta Vista to us. These things are really modern miracles, from the Mind of the Maker. Let's celebrate, shall we? We are the Quantum Generation. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 03:26 PM 11/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >Paul, > >I don't know if you are familiar with the situation we have here in Fort >Lauderdale Florida but the Army is coming in a week to do Army Training >manuevers in the city-it's called Night Navigational Training-I am going on >the radio Monday at 10AM and I would like to get a full blown idea of "posse >commitatus" if possible.Can you help me with that? > >It would be greatly appreciated. > >And your postings as always are superb. > >Thanks, > >Carol Lido >People For SOvereignty & Restoration > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Hello from MarkF Date: 09 Nov 1996 15:48:07 -0800 Mark, >>>>>>> To keep me from asking a bunch of dumb questions, would some kind person fill me in on the lingo? <<<<<<< Lingo? What lingo? We don't don't need no stinking lingo!!! We, for the most part, speak in plain English, that way we get our points across clearly. Now, if there is something that you have a question on - just ask! :-) Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: PMRS update Date: 09 Nov 1996 14:30:48 -0800 Paul, So. . . . what is your point? Are you pissed-off that I didn't investigate further? I have a rather full plate myself, and if the intent of your post was that of requesting assistance, then what is so wrong with asking _just that_? Making _me_ or others sound as though we are callous and uncaring is not going to accomplish anything in the way of getting _anything_ done. Most certainly it _will_ result in alienation. The ROC list is an excellent place to acquire information that affects us all. I print a lot of the letters and pass them around at work, hopefully enlightening others as to the continuing situations that may and do affect them. But, as I implied, when the 'noise level' rises to the level of the real intelligence, then there is no intelligence, and no message is delivered. Now, just what is it that you seeking? 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: Mark Filipak Subject: Win 95/FAT32 Date: 10 Nov 1996 05:25:13 -0800 pmitch@primenet.com wrote: > > Hello Mark, > > What's the latest on ETA for > Windows 95 Version 950b, > the one with the 32-bit FAT? > I am planning a 9GB with SCSI-II > or -III, and want to have this: > > C:\FREEDOMS > > to load everthing beneath. > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > =========================================================== > Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com > ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > =========================================================== Hi, I'm responding this to the list to see if this thread will fly. I think it's germaine, afterall, aren't computers what we communicate with - a freedom tool? (If a concensus feels I'm wrong I'll keep this sort of thing off-list, but I WwaAasS asked.) A developer friend of mine has been using the 32-bit FAT for some time now. He tells me the commercial version has recently been released. "And now, the rest of the story." ____________________________ Not For Personal Consumption The 32-bit FAT file system requires compliant BIOS ROM code. Since existing BIOSes will not support it, Win 95/FAT32 has been released only to OEMs (ie, original equipment manufacturers - the likes of Compaq, Dell, HP, et cetera). Billy's thinking here is that only OEMs can guarantee the BIOS development and implementation that will keep M'soft's support phones quiet. My friend assures me that this will be the status quo for a long time to come. Knowing a thing or three about how Billy does(n't) business, I agree. Sorry. ________ But Wait I wouldn't be surprised if some entrepreneur isn't out there working on a compatibility BIOS translation layer so that existing machines can use the new FAT32 file system similar in spirit to the disk managers that allowed users to pop hard drives larger than 540 Mbytes into their systems sans BIOS support for LBA mode. If so, that might (MIGHT, but I doubt it) persude (force?) Billy to rethink his Win95 strategy and release it with BIOS translation layer included. That is, unless he decides to rip of that entrepreneur (Stacker redux). If someone brings out such a translation layer without Billy's blessing, watch for bootleg OEM versions of Win95/FAT32 - a not-very-realistic situation. _________ Flavor #2 Don't like the taste of that one? How about this: someone brings out an all new, installable BIOS and a disk partition utility to match. Win95 boots from a small FAT16 disk partition (drive C:) using the existing BIOS as a Boot-BIOS. The FAT16 partition also hosts the installable BIOS32. A device driver loads the BIOS32 and, voila, your off and running on a FAT32 partition (drive D:). Now this sounds more plausible. I'd bet money that Billy is working on this right now (or has it done and is waiting for demand - read: money - to rise). It will be fun to watch what happens. One thing fer-sher. You aren't going to see FAT32 in a PC until the majority of machines out in the hinterlands support it - that's another generation (good for Intel, good for Billy). I'd guess, 2 to 3 years. Just about in time for Cairo. Hope you found this informative (hope you know what the hell I'm talking about - wish I knew myself!) (:&{O> Mark PS: Win95? As for me, I don't touch the stuff. Too filling. I've got too many major applications that don't like it plus, I've got all these neet Win3.11 addins and creature comforts. I'd miss them too much. Maybe when Cairo comes out... -- _____ / ___ \ I prefer to keep my email private, putting _________________/ / \ \ it in a PGP ASCII-armored envelope whenever |___ _____________ ) ( ) practical. To initiate privacy between us, | | \ \___/ / email me and request a public key exchange. |___| \_____/ PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Win 95/FAT32 Date: 10 Nov 1996 07:44:27 -0800 (PST) On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Mark Filipak wrote: > Hi, > > I'm responding this to the list to see if this thread will fly. I think > it's germaine, afterall, aren't computers what we communicate with - a > freedom tool? > (If a concensus feels I'm wrong I'll keep this sort of thing off-list, > but I WwaAasS asked.) In your first post, as a "confirmed leftie", you said you were going to shut up until you got "the lay of the land". Perhaps you should do what you said you would do, if that is within the scope of your talents. ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Win 95/FAT32 Date: 10 Nov 1996 11:19:46 -0700 (MST) At 07:44 AM 11/10/96 -0800, you wrote: >On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Mark Filipak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm responding this to the list to see if this thread will fly. I think >> it's germaine, afterall, aren't computers what we communicate with - a >> freedom tool? >> (If a concensus feels I'm wrong I'll keep this sort of thing off-list, >> but I WwaAasS asked.) > >In your first post, as a "confirmed leftie", you said you were going to >shut up until you got "the lay of the land". > >Perhaps you should do what you said you would do, if that is within the >scope of your talents. > >----- >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- It certainly sounds to me as if Windows 95 with FAT32 is well within his talents, and I for one would like to hear more from him. When I read his statement about "the lay of the land", I took that to be a rhetorical statement about not joining or "crashing" the list until he got a feel for what was going here. I admire the sentiment, but I would never want to hold anyone to their promise to remain silent when there is so much to say about America today, as it does the slow death reserved for all democracies ever since time began. /s/ Paul Mitchell Citizen of Arizona, a Republic =========================================================== 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: TWA 800 Date: 10 Nov 1996 11:28:44 -0700 (MST) >>Why are the feds so concerned about rumors? >>The fact is they are in a huge >>coverup (again) and are being caught. >>Now mainstream press types are >>catching on. We are observing charges by many government people which reveal, with surprising precision, the exact nature of the crimes which they have already committed, or they are in the processing of committing right now. This is called "projection" in psychology, and it is quite an amazing pattern to behold. So, when "they" accuse "you" of criminal syndicalism, for example, they are telling you a lot about themselves. /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: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Win 95/FAT32 Date: 10 Nov 1996 12:20:33 -0800 (PST) On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > It certainly sounds to me as > if Windows 95 with FAT32 is > well within his talents, and > I for one would like to hear > more from him. Then you, for one, tell him that. Don't tell me. > When I read > his statement about "the lay > of the land", I took that to > be a rhetorical statement about > not joining or "crashing" the > list until he got a feel for > what was going here. I admire > the sentiment, but I would never > want to hold anyone to their > promise to remain silent when > there is so much to say about > America today, as it does the > slow death reserved for all > democracies ever since time began. > > /s/ Paul Mitchell You, of course, are free to do whatever you please, including encouraging boorishness, or behaving boorishly, if that fits your pistol. Invading a forum having as its charter the discussion of "Restore Our Constitution" with 5K worth of technical discussion involving disk directory structures, for which there couldn't be more than several hundred more appropriate forums, fits the category of "boorish", IMO. ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh -- The Electronic GunShop) Subject: Re: Win 95/FAT32 Date: 10 Nov 1996 15:45:46 -0700 Folks. This is most definitely not within the charter of ROC. Please take this offline. Thanks Chad ROC Maintainer ------------------------- 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: computers and the Constitution Date: 10 Nov 1996 16:04:09 -0700 (MST) Dear Harry, If the pen is mightier than the sword, then computers just might be instrumental in restoring our Constitution. Do you agree, or not? I agree that, sometimes, the technical jargon gets difficult if not impossible to understand. I submit to you that the field of law has become no less technical, and quite a bit more difficult to fathom, particularly when our vaulted Congress has repeatedly resorted to duplicitous language. Huge text databases may be just what the doctor ordered to recover our lost wisdom, and restore order. Just my opinion, mind you. It sounds as if we might have to disagree here. What do you say about these points? /s/ Paul Mitchell At 12:20 PM 11/10/96 -0800, you wrote: >On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >> It certainly sounds to me as >> if Windows 95 with FAT32 is >> well within his talents, and >> I for one would like to hear >> more from him. > >Then you, for one, tell him that. Don't tell me. > >> When I read >> his statement about "the lay >> of the land", I took that to >> be a rhetorical statement about >> not joining or "crashing" the >> list until he got a feel for >> what was going here. I admire >> the sentiment, but I would never >> want to hold anyone to their >> promise to remain silent when >> there is so much to say about >> America today, as it does the >> slow death reserved for all >> democracies ever since time began. >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell > >You, of course, are free to do whatever you please, including >encouraging boorishness, or behaving boorishly, if that fits your >pistol. > >Invading a forum having as its charter the discussion of "Restore Our >Constitution" with 5K worth of technical discussion involving disk >directory structures, for which there couldn't be more than several >hundred more appropriate forums, fits the category of "boorish", IMO. > >----- >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gburke1@juno.com (GARY H BURKEPILE) Subject: Re: TWA 800 Date: 10 Nov 1996 21:56:56 EST On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:28:44 -0700 (MST) Paul Andrew Mitchell writes: So, >when "they" accuse "you" of >criminal syndicalism, for example, >they are telling you a lot about >themselves. > >/s/ Paul Mitchell Excelent point Mr. Mitchel!! So, if I may ad my two cents worth, _When they point their fingure at you they have three pointing right back at themselves> ghb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Date: 10 Nov 1996 22:15:21 -0700 (MST) Hello Americans, I obtained a color photo of Clinton raising his left hand into the air, with hand extended. So, I could not resist using the "mirror" function in my scanner software, and I scanned it left-for-right. Anybody who wants the .BMP file of Chancellor Clinton launching the Fourth Reich, please request it here, with your preferred encoding: BinHex, MIME, or Uuencode. Ask for: NAZIBILL.BMP /s/ Paul Mitchell P.S. The hands are red (in places). =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: Date: 11 Nov 1996 07:04:30 -0500 This I'd like to see, would you send me a copy? In mime. Thanks Tom At 10:15 PM 11/10/96 -0700, you wrote: >Hello Americans, > >I obtained a color photo >of Clinton raising his left >hand into the air, with >hand extended. So, I could >not resist using the "mirror" >function in my scanner software, >and I scanned it left-for-right. >Anybody who wants the .BMP file >of Chancellor Clinton launching >the Fourth Reich, please request >it here, with your preferred >encoding: > > BinHex, MIME, or Uuencode. > >Ask for: > > NAZIBILL.BMP > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > >P.S. The hands are red (in places). > >=========================================================== >Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >=========================================================== > > > "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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Petition to Congress Date: 11 Nov 1996 06:11:18 -0700 (MST) [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] FIRST AMENDMENT PETITION TO CONGRESS FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES Dear Representative/Senator ____________________________________: This is a formal Petition to Congress for redress of a major grievance which I have with the federal government. Recent research has disclosed that the original motive for Prohibition (the Volstead Act), was to give oil companies an unfair jump on their monopoly over automotive fuels. It also appears that the BATF were created to disperse an unlawful police force throughout the several States, under the guise of controlling commerce in alcohol. Once the monopoly was in place, Prohibition was repealed, leaving alcohol high and dry as the preferred fuel for automobiles, and leaving this unlawful police force in place to extort money from the American People. This research also proves that the "Internal Revenue Service" [sic] is actually an alias for the Federal Alcohol Administration domiciled at Trust #62 in Puerto Rico, under an Act of Congress which was held to be unconstitutional in 1935. The proof is found, among other places, in all the references to Title 27 which can be found in the regulations for Title 26. None of these regulations is lawful, because IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) states that the provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of Title 26. Unfortunately for the federal government, Title 26, as such, has never been enacted into positive law, rendering ALL the enforcement provisions of subtitle F null and void. For example, the authority to issue regulations in the first instance is found in subtitle F. From the research cited above, I have come to believe that the United States federal government is now engaged in a criminal syndicate of extortion, perjury, mail fraud, theft, conversion, fraud, and conspiracy involving all of the above. I therefore demand immediate hearings on the relations between the "Internal Revenue Service" and the Federal Alcohol Administration domiciled in Puerto Rico and operating elsewhere on this planet. If these hearings should prove that the Internal Revenue Service is not a lawful organization within the United States Department of the Treasury, then it is time for a major shift in the wind, because every piece of mail they are sending these days is one count of mail fraud by the sender. I think you will agree that We, as a Nation, have a very big problem here. I will look forward to your immediate response to this formal, verified Petition for Redress of this major grievance which I, and millions of other Americans, now have against the United States (federal government). I never thought I would see the day when I would be forced to define the "United States" as a criminal enterprise, but sadly that day has now arrived. VERIFICATION I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States", that the above statements of fact are true and correct, to the best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). Executed on the ___________ day of _______________________, 1996. Signed and printed, Citizen of __________________________ state all rights reserved without prejudice First Amendment Petition to Congress Follow These Fun Instructions: 1. Make 12 copies of your original and save it. You will need it tomorrow. Don't forget to print these instructions on the back side, so others like you will know what to do. 2. Complete 1 form for each U.S. Senator from your state, and 1 for your U.S. Representative. If you don't already know, their names are available at your local public library; just ask the Librarians, they will be happy to help you. 3. Post them via first class U.S. Mail, without return address, to the House of Representatives and United States Senate, Washington, D.C. [zip code exempt]. They will get there. 4. Give 3 blank forms to each of 3 others who are willing to follow through. This will propagate faster than 2x2x2 = 8, because 3x3x3 = 27! 5. Make as many extras as you are willing to disseminate, e.g. state Governor, county grand jury foreperson, any body, every body, and then some (don't forget Mom). You will get extra credit for doing this step. 6. Print the blank form and instructions in local newspapers, flyers, electronic bulletin board systems, Internet email, any way, every way, best way you can think of (we may want to imitate you, ok?). Lots of extra credit for doing this step too. 7. If you have a computer, get your hands on the original file VOLSTAD.DOC from Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. (pmitch@primenet.com) written in MS-WORD for DOS, Version 5.0B, upward compatible with almost ALL word processors. 8. Send $1 cash to Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [zip code exempt], to support additional research, writing, communication, and political action like this. This is a fee for services tendered, rendered, and retained. Extra funds mean extra credits. 9. Call late night talk shows and read the First Amendment Petition to the hosts, right on the air. Try reading it in the mirror first, when nobody is looking or listening, to give yourself confidence. You might also practice it in speech classes, to get expert feedback on subtle things, like inflection, emphasis, and emotion. Weeping is ok. This is a nationwide catharsis we must overcome. 10. It is perfectly okay to use a pen name, if you need some additional privacy and security. 11. Rejoice and be glad, for the day of your deliverance is now at hand. =========================================================== 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: False Claims Act, 1986 revisions Date: 11 Nov 1996 07:04:01 -0700 (MST) >David--Thanks for your acknowledgment and I am glad you have had a chance to >see the evidence in the Museum. > >On the subject of ways to prosecute: Minds far greater than mine have >stumbled over this issue. In 1986 revisions to the False Claims Act gave >new energy to qui tam suits which allow citizens to become prosecutors when >fraud has been committed against the US treasury. Unfortunately, the suits >are filed against wealthy corporations by deadbroke whistelblowers. > >In simplified terms, the process is this: A plaintiff attorney cannot >afford to finance an effort against the corporation, and prays that the >Justice Department intervenes in the case on the part of the whistleblower >(as the False Claims Act provides). If the DoJ does intervene, then they >covertly undermine the whistleblowers case and reach a nice comfortable deal >with the crooks on the sly. The plainitffs attorney, who wants a settlement >with no more hassle, the DoJ and the crooks then all gang up on the citizen >prosecutor and shove a settlement down the citizen prosecutor's throat. > >The problem NO ONE TO PROSECUTE is a fundamental problem in justice today. >Congress and the courts are busily undermining justice and its mechanisms >every day. >Carol A. Valentine >President >Public Action, Inc. >________________________________________________ =========================================================== 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: RE: When Did They Die? (Part 13, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum) (fwd) Date: 11 Nov 1996 08:10:43 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Text Excerpt 13: Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum Entire html text of the Museum currently available at home.overthe.net/pub/showtime/wm1-1f01.zip. Excerpted by Carol Valentine from http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum. Images omitted. [Note to readers: Many of the official autopsy reports of the Branch Davidians, autopsy photographs, and official diagrams showing the locations of body recoveries are available for viewing at the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum website. Unfortunately, this documentation cannot be included in a text excerpt.] When Did They Die? "Estimating the time of death is one of the most important responsibilities of the person conducting the autopsy." (Scientific Crime Investigation, by Jenny Tesar, pg. 51.) The Autopsy Reports of the Branch Davidians contain no estimate of the time of death. The omission is stunning, considering that much of the work of forensic anthropologists and medical examiners is directed to answering this very question. "One of the first questions the police ask a forensic anthropologists is how long a subject has been dead. It is also one of the most difficult to answer." (Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, curator of anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, top consultant to the FBI, quoted from his book "Bones--A Forensic Detective's Casebook, pg. 108.) Surely the concrete room was the crime scene of the century. Here we had just witnessed the biggest, best publicized US military attack on US citizens in history. This attack was excused in large part by charges that David Koresh had been abusing children in the Mt. Carmel Center. FBI spokesmen called Koresh a madman at almost every daily press briefing. The FBI said the Davidians had started the fire and murdered each other on the final day. Arguably, David Koresh could have been killing children one at a time over a long period, with the help of the Davidians who survived the fire. We would expect the expert evidence handlers from the Smithsonian and the FBI to give A-1 handling to these remains so that the dead could speak, tell their stories, and convict the murderers. Let's look at what happened instead. Time of Death and Decomposition A corpse decomposes over time--the longer the time since death, the more decomposed the corpse. Because time since death questions are so important, decomposition of corpses over time is studied by forensic experts. The studies are conducted in the field and under controlled conditions. Dr. Ubelaker describes field studies of the impact on decomposition of such factors as rain and snow, sunlight, plant growth, summer heat and winter cold, water, insects and insect larvae, corrosives and solvents. As victims' bodies are found at various recovery sites, forensic scientists note the state of decomposition and environmental factors associated with recovery. Dr. Ubelaker says that the recovery of bodies from thousands of field locations comprise much of "the collective wisdom from which we have developed our forensic standards." (Ubelaker, pg. 108.) A close associate of Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Bill Bass, conducts controlled studies of the decomposition of human remains. Dr. Bass, director of the Anthropological Research Facility at Knoxville, Tennessee, runs an open-air ("al fresco") mortuary. Unclaimed or unidentified bodies from the city morgue are donated to Dr. Bass's project, and allowed to rot under a variety of conditions in a wooded area at his facility. The process of decay is recorded. The bodies, rotting with the interplay of the natural conditions of sunlight, rain, and insects, are photographed at regular intervals. Bodies buried in shallow graves are exhumed periodically and examined. Changes in vegetation and the composition of the soil are also noted and recorded precisely as a guide to the recovery of bodies in the field. (Ubelaker, pg. 110.) Importance of Speedy Recovery of Remains Discussing time of death estimates, New York City Chief Medical Examiner Michael M. Baden, MD says "The sooner we get to the body, the more accurate we are." Dr. Baden says heat, cold, and the presence of drugs in the body can hasten or slow the process of decay and confuse the time and cause of death. (Unnatural Death--Confessions of a Medical Examiner," by Michael M. Baden, pg. 37.) Climate, Warmth, and Decomposition Climate plays an important role in the rate of decomposition. All other things being equal, the hotter the weather, the faster a corpse decomposes (Ubelaker, pg. 215). When the body of a victim is found, all efforts are made to refrigerate the remains at once, so that the process of decay does not confuse investigation into the time and cause of death. That is why refrigerated trucks are among the first things to arrive at the scene of a mass disaster. Many of the corpses found in the concrete room were severely decomposed. But a review of the photos of the ruins of the Mt. Carmel Center show persons on the scene wearing jackets and long pants (figure 5, Time, May 5, 1993, pgs. 30-31, figure 7, Time, July 24, 1995, figure 10, courtesy Linda Thompson, and figure 11, donated to Museum by unofficial source). This was April and the weather was not hot. Thus, the advanced decomposition of so many of the bodies in the concrete room can not be explained by warm weather. Placement of Remains After Death Dr. William R. Maples, another renowned forensic anthropologist and colleague of Dr. Ubelaker, points out that decomposition rates also depend on where the body is stored after death. "The general rule of thumb for the rate of decomposition is: one week in the open air equals two weeks in water, equals eight weeks underground." (Dead Men Do Tell Tales, by William R. Maples, Ph. D., and Michael Browning, pg. 47-48.) Bodies of Mothers and Children Allowed To Rot The inferno at the Mt. Carmel Center was largely burned out by 1:00 pm, April 19. The methods for handling the remains of victims of such disaster have been established for decades (see Museum exhibits "How the Pros Handle Mass Disasters Scenes.") They should have been recovered almost immediately. Yet, if we are to believe Dr. Peerwani, the first set of bodies was not recovered from the concrete room until April 22-23, and the second set were left rotting in the elements until April 27-29. The excuse given for the delay, as we have seen from Dr. Peerwani's testimony (Transcript, pg. 5970) was that roof of the "collapsed bunker" needed to be shored up for the safety of the recovery workers. This excuse does not work. First, we have already seen that Sgt. Coffman worked in the concrete room under the damaged roof day after day. The laws of physics would have been the same for Sgt. Coffman as for Dr. Ubelaker or Dr. Peerwani. If the damaged roof of the concrete room was not appreciably endangering Sgt. Coffman, why would it to pose a danger to our forensic experts? Second, as Sgt. Coffman's testimony shows, the roof was never shored up. This fact is verified again by the Dallas Morning News (Saturday, May 1, 1993 pg. 24A): "Also Friday [April 31], authorities bulldozed the concrete bunker that was the compound's last standing remnant. 'We had determined that it was structurally unsound because of a support beam in the middle of it had become detached,' [sic] said DPS [Department of Public Safety] spokeswoman Lauren Chernow." Third, had the recovery team considered the evidence important, the roof could have been shored up hours after the fire, before the first bodies were recovered. Recall that 33 to 43 bodies were found in the room (Transcript, pgs. 953, 948, 958), and nine on the roof--the roof was an important part of the crime scene. Recall that there were 250 lawmen on the site (Transcript, pg. 1090). Some of those 250 could have been spared, and armed with plywood and beams, they could have shored up the roof. If that task was too complex for the Texas Rangers, the FBI, the ATF, and the US Army, the Smithsonian Institution anthropologists were on hand. If the task was too complex for them, they surely could have called the Smithsonian Institution and asked to speak to a staff archaeologist who had been on archeology digs . . . No, Dr. Peerwani's excuse holds no water. If the recovery dates that Dr. Peerwani cites are accurate, there is no excuse for the bodies to have been mishandled in this manner. What was the result of the delay? Why, the further decomposition of the bodies, and the greater the interplay of nature's forces on the remains, the greater obfuscation of the time of death. As the corpses rotted, the flesh on the faces rotted, so the delay also accomplished the blurring of identities. When world-class evidence handlers like our Smithsonian experts are advising on recovery of bodies, and the bodies are abused in such a fashion as to destroy or degrade the evidence they contain, what must a reasonable person conclude? Recall that Texas Ranger Raymond Coffman, who was in charge of the crime scene in the concrete room, testified that the concrete room was completely cleared out by April 25 (Transcript, pg. 903). His testimony obviously conflicts with Dr. Peerwani's who said the last remains were collected on April 29; if all corpses were removed by April 25, the rate of decomposition is all the more remarkable. Next: Excerpt 14, They Died At Different Times http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum or http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum SkyWriter@Public-Action.com Postal Address: Carol A. Valentine, Public Action, Inc., PO Box 10933, Burke, VA 22009 Copyright 1996 by Carol A. Valentine, on loan to Public Action, Inc. All commercial rights are reserved. Full statement of terms and conditions for copying and redistribution is available in the Museum Library. "Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum," "SkyWriter," and the skywriting logo are trademarks of Public Action Inc. Carol A. Valentine President Public Action, Inc. ________________________________________________ TERRORISM: The use of terror, violence, and intimidation to achieve an end. A system of government that uses terror to rule. (American Heritage Dictionary, 1976) Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum | NOW-- WHO ARE THE *REAL* TERRORISTS??? ________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: U.S. Classifies Web TV Technology as a Weapon (fwd) Date: 11 Nov 1996 08:12:22 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > To: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) > From: "Scott W. Allen" Subject: U.S. Classifies Web TV Technology as a Weapon > > November 8, 1996 > > > U.S. Classifies Web TV Technology as a Weapon > > By JOHN MARKOFF > > AN FRANCISCO -- American couch potatoes have become empowered -- too > empowered, in the eyes of the government. > > Web TV, a $300 television-set-top device for browsing the World Wide Web > that Sony and Philips Electronics recently began selling at chains like > Sears and Circuit City Stores, uses computer-security technology so > powerful that the government is classifying it as a weapon that will > require a special export license before it can be sold overseas. > > Few industry experts expect such a license to be granted, meaning that the > companies are unlikely to begin selling current versions of the U.S.-made > devices next year in Europe and Japan, as they had planned. > > The appliances, designed to let consumers surf the Web and transmit e-mail > via a standard television set and phone line, have suddenly become the most > significant challenge to the Clinton administration's attempt to restrict > the export of powerful data-scrambling devices by categorizing them as > "munitions" requiring a special export license. > > While the set-top boxes are intended to protect the privacy of users and > permit secure on-line sales transactions, administration officials fear > that such technology could be used by foreign terrorists or criminals to > conspire with electronic impunity. > > "We're the guinea pig," said Steve Perlman, chairman and chief executive of > Web TV Networks Inc., designer of the units, which are being manufactured > in the United States by Sony Electronics and Philips. "Can you imagine > carrying one of our boxes under your arm and getting arrested at the > border?" > > The set-top boxes automatically encode all communications between Web TV > users and the company's server computers with a strong encryption code that > employs a mathematical key containing 128 bits of information. Currently > the nation's export rules allow export of data-scrambling technology using > keys of 40 bits or fewer. > > In order to allow more powerful encryption technology, while preserving the > ability of law-enforcement agencies to crack the code after obtaining a > court's warrant, the Clinton administration has been trying to force U.S. > companies to adopt a compromise. > > Last month the government proposed a deal in which companies would be freed > from export restrictions if they agreed to build such a "key recovery" > mechanism into their products. > > The Web TV device does not have this key-recovery feature. > > An executive at Web TV Networks said the company had recently received the > government's permission to take a device with a 56-bit key system overseas > for demonstration purposes. But the company has not yet received a response > from export officials on its application to permit Sony and Philips to sell > the full-powered browsers overseas. > > "We have not given any licenses for 128-bit encryption schemes," said a > government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. > > In light of the government's recent key-recovery compromise offer, few > industry experts expect the administration to grant an export license for > the Web TV devices. > > The export confrontation, first reported in the current issue of Electronic > Buyers' News, a trade publication, is one example of a growing challenge to > the Clinton administration as U.S. computer and consumer electronics > companies attempt to compete for the exploding Internet market with Asian > and European companies not bound by U.S. export laws. > > "Government attempts to regulate this technology will be increasingly under > fire as new products for Internet connectivity are announced," said Marc > Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public-interest > group. > > > Copyright 1996 The New York Times Company > > > > Scott W. Allen swallen@pipeline.com > > > **************************************************************************** > 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: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: TWA 800: THE FACTS (fwd) Date: 11 Nov 1996 08:25:37 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (free 2 copy (*)-------------------(free 2 forward) T W A 8 0 0 C R A S H : J U S T T H E F A C T S By Ian Williams Goddard FACT 1: July 17th breaking news reports, never to resurface, stated that the Navy or National Guard was conducting maneuvers near the TWA explosion. FACT 2: When asked if the claim that the area near the site of the explosion is used as a missile test- ing area is true, at a news conference aired live on CNN (11/08/96), Navy Admiral Edward Kristensen said that the area is: "not typicality used for missile training." He later stated that he is not aware of missiles ever having been fired in the area, but clearly he did not rule out that it's a missile test site. FACT 3: A Navy spokesmen claimed Navy ships were too far away to have hit TWA 800 with a missile, but then in his next breath he makes a claim proven to be false regarding Naval weapons capabilities in the area. The Associated Press (11/08/96) reported this: Lt. Cmdr. Rob Newell, a Navy spokes- man...said...an Aegis-type missile cruiser, was 185 miles to the south... [and that] the only aircraft in the area was a P-3 Orion anti-submarma- rine plane, which he said does not carry missiles. But the military reference, Janes All The World's Aircraft, states the P-3 is cap- able of carrying missiles. Chalk-up a point to the AP for investigation. The simple say-so of the possibly guilty is not suffi- cient to absolve possible guilt, particularly when they are then caught making false statements about their missile capabilities, and even more-so when we consider the fact that a missile was witnessed: FACT 4: Radar detected an object merging into TWA flight 800 before the explosion. As the Associated Press (07/19/96) reported: Radar detected a blip merging with the jet shortly before the explo- sion, something that could indi- cate a missile hit. FACT 5: Over 100 eyewitness reported seeing a mis- sile streaking toward the plane just before it blew up. As The Washington Times (07/24/96) states: Several eyewitnesses...saw a bright, flare-like object streaking toward the jumbo jet seconds before it blew up. ABC News said yesterday that the investigators had more then 100 eyewitness accounts sup- porting the [ missile ] theory. FACT 6: Missile witnesses were highly credible and gave uniform accounts. The New York Post (09/22/96): Law-enforcement sources said the hardest evidence gathered so far overwhelmingly suggests a surface -to-air 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 TWA 800 exploded. "Some of these people are extremely, extremely credible," a top federal official 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. FACT 7: Two National Guard pilots in the area also saw the missile. CNN News Interactive (11/08/96): ...the 106th Rescue Wing based at Gabfbreski Air National Guard Sta- tion at Westhampton, New York, said: "The two helicopter pilots...Major Frederick Meyer, the pilot, and Cap- tain Cristian Baur, the co-pilot, both saw a streak of light, moving from east to west prior to the ini- tial explosion. FACT 8: The witnesses said the "streak of light" hit the plane. The New York Times (07/19/96): [ Witnesses reported ] a "streak of light" hitting the plane just before it blew up. FACT 9: Not unlike a guided heat-seeking missile, witnesses reported that the missile curved across space prior to the hit, leaving a trail of smoke along its path. The New York Times (07/19/96): Paul Angelides, who lives in West Hampton Beach...saw what he describ- ed as a "red meteor with a smoke tail" that followed the course like the outline of a "parabola" [curve]. Fred Meyer, a major in the Air Na- tional Gaurd...told reporters that he saw an arch of light [a curving light] moving toward the plane. He said, "Almost immediately there- after I saw in rapid succession a small explosion and then a larger explosion." FACT 10: FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom, when asked at a news conference whether the missile was seen ascending or descending, said that witnesses stated that it was "ascending," that is, traveling up from the ocean below, toward the plane above. He reiterated this statement today on CNN (11/08/96). This would clearly rule-out the meteor theory. It's impossible to fathom why it is that the missile theory is said publicly by the FBI to be on an equal footing with the bomb and mechanical failure theories, both of which, unlike the missile theory, are said to have "no supporting evidence." How is the witness of over 100 people and radar equal to no evidence ??!! FACT 11: Investigators have said that there is no evidence that a missile or a bomb exploded inside the plane, but they speculated that a missile may have passed through the plane that ``would only leave a small hole (Associated Press, 09/22/96).'' FACT 12: Investigators reconstructing the debris say there is a hole going into the plane and a hole going out of the plane. The Associated Press (09/23/96): ...a source...said on condition of anonymity.... ``There's metal bent in, metal bent out. Metal you can't tell. I see a hole going in and a hole going out...'' Or the missile could have even exploded outside the plane, thereby requiring no in-out holes: FACT 13: An aviation disaster expert speaking live on CNN (07/17/96) shortly after the TWA 800 explos- ion, said he believed that it was a missile hit and that the eyewitness reports of two explosions, one small then one large, was consistent with a heat- seeking missile exploding near the plane's heat-ra- diating exhaust. Apparently, such a missile strike, which could occur just outside the plane, is known to initiate the eruption of the fuel tanks, caus- ing precisely the sequence of explosion observed. My CONCLUSION, based upon the current knowledge, is expressed in the statements of reporter Hillel Cohen: FACT 14: At a press conference (11/08/96), moments before the FBI's Assistant Director James Kallstrom ordered him removed from the room, reporter Hillel Cohen asked, "Why is the Navy not a suspect?" In response, Kallstrom said, "Remove that man." As about 10 security guards surrounded him, swiftly removing him from the room, he could be heard to say: ``We want an independent investigation.'' ************************************************************************ IAN GODDARD Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________________ (c) 1996 Ian Williams Goddard - (*) free to copy nonprofit w/ attribute. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cap Schwartz" Subject: Re: Hello from MarkF Date: 11 Nov 1996 06:52:45 -0800 Hi, Mark: Well, you have the right idea. Reading the list for a period of time is always the first prescription in beginning to understand the terminology, et cetera. Experience, in this case, is the best teacher. As for your "differentness", I can assure you that both right- and left-handed people are welcome here. Regards, Cap At 11:42 AM 11/9/96 -0800, you wrote: >Hello all, > >I just got on the list this morning. > >I don't plan on being too active until I get the lay of the land here. >But I thought I'd give you my vitals. I'm 50, widowed/divorced, no >kids. I'm a computer designer in Silicon Valley, California, and a >Vietnam Vet (Air Force). I imagine that I'm different from most of you >though. I'm a committed lefty, but definitely an American. But I >haven't voted for the system in a long, long time. > >For a while, I will just be listening in. I would ask one thing >though. To keep me from asking a bunch of dumb questions, would some >kind person fill me in on the lingo? > >Thanks, >MarkF >-- > _____ > / ___ \ I prefer to keep my email private, putting > _________________/ / \ \ it in a PGP ASCII-armored envelope whenever >|___ _____________ ) ( ) practical. To initiate privacy between us, >| | \ \___/ / email me and request a public key exchange. >|___| \_____/ PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Clinton to 'go after' detractors (fwd) Date: 11 Nov 1996 09:08:10 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Clinton to 'go after' detractors USA TODAY 11/08/96 President Clinton has told political supporters in Arkansas he will devote a lot of time going after detractors who pursued him on Whitewater and other ethical questions. He also called political attackers "a cancer" and vowed to "cut (them) out of American politics." The remarks, at an early Wednesday election party in a Little Rock hotel, were reported Thursday by The Associated Press. He said his political enemies have "hurt a lot of people in our state," and vowed to end "that kind of systematic abuse." * Bill Utterback butterb@connecti.com * "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen * from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to * keep the Government from falling into error." * U.S. Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. * Douds, 339 U.S. 382,442 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Re: Reader's Analysis of TWA 800 Crash (fwd) Date: 11 Nov 1996 09:21:30 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *caveat lector*. This means, "reader beware." In other words, it is up to the reader to form her/his own judgements as to the following. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Do you really think anyone could keep hundreds of US sailors quiet after they > witnessed one of their own missiles shoot down a civilian plane? Three > drinks along and the story would have been blurted out in any Norfolk bar. > > This Salinger story is the Zimmerman Telegram of the 1990's and is a French > design to keep the US out of Africa and the Middle East. This is extremely naive. Hundreds of US sailors of the USS Liberty, which had been attacked by Israel (with rockets, cannon, napalm and torpedoes) in 1967, were kept quiet for years under penalty of court-martial and long sentences in the brig. They suffered 34 dead and 171 wounded! Americans never learned the truth until Jim Ennes' book came out in '79--12 years later. Did any sailor who took part in the shooting down of the Iranian Airbus ever say a word? Or the ones on the USS Stark who were attacked by our ally, Iraq? An inquiry was conducted by the navy but we never heard the results. What about the sailors on the destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin, which was supposedly attacked by N. Vietnam? Did they ever say a word about it? This phony attack started the Vietnam War. What about all the attacks our wonderful boys conducted against the German and Japanese navies while we were "neutral" in 1940-41? Did one of them ever say a word about it? What about the navy personnel who participated in the autopsy of JFK at Bethesda Naval Hospital? The writer has no idea of the fear which the military can create in its personnel, or how low it will stoop to create that fear. This is the same US Navy which framed a dead victim of its negligence in the explosion of the USS Iowa's gun turret. Not only did they frame him but, for good measure, said he was a homosexual to boot. Anyway, how do we really know that there was only one US ship within 180 miles of Long Island that evening? All we know is what the navy tells us, and the navy tells us they didn't do it. That doesn't mean they did, but it doesn't mean they didn't, either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Re: Salinger/George Magazine Theory (fwd) Date: 11 Nov 1996 09:22:26 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *caveat lector*. This means, "reader beware." In other words, it is up to the reader to form her/his own judgements as to the following. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Based on Salinger declaration, Paris Match Magazine release 2 weeks ago, pictures already examined by the FBI at the time of the crash. Paris Match did 6 pages on the missiles theory, it means they BOUGHT the report for big bucks. I even can disclosed that they are excited like hell thinking they got the scoop of the decade. PARIS-MATCH is a flaghship publication of Group HACHETTE-FILIPACHI which is a major investor in GEORGES magazine. Carol Thompson Publisher Global Reportage ************************************************ Visit Global Reportage on-line A French/English publication Our goal is to reach the TRUTH http://www.globalreportage.com Tel: (510) 530 0565 Fax: (510) 530 7361 ************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: NAZIBILL Date: 11 Nov 1996 09:25:58 -0700 (MST) >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:23:34 >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: NAZIBILL > >Dear Chad, > >Please accept my sincerest apologies >for the faux pas. I had so many >requests for NAZIBILL.BMP this morning, >I failed to notice that I was replying >to a list. Thank you very much for >bringing this to my attention. Would >you please do me the favor of reposting >this to the list which I offended? >Thanks very much. Again, I do apologize >for the etiquette breach. > >/s/Paul Mitchell > > >At 08:07 AM 11/11/96 -0700, you wrote: >>Hi >> >>Your sending of the picture was automatically rejected by the mailing list >>software because it was too big. >> >>Sending encoded pictures to a mailing list is bad etiquette. Mailing >>either directly to eople who want the picture or posting a notice of where >>it can be FTPed from are appropriate. >> >>thanks >>Chad >> >> >>>>From roc-owner@mail.xmission.com Mon Nov 11 06:52:58 1996 >>>Received: from primenet.com (root@mailhost01.primenet.com [206.165.5.52]) >>>by mail.xmission.com (8.8.2/8.7.5) with ESMTP id GAA24231 for >>>; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:52:53 -0700 (MST) >>>Received: from ip136.tus.primenet.com (ip136.tus.primenet.com >>>[198.68.42.136]) by primenet.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id GAA05079 for >>>; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:51:50 -0700 (MST) >>>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:51:50 -0700 (MST) >>>Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961111065031.3db74086@mailhost.primenet.com> >>>X-Sender: pmitch@mailhost.primenet.com >>>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) >>>Mime-Version: 1.0 >>>Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_847723831==_" >>>To: roc@xmission.com >>>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >>>Subject: NAZIBILL >>>X-Attachments: I:\CLINTON.DIR\NAZIBILL.ZIP; >>> >>>--=====================_847723831==_ >>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> >>>Attaching NAZIBILL.ZIP in MIME. >>>Use PKUNZIP to decompress. >>>I can supply you the shareware, >>>if you need it. >>> >>>/s/ Paul Mitchell >>> >>> >>> >>>At 07:04 AM 11/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >>>> >>>>This I'd like to see, would you send me a copy? In mime. >>>>Thanks >>>>Tom >>>> >>>>At 10:15 PM 11/10/96 -0700, you wrote: >>>>>Hello Americans, >>>>> >>>>>I obtained a color photo >>>>>of Clinton raising his left >>>>>hand into the air, with >>>>>hand extended. So, I could >>>>>not resist using the "mirror" >>>>>function in my scanner software, >>>>>and I scanned it left-for-right. >>>>>Anybody who wants the .BMP file >>>>>of Chancellor Clinton launching >>>>>the Fourth Reich, please request >>>>>it here, with your preferred >>>>>encoding: >>>>> >>>>> BinHex, MIME, or Uuencode. >>>>> >>>>>Ask for: >>>>> >>>>> NAZIBILL.BMP >>>>> >>>>>/s/ Paul Mitchell >>>>> >>>>>P.S. The hands are red (in places). >>>>> >>>>>=========================================================== >>>>>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >>>>>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >>>>>=========================================================== >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>"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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>--=====================_847723831==_ >>>Content-Type: application/zip; name="NAZIBILL.ZIP"; >>> x-mac-type="705A4950"; x-mac-creator="705A4950" >>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 >>>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="NAZIBILL.ZIP" >>> >>>UEsDBBQAAAAIAOB9aiEJLMW2D/wBANYvBAAMAAAATkFaSUJJTEwuQk1QvH09b+NYuiZ7eC9kYIMp >>>C7YhKHADAxWwwA02MLC5GwOodnHtjuYvOCjPAmQDIxLYrsINJ7ca2MOgyGAqmb8wFnAvg3XS4WKz >>>EfgL9Bd6n4/30O67wIZbMiWKoijynOc87/N+HNZ3d//7P/1DwX//GS//Ea8fflMU/+ubovimONP2 >>>4Z/+ofjzfyi0YOObf/+iv+Jf/sUvfHATnv71X/8VW37RX/HLL37hg5vwdDqdir///e/Fzz//XPzt >>>b38r/vrXvxYppeLPf/5z0TRN8fDwUPzhD38ofv/73xc3NzfF7373u+L8/Lz4Gd9NWB6w3PhgxS8/ >>>/4LjYDuWByw3WLBj8UvCdiwJywOWGyz4cvHLA7ZjSVgesNxgwQGLX26wHUvC8oDlBgt+ROf9M5aE >>>5QHLja7jZ/zEzzjcz/jqz9jtZ5wL9sL1JCwPWG6w4MRwHtgXS8LygOUGC3bCeWA7loTlAcsNFnwR >>>54HtWBKWByw3WHAwnQUfCcsDlhue1S94hyVhecBygwU/iPPAdiwJywOWGyw4CXyE7VgesNxgwUnh >>>PLANS8LygOUGC3bAeWA7loTlAcsNFnxJLcGz4OMByw1b5hecEZaE5QHLDRYcGOeB7VgSlgcsN1jw >>>YzgPbMeSsDxgucGCE8BXsB1LwnKDBSeE88A2LAnLA5YbLPhQvfGzzuBBjxv2zi9oFSwJywOWGyw4 >>>AM4D27EkLA9YbrDgoDgPbMeSsDxgucGCH8J5YDuWhOUByw0W/DgOhe1YEpYHLDgZIeJntcKNzoKP >>>XwxBwo3QIowID8KBXc9uZpeyq9gt7AY2Of6dsPwdCz4s/oblr1j4wZ+xNFhw7cUfsPweC36/+B2W >>>8//fXys2y283l3eLi+qsvry62G13V83lRXn27Wb5ZXt/Wd2dNcvqrDrb3m3v/7Q9q7BWbS+2V9uz >>>uwu87m7PN9vL7cVFtdxW53cfN5vr6y2Wze3Gy/XyeoM/PM43erk+xwN/m+vbDVY21+/wx4+5cq4P >>>+KS9Nn6LN96DO11jv3c42C0Ou+RBvYr99Q6/uVzyF7G+xC/ooO/OdSR9jwe53fh0bt8vN7f/fL08 >>>27xf3uJw78/4zTNuX26vcZjN7ZLH+3apS8Am7nK72Z5vN9rj/RJr2yWPgPdLrm+Xm+327P0ZVt7z >>>zXLz3eZcZ4/3ONKtvoOjnL/HwfHuPc7m1le64WVuNnHdvNR4/JYLX7Di91iZn/xJ3u/du/lrr0/x >>>wnZRn6hXeFHn525178Qz4R8/QuPpzNlN59rh3W//H/+W36EJHnHh1cfl9ml7UW1X27PdGRrkqrpc >>>bi/2221ztb0Efoii7aaqLpZYtpeL7bKplvzpqqo228UTni7Zp+/RZGwZncv1e3bYuc75luckNGHl >>>lg1mjJ2/M4rclgGijaHAYwhv54acdxRObr0r2gNvzgmMZf7ubUCPJ/BOWHzHN+cBZ3xXjUfAoR// >>>mQAhBM7ZtkLQ2bfawD2WxAzRxB+6JTLQ81viYXMu2Jxx9TusYc+PxNIdW48AWf4TP+dwAvTeL6/P >>>CCviS0fenuNbOpo679s83G5jBJ3PeCA0tFy/wsYvbzfNEJrx5xGajwKUsr3n8R2AMp5i0N5q6ADu >>>Oqf3bn6OU41Zjdrra7XmvwcVDvbtZstxwUHGxjhrFgeOqoptggtfflxy3J5t2fvxG8sNXy46A8bD >>>9umO9PV+eZ03+gzQUO+F/s21z0fDj+fETToxQejao9IXKAR9ZyAQNGxTk8q5IUGomJJESwTOMkaX >>>ULTk+q1h805Yut1cv8JMeCYOrskXyzOQ6AYEAV5aGl3kIh5GvUzmuCafoB22gT48CwwchxtREVmG >>>wNri744t+f52q2biCGKzCIBnAOqt2hVfwAlw3e211Tl+h18zc+ex9corv/XKKy39Gliv/BV4MoY2 >>>Zjq38K3b4TyYfDYY0S7qpVtiRmezDEDnwX1+7c7Bab2PftJv4x+/udxscD2iZTUVh+D7c1728ppY >>>OncLnvNPhEOuJiC2t3Fqm+/w4Xb7cYu25cDCDoQRT/G9cWUkmUAy0SyvBfXzYIlrA29zrm/PV738 >>>9jyo5dwGYvOOEPIPzCMq73xtHC/dLrc0agGmwKSAdqsPhQRduL93HifKc/SowQfvz/1qto8fCPzp >>>SUOLzYMG2C7vtrJsNGseSdeb90a+eIhNy/YEFS35Fm24FFLj2pcbE/BSPH5tNWBiecNOv81U9O63 >>>1+/e8NGrGTMVXWd1IFCdB1B4OWEiNvkc46EdeE3fnkdbXUebn3sPd8X7kBVBfTyd97hySJ07Pnvt >>>jH9nd/47Y8uAo7YYaxxulBBasRTQuNQ7tuf8uI32yE1+m5+DjQJFbLDN0ijyJzxTtimbmh9veLjt >>>Zh4q0ZUb9jKhH4+NcXWeiSTs3jJ0UB5RrzIt2o4WUSxMurgW9yw1EJbXsZ5Pfn5sZ6hGa2oDxhHH >>>HpoGTMT2g54EkL7bkL903Iz0Lc0FT+07jdvveBnX6kwP/zwWzAQZRSF+stXKKJK9+22wUcZZlpjW >>>WlaY11Y6S45gI8Bt6j9d7rWb/zqGqBo6ZJuUrBWqDeItrmzLcXedAftuuf0y9iP+1v2pH6dxPQ7T >>>0I+Ja30/rIeEj/B20F4Jq8PI577v132fsKXni/9WK6/1zz+mL6u02q12ix+bVbPYLXb4w+vuCsvu >>>ii+Lq6vqTzuosEs8XV3i7wp/1eWfLi8rPLDZK7srrF/eXV5eVJcXl3cXFxd3l3jS2tt/eH93drE9 >>>OwP6zy7OAH08LzEQlmey11pdenW5tDD227ullMsyD4H58ToMwtb5sc2WL48fWTiy0HsiCBqTY/KC >>>SALMLJ3ZUYIaZAR0PTXVVgRE5llGH4qTzyEDNpkgBBzTTLy8y4rpt29M2Nv1jJ3bzauvYrDoyUSz >>>DPrexEDZzIROoGfgX2c2MieE+cPliqS3198uraz4q9uhT5/6vul/TOj8pu+Fi13ff8LLp1Wz2u0+ >>>rXb4rN/5H4HwIxCyw047f2EXy6fe/z6l3rv/WFV/Alh2O7zsLndc5dpCB2pWKRFaVXPFt6tml/B7 >>>2Nan1acEAPdd308p49QQ/ZKatOpTWnFD4l8s2mVMHV6e8d2Og+H4PPTDuMYVYkSMWPrxBcOlH4/r >>>aT1iwRiZ+pc1/tYrDIx/w0hYfeEI+LLyv8UKgMdT/MsrHAhXflpcLS6xxn94xs64utUiLTBYMAiA >>>+ctLQR/PlzEGqovLszsj/2yLZ/E+8K+n7dkrwEPkh1oLnftu8+8V9K8RNNuf0AvZQG1CT8ykrJf4 >>>C9u2DJ4ypsLRDEbPX7fSey8jzBEmzfDu+uw4DMPYDQP+Rv6NXPMKt+Nth84YwVXo2zZ1qe2wqcO7 >>>nuQEysLH6IQjumZai8fQZX1qV13aVf+4K3dlsyh3za4inlLDDXik3TCg74mghEeDDwDmJsA49F+/ >>>Ti/9y3jsv3J9fexfvvb91yOQ9LXH4y/9ly8/rr++9H/B3n/hFn7wZfcFf6sfv+z6LytAe/GjqHAF >>>kK8+rfpVs/6qMbLLgyIA/KX5cffmXw8S/USka0mfxLE4p2kiR/cAIK4a15nQBj2uGGz9le0wDtgA >>>7sYq2kDfGsYJn6KJjiT6Ca16REviQPiHz9isfLiBR3yIjT1bZnjB268jf2lkP+Di++HL8HX4guH1 >>>pf9xwHD68hnj/NPfGsAeV4TRt+gB5E+AP9H/Y7lYkfobYroC5K+qBTrhSStXFawAzQAfYPo7gBtg >>>vyfzx4OcekfFw2c9tnlFGshvRcIgpe3YCTfC0Wj4CEI8ewzrA0HDTRN2TF2LN2Wn3cfA3YiGmvjC >>>5lCrdc9lSmXTdU1ZNqk9lE3Z7LGU3Fi2bcfnxIMesenzb9qSx+2GQOixU7PyYG7pcTq5kdGB3IQm >>>ngr+9JofvGi/NY3zdFzrXNhTHa6gm+IU2VXFVOg4BDt2SbiEFl3WDl2LJ/ybWl5W130eBvwNn77i >>>qWeXTgTBOL1MRcG/aeKh+O9lfMEKNo18wWm8DMcXnkA/AUVf8OUXgI9DAQNiOGI0YES8TBNW+q8v >>>uJ6X4StOdVr3BmrarfiDYNYvGGmg9eZLk8j9YOwKJv4SbF796eqedn93V/Et3mANZM9Hhf2gDXZ6 >>>6Du0H08yIljFJiJpt8CyohmAFEnpR0IwreovVb9ouEYlQnJf4zTSalWu0oKUz/MC0x8gaKBmdJpd >>>/5x4BNDV9it6rTMhBR+N4JkD3k8cB50RM3oBHQ2d9tW3pJoGDchhmk4GG9EDzMBEASy7MnUdkJNa >>>oGjf8KNUYgsgae5r9Q4wasshn8TBWDaIilGd6CF8xBrgAnzEb2eoTXGGfOKXY2WMizpNp69EU8ED >>>Hnkw0HAMoNd/rc7g8xDbj6+fjJPwciJmTkrdEEt8fxKo8gNHx/kCzaZpEhA47DjOZzkIb1pGYTK4 >>>SZyE0y1fNITdxPxTy7BR903d1FVZNfu6qnc1/vC24VpVYQv+ldxe6dNdvQdgagAJ77CywE67pwZv >>>AbCnGutgqN0OjNAO6JjuUweZwS+Ip/CogaM+lat6QdICoxEvVBCJ/bpC9+rtLjWrMq1g2La9mg3n >>>TPCMQ/6jPRu5hVhK6qLJW4Wt6OkxupvLER3bpdTuU4OfIoqGMjWgmkT2AbSwCRtawguf6ZvDYVG2 >>>nejIDUd0Tj7ooJYnu4iNgnRkB8A6I5kHRtT9s+bmQr0FdOEzyqLOWMLJ4/MT0M49uO1kmho8HkiD >>>v4aS6WlG0vQKJHW9X4rRYBr1EMCmQoDPFq5/w9ZHWCsS6iTq0o7jFKfsUSDofynV5h7AQtGIpik1 >>>MvcGTlUTSU1d831NPBEs1c4feAM+33NPImPf8GP+AUfEYFU1T1XJXVZdZ/PS6Uf2zR5P1b5Z1Fc4 >>>j+6QykW1qPDHsY8FlMCnhD88lWAj2p11uYI4u1vZSiU1oFoeXHSwoQvmYYdoKAMs2BFbem0bDB+3 >>>BGQx8VA2BCswswcDgZqEpLLlu0QzhxOCwSMdHdmwI0cDjVo5yLR1R5IUu1moNc8cp9NRWImfwrm8 >>>DLE2rI/kGeEoDCEIa1h7fGcmZafJrhly2s2X+PbfOAQhDbZsxNHkYTXx+m3AioyfVxYKZAUkEsxg >>>n/g98bQugxbZhnryudgSFqP/gk/RTf2R7S0DLz7CMGSzShlUhE9TESplVZKJREZCF4ED3LDX6yeD >>>C/vv9rt9BRKruJHI2lV7bK9LsFLz1JSDfwc/xN7hT6SmXgBkiX1UrwC+qoRlox4WjnoACFInSSGj >>>11ZAVLmCCN/2Zpi2h6BQB5qfRENdRpi7sGDHoIX6LtudaTIjgwLxwHmAc/qyabGCMwOqyvQZ8Cpb >>>6qMW5rcW1GjXDiHeG6GPIGoPLSlJbHh06wfrC6uBHIhPtTpIhWpJBMSzmNTlY4jWIca4KWE0WZyM >>>JB1V7sXnPFYEmW+GNhgqsxH3It6sjU+0WjqKoBT/aOdk5PAja9GWkAzgHBFBEZIMRl7FMTfZNOk4 >>>AqEPPU6HCX33rA7AI/rFHU1lCf6BsXoCVmraN3ESjRstWEk2At+AaRrataeKCNiJh5oFjVmlr+7r >>>3VNNXqJWemo6kx4A0QQf8UOwULXC21STjiCVwDylxr6A1OuMBDRshqUTjt7/T7WbQGmfzdrao5PI >>>4ns1fqFxH+PcRoTdAmiBccBCO5wJLBbldGpL4WOgItKJ4rzaUoK7bT0CjuxnqikC7TN37j4fuiAG >>>SQkrinHMCiIbMNqNbNf6GOKky96Io3KaZB+zzYVZKzzq1WPrybZzGN5wUkgSspGWV5IabZBOsken >>>ANArMYVt45HDWtGg9dQCPa2ix8AgUTYGL5qTQLMaAcFHOLlh1cl5PoR+OPSUMB11QlnvSqiahvQC >>>+GAFNkj6p6ZcIJcAAle1JBCJBy97/nEL2elJcmkPKiPiALtydwjeswoDjqisnsBbi329wpcXwJOs >>>WMeASkfZMjxTAtm2PVMvYYcF4gJbkksXY0C6NASwdHSovQGjvxjdUhrk9nzknvWylWUNwSVZJLoh >>>KZU2c3oLbLWg5K5uJLMbPDp3ZAdnoB2SroW0mCEmWyIwHQWOMZT1kaO954vgYPSEqfJQD739atFG >>>G72iCFRxMIgjjiSgsRWCZMd+BaBs6kRzEkjFG0IKC3fKutmwkuOO8zQHaRAMkznJvzwZ9EeS0DRN >>>8+l5z1E2ACA6hHbr/NdSmJSLRp0PMlpQ9tS7RtYMoJKvUn7a74wR4qfmE7D0w1UpQURdBJu2E6Dw >>>2b4kH7HFk/2c1PwEK1g/7fYS5aK+RSkQmX6w2g8H9vaB72inOtFR94TQ1jLpfFv6+LTM/RjEehA7 >>>hfgdszQsQoCczAFEp/yzHUU0jZfkD3BSY4zw9JqanEh+ordmvQSENRGuGhUbyEq7a7ssUya7XX12 >>>xr7KUeNQZ6PTVVur5c1UhU2bpLupJlBEopASth0ZC/OG+nbI0DF2TEjtr2A0Keijaw0ushkrvIUM >>>bW4aw7bJ7NqL5LkwFDSak46DgfP2cFlS2a7xUtLK+rCzzxHnJJ+tSSZ6Chk+6lW9auSx7fafS/U2 >>>t9Ivq4mjRmoIdkz6iPQEVVRSajd8WdB1NgULKjg2ZBNUFIgN1qyEgIJP1kmtPQMNXMYD0MOVQ095 >>>RDoiMy0YrO+7cFGSfaZBOskrYaCRJTnNAkOmTLJlSAeED8ufUGcobaTLa2WogHFpavppWKNQMl5k >>>2vBxmUYr4bVYjD5b5/CRfnakJpEgGmiV3MrSzjRkvT03Iik6pne/ZcdnreEQEAuusKaZTh4K9Bhe >>>0TN8Ngt9jvDRbO6m8BjHoy9+tmRemcbXLeKl01fTCp1XUWkvj+E14pidtcKeW5EduNNEP3NYo11G >>>ucjdmLsjTI/DJaRzbqAL09gHTuAjReDo0DBuR+LZUUdRajdVOP8gI/yVJCbwGbFEV3mmPLhCTZ3I >>>cwBYVV897WjSABOSD3pa4BGGnkcjrz8Qe2TQFQs5+i7kETyM1EVQRWyh+Iu0jFnYSLK0wGdUXFA7 >>>Ms1mFYS7S/ES8ZTkmw0YIRxMrTV4Ix+ObtxMGWoK7PdZgcgu96BVxdEc4+HNMNB6VtaD4+dF+HGk >>>nuDJcLjdc+GqGwWnQs5RIXD4Qj/n650XPH8DRB0HiuKjQgTH8S0jZUySpLNBC2QJdy8iseMUcbXB >>>dm6QwBqt+ybJa5OkKYmmHH5M2cvpV5xudGegU+BYZRWDJu0cSwGmPpfk//DIqRW0AwZ1xI4q8kr1 >>>BFN4VYXYpsCqJcH3DB/ZJeQhSQRPVYKrVtHX50FhUTqhKCEGAIE00pqtcW5rbF4LGv1vsMOKSTeB >>>aLBVU1hIaylikEbrKBYqwmEeX5ApgUNRIsq4qBvFqEuHhZrup4bh6lQaWfyICwIT9DdwZnXZ+tIl >>>GRjeEZG5lYau/VWGhlmX7HvRFhVTyvp7PRo0Mc7DjVO4Ekz2bCSdpoEWwyrYPX3KfqfJNseKvulm >>>ddRFEMmcOByljl+9/FBI0xxAcvRRT3ZE7J8hjEtC6yWZsInOJR2/SagM7E12WNZCPa81pTAE9K6H >>>iKqRvtmUXJFve6Dn8vlAedBSMhBUXXdQGCi1DhZQKjEASclThdaWSnI8Eht/WCQjTwdnsKjkZsEt >>>WRARPRJDcCQ7pC/HtYNHA3FksYQjrFg78U3w5yAmlSxyDDt0k985RlNIwYbjZ7VD/qGPxhOy8cLl >>>tlLWptrmqaXQBt52NO3SR2QuoQitrtD381BGvMThcps2x6jYpV+NqGy7wudaR/jKfRWKVVbQKkrH >>>DyYSddioYUE8Sr/UZrc/v3bGlXnJ6RAF0QM8pzeGzbpbhMen0faKgF9TavfS2cQU2WgdKik0wVEc >>>KdwXOt+IxyPvgKtWH0QHiJUSaJNN3sq97TsHTxR3S7PRoywljA5Sm61id4oG7aiZRER7GzlFA6CW >>>njh0G6KT6rXeN3IE99wBR1wbSWU6UF4nKr0kp4q8RPdNrj9p64pVBEDP52RXTXatd5LEjerTZOyR >>>Anctf5ZE1Oj7PHFARHxEayVCYtxMdMRrBQwBH+fXQh6W0orYcThqECLMJVOnax8yqEeTkpyfcP0D >>>KaOUhyECQLwwtE1IsZ9exghEEkdd8Fi4VnT9T0XEEscxe6i/CmF333RzuoTRoyns+ezxi4RCHvlw >>>s0TiDw2OQZDCSEDDi6B8NLcegy/FQFOmuFlsOtyFQU/+j+wT+6OcFVL8I0pSO0S2k5+Hb9OFqyKp >>>2youJHYqFTVgALI2MdXxqJxzp+pS9CnVP1E5Pe3KKzjc9u75TB8Mq88D7VniyR10np2ldtqxJmDt >>>0BF9ztFemiJNDoOlLqg11BMzbIxplsjnk1JpvVqlPToRUelkLDamzuZKjpqQVFOL76nMW120NdDI >>>eoCVo0iWR6FTqDYPoyLnFDzQ12ubVXn+s0Eb5ceF3zaNOeZEpJ3IApZOmZCkjhwFG6KwQcr+VRq9 >>>Zt0m62N5WcVbEioEptiSVfdpsv91ipNghk06ST7/USzF50IKyQFInsg6fDWZthFZUOfZclfMKYXu >>>bVhyiMxb5lB/nsV5/DUqzVA3lUxxtg0zdIwONc601bskSUrZuic/AWmwhAxxLoC+3ukPokgwSGiw >>>8tnu2JovB8s4GETmadedvbvBAs9nxPgg1/q4Fh1tYBhKWE8cJDjLJPdMMLE/Gkl9uWkip1LauhkQ >>>Bqi5Q8qpkVaqi5Fwym8xm8ZX+9p21PIilzRIS4uQWFZH30bGA4lza+Yhx5FyzFKhSm1m157CMT8R >>>RadRUcr8O9mUhVoK1TRJ6k/ho4/Ta7BImVmylA4oGgopX4RdBTciWdP3dhV6WWW8eTkh42+UKQyJ >>>bK6lOWqgVC5iViqUmZJ6S2NGyhv/x8BhbmIoh8Ox69blIFeObs9gwhpaixt5U8z+dimw1tJHY5RA >>>XZEG41EZEUafGIhU5NIefV+uBSZEjtj3QlTqHdiWpNaPlBXqj5ZIprIdEfuL/ktvAB4RjNExTLOF >>>dZOUXeskq2PX7Q/kqFa2i/K69EBgKKktKcexUpuubCsdeMMwaJIpqh26N79tkeBinNDaqFuIoKSc >>>a5s7rn1laVoRrpDilYGpIrwiBY+ifGAK09fJWWvnIT0rbOEqNNdkoOR8mLT0GBop8DMFzUxWzkeH >>>uRjLXh8V6ppCZk1KC+pojGUXtICTok1k2CRHdJgcDxnk/lumZtf82Z2OtkM2spR4aH5Qyg3ihtm2 >>>snzq5btxsB/Y1j80CrzgmSncVP+w/+GHeo8v/cA8b1PSd+/avSwFiwngrcHTu6qACjKGciIW08FN >>>MmSJzPesNAn1046Fl333qkq6OS/bhf0dFDof1sp8tW9IFoOgtW1jJUirehBhPMqM6EKUnxU5WvCE >>>G+esbevkgqizpr7cUV4pMFK+ZSOZUhm4FL7bpEi2iIlstLZDvp5yqH0aw8Axt5WLBQYThwnJNu00 >>>OOD9ih2FjHApfcaUcZQRYksowplCXk/h+qlyRMFy7TFaTUnWSR2th6gfkSFWUEzvfEid7zrrvm6C >>>m8nqG9k15Rkc4JHiVJpbKcw9Wn5PxdNU//4fqKSR9m0OhE720erqA1fwdI8XlC/x3z0rAMhLcpih >>>Ymt6csz2w+1PVkdkHwccSY9MrmV/jY8k/VR2/x0FuHeGUXOQvAvoixEPtsVK5h26lLHmUi/5YgxM >>>k0myghZUkjwyBZB48Sg82ok2ayRFmp8QTWrEu2Wj0qVjh0Gw0GEcHnkdftGlONVexTy2WYNs3HoS >>>o6xDIh3dK4PTJ7OMwnde7GmdXBgk2jhZ1lIsKnzUOWIU0iwikqpFmEQVhmlhpf1aIVI48KAAwBSc >>>FUaLwOlprFwKiXN+8WYHJ9eTLaNAav6RpnNMTRBiOj16gkoHLblCWoQW5wmthYAzws7IXSibBkA8 >>>GiBS0ZSuHJZYv8TGR+3wEfvcVY8A0OMld7/HKr+xE6clpEmaEjEjZnER876KhAjdM6nl3lGAQT6W >>>kWT/Szp7oL92hjctENyKl9Ks0p7bSKroT8Ilj9Qs8yLW2Cq4isARrrSV84+Moj5qBA8YM8aP+EzP >>>X2UQpJ9WEqaH6GsWbYqd7bO1Nts0+RLEdOxVDaZqU5W1ykTQRYsgUqEwzKSuPzLoHf6d+/8UMofs >>>IcmkdEW2ZN3nN4rVZWzHMeLpk/WwGGfKiZUpVHJRzEbO+476dZ5vTJMAKFAUKedy6o9hbVVKVTgu >>>ubaupuzjwBhnMrLP0eSkxQLNy9DPk+I/zT4nY4NZRDZXemdnvN3fP1Z3wM+2vngEkO6qD5f39x+B >>>oPjKRzwqQMN+UYUnVhLsmDcBvhiqbmdtFBkQaqQUeX/Wwo+MWeHf/0DF+PZLx2A6uxHGUMKMjwND >>>X/Tt8aLYTopyRbkRpXmq9XUqDpbZSAEiMjBHUSt3jt5Aw7xN15qcMVz6RsVxaEOOM4WVkgxl1wWE >>>5mrfpPy+lPbaFs5DWDJIwnU9TTMXrCfTEoKN0sTkkFPUCw1cFSexrm1wzVX3eWz9Q4fZpjrWM4SD >>>ZTDmxMjs8xXZ6SoyGxGuPVa+spLtqKCRhBK580VOwrHXMR3Z1rG/8lLWUVx6iOLSTgEbecnyuRkp >>>hDxATze1Mqj1onmFEYgHy0Vl8uFApT0AiO4eAZ4P1ba6Nx99uAS0qovvgbnLWuBzf1XsvJpsV8ZB >>>Fwpd255Zb8GgtTJ0kVPrgYN1Z2duwXj2mrkMGlweshNzHbBC517wIpiIzCZGrZ7kq5GmWG0tINFp >>>ax1IUlW21vTaZXpalGXUaQ9KwUlF9sjpKErZZaZqZiwJRQNHdC7YHpUOGaIaUu4/terasW2VZUx2 >>>7Fxq5EEvs4b+Xrs2dm3fb3StkzSZ9fXBynAIJDGAdLIiKt4gKfRRjk0Wdgm1XV8yyMGZOG/RkfyA >>>aYqKFpJlkNwoVa7rAYElx5CQ3rRkTUH77DH0Cqm8RhtKDTPqvHCqg/B5tWzVVcnoUle3YKgLoujj >>>ff3x+48VMHVnm0aw0awBWAwTuU8WLn1jkl8vvZX1gVjpJYKkr4dAEYLZz4xGrmX/Kk4lOdLitYws >>>tiksIVGSFCTiSxth+ehYsi0DEzJoSZGj1i6a/H/4DJ9+UuWjw/MMJO2VFIHfXxMwtm0seBMsSxo2 >>>Zehk2LAShQy8EiVTaYLGCBJZInGcc5iHsj4qYji6XvMUybbQyJPcNId3ClsVUFGh2qCRFq2dZV84 >>>R5ZHYRWFFqnpYi6BHCMqmT23MdhQTsAQgHkZdOIpi5+IKR3tXI6vqbVRg0TVC2sFvXqFHw2lLspG >>>2rkkEkykdGolPM1K2guhlBrpqebxcltVQNA9DdpHWLS7DyCjjyG1Laoq1Yk1lEd1+RSyXS8DnENy >>>UZPj2kMYuaFUDAjemlQQg9uj4kd9UultKffsGdariWK3obRdS6UNm7RLGwKKZbCmFdquzjKb4l8J >>>2dIM1fykXL84CGOpRQvIBW1d4afu6hKLzgE/RsKpEHlYR2pR3x06wQqUIWIR0TpcN9WrcvbF2tuE >>>IG5hgdS4DhukUI80kqSUaUBiONTeZ9VBhhvhuNI0R5/DU5tygPEUAe5XkTQGPU1RDWVnTZOyUCvP >>>YolxnKMBhlRxnL/Cqs5xfGZGcMzzJhz3sfB33qNzIpXVRqx9rRkwRNdXIYwyGRFOyf4z+Ob+4/cw >>>aX+8kCT6QKv3Qft9wFpNCyctpd7hJIIFy3Kj6m1BvQoQdRLWg4uN0iueUqeQ+3NSDrfC9MrtX1S3 >>>0hPEnKCmQRBRK/QjoxFy2YKOStVnd57E0DKdL65Svqd0IVsZaofAUtlaKxpi5oYGjOfdM2zZ2Yyw >>>tIHJFZa/aB5AJ7ITD9JbGDT5Yuhd30+0EDYDg3cMcXtKhpL/ytDy+eQ4j7v9ZZxrt/UqfrBKDyJq >>>uzn+OAa4chTyZBSZeqI6d8y+ViRGREhKELtaaWBli3kGDwaop6DHnqXmtrxFLieXonNAow+x7ai1 >>>WzxSaOi9BiwP47OC0ISKKStVY8/51yAk0gn0BRq3trQGaO4e72nDqg9X99kKQhxBJVWPO1fyaBZK >>>E6RmJKWQPpxwpMBRSLXZbcP6s5NoabzavGP9kS2QzzwFGVGao7sBj0EG2uSql04JkRTd3Th2FLUw >>>eNnxzBzXVvyRpwoa3rHWzSizCG9UyjYONStdNCjEaIJoajo7noPYUwXbUUc7RoBQAeDJfXB0WEkJ >>>82NQUvDESR0lsnqR6x/1r/h6OGifO5VpxyQYl/o77mnCyaYsVBCpJKyZTSet3XTqx6z+RZwiGT6h >>>7dYKLr0owsXNso8ZjGtjSF947jnjFIOmC3HrGB4yXQenyFANWauev1FxfylNfD+TkUzVLmZb4N0H >>>OGof7x/t8t9fkowe7y3LyWHEFrqw4YH3UNlN1JMIRinL6/I1MN4FJenBqNIohD2zju16+bVzlqVN >>>4Qh3QyRUaAY/vXGgUtcG/XujcxwSQa4pEhMteGZ7hVFFTJwqUglgNeOQrk4i19lbwoxaVYba3RPD >>>mccZvEds0KUHEb5TDzN2NNCW0Qb0Siqww+joIGoDK0cbUkTurRgULeTUycLQyNW19Ka6PNkoclWK >>>n7Pmz2HI8OpPMXUtrJudrXgfVDQ5oATh1UdJr4obpZodcbDdc9hUOhvGbW2B5NlTQBK168g0Voyh >>>LkQGJABtD2LNog7O9ACYnqpIu16+ev/31ZPoCBLicQstbSTdkYseq4s66Igw+iC7xrK3xOpJOIJ7 >>>y3YK7cs6KQsWU4w6hyEZdTw4QULTNWrGCApcuive6AaVrd2hiZAX9jiEJskz1YZGwBnNRJ0jd0ZW >>>q0xbTafMuViDQVAR83juY9dVjSZjc8uwzxXbpTORSuk0qj1BVVzNSLiSQIHepNKJZP+pd4W21BKJ >>>56uSajIJ6LwXZ80tpiPRVqioQLpJQQBX+oxO11kV5WxMLjqKQoMxgtenyXGDwOXaTqHZSmLrGLzk >>>Kb6TEqz+FXGSTuDkk5pyxHIQJLOmov+JJ9gJgJs+Pw/BQEvqbOIhXhkolJ8ifb1vNP8xXH0/hdsv >>>G9H9BDq6e/wAFrq8f9zawCl2JPq6guP/iHjADh2PumeaNRaX7HOA/Kq0MaVG4oyj4KAIQQSKDnwW >>>1K54G75/lBkONZLmkiP3YB/G2ZYagjp97uZCAMllefS2S3UgqbETz6gqg5KqqU1OiyhMyVJQ5UUw >>>0QsoxjBQindPPaV4AZV92+XESOc4ExWsU2muGVnbKkyUSi7kDjFexBQlBbuhtkenLgp5a7ZzJ3+W >>>72uAcpFJk/LY2QclFOV4FUFfxTRGGiSSsuOYfbYpJPeoV0UTeuVZE59h1Dj1d5zreQeTm4ys5ZvT >>>IjRvzwMdNtVchTGwz9ZEUeC+sVWDjiSz186L3L9R2XxRaWrZ1+Chyz9CGj3efxB+PlhrS3NLcNOs >>>VZFeh8WUsZxl1u5ZPruFUSs1LTT14iKbtJg1gj3AR+ec39+4KtN52ORyPGOFnh8/V0mwCvcHze4Y >>>hkxPKoTcN21EhkrHE2ePrQQXw8LXUn+q4w6+wkHZZcMzeKpu1UZdJbcuuQLFog0nfEyDVYf8oM53 >>>EIlykcnKSNqJTpErkVyHtB4jzQoeemGfvTFMhMYQk2rJsFGGqdqI0Xw05WxslkNFpHzf5m1DI8Uy >>>vgjpz4PnH7OUuQ8PX9k5GrDh16IrZ5HX8PcPFEmDIsRh9iOEVg4KF9bKpzJZiSajNqpt1O4tjQym >>>mlVfJSbnXP6Xu0fg6OKPF4hE2ub9cU6yfZQ7VzXOueiogaKdjlc75JC6NopHQjd3awW3eYeMdHCc >>>EpsvobPf/1vpsAmoB7kRpkc0181gydzjaLgLgFnA9LmLWqnksIaK05qmnH01OGnSy2IrFbh8Lk00 >>>e1Xqlao8QL+NLHzRQIPJDzZzWCoikZT56Nb1kT5bryHfi3f6TDpcpUB9oeQhK8iLY9euTQPTOgKG >>>J8a/FWACQbwIMP0w50ToWxmug8NApwBQEZRjnSM3zaHEyN2q5BcE83J0MZpQ1HeyVcLf5BmYBXXd >>>GDjOoqnXNZwGeQwCsUt+hpBsqlkjI+0b3yABVLQje7jjH7NVi1xa0ygQWcNqXfzxnki6oyJSqPL+ >>>0tpoKxFef7xHBoPl/YuW09lwwGYmpKnL1SKW2XwMz30/TxIhPqiBmHm9vL5+t10TckNjE5Y6q6R5 >>>WjCD4a2jkPTKUBTc5uxhaQ2jyBFoRNkPFqVRYeOKW05j+Mm1SUPIp0/YrWfCVvWQCvsef2pcDsDq >>>h7L2UVwZ18TkkbhTRT9PDZvn1q4VBMiA6j3aZ0NU5OFeyLJoXsao+bQvBsZ66o4eMEMaYvZCzF8S >>>Ek9v518XhY8sWxYSzFm7fOjjSRUG47PUtctkU3wscR7eZFRDFj6MomDTSOpaY8z0GsVRIOaEZwxi >>>NAwWjjm56XStXo2ayegOaVzuigaEXdsCMBBJDD7eV87LEmlb2TWmbi/LgQclHS00x63RTpcq8++6 >>>LhDTq4iN8vp5MIR6T4tk9nON/f70bnN990URRkceBcDe1WxKSbDaN/JpmtVZkopQ2jLIv1OKVlk1 >>>QanNtQ3KttUpLFiZcqy7xVS7WY+7bg75tR33rDzGaoksV9l0s/zVVLrIMExviiHVLwoIDaNv/eB4 >>>chbaiG2PY1Rou7Z8jLjiKcrtuyNFjCJ/smjJs8B9G6KoN4rK7Bx7zLkxT6cspmznMmh5NolxadYP >>>rTnHxbGBk0/Z0BPJFcyQSOitna59pv5QyanDj71LYyORafPD6bCoWcwlsm8StVVkzNgN7Q8fPhpJ >>>9YfKDr81EozZB6XbmHSrPKcfmFQsu6nmvO+TMmHgDxNPH9gYedsaySZWAtCwPZOuLq/fvcv6CETh >>>2GVEIV/ranMhcJdT8qntIkCgGmzVOAJFOMQuT1NrTDqlHLmGhVKvEUrvQJ+G3Q4+qggezdsjNdW+ >>>RwkJidaGd994lv8kReNJRusp3/CItYdDkFUaLZMmV06OOaQzRf7LuZUiZNNp9HSUXGT4egcVfvlF >>>36NAD06yfzVmczdOERZ3iHt27oOGnlUAwpsiKt5Y5N0GU1g4fIoCnPK3mI4+pF7RbKoPNvWBWSIl >>>zDlbVvKoZsQw1f937ZH/lfKGZdfARh8u+FyFZQOcvn/U2rb6/iN8uNIVtbWTvm+guepcsiM6UgFJ >>>UqbtkG+Al94WtcGuQR8pgC3Vkxp7doPLu1V9Ivkte6dIecm7OXS8ukAWq2FdBhX8o6mzn/bKpCmS >>>pAqExvFuCSGOAU0/YEdivojmhPLZVQH0Cn3Ln+7gAgPZM8WqqYxeBJcXx2IcTLLgngan/8dwptdG >>>HEOA8raKN0Rmk2JTmZxc6+fExJRnB4V/L+D0mXWKWVvPO8RtHyZrN4e7NHfImC0so/yjfTFFeMmm >>>jh8Yv2sVQCrF2buS34nM5OIJRqox5YM3g0A7RqcH08S/D674wDdqGDQiSWR0T1VNDw7vLr5nVBLS >>>G+8qRzdrzE5q5oA4reVl8xsUpLm0totaf6wRSWmuiOxyAXcJnU1/jY4+NdDrzAARkq2zahuZTR0O >>>r0VCrhD6rCxZUIyLIVk3C0L5ySRVWhcqwFqqarvZp3bBPRk7PjjGqEmcvo8PwSfXn2UCmnpuqxNd >>>04eI7U0MnDc4uN9NUDGHhCXPukvblO/lNnkCZRGoMLymnPay3B5cszTk2wV4Ob2WWhYhbF6LHsNf >>>K6bjmHkGmkFBbGX8fcOKwkGo8ejf73PoMo689l1eIZBYrE6vIuey+gO1gzVHz2zqk4NHoI7mhzcU >>>dD9HtdmEEhA/MWi0paN2+cE+PyD13+7o9gNMjm1vGfuuxQG17zlRz2k6ZctpyvJ8kd75svxvbflD >>>RoJjeYH40T/9TWYrGT8WR7qOPoxbikRJJ3c+KXUhaOn6dHej5Hh2lIxwdbdPjlHnpC3dVpY9qBgJ >>>gqhXfQTHb8lCvMa3W8Hfp9fK3FymzYiO+kWpzrVG+ODpFYzyQWkPhkM/A2XI3XSyITpF3NA1rFLe >>>sigoC4KkTg6Iy+iMTv6OLiZwinbM5FNkjCn4OH6dIsMxznQUt8ES2CFLO4UbeBZE1OBE7tS/avQQ >>>eRohCjlJI9kgyLIoP9SoAKxhaYTm3zMntpsV9mO2R8ia1XZ9yvvtxQd4bCw+Eitdiot+YNzo8oOy >>>JI+XqpmnPKUhWLxWM+ELK5MRw9ednfcu6yIuz0nJ2Oy7XVAfKf7tEGQSo4Y75pLJ5PmWfCpVJRzR >>>pm7IlUJCSYZQI9k2I0qFkCKXSOGauWgeZas0kUlWjTd50t3DdoFFzwu1wh4i5xk5Vk93zkp7PcyK >>>5lWtxM29TqowtLpxCfUMr1PMYpVK93x8WsqjYlBhayKzWxiLY0z1H4iqY3ATq+VQsR8BoYFMZKs2 >>>RnnjFOk03y908P3BxohmC5E6DSXZUu/cFANGltpk5EEzadnMZPLEZNiOAmimo/rCOX/rI00ebB6B >>>ou2WqvreyohIsqFjhPJDffdfL1jFtohOq+tce1JfKk1b2jb1ciEzZsa1gDMbN/ISfu5PqGO7izgQ >>>02tK6UYMsk2eM5kim+aSIQmkIWbdDY3vg6H4YpZH+4gnlZZMrTWTqozKqCeHGaMOhXzuWaGj2/no >>>MqSQEDNoHYRKDlT5RkBZA6/V7fOdkKJY2/XYXjuKTl7kBVH8OIw0hUpWTusUnDT4MCenSklBPOAU >>>BsypsUmKqMhW0kgdwizOAsqJEYQSWRU7HmKi5mGKGm7fr85I0reKccoajeHHJJPKKYaqFVN+34HA >>>gW6RavxI/uAO3k2LRf6zKM4RSOsk1RZSHslbY7DRESN+LH9NioqYuvihp2StE+96louPrLIuu9IO >>>2kBtrelqvNGIS/tt3foDZvmvJb9H8NH12bNmZ7piiljiPAXipxXweCDFNOmBrpyYdTXtNypV8h0w >>>AJOffM+RxggPRmrDSxOb6S5brHNj1Zpq0VTk9XXPG/ToFpnIYjMA5fn/IQzUmodhyNLUQvllTilw >>>qA9D1NZmzTo6bD3at7PGfjn5dmnFKbvncch8gy7xkSZbjq9lZqeQ1WMunM3aZpwyoYTKnvLsSiEJ >>>mEZ8JY1z4GmStkOyCgEwFbkwOOpykcimqEi7H+aCjYgbtVFvnRx4ZiYM7TNn1e5rZMoe5xgS2po9 >>>VT1uUQ35UdK6vnQ+RMEkoqlGRdL9o921VO40F6x+5TcSUuq7fIsjqSRNfKTTBkYSKTmEJOndDR+h >>>j/75m3DuGcpOQxecNMpnGFAMl1IUKOn2OrLVUs5241TF3dojI3aqvX0uPqO60/fqYUAtK/GGaEu6 >>>8TbJ/BkTRna6VR2nzOBBgyb+LptDFI7ILT/IluV7HvUZIS+q0OhlcFzCbasmDJ1kM+ZUhm0U71+s >>>mNDaSYs5q7u2iKFomjLAnFEbFAIaIjQuy6ZZaVBpPrRAwdkD65GZpzdmLSdXaH+7cZxLUjwvYRrn >>>KlxUB6wltB1Bblw9xmBsiipmef+8jZ8r2TQbBPxS388IeFRlGhXr/XZ795EpWtSyIYYEY0YE3dU0 >>>cY93inMjvTa4Cnql8N2s2WkBVW805FmPtG0lkYTLS7Zwuum9zFpKhwvMg2T8CDat7XJtvZz61nDq >>>cw1J0oXwF+mw9Z3dOEWQaH5Y+Gg/zOFHV2sypGSRjYh2uHAKJfG2NQeXv6PZm0Z3WyUnKabt41DX >>>6zQci7R8cf+us0lx4CYUcRiduH1krtQXjpwk84xaW7UgiGJU/CAqN4YIOKvEac7PD9l+iZJQTk3Y >>>nIJTcjmTtL9rLHX3Ikue0RLfkSOJo3HqxyytzIm+9e4zRbbycutc2e/aK/o3ybjyHThZzM5Q5Aye >>>j/dR5OhCRpmIH2DWPtxtH+8ohSrg5uM9NBTrtFVGIhRtMfkancGbbu3L5lcVcZdVchE2uUTToHAy >>>62fwEXvMlndNjTRKaA+wa+eYT+tcTkQgpalsTSIoz3Gh+dVWLTRmJSNJmt+muxR0ubq/Vq7MJf17 >>>qabIuXW8AZJnbyv2rTkgSVO2UqnC8gioOtmLxvpNa2YXjuLeI1MIUpPPUIyvDnwUiIXAlg/vT4e4 >>>w8h87z9x0no8GSmFtEyYREn1wQUqo+d+H0+zXxUJl/nut64Ct71zyNpOV9dlpT1E7EFPKbLCQ8yL >>>GlzHdnThEUn1MEjPpTwHsVOR6hDT18jkZGzdlLbL4SOn73MsCSvSUTX/66kL8ZHC2Jw4QuiorM1I >>>+vARpYVORDS+3XaOIODznaYMeTJ+cihRc7SZNIT1Tc9229ZREnCx0fz+Voqoi6xsxLFzKe6Q/f5S >>>85MYdvftchrXxvS+f470T5JNC7NmB61TcS3DijplKMDEaWyqGVtz5uW4Zkjke40D5dg0YfT/UPXt >>>yG1k25boyogGzZICQCDSYBktDaTKASqiQT2jR0HKSDDiATBeldFDaPAaJ4066dQU2nmZznE0iQ4G >>>BnCDI3hGr88+Sd6SiqIofoDEzv1Ze611klKZRCV4cPx0NxgWXOfyYVc1RM4wAhAub4F1L9qQSuKd >>>2IiUuceV460LYCi88S1/RLM+lCogEDxgmNNZqfrfviqSK6XE85pYljS944N9e0W0Su8Udk633p5a >>>tvyLHwxhSS9FJ+eOyVYjkhQSwqt+1U1aNpcr3SGv1B3hSqH4HD2ji1X0FP32SfjLkVGk7ohoJOKG >>>rDV1SY6ih8fvh4cNTdh6mvk1bk4/ZCTviJP2asWQtOBsPlhCR+yOEPue24b1z/f3d3+bte99oMe1 >>>oB7FitD6EJWvJoj/MsiiX/YwyG1WSgFGzwuhI+trXzxUIiKOjLkLhlXGRj6rP+INioUZ2cvy5+m6 >>>byRCbBlLnEfOL/lseOFSsBwokSlKuPuptrW1ueF7rDN2mtHNXmYEqRq0M3wWpcZQeS8uJpiIcHaz >>>OcjbO4BQKkSuMhwfjsqkw6FKFdoa3cyWwyK5SPxRR79Xu7lo62x0iYQ8shjcHpFbKNM8/I49rW5b >>>XFSOOULuuPBy0u86S65Fmq2odgizqZJo9qvder/CwKbPYOyslY80qq2/MZpW36kGE2/E3Xt33Mx1 >>>7TpIQUfCI2V+hdaig465mngM0CRTNjxMFGT+fWU+5Kze9F7tYsa2rWqSJtAwCgiLS+H1E52xJRmx >>>aU1v0NGiBkXQycKosw1Fhrqi9bjG3u11VJFqSOs8koR+ogvPC5d0VN7ahSSZnRI+fSV2bEawabVg >>>D+Pg3Zb6SvNzjDb7Q21ZlFno47B6c++kz/gRcm2dHYHvtRgi74SMwGyCXAwKFPdGc7UznQ0/ldVJ >> >>------------------------- 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!!!-------------------- >> >> >> > =========================================================== 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: "We Took That Mountain" Date: 11 Nov 1996 09:38:33 -0700 (MST) Dear Friends, In honor of Veterans Day, 1996, would anyone mind terribly if I re-posted the essay I wrote on behalf of my father's story among the first wave of Marines to hit Iwo Jima, on his birthday in 1945? I will use majority rule (just this once :). He was 26 years old that day. /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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Thank you Veterans! Date: 11 Nov 1996 09:58:15 -0700 (MST) >I now understand that my Government lied to me . I was 19 at the time (1966) >and had no idea that the Government was not "Of the People , By the People >and For the People ". > >The real reason for the war was in part to make some people richer. > >One side effect was to test a new generation weapons in combat conditions . >At a cost of blood . > >Harry Dear Harry, When I was a political science intern in Washington, D.C., during the summer of 1969, I was able to spend some time at the Pentagon public library, investigating Pentagon weapons mistakes since World War II. One of the more significant mistakes I found was the Sheridan tank (I believe). This tank was designed to ride low to the ground, and the cannons were unique for using combustible cartridges. This meant that the main cannon did not eject a brass cartridge after firing; the whole thing blew out the end of the barrel, cartridge and all. There was a small "problem," however. The cartridge material was highly combustible (had to be), and some of it failed to blow out the barrel. When crews re-opened the breach, to re-load, this flaming torch came blowing back into the crew compartment, burning hand and faces, and also igniting other shells on the floor of the tank. This, of course, caused the tank to blow into a million pieces, and the crews with it. The Pentagon had put this tank into service before the bugs were worked out, it seems, and they also failed to provide the crews with instruction manuals to deal with these "problems." When the instruction manual finally did arrive, it contained directions for enclosing the unfired rounds in rubber bags, complete with their own zippers. Now, what is the one thing that every zipper always does? You got it: they stick. So, you find yourself in an intense firefight, and the zipper is stuck. What now, Robert MacNamara? To make matters worse, the low profile of the tank motivated the designers to put the engine radiator in the floor of the frame, pointing downwards, parallel to the ground. This position caused radiators to entrain brush and vegetation, blocking the air flow, and causing engines to overheat and fail. When the famous "instruction manual" arrived, it contained a directive to stop the tank every 15 minutes, exit the tank, reach under the tank, between the tread wheels, and remove any brush or vegetation which had accumulated there. So, now, picture this firefight. You are firing like mad to protect yourself, or your buddies in the neighboring Sheridan, and the zippers are getting stuck. To make matters worse, your fifteen minutes are up, so now you need to poke your head out of the turret, hold up your hands like a basketball referee, and shout, "TIME OUT!!" Whereupon, you will climb under the tank, while the enemy is looking the other way, or taking a cigarette break, and remove all the brush and vegetation which are about to cook your 2,500 horsepower supercharged diesel into so much scrap iron. Robert MacNamara, are you listening? Hello, Robert, is anybody home? Time in. /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: boydk Subject: Re: Win 95/FAT32 Date: 11 Nov 1996 09:04:55 -0800 (PST) On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > At 07:44 AM 11/10/96 -0800, you wrote: > >On Sun, 10 Nov 1996, Mark Filipak wrote: > > snip > >> freedom tool? > >> (If a concensus feels I'm wrong I'll keep this sort of thing off-list, > >> but I WwaAasS asked.) > > > >In your first post, as a "confirmed leftie", you said you were going to > >shut up until you got "the lay of the land". > > > >Perhaps you should do what you said you would do, if that is within the > >scope of your talents. > >Harry Barnett > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > It certainly sounds to me as > if Windows 95 with FAT32 is > well within his talents, and > I for one would like to hear > more from him. When I read > his statement about "the lay > of the land", I took that to I think what Harry, in his inimitably concise manner, was trying to say, is that it's sometimes considered impolite to fwd email to a list (w/out the originators permission anyway) and also that something like this could really bloat list traffic with things like flames from Macintosh users. I mean, just 'cause our file systems have been part of a monolithic 32 bit operating system for YEARS is no reason to think we'd all start sucking up bandwidth with "advice" on computer use. No sir, never happen ; ) > /s/ Paul Mitchell > Citizen of Arizona, a Republic Boyd, posting from a computer that understands the year 2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: TWA 800: THE FACTS (fwd) Date: 11 Nov 1996 10:16:03 -0800 (PST) On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > Lt. Cmdr. Rob Newell, a Navy spokes- > man...said...an Aegis-type missile > cruiser, was 185 miles to the south... > [and that] the only aircraft in the > area was a P-3 Orion anti-submarma- > rine plane, which he said does not > carry missiles. But the military > reference, Janes All The World's > Aircraft, states the P-3 is cap- > able of carrying missiles. > Take it from an expert. P-3s do not carry air-to-air missiles. Yes, the capability exists, which means that the aircraft wiring can be adapted for missiles, but fitting an air-to-air missile to a P-3 anti-submarine warfare weapons system is analogous to fitting a snow plow attachment to a Ford Escort. It can be done, but why would anyone do it? Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Thank you Veterans! Date: 11 Nov 1996 10:11:37 -0800 (PST) On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:58:15 -0700 (MST) > From: Paul Andrew Mitchell > Reply-To: roc@xmission.com > Subject: Thank you Veterans! > > > >I now understand that my Government lied to me . I was 19 at the time (1966) > >and had no idea that the Government was not "Of the People , By the People > >and For the People ". > > > >The real reason for the war was in part to make some people richer. > > > >One side effect was to test a new generation weapons in combat conditions . > >At a cost of blood . > > > >Harry > > > > Dear Harry, > > When I was a political science intern > in Washington, D.C., during the summer > of 1969, I was able to spend some time > at the Pentagon public library, > investigating Pentagon weapons mistakes > since World War II.... > > [***] > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > =========================================================== > Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com > ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > =========================================================== > > Point of clarification: I, "Harry", did NOT make the above statements which a reader, lacking any other data, might attribute to me. The quote is also apparently presented as a ROC posting that is being responded to. The source posting is not in MY ROC log. Where did it come from? Mr. Mitchell, I presume it was not your intent to be ambiguous, and I appreciate you attempt to save bandwidth. However, please be so kind as to leave sufficient attribution so that people can unambiguously identify sources. I use originators to establish the credibility of what is being said. I suspect others do also. ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Innerarity Subject: TAX SEMINAR Date: 11 Nov 1996 13:18:17 -0500 PHILADELPHIA AREA For all who are interested, Michael Allamby, author of "To The Best of my Knowledge and Belief" will be giving a tax seminar on November 14, 1996, Thursday evening at 7:00pm at the 1st Baptist Church Auditorium, Aston, Pennsylvania. Loads of free, private and secure parking. This will be unlike any other tax seminar you have attended or will attend. Invited are all tax professionals, revenue agents, tax attorneys, accountants, public officials, elected officials, and, of course, taxpayers and tax-payers. There is a $25 donation. From I-95 take Exit 2 , Route 452 north (Pennel Road) three traffic lights. Church is on left side of road opposite Sunoco distributing center. From Route 1 and points north, take 452 south. Church would then be on right side of road opposite Sunoco distributing. This seminar is not for tax evaders or those engaged in illegal tax activity. -----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: Skip Leuschner Subject: Not so fast Date: 11 Nov 1996 10:30:24 -0800 (PST) In case you haven't heard, renegade Linda [Smith] may not have lost her seat in congress after all. It has become clear that more conservatives than liberals voted abesentee in WA, and as they are processing those late arriving ballots, Linda Smith has edged into the lead and the gap is widening ever so slowly, with margins still in the low hundreds. Final results not expected until mid-Nov after the mandatory recount recount required in such a close race. Take that AFL-CIO gurus - another $mil or two shot to hell (hopefully). If you like Linda's "in your face" style, and her very lonely CFR stand (has taken no PAC money since early '95), say a prayer, cross your fingers, or do whatever brings good luck/karma at your house. Thanks, Skip. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Thank you Veterans! Date: 11 Nov 1996 14:50:25 -0700 (MST) Dear Harry and Friends, Please forgive me for failing to leave sufficient attribution below. I am getting flooded again with incoming email, and I am going as fast as I can just to keep up with all of it. I slipped, obviously. (Excessive snipping? See sentencing guidelines for the U.S. District Court:) /s/ Paul Mitchell At 10:11 AM 11/11/96 -0800, you wrote: >On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:58:15 -0700 (MST) >> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >> Reply-To: roc@xmission.com >> Subject: Thank you Veterans! >> >> >> >I now understand that my Government lied to me . I was 19 at the time (1966) >> >and had no idea that the Government was not "Of the People , By the People >> >and For the People ". >> > >> >The real reason for the war was in part to make some people richer. >> > >> >One side effect was to test a new generation weapons in combat conditions . >> >At a cost of blood . >> > >> >Harry >> >> >> >> Dear Harry, >> >> When I was a political science intern >> in Washington, D.C., during the summer >> of 1969, I was able to spend some time >> at the Pentagon public library, >> investigating Pentagon weapons mistakes >> since World War II.... >> >> [***] >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> =========================================================== >> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> =========================================================== >> >> > >Point of clarification: I, "Harry", did NOT make the above statements >which a reader, lacking any other data, might attribute to me. > >The quote is also apparently presented as a ROC posting that is being >responded to. The source posting is not in MY ROC log. Where did it >come from? > >Mr. Mitchell, I presume it was not your intent to be ambiguous, and I >appreciate you attempt to save bandwidth. However, please be so kind >as to leave sufficient attribution so that people can unambiguously >identify sources. I use originators to establish the credibility of >what is being said. I suspect others do also. > >----- >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > =========================================================== 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: "We Took That Mountain" Date: 11 Nov 1996 15:11:07 -0700 (MST) So far, the vote is: YES 5 no 0 to re-post the essay "We Took That Mountain." Unless there is a late rush of absentee ballots, I will post it asap. Thanks, everyone, and thanks to you, Dad, for your incredible courage under heavy fire. We are honored to walk in your shadow, and to stand on your shoulders. /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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: "We Took That Mountain" Date: 11 Nov 1996 15:13:12 -0700 (MST) [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] "We Took That Mountain" by John E. Trumane all rights reserved I often wonder what it was like. You have trained hard at Parris Island, slogged through mud on your belly, 50 calibers whizzing two feet overhead. Some guys just lost it, went crazy, sent home. I often wonder. What would be going through your mind as you see Mt. Surabachi approaching in the smokey distance, a narrow slit on the horizon framed by your helmet and the lip of the landing craft. Your eyes turn left, just as a shell takes a direct hit on the next craft over, bodies and body parts go flying in every which direction. You close your eyes and ask yourself: they were no different from us. The Navy behind you is pouring in 12-inch guns at a ferocious pace; they scream through the air near the speed of sound, and echo back delayed destruction. You trust those gunners; their aim is awesome, always near the mark. The waves are changing shape, the water is getting shallow. More fifty calibers are whizzing by, this time getting closer. Some ping off the craft, a metal wash tub with twin diesels. You reach the crest of a wave, and then surf into hell, as the ramp falls and it's the moment of truth. You don't have time to ask, what am I doing here, because you are running for dear life. You recognize the sound of your captain yelling, hit the sand and crawl in, men. Dig in beyond the water line. The Japs are ferocious too. This is their last air base before the mainland. Two runways, actually. One at each end. These fascists will stop at nothing to defend their Emperor. We huddle in our makeshift sand castles, trying to keep our powder dry. My job: get the machine gun close in, take out all buildings, and secure the first runway. We sit while the Navy pours it on, big guns now, every 5 seconds. The roar is deafening. Men are dying, screaming, bleeding. What am I doing here? The captain over there loses it, goes crazy. A GI yanks him in a trench and knocks him cold, our new squad commander, ok by me. The Navy is relentless, big guns every second now. How can they reload so fast? American engineering: we machinists know all about it -- the best ever, bar none. The smoke is choking us alive, thick and black, sulfurous, hot ashen coral raised to plasma temperatures. Why would anybody want to work here? The Navy waits, to let the smoke clear, assay the damages. Eerie silence. There is nothing in front of us except black sand with huge meteor craters, freshly made. Move out, we hear, and our training kicks in. No time to think, just keep moving. My buddy comes near. We take inventory: one water cooled machine gun, one thousand rounds, more for the asking, tripod, carbine, back pack, portable shovel, pick, what we're wearing. That's it. Move out. We come upon bodies, lots of them, still, mangled, lifeless. Don't look down; just look forward. We drag heavy loads through black sand and ash. No color anywhere; just black and white and grey, lots of it. A shot from behind, a Marine down, killed in action, right in the back. So, they lay there feigning injury, only to pop up as we pass by. Ok, that's it. No prisoners. We pull our butcher knives and go for throats. Grisly, effective. Every Marine is priceless, every one expendable. Like Lawrence, of Arabia. Time starts to fade into slow motion. We inch along, take this tree, that palm, this bunker. Charlie gets a flame thrower, we watch in muted shock. Nothing is too terrible now; we are going to TAKE that runway. Night falls, sleep impossible. Charlie screams his insults in strange Jap accents. Almost funny, almost. We count our losses: Billy, Johnny, Efraim, Christopher, Sassy Brooks, Zeb, Mack and Danny. All gone, all dead, going home now. The sun rises in front of us, framing another rising sun flapping in the breeze. The runway, not far ahead, beckons to our instincts, the killer kind. We creep in silently, no resistance. Japs are gone, only snipers high up in the palms, sitting ducks. Stupid too. Kamikazes with no planes, brain washed. We take turns, it's a shooting gallery. This isn't even funny. We take their guns, worthless rounds, and break 'em. The eerie silence is broken now by fading gun shots. A moment of calm descends upon this seething smoking inferno. We hear the faint drone of a Jap Zero, headed for home. He never got word: this runway is history. He glides in, bouncy landing, taxies to one end. Marines watch, reload quietly, no orders this time. We all know what we're going to do. Pilot cuts his engine, opens the canopy, we open up. Shells pour in again, this time from M-1's and machine guns, dozens, hundreds, thousands of rounds shred the Zero into bits and pieces, glass, rubber and aluminum flying every which direction. That plane is history too. We revel, leave it to block the runway. Some take souvenirs. The rest reload. I pee in the barrel jacket again. One down. One to go. Time again slows down. How many days now? Two? Three? I can't remember. We trudge along. More ammo arrives. Food too. C-rations. Yumm. We urinate into the barrel to save water. This place is hot, very hot, almost too hot. Too hot for comfort, for sure. We set our sites for runway two, in that clearing, up ahead. Mortar fire, first scattered, then regular, now a frequent problem. My buddy and I move in, stake out a position, start to dig, his shovel worthless against the hard-packed coral. They rolled this runway, very hard, asphalt nowhere. My pick is working, thank God. I dig, he removes debris. It's still slow going. We dig for our lives. More mortars. Oh, no. They've zeroed our position. You can tell as blasts come closer, faster. This one, right now, you can hear, is coming right in. Billy, take cover, I yell. He dives in one direction, I in another. The blast almost takes his hands off, the ring in my ears unbearable. Through the smoke, I see Billy's hit, hit bad, motionless, moaning. I crawl to him, he's still alive. Japs figure our machine gun's out, they re-target. Billy goes over my left shoulder, and two carbines over my right. Forget the machine gun; too heavy; takes two anyway. We're now one and a half, Marines that is. Billy breathes, but barely, can't talk, bleeding bad. I trudge through deep sand, echoes of smoke fill the air, me yelling Medic! Medic! Billy needs help, OVER HERE. Nobody hears, too much chaos. I trudge, I trudge. Something is hot, liquid, near my jaw. I been too busy to check myself. I raise my right hand to feel my pulse, blood is pouring down by wrist. I am hit. I don't even know it. What gives? Is this some bad dream? I realize, that's IT. I'm OUT OF HERE. Next stop, the hospital ship. Medics near now. I collapse in their arms, totally, completely, utterly exhausted, and pass out, and dream of my beautiful bride, Anna Marie, slender, loving, chestnut hair, sea blue eyes. This must be heaven, at long last. That was my birthday, 1945. Billy made it, docs worked two miracles, one on each hand. We ran into each other on the hospital ship. First time, he didn't recognize me, my face so heavily bandaged, after several surgeries. The shrapnel had just missed my spine. God's little miracles, for sure. Everything got mixed up -- time, space, where, when, how? It didn't matter. We were alive, and we were on our way home. The commander wanted me back. You can wear your Purple Heart on your lapel, he said. I told him, I'd rather take it home and show it to my son. Thank you anyway. I later saw that photo, 4 "Gyrines" raising old Glory, right atop Mt. Surabachi. I knew those red stripes were soaked in blood, the whites were stained as well. 4 guys, just like me, their names forever written on the wind. Next stop for them, the Japanese mainland. Next stop for me, a farm in Oregon, cows, chickens, dogs and geese. And a time to recuperate from shell shock, and a time to thank God for this country. We left fascism behind when we came back from hell, where it belongs, where it should stay. # # # =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: RE: Rome meeting Date: 11 Nov 1996 17:39:34 -0500 Some food for thought. Tom >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 96 09:47:29 EST >From: Tanya Metaksa >Subject: RE: Rome meeting >To: Peter H Jackson >Cc: TLMORUSA@aol.com, tm@nra.org, Tom Cloyes > >As far as I am concerned it might be good for you to attend. I, >unfortunately, will not be able to meet with anyone in Great >Britain as my visit will be short and I am going to see my family. >So I would hope that we could meet in Rome. >Tanya >On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:19:11 -0000 Peter H Jackson wrote: >>Thomas, >> >>Just a note, following your phone call last week, to ask if you >have >>heard further from the Italians who, I understand, were uneasy >about too >>prominent a British presence at the meeting next Monday. >> >>I would like to go, but hesitate for the following reasons: >> >> - I sure don't want to upset your hosts; >> - I'm not sure I should spare the time when we have "the mother >of all >>(political) battles" here; >> - not sure I can contribute much to such a meeting, though I >would like >>to see the notes & gauge opinion of interested parties from other >>countries. >> >>Some preliminary thoughts: >> >>The Problem: >> >> - an attack on gun owners in any one country is an attack on all gun >>owners world-wide and should be countered on that basis - we must >>mobilise _international_ pressure on any national or international body >>which threatens its subjects' right to bear arms; >>- isolationism and sheltering behind a bill of rights will not work >>indefinitely. "Islands" of sensible gun legislation (USA, >>Switzerland...) in a sea of prohibition will be permanently under >>attack; >> >>What should we do? >> >> - of course I don't have the answer, but would like to throw in some >>suggestions for discussion, even if I'm not there... >> - the key is public opinion, and we may influence that in many ways; >> - well-publicised research into guns & crime is needed; >> - maybe we have to get mean, it will hurt, but we will all be out of >>business in the end; >> - maybe arms & ammo manufacturers should withdraw sales, spares & >>service from Governments which do not allow private ownership of small >>arms; >> - maybe we should not underestimate the power of consumer boycott. >>(Remember Shell v. Greenpeace and the Brent Spar oil platform?). In the >>current situation shooters world-wide could boycott (say) British >>Telecom/MCI and Rupert Murdoch's news & TV companies. Wipe 20% off >>their US sales figures... >> >>Pls let me know if you think I should attend, as I need to arrange >>transport, hotel, etc. >> >>Best regards, Peter. >> >>-- >> Peter H Jackson, Forge Consulting Limited, Scotland DG7 3NL >> Tel:+44 (1644) 470223 Fax:+44 (1644) 470227 GSM:+44 (802) 916995 >> pjackson@forge.demon.co.uk, CompuServe: 100327,1065 >> >> > >------------------------------------- >Name: Tanya Metaksa >E-mail: Tanya Metaksa >Date: 11/11/96 >Time: 09:47:29 > >This message was sent by Chameleon >------------------------------------- > > > > "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: "Ken L. Holder" Subject: Re: nazibill.bmp Date: 11 Nov 1996 14:41:05 -0800 Howdy Paul! At 10:15 PM 11/10/96 -0700, you wrote: > BinHex, MIME, or Uuencode. MIME me nazibill ;-) Thanks! -- Ken Holder kholder@liberty.com Webmaster for the L. Neil Smith Webley Page on the World Wide Web http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/lneil.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Veteran's day: My Dad. (fwd) Date: 11 Nov 1996 16:53:27 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com I remember my dad. I was barely five when he held me in his arms that last time, bounced me on his knee, wearing that white uniform. I remember the smell of old spice, brown, leathery, sunburned skin and I remember that his eyes had great sadness and tears in them. I guess he knew that he would never see us again. He died in a Kamikaze attack March 19, 1945 aboard the Carrier Franklin. His remains and effects were never found. His death destroyed my family, and made my mother insane, refusing to acknowlege my and my younger brother's existence. My brother and I were raised by our Grandpa, who came back from being a metallurgist at Oak Ridge, Tennessee and effectively used the rest of his remaining life and his retirement savings to raise me and my little brother. We got thru school, my little brother and I, enlisting regular army and ultimately both ending up in Southeast asia, in the wrong and corrupt Viet Nam war, not fighting for America so much as fighting for our brothers and sisters who were already there. We both survived two tours each. We always think of our Dad, who we miss all the more terribly because we never had him, really. My Father, who my younger brother doesn't remember and our children and their children cannot even conceive of him or what he was like. In addition to losing his young life and future, this was the greatest price my Dad paid, to be unremembered by his grandchildren and youngest son, his only memory ultimately being a collective memory that fades and dies with the last participant or victim of that war. We will never know the full price we paid because we never really had him with us. I only know that WWII destroyed much more than countryside, buildings and faceless soldiers. Like all wars, it destroyed countries, families, lives, minds, and futures. I miss you, Dad, and I pray and hope we have not shamed you or belittled your sacrifice in the way we have led our lives as Americans. I always try to remember you every day. Please rest in peace. I'll always miss you. "Out of the depths I have cried unto thee, O Lord. Lord, hear my voice...." Psalm 130 WWII Naval Casualty list: 56,206 Dead, 80,259 wounded, 8,967 missing. Joe Horn -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 61 Date: 11 Nov 1996 19:48:19 -0700 (MST) >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:19:44 -0600 (CST) >Reply-To: bigred@duracef.shout.net >Sender: owner-CN-L@cornell.edu >From: Brian Redman >To: Conspiracy Nation >Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 61 >X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) >X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN > >The following is brought to you thanks, in part, to the kind >assistance of CyberNews and the fine folks at Cornell University. > > > Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 61 > ====================================== > ("Quid coniuratio est?") > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > >MORE CRISIS FOR CLINTON >======================= >By Sherman H. Skolnick >---------------------- > >Some military flag officers and Vice President Al Gore are >closely watching Bill Clinton. Is a crisis coming? Part of it >revolves around the crash, off Long Island, New York, of TWA >Flight 800 which had been enroute to Paris. Some background: > >More than 60 French nationals died in the crash. Two top >officials of the French Secret Police were scheduled to be >onboard Flight 800 but, at the last moment, took another flight. >Five or more of their assistants, however, died in the crash. By >the way, what were the French CIA brass doing so much in the >United States? Were they trying to determine if there is a U.S. >military coup in the works against Clinton? > >The Clinton White House blocked the French government's efforts >to send 300 of their own divers and experts to scour the ocean >bottom for what really happened. It was only then that Clinton >ordered a supposed full-scale U.S. ocean search for victims and >pieces of the crashed plane. > >Since at least the early 1960s and DeGaulle, France has not >trusted the United States. At the time, they withdrew from NATO >and turned their missiles to face the U.S. Undercover operatives >of the French CIA infiltrated the plot to assassinate President >Kennedy in 1963. Their explosive details of a high-level >American CIA and military cabal were in a European best-seller in >14 languages and published in English in Belgium in 1968, and >written under a pen-name. Then and now the Washington government >forbids U.S. bookstores to sell the book, called "Farewell >America." > >Only two Americans were able to smuggle the books into the U.S. I >was one of them and gave away copies at college lectures in the >1970s in return for small donations. No copies are left now. > >Like with the book "Farewell America," the Paris government again >has the smoking gun that this time could topple the Clinton White >House. The pilot of a French civilian airplane here says he >swerved his plane to avoid a missile. French airlines are >equipped with a special onboard video taping system. French TV >has the video tape and so far has embargoed it. (French TV also >beams to Chicago via satellite. Their up-link and down-link are >on top of a public access cable TV facility in Chicago.) The >French CIA also has the video tape which, if aired, could wreck >the Clinton White House efforts to stonewall Flight 800 details. > >A former ABC News correspondent stationed in Paris, Pierre >Salinger, says he has inside data from French intelligence as >well as the U.S. Secret Service showing that Flight 800 was shot >down by a U.S. Navy missile. (Was the shoot-down by accident or >otherwise? Some contend the plane had onboard hundreds of >billions of dollars of counterfeit bonds, so well made they could >be used to topple either the U.S. or a foreign government. >Which? Apparently, every other effort to stop the circulation >and transport of the bonds has met with failure. Was the >situation also like Pan Am Flight 103? Which had onboard, when >it was bombed and crashed, somewhere between 8 and 50 CIA >personnel returning from a failed hostage rescue mission; some of >them subpoenaed to testify before a Congressional committee of >treasonous meddling by George Bush. The Flight 103 was brought >down 6 weeks after Bush was elected President in 1988.) > >By the way, some contend an American publisher suppressed a book >by Salinger about the treason of Bush in a Paris suburb and >elsewhere in Europe, in October, 1980, arranging to delay release >of U.S. hostages held by Iran. Bush's treachery was to make >Jimmy Carter appear to be a wimp and to benefit the Reagan/Bush >election ticket. It is called the "October Surprise" scenario. >The hostages were released in January, 1981, a few moments after >Reagan was inaugurated the new President. (And who all was it >that shot at Reagan some weeks thereafter?) > >Clinton could have avoided the apparent crisis about Flight 800 >by quickly, after the crash, apologizing to the families of those >who perished, stating [that] by accident a U.S. missile downed >the plane. But: how would he apologize to the families of the >French nationals who perished? And to the families of the French >Secret Police? > >Note: The TWA Flight 800 crash was in July, 1996. In July, >1988, in a similar mishap, like with Flight 800 (assuming Flight >800 was just an "accident"), an aegis-class missile cruiser >downed an Iranian civilian airplane killing, like with Flight >800, several hundred people. (Some use the analogy to posit an >Iranian terrorist missile scenario against Flight 800.) On the >Iranian crash, see: the book "The Line of Fire" by Admiral >William J. Crowe, Jr., former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. > >In published accounts, Pierre Salinger is quoted as saying that >he had the document on Flight 800 five weeks before he disclosed >it a few days after Clinton's 1996 re-election. Salinger says >some "very important people" had advised him not to reveal it >until after the November 5th election because "officials won't >tell the truth until after the American election." (Chicago >Tribune, 11/9/96). {1}. > >The French are apparently aware of a U.S. military coup against >Clinton -- several attempts since 1995 have been violently >snuffed out -- such as the planeload of generals and such, killed >in a sabotaged plane crash in Alabama on April 17, 1995, two days >before the Oklahoma bombings (which some contend was an ATF >"sting" that went wrong.) > >In this crisis, Al Gore reportedly is joining with the flag >officers -- Admirals and Generals -- to remove Clinton: (1) as >provided under the military code, with flag officers and others >arresting and charging Commander-in-Chief Clinton with treason >and sedition (which would be their defense if Clinton charges >them with mutiny.) And (2) under the 25th Amendment to the U.S. >Constitution, Gore as Vice President, joining with other >Executive Department officials, to unseat Clinton, making Gore >the Acting President. Gore reportedly plans to name John D. >Rockefeller IV, called Jay, the appointed, not elected, new Vice >President. Does Gore have enough life insurance? Jay itches to >be the unelected President. > >---------------------------<< Notes >>--------------------------- >{1} Or did Salinger wait until after the election because >releasing the info before the election might be perceived as just >"dirty politics," in other words, just political propaganda? >Releasing the info after the election removes the stigma of >pre-election propaganda. > > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > >Mr. Skolnick, chairman/founder since 1963 of Citizens' Committee >to Clean Up the Courts, investigating and disclosing judicial >bribery and political murders. Updates of their work are on a >recorded 5-minute phone message, on 24 hrs/day, a regular phone >call: (312) 731-1100. He is the moderator of a public access >cable TV show, on since 1991. His comments are on various >categories on Internet. (Put in his full name through search >engines such as Netscape.) Office: 8 a.m. to midnight, 7 days, >(312) 375-5741. Call before sending fax. 9800 S. Oglesby Ave., >Chicago, IL 60617-4870. The new area code after Oct. 1996 has >been 773. If any problem, continue for awhile using old area >code 312. > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those > of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief. >----------------------------------------------------------------- > I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation." >----------------------------------------------------------------- >If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail >address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to >listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1") >----------------------------------------------------------------- > For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy > Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net >----------------------------------------------------------------- >Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? >(1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom >----------------------------------------------------------------- > See also: http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html >----------------------------------------------------------------- > See also: ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred >----------------------------------------------------------------- >Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. >Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et > pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9 > > > =========================================================== 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 Date: 11 Nov 1996 20:01:30 -0700 (MST) >To: pmitch@primenet.com >Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:22:09 PST >X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,7-8,12,14-17 >From: oneazman@juno.com (Alfred R Martin) > >I found this in the Dear Abby section of the Arizona Republic Newspaper, >today, Veterans Day: > > Privacy is the precious right of every American, and when our own >government workers abuse their access to records, it's doubly wrong. The >good news is that just before Congress adjourned, we passed a law making >it a crime to misuse computer access to obtain private information in >government files. > The new law is the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act. > Both hackers who break into government computers from the outside and >government employees who abuse their computer privileges from the inside >to obtain personal information about Americans will now be subject to >criminal penalties. > For details about these new privacy protections, your readers can >visit my home page at > http://www.senate.gov/leahy/ > >---------Patrick J. Leahy, U.S. Senator, Vermont > > =========================================================== 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: Re: A Veterans Day Prayer Date: 11 Nov 1996 23:07:40 -0700 (MST) What an absolutely beautiful prayer. I have tracks right below my eyes. I can only add "Amen" to this beauty, this passion, and this love. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 12:48 PM 11/8/96 -0500, you wrote: >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:32:20 -0800 >From: Kay Ness >Subject: A Veterans Day Prayer > >A Prayer for Veterans on this day: > >Dear Lord, > I pray for your loving comfort and peace for all the Veterans >of this great country. Bring healing where it is needed. > Let the American peoples' eyes be opened to the source of wars >that have used our best and brightest in terrible ways, destroyed >bodies and lives to satisfy the evil greed of a few. > Let the veterans know that those of us whose eyes have been >opened, fight with all our heart and soul to see that their sacrifices >have not been in vain. > My grandfather fought in the trenches of France in World War I. >He told us stories of having to wear boots in mud for months at a >time, until the socks rotted inside the boots, while thousands died >around him. The true purpose of this war was not known to him, but >he returned to live a quiet, Christian life and raise his family, >supposedly following all the new rules imposed on the American people. >Little did he know that his country had been already stolen in 1913 >and that those guns pulled by those big draft horses should have been >aimed at the evil people in New York and Washington, the true enemies >of the time, your true enemies on. > When I was sixteen, I watched Bobby Franklin die of lung cancer, >a horrible and painful death. Yet, those around me said he was a >casualty of World War II, having never recovered from those experiences. >He never knew the real reason he was so grievously wounded....to plunge >this country into tyranny. There has to be a special place in hell >for those who use people's own highest ideals and patriotism against >them, to manipulate them for greedy, evil purposes. > From Korea and then to Vietnam, the manipulation continued. >I have known so many wonderful men hurt by these wars. Let them >know that our love and caring for them is unbounded. Let them find >peace with the horrors they have experienced, so that they will be >strong to lead this country back to its rightful place in your service. >Let them know that, we who love them, though we cannot know the >experiences which have hurt them so, that if it was in our power, >we would take that burden and carry it ourselves. We cannot, I know. >Only you can do that. > Let them bring these burdens to you so they are strong to >provide the leadership needed for the future of this country. Please >let no more talent be wasted by sadness, guilt and grief. > On this day, we honor all Veterans and pray your loving peace >descends upon their hearts. > **************************************************** > TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL RIGHTS > **************************************************** > "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any > government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, > when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One > declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes > impossible for men to live without breaking laws." > -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Ch. III, "White Blackmail" > **************************************************** > Harvey Wysong > National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association > 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. > hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 > **************************************************** > > =========================================================== 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: John Hopkins Propoganda (fwd) Date: 12 Nov 1996 07:51:59 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Will Blumentritt Yesterday (Sunday, November 10, 1996) in the Houston Chronicle, the following letter appeared from Stephen P. Teret, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research, John Hoplins School of Public Health. ---------- Beginning of Teret letter ------------ "Handgun research errs." "The Chronicle's Sept 29 article by David Kopel (Concealed handgun laws really do work to slow crime) citing the work of two researchers, John Lott and David Mustard, argues that violent crime is reduced when a state makes it easier to get a permit to carry a concealed gun." "Research like this deserves close scrutiny. If it contains errors, and public policy is based on false research conclusions, it can lead to disastrous results." "In actual fact, previous research suggests that such laws may actually increase gun homicides." "The John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research has carefully examined the study by Lott and Mustard and fouund it to be fraught with problems including factual errors regarding state laws, the use of discredited methods for analyzing the data and the failure to take into account important factors such as crime cycles and waiting periods with background checks for handgun purchases, which might strongly influence gun crime." "In addition, when researchers from other universities reanalyzed the data used, they found Lott and Mustard's conclusions were unsubstantiated." "Choosing policies regarding the carrying of handguns is of the utmost importance. In 1994, there were 38,500 gun-related deaths in the United States. For some segments of the population, gunfire is the #1 cause of death." "We all deserve impeccably performed research upon which we can base rational gun policy decisions." -- Stephen P. Teret. director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research, John Hoplins School of Public Health ---------- End of Teret letter ------------ ---------- Teret's e-mail address --------- Stephen Teret steret@phnet.sph.jhu.edu Mr. Teret's letter indicates to me that he realizes the battle over gun control will not be won with facts. The facts are clearly against gun control. It just doesn't work. Despite Teret's claim of careful examination of the Lott study, the letter contained no evidence whatsoever. I can only assume that in the face of evidence with which Teret disagrees, he resorts to smear campaigns. This letter also indicates that Teret realizes that the gun control battle will be waged with much like modern day political campaigns -- with name recognition, avoidance of issues, and emotional rhetoric and slogans. (Stop the violenece - who could argue with that. The trouble is, only the combined efforts of the good people of this country can stop the violence. And Teret wants to turn us into helpless ginuea pigs.) I have located Mr Teret's e-mail address at the school. (It is listed right after his letter.) He has already heard from me. Perhaps you would like to write to him, as well. More importantly, however, we can learn from Mr. Teret that we must work the sound bite as effectively as the the gun-control side does. Political elections have clearly demonstrated, much to my dismay, that the sound bite wins elections. The sound bite sways the mindless masses. Mr. Teret realizes that all the members of the mindless mass will remember about his letter is that they read in the paper that the pro-gun study was incorrect. We need to write letters to the editors of our newspapers pushing the common sense conclusions of the Lott study. Below is a synopsis of one I wrote to the Chronicle. One does not need to be a research scientist to put together the simple trail that lead to a conclusion that concealed carry reduces violent crime. We all know that criminals become criminals because they lack a respect for rights and it is easier to take something that doesn't belong to you than to work hard and earn it. The data has long shown that criminals fear being shot. Their own words -- as well as common sense -- make that seem self evident. Concealed carry puts that hint of doubt in the criminals mind that the intended victim might be armed. Criminals avoid armed victims. It is very doubtful that concealed carry will reduce crime -- total crime. But it will very likely reduce violent crime. Given that hint of doubt, the criminal will burglarize an empty house or an empty car rather than encounter an armed victim. He will pass up that fast food cash register for an easier target. And if he really needs a live victim, he will more frequently target victims who are less likely to be carrying, such as passengers leaving an airport, school, or government building. Mr. Teret may not like guns, but we can not rid them from society any more than we can drugs or alcohol. To the criminal, the gun is his tool. (Just as he media is Mr. Lott's trade.) He has already shown that he is willing to break the law. The gun is his source of power over the victim, and he will do whatever it takes to a gun. There is much more good than evil in this world. But by telling good people that they should not protect themselves, people like Teret have tipped the scales of power in favor of the criminal. ---------- Remember that on this list, we are preaching to the choir. We need to go after the mindless masses. Unfortunately, issues, rational thought, and principled argument doesn't necessarily work on them. Their attention spans just can't seem to stand up to it. Matter of fact style sound bites might get through. Let's start sharing some on this list. If you have some that work -- that seem to get people's attention -- let us hear them. Thanks, Will Blumentritt Responsible Gun Owners of Houston -- 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: RE: SYSTEMATICS INC. DID CONTRACT WORK FOR THE NSA (fwd) Date: 12 Nov 1996 08:04:43 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *caveat lector*. This means, "reader beware." In other words, it is up to the reader to form her/his own judgements as to the following. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- SYSTEMATICS INC. DID CONTRACT WORK FOR THE NSA The Arkansas-based security contractor Systematics Inc. on September 14 1990 was awarded a $166,000 NSA contract to build a "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility" (SCIF) in Ft. Gillem, Georgia. Systematics Inc. is a conglomerate of 14 companies headquartered in Arkansas. The NSA contract was awarded through Systematics of Delaware Inc., which uses an address in Herndon, Virginia. In a 1978 SEC case, Systematics was represented by Rose Law Firm lawyers Hillary Clinton and Webster Hubbell. In 1990, Systematics Inc., which had been founded by Arkansan Jackson Stephens, was sold to Alltel Corp. Alltel is now headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas. Last year, Alltel executive John Steuri scoffed at a question by reporter Jim Norman asking about any ties to the NSA. The newly declassified NSA documents reveal, however, that in 1994 the Alltel subsidiary Alltel Supply was awarded a $260,000 contract with the NSA. Jim Norman alleges that in the 1980s Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell were overseers on behalf of the NSA at Systematics Inc. The declassified NSA documents show that in 1993, after they both joined the Clinton administration, they were invited to the NSA to discuss computer espionage issues. Published in the Nov. 11, 1996 Issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright (c) 1996 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: VINCE FOSTER INVOLVED IN NSA COMPUTER ESPIONAGE ISSUES (fwd) Date: 12 Nov 1996 08:05:31 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *caveat lector*. This means, "reader beware." In other words, it is up to the reader to form her/his own judgements as to the following. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- VINCE FOSTER INVOLVED IN NSA COMPUTER ESPIONAGE ISSUES One morning in May of 1993, a mini bus left the National Security Agency at Ft. George G. Meade, Maryland. It drove directly to the White House to pick up Bernard Nussbaum and Vincent W. Foster. From there, the party proceeded to the Justice Department to pick up Webster Hubbell and John Rogovin. At the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens joined the party. They all returned to the NSA for a secret roundtable discussion with top NSA officials on Codebreaking and Telecommunications. On the agenda were items such as: * What Has Happened to SIGINT * How We Handle Crypt[ology] Problems * Problems We Face In The Future * Rule of Law Only this broad outline of the meeting is revealed in a recently declassified NSA document. But it makes clear that one of Vince Foster's responsibilities at the White House was cryptology and intelligence gathering. As such, he was privy to top secrets. That would explain the presence of two NSA binders deposited by Vince Foster in a White House safe. So why did the White House deny that Foster was working on NSA documents? Last May, White House spokesman Mark Fabiani told the Washington Times that "There were no National Security Agency documents that he was working on that were in his possession." Why did the White House try to conceal Foster's NSA ties? Why did Fabiani find it necessary to contradict the sworn statement of Foster's secretary Deborah Gorham, who said that "There were two one-inch ring binders that were from the National Security Agency"? Published in the Nov. 11, 1996 Issue of The Washington Weekly Copyright (c) 1996 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Washington Post on W Virginia 7 (fwd) Date: 12 Nov 1996 08:17:35 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --- Forwarded mail from Dolinar@aol.com By Roberto Suro Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, November 11 1996; Page A01 The Washington Post CLARKSBURG, W.Va. -- For 16 months the FBI used informants, secret recordings, surveillance cameras and more than 100 law enforcement officers to investigate whether a former evangelical missionary, Floyd Ray Looker, led a militia group plotting to blow up a big FBI computer center in the Appalachian hills near here. Looker was allegedly caught buying and selling illegal explosives, and a surveillance tape captured him saying, "We've been at war for 60 years," allegedly referring to the militia movement and the federal government. But the FBI never found evidence that Looker and his West Virginia Mountaineer Militia had any specific plan or date to destroy the building. It was only after an FBI undercover agent paid Looker $50,000 for blueprints of the computer center that the investigators could bring charges of a terrorist conspiracy. Last week a federal grand jury indicted Looker and six others on various weapons, explosives and terrorism charges. "The facility itself was never in any direct danger," U.S. Attorney William D. Wilmoth said when the militiamen were rounded up on Oct. 11. "The arrests came before anything could have happened." Since the Oklahoma City bombing April 19, 1995, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and other federal law enforcement agencies have embarked on a preemptive strategy to uncover domestic terrorist conspiracies while they are in the planning stages. This strategy requires aggressive and potentially controversial tactics as investigators infiltrate groups and bring charges on the basis of allegedly criminal plans that are conceived but not carried out. Every step, according to current and former federal officials, involves balancing the pressure to prevent another outrage like Oklahoma City against the danger of exaggerating the threat posed by militia groups and potentially violating their civil rights. After 18 months, three major antiterrorism cases have developed -- in Arizona, Georgia and West Virginia: After 12 people associated with Arizona's Viper militia were arrested last July, President Clinton saluted the law enforcement officers who acted "to avert a terrible terrorist attack . . . [and] may have saved many lives." Within weeks a federal magistrate released half the militia members on bond, finding them no threat to society. Three months later, federal prosecutors dropped the most serious terrorism charges against several of the defendants. Shortly after three members of a Georgia militia were arrested last spring, an ATF agent alleged that they were training "to assassinate politicians, starting at the highest level," and an informant subsequently claimed that the militia had planned terrorist attacks on the Atlanta Olympics. But at a three-week trial no evidence emerged of any concrete assassination plans and an attack on the Olympics was never mentioned in some 28 hours of conversations secretly recorded by informants. Last week, a jury delivered a split verdict on the Georgia case, convicting three defendants of possessing pipe bombs and conspiring to use them in a violent crime, but acquitting them on the charge that directly pointed to terrorism: "conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction against federal employees and federal property." The West Virginia case is the most legally ambitious of the recent militia investigations, and the one that could take the longest to resolve. During a detention hearing last month, U.S. Magistrate David L. Core predicted the case against Looker "will be litigated in the Court of Appeals and possibly beyond," because prosecutors made unprecedented use of a new anti-terrorism law in their charges. In particular Core noted the use of what he called a "catchall" provision of that two-year-old statute to allege that the sale of publicly available maps and blueprints constituted a crime because they were sold to an undercover agent who said he was a broker for international terrorists. "We are walking on untrodden ground with regard to this statute," Core said. Defense attorneys have questioned whether the undercover agent and the informant who worked with him actually enticed the militia members into a plot. Until federal investigators came along, the attorneys have suggested, their clients were only talking theoretically about preparing for the possibility that the "New World Order" might someday take over the United States and force them into defending themselves. Although each of the three militia cases developed separately, all reflect the more aggressive anti-terrorism strategy adopted by federal law enforcement agencies following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people and injured more than 500 others. The defendants in that case, Timothy James McVeigh and Terry Lynn Nichols, had no direct ties to militia groups, but are said to have drawn inspiration from the ideology of apocalypse and alienation that characterizes much of the militia movement. "Oklahoma City was such a horrific event that the initial reaction was to greatly increase vigilance of groups and individuals espousing anti-government violence," said Ronald K. Noble, Treasury undersecretary for enforcement at the time. "Every allegation of criminal conduct involving militias or similar groups attracted exceptional scrutiny, because we didn't know whether this was the tip of an iceberg or an isolated event," Noble said. "The goal, however, was clearly to do everything possible to prevent anything like Oklahoma from happening again." Finding evidence to arrest and convict criminals before they execute their plans is difficult enough when the conspirators are contemplating unmistakably illegal acts like bank robbery. Preventing acts of terrorism can be much more difficult, according to legal experts, because investigators must distinguish between dangerous criminals and political extremists who express radical, but constitutionally protected ideas. The conduct of domestic terrorism investigations has been governed by Justice Department guidelines adopted in 1975 after the FBI was discovered violating the rights of black nationalists, peace protesters and other political groups. The guidelines strictly limit the use of informants gathering information on political beliefs to cases where there is evidence of potential criminal activities. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, federal officials began changing their interpretation of those guidelines. Federal law enforcement officials had previously been "reprimanded, censured, sued, in some cases investigated, because of allegations that their activities fell outside of the purview of the guidelines," FBI Director Louis J. Freeh said in congressional testimony eight days after the Oklahoma bombing. To counter the new threats more effectively, Freeh said agents would interpret the guidelines on domestic political groups "broadly and proactively, as opposed to defensively, which has been the case for many, many years." According to a senior law enforcement official, the reinterpretation of the FBI guidelines has generated two trends in anti-terrorism cases: Federal agencies are more willing to launch investigations when people talk about ommitting violent acts, and investigators are more prone to use ordinary citizens as informants instead of waiting until a law enforcement officer, who typically produces more credible testimony, can be infiltrated into a potential conspiracy. In the three most prominent militia cases investigated since Oklahoma, informants were used to provide the first allegations needed to open a probe. The West Virginia case helps illustrate how informants are being used, to use Freeh's words, in a more "proactive" way. J. C. Raffety, the FBI agent in charge of the militia investigation, testified that he was visited in his Clarksburg office shortly after the Oklahoma blast by a local man named O. Marshall Richards, who said he had been invited to join the Mountaineer Militia and was willing to provide information on its doings. Raffety said he told Richards that according to the guidelines he could not initiate a probe without allegations of criminal conduct. But Raffety didn't discourage Richards from gathering information on the militia that might lead to such allegations. "I told him, you know, that if anything ever came to his attention, however, that would change that, to contact us and he did," Raffety testified. A few weeks after Raffety explained to the would-be informant the need for suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, Richards returned to the FBI office to tell of a training meeting where Looker, the militia commander, and his associates allegedly identified "potential targets" for attack in the event of some future conflict with the federal government. Among those "targets" was the FBI fingerprint computer center. On the basis of that information, and without trying to verify it, Raffety said he opened a domestic terrorism investigation under the agency's guidelines. According to legal experts, the mere discussion of a crime, no matter how fanciful it may be, can constitute a criminal conspiracy. "The classic example is that you are guilty of a crime if you conspire with someone else to stick pins in a voodoo doll in the belief that your enemy will fall dead," said Albert Alschuler, a law professor at the University of Chicago. "You may have made a mistake about the facts, but your intent is still to break the law." Informants in all of these investigations played prominent roles within the militia groups. Richards, for example, was paid $2,000 a month plus expenses by the FBI and became a "colonel" in the Mountaineer Militia. As the chief of "intelligence and security," he helped organize repeated purchases of illegal explosives and then the resale to an undercover FBI agent as a profit-making enterprise for Looker. It was in that same role as intermediary that Richards helped arrange the sale of the maps, photos and blueprints of the FBI fingerprint facility -- the transaction that eventually led to the terrorism charges against Looker. Even when informants help facilitate a conspiracy, it is difficult to prove entrapment, said Alschuler. "All the government has to show is that the militiamen were predisposed to commit the crime, and it doesn't matter whether or not the informant created the opportunity for it." In the Georgia case, one of the informants referred to himself as the "master chef" because he was giving militiamen instructions on how to build the pipe bombs that eventually became the basis for some of the gravest charges against them. "Master chef" became a mantra for defense attorneys who argued that their clients would never have been able to build the bombs without the informant's help. The prosecution argued that with no urging from an informant, the militia members were captured on tape expressing a willingness to blow up bridges and kill government agents. The jury's divided decision, guilty verdicts on some counts and acquittals on similar charges, suggests how difficult finding clear-cut answers can be in such cases. @CAPTION: Floyd Ray Looker and six others in Mountaineer Militia face weapons, explosives and terrorism charges. @CAPTION: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents inspect one of several 50-gallon drums found at a Viper Militia member's Phoenix home last July. c Copyright 1996 The Washington Post Company ---End of forwarded mail from Dolinar@aol.com -- ======================================================================= Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 916-450-7941 http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@the-spa.com ======================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: John Hopkins Propoganda (fwd) Date: 12 Nov 1996 09:20:03 -0500 (EST) On the topic of Johns Hopkins, I recently encountered an article by a Johns Hopkins prof arguing that urban underclass women who want children should be *required* to accept artificial insemination from upper class men. If the _Spotlight_ ran an article like that, the national outrage would be deafening. But when Professor Robert Gordon of Johns Hopkins says it, that's appparently different. bd On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:25:41 -0600 > From: Will Blumentritt > To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net > Subject: John Hopkins Propoganda > > Posted to texas-gun-owners by Will Blumentritt > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Yesterday (Sunday, November 10, 1996) in the Houston Chronicle, the > following letter appeared from Stephen P. Teret, director of the Center for > Gun Policy and Research, John Hoplins School of Public Health. > > ---------- Beginning of Teret letter ------------ > "Handgun research errs." > > "The Chronicle's Sept 29 article by David Kopel (Concealed handgun > laws really do work to slow crime) citing the work of two researchers, John > Lott and David Mustard, argues that violent crime is reduced when a state > makes it easier to get a permit to carry a concealed gun." > "Research like this deserves close scrutiny. If it contains errors, > and public policy is based on false research conclusions, it can lead to > disastrous results." > "In actual fact, previous research suggests that such laws may > actually increase gun homicides." [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cap Schwartz" Subject: Your recent letter Date: 12 Nov 1996 07:50:15 -0800 Dear Mr. Steret: As a long time student and researcher into the problem of gun ownership in our society, I read with interest the study by Lott and Mustard. Consequently, it interested me greatly to read, in the Houston Chronicle your statement that "The John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research has carefully examined the study by Lott and Mustard and found it to be fraught with problems including factual errors regarding state laws, the use of discredited methods for analyzing the data and the failure to take into account important factors such as crime cycles and waiting periods with background checks for handgun purchases, which might strongly influence gun crime." I would greatly appreciate receiving the results of your Center's examination. I plan a work of my own--more modest than either Lott's or yours--comparing the variables in methodology with the predisposition of the researchers in this emotion-filled field, and would very much like to see your conclusions. I am particularly interested in your determination of whatever "discredited methods" you unearthed. Thank you in advance. Very truly yours, E.B. Cap Schwartz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: part 38: vince foster, the NSA, and bank spying (fwd) Date: 12 Nov 1996 12:45:30 -0600 (CST) ---------- 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, chuck44@juno.com, KWhite9472@aol.com Part 38: Allegations Regarding Vince Foster, the NSA, and Banking Transactions Spying by J. Orlin Grabbe (continued from Part 37) What answers Jim Leach's House Committee on Banking and Financial Services received from the National Security Agency's (NSA's) Inspector General is not known, but apparently the NSA stonewalled the investigation. On July 23, 1995, Gregory Wierzynski emailed me, asking "Do you have suggestions on how we could verify some of the elements in the Norman story? I've talked to Chuck in Kentucky and am still in touch with him. But his stories have not panned out, even partially. I would be most interested in your ideas." I found this statement remarkable, and knew that Wierzynski was being deliberately obtuse. Moreover, neither I--nor anyone else of my acquaintance--had told Wierzynski that I was talking to Chuck Hayes in Nancy, Kentucky. Jim Norman had first suggested that I call Hayes-- had even implied that Hayes wanted me to call--but initially I had been reluctant to do so. There were enough people trying to get me off the Internet, and I was dubious of the motives of an ex-intelligence operative. But when I finally did so, we spent a hour and twenty minutes on the phone in a wide-ranging conversation about money- laundering. I jumped around from topic to topic, bringing up numerous obscure connections between the intelligence community and banking. In each case Hayes was right there with me, adding details to what we were discussing. From time to time I would make deliberate mis-statements to see if Hayes would catch the discrepancies. He did. By the end of the conversation it did not matter to me whether Chuck Hayes was just a hillbilly Kentucky junk dealer or an ex-member of CIA's division D. His knowledge spoke for itself. He had an intimate acquaintance with banking wire transfers, bank computer operations, and banking-intelligence connections, as well as detailed insights into current hidden money-laundering channels. Hayes was already familiar with my article *The End of Ordinary Money*. He said he had gotten his copy from the CIA library. The CIA had apparently either downloaded it from the Internet, or perhaps had obtained it through Robert Steele. Eric Bloodaxe, a.k.a. Chris Goggans, an ex-Legion of Doom member who edited a hacker publication called *Phrack*, had suggested I sent copies to Winn Schwartau of *Information Warfare* fame, and to Robert Steele, whose company Open Source Solutions, Inc., published a newsletter entitled *OSS Notices*, which advocated some radical changes to the process of intelligence collection. Steele had reviewed them as follows: "J. Orlin Grabbe has produced the first two in a series of three papers on digital cash, and I found them both educational and provocative. . . . He approaches the matter from a civil libertarian/civil disobedience perspective, and I find his perspective on the history of U.S. policy and technology, as well as the alternatives, well-worth review. This is a thoughtful popular perspective on issues of electronic privacy which bears on both the protection of intellectual property and electronic civil defense" (*OSS Notices*, vol. 3, issue 5, May 31, 1995). Chuck and I had some differences, to be sure. Hayes was spending much of his time tracking drug- money laundering through the U.S. financial system. I looked at the War on Drugs from an economic perspective: supply restriction leading to vast profit margins, with concomitant political payoffs and political corruption, while in the meantime prisons were being over-crowded with casual drug users. It was an exercise in insanity. Nor was I a fan of the DEA, with its record of civil rights violations. Hayes, by contrast, liked the DEA for their street smarts, which contrasted with the desk- level bureaucrats he was somewhat contemptuous of at the CIA. But Hayes was gunning for the people at the top of the drug-dealing and money-laundering pyramid, and this was fine with me. There was a close association between those administering the War on Drugs, and those profiting from it. In the case of money-laundering, it was even more blatant: it was hard to differentiate the money launderers from those that administered the money- laundering laws. I did not approve of the money- laundering laws themselves with their invasions of personal financial privacy. But on the other hand, hoisting government junkies on their own petard did not perturb me. Over a period of time, Hayes and I developed an information-sharing arrangement. Hayes was at the moment following the financial flows through Arkansas financial institutions, as well as through Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh. Also involved were New York banks, some members of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and at least one important official at the Federal Reserve. On the Arkansas front, Hayes was quite open in telling me he was going to nail Jim Guy Tucker to the wall, and over the following year I watched him do just that. One might assume from such a statement that Hayes was a Republican, out to get Democrats. But in fact Hayes' father had been a local Democrat party official, and Hayes had been a friend and admirer of John Kennedy. Hayes was not political in that sense, any more than I was. Some people have a strange habit of trying to interpret everything in political terms. When I first spoke to Sarah McClendon, she asked me, "Why are people saying all these things about Clinton, and they aren't saying anything about George Bush?" I refused to bite. I told her I didn't give a shit about the difference between Republicans and Democrats--that this was about criminality, not about partisan politics. Some people-- Republican or Democrat--are honest, and some are not. Sarah herself kept referring to the Clintons (Bill and Hill) as "virgins," which amused me to no end. But my interest was not partisan, and never has been. In a contrary vein, Jack Blum, who recently joined Jim Leach's House Committee on Banking as an investigator (and who quickly recommended they drop their Mena investigation), told Marianne Gasior that I was a right-wing nut because of what I had written about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Marianne said, "I don't think so," and read off my resume. Blum's response: "You're kidding." Gasior was politically a liberal Democrat, and when she was pursuing a case against Kennametal, which had done business with Iraq during the Gulf War, she received some support from Democrat politicians, because the issue was embarrassing to Republican interests. *Time Magazine* did a write-up of her efforts ("A Matter of Honor," June 21, 1993). But when she began to ask questions about what Hillary Clinton was doing on the board of Lafarge Corporation, which was part of the same smuggling network, Democrat support for her research quickly evaporated (see "Whatever Happened to Iraqgate?", *The American Spectator*, November 1996.) To the average political hack, partisanship always takes precedence over the search for truth. In Wierzynski's case, while supposedly investigating money-laundering for the House Committee, he seemed to be actually serving other interests--perhaps the Pentagon's, perhaps someone else's. Hayes had come up with financial records showing that fifty to seventy million dollars a day of drug-related money was being laundered through the institutions he was looking at. Wierzynski couldn't understand how such a thing was possible. He wanted "proof" in a neat little package, say a memo entitled "Today's Money-Laundering Report". He seemed to expect to ask a few questions, and then *voila!*-- the darkest secrets of American political life would be exposed. So it is not surprising that Wierzynski's investigation had gone nowhere before Jack Blum arrived to call the whole thing off. Meanwhile, Wierzynski's son, in school in England, had been indicted for supplying information to a group of Russian hackers in St. Petersburg, who had pulled off a heist of Citibank funds. Both Wierzynski and Stephen Gannis, the Counsel for the House Committee on Banking and Finance, were in touch with a San Francisco attorney named Charles O. Morgan. Systematics (now a subsidiary of Alltel) had hired Morgan to lie about its relationship to the NSA, and Morgan proceeded to do just that. In an April 5, 1995, letter to Michael Geltner, an attorney for Agora, Inc., Morgan wrote: "None of ALLTEL's operations or subsidiaries has ever had any connection in any capacity with the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, or any other similar agency in the United States Government; . . ." But recent documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by *The Washington Weekly* from NSA show that, for example, that "The Arkansas-based security contractor Systematics Inc. on September 14, 1990 was awarded a $166,000 NSA contract to build a 'Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility' (SCIF) in Ft. Gillem, Georgia" (*The Washington Weekly*, Nov. 11, 1996). Morgan similarly denied any connection between Web Hubbell and Systematics, writing, "Webster Hubbell never served as an attorney or in any other capacity for ALLTEL Corporation, or for any of its operations or subsidiaries, other than a single instance in 1983, when Systematics, Inc., engaged Mr. Hubbell to pursue a competitor that was using Systematics, Inc.'s propriety software without authorization; . . ." But it is a matter of public record that when in 1978 Jackson Stephens tried to take over First American bank (later acquired by BCCI), that the bank sued Systematics along with BCCI, Bert Lance, and Jackson Stephens. Filing briefs for Systematics were Webster Hubbell, along with C.J. Giroir and Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Hubbell subsequently went to the Justice Department, and then to jail, after receiving a $500,000 payment for unspecified legal services from Indonesia's Lippo Group. C.J. Giroir left the Rose Law Firm and set up a consulting firm to arrange deals between the Lippo Group and Arkansas-based firms. Hillary Clinton recently declared her friendship for ex- Lippo employee and Democrat fund-raiser John Huang, and was also indicted by grand juries in Little Rock and in New York in October 1996. These indictments have not yet been made public.) But the non-pursuit of the drug-money laundering trail by the Leach Committee was not surprising. It stepped on too many toes. Hayes and I agreed that the U.S. was being rapidly transformed into a narco-republic. The drug cartels had penetrated the highest levels of the Justice Department and the FBI, elements of the intelligence community, and were additionally bribing a broad assortment of state and federal government employees and politicians. Even more alarming, the cartels were now making inroads into the White House. And the Clinton administration, with lax security stemming largely from a variety of drug-related issues, along with a pre-existing legacy of political corruption in Arkansas, had created a free-for-all playground for foreign agents. Everything was for sale, from trade policy to nuclear codes. Moreover, Bill Clinton (or perhaps those he surrounded himself with, while he partied on the side) was making rapid progress in turning the FBI and the Secret Service into a private political police force--a Gestapo whose duty was to investigate and harass (and even kill) his political opponents, and to cover up evidence of his own bad deeds. Extraordinary times required extraordinary measures. Enter the Fifth Column. (to be continued) November 12, 1996 Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Colorado Parental Rights Amendment 17 (fwd) Date: 12 Nov 1996 12:56:27 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Amendment 17 Parental Rights Yes 619,832 42.7% No 832,118 57.3% I encourage you to check out: http://www.rmfc.org/ I wish we had an equivalent Texas page. Regards, Lyle Amendment 17 Concerning Parental Rights =95 Amends the Colorado Constitution to set forth language to the effect th= at parents in Colorado have an inalienable right to direct and control the upbringing, education, values, and discipline of their children. =90 Arguments For: Parental authority has been eroded significantly over the past several decades due to court decisions granting government control over decisions traditionally exercised by parents. These decisions include health care decisions, including abortion obtained by minors, curriculum choices in the public schools, and parental discipline. The amendment would reaffirm that parents, not the government, should be making these decisions concerning their children. However, "inalienable rights" are not absolute rights; they are forfeited when a parent breaks the law by, for example, abusing a child= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: convert operatives Date: 12 Nov 1996 11:34:03 -0700 (MST) "A covert operation is covering up the fact that you are covering up." David Lifton, author of "Best Evidence" on the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy =========================================================== 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: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 63 (fwd) Date: 12 Nov 1996 16:15:55 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following is brought to you thanks, in part, to the kind assistance of CyberNews and the fine folks at Cornell University. Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 63 ====================================== ("Quid coniuratio est?") DID SUB-LAUNCHED MISSILE DOWN CIVILIAN JETLINER OFF LONG ISLAND? ================================================================ By Mike Blair ------------- (The Spotlight, Nov. 18, 1996) Investigative reporters have focused on the possibility that TWA Flight 800 was shot down by a missile-bearing submarine on July 17. A CBS News reporter contacted The Spotlight to exchange information regarding the downing of the airliner, which cost the lives of all 230 people on board. The CBS reporter said she was particularly interested in The Spotlight's reports that U.S. spy satellites had photographed the downing of the aircraft (Spotlight, Aug. 12 and subsequently). This is one of the few times that the mainstream media has joined The Spotlight in a probe of a news story in the populist newspaper's 21-year history. The Spotlight reported that a U.S. infrared spy satellite was in orbit over Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and had actually photographed the airliner being downed by a missile. Similar reports have appeared in New York newspapers. Most mainstream reports are moving to the conclusion that neither a missile nor a bomb downed the jet, rather that it was some sort of accidental internal explosion bringing the plane down. -+- Photos Studied -+- According to Spotlight sources, the National Reconnaisance Office (NRO) was studying "frame-by-frame" photographs taken of the downing of Flight 800 to determine the type and origin of the missile responsible for the tragedy. The NRO is the nation's most secret spy agency, which operates and collects the data obtained from the highly-sophisticated spy platforms in space orbit. According to internal CBS memoranda provided to The Spotlight, the network news department has determined that Assistant FBI Director James K. Kallstrom, who is heading the bureau's probe of the crash out of New York, is "convinced it's a missile [that destroyed the airliner] and that he thinks the Pentagon is withholding information." The Spotlight has researched details regarding an American guided-missile cruiser that was operating in the vicinity of the plane crash, some 10 miles off Long Island's southern coast. It has been determined that the *Ticonderoga*-class guided missile cruiser, USS Normandy (CG-60), a 567-foot, 9,466-ton vessel commissioned by the Navy in 1990, was about 180 miles from the TWA jetliner when it was blown from the sky. The Navy claims that the Normandy's air search radar was not working at the time the TWA plane was downed. According to the *Jane's Fighting Ships*, published in Britain, guided-missile cruisers of the Normandy's class are equipped with at least three air-search radar systems, each apparently capable of providing the others back-up. The original area of ocean off Long Island determined to be part of the "crime scene" of the crash by the FBI and other federal agencies measured an area of 2,400 square miles. That would place the missile cruiser well within the area. CBS says that a Navy Lockheed P-3 Orion was airborne at 10,000 feet, about 60 miles from the TWA airliner, when the missile struck the jumbo jet. The P-3 Orion is one of the nation's key sub-hunting aircraft. According to a CBS memorandum, Paul Ragganes, a CBS expert in the field of military weaponry, "says that the fact that the Normandy (a cruise missile carrier) was nearby, and that the P-3 Orion was even closer makes him think that the Navy was at least responding to a threat. If that's the case, the threat turned into a really ugly and embarrassing reality." It has been reported in the media that a Navy H-60 helicopter was in the area where the TWA plane went down. According to *Jane's*, the Normandy carries two SH-60B Seahawk helicopters, the Navy's version of the Army's UH-60 Blackhawk. The Seahawk is equipped with a LAMPS III (Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System III). The purpose of the LAMPS electronics is anti-submarine warfare. The Seahawk is also capable of releasing submarine-detecting sonobuoys into the sea where submarine activity is suspected. The Orion is also capable of releasing sonobuoys. The CBS reporter has queried the TWA Task Force, which consists of the federal agencies involved in the TWA probe, about the presence of the P-3 Orion sub-hunter being in the area of the crash and notes "this kind of aircraft is usually around when they're looking for a submarine, or they know one is in the water." Since the downing of TWA Flight 800, the FBI and other federal investigative agencies have received more than 100 reports from individuals who witnessed a missile streak up toward the aircraft, just before it burst into flames. At first, it was speculated that the airplane was downed by terrorists using a small shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile (SAM), such as an American-made Stinger. However, some military experts, including explosive weapons specialist retired Air Force Gen. Ben Partin, believe that a larger, far more powerful missile was used. The retired general said he believes that a far more sophisticated and larger radar-guided SAM was used, one that is fired from a fixed launcher, either from a ship, the ground or some type of mobile launching system. It was, some experts contend, the type of missile that would instantly destroy its target, just as Flight 800 was destroyed, and not a shoulder-fired weapon that could just cripple its target but still leave it airborne. "The type of missile that hit Flight 800," the retired general said, "was of a type intended to destroy a large strategic bomber, not just damage it and leave it to limp along to its target to deliver nuclear weapons." Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief. I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation." If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1") For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom See also: http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html See also: ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: LP Law Ends Sobriety Roadblocks in NH! Date: 12 Nov 1996 18:56:00 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:33:34 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: militia@megalinx.net (J.J. & Helen Johnson) >Subject: LP Law Ends Sobriety Roadblocks in NH! > >To: LP business - news and announcements >----------------------------------------- >For release: June 12, 1996 >----------------------------------------- >For additional information: >Bill Winter, Director of Communications >(202) 333-0008 >Internet:73163.3063@CompuServe.com >----------------------------------------- > > >New Libertarian law ends random drunk-driving roadblocks in N.H. > > WASHINGTON, DC -- Random drunk-driving roadblocks will vanish from New >Hampshire as of midnight, June 11, thanks to the first Libertarian-sponsored >legislation to become law at the state level in more than a decade. > > House Bill 1285, introduced by Libertarian State Representative Don >Gorman (L-Deerfield), requires police to get permission from a judge before >setting up drunk-driving roadblocks, and requires the judge to affirm that >"all constitutional guarantees are met." > > "This effectively means that there won't be another sobriety roadblock >in New Hampshire," said Gorman. > > The bill passed the N.H. House by voice vote in March, and the State >Senate in April. It became law on Tuesday when Governor Steve Merrill (R) did >not sign or veto the bill within five days. > > Random drunk-driving roadblocks are "no question, unconstitutional," >said Gorman, explaining why he filed the bill. > > "Roadblocks of this type infringe on the right of law-abiding citizens >to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The NH State Constitution, >as interpreted by the State Supreme Court (State vs. Koppel, 1985) clearly >indicates that NH residents are entitled to greater protection against these >types of 'no-reason' stops than is provided for in the 4th Amendment to the >U.S. Constitution," he said. > > "It's about time that law enforcement learned that the Constitution >and the Bill of Rights are supreme in the land," said Gorman, the lone >Libertarian legislator in New Hampshire's 400-member House. > > In addition, sobriety checkpoints are not effective, argued Gorman. > > Citing New Hampshire's capitol city Concord as an example, Gorman >noted, "During a six-month period, the Concord police department conducted 47 >checkpoints, making 1,680 stops and 18 arrests for DWI [Driving While >Intoxicated]. During the same period, routine patrols using traditional >methods arrested 175 for DWI. Clearly, the checkpoints are ineffective as well >as unconstitutional." > > National Libertarian Party Chair Steve Dasbach applauded Gorman's >achievement, calling it a victory for civil liberties in America and for >Libertarian political action. > > "Passage of the bill helps take the Libertarian Party to the next >level, from electoral victory to successful Libertarian legislation. That's >how we will change this country -- town by town, state by state, issue by >issue," said Dasbach. > > The last Libertarian-sponsored state-level legislation was voted into >law in Alaska in the early 1980s. > > # # # > > >--- > * Origin: Forwarded through Dehnbase Rainbow (1:204/9) >=========================================================== >J.J. & Helen Johnson - Fridays - 8:00 pm EST - WWCR 5.070 Mhz >E Pluribus Unum & The Ohio Unorganized Militia >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 >Voice (614) 836-7650 Voice Mail: 1-888-572-6280 >Web Site - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > > "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: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: STUNG (fwd) Date: 12 Nov 1996 19:38:36 PST roc@xmission.com wrote : > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 07:50 EST >From: Linda Thompson >To: aen-news@aen.org >Subject: STUNG > >Re: So-called "Militia bombing" convictions > > > >Setting up the Incompetent with the All Too Willing: At the risk of irritating / amusing as many as possible in the least possible time I would like to suggest a very reliable and very low tech way of finding out whether potential acquaintances are pure of heart or totally dishonest and perhaps an informer or at least one that you probably want nothing to do with. Integrate as high a percentage wolf hybrid as possible into the operation. Now contrary to their press wolves are not agressive and spend at least 99% of their time making sure that as little as possible will come to pass to cause them harm. I am quite convinced they are very skilled at reading aura's from a long distance. If given half a chance to examine something / someone for a sufficient period, THEY WILL. If they will not willingly come up and be friends with someone you should probably want nothing to do with them and before conspiring with someone about something with possible ramifications have them stare into the eyes of a wolf. That is the quickest / cheapest way to test for the pure of heart you can imagine Cheapest has to be understood that the amount and type of food wolves need / want is not cheap......but far cheaper for the most part than gaining access to data bases or personal files and such Jack > >In the previous case I worked on and another I did not work on but am >familiar with, I have determined the feds target people who are slightly >"off" and hope to rope in others into a "conspiracy" that is developed by >placing a key informant next to the nutty person. The key informant is >credible and recruits all the others into the "conspiracy." > >The others do not need to actually participate in any "conspiracy" for this >to occur and need do nothing more than appear at a meeting, for instance. > >The informant will have had lots of opportunities for "private" >conversations with the "nut," which are tape-recorded, and will be played >for the jury, as the "nut" confides his deepest secret desires to his "good >friend," the informant, or babbles idiot plans and nonsense in a fit of >pique, inspired, but not taped, by the informant, who tapes the target's >responses. Picture how these tapes will sound to a jury. Gads. > >The other "conspirators" will never know about these tapes until the trial. >The "informant" however, will be the key person who says, "He said this to >me" (play the tapes) and "all these other people went along with his plan." >(Tying in the "co-conspirators.") and the informant will say the others >"came to this meeting" to hear about the plans. Bingo, now, everyone's in a >big "conspiracy." > >It is a pretty standard formula being used by the feds. Remember, at trial, >the operative no longer appears to be the target's "friend." The informant >is the government's friend. The informant will be taught how to present >himself to the jury and appear even more credible, like he was trying to >"save" the public from some dire harm, just "doing his public duty." > >See how that looks? The most "credible" witness is on the government's >side, looking like a good samaritan. He will explain how it pains him to >tell all these terrible things about his FORMER "good friend," the target. > >At the defense table, the jury will see the "nut" or target and his >"co-conspirators" and the jury will hear the babbling and crazy >"confidential" tapes played, as they look at the "nut" and his "friends" >while the "good-guy informant" tells them how all these folks were planning >to do nasty terrible things. The "good-guy informant" of course will be >backed up by "good-guy law enforcement" who will parade a lot of evidence, >whether it is relevant or not, to support this public bastion of integrity, >their informant, emphasizing how good his work was. > >The Ray Lampley case is a good example of this that most are familiar with. >I'd say the Freemen case probably presents another such example. The "viper >militia" case may also be another case in point, but I do not have enough >details about that to be sure. The W. Virginia case is definitely another >example. The New Hampshire/Connecticutt case is the clearest example I've >seen anywhere. > >Under the best of circumstances, this is a tough kind of case to win, >because it is not much different than a witch trial. Get enough people >pointing fingers crying, "WITCH!", at a somewhat nutty person who may even >like being called a witch, and what's the defense? > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Ironclad Law of Prohibition Date: 12 Nov 1996 20:40:08 -0700 (MST) This is the Ironclad Law of Prohibition: When you prohibit any substance, the price of that substance skyrockets. The government benefits from such a prohibition, particularly when the government runs a monopoly for the substance. So, at the base of the drug war is raw economics (read "greed"). Got it? /s/ Paul Mitchell At 07:04 PM 11/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >On Sat, 9 Nov 1996 20:03:12 -0500 >>Peter Webster posted: >>At 16:41 30/10/96 -0500, David F. Duncan wrote: >>> I have been doing literature search for the past several months for >>>a projected paper tentatively titled, "Why do the prohibitionists cling >>>to their beliefs." One big part of the answer appears to be that when >>>people's opinions are attacked, they do not consider the arguments >>>against their belief; instead they organize counterarguments. >> >>A bit late in reply, >That's ok, Peter-there's no time limit on a good discussion. > >but Ive been busy with old friends for awhile. >>I think that old classic of the philosophy of science, Kuhn's *The Structure >>of Scientific Revolutions* goes further than anything since, and may well be >>the definitive viewpoint for understanding how an "old guard" whether >>scientific or in any other position of authority, can resist a new >>fundamental viewpoint, or paradigm, until their death. And why they simply >>construct counter-arguments, etc. > >This is an unfortunate characteristic of human nature. I think we should be >able to consider ideas purely on their *merit* rather than the manner in >which they are presented. A new idea which challenges the accepted "truth" >is heresy, Heretics have never been popular. > >> >>A former student of Kuhn, Howard Margolis, has also written of the reasons >>(*Paradigms and Barriers*) why flat-earthers remain flat-earthers....(snip) >>To avoid continuing a long story, the point: The barrier in the case of the >>whole drug war/problem/prohibition, is the unshakeable conviction, never >>examined, discussed, or even recognized by some of the principal >>protagonists, that, in accordance with many other ideas that have come down >>to us via Puritans, Calvinists, and Christian and other religious >>fundamentalists, that the desire and act of changing one's state of >>consciousness is itself somehow bad, sinful, disreputable, leading to moral >>degradation, against God, in the words of William Bennett ....(Snip).. > >Certainly I agree that prohibitionists' only real success is to >implant/exploit the conviction in the minds of many that certain drugs are >too "bad" to ever "legalize." The primitive belief Weil refers to, if real >would help explain the attraction of that false premise. > >>To continue with impeccable references, (although a few background snorts of >>derision will be heard), Andrew Weil's *The Natural Mind,* still in print >>for three decades, puts the lie to the >>barrier......(snip)..................... >To reject such a fundamental >>drive would [alteration of consciousness] >>be tantamount to denyng that one had sexual drives. Imagine discussing such >>ideas in a public forum today in stale-paradigm-wracked western >>civilization. They are valuable ideas, probably of much greater inherent >>truth than the fundamentalist inheritance, yet whether they are screamed, >>gently suggested, or whatever, they will be shouted down, most assuredly, >>even buy those (covertly) attracted to them. (Perhaps, as Koestler >>maintains, ESPECIALLY by those unsure of their position). >> >>Thus it matters little whether the old guard is viciously attacked, politely >>goaded, or ignored completely. The two sides ALWAYS argue pst each other, > >I couldn't be more in agreement. The problem is how to overcome the dissonance. > >>even when we should all know better as a result of, for one thing, Kuhn's >>excellent treatise. The old-guard will die with their convictions, as always >>happens. What may change, is that they will lose power and influence as >>younger, more versatile thinkers persuade the uncommitted, an achievement >>that is often long and difficult, but may actually be succeeding in >>California and Arizona! >> >> >>>Thus, >>>strident approaches, like Tom's, tend to strengthen the opposition's >>>commitment to their view instead of raising ANY doubt about it. >> >>It is under consideration here, in light of Kuhn and Margolis, that NO >>approach can raise those doubts under circumstances of required paradigm >>shifts. Yet stridency may, in the spirit of Sun Tzu, encourage them to make >>fabulous blunders, (Lungren, Wilson, Lee Brown, et al.) so that the mass of >>uncommitted may more readily see them for the intellectual fossils they are. >>If one is excessively annoyed by stridency, the odds are that one is with >>the old-guard, and doomed, rather than an assistant to revolution. >> >Whatever works, however it works. Peter's observation about forced errors >is, I believe, very applicable to the present situation. The prohibition >lobby is under great pressure to both explain and react to the votes in >California & Arizona. Whatever their response, it is almost certain to >combine error with wishful thinking and deceit. We need to respond in a way >which exploits their great weakness; the implausibility of prohibition as >reasonable policy and the egregious excesses of the present program. We >also need to be mindful that our opponents have easy access to the media; >whereas ours comes only because of issues in the news. We now have a golden >opportunity to attack the validity of prohibition. We should not waste it. > >We need to disabuse ourselves, as a movement, of the need to answer our >opponents challenge to construct a model of drug regulation which will >achieve consensus. This will not be possible and is not the challenge, >which is to reject prohibition. As weak and ineffectual as we have been >standing in opposition to the prohibition colossus, we represent the only >force which can overthrow the prohibition paradigm. If we accept *their* >assignment to solve the drug abuse problem, we will dither on the sidelines >while prohibition continues to expand its legions of beneficiaries. > >True drug policy reform is above all rational. Prohibition is irrational. >Reform in a setting of prohibition is illusory. >Tom O'Connell > > > =========================================================== 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: wooden stakes Date: 12 Nov 1996 20:55:02 -0700 (MST) This reminds me of an experience I had yesterday in a local restaurant. I had just spent the previous 3 hours briefing my colleague Rich on the problem with all federal courts. Then, I gravitated over to the question of the true identity of the "IRS". I got so animated, I told Rich that I was no longer looking for a silver bullet; I was actually sharpening a huge wooden stake now in my left hand, and a huge sledge hammer was in my right hand. I had to jump out of my seat to demonstrate the next part. I stood up and started swinging my right arm around in giant circles. After a few rounds of my right arm, which was gaining speed on each revolution, I screamed as I slammed that sledge hammer down onto the top of that wooden stake. I thought the restaurant was empty, but this couple in the far corner almost lost their dinners. This was only an act, you understand. Rich just loved it. Practice makes perfect, yes? :-) /s/ Paul Mitchell At 07:28 PM 11/12/96 -0700, you wrote: >================[ Distributed Message ]================ > ListServer: liberty (BRASSROOTS Liberty Watch Listserver) > Type: Not Moderated > Distributed on: 12-NOV-96, 19:27:08 >Original Written by: IN:patriot@rtd.com. >======================================================= > > > >>> >Phil >>> No one expects an inquisition. >> >>You do know what Vlad the Impaler (the real-life inspiration for Bram >>Stoker's "Dracula") used to impale his victims upon in ancient Rumania, >>don't you? >> >>That's right! Huge red fountain pens. >> >>Icky... > Talk about a red pen fanatic! > >Bernie > > > >======================================================================== >To subscribe: send a message to the Liberty@hollyent.com >with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field. Use UNSUBSCRIBE to >remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems? > email: Not Moderated@hollyent.com or listmgmt@hollyent.com >For information about this system and its lists email: info@hollyent.com >======================================================================== >via: Holly Enterprises 602-922-1639 - www.hollyent.com > > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Ironclad Law of Prohibition Date: 12 Nov 1996 20:28:33 PST roc@xmission.com wrote : >This is the Ironclad Law of Prohibition: > >When you prohibit any substance, >the price of that substance skyrockets. >The government benefits from such >a prohibition, particularly when the >government runs a monopoly for the >substance. So, at the base of the >drug war is raw economics (read "greed"). > >Got it? > >/s/ Paul Mitchell But the problem is we have never actually tried to prohibit drugs. If there were true prohibition those using them would be punished. In the actual present world. Those using them are richly rewarded with fantastic amounts of medical care and substance abuse treatments while those who do not use drugs are punished by being taxed or forced to buy medical insurance for substnace abuse they have no need for. If the prohibition were done correctly so that there would be no public treatment for any problems caused by drugs and either insurance companies could not sell policies covering treatment for using illegal drugs or those wanting medical insurance that would cover substance abuse would have to buy special riders so that only those using drugs / having habits that result is self abuse would be in the pool and thus pay very high prices for the insurance then prohibition would work in that all the costs would be borne by the filth using drugs / engaging in self abuse and hopefully, they not being able to pay for the fantasitc amount of medical care their stupid habits cause would die out as fast as possible leaving the rest of us free of the cost of drugs / self abuse Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: STUNG (fwd) Date: 12 Nov 1996 21:53:09 -0700 (MST) I once had a client whose dog was part wolf. She was so smart, she would routinely greet us by running around us in circles as we walked along a country path; then, just for fun, when our legs were spread during a pause, she would run between our legs. Of course, all of this was designed quite clearly to engage us in "hot pursuit" which is a game wolves play with humans, just to see how fast the humans can run; meanwhile, the wolf is always just ahead of you, no matter how fast you are running. When you run out of gas, or air, or whatever, wolf always comes back to console you, until you are ready for another round. Then, the game begins all over, once again. If you stop for air, and your legs are spread just enough, wolf might come running straight at your, in the hopes that you might try to close the gap just at the right moment. This, of course, causes wolf to make sharp turns to one side or the other, to see if you can catch wolf's tail as it passes by at high speed. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 07:38 PM 11/12/96 PST, you wrote: >roc@xmission.com wrote : > >> >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 96 07:50 EST >>From: Linda Thompson >>To: aen-news@aen.org >>Subject: STUNG >> >>Re: So-called "Militia bombing" convictions >> >> >> >>Setting up the Incompetent with the All Too Willing: > >At the risk of irritating / amusing as many as possible in the least >possible time I would like to suggest a very reliable and very low tech >way of finding out whether potential acquaintances are pure of heart or >totally dishonest and perhaps an informer or at least one that you >probably want nothing to do with. > >Integrate as high a percentage wolf hybrid as possible into the operation. >Now contrary to their press wolves are not agressive and spend at least >99% of their time making sure that as little as possible will come to pass >to cause them harm. I am quite convinced they are very skilled at reading >aura's from a long distance. If given half a chance to examine something / >someone for a sufficient period, THEY WILL. If they will not willingly >come up and be friends with someone you should probably want nothing to do >with them and before conspiring with someone about something with >possible ramifications have them stare into the eyes of a wolf. That >is the quickest / cheapest way to test for the pure of heart you can imagine > >Cheapest has to be understood that the amount and type of food wolves need >/ want is not cheap......but far cheaper for the most part than gaining >access to data bases or personal files and such > >Jack > > >> >>In the previous case I worked on and another I did not work on but am >>familiar with, I have determined the feds target people who are slightly >>"off" and hope to rope in others into a "conspiracy" that is developed by >>placing a key informant next to the nutty person. The key informant is >>credible and recruits all the others into the "conspiracy." >> >>The others do not need to actually participate in any "conspiracy" for this >>to occur and need do nothing more than appear at a meeting, for instance. >> >>The informant will have had lots of opportunities for "private" >>conversations with the "nut," which are tape-recorded, and will be played >>for the jury, as the "nut" confides his deepest secret desires to his "good >>friend," the informant, or babbles idiot plans and nonsense in a fit of >>pique, inspired, but not taped, by the informant, who tapes the target's >>responses. Picture how these tapes will sound to a jury. Gads. >> >>The other "conspirators" will never know about these tapes until the trial. >>The "informant" however, will be the key person who says, "He said this to >>me" (play the tapes) and "all these other people went along with his plan." >>(Tying in the "co-conspirators.") and the informant will say the others >>"came to this meeting" to hear about the plans. Bingo, now, everyone's in a >>big "conspiracy." >> >>It is a pretty standard formula being used by the feds. Remember, at trial, >>the operative no longer appears to be the target's "friend." The informant >>is the government's friend. The informant will be taught how to present >>himself to the jury and appear even more credible, like he was trying to >>"save" the public from some dire harm, just "doing his public duty." >> >>See how that looks? The most "credible" witness is on the government's >>side, looking like a good samaritan. He will explain how it pains him to >>tell all these terrible things about his FORMER "good friend," the target. >> >>At the defense table, the jury will see the "nut" or target and his >>"co-conspirators" and the jury will hear the babbling and crazy >>"confidential" tapes played, as they look at the "nut" and his "friends" >>while the "good-guy informant" tells them how all these folks were planning >>to do nasty terrible things. The "good-guy informant" of course will be >>backed up by "good-guy law enforcement" who will parade a lot of evidence, >>whether it is relevant or not, to support this public bastion of integrity, >>their informant, emphasizing how good his work was. >> >>The Ray Lampley case is a good example of this that most are familiar with. >>I'd say the Freemen case probably presents another such example. The "viper >>militia" case may also be another case in point, but I do not have enough >>details about that to be sure. The W. Virginia case is definitely another >>example. The New Hampshire/Connecticutt case is the clearest example I've >>seen anywhere. >> >>Under the best of circumstances, this is a tough kind of case to win, >>because it is not much different than a witch trial. Get enough people >>pointing fingers crying, "WITCH!", at a somewhat nutty person who may even >>like being called a witch, and what's the defense? >> >> > > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | > ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | > jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | > > =========================================================== 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: Oregon Box Cars Date: 13 Nov 1996 06:25:11 -0700 (MST) Auschwitz II? Charles, I am reforwarding to all my broadcast lists, even at the risk of re-broadcasting here. Thanks for the tip. This is very VERY ugly, to say the least. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 12:31 AM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote: >Hey all Portland area folks, > > Can anyone give us some feedback on these concerns? > >C.S........ > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:32:26 -0600 >From: Tony F Sgarlatti >To: chuck@teleport.com >Subject: Oregon Box Cars > >Chuck, > >I obtained the following information from a couple of posts a month >or so ago. I've asked a couple of people I know from Oregon if they >can follow up and confirm or deny the following, but so far no one I >asked has bothered to get back with me. If you can give me some >feedback about this I'd appreciate it. Thx. > >tony > >Post 1: >> The shadow government has authorized and contracted for the >> construction of as many as 107,200 box cars with restraints for 143 >> people each. One company building these cars is located in Portland, >> OR called Gunderson, Inc. I asked John Fischer to look into this if he >> could and he obtained a phone number and spoke with someone there who >> acknowledged they built rail cars. I subsquently have asked others to >> photograph the construction so it can be coverted into gifs for the >> net. > >Follow up: >> I went to www.switchboard.com (find person) to search for John Fischer in >> Oregon with these results: >> >> Fischer, John...616 SE 3rd St...Ontario, OR 97914-3743 >> Phone: (541)889-8408 >> >> Fischer, John C...2197 Jeppesen Acres Rd...Eugene, OR 97401-7484 >> Phone: (541)683-5866 >> >> Fischer, John D...15645 E Burnside St...Portland, OR 97233-3132 >> Phone: (503)251-8495 >> >> Fischer, John F...3145 SW 98th Ave...Portland, OR 97225-2924 >> Phone: (503)297-4100 >> >> Fischer, John G...1451 NW 20th St...Lincoln City, OR 97367-3832 >> Phone: (541)994-3514 >> >> Fischer, John J...Troutdale, OR 97060 >> Phone: (503)665-9694 >> >> Fischer, John L...18665 SW Seiffert Rd...Sherwood, OR 97140-8652 >> Phone: (503)628-1570 >> >> Fischer, John M...2210 N Dekum St...Portland, OR 97217-5333 >> Phone: (503)289-6902 >> >> ----- >> >> Then I used www.switchboard.com (find business) to search for Gunderson, >> Inc. in Oregon: >> >> Gunderson Inc...4350 Nw Front...Portland, OR 97210 >> Phone: (503)228-9281 >> >> ----- > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cap Schwartz" Subject: Re: STUNG (fwd) Date: 13 Nov 1996 07:04:20 -0800 So, can I rent your wolf for a couple of weeks? =C= > >At the risk of irritating / amusing as many as possible in the least >possible time I would like to suggest a very reliable and very low tech >way of finding out whether potential acquaintances are pure of heart or >totally dishonest and perhaps an informer or at least one that you >probably want nothing to do with. "... we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly." --John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: State Legislatures Election Results Date: 13 Nov 1996 10:37:26 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Here is a list of changes in state legislatures following the 11/5 election, according to a study by the Nat'l Conference of State Legislatures. CHANGE: Dems won control of the House in CA, IL, ME, MI, NV and PA. The GOP took over the FL House. Dems won the Senate in ME, TN and VT. The GOP won the Senate in IA and WA. The TX Senate is deadlocked at 15, with one race still undecided. STATE SENATES PRE POST NET STATE ELECTION ELECTION CHANGE AK 12R-8D 13R-7D +1R ^ AZ 19R-11D 18R-12D +1D AR 28D-7R 28D-6R -1R CA 22D-16R 24D-15R-1I +2D ^ CO 19R-16D 20R-15D +1R CT 17D-19R 19D-17R +2D DE 13D-8R 13D-8R NONE FL 22R-18D 23R-17D +1R GA 35D-21R 34D-22R +1R HI 23D-2R 23D-2R NONE ID 27R-8D 30R-5D +3R IL 33R-26D 30R-29D +3D IN 31R-19D 31R-19D NONE IA 27D-23R 29R-21D +6R KS 27R-13D 27R-13D NONE KY 20D-17R 20D-18R +1R ME 18R-16D 19D-15R-1I +3D MA 30D-10R 32D-8R +2D MI 22R-16D 22R-16D NONE MN 41D-25R 42D-24R +1D ^ MO 19D-15R 19D-15R NONE MT 31R-19D 34R-16D +3R NE 49 # NV 13R-8D 12R-9D +1D NH 18R-6D 15R-9D +3D NM 27D-15R 24D-17R +2R ^ NY 37R-24D 35R-26D +2D NC 26D-24R 30D-20R +4D ND 29R-19D 30R-19D +1R OH 20R-13D 21R-12D +1R OK 35D-13R 33D-15R +2R OR 19R-11D 19R-11D NONE PA 29R-20D 30R-20D +1R RI 40D-10R 41D-9R +1D SC 24D-21R 25D-21R +1D SD 19R-16D 22R-13D +3R TN 17R-16D 18D-15R +2D TX 17D-14R 15D-15R +1R ^ UT 19R-10D 20R-9D +1R VT 18R-12D 17D-13R +5D WA 25D-24R 26R-23D +2R WV 26D-8R 25D-9R +1R WI 17D-16R 17D-16R NONE WY 20R-10D 21R-8D +1R ^ STATE HOUSES PRE POST NET STATE ELECTION ELECTION CHANGE AK 22R-17D 24R-16D +2R AZ 38R-22D 38R-22D NONE AR 88D-12R 85D-15R +3R CA 41R-36D 41D-36R +5D ^ CO 41R-24D 41R-24D NONE CT 92D-59R 95D-55R +3D ^ DE 27R-14D 27R-14D NONE FL 63D-57R 61R-59D +4R GA 113D-67R 105D-73R +6R ^ HI 44D-7R 39D-12R +5R ID 58R-12D 59R-11D +1R IL 64R-54D 60D-58R +6D IN 55R-45D 50D-50R +5D IA 63R-37D 54R-46D +9D KS 81R-44D 77R-48D +4D KY 63D-36R 64D-36R +1D ME 74R-74D 81D-69R-1I +7D MA 123D-35R 134D-25R-1I +9D MI 55R-54D 58D-52R +4D MN 69D-63R 70D-64R +1D MO 88D-74R 88D-75R +1R MT 67R-33D 65R-35D +2D NE 49# NV 21D-21R 25D-17R +4D NH 279R-111D 255R-143D-2I +32D NM 46D-24R 41D-26R +2R ^ NY 95D-54R 96D-54R +1D NC 68R-52D 61R-59D +7D ND 74R-23D 72R-26D +3D OH 56R-42D 60R-39D +4R OK 64D-36R 65D-36R +1D OR 34R-26D 31R-29D +3D PA 102R-101D 104R-99D +2R RI 86D-14R 85D-15R +1R SC 62R-54D 69R-54D-1I +7R SD 46R-24D 47R-23D +1R TN 59D-40R 62D-37R +3D TX 86D-64R 84D-66R +2R UT 55R-20D 55R-20D NONE VT 87D-61R 87D-59R-1I-3O +2R WA 62R-36D 53R-45D +9D WV 69D-31R 74D-26R +5D WI 51R-46D 52R-47D +1R WY 47R-13D 39R-16D +3D ^ NOTES: AL, LA, MD, MS, NJ, and VA did not hold legislative elections this cycle. In MI, all House seats are up in '96, but no Senate seats. NE has a unicameral legislature and legislators are elected on a non-partisan basis. ^ Some races are still undecided. OVERVIEW: Dem voters "halted the enormous electoral advances" made by GOPers in key legislative races, results that are "likely to have a major impact on the national agenda." Dems increased the number of chambers under their control to 49 from 46. They won a net gain of about 96 seats, after a net loss of 664 seats since '92. GOP-controlled chambers dropped to 44 from 50 (Brooke, N.Y. TIMES, 11/7). -- CPCs Online - Helping women with crisis pregnancies. http://www.prolife.org/cpcs-online --------------- MESSAGE rlc-discuss.v001.n102.5 --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: STUNG (fwd) Date: 13 Nov 1996 09:42:28 -0700 (MST) puppies are fun, too! /s/ Paul Mitchell At 07:04 AM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote: >So, can I rent your wolf for a couple of weeks? >=C= > > > >> >>At the risk of irritating / amusing as many as possible in the least >>possible time I would like to suggest a very reliable and very low tech >>way of finding out whether potential acquaintances are pure of heart or >>totally dishonest and perhaps an informer or at least one that you >>probably want nothing to do with. > > > > "... we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters >violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. >If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions >had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, >and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly." >--John R. Lott, Jr., School of Law Univ. of Chicago, 1996 > > =========================================================== 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: SSN's and Privacy Date: 13 Nov 1996 10:12:33 -0700 (MST) Disclosure of social security number. Act Dec. 31, 1974, P.L. 93-579, Section 7, 88 Stat. 1909, provided: "(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number. "(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to -- "(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or "(B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual. "(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it." Comments by Paul Mitchell follow: Congress deliberately failed to codify this statute in Title 5 of the United States Code. You will find it embedded at the end of the historical notes within the Privacy Act. When a government employee was sued for violating this Act, he asserted ignorance of the law as his defense. The court upheld this defense, thus creating an important exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse. My reading of this decision is that the court was giving silent judicial notice to the fact that Congress actually "hid" the law; thus, the court's holding did not really overturn the maxim (ignorance is not excuse); it merely recognized that fraud vitiates everything, even the most solemn promises. I have taken this statute and reduced it down to the size of a standard credit card. Then, I laminated it in plastic and saved it in my wallet. Later, I gave it away to an attendee of one of Lynne Meredith's seminars; the attendee was mostly incredulous that such a law even existed. It is very easy to make another one. I prefer to take a photocopy right out of the law books, and to laminate that photocopy. Try it! It is always very powerful to witness these laws yourself, at the local county law library. Take this email message down to the reference librarian, and see if s/he can locate it for you. The Privacy Act can be found in the reference volume which lists statutes by name. Good luck! Paul Andrew Mitchell November, 1996 all rights reserved =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: STUNG (fwd) Date: 13 Nov 1996 09:24:29 PST roc@xmission.com wrote : >So, can I rent your wolf for a couple of weeks? Wolves are like honor / integrity: They can be possessed but not rented or borrowed. Stable life time relations are possible by bonding with pups that are 6 to 10 weeks old and that is only possible if the human is / can be dominant over the wolf ......even as a cub, not physically but just as a more dominant personality. I obtained BARAK from Nancy Taylor / Box 246 Cocolalla Idaho 208 263 7043 Wolves still follow instincts and cubs are available in the May to June time frame and if that is not so, one's suspicions should be very great. There is also a magazine Wolf Hybrid Times / Box 1423 / Gallup NM 87305 505 863 5408 which features lots of ads from diverse breeders Jack >=C= >> Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: Re: Ironclad Law of Prohibition Date: 13 Nov 1996 09:41:57 -0900 Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > > This is the Ironclad Law of Prohibition: > > When you prohibit any substance, > the price of that substance skyrockets. > The government benefits from such > a prohibition, particularly when the > government runs a monopoly for the > substance. So, at the base of the > drug war is raw economics (read "greed"). > > Got it? > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > It is not entirely greed for $. There is a related Law, the "Baptists and Bootleggers Law": Whenever emotions are involved in an issue, moralists can gain power by taking one side of the issue, and will be paid by the bootleggers to do so effectively. Our Baptists include both preachers and TLAs, LEOs, judges and politicians. Our bootleggers include politicians, TLAs, LEOs, businessmen, ... You can perhaps see the positive feedback loop here. Positive feedback loops destroy the systems they control if unmoderated. Lew > At 07:04 PM 11/12/96 -0500, you wrote: > >On Sat, 9 Nov 1996 20:03:12 -0500 > >>Peter Webster posted: > >>At 16:41 30/10/96 -0500, David F. Duncan wrote: > >>> I have been doing literature search for the past several months for > >>>a projected paper tentatively titled, "Why do the prohibitionists cling > >>>to their beliefs." One big part of the answer appears to be that when > >>>people's opinions are attacked, they do not consider the arguments > >>>against their belief; instead they organize counterarguments. > >> > >>A bit late in reply, > >That's ok, Peter-there's no time limit on a good discussion. > > >but Ive been busy with old friends for awhile. > >>I think that old classic of the philosophy of science, Kuhn's *The Structure > >>of Scientific Revolutions* goes further than anything since, and may well be > >>the definitive viewpoint for understanding how an "old guard" whether > >>scientific or in any other position of authority, can resist a new > >>fundamental viewpoint, or paradigm, until their death. And why they simply > >>construct counter-arguments, etc. > > > >This is an unfortunate characteristic of human nature. I think we should be > >able to consider ideas purely on their *merit* rather than the manner in > >which they are presented. A new idea which challenges the accepted "truth" > >is heresy, Heretics have never been popular. > > > >> > >>A former student of Kuhn, Howard Margolis, has also written of the reasons > >>(*Paradigms and Barriers*) why flat-earthers remain flat-earthers....(snip) > >>To avoid continuing a long story, the point: The barrier in the case of the > >>whole drug war/problem/prohibition, is the unshakeable conviction, never > >>examined, discussed, or even recognized by some of the principal > >>protagonists, that, in accordance with many other ideas that have come down > >>to us via Puritans, Calvinists, and Christian and other religious > >>fundamentalists, that the desire and act of changing one's state of > >>consciousness is itself somehow bad, sinful, disreputable, leading to moral > >>degradation, against God, in the words of William Bennett ....(Snip).. > > > >Certainly I agree that prohibitionists' only real success is to > >implant/exploit the conviction in the minds of many that certain drugs are > >too "bad" to ever "legalize." The primitive belief Weil refers to, if real > >would help explain the attraction of that false premise. > > > >>To continue with impeccable references, (although a few background snorts of > >>derision will be heard), Andrew Weil's *The Natural Mind,* still in print > >>for three decades, puts the lie to the > >>barrier......(snip)..................... >To reject such a fundamental > >>drive would [alteration of consciousness] > >>be tantamount to denyng that one had sexual drives. Imagine discussing such > >>ideas in a public forum today in stale-paradigm-wracked western > >>civilization. They are valuable ideas, probably of much greater inherent > >>truth than the fundamentalist inheritance, yet whether they are screamed, > >>gently suggested, or whatever, they will be shouted down, most assuredly, > >>even buy those (covertly) attracted to them. (Perhaps, as Koestler > >>maintains, ESPECIALLY by those unsure of their position). > >> > >>Thus it matters little whether the old guard is viciously attacked, politely > >>goaded, or ignored completely. The two sides ALWAYS argue pst each other, > > > >I couldn't be more in agreement. The problem is how to overcome the dissonance. > > > >>even when we should all know better as a result of, for one thing, Kuhn's > >>excellent treatise. The old-guard will die with their convictions, as always > >>happens. What may change, is that they will lose power and influence as > >>younger, more versatile thinkers persuade the uncommitted, an achievement > >>that is often long and difficult, but may actually be succeeding in > >>California and Arizona! > >> > >> > >>>Thus, > >>>strident approaches, like Tom's, tend to strengthen the opposition's > >>>commitment to their view instead of raising ANY doubt about it. > >> > >>It is under consideration here, in light of Kuhn and Margolis, that NO > >>approach can raise those doubts under circumstances of required paradigm > >>shifts. Yet stridency may, in the spirit of Sun Tzu, encourage them to make > >>fabulous blunders, (Lungren, Wilson, Lee Brown, et al.) so that the mass of > >>uncommitted may more readily see them for the intellectual fossils they are. > >>If one is excessively annoyed by stridency, the odds are that one is with > >>the old-guard, and doomed, rather than an assistant to revolution. > >> > >Whatever works, however it works. Peter's observation about forced errors > >is, I believe, very applicable to the present situation. The prohibition > >lobby is under great pressure to both explain and react to the votes in > >California & Arizona. Whatever their response, it is almost certain to > >combine error with wishful thinking and deceit. We need to respond in a way > >which exploits their great weakness; the implausibility of prohibition as > >reasonable policy and the egregious excesses of the present program. We > >also need to be mindful that our opponents have easy access to the media; > >whereas ours comes only because of issues in the news. We now have a golden > >opportunity to attack the validity of prohibition. We should not waste it. > > > >We need to disabuse ourselves, as a movement, of the need to answer our > >opponents challenge to construct a model of drug regulation which will > >achieve consensus. This will not be possible and is not the challenge, > >which is to reject prohibition. As weak and ineffectual as we have been > >standing in opposition to the prohibition colossus, we represent the only > >force which can overthrow the prohibition paradigm. If we accept *their* > >assignment to solve the drug abuse problem, we will dither on the sidelines > >while prohibition continues to expand its legions of beneficiaries. > > > >True drug policy reform is above all rational. Prohibition is irrational. > >Reform in a setting of prohibition is illusory. > >Tom O'Connell > > > > > > > > ================================================== ========= > Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com > ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > ================================================== ========= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: Re: Ironclad Law of Prohibition Date: 13 Nov 1996 09:52:50 -0900 Jack@minerva.com wrote: > > roc@xmission.com wrote : > > >This is the Ironclad Law of Prohibition: > > > >When you prohibit any substance, > >the price of that substance skyrockets. > >The government benefits from such > >a prohibition, particularly when the > >government runs a monopoly for the > >substance. So, at the base of the > >drug war is raw economics (read "greed"). > > > >Got it? > > > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > > But the problem is we have never actually tried to prohibit > drugs. If there were true prohibition those using them would > be punished. In the actual present world. Those using them > are richly rewarded with fantastic amounts of medical care and > substance abuse treatments while those who do not use drugs > are punished by being taxed or forced to buy medical insurance > for substnace abuse they have no need for. > > If the prohibition were done correctly so that there would > be no public treatment for any problems caused by drugs and > either insurance companies could not sell policies covering > treatment for using illegal drugs or those wanting medical > insurance that would cover substance abuse would have to buy > special riders so that only those using drugs / having habits > that result is self abuse would be in > the pool and thus pay very high prices for the insurance > then prohibition would work in that all the costs would be > borne by the filth using drugs / engaging in self abuse and > hopefully, they not being able to pay for the fantasitc amount > of medical care their stupid habits cause would die out as fast > as possible leaving the rest of us free of the cost of drugs / > self abuse > > Jack > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | > ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | > jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | I agree with your prescription of individuals bearing the cost of their behaviors. Every Libertarian does. However, your emotional reaction to drugs is more consistent with what our gov's propaganda wants you to feel than what a medical researcher will tell you. Alcohol is a drug, so is nicotine. As a society, we have lived with both, and nicotine would be nearer an un-alloyed good if we got the FDA out of the way so that smoking didn't kill people. Nicotine is seriously addictive, but not in itself too serious a health risk. Heroin is probably less addictive than nicotine, and also not a serious health risk. I personally probably wouldn't try nicotine, even if available via inhalers, although medical evidence says it is good for psychological performance. It is not an accident that so many writers smoke. I wouldn't, I think, every try heroin, although I am not one to say what others should find optimal for their psyche/physiology. I definitely would have always preferred inhaling THC to drinking alcohol, because I know that THC is much less danger to me physiologically and psychologically than is alcohol. These need not be emotional issues. They are issues of fact, medical research, personal experience. I am not filth because I have used marajuana, nor because I have a twice-yearly double scotch. If you think so, you don't believe in the same Constitution that I know and love, and use as the basis of my public morality. Lew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Never Cry Wolf Date: 13 Nov 1996 11:36:03 -0700 (MST) "Never Cry Wolf," by Farley Mowat (paperback) (excellent movie also; I liked it especially when he suits up, then falls thru the ice with 50 pounds of clothing and other gear; upon reaching the "surface," he discovers he has missed the hole he made, and must dive back to retrieve his rifle, which he uses to break a breather hole in the ice, while his lungs are about to burst: this is American cinema at its best, imho) At 09:24 AM 11/13/96 PST, you wrote: >roc@xmission.com wrote : > >>So, can I rent your wolf for a couple of weeks? > >Wolves are like honor / integrity: They can be possessed but not rented or >borrowed. Stable life time relations are possible by bonding with pups >that are 6 to 10 weeks old and that is only possible if the human is / >can be dominant over the wolf ......even as a cub, not physically but >just as a more dominant personality. > > >I obtained BARAK from Nancy Taylor / Box 246 Cocolalla Idaho 208 263 7043 >Wolves still follow instincts and cubs are available in the May to June >time frame and if that is not so, one's suspicions should be very great. > >There is also a magazine Wolf Hybrid Times / Box 1423 / Gallup NM 87305 >505 863 5408 which features lots of ads from diverse breeders > >Jack >>=C= >>> > > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | > ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | > jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: STUNG (fwd) Date: 13 Nov 1996 10:32:27 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Cap Schwartz wrote: > So, can I rent your wolf for a couple of weeks? > =C= While a wolf may be the BMW of Trustworthiness Detectors, domesticated house cats are the VW Bug. Most cats I have known use body language to convey the same information, if you can read it. Of course, wolves have the advantage of being able to implement an immediate, and permanent, solution to the problem, should they so choose. On the other hand, how about a tiger....? :-) ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Oregon Box Cars Date: 13 Nov 1996 13:00:23 -0600 (CST) This is NONSENSE! When is all the conspiracy paranoia going to end and when, then, will we begin to take meaningful polictical action on the local level. Stop wasting bandwith with this trash. Let's talk about Blcakhelicopter with centipedinus legs and little people, yes, that's right real little people poised to tkae over. They are under the direct control of the illuminutti and Bozo Bill. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu> > Auschwitz II? > > Charles, > > I am reforwarding to all my > broadcast lists, even at the > risk of re-broadcasting here. > > Thanks for the tip. This is > very VERY ugly, to say the > least. > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > > > At 12:31 AM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote: > >Hey all Portland area folks, > > > > Can anyone give us some feedback on these concerns? > > > >C.S........ > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:32:26 -0600 > >From: Tony F Sgarlatti > >To: chuck@teleport.com > >Subject: Oregon Box Cars > > > >Chuck, > > > >I obtained the following information from a couple of posts a month > >or so ago. I've asked a couple of people I know from Oregon if they > >can follow up and confirm or deny the following, but so far no one I > >asked has bothered to get back with me. If you can give me some > >feedback about this I'd appreciate it. Thx. > > > >tony > > > >Post 1: > >> The shadow government has authorized and contracted for the > >> construction of as many as 107,200 box cars with restraints for 143 > >> people each. One company building these cars is located in Portland, > >> OR called Gunderson, Inc. I asked John Fischer to look into this if he > >> could and he obtained a phone number and spoke with someone there who > >> acknowledged they built rail cars. I subsquently have asked others to > >> photograph the construction so it can be coverted into gifs for the > >> net. > > > >Follow up: > >> I went to www.switchboard.com (find person) to search for John Fischer in > >> Oregon with these results: > >> > >> Fischer, John...616 SE 3rd St...Ontario, OR 97914-3743 > >> Phone: (541)889-8408 > >> > >> Fischer, John C...2197 Jeppesen Acres Rd...Eugene, OR 97401-7484 > >> Phone: (541)683-5866 > >> > >> Fischer, John D...15645 E Burnside St...Portland, OR 97233-3132 > >> Phone: (503)251-8495 > >> > >> Fischer, John F...3145 SW 98th Ave...Portland, OR 97225-2924 > >> Phone: (503)297-4100 > >> > >> Fischer, John G...1451 NW 20th St...Lincoln City, OR 97367-3832 > >> Phone: (541)994-3514 > >> > >> Fischer, John J...Troutdale, OR 97060 > >> Phone: (503)665-9694 > >> > >> Fischer, John L...18665 SW Seiffert Rd...Sherwood, OR 97140-8652 > >> Phone: (503)628-1570 > >> > >> Fischer, John M...2210 N Dekum St...Portland, OR 97217-5333 > >> Phone: (503)289-6902 > >> > >> ----- > >> > >> Then I used www.switchboard.com (find business) to search for Gunderson, > >> Inc. in Oregon: > >> > >> Gunderson Inc...4350 Nw Front...Portland, OR 97210 > >> Phone: (503)228-9281 > >> > >> ----- > > > > > > =========================================================== > 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: another NWOW! Date: 13 Nov 1996 12:01:06 -0700 (MST) I am reposting to my master list, even if this gets re-posted to the same list(s) again. Thanks, Scott, for a great confirmation. /s/ Paul Mitchell p.s. "NWOW" variously: New Word of the Week contest New World Order Wonder of the Week contest Not With Our World you don't etc. >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:24:13 -0600 (CST) >Reply-To: bigred@duracef.shout.net >Sender: owner-CN-L@cornell.edu >From: Brian Redman >To: Conspiracy Nation >Subject: A "friendly warning" (fwd) >X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) >X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN > > >*caveat lector*. This means, "reader beware." In other words, it >is up to the reader to form her/his own judgements as to the >following. > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:19:44 -0500 >From: Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx >Subject: A "friendly warning" > ><< Hello All > > I resently gave a bid to a company for some computer work. I did not get > this bid and they have not returned my calls for obvious reasons being a > conflict of interest. Somehow they found out who I was and decided it > would not be in their best interest to allow me access to their data > base. I must say, they are right. The company is called: > > Electronic Intel > 9414 E. San Salvador > Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 > 602-263-5500 > > This company is ran by a man whom I spoke with several times ( Jim > Powers ) and owned by a man named Nick. What they do is set up security > systems for new detention camps. They just finished 3 in the Phoenix, > AZ. area and are moving north now. Jim also told me they are working in > Texas on one now and bid jobs all over the US. They do not advertize for > obvious reasons and Jim Powers is Foriegn born. In case you all had any > doubts, doubt no more ! I was hoping to get access to their files in > order to be alittle more detailed about their plans however, it fell > through. Jim also said they are very busy ! I also applied for another > job for the cable company here that screens the Internet because they > are imployed by the Government and are writing programing for High > Schools. It seem that the Phoenix area is a New World Base. Just a > warning from your friend ! It is coming ! > > Yours truly, Scott Cameron > -- > American Computer Militia, All rights reserved. > Always the Truth ! > http://www.goodnet.com/~comport/ > > =========================================================== 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: another NWOW! Date: 13 Nov 1996 14:50:40 -0500 Paul, Mr Cameron's post on CNation doesn't confirm anything. Cameron was not hired by a company that does security for "detention" centers. What is a detention center? It could be a minimum security "boot camp" for non-violent offenders (so called "shock incarceration"). As far as verifiable material is concerned: www.switchboard.com yields a business search: Electronic Intel Inc 9735 N 90th Pl,Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5055 Phone: (602)263-5500 so his business listing has a valid phone number, anyway. Why don't you call them up and ask them what their primary business is? Tell 'em you're an attorney who has been asked to research security measures for detention centers. That would be the truth. You are an attorney, and I just asked you. Ask 'em exactly what types of detention centers they have created security systems for and who was the ultimate customer. good luck, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Oregon Box Cars Date: 13 Nov 1996 12:58:12 -0700 (MST) Have you checked to see what the database has in store with your name on it? You may have missed that part of the message. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 01:00 PM 11/13/96 -0600, you wrote: >This is NONSENSE! When is all the conspiracy paranoia going to end >and when, then, will we begin to take meaningful polictical action on >the local level. Stop wasting bandwith with this trash. > >Let's talk about Blcakhelicopter with centipedinus legs and little >people, yes, that's right real little people poised to tkae over. >They are under the direct control of the illuminutti and Bozo Bill. > >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu> >> Auschwitz II? >> >> Charles, >> >> I am reforwarding to all my >> broadcast lists, even at the >> risk of re-broadcasting here. >> >> Thanks for the tip. This is >> very VERY ugly, to say the >> least. >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> >> At 12:31 AM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote: >> >Hey all Portland area folks, >> > >> > Can anyone give us some feedback on these concerns? >> > >> >C.S........ >> > >> >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:32:26 -0600 >> >From: Tony F Sgarlatti >> >To: chuck@teleport.com >> >Subject: Oregon Box Cars >> > >> >Chuck, >> > >> >I obtained the following information from a couple of posts a month >> >or so ago. I've asked a couple of people I know from Oregon if they >> >can follow up and confirm or deny the following, but so far no one I >> >asked has bothered to get back with me. If you can give me some >> >feedback about this I'd appreciate it. Thx. >> > >> >tony >> > >> >Post 1: >> >> The shadow government has authorized and contracted for the >> >> construction of as many as 107,200 box cars with restraints for 143 >> >> people each. One company building these cars is located in Portland, >> >> OR called Gunderson, Inc. I asked John Fischer to look into this if he >> >> could and he obtained a phone number and spoke with someone there who >> >> acknowledged they built rail cars. I subsquently have asked others to >> >> photograph the construction so it can be coverted into gifs for the >> >> net. >> > >> >Follow up: >> >> I went to www.switchboard.com (find person) to search for John Fischer in >> >> Oregon with these results: >> >> >> >> Fischer, John...616 SE 3rd St...Ontario, OR 97914-3743 >> >> Phone: (541)889-8408 >> >> >> >> Fischer, John C...2197 Jeppesen Acres Rd...Eugene, OR 97401-7484 >> >> Phone: (541)683-5866 >> >> >> >> Fischer, John D...15645 E Burnside St...Portland, OR 97233-3132 >> >> Phone: (503)251-8495 >> >> >> >> Fischer, John F...3145 SW 98th Ave...Portland, OR 97225-2924 >> >> Phone: (503)297-4100 >> >> >> >> Fischer, John G...1451 NW 20th St...Lincoln City, OR 97367-3832 >> >> Phone: (541)994-3514 >> >> >> >> Fischer, John J...Troutdale, OR 97060 >> >> Phone: (503)665-9694 >> >> >> >> Fischer, John L...18665 SW Seiffert Rd...Sherwood, OR 97140-8652 >> >> Phone: (503)628-1570 >> >> >> >> Fischer, John M...2210 N Dekum St...Portland, OR 97217-5333 >> >> Phone: (503)289-6902 >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> >> >> Then I used www.switchboard.com (find business) to search for Gunderson, >> >> Inc. in Oregon: >> >> >> >> Gunderson Inc...4350 Nw Front...Portland, OR 97210 >> >> Phone: (503)228-9281 >> >> >> >> ----- >> > >> > >> >> =========================================================== >> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> =========================================================== >> >> > > =========================================================== 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: RE: Waco Holocaust Museum (fwd) Date: 13 Nov 1996 14:04:12 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *caveat lector*. This means, "reader beware." In other words, it is up to the reader to form her/his own judgements as to the following. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- We have not communicated before, but I want to introduce myself. I am Carol Valentine. I am a Waco researcher. My three years of research has been posted in a web page, "Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum," the address of which can be found at the end of my signature. Two myths dispelled by the Museum are 1) the ATF did not "lose the element of surprise." The Davidians were supposed to find out about the raid, and react. Waco was a domestic Gulf of Tonkin incident. 2) The women and children did not go to the concrete room to escape the CS gas, and die "when the bunker collapsed." Judging by the forensic evidence, some of the women and children were long since dead by April 19, 1993. Their bodies were incinerated and mutilated ("laundered") to hide the real time, cause, and circumstances of death. I have 17 megs of downloadable documentation. The Museum has legs, and it is walking. I hope it will become part of the critical mass that seems to be building in this country . . . Have you seen it yet? Carol A. Valentine President Public Action, Inc. ________________________________________________ TERRORISM: The use of terror, violence, and intimidation to achieve an end. A system of government that uses terror to rule. (American Heritage Dictionary, 1976) Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum | NOW-- WHO ARE THE *REAL* TERRORISTS??? ________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Education Reporter (fwd) Date: 13 Nov 1996 14:16:29 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From eagle@eagleforum.org Wed Nov 13 13:51:48 1996 X-Sender: eagle@accessus.net (Unverified) Education Reporter -- The Newspaper of Education Rights -- Number 130 November 1996 Education Reporter is a Inside This Issue . . . publication of Eagle Forum that details parent's rights in * Physicians Often Misdiagnose ADD education, as well as reports what's happening in education * Schools Exploit Medicaid across the country. Windfall -------------------------------- * 'Zero Tolerance' Creates Imaginary Problems, Penalizes Education Reporter is published Innocence monthly by Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund * Education Briefs with editorial offices at 7800 Bonhomme Ave., St. Louis, MO * Review: Crisis in the Classroom 63105, (314) 721-1213. The New Television Documentary views expressed in this Reports what the Media Ignore newsletter are those of the persons quoted and should not * Book of the Month be attributed to Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. * The Multiculturalism Movement & Basketball -------------------------------- * Tennessee Curriculum Framework | Obtain more info about Eagle Amended Forum | * 'Banned Books Week' is a Fraud | eagle@eagleforum.org | * Former PAW Researcher Tells How | Eagle Forum Home Page | the Book Banning Figures Are "Cooked" Physicians Often Misdiagnose ADD Medical groups say that physicians often misdiagnose the behavioral condition called Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Howard Morris, vice president of the National Attention Deficit Disorder Association, says that some doctors write prescriptions for medications such as Ritalin without knowing for certain if the child indeed suffers from ADD. "For many physicians, Ritalin is a diagnostic tool," he said. "They say, 'If it works then you've got it, and if it doesn't then you don't.'" There is little consistency in the way doctors diagnose and treat the disorder, says Morris. The number of people reported with ADD is now over 2 million. Ian Shaffer, MD, executive vice president of Value Behavioral Health Inc., a managed behavioral health care company in Falls Church, VA, also sees significant variation in the way ADD is treated. "All attention deficit disorder patients don't need Ritalin," he said. "All don't need counseling. Some need both." Both the National Attention Deficit Disorder Association and Value Behavioral Health Inc. are currently writing guidelines in the hope of helping physicians to identify more accurately those who actually have ADD. The guidelines, however, are not the only standard-bearers for diagnosis of the disorder. Other medical groups, such as the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics either have already or are in the process of developing guidelines. The manufacturer of Ritalin, Ciba Pharmaceuticals of Summit, NJ, also has guidelines in the works. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, the production and use of Ritalin has jumped sixfold since 1990. The U.S. Department of Education estimates that 3 to 5 percent of school-age children, or 2.5 million, have ADD. Kevin Dwyer, assistant director of the National Association of School Psychologists, says that diagnosing ADD is complex. "Yet in some situations," he said, "today's primary care physician may be forced to make this diagnosis under a 15-minute guideline from a managed health care company." ------------------------------------------------------------------ Schools Exploit Medicaid Windfall When President Bill Clinton boasted in his second national TV debate that he had given a million children health care through Medicaid, many people wondered what he meant. Medicaid was created to provide health insurance for the the poor and disabled. We now discover that Medicaid is paying over $200 million annually to school districts to hire teachers, maintain property, and purchase supplies - tripling the program's cost over the past five years. The annual costs of Medicaid have tripled, from $51 billion in 1988 to $158 billion in 1995, and have played a large role in burgeoning the federal deficit. New York City alone receives an estimated $60 to $70 million per year from Medicaid. Schools with large enrollments of Medicaid-eligible students receive funds from a Medicaid program known as Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) services. EPSDT programs exist in 35 states. According to the federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), which administers Medicaid, the program did not cover services that were "otherwise provided" by another source. However, a loophole in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1989 gave schools the go-ahead to claim Medicaid reimbursement for special-education services for students eligible for Medicaid. Under the Act, the definition of Medicaid service providers was expanded to include nonmedical services, such as vision, hearing, speech, and dental screening; nursing treatments; speech, occupational, and physical therapy; social work; counseling and psychotherapy; and transportation. An HCFA official said that some school districts, including Chicago's, are wrongly "claiming some medical services as administrative costs." The official added that she's unsure of how schools use federal Medicaid funds. "We know lots of things are going on in schools . . . We don't have control over the money once we pay a provider," she said. "If people knew that $28 million [a year] in Medicaid funds have been used to support the Chicago public school system, I think they'd be very surprised and concerned," said Tom Randall, a Chicago writer who has investigated schools' use of Medicaid dollars. Randall said he was disturbed to learn from an official in a Chicago school that the federal money had been moved to the system's general fund for a variety of uses. Elziena Dawson, administrator of the Chicago school system's Medicaid reimbursement program, reported that federal Medicaid funds are funneled into the general fund, which has enabled the district to hire special-education teachers and keep class sizes "manageable." The Chicago school system signed an agreement in 1994 with various state agencies concerning "the management, allocation and distribution of Medicaid revenues." It described the funding as "supplemental." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Zero Tolerance' Creates Imaginary Problems, Penalizes Innocence Is delinquency increasing at an alarming rate among very young children? School officials suspended Johnathan Prevette, a 6-year-old in North Carolina, for "unwarranted and unwelcomed touching." Johnathan kissed a female classmate in response to her invitation to do so. Little did he know that it would cause him to miss lunch with his class and an ice cream party for students with perfect attendance. Jane Martin, spokeswoman for Johnathan's school district, believes the action was justified. "Sexual harassment is an issue in the workplace as well as in our schools, and there's a responsibility to educate our children, regardless of how young they are," Martin said. Likewise, 7-year-old De'Andre Dearinge of Queens, New York, was suspended 5 days for sexual harassment. He not only planted a kiss on a classmate, but also tore a button off her skirt so she would look like his favorite book character Corduroy, the stuffed bear who is missing a button. Carol Gresser, member of the New York Board of Education, said, "I think there are serious questions about the appropriateness of suspending a 6-year-old or 7-year-old for displaying the innocence of childhood. I have a problem with holding little ones to the same standard you would hold adults to in the workplace." Erica Taylor and Kimberly Smartt didn't get off so easily. The two girls, who attend Baker Junior High School in Fairborn, Ohio, were suspended and recommended for expulsion for possession of Midol, an over-the-counter, nonprescription pain reliever. Erica, an honor student with perfect attendance, received the menstrual-pain pill from Kimberly. Both were found in violation of the student code of conduct regarding "Alcoholic Beverages, Drugs and Narcotics." Administrators expelled Kimberly for four-and-a-half months, but reduced Erica's penalty to three days after she agreed to drug counseling. Kimberly, age 14 and black, has sued in federal court on the grounds of race discrimination, since she was treated much more severely than Erica, age 13 and white. Subsequently, the school board voted to reduce Kimberly's expulsion to the 13 days already served. Some parents say that Kimberly should amend her lawsuit to change the allegations of race discrimination to sex discrimination. The male supervisors in these cases unreasonably discriminated against 13-year-old girls who have a gender-specific need to take and share painkillers for menstrual cramps. "Fairborn's drug policy does not distinguish between legal and illegal, or prescription and nonprescription drugs," said Joy Paolo, administrative assistant for pupil personnel. "You have to be fair and consistent in applying this policy to every child." Brook Olson, a junior high honor student of Kingwood Middle School in Texas, was also suspended after a drug-sniffing dog discovered Advil, another nonprescription pain killer, in her backpack. The Humble Independent School District's drug policy requires parents to give all drugs to the school nurse to dispense. Defending the drug policy, School Principal Steve Busch argued that Advil could lead to a slippery slope into lethal drugs. "It's easy to minimize this and say, well, it's just pain medication. But it's a little more serious than that," he said. Officials defend their "zero tolerance" policies as an attempt to soothe public anxiety over school safety. "You may see that we are cracking down more to be sensitive to what the public wants," said Carole Kennedy, Principal at New Haven Elementary School in Columbia, Missouri, and president of the National Association of Elementary School Principals. Consequently, many drug and weapon policies do not distinguish between marijuana and Midol, for example, or a gun and a butter knife. The schools did not retreat in the face of near-unanimous public disapproval. They continue to defend their decisions, just like the East Stroudsburg, PA, school officials who inflicted 59 6th-grade girls with unauthorized genital examinations. Drug education courses for the last 15 years may be to blame for blurring the lines between legal and illegal drugs. The typical drug curriculum teaches that "everybody takes drugs," and that it's up to the child to decide which kinds and amounts of drugs he will take. This is called "decision making," the successor to the technique called values clarification. The drug course that was probably the most widely used 15 years ago, "Here's Looking at You Two," gave students a picture of what it called a "drug family tree." The branches all growing out of the same trunk included coffee, tobacco, Tums, Pepto-Bismol, alcohol, sleeping pills, glue, aspirin, cough syrup, marijuana, heroin, LSD, and cocaine. This gave the message that differences among drugs are minor. Children were never told that painkillers are okay and illegal drugs are just plain wrong for moral, legal, and health reasons. Many current public school administrators were probably taught that kind of drug education in school, as well as that there isn't any difference between 13-year-old girls and boys. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Education Briefs National Education Association (NEA) staff members in Washington, D.C. earned an average salary of $68,346 during 1994-95 compared to the average teachers' salary of $36,933. The NEA uses nearly 23% of members' union dues to fund its $41.6 million payroll. Of the union's 608 employees, 126 made over $100,000. The Supreme Court has let stand a lower court decision allowing public high schools to mandate community service as a graduation requirement. Student Daniel Immediato of Rye Neck High School in New York opposed the requirement on the grounds that it constituted "involuntary servitude" and violated the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of personal liberty. Education officials are incensed over President Clinton's designation of 200 acres of Utah canyons as Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The land, originally slated for coal mining, would have generated up to $1.1 billion earmarked for an education endowment for Utah schools. The Utah Public Education Coalition, which includes teachers' unions and interest groups, are considering filing a lawsuit against the federal government for reimbursement of the lost funds. Teachers who lose their licenses for sexually assaulting children are the only professionals in Colorado whose names are not made public. The names of such teachers are distributed to public school superintendents as a warning but not to other potential employers for nonteaching jobs supervising children, such as daycare centers, youth organizations, or private schools. Sexual assaults by teachers have become the number-one cause of teacher-license revocation in Colorado. Alaska and Washington are the only states to publicize the names of decertified teachers who have committed sexual offenses against students. The Chicago School Board President Gery Chico and CEO Paul Vallas have placed 109 of Chicago's 557 schools on probation. Less than 15% of the students at the schools on probation scored at or above their grade level on standardized reading tests. Under probation, schools must submit to supervision of outside "management teams" and implement any changes that are ordered. The Illinois General Assembly turned over responsibility for Chicago schools to Democrat Mayor Richard M. Daley in 1995, who in turn appointed Vallas and new board members. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Review: Crisis in the Classroom New Television Documentary Reports what the Media Ignore Today's push for government-mandated attitudes, values, and beliefs in public schools - masquerading as education reform - is an unreported crisis in the nation's classrooms. Crisis in the Classroom, a newly-released special television report, exposes what the education elite don't want the public to know. The documentary outlines key education issues and why they are so important. Since the 1960s, public school crime has skyrocketed, academic achievement has plummeted, and a radical social and political agenda has saturated textbooks and curriculum. At the same time, taxpayer spending on public schools has shot up from $15.6 billion annually to $230 billion. Crisis contains exclusive interviews with the national newsmakers on the front line of education. Bill Honig, former California superintendent who first implemented the whole language method of reading, admits that it "became a cult. . . Educators were clouded by the rhetoric and the belief [behind whole language], and basically the parents were more accurate on the essentials of it than many of the educators." Such failure is not merely coincidental. Part 2 of Crisis in the Classroom discusses "hidden agendas" - the history of education "reform" efforts. Since the early 20th century, U.S. educators have been heavily influenced by European philosophers whose ideals of socialism, collectivism, and atheism became the driving force behind education. The report scrutinizes the National Education Association's role in modern education and how Outcome-Based Education (OBE) facilitates the training of children as servants of the state and global economy. The final part addresses the growing grassroots opposition to this education agenda through two effective means: literacy and political action. From California to Connecticut, parents are successfully teaching their children to read and defeating OBE in their communities. This report is an important resource for all who want to look beyond the rhetoric of education "reform" and join the growing movement to teach the basics. Crisis in the Classroom can be ordered for $25 by calling toll-free 888/500-5262. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BOOK OF THE MONTH . . . Generation X Goes to College by Peter Sacks, 1996, Open Court Publishing, 190 pps., $17.95 paper. As colleges and universities inherit those who have passed through elementary and secondary schools committed to feel-good educational theory, professors are taken aback by a new generation of students who show little respect for knowledge, truth, or experiences other than their own. This dramatic change within American higher education is described from first-hand knowledge by West Coast community college professor Peter Sacks in his book Generation X Goes to College. "They expect to be entertained," says Sacks. "They harbor a sense of entitlement and expectation of success beyond reason. After all, they were reared in the K-12 myth that everyone is entitled to succeed. Grade inflation is symptomatic, and not just at lowly community colleges but at Stanford and Yale as well." The American College Testing Program (ACT) reports that the college dropout rate of freshmen has reached an all-time high while the rate of those graduating within five years has fallen to its lowest point on record. Compared to a 1983 freshman drop out rate of 24.4 percent, freshman dropouts have increased to 26.9 percent. The change in five-year graduation rates at public colleges since 1983 is dramatic: 52.2% in 1983 has tumbled to 44.6% in 1996. The graduation rate at private colleges, meanwhile, has slipped from 59.5% to 57.1%. Moreover, the rate of attrition at two-year colleges has risen to a new high of 44.3% compared to 43.2% thirteen years ago. Sacks sees the difference between earlier generations and the present one as "not only a clash of cultures, but a clash of ethics between the modern and post-modern worlds." He adds, "They just haven't been instilled with the value of books and reading." ---------------------------------------------------------- FOCUS: The Multiculturalism Movement & Basketball by Dr. U.R. Short, Dr. I.M. Slow, and Dr. I.S. Tungincheek It is important to recognize that most basketball teams are comprised of players of differing backgrounds, orientations, and abilities. The underlying effort in this essay is to identify some of those differences and to suggest procedures designed to protect players from various forms of discrimination particularly as related to players' height, speed, and shooting ability. Basketball is a game fraught with unfair practices. Several examples of discrimination related to basketball are addressed in this article. One of the most egregious and obvious discriminatory practices seen in the game of basketball today is, of course, the height of the basket, the so-called "glass ceiling." It is totally insensitive to have the height of the basketball goals at ten feet. How can anyone give credence to the notion that a vertically challenged player can compete on an equal footing with a player who may have a foot or more vertical advantage. In fact, they may have had that advantage for many years, with the strong likelihood that the player's parents (at least one) also had the same advantage. Most vertically disadvantaged players trace their ancestry back to the country of Guardvilla. It's a simple fact: most Guardvillian-Americans are vertically disadvantaged. It's not their fault. It was simply the result of genetic endowment. In every other way, they are just like everyone else. What is unfair though is that they are asked to shoot for the same goals as the vertically advantaged Forwardian-Americans and Centerian-Americans. While it is often the case that Guardvillian-Americans have an advantage over the speed-challenged and sometimes shooting-challenged characteristics of Forwardian-Americans and Centerian-Americans, that still does not justify the "glass ceiling" foisted upon the Guardvillian-Americans. What does seem logical and appropriate, in order to create fairness in this regard, is to have two baskets at each end of the court thus taking into account the height differences. The Guardvillian-Americans would shoot at a basket eight feet high, and the Forwardian-Americans and Centerian-Americans would shoot at the traditional goal (10'). While such a change may have some immediate impact on game play, strategy, etc., over time, the fairness that would certainly emanate would make the modifications totally justifiable. Some may complain that there will be additional costs for the equipment needed. However, it is almost certain that federal funds would become available for this kind of equal opportunity effort. If one pays close attention to the strategies employed by many "Good Ol' Boy & Girl" coaches involved in basketball today, it will be noted that they often purposely scheme to get what they call "advantage matchups." It should be perfectly clear that this is nothing more than a calculated creation of an unfair situation. The rules should be adjusted so that the second such a tactic is employed, the vertically disadvantaged, or speed disadvantaged player should immediately point out this violation. The attending official should then "blow the whistle" and apply the appropriate penalty. The consequence of this foul act could be, for example, providing a free throw from a distance of ten feet as opposed to the traditional fifteen feet. The comments above are directed at but a few of the many unfair practices rampant in basketball today. Unfortunately, space does not provide the opportunity to consider all of the injustices. However, one other travesty must be mentioned. That some coaches still allow inter-team scrimmaging between shirt advantaged players and shirt disadvantaged players is simply unconscionable. With the emphasis most people are placing on political correctness today, the fact that the practice of "shirts against skins" still exists is simply mind boggling. It should be pointed out, much to their credit, that female coaches never have supported this practice. The time to make basketball an equal opportunity sport for all participants is long overdue. Playing basketball should not be based on one's speed, height or shooting advantages; rather, it should be based on a participant's desire to share in the point distribution. It's bad enough that one team is dubbed "loser." Such terminology should be eventually changed to "temporarily win challenged." Please help to rid the game of basketball of multicultural biases. R. Thomas Trimble, Ph.D., author of this satire, recently retired from the University of Georgia. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Curriculum Framework Amended NASHVILLE, TN -- The Tennessee State Board of Education voted in May to adopt a new Social Studies Curriculum Framework for K through 12 which had been developed through a series of meetings by 28 educators. It was to be used as a guide for textbook selection. The Framework repeatedly referred to the United States government as a "democracy," while never once using the word "republic." The document required students to describe the U.S. Constitution as a "living document" without presenting the view that the Constitution should be studied within the context of the framers' "original intent." The Framework replaced the traditional B.C. and A.D. calendar designations with B.C.E. ("before common era") and C.E. ("common era"). Finding some of these changes "problematic," Bobbie Patray, president of Tennessee Eagle Forum, distributed copies to several Tennessee leaders and encouraged them to voice their concerns to Board members. State Senator David Fowler wrote to the Board's executive director, Dr. J.V. Sailors, to highlight his objections. Mrs. Patray met with Dr. Sailors to discuss the issues, stating her belief that "Our children must be taught the truth about our form of government, the reasons for it, and the tremendously different results it produces." She argued that the "living document" approach to the U.S. Constitution "promotes and condones judicial activism and ignores the other view of 'original intent' or 'strict construction.' The latter affirms the rule of law and limits the opportunity for the judicial function to infringe upon the legislative function." After an extended discussion, Dr. Sailors agreed to discuss the concerns with the Board before their next meeting. Because the two methodologies yield contrasting interpretations, Mrs. Patray urged the Board to adopt a "balanced approach." The changes Mrs. Patray and others lobbied for were adopted by the Board in the final Social Studies Curriculum Framework. It now says that "students will analyze the United States Constitution in principle and practice, describing the republican form of government it creates." "Democracy" is referred to as "participatory democracy." The designations B.C. and A.D. were returned to the Tennessee Social Studies Curriculum. "Not only were principles at stake, but so was truth," Mrs. Patray said. "How can students prepare for the future if their foundation is in error? These young people of today will be the attorneys, judges, legislators, and policy makers of every kind tomorrow. The long-term importance of these changes can be more fully appreciated when it is understood that frameworks are used in our state as a guide for textbook selection. The approved textbooks then remain in use for a six-year cycle. "At least for now, Tennessee students are in a much better position." The Tennessee Eagle Forum President adds, "There is no substitute for eternal vigilance." --------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Banned Books Week' is a Fraud ALA Smears Parents, Misuses the Word 'Censorship' WASHINGTON, DC -- Focus on the Family charges that the American Library Association's (ALA) "Banned Books Week," celebrated in late September in bookstores and libraries nationwide, is a "fraud." "This year's 'Banned Books Week' is a fraud," said Tim Minnery, vice president of public policy. "We challenge the ALA to stop the name-calling, stop the hysteria, and stop deceiving Americans through its promotion of a 'book-banning' conspiracy theory." Focus on the Family presented an analysis of the ALA's list of "Books Challenged or Banned in 1995-96" in its Banned Books Resource Guide: * Not one book was banned from a bookstore. * Not one book was banned from a public library. * "Censorship" means any objection that any parent raises over school material selection for children. "The ALA evidently doesn't know what 'censorship' means," said Minnery. "It is not 'censorship' when a parent raises an objection to certain material that is used in the classroom or when a teacher or school administrator makes selection decisions regarding what books to use in school." "The year's ALA report is about rhetoric, not substance," said Mark Maddox, senior director of public policy. "Who is the true target of the ALA's smear campaign? Parents and anyone else who dares exercise their First Amendment rights in expressing concern for the best interests of children." "We call upon the American Library Association to work for an atmosphere of civility and respect among parents, educators, and librarians -not of hostility," said Minnery. "We can 'celebrate the freedom to read' without intimidating or suppressing private citizens from exercising their First Amendment freedom of speech regarding educational standards for children." --------------------------------------------------------------- Former PAW Researcher Tells How the Book Banning Figures Are "Cooked" The October issue of Harper's magazine provided additional evidence that "Banned Books Week" is a fraud. As Americans witnessed alarming displays of "banned books" in libraries and bookstores across the country, a former researcher at People for the American Way (PAW) confessed that cries of increased "censorship" are bogus. Every year, PAW works with the American Library Association (ALA) to promote the myth that "censorship" is on the rise in schools and libraries across America. "The problem is," according to Marc Herman, former PAW researcher, "the numbers that support this startling conclusion are cooked." Marc Herman's job "was to research book banning in the public schools and, particularly, to investigate evidence of censorship promulgated by the religious right." He was responsible for putting together the annual PAW report called Attacks on the Freedom to Learn. In his Harper's article, Herman confessed that PAW "omits truth . . . in the interest of publicity," and when questioned by a reporter, he and his superiors "just lied to him until he went away." Herman told how he was ordered to make PAW's "censorship figures" worse every year. He said that the PAW annual "censorship" report is an example "of a problem being kept 'alive' for the sake of an organization's press profile." EAGLE FORUM -- eagle@eagleforum.org PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 Are you on our E-mail list? Tell a friend about us! http://www.eagleforum.org ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: another NWOW! Date: 13 Nov 1996 14:08:57 -0700 (MST) At 02:50 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote: > > Paul, > > Mr Cameron's post on CNation doesn't confirm anything. > > Cameron was not hired by a company that does security > for "detention" centers. What is a detention center? > It could be a minimum security "boot camp" for non-violent > offenders (so called "shock incarceration"). > > As far as verifiable material is concerned: > > www.switchboard.com yields a business search: > > Electronic Intel Inc 9735 N 90th Pl,Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5055 > Phone: (602)263-5500 > > so his business listing has a valid phone number, anyway. > > Why don't you call them up and ask them what their primary > business is? Tell 'em you're an attorney who has been > asked to research security measures for detention centers. My standard fee is $75 per hour, charged against a minimum retainer of $500. I cannot and will not work either pro bono, or on contingency, until further notice. > > That would be the truth. You are an attorney, and I just > asked you. I am not an attorney. I am a Counselor at Law who works without any bar license, because of the material evidence I have witnessed concerning the original 13th Amendment. Ask 'em exactly what types of detention centers > they have created security systems for and who was the > ultimate customer. I invite you to do this for us, and report back here, if you can find a way to pay yourself for this private investigation. Respectfully, /s/ Paul Mitchell Counselor at Law all rights reserved > > good luck, > > jcurtis > > > > > > =========================================================== 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: another NWOW! Date: 13 Nov 1996 17:17:57 -0500 > >I invite you to do this for us, >and report back here, if you >can find a way to pay yourself >for this private investigation. > Paul, Paul. Stay calm. I did not mean to insult you, just to point out that there are a lot of alternative explanations (quite legitimate) for this security for detention centers business. Maybe I will call them. I'll tell'em a lot of possibly bogus postings have been made on the net and what is their description of what they do. My lawyer makes $230, so I have plenty of expenses, don't need to hire you to do this. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: another NWOW! Date: 13 Nov 1996 15:06:21 -0800 (PST) "Cable company" like TCI/Viacom? Having worked for TCI (TCI/netlink, telesales and some "service") I can tell you these people can't "screen" for the drool emitted by their slack jaws. What a laughable notion. Boyd On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > I am reposting to my master list, > even if this gets re-posted to > the same list(s) again. > > Thanks, Scott, for a great confirmation. > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > p.s. "NWOW" variously: > New Word of the Week contest > New World Order Wonder of the Week contest > Not With Our World you don't > etc. > > > > >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:24:13 -0600 (CST) > >Reply-To: bigred@duracef.shout.net > >Sender: owner-CN-L@cornell.edu > >From: Brian Redman > >To: Conspiracy Nation > >Subject: A "friendly warning" (fwd) > >X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) > >X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN > > > > > >*caveat lector*. This means, "reader beware." In other words, it > >is up to the reader to form her/his own judgements as to the > >following. > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:19:44 -0500 > >From: Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx > >Subject: A "friendly warning" > > > ><< Hello All > > > > I resently gave a bid to a company for some computer work. I did not get > > this bid and they have not returned my calls for obvious reasons being a > > conflict of interest. Somehow they found out who I was and decided it > > would not be in their best interest to allow me access to their data > > base. I must say, they are right. The company is called: > > > > Electronic Intel > > 9414 E. San Salvador > > Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 > > 602-263-5500 > > > > This company is ran by a man whom I spoke with several times ( Jim > > Powers ) and owned by a man named Nick. What they do is set up security > > systems for new detention camps. They just finished 3 in the Phoenix, > > AZ. area and are moving north now. Jim also told me they are working in > > Texas on one now and bid jobs all over the US. They do not advertize for > > obvious reasons and Jim Powers is Foriegn born. In case you all had any > > doubts, doubt no more ! I was hoping to get access to their files in > > order to be alittle more detailed about their plans however, it fell > > through. Jim also said they are very busy ! I also applied for another > > job for the cable company here that screens the Internet because they > > are imployed by the Government and are writing programing for High > > Schools. It seem that the Phoenix area is a New World Base. Just a > > warning from your friend ! It is coming ! > > > > Yours truly, Scott Cameron > > -- > > American Computer Militia, All rights reserved. > > Always the Truth ! > > http://www.goodnet.com/~comport/ > > > > > > =========================================================== > Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com > ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > =========================================================== > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: another NWOW! Date: 13 Nov 1996 15:12:04 -0800 (PST) Paul, I don't really want to say this, because I appreciate most of what you post. BUT, if -you- post something like this to roc (as you did) then any burden of proof that exists is on you. So, it's your credibility we're talking about here (which should be worth more then $75 to ya). If your credibility isnt worth the cost of a phone call to you, why should it be to Mr. Curtis? -Boyd On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > At 02:50 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote: > > > > Paul, > > > > Mr Cameron's post on CNation doesn't confirm anything. > > > > Cameron was not hired by a company that does security > > for "detention" centers. What is a detention center? > > It could be a minimum security "boot camp" for non-violent > > offenders (so called "shock incarceration"). > > > > As far as verifiable material is concerned: > > > > www.switchboard.com yields a business search: > > > > Electronic Intel Inc 9735 N 90th Pl,Scottsdale, AZ 85258-5055 > > Phone: (602)263-5500 > > > > so his business listing has a valid phone number, anyway. > > > > Why don't you call them up and ask them what their primary > > business is? Tell 'em you're an attorney who has been > > asked to research security measures for detention centers. > > > My standard fee is $75 per hour, > charged against a minimum retainer > of $500. I cannot and will not > work either pro bono, or on > contingency, until further notice. > > > > > > That would be the truth. You are an attorney, and I just > > asked you. > > I am not an attorney. > I am a Counselor at Law > who works without any > bar license, because of > the material evidence I have > witnessed concerning the > original 13th Amendment. > > > Ask 'em exactly what types of detention centers > > they have created security systems for and who was the > > ultimate customer. > > I invite you to do this for us, > and report back here, if you > can find a way to pay yourself > for this private investigation. > > Respectfully, > /s/ Paul Mitchell > Counselor at Law > all rights reserved > > > > > > good luck, > > > > jcurtis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =========================================================== > 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: Handgun Protect Innocents...Again (fwd) Date: 13 Nov 1996 17:21:09 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS Dear M R, The story below appeared in The Atlanta Journal/The Atlanta Constitution of Tuesday, Nov.12, 1996, page E2. College Park, Georgia is a municipality on the southern side of Atlanta -- adjacent to the Atlanta airport. Hope you find it informative. -- Harvey ================================== MOM KILLS SUSPECTED CARJACKER Gunman refused College Park woman's plea to set her and her toddler free, she tells police. By Bill Montgomery Staff Writer A College Park woman shot and killed an armed man she says was trying to carjack her van with her and her 1-year-old daughter inside, police said Monday. Police plan to ask Fulton County prosecutors to determine whether any charges should be brought against Shantell Jackson, 26, of Godby Road, in the Saturday night shooting. Jackson told police that the gunman accosted her as she drove into the parking lot of an apartment complex on Camp Creek Parkway. She had planned to watch a broadcast of the Evander Holyfield-Mike Tyson fight with friends at the complex. She fired after the man pointed a revolver at her and ordered her to "move over," she told police. She offered to take her daughter and give up the van, but the man refused, police said. "She was pleading with the guy to let her take the baby and leave the van, but he blocked the door," said College Park Detective Reed Pollard. "She was protecting herself and the baby." Jackson, who told police she bought the .44-caliber handgun in September after her home was burglarized, said she fired several shots from the gun, which she kept concealed in a canvas bag beside her car seat. "She didn't try to remove it," Pollard said. "She just fired." Police said they could not locate her gun at the scene of the shooting and were looking for it Monday afternoon. Police said it was unclear Monday whether the woman had a permit for the gun. Shot in the chest, shoulder, thigh and back as he attempted to flee, Ernest DeWayne Mayfield, 30, of the Pine Crossing Apartments on Camp Creek Parkway, collapsed and died at the scene, Pollard said. Mayfield had a length criminal record, including arrests and convictions for robbery, aggravated assault and drug offenses, Pollard said. **************************************************** TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS THE ENTIRE BILL OF RIGHTS **************************************************** "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Ch. III, "White Blackmail" **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: another NWOW! Date: 13 Nov 1996 16:30:09 -0700 (MST) At 05:17 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >> >>I invite you to do this for us, >>and report back here, if you >>can find a way to pay yourself >>for this private investigation. >> > Paul, Paul. Stay calm. I am calm. You are misreading an emotion into what I posted above, and what I posted before that. This may well be another one of those red herrings which we are supposed to chase to the ends of the earth, in a medium where the herring are much better equipped to navigate (read "swim"). For example, I recently had a "colleague" show me photos which he said were Russian heavy armor on I-25 in New Mexico, disguised as Red Cross vehicles. I finally got my hands on those photos, and shared them with my friends in the military (a major in the U.S. Army Reserve). They took it to their photo lab, scrutinized the photos carefully, and did me the enormous favor of telling me I had been misled: they were American military armored vehicles and transport carriers. They had no explanation for the Red Cross insignia, but they are well enough trained to overlook such superficial markings. So, this turned out to be quite a red herring. This is not to say that there are not really some Russian vehicles moving at night on our interstate highways; but, in this one particular case, they were red herring (disguised as U.S. Army trucks swimming down an interstate highway in New Mexico). 8-) /s/ Paul Mitchell I did not mean to insult you, > just to point out that there are a lot of alternative > explanations (quite legitimate) for this security for > detention centers business. I agree entirely. I am just resisting the idea, all too frequent these days, that I do the research at my own expense. I have better things to do with my professional time, believe me (and I hope you will). One way of diminishing my impact is to get me going in 43 different directions. I say this because I am quite capable of proceeding in 42 different directions; but everyone has their limit, and now you know what mine is. :) /s/ Paul Mitchell > > Maybe I will call them. Maybe? I'll tell'em a lot of possibly > bogus postings have been made on the net and what is their > description of what they do. And you are going to believe what they tell you, is that true? > > My lawyer makes $230, so I have plenty of expenses, don't > need to hire you to do this. A man is worthy of his hire: Very good advice from the Mind of the Maker. > > ciao, > > jcurtis I will tell you if I think you have insulted me. So far, you have not. /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: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: another NWOW! Date: 13 Nov 1996 16:58:07 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > I agree entirely. I am just > resisting the idea, all too > frequent these days, that I > do the research at my own > expense. I have better things > to do with my professional time, > believe me (and I hope you will). I am sure you would grant us the courtesy of recognizing that many of us consider our time at least as valuable as yours? Using your own figures, and estimating that there are a thousand people on this list who took on average about 30 seconds apiece to evaluate your epistle cast to the winds without verifying the facts behind it, and then redirect it to the bit bucket, that works out to be 8.33+ hours at $75/hr = $625. Consider yourself billed, and tender a check to the list-owner to help defray the expenses he incurs by providing and maintaining this list at no charge. Of course, any donation in excess of that I am sure would be gratefully accepted. ----- Harry Barnett "Facts? FACTS! Ah doan need no steenken' FACTS!" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: another NWOW! Date: 13 Nov 1996 21:00:21 -0700 (MST) This "bill" is refused for cause, without dishonor. I stand on the First Amendment, as an author, a Citizen, and a Counselor at Law. The question of rail cars to be used for shuttling people to detention centers, is a worthy hypothesis, but that is all it is right now -- an hypothesis -- no better or worse than E = M x C x C. Until someone can produce competent evidence to reject this hypothesis, it shall stand unrebutted and unrejected. If it is indeed a red herring, the evidence will demonstrate that. I daresay that there is quite a lot of material which appears on the Internet which has not been confirmed by eyewitness experience. The absence of such eyewitness testimony is not sufficient ground to derail the First Amendment. Applying your test, no one would be "permitted" even to mention the Gulf War Syndrome until and unless they had received the anthrax innoculation themselves, and fallen into convulsions. Reductio ad absurdem. I rest, for now. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 04:58 PM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote: >On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >> I agree entirely. I am just >> resisting the idea, all too >> frequent these days, that I >> do the research at my own >> expense. I have better things >> to do with my professional time, >> believe me (and I hope you will). > >I am sure you would grant us the courtesy of recognizing that many of us >consider our time at least as valuable as yours? > >Using your own figures, and estimating that there are a thousand people >on this list who took on average about 30 seconds apiece to evaluate >your epistle cast to the winds without verifying the facts behind it, >and then redirect it to the bit bucket, that works out to be 8.33+ hours at >$75/hr = $625. > >Consider yourself billed, and tender a check to the list-owner to help >defray the expenses he incurs by providing and maintaining this list at >no charge. Of course, any donation in excess of that I am sure would >be gratefully accepted. > >----- >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Facts? FACTS! Ah doan need no steenken' FACTS!" > > =========================================================== 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: Re: another NWOW! Date: 13 Nov 1996 21:01:43 -0700 (MST) I left out one thing: nobody is compelling you to read this, are they? I certainly am not. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 04:58 PM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote: >On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >> I agree entirely. I am just >> resisting the idea, all too >> frequent these days, that I >> do the research at my own >> expense. I have better things >> to do with my professional time, >> believe me (and I hope you will). > >I am sure you would grant us the courtesy of recognizing that many of us >consider our time at least as valuable as yours? > >Using your own figures, and estimating that there are a thousand people >on this list who took on average about 30 seconds apiece to evaluate >your epistle cast to the winds without verifying the facts behind it, >and then redirect it to the bit bucket, that works out to be 8.33+ hours at >$75/hr = $625. > >Consider yourself billed, and tender a check to the list-owner to help >defray the expenses he incurs by providing and maintaining this list at >no charge. Of course, any donation in excess of that I am sure would >be gratefully accepted. > >----- >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Facts? FACTS! Ah doan need no steenken' FACTS!" > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: SAFAN NO. 129. Coming Invasion of America (fwd) Date: 13 Nov 1996 21:00:15 PST Definitely sounds like a new and nastier gun ban..... On Nov 13, Gene Gross -- Personal Account wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi Folks, I make no warrants or representations about this one. However, I do know that we have some who live in Canada and can maybe help us sort through this one. This item went out across the nation today via an electronic newsletter that I've been getting. Ciao, Gene ============================================================ COMING INVASION OF AMERICA Posted by Roger D. Cravens (rbg@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV The following is most of the message printed in the "The Prophecy Club Newsletter" dated Nov/Dec. For reprints and newsletters call or write the above at Box 750234, Topeka, KS 66675 or call 913-478-1112. From Intelligence sources in Canada and New England: Preparations for the COMING INVASION OF AMERICA by Russian/NWO FORCES are progressing rapdily in Canada! As candidly admitted to me by many Canadians (including author and lecturer Grant Jeffery of "Final Warning" and many other books explaining the coming New World Order takeover) Canada is totally sold out to the NWO and it's heinous agenda of world domination. America has long been a thorn in the flesh of NWO planners, because of our Christian and patriot heritage and it's isolation from Europe. With little over three years left to move this western hemishere into their NWO agenda by the year 2,000, they are making rapid use of Canada's willingness to betray America into their control. How is this taking place? Canada has opened her doors wide to NWO military forces, including GERMAN< RUSSIAN< AND CHINESES. As Grant Jeffery admitted to me personally one month ago",,, we have more German military forces in Canada now than we do Canadian military forces!" Indeed, for next to dease Lake, Canada, Germans have been handed a military air base for their use. They are actively practicing bombing and strafing runs for the coming invasion of America...much as they are doing down at Holloman AFB, which has been permanently turned over to the Germans in New Mexico. The traitorous NEWO elements within our own government are fully aware of the motives of these Berman NWO forces both in Canada and America and welcome their presence into the western hemisphere as part of the solution to subduing patriotic Americans who simply refuse to surrender national sovereignty to a foreign power. Russian and Chinese forces are also very active in Cananda. They are "re-building and strengthening railroad tracks for the the antici- pated heavy use of railway transportation of incoming military personnel from the West coast" (both Russian and Chinese forces) as well as transporting military vehicles and armaments and food supplies. New tracks are also being laid between border states and Canada. Those people who are arrested as resisters or dissidents will also be transported in specially prepared prisoner boxcars to the death camps already established near the border, such as the one near Cut Bank MT. The death camp outside of Cut Bank has been conveniently located right off a major AMTRACK express line in the anticipation of transporting resisters and dissidents conveniently to their deaths by rail. Reports have been received from INTEL sources nationwide which indicate that certain boxcars are quietly being renovated from the inside so that they can be used for prisoner transport to such death camps. Preparations noted by eye-witnesses include shackles being bolted into the walls tor restrain those taken prisoner until they reach their final destination. From our intellignece source in Florida, we know that Russian train engineer experts are already being trained in how to operate Amerian engines and how our rail system functions... Russian railway procedures differ from American. At least fifty Russian engineers are in training presently in Jacksonville, Florida. Many others are apparently being trained in other locations as well. Already seen being transported on these train lines are huge power generators to various locations in Canada, in anticipation of the planned power outages that will be triggered deliberately both in Canada and America as the planned takeover methodically takes place. Incredibly, we now have information that the Russians have finally succeeded in bridging the gap between Siberia and Alaska through a vast underground tunnel! Although documented in more than one newspaper report in Western Canada, the American news media has remained silent on this feat. Russian civilians (???) are known to be coming thru this tunnel 100 per month, plus heavy military artillery. Also, there is yet another tunnel that has been built from Siberia to Northern Canada, this one being used for railroad transportation purposes. The extent of the American governmen's betrayal of her citizens can be further evidenced in the fact that these Chinese and Russian forces are receiving payment for their pre-invasion activities through the Inter- national Monetary Fund... issued on American government checks. In anticipation of the coming invasion from Russian and China, Canada has even gone so far as to disband it's Western Coast Guard Division, thus they are open to amphibous invasion forces. According to our veteran intelligence source in New England, the Chinese are very much anticipating an amphibous invasion of America from the West. This was openly evidenced recently through the presentation of a documentary report over the BBC television in London which detailed amphibious assault forces practicing war maneuvers and strategy in the Formosa Straits. When BBC newsmen were permitted to interview these soldiers in training, they repeatedly asked them the following question. "What are you preparing to use this training for?" The shocking, consistent reply was "FOR THE COMING INVASION OF AMERICA!" When it became clear that a gaff in security was created by airing this broadcast over television in England, its scheduled re-broadcast for the next day in London was hastily cancelled. (Speculate no more on the suspicious suicide of Admiral Michael Borda... I was informed he was terminated because of his refusal to cooperate in the covert plan by our traitorous NWO forces within our own govern- ment to assist in the coming invasion of America. When he refused to go along with the plan to covertly bring Chinese forces into America through use of our own Navy vessels, orders were given from on high to terminate him.). The message is clear. This message is to inform those whom may not know the magnitude of the New World Order and it's massive agenda. Be wise and investigate for yourselves. We are not getting the truth from agents of government. Examples are VietNam, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Militia's, TWA800, Oklahoma etc. Beware and prepare! God Bless America We need his blessing P.S. Forgive the spelling [------------------------- 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: Hard Copy Propaganda re. SKS Date: 14 Nov 1996 00:29:14 -0500 (EST) Made a point to watch {ugh} "Hard Copy" tonight to check out their feature on the "loophole" in the assault weapon ban that they think needs to be closed. I could type a megabyte describing all the misinfo, disinfo, emotional rhetoric and related dirty tricks used in the piece (but I won't). Just about the worst I've seen. A quick summary: A "loophole" in the law allows sales of SKS assault rifles as curios. People have done bad things with SKS's. SKS's can't be used for hunting. SKS's are *very* deadly {demo of pumpkins, mellons, and cinderblocks being penetrated by the deadly projectiles}. Unlike almost all other guns, you don't have to submit to a background check and waiting period to buy an SKS. There are 10 million out there, many owned by "the kind of people you don't want owning these things." You can easily order the parts to convert an SKS to full auto (Hellfire rapid trigger puller, actually). Guns are bad. Guns are bad...click...Guns are bad...click... bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Nothing new under the sun... Date: 13 Nov 1996 22:00:13 -0800 (PST) For those who want to wrap their mind around questions associated with Restoring the Constitution, your consideration and comment regarding the following is invited. The following is an excerpt from _History of Knowledge_, Charles Van Doren, Ballantine, 1991: For two millennia the demise of the Roman republic has been regretted by those who have loved liberty. But freedom did not really have a chance there. Too few men believed it could survive, or perhaps even wanted it to survive, since a republican form o government makes demands upon the citizens that a tyranny does not (a tyranny makes other kinds of demands). Perhaps no one believed in a republic so deeply as Cicero. He saw a third solution to the great political problem. If everyone was master over himself, then there would be no need to have a single master over all the others. If everyone did what he knew was right, peace would be secure, and freedom, too, could be preserved. In other words, he believed in a government of laws and not of men. Cicero was probably mistaken in thinking that there existed a "constitution" subtle enough to ensure the survival of the republic, over any extended period of time, as a government of laws. Lacking such a constitution, a government of men (as it happened, of /a/ man) was probably the only practical alternative. But Cicero was not mistaken in his intuitive sense of how to solve the problem. There is only a difference in detail between his solution of the Roman problem and that of the Founding Fathers of the American republic. They were the first to show how, as a practical matter, a government of men could be replaced by a government of laws. But Cicero, as they well knew, had pointed the way. The U.S. Constitution establishes an executive branch and gives it the means of defending itself against attack: by law, it holds a monopoly of authorized force. Besides the armed forces, these protections include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the T-Men, the Secret Service, and various other police forces. But it is not these military and paramilitary organizations that ensure that the United States will remain a government of laws, not of men. The Constitution is a piece of paper. It cannot fight for itself. If Americans do not believe in it, it will become mere paper. Most Americans wholeheartedly accept the Constitution as the law of the land. They may disagree about everything else. But they know they must not intentionally and knowingly act unconstitutionally. In that realm, they agree they should always do right. Not to do so is to challenge the basis of American government: the Constitution has no protection except the people's belief in it. Soldiers and police could not protect the Constitution if the people ceased to believe in it, although they might destroy it by turning the American democracy into a police state. Belief cannot be legislated. It is an act of the free will of the citizens. Cicero failed to persuade enough of his fellow citizens to save the Roman republic. Nevertheless, he was perhaps the first man ever to realize that nothing less than near-universal belief of this sort could ensure both peace and freedom in a state. ========end of excerpt============================================== Van Doren apparently thinks that it is a mistake to think that there could exist "a 'constitution' subtle enough to ensure the survival of the republic, over any extended period of time, as a government of laws." What circumstances existed to cause him to think so? Do those circumstances, or contemporary parallels, exist now, in late 1996 in the U.S.? What do you think Van Doren means when he says: "[B]y law, [the executive branch] holds a monopoly of authorized force"? Is this true? Why or why not? Van Doren makes the assertion, "Most Americans wholeheartedly accept the Constitution as the law of the land." Do you agree? Why or why not? Consider the assertion: "[T]hey know they must not intentionally and knowingly act unconstitutionally. In that realm, they agree they should always do right. Not to do so is to challenge the basis of American government: the Constitution has no protection except the people's belief in it." Do you agree? Why or why not? For the purpose of discussion, consider the assertion to be true. Is it possible to reconcile this with the apparently widespread popular sentiment "Character is not an issue" as to qualification for leaders of the republic? How? Isn't maintaining that "Character is not an issue" in fact challenging the the fundamental basis of American government, the Constitution itself? "Cicero failed to persuade enough of his fellow citizens to save the Roman republic." Do we face the same problem? How do we solve the problem? How many fellow citizens are "enough"? Can belief be legislated? Why or why not? You may now open your blue books and begin writing... ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: another NWOW! Date: 13 Nov 1996 23:37:04 -0800 (PST) On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > I left out one thing: > nobody is compelling you > to read this, are they? > I certainly am not. > > /s/ Paul Mitchell Yes, someone is: myself. This is because my sense of justice and fair play persuades me that even the feeble-minded should be accorded fair hearing until they demonstrate by their own words that none further is necessary. And you have, regretfully, done that all too well, Mr. Mitchell. OBTW, "Counselor-at-law", given the scope of your understanding of the applicability of the First Amendment, I wouldn't give up my day job, if I were you. ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: St Petersburg... The War Continues Date: 14 Nov 1996 07:39:30 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:28:08 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: militia@megalinx.net (J.J. & Helen Johnson) >Subject: St Petersburg... The War Continues > >Gun fire continues... > >Police are running out of CS gas > >SWAT teams are being brought in from surrounding counties > >One officer down confirmed >Possibly two more officers wounded. > >Riot police are being repeled by sustained gunfire and are pulling back... >There are reports of uniformed men shooting at officers > >The Thunderdome has been turned into a Command & Control Center > >Looks like the Florida National Guard will be making a second visit > >Confirmed 4 (police) helicopters in the air > >Still nothing reported on local news. All info coming in from scanner reports > >Patriots on the Southend of St. Petersburg are currently rebroadcasting the >song by Carl Klang called "Marshall Law". > >BTW, I wonder how things are going in Pittsburgh ? > >The battle continues.... > >J.J. >=========================================================== >J.J. & Helen Johnson - Fridays - 8:00 pm EST - WWCR 5.070 Mhz >E Pluribus Unum & The Ohio Unorganized Militia >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 >Voice (614) 836-7650 Voice Mail: 1-888-572-6280 >Web Site - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > > "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: St Pete - About that chopper... Date: 14 Nov 1996 07:41:31 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:52:04 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: militia@megalinx.net (J.J. & Helen Johnson) >Subject: St Pete - About that chopper... > >The downed helicopter belonged to the Pinellas County Sheriff Dept. > >We have confirmed 18 fires now burning out of control. > >We have reports of 13 KIA's (Killed In Action), but can only confirm 6. > >As of 00:00 hrs ET, police were still taking on gunfire. > >We'll have Marshall Law by morning... > >Anybody got any marshmallows? > >We'll check back in the A.M. > >J.J. >=========================================================== >J.J. & Helen Johnson - Fridays - 8:00 pm EST - WWCR 5.070 Mhz >E Pluribus Unum & The Ohio Unorganized Militia >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 >Voice (614) 836-7650 Voice Mail: 1-888-572-6280 >Web Site - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > > "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: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Oregon Box Cars Date: 14 Nov 1996 06:51:59 -0600 (CST) Mr Mitchell, this is some more silliness. Of course I haven't checked "the" data base. Have you? Perhaps you have a website address for it? I am sure that we all would like to see it and check it out. Perhaps we might even be able to add a name or two. Is your name on it? How did you earn the privilete? I am curious about one thing. Are you writing this drivel as a part of a junior high English essay assingment? I think that you are showing your class how easily stirred up us Internet freaks can get over a piece of fiction. Larry ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > Have you checked to see what the > database has in store with your > name on it? You may have missed > that part of the message. > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > > > At 01:00 PM 11/13/96 -0600, you wrote: > >This is NONSENSE! When is all the conspiracy paranoia going to end > >and when, then, will we begin to take meaningful polictical action on > >the local level. Stop wasting bandwith with this trash. > > > >Let's talk about Blcakhelicopter with centipedinus legs and little > >people, yes, that's right real little people poised to tkae over. > >They are under the direct control of the illuminutti and Bozo Bill. > > > >Larry Ball > >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu> > >> Auschwitz II? > >> > >> Charles, > >> > >> I am reforwarding to all my > >> broadcast lists, even at the > >> risk of re-broadcasting here. > >> > >> Thanks for the tip. This is > >> very VERY ugly, to say the > >> least. > >> > >> /s/ Paul Mitchell > >> > >> > >> > >> At 12:31 AM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote: > >> >Hey all Portland area folks, > >> > > >> > Can anyone give us some feedback on these concerns? > >> > > >> >C.S........ > >> > > >> >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:32:26 -0600 > >> >From: Tony F Sgarlatti > >> >To: chuck@teleport.com > >> >Subject: Oregon Box Cars > >> > > >> >Chuck, > >> > > >> >I obtained the following information from a couple of posts a month > >> >or so ago. I've asked a couple of people I know from Oregon if they > >> >can follow up and confirm or deny the following, but so far no one I > >> >asked has bothered to get back with me. If you can give me some > >> >feedback about this I'd appreciate it. Thx. > >> > > >> >tony > >> > > >> >Post 1: > >> >> The shadow government has authorized and contracted for the > >> >> construction of as many as 107,200 box cars with restraints for 143 > >> >> people each. One company building these cars is located in Portland, > >> >> OR called Gunderson, Inc. I asked John Fischer to look into this if he > >> >> could and he obtained a phone number and spoke with someone there who > >> >> acknowledged they built rail cars. I subsquently have asked others to > >> >> photograph the construction so it can be coverted into gifs for the > >> >> net. > >> > > >> >Follow up: > >> >> I went to www.switchboard.com (find person) to search for John Fischer in > >> >> Oregon with these results: > >> >> > >> >> Fischer, John...616 SE 3rd St...Ontario, OR 97914-3743 > >> >> Phone: (541)889-8408 > >> >> > >> >> Fischer, John C...2197 Jeppesen Acres Rd...Eugene, OR 97401-7484 > >> >> Phone: (541)683-5866 > >> >> > >> >> Fischer, John D...15645 E Burnside St...Portland, OR 97233-3132 > >> >> Phone: (503)251-8495 > >> >> > >> >> Fischer, John F...3145 SW 98th Ave...Portland, OR 97225-2924 > >> >> Phone: (503)297-4100 > >> >> > >> >> Fischer, John G...1451 NW 20th St...Lincoln City, OR 97367-3832 > >> >> Phone: (541)994-3514 > >> >> > >> >> Fischer, John J...Troutdale, OR 97060 > >> >> Phone: (503)665-9694 > >> >> > >> >> Fischer, John L...18665 SW Seiffert Rd...Sherwood, OR 97140-8652 > >> >> Phone: (503)628-1570 > >> >> > >> >> Fischer, John M...2210 N Dekum St...Portland, OR 97217-5333 > >> >> Phone: (503)289-6902 > >> >> > >> >> ----- > >> >> > >> >> Then I used www.switchboard.com (find business) to search for Gunderson, > >> >> Inc. in Oregon: > >> >> > >> >> Gunderson Inc...4350 Nw Front...Portland, OR 97210 > >> >> Phone: (503)228-9281 > >> >> > >> >> ----- > >> > > >> > > >> > >> =========================================================== > >> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com > >> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > >> =========================================================== > >> > >> > > > > > > =========================================================== > 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: cattle cars for humans Date: 14 Nov 1996 06:51:06 -0700 (MST) Dear Harry, Do you resort to ad hominems often? Just asking, you know ... :) Harry, honestly, I don't want to fight with you. I believe in due caution, but there are times when we have to choose which error we are willing to make: either ignore a real problem, or raise a warning when the alarm may be false. Take the fire department, for example. They much prefer to show up at a false alarm, than to arrive late and know that lives were lost. I believe there is enough "hard evidence" (as you might call it) of a systematic war against the American People to render such a "rumor" of cattle cars for humans worthy of examination, at least. It happened once before; it can happen again, right here in River City. Would that we could always be perfectly correct in our efforts to distinguish real fires from false alarms. I was trained in statistics and decision theory: in a pinch, we move into a different mode of decision making, one in which we may have to make very quick comparative assessments of maximum probable damages, choose the smallest maximum, and then live with the consequences of those quick decisions. This is called management, and it is forever challenging during combat (challenging forever?) So, if we are "wrong" about the cattle cars for humans, we have ruffled a few feathers. No big deal. If we are wrong in ignoring them, and they really ARE for humans, then the potential cost is astronomical (assuming, of course, that human life is something which you treasure and not hate.) I take it that compelling yourself to read a post with which you strongly disagree is a big deal to you. Am I right? Now, the way this originally got started, an associate of mine simply asked the question if anybody had any more information about this. As a service to him, I took it upon myself to forward his posting to other lists of which I am a member. You happened to be on one of those lists, and someone else decided that I should be the one to make calls to the company and do the detailed investigation. Since I cannot afford to subside such research on my own, I objected strongly, in part because so many people are now asking me to do pro bono work. This is something which you either do not know about me, or you do not believe about me (which one it is, I don't really care), or YOU don't really care to know. That's fine. Please read on, however. For your information, I acted similarly when evidence started pouring forth about CDC complicity in the Gulf War Syndrome. I took some rather strong, even drastic action to confront the CDC. I would have been the first to admit, publicly, that I was totally wrong about the CDC; as it turned out, I was absolutely right about the CDC, if sworn Senate testimony by a former U.S. Senator, and direct personal experience by an infected Navy Captain, are to be given any credence at all. It would have been so much better for everyone if the GWS were just a rumor, and we all could just go back home -- false alarm, not to worry, everything is fine, yes? Now, when it comes to some "report" of cattle cars for humans, a la the Third Reich revisited, the original question is worthy of an answer: Does anybody else have any more information about this? That was the original question, paraphrased. I did volunteer to forward that question to others who might be in a position to help. That was the extent of my "help," if you will. One person on the entire Internet has decided to attack me, using petty insults and other trivia, to undermine what I did. The last time this happened to me, the person who did that was trying mightily to hide something rather horrible in his own life. Please tell me that you are not trying to hide something here. I will believe you if you do. But, please, do yourself a favor: ad hominems do not fly very well with the vast majority of my associates on the Internet. What I mean by this is that they are wholly unpersuaded by this tactic, and usually remember the source for a very long time. Good day to you, Sir. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 11:37 PM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote: >On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >> I left out one thing: >> nobody is compelling you >> to read this, are they? >> I certainly am not. >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell > >Yes, someone is: myself. This is because my sense of justice and fair >play persuades me that even the feeble-minded should be accorded fair >hearing until they demonstrate by their own words that none further is >necessary. And you have, regretfully, done that all too well, Mr. Mitchell. > >OBTW, "Counselor-at-law", given the scope of your understanding of the >applicability of the First Amendment, I wouldn't give up my day job, if >I were you. > >----- >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > =========================================================== 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: Re: Oregon Box Cars Date: 14 Nov 1996 07:00:35 -0700 (MST) At 06:51 AM 11/14/96 -0600, you wrote: >Mr Mitchell, this is some more silliness. Of course I haven't checked >"the" data base. Have you? Perhaps you have a website address for >it? I am sure that we all would like to see it and check it out. >Perhaps we might even be able to add a name or two. Is your name on >it? How did you earn the privilete? So, the database is not a fiction, even though its contents may be a fiction. Do you agree, or not, with that statement? > >I am curious about one thing. Are you writing this drivel as a part >of a junior high English essay assingment? More ad hominems. Ask the survivors of World War II when they were first defined as enemies of the Third Reich. In America, it happened in 1933: see the amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act. There is your proof. Warring against the several States is defined as treason in the Constitution, and the penalty for treason is death. Check it out in Title 18, United States Code. /s/ Paul Mitchell I think that you are >showing your class how easily stirred up us Internet freaks can get >over a piece of fiction. I have already addressed that criticism. What is your proof that it is a fiction? Are you not jumping to conclusions here? /s/ Paul Mitchell > >Larry ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu >> >> Have you checked to see what the >> database has in store with your >> name on it? You may have missed >> that part of the message. >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> >> At 01:00 PM 11/13/96 -0600, you wrote: >> >This is NONSENSE! When is all the conspiracy paranoia going to end >> >and when, then, will we begin to take meaningful polictical action on >> >the local level. Stop wasting bandwith with this trash. >> > >> >Let's talk about Blcakhelicopter with centipedinus legs and little >> >people, yes, that's right real little people poised to tkae over. >> >They are under the direct control of the illuminutti and Bozo Bill. >> > >> >Larry Ball >> >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu> >> >> Auschwitz II? >> >> >> >> Charles, >> >> >> >> I am reforwarding to all my >> >> broadcast lists, even at the >> >> risk of re-broadcasting here. >> >> >> >> Thanks for the tip. This is >> >> very VERY ugly, to say the >> >> least. >> >> >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At 12:31 AM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote: >> >> >Hey all Portland area folks, >> >> > >> >> > Can anyone give us some feedback on these concerns? >> >> > >> >> >C.S........ >> >> > >> >> >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:32:26 -0600 >> >> >From: Tony F Sgarlatti >> >> >To: chuck@teleport.com >> >> >Subject: Oregon Box Cars >> >> > >> >> >Chuck, >> >> > >> >> >I obtained the following information from a couple of posts a month >> >> >or so ago. I've asked a couple of people I know from Oregon if they >> >> >can follow up and confirm or deny the following, but so far no one I >> >> >asked has bothered to get back with me. If you can give me some >> >> >feedback about this I'd appreciate it. Thx. >> >> > >> >> >tony >> >> > >> >> >Post 1: >> >> >> The shadow government has authorized and contracted for the >> >> >> construction of as many as 107,200 box cars with restraints for 143 >> >> >> people each. One company building these cars is located in Portland, >> >> >> OR called Gunderson, Inc. I asked John Fischer to look into this if he >> >> >> could and he obtained a phone number and spoke with someone there who >> >> >> acknowledged they built rail cars. I subsquently have asked others to >> >> >> photograph the construction so it can be coverted into gifs for the >> >> >> net. >> >> > >> >> >Follow up: >> >> >> I went to www.switchboard.com (find person) to search for John Fischer in >> >> >> Oregon with these results: >> >> >> >> >> >> Fischer, John...616 SE 3rd St...Ontario, OR 97914-3743 >> >> >> Phone: (541)889-8408 >> >> >> >> >> >> Fischer, John C...2197 Jeppesen Acres Rd...Eugene, OR 97401-7484 >> >> >> Phone: (541)683-5866 >> >> >> >> >> >> Fischer, John D...15645 E Burnside St...Portland, OR 97233-3132 >> >> >> Phone: (503)251-8495 >> >> >> >> >> >> Fischer, John F...3145 SW 98th Ave...Portland, OR 97225-2924 >> >> >> Phone: (503)297-4100 >> >> >> >> >> >> Fischer, John G...1451 NW 20th St...Lincoln City, OR 97367-3832 >> >> >> Phone: (541)994-3514 >> >> >> >> >> >> Fischer, John J...Troutdale, OR 97060 >> >> >> Phone: (503)665-9694 >> >> >> >> >> >> Fischer, John L...18665 SW Seiffert Rd...Sherwood, OR 97140-8652 >> >> >> Phone: (503)628-1570 >> >> >> >> >> >> Fischer, John M...2210 N Dekum St...Portland, OR 97217-5333 >> >> >> Phone: (503)289-6902 >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> >> >> >> >> Then I used www.switchboard.com (find business) to search for Gunderson, >> >> >> Inc. in Oregon: >> >> >> >> >> >> Gunderson Inc...4350 Nw Front...Portland, OR 97210 >> >> >> Phone: (503)228-9281 >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> =========================================================== >> >> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >> >> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> >> =========================================================== >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> =========================================================== >> Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >> ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> =========================================================== >> >> > > =========================================================== 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: Executive Order 12938 Extended (fwd) Date: 14 Nov 1996 08:01:20 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Published in today (13 November 1996)'s Chicago *Sun-Times*, page 42: From the White House: "On November 14, 1994, by Executive Order 12938. I declared a emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons ('weapons of mass destruction') and the means of delivering such weapons. Because the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of deliver- ing them continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1994, and extended on November 14, 1995, must continue in effect beyond NOvember 14, 1996. There- fore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12938. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress." =========================================================================== Translation: "Because I want to retain the absolute power to declare martial law, detain and incarcerate my enemies, detractors, and political opponents, to impose onerous restrictions such as 'roving wiretaps' and the equivalent of 'internal passports' upon the population at large---the better to control their movements and suppress dissent, and to harrass, intimidate, level specious charges against, and imprison members of constitutional militiae who might impede my usurpation of natural and constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms, I, Billy Jeff Clinton, do hereby declare that the bad old bogeyman is *still* right outside your window waiting to eat you as soon as the light is turned off. Done in November, after my re-election and while Congress is adjourned and unable to voice its collective opposition. Sleep tight, kiddies!" (Sigh.) David M. Gonzalez Wheeling, Illinois Replies/Abuse: gonzalez@mcs.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: U.S. commits troops to Zaire (fwd) Date: 14 Nov 1996 08:02:55 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.startext.net/news/doc/1047/1:WORLD41/1:WORLD41111396.html [- StarText.Net Home ][- Community News ][- InterAct ][- Market Place ] Updated: Wednesday, Nov. 13, 1996 at 22:20 CST U.S. commits troops to Zaire By Christopher Hanson c.1996 Seattle Post-Intelligencer WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration announced Wednesday it has agreed to deploy some 4,000 troops as part of a multination force to impose order and help feed hundreds of thousands of refugees who are near starvation in eastern Zaire. "The United States is ready in principle to participate. . . . Our interest= s are largely humanitarian, to save lives," said White House spokesman Mike McCurry. U.S. relief officials stressed that food aid for Rwandan refugees in Zaire, which has come to a standstill as a result of factional fighting, must resume to avert catastrophe. McCurry said plans call for the mission to last four months, but that the United States will consider whether more time and troops are needed as the operation proceeds. But he stressed: "We would not commit to an open-ended, ill-defined mission." The international force of up to 20,000, to be led by the Canadians, who will contribute the largest contingent, will be going in under United Nations auspices and what McCurry said are "robust rules of engagement." That means the troops will have wide latitude to defend themselves in the strife-torn region, where armed, militant Hutu refugees from Rwanda are pitted against heavily armed Tutsis, the Hutus' traditional enemies. Defense Secretary William Perry said that under the plan, about 1,000 American infantry, backed by assault helicopters, will deploy to Goma, Zaire. The troops are part of an airborne assault unit headquartered in Italy. Their job will be to open and protect a key airfield and the road that leads to the nearby border with Rwanda, about three miles away. Both the airport and the road are essential to bring in relief supplies and both were closed earlier this month after Tutsi militias routed Zairean troops and seized control of the area. The role of the additional American forces in the operation, who are to be deployed outside Zaire, is still being defined. So are the roles for other national forces, which McCurry said he hoped would include African nations. "This is not a risk-free environment by any means," McCurry said. But he stressed that, before the deployment goes forward, Zaire and Rwanda must agree to allow it so the international force will not have to fight its way in. Even so, the international force will be operating in the vicinity of heavily armed Hutu and Tutsi militia factions. State Department spokesman Glyn Davies said the overwhelming firepower of the international force coul= d be enough to deter those militias from fighting with the peace-keepers. Davies doubted that "the militias would be reckless enough to take on international force of considerable size." McCurry stressed that the Americans will not be disarming armed militias, that the cost of the operation will be shared among the participating countries, and that American troops will be under the command of American officers, answerable ultimately to the Pentagon and President Clinton, even though a Canadian general will lead the international force. The Clinton administration -- badly burned in Somalia, when 18 American Arm= y rangers were killed in an ambush during a U.N. peace keeping operation in 1993 -- has been wary of making broad commitments to restore order in Africa. But the United States came under great pressure from its allies to participate in this operation, and agreed to do so, under limited conditions, after extensive consultations and planning sessions with Canada= , Britain, France and other nations. Reaction on Capitol Hill was muted Wednesday, with some members voicing skepticism. Before McCurry made the U.S. agreement to participate official, it was bein= g reported by news organizations, citing anonymous sources. Reacting to those early reports, Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., said in an interview: "I would b= e vehemently opposed to sending any military personnel. It is not appropriate to use our military in civil strife." However, Julia Taft, the president of InterAction, a private group that supports humanitarian relief efforts, said in a written statement: "A robus= t security force involving forces from Europe, Canada, the United States and Africa not only offers relief agencies their best hope of saving lives, but it also demonstrates that the United States remains engaged with other nations in addressing this major international crisis." The crisis is the latest in a series that have brought Central Africa unbelievable misery, much of it stemming from implacable hatred between Hut= u and Tutsi factions. In April 1994, militant Hutus began massacring Tutsis in Rwanda on a massiv= e scale, following a plane crash in which the Hutu president of Rwanda was killed. In response, an army of Rwandan Tutsis launched a military offensive, routing the Hutu-dominated Rwandan army and seizing the country. Fearing reprisals, omore than 1 million Rwandan Hutus fled, many ending up in refugee camps near Goma. Thousands died when a cholera epidemic swept th= e camps. During this period, the United States participated in a multi-nation force, led by France, which stabilized the region temporarily and aided relief agencies in distributing food and medicine before withdrawing. But Hutu militants, many of whom had participated in the genocide, acquired weapons and took over many of the camps. They refused to return to Rwanda and soon were reported to be attacking Zairean Tutsis, who also fell prey i= n increasing numbers to attacks by Zairean army troops. Zairean Tutsi militias, backed by the Rwandan Tutsi army, retaliated with a= n offensive that routed the Zairean army around Goma earlier this month. Food aid to the camps came to a standstill. Tens of thousands of Hutus fled into the interior of Zaire, where food is not reaching them and starvation looms= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: another NWOW! Date: 14 Nov 1996 09:47:57 -0500 Paul, >> >> Maybe I will call them. > >Maybe? > Yup, maybe. Its your post, its significance is very much up in the air. I'll research further if it strikes my fancy. >And you are going to believe >what they tell you, is that >true? > Well, one would assume, since you puplished the report under "another NWOW!" without any qualifiers, that *you* believe Mr. Cameron. My first instinct is to be find reports of people who were denied employment a little suspect, as "disgruntled former employee" is a bit of a cliche. To answer your question: No, I would not neccessarily take what they say on face value. Its your post, I invited you to research it further with a phone call. I don't feel obligated to anything further. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: another NWOW! Date: 14 Nov 1996 08:14:16 -0800 (PST) Paul, at this point we're kind of struggling over the shovel you seem intent on using to bury yourself, it's pretty silly. You didnt post your claim like any sort of hypothesis you said it was truth. And you're bringing relativity into only reinforces the importance of citing credible supporting evidence when making claims, in order to retain credibility. Einstein was -the- authoritative mathematician of his time and he published -reams- of credible mathematical information to support his theory. Since then, the theory has been backed by scientists like Stephen Hawkins -and- preliminary testson the shuttle have proven that space does bend exactly has the theory hypothesized. Sorry your post wasnt very analagous to Einsteins situation let alone "just like" E=m x c x c. -Boyd (the Liberal Arts major ; ) On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > This "bill" is refused for cause, > without dishonor. I stand on the > First Amendment, as an author, > a Citizen, and a Counselor at Law. > The question of rail cars to be > used for shuttling people to > detention centers, is a worthy > hypothesis, but that is all it > is right now -- an hypothesis -- > no better or worse than E = M x C x C. > Until someone can produce competent > evidence to reject this hypothesis, > it shall stand unrebutted and > unrejected. If it is indeed a > red herring, the evidence will > demonstrate that. I daresay that > there is quite a lot of material > which appears on the Internet which > has not been confirmed by eyewitness > experience. The absence of such > eyewitness testimony is not sufficient > ground to derail the First Amendment. > Applying your test, no one would be > "permitted" even to mention the Gulf > War Syndrome until and unless they > had received the anthrax innoculation > themselves, and fallen into convulsions. > Reductio ad absurdem. > > I rest, for now. > > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > > > At 04:58 PM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote: > >On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > > > >> I agree entirely. I am just > >> resisting the idea, all too > >> frequent these days, that I > >> do the research at my own > >> expense. I have better things > >> to do with my professional time, > >> believe me (and I hope you will). > > > >I am sure you would grant us the courtesy of recognizing that many of us > >consider our time at least as valuable as yours? > > > >Using your own figures, and estimating that there are a thousand people > >on this list who took on average about 30 seconds apiece to evaluate > >your epistle cast to the winds without verifying the facts behind it, > >and then redirect it to the bit bucket, that works out to be 8.33+ hours at > >$75/hr = $625. > > > >Consider yourself billed, and tender a check to the list-owner to help > >defray the expenses he incurs by providing and maintaining this list at > >no charge. Of course, any donation in excess of that I am sure would > >be gratefully accepted. > > > >----- > >Harry Barnett > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >"Facts? FACTS! Ah doan need no steenken' FACTS!" > > > > > > =========================================================== > Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com > ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > =========================================================== > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Innerarity Subject: ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS IT'S SAY Date: 14 Nov 1996 12:46:06 -0500 Multiple Recipients: Washington (AP) Forget about the voters. Electing the president is now the responsibility of 538 electors in the oft maligned system designated by the nation's founders, the electoral college. Three times in the country's history the result has been to award the presidency to the candidate with fewer popular votes. Largely because of that , proposals are made periodically to change the rules and let Americans elect the President directly. The current system, however, has its defenders. For instance, a physicist Alan Netapoff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who compares winning the White Houise to winning the World Series. By requiring a candidate to win a large number of states, the system prevents winning by appealing only to a large block of special interest voters or regional interests. The system "puts real flesh on the theory that the president represents everyone, not just those who vote for him," says Natpoff. "What's important is that whoever is elected represents the whole electorate." Natapoff likens the workings of the electoral college system to the World Series, this year between the New York Yankees and the Atlanta Braves. The Yankees won four games to two, despite being outscored by the Braves, 26 to 18. "Nobody thinks the Yankees are illegitimate champs with fewer runs," Natapoff observes. Just as runs must be grouped to win individual baseball games, votes must be grouped to carry state electoral votes. Says Natapoff: A champion must be able to win at least some of the close, tough games. By the same logic, a president should have broad appeal and not just play to isolated blocs of voters, he says. To people who urge a simple, direct vote for president, Natapoff asks if they would make the same suggestion for the divided nation of Bosnia where Muslims and Serbs and Croats compete with one another. END -----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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Privacy and SSN's Date: 14 Nov 1996 11:12:28 -0700 (MST) What to do when they ask for your Social Security Number by Chris Hibbert Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Many people are concerned about the number of organizations asking for their Social Security Numbers. They worry about invasions of privacy and the oppressive feeling of being treated as just a number. Unfortunately, I can't offer any hope about the dehumanizing effects of identifying you with your numbers. I can try to help you keep your Social Security Number from being used as a tool in the invasion of your privacy. Surprisingly, government agencies are reasonably easy to deal with; private organizations are much more troublesome. Federal law restricts the agencies at all levels of government that can demand your number and a fairly complete disclosure is required even if its use is voluntary. There are no comparable Federal laws restricting the uses non-government organizations can make of it, or compelling them to tell you anything about their plans. Some states have recently enacted regulations on collection of SSNs by private entities. With private institutions, your main recourse is refusing to do business with anyone whose terms you don't like. They, in turn, are allowed to refuse to deal with you on those terms. Short History Social Security numbers were introduced by the Social Security Act of 1935. They were originally intended to be used only by the social security program, and public assurances were given at the time that use would be strictly limited. In 1943 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9397 which required federal agencies to use the number when creating new record-keeping systems. In 1961 the IRS began to use it as a taxpayer ID number. The Privacy Act of 1974 required authorization for government agencies to use SSNs in their data bases and required disclosures (detailed below) when government agencies request the number. Agencies which were already using SSN as an identifier before January 1, 1975 were allowed to continue using it. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 gave authority to state or local tax, welfare, driver's license, or motor vehicle registration authorities to use the number in order to establish identities. The Privacy Protection Study Commission of 1977 recommended that the Executive Order be repealed after some agencies referred to it as their authorization to use SSNs. I don't know whether it was repealed, but no one seems to have cited EO 9397 as their authorization recently. What to do when they ask for your SSN: Page 1 of 9 Several states use the SSN as a driver's license number, while others record it on applications and store it in their database. Some states that routinely use it on the license will make up another number if you insist. According to the terms of the Privacy Act, any that have a space for it on the application forms should have a disclosure notice. Many don't, and until someone takes them to court, they aren't likely to change. (Though New York recently agreed to start adding the notice on the basis of a letter written by a reader of this blurb.) The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) requires that any federal, state, or local government agency that requests your Social Security Number has to tell you four things: 1: Whether disclosure of your Social Security Number is required or optional, 2: What law authorizes them to ask for your Social Security Number, 3: How your Social Security Number will be used if you give it to them, and 4: The consequences of failure to provide an SSN. In addition, the Act says that only Federal law can make use of the Social Security Number mandatory. So anytime you're dealing with a government institution and you're asked for your Social Security Number, just look for the Privacy Act Statement. If there isn't one, complain and don't give your number. If the statement is present, read it. If it says giving your Social Security Number is voluntary, you'll have to decide for yourself whether to fill in the number. Private Organizations The guidelines for dealing with non-governmental institutions are much more tenuous. Most of the time private organizations that request your Social Security Number can get by quite well without your number, and if you can find the right person to negotiate with, they'll willingly admit it. The problem is finding that right person. The person behind the counter is often told no more than "get the customers to fill out the form completely." Most of the time, you can convince them to use some other number. Usually the simplest way to refuse to give your Social Security Number is simply to leave the appropriate space blank. One of the times when this isn't a strong enough statement of your desire to conceal your number is when dealing with institutions which have direct contact with your employer. Most employers have no policy against revealing your Social Security Number; they apparently believe that it must be an unintentional slip when an employee doesn't provide an SSN to everyone who asks. What to do when they ask for your SSN: Page 2 of 9 Public utilities (gas, electric, phone, etc.) are considered to be private organizations under the laws regulating SSNs. Most of the time they ask for an SSN, and aren't prohibited from asking for it, but they'll usually relent if you insist. Ask to speak to a supervisor, insist that they document a corporate policy requiring it, ask about alternatives, ask why they need it and suggest alternatives. Lenders and Borrowers (those who send reports to the IRS) Banks and credit card issuers and various others are required by the IRS to report the SSNs of account holders to whom they pay interest or when they charge interest and report it to the IRS. If you don't tell them your number you will probably either be refused an account or be charged a penalty such as withholding of taxes on your interest. Many Banks, Brokerages, and other financial institutions have started implementing automated systems to let you check your balance. All too often, they are using SSNs as the PIN that lets you get access to your personal account information. If your bank does this to you, write them a letter pointing out how common it is for the people with whom you have financial business to know your SSN. Ask them to change your PIN, and if you feel like doing a good deed, ask them to stop using the SSN as a default identifier for their other customers. Some customers will believe that there's some security in it, and be insufficiently protective of their account numbers. When buying (and possibly refinancing) a house, most banks will now ask for your Social Security Number on the Deed of Trust. This is because the Federal National Mortgage Association recently started requiring it. The fine print in their regulation admits that some consumers won't want to give their number, and allows banks to leave it out when pressed. [It first recommends getting it on the loan note, but then admits that it's already on various other forms that are a required part of the package, so they already know it. The Deed is a public document, so there are good reasons to refuse to put it there, even though all parties to the agreement already have access to your number.] Insurers, Hospitals, Doctors No laws require medical service providers to use your Social Security Number as an ID number (except for Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) They often use it because it's convenient or because your employer uses it to identify employees to its groups health plan. In the latter case, you have to get your employer to change their policies. Often, the people who work in personnel assume that the employer or insurance company requires use of the SSN when that's not really the case. When a previous employer asked for my SSN for an insurance form, I asked them to try to find out if they had to use it. After a week they reported that the insurance company had gone along with my request and told me what What to do when they ask for your SSN: Page 3 of 9 number to use. Blood banks also ask for the number but are willing to do without if pressed on the issue. After I asked politely and persistently, the blood bank I go to agreed that they didn't have any use for the number. They've now expunged my SSN from their database, and they seem to have taught their receptionists not to request the number. Most insurance companies share access to old claims through the Medical Information Bureau. If your insurance company uses your SSN, other insurance companies will have a much easier time finding out about your medical history. You can get a copy of the file which MIB keeps on you by writing to Medical Information Bureau, P.O. Box 105, Essex Station, Boston, MA 02112. Their phone number is (617) 426-3660. If an insurance agent asks for your Social Security Number in order to "check your credit", point out that the contract is invalid if your check bounces or your payment is late. They don't need to know what your credit is like, just whether you've paid them. Children The Family Support Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1305, 607, and 602) apparently requires states to require parents to give their Social Security Numbers in order to get a birth certificate issued for a newborn. The law allows the requirement to be waived for "good cause", but there's no indication of what may qualify. The IRS requires taxpayers to report SSNs for dependents over one year of age, but the requirement can be avoided if you're prepared to document the existence of the child by other means if challenged. The law on this can be found at 26 U.S.C. 6109. Universities and Colleges Universities that accept federal funds are subject to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (the "Buckley Amendment"), which prohibits them from giving out personal information on students without permission. There is an exception for directory information, which is limited to names, addresses, and phone numbers, and another exception for release of information to the parents of minors. There is no exception for Social Security Numbers, so covered Universities aren't allowed to reveal students' numbers without their permission. In addition, state universities are bound by the requirements of the Privacy Act, which requires them to provide the disclosures mentioned above. If they make uses of the SSN which aren't covered by the disclosure they are in violation. Why SSNs are a bad choice for UIDs in data bases Database designers continue to introduce the Social Security Number as the key when putting together a new database or when What to do when they ask for your SSN: Page 4 of 9 re-organizing an old one. Some of the qualities that are (often) useful in a key and that people think they are getting from the SSN are Uniqueness, Universality, Security, and Identification. When designing a database, it is instructive to consider which of these qualities are actually important in your application; many designers assume unwisely that they are all useful for every application, when in fact each is occasionally a drawback. The SSN provides none of them, so designs predicated on the assumption that it does provide them will fail in a variety of ways. Uniqueness Many people assume that Social Security Numbers are unique. They were intended by the Social Security Administration to be unique, but they didn't take sufficient precautions to ensure that it would be so. There have been several instances when two different SSA offices issued the same number to different people. They have also given a previously issued number to someone with the same name as the original recipient, thinking it was the same person asking again. There are a few numbers that were used by thousands of people because they were on sample cards shipped in wallets by their manufacturers. (One is given below.) The passage of the Immigration reform law in 1986 caused an increase in the duplicate use of SSNs. Since the SSN is now required for employment, illegal immigrants must find a valid name/SSN pair in order to fool the INS, and IRS long enough to collect a paycheck. Using the SSN when you can't cross-check your database with the SSA means you can count on getting some false numbers mixed in with the good ones. Universality Not everyone has a Social Security Number. Foreigners are the primary exception, but many children don't get SSNs until they're in school. They were only designed to be able to cover people who were eligible for Social Security. Identification Few people ever ask to see an SSN card; they believe whatever you say. The ability to recite the number provides little evidence that you're associated with the number in anyone else's database. Security The card is not at all forgery-resistant, even if anyone did ever ask for it. The numbers don't have any redundancy (no check- digits) so any 9-digit number in the range of numbers that have been issued is a valid number. It's relatively easy to copy the number incorrectly, and there's no way to tell that you've done so. In most cases, there is no cross-checking that a number is valid. Credit card and checking account numbers are checked against a What to do when they ask for your SSN: Page 5 of 9 database almost every time they are used. If you write down someone's phone number incorrectly, you find out the first time you try to use it. Why you should resist requests for your SSN When you give out your number, you are providing access to information about yourself. You're providing access to information about you that you don't know about. That you don't have the ability or the legal right to correct or rebut. You provide access to information that is irrelevant to most transactions but that will occasionally trigger prejudice. Worst of all, since you provided the key, (and did so "voluntarily") all the info discovered under your number will be presumed to be true, about you, and relevant. A major problem with the use of SSNs as identifiers is that it makes it hard to control access to personal information. Even assuming you want someone to be able to find out some things about you, there's no reason to believe that you want to make all records concerning yourself available. When multiple record systems are all keyed by the same identifier, and all are intended to be easily accessible to some users, it becomes difficult to allow someone access to some of the information about a person while restricting them to specific topics. Unfortunately, far too many organizations assume that anyone who presents your SSN must be you. When more than one person uses the same number, it clouds up the records. If someone intended to hide their activities, it's likely that it'll look bad on whichever record it shows up on. When it happens accidentally, it can be unexpected, embarrassing, or worse. How do you prove that you weren't the one using your number when the record was made? What you can do to protect your number If despite your having written "refused" in the box for Social Security Number, it still shows up on the forms someone sends back to you (or worse, on the ID card they issue), your recourse is to write letters or make phone calls. Start politely, explaining your position and expecting them to understand and cooperate. If that doesn't work, there are several more things to try: 1: Talk to people higher up in the organization. This often works simply because the organization has a standard way of dealing with requests not to use the SSN, and the first person you deal with just hasn't been around long enough to know what it is. 2: Enlist the aid of your employer. You have to decide whether talking to someone in personnel, and possibly trying to change corporate policy is going to get back to your supervisor and affect your job. What to do when they ask for your SSN: Page 6 of 9 3: Threaten to complain to a consumer affairs bureau. Most newspapers can get a quick response. Ask for their "Action Line" or equivalent. If you're dealing with a local government agency, look in the state or local government section of the phone book under "consumer affairs." If it's a federal agency, your Member of Congress may be able to help. 4: Insist that they document a corporate policy requiring the number. When someone can't find a written policy or doesn't want to push hard enough to get it, they'll often realize that they don't know what the policy is, and they've just been following tradition. 5: Ask what they need it for and suggest alternatives. If you're talking to someone who has some independence, and they'd like to help, they will sometimes admit that they know the reason the company wants it, and you can satisfy that requirement a different way. 6: Tell them you'll take your business elsewhere (and follow through if they don't cooperate.) 7: If it's a case where you've gotten service already, but someone insists that you have to provide your number in order to have a continuing relationship, you can choose to ignore the request in hopes that they'll forget or find another solution before you get tired of the interruption. If someone absolutely insists on getting your Social Security Number, you may want to give a fake number. There is no legal penalty as long as you're not doing it to get something from a government agency or to commit fraud. There are a few good choices for "anonymous" numbers. Making one up at random is a bad idea, as it may coincide with someone's real number and cause them some amount of grief. It's better to use a number like 078- 05-1120, which was printed on "sample" cards inserted in thousands of new wallets sold in the 40's and 50's. It's been used so widely that both the IRS and SSA recognize it immediately as bogus, while most clerks haven't heard of it. There are several prefixes that have never been assigned, and which therefore don't conflict with anyone's real number. They include the following patterns: 1. Any field all zeroes (no field of zeroes is ever assigned) 2. First digit "8" (no area numbers in the 800 series have been assigned) 3. First two digits 73-79 (no area numbers in the 700 series have been assigned except 700-729 which were assigned to railroad workers until 1964) What to do when they ask for your SSN: Page 7 of 9 Giving a number with one of these patterns rather than your own number isn't very useful if there's anything serious at stake since they're likely to be noticed . Numbers beginning with 9 have never been assigned to individuals, but some have been assigned to organizations and for other special purposes. The Social Security Administration recommends that people showing Social Security cards in advertisements use numbers in the range 987-65-4320 through 987-65-4329. If you're designing a database, and want to use numbers other than Social Security Numbers, you'd be better off generating numbers that are shorter than 9 digits, so they won't be confused with SSNs. If you have an existing database using SSNs, and want to allow people to use a different identifier, it's better to generate longer or shorter numbers or ones with letters included rather than depending on these unused patterns. The Social Security Administration recommends that you request a copy of your file from them every few years to make sure that your records are correct (your income and "contributions" are being recorded for you, and no one else's are.) As a result of a recent court case, the SSA has agreed to accept corrections of errors when there isn't any contradictory evidence, SSA has records for the year before or after the error, and the claimed earnings are consistent with earlier and later wages. (San Jose Mercury News, 5/14, 1992 page 6-A) Call the Social Security Administration at (800) 772-1213 and ask for Form 7004, (Request for Earnings and Benefit Estimate Statement.) U.S. Passports The application for US Passports (DSP-11 12/87) requests an Social Security Number, but gives no Privacy Act notice. There is a reference to "Federal Tax Law" and a misquotation of Section 6039E of the 1986 IRC, claiming that the section requires that you provide your name, mailing address, date of birth, and Social Security Number. The referenced section only requires TIN (SSN), and it requires that it be sent to the IRS and not to the Passport office. It appears that when you apply for a passport, you can refuse to reveal your Social Security Number to the passport office, and instead mail a notice to the IRS, giving only your Social Security Number (other identifying info optional) and notifying them that you are applying for a passport. [I can provide copies of the letter that was used successfully by one contributor. I'd be interested in hearing how the State department and the Post Office (which is willing to process the forms for you) react.] Results from Some Recent Legal Cases (3/24/93) CPSR joined two legal cases in 1992 which concerned Social Security Numbers and privacy. One of them challenged the IRS practice of printing Social Security Numbers on mailing labels when they send out tax forms and related correspondence. The What to do when they ask for your SSN: Page 8 of 9 other challenged Virginia's requirement of a Social Security Number in order to register to vote. Dr. Peter Zilahy Ingerman filed suit against the IRS in Federal District Court in 1991, and CPSR filed a friend of the court brief in August '91. The case was decided in favor of the IRS. The Virginia case was filed by a resident of the state who refused to supply a Social Security Number when registering to vote. When the registrar refused to accept his registration, he filed suit. He is also challenging the state of Virginia on two other bases: the registration form lacked a Privacy Act notice, and the voter lists the state publishes include Social Security Numbers. The Federal court of appeals ruled that the state of Virginia may not allow the disclosure of Social Security numbers as a condition of registering to vote. The court said that the Virginia requirement places an "intolerable burden" on the right to vote. The case is officially referred to as Greidinger v. Davis, No. 92-1571, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, March 22, 1993. If you have suggestions for improving this document please send them to me at: Chris Hibbert hibbert@memex.com or Memex, Inc. 550 California Ave, Suite 210 Palo Alto, CA 94306 This posting is available via anonymous ftp from rtfm.mit.edu in the file /pub/usenet/news.answers/ssn-privacy. It's also available from mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu by sending a mail message containing the line "send usenet/news.answers/ssn- privacy" (without the quote marks) as the sole contents of the body. Send a message containing "help" to get general information about the mail server. What to do when they ask for your SSN: Page 9 of 9 =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Innerarity Subject: WAR ON CHILDREN CONTINUES IN PENNSYLVANIA Date: 14 Nov 1996 13:32:00 -0500 Dear Americans: The following paper was given to the children at Line Mountain School District, Dalmatia Elementary School, in Pennsylvania. There may be other schools that have similar programs. Be on the alert. UNITED NATIONS DAY The united Natiuons is like a world peace club. It is made up of people from about 160 countries. They come to New York City, New York, in order to work and meet together in the special United Nations building. Here they think of ways to solve different problems countries may have. This is an important job of the United Nations. It helps keep world peace. Fill in the blank spaces below. I am a citizen of the world, sharing with others. 1: My home town is _______________. 2: It isin the state of _______________. 3: My country is __________________. 4: It is in the ______________ Hemisphere. 5: It is part of the planet ____________. How do you think people from so many difrferent countries speaking so many different languages communicate with each other at the United Nations? Write your answer below. END Anyone who has done any study knows that the Constitution and the UN Charter are diametrically opposed. It appears that the effort to make global ciotizens of our children is spearheading in the rural and suburban areas of the country. Check your own school districts and let them know how you feel. The Dalmatia Elementary School can be reached at: 1-717-758-6243 Line Mountain School District Dalmatia Elementary School RD#1 Box 293 Dalmatia, Pennsylvania 17017 -----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: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Humor? Date: 14 Nov 1996 18:07:54 -0800 >Posted to texas-gun-owners by yarnell@se28.dseg.ti.com (Lyle Yarnell) >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Good for a Laugh... >-------------------------------------- >One day at the end of class little Billy's teacher has the class go >home and think of story and then infer the moral of that story. > >The following day the teacher asks for the first volunteer to tell >their story, little Suzy raises her hand. "My dad owns a farm and >every Sunday we load the chicken eggs on the truck and drive into >town to sell them at the market. Well, one Sunday we hit a big bump >and all the eggs flew out of the basket and onto the road." The >teacher asks for the moral of the story ... Suzy replies, "don't >put all your eggs in one basket." > >Next is little Lucy ... "Well my dad owns a farm too and every >weekend we take the chicken eggs and put them in the incubator. Last >weekend only 8 of the 12 eggs hatched" ... teacher asks for the >moral of the story ... Lucy replies "don't count your chicks before >they're hatched." > >Last is little Billy ... "My uncle Ron fought in the Vietnam war, his >plane was shot down over enemy territory" ... "he jumped out before it >crashed with only a case Of beer, a machine gun and a machete. On the >way down he drank the case of beer. Unfortunately, he landed >right in the middle of 100 North Vietnamese soldiers. He shot 70 with his >machine gun, but ran out of bullets, so he pulled out his machete >and killed 20 more. The blade on his machete broke, so he killed the >last ten with his bare hands." > >Teacher looks in shock at Billy and asks if there is possibly any >moral to his story ... Billy replies, "Don't mess with uncle Ron >if he's been drinking." > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >-- >For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net >with the word help in the message body. > - 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: 9 cents per minute, anywhere in America Date: 14 Nov 1996 19:17:51 -0700 (MST) Dear Friends, If you make a habit of dialing 10502 1 xxx xxx xxxx where, xxx xxx xxxx is the area code and telephone number, you will pay a flat rate of 9 cents per minute, from anywhere, to anywhere, in the continental United States of America. The billing is automatically charged to your regular phone bill, and will appear as a separate line item on each bill. Try it! I did, and it works just great. Many thanks to my friend and colleague, Rich Scully in Phoenix, Arizona Republic, for this great tip. /s/ Paul Mitchell P.S. I receive no financial benefit from this notice or the carrier who supports 10502 calls. =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) The Worst Analogies ... Date: 14 Nov 1996 18:34:01 -0800 >These look like they're from the Bulwer Lytton contest for worst sentences >ever written. The Lytton contest books are called "It Was A Dark and Stormy >Night" and "Son of It Was A Dark and Stormy Night." After my back operation >when all I could do was lie around drugged, I wrote a batch of these kinds >of bad sentences. It is lot of fun ... > >Patty > > >> ---------- >>From: Al-Yasin, Jan >>Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 8:45 AM >>To: Jansen, Jan; Sirmans, John; Wray, Suzanne >>Subject: FW: The Worst Analogies... >> >> >>Winners of the "worst analogies ever written in a high school essay" >>contest. >> >>He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like >>a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without >>one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the >>country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at >>a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it. >>(Joseph Romm, Washington) >> >> >>She caught your eye like one of those pointy hook latches that >>used to dangle from screen doors and would fly up whenever you >>banged the door open again. >>(Rich Murphy, Fairfax Station) >> >> >>The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a >>bowling ball wouldn't. >>(Russell Beland, Springfield) >> >> >>McBride fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a Hefty Bag >>filled with vegetable soup. >>(Paul Sabourin, Silver Spring) >> >> >>From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an >>eerie, surreal quality, like when you're on vacation in another >>city and "Jeopardy" comes on at 7 p.m. instead of 7:30. >>(Roy Ashley, Washington) >> >> >>Her hair glistened in the rain like nose hair after a sneeze. >>(Chuck Smith, Woodbridge) >> >> >>Her eyes were like two brown circles with big black dots in the >>center. >>(Russell Beland, Springfield) >> >> >>Bob was as perplexed as a hacker who means to access >>T:flw.quid55328.com\aaakk/ch@ung but gets T:\flw.quidaaakk/ch@ung >>by mistake. >>(Ken Krattenmaker, Landover Hills) >> >> >>Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever. >>(Unknown) >> >> >>He was as tall as a six-foot-three-inch tree. >>(Jack Bross, Chevy Chase) >> >> >>The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when >>you fry them in hot grease. >>(Gary F. Hevel, Silver Spring) >> >> >>Her date was pleasant enough, but she knew that if her life was a >>movie this guy would be buried in the credits as something like >>"Second Tall Man." >>(Russell Beland, Springfield) >> >> >>Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced >>across the grassy field toward each other like two freight >>trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. traveling at 55 >>mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 p.m. at a speed of 35 mph. >>(Jennifer Hart, Arlington) >> >> >>The politician was gone but unnoticed, like the period after the >>Dr. on a Dr Pepper can. >>(Wayne Goode, Madison, Ala.) >> >> >>They lived in a typical suburban neighborhood with picket fences >>that resembled Nancy Kerrigan's teeth. >>(Paul Kocak, Syracuse, N.Y.) >> >> >>John and Mary had never met. They were like two hummingbirds who >>had also never met. >>(Russell Beland, Springfield) >> >> >>The thunder was ominous-sounding, much like the sound of a thin >>sheet of metal being shaken backstage during the storm scene in a >>play. >>(Barbara Fetherolf, Alexandria) >> >> >>His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances >>like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free. >>(Chuck Smith, Woodbridge) >> >> >>The red brick wall was the color of a brick-red Crayola crayon. >>(Unknown) >> >> >> >> >> >> > > - 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: Jacques Tucker Subject: Re: Voting For/Against AW Ban Repeal?? Date: 14 Nov 1996 21:09:58 -0600 OK, John, you're right on. Let's insure that the good guys are in the 105th. Steve Stockman is in a run-off election on 10 December next. Everyone needs to send $10, $25, $10,000 or whatever they can afford either to: Checks made to "Stockman for Congress" ($1000 max per person) to GOAPVF, 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 OR Please, if you can, send contributions to: Friends of Steve Stockman P.O. Box 57135 Webster, TX 77598 Per federal election law, you must include the following information with your check or else Steve can't use it: Your name Your address Your profession Your employer's name Your employer's address The nature of your company's business Cap'n Jacq' sends... At 04:45 PM 11/14/96 -0500, you wrote: > >Dear Noban: > >92% of the House Reps who voted with us on the AW Ban repeal were returned >according to what I have read here. > >Sounds good, but what % of the House Reps who voted against us were >returned? (I hope the number is lower, but I fear it may be higher...) > >Although GOA and others seemed to nearly pooh-pooh the AW ban repeal House >vote, I thought it was a really big deal -- a real "gut check" for >waivering politicians. Having to go on record with a vote like that when >you know standing for what is right will not end up in a result (not taken >up by Senate and would have been assuredly vetoed by Clinton if it made it >to his desk), is a Good Thing IMHO. > >John Posthill >(when and where will the next AW Ban repeal vote come up?) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Fwd: Perpetual War (fwd) Date: 15 Nov 1996 08:50:41 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --------------------- Forwarded message: dan3@ix.netcom.com, jdweiner@bu.edu, afc@metronet.com, LTBIGAL@aol.com, bshearer@flash.net, cen11156@centuryinter.net PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE Internationalists at highest levels of government have illegally transferred American military to United Nations command. Objective: Force all nations under `one world' administration. Rule by military mandate. Perpetrators of U.N. `new world order' seek to overthrow the Constitution and erect a dictatorship on ruins of the Republic. FREE: "The Republic: Decline and Future Promise", a tactical operation enabling you to challenge those who would rob you of your heritage. Send self-addressed, stamped #10 (business) envelope to: COMMITTEE TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION A Colorado non-profit corporation Post Office Box 986 Fort Collins, Colorado USA 80522 Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret, Director ============================================================================== = UNITED NATIONS ARMY "Americans must halt the build-up of a United Nations Army or we will soon find ourselves supervised by sociological drovers in a one-world animal farm." Extract, VICTORY DENIED (1966) by Archibald E. Roberts, LtCol (then Major) 301 pages, Library of Congress #66-20665, OUT OF PRINT O The people, source of all political power, are responsible for instructing elected officials to confine functions of government to limitations defined in the Constitution. (A) Citizen-initiated, state legislative solution to the United Nations problem is offered by Committee to Restore the Constitution: 1. Model 'letter of instruction' to state lawmakers with names and addresses of legislators on self-adhesive labels. 2. State bills prepared by T. David Horton, Counsel, Committee to Restore the Constitution: a. "Bill to Investigate the Legality of the Action of Federal Agents with Regard to the United Nations" b. "Bill to Provide for Enforcement of the Constitution of the United States with Regard to the So-called United Nations Organization" (includes criminal sanctions). 3. "Characteristics of Government", testimony by T. David Horton, Attorney, restating authority and responsibility of state legislators to correct violations of the Constitution by their agents in Washington. 4. Back-up documentation to continue public education of state lawmakers, i.e.: Senate Joint Resolution #65 "Establishing a commission to study the creation of a standing international military force under the United Nations Charter" 16 March 1993 - April 1994 bulletin. Presidential Decision Directive #25, 3 May 1994 (State Department Summary) "The Clinton Administration's Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations" (transfers control of US military forces to foreign commanders, e.g.: Bosnia) - October 1994 Committee bulletin - and much more. ***************************************************************************** UNITED NATIONS ARMY AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER My interest in United Nations cabalistic nuance began in Korea where I observed the American flag and the United Nations banner flying side by side at the Pusan Headquarters, Supreme United Nations Command, Korea. It was also in Korea that, for the first time, I observed American dead being buried under a foreign device in a United Nations cemetery. This curiosity increased during the course of my struggle to comply with military orders which directed the establishment of pro-American troop educational programs in Germany. These military directives, I found, were sabotaged by concealed forces in the Pentagon and in the Department of State. I was to discover later that these policy moves originated in the United Nations under authority of the United Nations Charter. Additional evidence of a strange ambivalence regarding official statements concerning troop information objectives and the field application of those principles was revealed during the course of the Senate 'military muzzling' investigations which sprang from this struggle. It then became apparent that hidden policy planners at an international level were in fact directing a propaganda campaign which opposed the principles set forth in the United States Constitution; the Constitution which I have sworn to 'defend and preserve'. (B) Confronted with the divided allegiance demanded by the new military morality I determined to trace the origins of this mischief and to make it my mission to seek the means for correcting the misdirection of armed forces policy and which would end the exploitation of America's soldier sons in international adventures. The information gleaned during the course of my personal investigations, and the situations which produced such evidence, are presented in this book. This compendium of international deceit is drawn from actions in which I was personally involved or which are the result of related research and examination of public and private documents. The following factors will be disclosed as having a material bearing on the abuse of American fighting forces and the undermining of the United States Consitutiton: a. The United Nations Organization is the product of internationalists whose objective is Soviet-style control over the world's people and resources. b. A prime requisite for the achievement of one-world government under the UN flag is United Nations command of the US military forces. c. Technique for achieving UN command of the US military establishment includes UN manipulation of United States government agencies, establishment of interlocking propaganda media, and the employment of politically oriented agents who are in sympathy with one-world government policy. The purpose of the disclosure is two-fold; first, to indict publicly the United Nations Organization and, second,to illustrate the importance of immediate action to resolve this condition of dire peril. A major objective of the work is the presentation of a Constitution-centered citizen action plan which will lead to the reestablishment of the United States Constitution as the 'Supreme Law of the Land'. The concluding portion of the book will, therefore, be concerned with a proposal to insure that the limits of the US Constitution are respected within the borders of the sovereign states. It will be shown that Americans can act to avert terminal passage of our Christian nation into a Soviet twilight zone under the United Nations banner. Of course, the Planners tell us that the United Nations is the hope of the world. But we know that the United Nations is not what UN supporters think it is. The United Nations is what the articles of the UN Charter say it is: The United Nations is an agency for imposing a one-world government on the nations of the world; by peaceful means if possible; by force and violence if necessary. The law of self-preservation demands that Americans learn as much as possible about this international organization; an agency which is geared for a take-over of the United States. We must know its origins; we must study its charter, and we must examine its effect on our national policy. Our study will be a candid examination of a new dimension in warfare. It will show that the weapons employed by our enemy are duplicity, subversion, and treason. However, before exploring the events which placed our soldiers under UN command, it may be pertinent to explain why many army men have elected to become personally involved in this psycho-political war. Perhaps the most direct means of defining our position is to present the oath each officer takes upon being commissioned in the United States Army. (C) This was, and is the military creed: "I, ...., do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; That I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." A personal reason for resistance to a United Nations take-over lies in the fact that my ancestors helped to establish in this bountiful land, 'the best form of government ever devised by the hand of man'. We must not relinquish the heritage of freedom so dearly won by the sweat and blood of our forefathers. O ADDENDUM A. In 1788 thirteen Sovereign Nation States joined in forming a federal government with powers to perform certain functions enumerated in a constitution and no others. The Constitution of the United States thus formed was and remains today a contract between Sovereign States acting at their highest sovereign capacity, with the federal government created by the States under contract to perform limited functions. If any State, as a contracting party, finds that the contract is being violated, that State must take action to bring about correction. No court, not even the Supreme Court, has any jurisdiction in such case. Only a Sovereign State can make correction. This is the situation described by eminent constitutional authorities. B. Roberts wrote and directed the 24th Infantry Division "Pro Blue" troop information program in Germany (1959), central issue in the 1962 Senate 'military muzzling' investigation (Military Cold War Education and Speech Review Policies, Senate Committee on Armed Services, 4-13 April 1962). C. Roberts is a successful litigant (1962-1965) in a precedent-setting lawsuit against Secretary of the Army Cyrus R Vance, involving freedom of speech of military personnel: United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 2106-62, 12 May 1965. Archibald E Roberts, Appellant v. Stanley R Resor, Secretary of the Army (successor in office to Cyrus R Vance), David E McGiffert, Under Secretary of the Army (successor in office to Stephen Ailes), Major General Kenneth G Wickham, US Army, The Adjutant General, United States Army (successor in office to Major General Joe C Lambert), Appellees. ============================================================================= For application of the remedy send self-addressed, stamped #10 envelope (ask for "The Republic: Decline and Future Promise") Archibald E Roberts, LtCol, AUS, ret, Director Committee to Restore the Constitution, Inc Post Office Box 986 Fort Collins CO 80522 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Dismemberment (Part 16, WHEM) (fwd) Date: 15 Nov 1996 08:55:07 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "Dismemberment," Text Excerpt 16, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum Entire html text of the Museum currently available at home.overthe.net/pub/showtime/wm1-1f01.zip. Excerpted by Carol Valentine from http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum. Images omitted. [Note to readers: Many of the official autopsy reports of the Branch Davidians, autopsy photographs, and official diagrams showing the locations of body recoveries are available for viewing at the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum website. Unfortunately, this documentation cannot be included in a text excerpt.] Dismemberment "To profane a dead body by cutting it to pieces has always seemed, at least to our Western eyes, an act of bestial brutality. It is one thing to do murder. It is quite another to destroy the murder victim's identity, and this is the effect of dismemberment." -- Dr. William R. Maples, forensic anthropologist, in Dead Men Do Tell Tales, pg. 61. We have already seen that bodies fall apart in advanced stages of decomposition, when the connective tissue in the joints withers away; such a process is called disarticulation. Unless moved by another force, the body parts in such a corpse retain their original relationship, although now disconnected. Dismemberment, of course, is an entirely different process. The body is taken apart by a murderer or accomplice in the process of disposal, or in an attempt to obscure the cause of death, the time of death, the manner of death, or the identity of the victim. Forensic anthropologist Dr. William Maples assures us that that "Taking apart a fresh human body is no mean task . . You will work up a sweat doing it." (Dead Men Do Tell Tales, pg. 62). We have already seen that Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, curator of anthropology of the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution and top consultant to the FBI, and his Smithsonian colleague Dr. Douglas W. Owsley, came to Waco to assist the inept Dr. Peerwani recover the bodies of the Branch Davidians. Forensic anthropologists such as Drs. Ubelaker and Owsley typically take every measure to personally excavate the bodies and examine the surrounding environment. In his book "Bones--A Forensic Detective's Casebook," Dr. Ubelaker says that examining the bodies in the field is vital, and that once the relationship between the bodies and the environment is disturbed, it can never again be created with complete accuracy (pg. 107). We might expect then that the two Smithsonian anthropologists would be on hand in the concrete room to recover the bodies of the Davidian women and children. But this was not the case, according to the sworn testimony of Texas Ranger Sgt. Raymond Coffman, who was responsible for collection of evidence in the concrete room. The Branch Davidian bodies excavated by the Rangers, who then called the medical examiner's office to have them removed (Transcript pg. 903). Despite the standards for experts in the field, many of the body parts were "sorted out" by Dr. Owsley in the Tarrant County morgue, and not in situ as they were being excavated. It is evident, therefore, that Drs. Ubelaker and Owsley did not use the expertise for which they are renowned, nor did they apply the customary standards of practice in their field to the recovery work in the concrete room. The Autopsy Reports contain none of the information from the crime scene that those experts could have gathered had they been applying the standards of their profession. Instead, the Autopsy Reports typically read as if the bodies had been recovered from under a cabbage leaf. The Autopsy Reports typically describe dismembered and pulped bodies without expressing any curiosity about the conditions that could have produced the phenomena being described. Let us take a look: Dayland Gent, Mt. Carmel Does 33 and 47 B The Autopsy Report for Mt. Carmel Doe 33, identified as three year old Dayland Gent, tells us nothing about the conditions under which the remains were recovered. "The body is presented to the county morgue secured in a blue body bag . . ." Dayland is said to have died of a stab wound to the left chest. Yet the remains of Dayland Gent were picked up and put into different body bags on different days, at locations approximately three feet apart. What would cause the body of a stabbing victim to become dismembered? [Visitors to the Museum can track the recovery using the official documents.] Dr. Ubelaker did the anthropological examination. The question about the dismemberment of the boy's body is never raised in the Autopsy Report [Visitors to the Museum can examine Autopsy Report.] Mt. Carmel Doe 47 was identified as Dayland's mother, Nicole Gent Little. Her Autopsy Report says that the "body is presented to the County Morgue secured in a black body bag . . ." The diagram accompanying the written report shows that Nicole Gent Little's head was almost entirely missing. The text tells us that "the soft tissues of the head and face are burned away as are the majority of the bony structures of the head and face, including the calvarial vault, orbits and nasal area." Nicole Gent Little is said to have died of a gunshot wound to the missing head; conveniently, although the flesh and the bones of the head and face have been "burned away," "[a] portion of separately recovered occipital bone accompanies the body along with multiple isolated calvarial fault fragments recovered along with the brain adjacent to the head (note scene and morgue photographs)." Extraordinary! The brain, the one of the softest and most delicate of all the human organs, survives a fire that incinerates the head and face! We are also told and that "An infant's left hand and forearm are recovered entangled in the hair" of the nape of the neck, which is all that remains of the head (page 3-4 of Autopsy Report Mt. Carmel Doe 47). Apparently it was decided that the hand and arm belonged to her son, and were sent over to the rest of Dayland Gent's remains; again, there is no curiosity expressed on this extraordinary dismemberment--death caused by gunshot to head, head and face burned out, but brain found right there in the same body bag, along with skull fragments and the arm of her young son who died of a stab wound of the left chest. The anthropology examination was conducted by "Douglas Housely [sic] [should be "Owsley"], Ph.D." Bobbie Lane Howell Koresh, Mt. Carmel Does 67-5 and 69 The remains of one of David and Rachel Koresh's children, one-year-old Bobbie Lane Howell Koresh, were divided between two locations, approximately two feet apart, and given the numbers Mt. Carmel Doe 67-5 and Mt. Carmel Doe 69. Both sets of remains were allegedly collected on April 27-29. Doe 69 was "presented to the County Morgue secured in a blue body bag . . ." and consisted of a nearly complete skull and jaw (the jaw had to be reconstructed), wavy medium brown hair, and a partial torso. Those remains were autopsied on 30 April by Stephen L. Puttoff and Gary L. Sisler, both deputy medical examiners. They decided that the child died of smoke and carbon monoxide inhalation, and they mention that the skull was damaged by an explosion. What explosion? The location of the remains of Doe 69 is in the back corner of the concrete room, on the side furthest from the doorway--far away from the two-foot hole in the roof. But the Autopsy Report reveals no curiosity about the explosion. The anthropology examination was conducted by Douglas Owsley, Ph.D. Perhaps the "explosion" was caused by the soldier who fired projectiles into the concrete room after the fire burned out? The video segments which captured this scene are included in "Waco, the Big Lie Continues," approximately one hour 24 minutes from the beginning. The remains designated Mt. Carmel Doe 67-5 (which were part of the agglutinated mass, to be described below) were also assigned to Bobbie Lane Howell. Those remains were "presented to the County Morgue co-mingled with other bodies in the 'Bunker' with sorting performed by Dr. Owsley." Doe 67-5 consisted of a right foot, upper and lower legs, pelvis bones, and a right hand with attached lower arm. These remains were autopsied on 2 May, 1993 by Dr. Peerwani, who found the child died of carbon monoxide inhalation, and that, at about the time of death, the child had been injured by shrapnel. No curiosity is expressed about how the body of a child who died of carbon monoxide inhalation was shattered. The anthropology examination was conducted by Douglas W. Owsley, Ph.D. John McBean, Mt. Carmel Doe 32 Where is John McBean? The Identification Matrix, obtained from the office of the Justice of the Peace of McLennan County and on exhibit at the Museum website, tells us that on April 14, 1994 DNA tests confirmed Mt. Carmel Doe 32 to be John McBean. Read the Autopsy Report for Mt. Carmel Doe 32 and look at the autopsy photo. "Body is presented to the County Morgue secured in a blue body bag . . ." This corpse was six-times cursed: head and four limbs amputated, and burnt to a cinder as well. If the murderer was trying to hide the identity of this corpse, he/she/it could not have done a better job. Dr. Peerwani, the person who performed this autopsy, tells us that amputations are "heat related." Certainly the remaining stumps were incinerated along with the trunk. But the stumps are abrupt, and inconsistent with the graduated amputations caused by the ambient heat of fire. This was a body found inside a windowless concrete room, on top of spent cartridges. There is no indication in the Autopsy Report that Dr. Peerwani looked for saw marks on the stumps. Cause of death? Smoke inhalation--but "Head injury cannot be ruled out." Anthropology examination was conducted by Douglas Ubelaker, Ph.D. No head, no jaws, no teeth, no fingerprints--so how was John McBean's body identified? By DNA tests done in the FBI lab. Are you believing this? Injuries and Dismemberment The non-existent "structural collapse" was not even a superficially valid explanation for the dismemberments we see. When a body is crushed by the simple incident of a weight falling from the height of a ceiling, regardless of the weight, the body parts tend to remain together, even if physically severed by the force. They retain something of the original spacial relationship to each other, as can be seen in many fossils. The bodies in this concrete room, however, did not follow that pattern. We find heads, calves and feet, arms--a virtual kaleidoscope of body parts mixed together. An explosion can dismember a body if the body is directly over the center of the explosion. Explosions cause ripping, shredding, and tearing injuries to a body. "Evulsion" occurs when a portion of a body is ripped off cleanly with a force drive in one direction. A sharp object, propelled by the force of an explosion, could cause evulsion injuries when the object shears through the body's bone and tissue. Dismemberments can occur in airplane crashes, when a thrown body collides with other objects, or shatters upon impact. But dismemberments can also be caused by other means. Describing the tools used to dismember bodies, Dr. William Maples says: "I have seen every tool imaginable used for this grisly purpose . . . It is a bloody, messy, dangerous business." (Maples, p. 62.) " . . . In recent years, however, hacksaws have been supplanted by chain saws. Chain saws have certain advantages: the killer saves time and effort with a chain saw. But of course the disadvantage is that chain saws are incredibly loud and messy . . ." (Maples, p. 64.) Dr. Maples goes on to describe the anatomical Stryker saw used in forensic labs. "It leaves few tooth marks and those it does leave tend to be straight, fine and seldom overlapping." (Maples, p. 64.) " . . . you would be amazed how few dismemberers actually remove the legs at the hip. Most of them saw through at crotch level, leaving a stump of thighbone still attached to the pelvis, usually several inches long. This stump is a godsend to the investigator. It is here that we look for our saw marks." (Maples, p. 65.) County morgues and medical examiners who work in them handle the bodies of murder victims as a routine part of their jobs. Sometimes murder victims are dismembered. Tools are used to do that job. Medical examiners routinely look for the marks of those tools. Except in Waco--when they showed no interest at all. Next: Excerpt 17, Agglutination http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum or http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum SkyWriter@Public-Action.com Postal Address: Carol A. Valentine, Public Action, Inc., PO Box 10933, Burke, VA 22009 Copyright 1996 by Carol A. Valentine, on loan to Public Action, Inc. All commercial rights are reserved. Full statement of terms and conditions for copying and redistribution is available in the Museum Library. "Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum," "SkyWriter," and the skywriting logo are trademarks of Public Action Inc. Carol A. Valentine President Public Action, Inc. ________________________________________________ TERRORISM: The use of terror, violence, and intimidation to achieve an end. A system of government that uses terror to rule. (American Heritage Dictionary, 1976) Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum | NOW-- WHO ARE THE *REAL* TERRORISTS??? ________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Nothing new under the sun... Date: 15 Nov 1996 10:24:41 -0500 Harry, Nice section and nice set of questions. I'm dead up against a deadline here, but will respond when I cadge some free time. ciao, jcurtis P.S. I believe that the integrity of the rule of law is the most single important pivot in all our debates. >"Cicero failed to persuade enough of his fellow citizens to save the >Roman republic." Do we face the same problem? How do we solve the >problem? How many fellow citizens are "enough"? > >Can belief be legislated? Why or why not? > >You may now open your blue books and begin writing... > >----- >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Top 10 reasons GWS does not exist (!!!) Date: 15 Nov 1996 10:22:35 -0700 (MST) Yooooo, and heeeeeere we are with todaaaaaay's TOP TEN HIT PARADE. Spin that disk, Billy!!!! /s/ Paul Mitchell, DJ Wannabe P.S. Please excuse the re-post. This is still a RED ALERT item. 10-4 copy: CDK: Centers for Disease Kontrol-ink >"One of the major findings of the committee is that stress or the physiological >effects of stress is likely to be a major factor" > - Dr. John Baldeschwieler > Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses. > >"There is no excess of disease-related deaths among Persian Gulf veterans" > - Dr. Han K. Kang > Department of Veterans Affairs > >Here they are - the top ten reasons Gulf War Syndrome does not exist: > > 1) World overpopulation IS a serious global problem > > 2) The US government is unstable enough as it is > > 3) Study the early public response to AIDS and multiply that by about a million > > 4) Military enlistment would drop to the single digits > > 5) Might hamper funding for additional biological warfare research > > 6) We haven't finished studying how it spreads through our population > > 7) Might encourage Saddam Hussein > > 8) The pentagon only exists to protect the American people > > 9) Our government officials would have a hard time adjusting to prison life > > 10) It just FEELS so much better > >Please distribute freely (and with enthusiasm). > > Fight the power, > > Skip > > > > > >----------- >TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THE LIST, send a message to: majordomo@primenet.com >with the one line message of: unsubscribe art-bell-fans > > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >-> Posted by: Sarah Schwartz > > =========================================================== 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: 9 cents per minute, anywhere in America Date: 15 Nov 1996 10:58:21 -0700 (MST) Dear Sir, Okay, Harry, now you have escalated, so I will escalate with you. For your information, and you had better take note of this, I have already filed an Affidavit of Non-Governmental Affiliation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), and pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division, on April 5, 1996. I have this file-stamped document on my desk as I type this, so I am transcribing off the original. The case into which I filed this affidavit is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. MARY ELIZABETH BRODERICK et al. [sic], Case Number CV-96-2141-CBM. You, sir, are now treading perilously close to libel, and I hereby demand that you cease and desist any further attempts on your part to use innuendo, false association, lies, deception, or fraud to defame me further. I have already had several important cases scuttled by persons known and unknown to my, in part by convincing my client(s) to believe that I am some kind of deep cover government agent. This is a lie, and I want it to stop. Do you understand what I have just written to you, or do you not understand what I have just written to you? I will be happy to make a scanned facsimile of this document available to anybody who politely requests it here. Thank you for your cooperation, and for your consideration. /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Counselor at Law, federal witness and Citizen of Arizona state copy: Thomas H. Basham Federal Bureau of Investigation letter to FBI from Paul Mitchell follows: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson [zip code exempt] ARIZONA REPUBLIC September 13, 1996 Mr. Thomas H. Basham Supervisory Senior Resident Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation U.S. Department of Justice 201 East Indianola Phoenix, Arizona 85012/tdc United States District Court, Tucson Dear Mr. Basham: Thank you very much for your letter to Me, dated September 9, 1996, concerning alleged criminal misconduct by a Federal District Court Judge in Tucson, Arizona. In your letter, you stated that My letter to the FBI does not contain sufficient detail to determine whether a criminal investigation is warranted. You also requested that I submit, to the Tucson office of the FBI, further documentation of the alleged misconduct, to include names, dates, and any other facts that may be pertinent. To this end, enclosed please find all the pertinent materials currently in My possession and control. The thread of evidence you should follow concerns the events which occurred immediately after a federal grand jury subpoena was first served on New Life Health Center Company in Tucson, Arizona state ("New Life"). Pay particular attention to the fate of all the U.S. Mail which We transmitted directly to the grand jury Foreperson in response to their subpoena. I was retained by New Life at that time to answer the subpoena (see enclosed PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, dated March 20, 1996) and to assist New Life with their civil defense. This PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION was mailed to the Grand Jury Foreperson via Registered U.S. Mail, return receipt and restricted delivery both requested. The enclosed evidence will show that this PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION was illegally intercepted by John M. Roll, who handed it to Robert L. Miskell in the office of the United States Attorney in Tucson. After investigating on Our own, and with the able assistance of the Postmaster, We decided to prepare and mail a FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION to the same federal grand jury. This request was mailed to the Foreperson on April 28, 1996 (see enclosed). This FORMAL REQUEST was also intercepted by John M. Roll, who also handed it to Robert L. Miskell. We have reason to believe that the federal grand jury never saw this FORMAL REQUEST either. At a subsequent hearing on the matter, John M. Roll admitted, on the official court record, that he had intercepted this FORMAL REQUEST. He also said that he had not opened it, but that he had given it to Robert L. Miskell. At that same hearing, Robert L. Miskell admitted, on record, that he had received this FORMAL REQUEST from John M. Roll, and that the mail in question simply contained a formal request that the federal grand jury investigate possible violations of federal law by Robert L. Miskell. We inferred from Miskell's comments that he had, indeed, opened this mail, because he was correct about its contents. At this point, We felt it was necessary to place the Foreperson of the federal grand jury on the Proof of Service list for all subsequent pleadings which We planned to file in that case. All together, some twenty-five (25) different pleadings were then filed under My signature, or under signatures of Mine and Dr. Eugene A. Burns. Some of these pleadings are affidavits. All pleadings currently in My possession and control are enclosed, for your review. Counting all 25 pleadings, the PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION (26), and the FORMAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION (27), none of which were ever delivered to the federal grand jury Foreperson to whom they were mailed, We count 27 counts of mail fraud, 27 counts of jury tampering, 27 counts of obstruction of justice, and 27 counts of conspiracy to commit all of the above, committed by a conspiracy of persons including, but not limited to, John M. Roll, Janet Napolitano, Robert L. Miskell, and Evangelina Cardenas. Other likely accessories to these crimes include Robert A. Johnson, Robert H. Weare, and William M. McCool. At another hearing on the matter, John M. Roll complained that he had some 14 inches of pleadings to read in this case. But then, he immediately called a recess, and huddled for quite some time with his staff, both inside and outside the courtroom. When he came back into session, John M. Roll qualified his earlier statement by saying that he really had only 6 or 7 inches of pleadings in this case, but that he guaranteed, if We had filed them, he had read them. This statement was witnessed by Me and by My assistant Counsel, Neil Thomas Nordbrock, who is also a federal witness to perjury of oath by Robert L. Miskell in another case. Neil Nordbrock and I took his qualification to mean that John M. Roll had, in fact, intercepted all 25 pleadings which We had mailed to the grand jury Foreperson. You can measure their thickness yourself. I hope this response to your letter is satisfactory. If you should need any additional information, permit Me to recommend that you first contact Dr. Eugene A. Burns, Managing Director of New Life Health Center Company, 4500 East Speedway, Suite 27, Tucson, Arizona state. As of the moment I vacated the premises at New Life, Dr. Burns was in possession and control of all the documentary exhibits which were attached to the enclosed pleadings. These documentary exhibits include, for example, the Postmaster's response to our FOIA request for a certified copy of the Standing Delivery Order (USPS Form 3801) signed by the federal grand jury Foreperson in the New Life case. This response stated that there was no such document in existence, proving that the Foreperson had never authorized anyone else to accept or sign for U.S. Mail addressed to him/her. Thank you very much for your consideration. VERIFICATION I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States," that the above statements of fact are true, correct, complete, and not misleading, to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). Further Affiant sayeth naught. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness attachments: to FBI, Tucson copy: Bruce J. Gebhardt Special Agent in Charge copy: Thomas H. Basham Supervisory Senior Resident Agent c/o Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 South Church Avenue, Suite 600 Tucson, Arizona state 85701/tdc copy: Postmaster U.S. Post Office Downtown Station Tucson, Arizona # # # > >Can You Say Agent Provocateur ? >Harry > > > > > >The last user of box 1776 caused Postal Inspectors and FBI to come >around asking questions about her. Maybe no connection. Just a word >of caution. Of course a learned man such as yourself would check on >the legallity of such, I'm sure. >> > >>I was wondering that myself , After all the box number that the orig. gives >>"1776" is false. Sounds fishy to me . Use at your own risk. >> >>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, >>2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >> >>This is not his box number. >> >> >>> >>> > >>>You can make it fit in here. Just claim its a front for an FBI or BATF >>>sting operation authoorized and paid for by Clinton's telecommunication >>>act. Hmmm, I wonder if it really is? >>> >>>Russ > > > >"This year will go down in history.For the first time , a civilized nation >has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, >and the world will follow our lead into the future !" > Adolf Hitler > Berlin Daily > April 15, 1935 > > > "Freiheit stirbt in kleinen Teilen. " >---An appropriate German saying :" Freedom dies in small pieces ." > > > >======================================================================== >To subscribe: send a message to the Liberty@hollyent.com >with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field. Use UNSUBSCRIBE to >remove yourself from the list. Questions/comments/problems? > email: Not Moderated@hollyent.com or listmgmt@hollyent.com >For information about this system and its lists email: info@hollyent.com >======================================================================== >via: Holly Enterprises 602-922-1639 - www.hollyent.com > > > =========================================================== 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: David and Sheila Wallen Date: 15 Nov 1996 12:38:19 -0700 (MST) Dear Mr. Wallen: What letter was that, David? Before I can accept your apology, I will need to see the letter that you wrote about me. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 12:20 PM 11/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >Hi Paul >Dave Wallen here >I am writing you because I have come to a realization. I realized >that I blamed you for Sheila going to prison. I see now that the battle >that you where asked to fight was very close to an impossibility and I >admire your attempt to try to help her . Please send this letter to the >freedom center >and broadcast it where ever necessary to let the people out there know >that I was wrong in the letter that I wrote about you. > >Thank you very much for helping Sheila and I am so sorry for trying to >blame >you for this. Please forgive me Paul. > >Sincerely Dave Wallen > > =========================================================== 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: PUBLIC NOTICE / MEMORANDUM, AntiShyster, Vol. 6, No. 4 Date: 15 Nov 1996 13:00:52 -0700 (MST) Mr. Alfred Adask AntiShyster News Magazine POB 540786 Dallas, Texas Postal Zone <75354-0786> Dear Mr. Adask, Would you please be so kind as to print in your next edition a correction to Dan Meador's PUBLIC NOTICE / MEMORANDUM, on page 46 of your latest issue? In the first sentence of this PUBLIC NOTICE, there is a reference to "Rule 301, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and attending State rules".? There is no such Rule in the FRCP. My West edition of the FRCP shows Rule 83 as the highest numbered rule. There is a Rule 301 in the Federal Rules of Evidence, however, and I believe this is the correct reference ("presumed fact"). Your readers are entitled to know the correct reference. This error continues to propagate in all of Dan's published notices. Also, the cover shows Volume 6, Number 1, but the Table of Contents page shows Number 4. I am referring to the issue which just came in today's mail, with Capt. Joyce Riley, USAF (Res.) [sic] on the cover. Should this also be "Ret."? Thank you. /s/ Paul Mitchell P.S. Can you please forward this message to Dan Meador? I do not have an email address for him. =========================================================== 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: David and Sheila Wallen Date: 15 Nov 1996 13:17:42 -0700 (MST) Dear Mark, I do apologize if I committed a faux pas here, but here are the reasons why I believe that I did not commit a faux pas. For one, Mr. Wallen has asked me to "broadcast it where ever necessary to let the people out there know that I was wrong in the letter that I wrote about you ...." Since he failed to inform me where and when he posted his false statements, I felt it necessary, to protect my own Rights, and to err on the side of "over" publication, instead of "under" publication. Under the First Amendment, I do not believe I have injured or harmed anyone by doing so. Moreover, the work I am doing presently has elicited quite a few cases of direct and indirect retaliation by persons known and unknown to me at the present time. Since I am now a federal witness and an active litigator, these efforts amount to obstruction of justice and retaliation against a federal witness, both in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code. See Section 1513 in particular. The penalty for violating 1513 is ten years in a federal penitentiary. If you would like more information about the work which I am presently doing on behalf of the American People, for whom I am the Relator in the case of People v. United States, I would be happy to share key documents with you and with the other members of this list. Sheila Wallen has also authorized me to share with the American People, via the Internet, all of the briefs which I prepared on her behalf in the case of U.S.A. v. Wallens, United States District Court, Tucson, Arizona state. I will be happy to share these with anyone, upon written request here. Here's hoping that the First Amendment is truly alive, and being actively defended, by the current members and associates of the Libertarian Party. I do not feel that my actions heretofore warrant removal or rejection from this list, or censorship of my publications here. I would certainly like to hear from the other members of this list, before you, or anyone else, takes such a drastic step. I would also like to receive from the members of your list reasons why the Libertarian Party did so poorly in the recent general elections, despite having such an excellent presidential candidate in Mr. Harry Browne. I, for one, would like to explore the hypothesis that the LP may be heavily infiltrated, and that the vote count was a fiction at best. Thank you all for your consideration. Respectfully submmitted, /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell Counselor at Law, federal witness and Citizen of Arizona state At 12:52 PM 11/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >The owners of this list have never, that I know of, bounced anyone off of >it who wanted to be on it. However, it is a matter of courtesy to others on >this list that you exercise some judgment as to what is and is not >appropriate to it. This posting (IMHO) is not. It does not affect anyone on >this list, at least *as* a list member. No letter from Wallen was ever >posted here. Moreover, it is a breach of netiquette to post to a list a >reply to a private message as you have done here. So among the very few >things that can't plausibly be thought to be appropriate to this list, this >seems to me to be pretty clearly one of them. >Perhaps you can find a list elsewhere that is better suited to working >through such conflicts. The other option for me, of course, is just >automatically to trash any posting from you without reading it. Perhaps >that is what I will have to do. > >Mark LeBar >Philosophy > >At 12:38 PM 15/11/96, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >>Dear Mr. Wallen: >> >>What letter was that, David? >> >>Before I can accept your apology, >>I will need to see the letter >>that you wrote about me. >> >>Thank you for your cooperation >>in this matter. >> >>/s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> >>At 12:20 PM 11/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >>>Hi Paul >>>Dave Wallen here >>>I am writing you because I have come to a realization. I realized >>>that I blamed you for Sheila going to prison. I see now that the battle >>>that you where asked to fight was very close to an impossibility and I >>>admire your attempt to try to help her . Please send this letter to the >>>freedom center >>>and broadcast it where ever necessary to let the people out there know >>>that I was wrong in the letter that I wrote about you. >>> >>>Thank you very much for helping Sheila and I am so sorry for trying to >>>blame >>>you for this. Please forgive me Paul. >>> >>>Sincerely Dave Wallen >>> >>> >> >>=========================================================== >>Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com >>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state >>=========================================================== > > =========================================================== 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: 9 cents per minute, anywhere in America Date: 15 Nov 1996 13:57:26 -0700 (MST) Dear Friends, This is an update on 10502 service. They have an 800 number, with a voice menu. Call: 1-800-569-8700 and select menu option 1 for residential service support. This will switch you to a human operator. The woman with whom I just spoke was very friendly, helpful, and courteous. Their flat rate for long-distance calls is $0.09 per minute, anywhere in the continental United States of America, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In Guam, peak rate is $1.32 per minute (2 p.m. to 8 p.m.); off-peak rate is $0.68 per minute (8 p.m. to 2 p.m.). I did not ask about American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (or other insular possessions in the federal zone). That's all for now. /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: Liberty or Death Subject: OO - Barristers & Bankers Blush Date: 15 Nov 1996 13:50:12 -0800 From The Oregon Observer... >Petros Winery makes Boise Barristers And Bankers Blush > >In 1991, owner/operator of Petros Winery Petro (Pete) Eliopolos introduced >two "litigation aged" wines: Petros Boise Bankers Blush and Boise Barristers >Blush. The bottled wine was aged for two years at the expense of West One >bank while Eliopolos was forced to litigate what turned out to be frivolous >charges made against him. > >"These wines are dedicated to a few select bankers and barristers of Boise >who tried to take me on. Those really swell guys know who they are--and >blush they should," said Eliopolos with a satisfied smile on his face. >The Bankers and Barristers Blush wines are delivered with the subpoena >"Maccum Driccum" which demands of the recipient to assess the wine's >character. Eliopolos describes the wine's character to be exactly like those >to whom it is dedicated. "The wine lacks backbone; it is limp, deceptive and >has hints of cowardice and wimpiness; undertones of deceit arc across the >palette and pucker the senses," a humorously snobbish-sounding Eliopolos >explained. > >From 1986 until 1990 Eliopolos was forced to defend himself and his winery >against a Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) investigation. The >ATF investigation was apparently initiated to force Eliopolos to drop the >charges of racketeering and fraud he was pursuing against West One Bancorp >(see October, 1996 edition of The Oregon Observer). > >The investigation of Eliopolos, however, exposed some less than ethical >practices of West One Chairman Henry Knox and his sister Vice-Chairperson Ann >Neavill. Knox and Neavill were summarily indicted and convicted of 36 >counts of embezzlement and bank fraud. > >The charges against Eliopolos were eventually determined to be without merit >and dropped soon after the convictions of Cox and Neavill. Eliopolos then >filed suit against the attorneys who had represented the bank and its >officers while they forced him to litigate frivolous charges. The court >decided a $1 million judgment in Eliopolos' favor in 1990. > >For four years Eliopolos endured tremendous pressures from the bank and its >attorneys. According to Eliopolos, the tactics employed by the bank's >attorneys were designed to break him mentally and economically. "The bank's >attorneys attempted to force me into an involuntary bankruptcy for the >illegal purpose of seizing my assets," said Eliopolos. > > "Four years of defending frivolous charges in court with my livelihood, my >property and the lives my wife and children hanging in the balance was >stressful beyond anything I have ever experienced in my life," Eliopolos said. >Eliopolos, 42, a former all American linebacker for Fresno State University >explained, "To relieve some of the pressure and stress of litigation, I got >into the habit of lifting weights in the middle of the night when I couldn't >sleep." > >Lifting weights in the middle of the night not only helped Eliopolos deal >with the stress of the frivolous litigation which was nothing more than a >calculated attempt to destroy his winery, his family name and steal his >assets in the process, it helped him to evolve the extremely humorous >bankers and barristers blush plan. "I vowed to turn this litigation against >me around and, when it was all over, I would dedicate a wine to the bankers >and attorneys who tried, unsuccessfully, to ruin me," Eliopolos said with >that peculiar smile returning to his face. > >"There is no way a person could survive a decade of complex litigation if >he couldn't maintain his sense of humor," Eliopolos said. "The Bankers and >Barristers Blush wines were my little kiss to the cowards and crooks who >purposefully put my family through hell. If they can't take a joke, well..." > >"Wouldn't it be great if the Boise Barristers Blush was the featured wine at >the Idaho State Bar Association's annual Barrister's Ball?" queried a >mischievously grinning Eliopolos. > >Petros Bankers Blush and Petros Barristers Blush, complete with subpoenas, >are available by special order from the Petros Winery. Contact The Oregon >Observer in time for a holiday delivery of blush wine to that special banker >or barrister on your Christmas shopping list. > > (editor@oregonobserver.com) > >Isn't it comforting to know that one of your oldest and dearest friends is a >pathological troublemaker? > >-Don Harkins - 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: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Re: shot with his own gun Date: 15 Nov 1996 19:09:14 -0500 >The officer, thanks to his vest, quickly recovered his weapon >but was unable to apprehend the suspect, who fled on foot >into >the hills. >----------------------- >Good thing that cop hadn't loaded with "cop-killer bullets." >Sun Tzu Organization -- Actually, He was shot with a 'Black Talon' bullet. You know, the kind we can't have because they're too dangerous, might kill a cop, ect. ect...(I don't remember the exact argument the media boobs used) Funny how its perfectly O.K. for a cop to use them, isn't it????? Regards, V. Lum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: web page updates: Supreme Law Seminars Date: 15 Nov 1996 17:23:43 -0700 (MST) Dear America, I am writing to express my appreciation and congratulations to our web page designers, Dr. and Mrs. Dean Hines, for doing a superb job on the latest expansion to the web site for the Supreme Law Seminars: http://www.supremelaw.com We will be updating these often, as time and needs dictate, but we wanted to make the current file set available as soon as possible, with or without some of the obvious quirks that pop up in the text now and then. If you would like to contact Dean and Stefani, their email address is: nwave@ninthw.com and their own web site is: http://www.ninthw.com Many thanks again to Dean and Stefani Hines, for a superb job well done. Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Mitchell P.S. Check out the Supreme Law Library! =========================================================== 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: more on detention centers Date: 15 Nov 1996 09:41:11 -0700 (MST) See Richard Boylan's message at the very end. /s/ Paul Mitchell >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:09:38 PST >Subject: DotHB@aol.com: Fwd: "friendly warning" >X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-84 >From: oneazman@juno.com (Alfred R Martin) > >--------- Begin forwarded message ---------- >From: DotHB@aol.com >To: oneazman@juno.com >Subject: Fwd: "friendly warning" >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 20:22:08 -0500 >Message-ID: <961114202147_226731458@emout09.mail.aol.com> > >FYI. Sending you this message FIRST - you'd better keep you >head up out there. Let me know if you can find out anything. >DB >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule) >To: DotHB@aol.com >Date: 96-11-14 08:27:47 EST > >*caveat lector*. This means, "reader beware." In other words, it >is up to the reader to form her/his own judgements as to the >following. > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:19:44 -0500 >From: Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx >Subject: A "friendly warning" > ><< Hello All > > I resently gave a bid to a company for some computer work. I did not get > this bid and they have not returned my calls for obvious reasons being a > conflict of interest. Somehow they found out who I was and decided it > would not be in their best interest to allow me access to their data > base. I must say, they are right. The company is called: > > Electronic Intel > 9414 E. San Salvador > Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 > 602-263-5500 > > This company is ran by a man whom I spoke with several times ( Jim > Powers ) and owned by a man named Nick. What they do is set up security > systems for new detention camps. They just finished 3 in the Phoenix, > AZ. area and are moving north now. Jim also told me they are working in > Texas on one now and bid jobs all over the US. They do not advertize for > obvious reasons and Jim Powers is Foriegn born. In case you all had any > doubts, doubt no more ! I was hoping to get access to their files in > order to be alittle more detailed about their plans however, it fell > through. Jim also said they are very busy ! I also applied for another > job for the cable company here that screens the Internet because they > are imployed by the Government and are writing programing for High > Schools. It seem that the Phoenix area is a New World Base. Just a > warning from your friend ! It is coming ! > > Yours truly, Scott Cameron > -- >http://www.goodnet.com/~comport/ > > >From: rich.boylan@24stex.com >Organization: 24th Street Exchange >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 10:17:23 -0800 >Subject: SKYWATCH: [ART] NEW DENVER INT >To: skywatch@wic.net > > > > Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 13:28:51 -0800 > > To: Steve Wingate > > From: Wes Thomas > > Subject: [ART] New Denver International Airport > >Steve Wingate, > > I travelled to Denver this weekend, and obtained information >originating with an employee in the Governor's office who saw the >blueprints, that a large undeclared installation exists under Denver >International, reportedly including a sizeable jail-cell complex. > Yes, Steve, this is a change of position on my previous >declining to accept such reports. My change is based on reliable >witness testimony backed by a government document. > Rich > Richard Boylan, Ph.D. > > > > >--------- End forwarded message ---------- > > =========================================================== 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: Planned Invasion of USA? Date: 15 Nov 1996 22:04:35 -0700 (MST) >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 22:40:47 -0800 >From: Jan Farmer >To: Jan Farmer >Subject: Planned Invasion of USA? > >The following, about a possible planned "invasion" of the U.S. >is, I know, the sort of alarmist thing one hears from time to >time. Yet it ties in with other events to make it not readily >dismissible. > >1) U.S. forces sent to Bosnia, not here in the USA to protect >us. > >2) U.S. forces going to Zaire, further diminishing national >security. > >3) Gulf War Syndrome, decimating U.S. military. > >4) Gradual infiltration (known) of German military into >the U.S. > >Like I say, the following might be only alarmist claptrap. >Then again...... > >*caveat lector*. This means, "reader beware." In other words, it >is up to the reader to form her/his own judgements as to the >following. > > > STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW! > S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 129, November 15, 1996 > >COMING INVASION OF AMERICA >Posted by Roger D. Cravens (rbg@CCDOSA1.EM.CDC.GOV > >The following is most of the message printed in the "The Prophecy >Club Newsletter" dated Nov/Dec. For reprints and newsletters call or >write the above at Box 750234, Topeka, KS 66675 or call 913-478-1112. > >>From Intelligence sources in Canada and New England: > >Preparations for the COMING INVASION OF AMERICA by Russian/NWO FORCES are >progressing rapdily in Canada! As candidly admitted to >me by many Canadians (including author and lecturer Grant Jeffery of >"Final Warning" and many other books explaining the coming New >World Order takeover) Canada is totally sold out to the NWO and it's >heinous agenda of world domination. > >America has long been a thorn in the flesh of NWO planners, because >of our Christian and patriot heritage and it's isolation from Europe. >With little over three years left to move this western hemishere into >their NWO agenda by the year 2,000, they are making rapid use of >Canada's willingness to betray America into their control. > >How is this taking place? Canada has opened her doors wide to >NWO military forces, including GERMAN< RUSSIAN< AND CHINESE. >As Grant Jeffery admitted to me personally one month ago",,, we >have more German military forces in Canada now than we do >Canadian military forces!" Indeed, for next to dease Lake, >Canada, Germans have been handed a military air base for their use. >They are actively practicing bombing and strafing runs for the coming >invasion of America...much as they are doing down at Holloman AFB, >which has been permanently turned over to the Germans in New >Mexico. > >The traitorous NEWO elements within our own government are fully >aware of the motives of these Berman NWO forces both in Canada >and America and welcome their presence into the western >hemisphere as part of the solution to subduing patriotic Americans >who simply refuse to surrender national sovereignty to a foreign >power. > >Russian and Chinese forces are also very active in Cananda. They >are "re-building and strengthening railroad tracks for the the antici- >pated heavy use of railway transportation of incoming military >personnel from the West coast" (both Russian and Chinese forces) as >well as transporting military vehicles and armaments and food >supplies. New tracks are also being laid between border states and >Canada. > >Those people who are arrested as resisters or dissidents will also be >transported in specially prepared prisoner boxcars to the death camps >already established near the border, such as the one near Cut Bank >MT. The death camp outside of Cut Bank has been conveniently >located right off a major AMTRACK express line in the anticipation of >transporting resisters and dissidents conveniently to their deaths by rail. > >Reports have been received from INTEL sources nationwide which >indicate that certain boxcars are quietly being renovated from the >inside so that they can be used for prisoner transport to such death >camps. > >Preparations noted by eye-witnesses include shackles being bolted >into the walls tor restrain those taken prisoner until they reach their >final destination. From our intellignece source in Florida, we know >that Russian train engineer experts are already being trained in how >to operate Amerian engines and how our rail system functions... > >Russian railway procedures differ from American. At least fifty Russian >engineers are in training presently in Jacksonville, Florida. Many others >are apparently being trained in other locations as well. Already seen >being transported on these train lines are huge power generators to >various locations in Canada, in anticipation of the planned power >outages that will be triggered deliberately both in Canada and America >as the planned takeover methodically takes place. > >Incredibly, we now have information that the Russians have finally succeeded >in bridging the gap between Siberia and Alaska through a >vast underground tunnel! > >Although documented in more than one newspaper report in Western Canada, the >American news media has remained silent on this feat. >Russian civilians (???) are known to be coming thru this tunnel 100 >per month, plus heavy military artillery. > >Also, there is yet another tunnel that has been built from Siberia to >Northern Canada, this one being used for railroad transportation >purposes. > >The extent of the American governmen's betrayal of her citizens can be >further evidenced in the fact that these Chinese and Russian forces are >receiving payment for their pre-invasion activities through the Inter- >national Monetary Fund... issued on American government checks. > >In anticipation of the coming invasion from Russian and China, Canada >has even gone so far as to disband it's Western Coast Guard Division, >thus they are open to amphibous invasion forces. > >According to our veteran intelligence source in New England, the >Chinese are very much anticipating an amphibous invasion of >America from the West. This was openly evidenced recently through >the presentation of a documentary report over the BBC television in >London which detailed amphibious assault forces practicing war >maneuvers and strategy in the Formosa Straits. > >When BBC newsmen were permitted to interview these soldiers in >training, they repeatedly asked them the following question. "What >are you preparing to use this training for?" The shocking, consistent >reply was "FOR THE COMING INVASION OF AMERICA!" > >When it became clear that a gaff in security was created by airing this >broadcast over television in England, its scheduled re-broadcast for >the next day in London was hastily cancelled. > >(Speculate no more on the suspicious suicide of Admiral Michael Borda... >I was informed he was terminated because of his refusal to cooperate >in the covert plan by our traitorous NWO forces within our own govern- >ment to assist in the coming invasion of America. When he refused to >go along with the plan to covertly bring Chinese forces into America >through use of our own Navy vessels, orders were given from on high >to terminate him.). > >The message is clear. This message is to inform those whom may not >know the magnitude of the New World Order and it's massive agenda. >Be wise and investigate for yourselves. We are not getting the truth >from agents of government. > >Examples are VietNam, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Militia's, TWA800, >Oklahoma etc. Beware and prepare! > >God Bless America > >We need his blessing > >P.S. Forgive the spelling > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > SAFAN %Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 > Reply to: SafanNews@aol.com > SAFAN Internet Newsletters are posted on the Internet > http://feustel.mixi.net >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Fwd: FW: UN Withdrawl PUSH is on-HELP! - PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL Date: 15 Nov 1996 21:44:04 -0800 (PST) >From: Clido@aol.com >Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:16:40 -0500 >To: realcnn@world2u.com, gdoty@earthlink.net >cc: STARS1776@aol.com >Subject: Fwd: FW: UN Withdrawl PUSH is on-HELP! - PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL >X-UIDL: 6d898e186dcaedc86b793c54b29a4341 > >CHARLIE, PLEASE MAKE COPIES OF THIS AND FORWARD ON TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS >POSSIBLE. IT WAS GREAT TO TALK TO YOU TODAY-PUT YOU ON MY MAILING LIST AND >WILL BE FOLLOWING THIS WITH THE ARTICLE FROM THE NEWSPAPER-GREAT >WORK-OUTSTANDING-MY BEST REGARDS TO JACK MCLAMB-CAROL >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: cmdr77th@gte.net (Don Beuaregard) >To: AK4776239@aol.com >Date: 96-11-14 23:49:59 EST > >>From: Terri >>To: "'cmdr77th@gte.net'" >>Subject: FW: UN Withdrawl PUSH is on-HELP! - PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL >>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:32:50 -0800 >> >> >> >>---------- >>From: Terri[SMTP:tkautz@companet.net] >>Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 1996 1:44 PM >>To: 'athompson@pcl.net'; 'barbararandall@juno.com'; 'bldaniel@hiwaay.net'; >'cenmonet@sockets.net'; 'charli@hopper.net'; 'Nancy Lord'; >'DRayner784@aol.com'; 'Helen Reed -Johnson'; 'estetson@ix.netcom.com'; >'ghostpwr@europa.com'; 'hearin@hotmail.com'; 'jeffrandall@juno.com'; >'jhcapt@aol.com'; 'jrichrd@companet.net'; 'LDavis@worldnet.att.net'; >'Imuller@iquest.com'; 'Luckyk406@aol.com'; 'militia@megalinx.net'; >'minutemn@pcl.net'; 'miper1@aol.com'; 'NCanerday@aol.com'; >'sagebrush@lvnexus.net'; 'stoddart@traveller.com'; 'tadweaver@aol.com'; >'thunderstrikes@juno.com' >>Subject: UN Withdrawl PUSH is on-HELP! - PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL >> >>Tom DeWeese, President >>American Policy Center, 13873 Park Center Rd. #316, Herndon, Va. 20171 >> >>is doing a Citizens Proclamation to GET THE US OUT OF THE U.N >>. >>(this writer has HR 2535, 10/25/95 introduced by Mr. Scarborough and was >>referred to Commitee on International Relations; short title: "United >Nations >>Withdrawal Act of 1995"). >> >>Excerpts from Mr. Deweese"s letter (as best I can): >> >>"Capital Hill was shocked during the last week of the 104th Congress when a >60% House majority voted to end the UN land grab.....stage is now set for the >>new Congress to take the next step: Rep. Joe Scarborough's 'UN Withdrawal >>Act." But tactics of single House committee chairman threaten to >>keep the Scarborough bill bottled up and beaten down. That's why I >>ask you to sign and immediately return (to Mr. Deweese) the enclosed >>CITIZENS PROCLAMATION TO GET THE US OUT OF THE UN. I will >>then send it with thousands more DIIRECTLY to Speaker of the House >>Newt Gingrich. Please HURRY...in time for new session of Congress that will >>convene in January. >>...Congressman Gilman (Chairman of House International Relations Committee >>has refused to let the bill out of his committee or even hold ..single >hearing; >>that's why I am bypassing Gilman's committee . >>Despite gridlock on Capitol Hill & the stalling tactics by Gilman, the >future >>of the UN Withdrawl Act has never looked brighter. That's because of a >crucial >>vote on passage of HR3752 (the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act) -- >>held just before Congress adjourned. This bill was featured on front page >of >>Sept. 1996 Insider's Report. It would have wiped out all the UN Biosphere >>Reserves & World Heritage Sites that exist in our national parks. This >HR3752 >>failed to pass under special House rules requiring 2/3 majority for passage. >>BUT the bill did receive 246 "yes" votes - more than enough for passage >>under normal rules of the House. What makes this vote on HR3752 so >>important is that it is first time majority of Congress has voted to slap >down >>the UN and put our national sovereignty first. But don't get overconfident; >>majority vote for HR3752 doesn't mean UN Withdrawl Act will get same level >of >>support. >>In order to get around stubborn,gridlocking Chairman of House International >>Relations Committee, I need your signed CITIZENS PROCLMATION. >>It's the only way to place consideration of this act directly before House >>Speaker Newt Gingrich. >>If you have a new Congressman, contact him regarding cosponsoring the >>UN Withdrawl Act. Same Congressman - keep after him about this bill. >>Don't let him off the hook Sincerely yours, Tom Deweese, >President" >> >> >> CITIZENS PROCLAMATION >> TO >> GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE U.N. >> >>To: Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives >> >>WHEREAS: The United Nations now seeks to regulate global conflict by >fielding its own standing army with Americans troops on the frontlines, and >>WHEREAS: The United Nations encroaches on the property rights of American >>citizens and the sovereignty of American land by placing Biosphere Reserves >and World Heritage Sites on our national parks, and >>WHEREAS: the United Nations now seeks the power to impose global taxes on >American citizens, and >>WHEREAS: the United Nations inches closer and closer to one-world >government as a result of the policies put forth by Secretary-General >Boutros Boutros-Ghali. >>NOW. THEREFORE, I, the undersigned American citizen proclaim my unqualified >support for the U.N. Withdrawal Act introduced into the House of >>Representatives by Congressman Joe Scarborough. >>FURTHER, UNDERSIGNED urges you to exercise the power of the Speakership to >>overcome gridlock on the International Relations Committee and move the U.N. >>Withdrawl Act to the floor of Congress for a vote. >> >> SIGNATURE:___________________________DATE:______ >> >>return form to APC, Get out of UN, Tom Deweese, Pres.13873 Park Center >>Road,#316 Herndon, Va. 20171 >>(writer's note: please enclose any amount of money to help with this most >>important issue & PLEASE TYPE THE ABOVE PROCLAMATION OR >>CUT & PASTE AND GET IT BACK TO DEWEESE ASAP) >> >> >NOTE(New pager NO.) >Brother in arms and liberty >Comander Don Beauregard >77th Regiment Fla. >P.O. BOX 16161 >St.Pete, FL 33734 >Phone 813-827-9272 Pager 813-419-6137 >cmdr77th@gte.net > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Heard on NPR last evening... Date: 16 Nov 1996 02:39:16 -0500 (EST) That the administration plans to try to limit gun ownership by expanding the list of (presumably misdemeanor) offenses which will disqualify people from owning guns. bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Heard on NPR last evening... Date: 16 Nov 1996 02:14:50 -0600 At 02:39 AM 11/16/96 -0500, you wrote: >That the administration plans to try to limit gun ownership by expanding >the list of (presumably misdemeanor) offenses which will disqualify people >from owning guns. > >bd Of course quite recently in talk.politics.guns and other places, such a possibilty was derided as the mere feverish delusions of "gun nuts". Chip, chip, chip...The Bill Of RIghts as it shrinks away towards unenforceable nothingness. 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 Subject: Federal Reserve exposed Date: 16 Nov 1996 07:27:59 -0700 (MST) Dear America, The most brilliant and electrifying expose of the Federal Reserve System that I have ever read is now available in the Supreme Law Library at: http://www.supremelaw.com Many thanks to Dr. Edwin J. Vieira, Jr., for placing this document in the public domain. Enjoy! /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: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Heard on NPR last evening... Date: 16 Nov 1996 10:17:53 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Joe Sylvester wrote: > At 02:39 AM 11/16/96 -0500, you wrote: > >That the administration plans to try to limit gun ownership by expanding > >the list of (presumably misdemeanor) offenses which will disqualify people > >from owning guns. > > > >bd > > Of course quite recently in talk.politics.guns and other places, such a > possibilty was derided as the mere feverish delusions of "gun nuts". > > Chip, chip, chip...The Bill Of RIghts as it shrinks away towards > unenforceable nothingness. > Yes. Looks like GOA was right (not that I ever doubted it). bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Nothing new under the sun... Date: 16 Nov 1996 09:57:38 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, John Curtis wrote: > P.S. I believe that the integrity of the rule of law is the > most single important pivot in all our debates. Isn't belief an article of faith? Or can it be rationally supported? Doesn't every legal system start out, more or less, by declaring, "I am The Law. Thou shalt have no other Laws before Me"? It occurs to me that "belief in the integrity of the rule of law" is justified only so long as the administrators of that law adhere to it themselves. Furthermore, it seems ridiculously easy to set it up so it snaps back on the "faithful" simply by making so many things unlawful that it is impossible NOT to be a "criminal" of one degree or another. What do the faithful do about "unjust laws"? What do you think of this idea? To the degree that an individual who has been made a de jure "outlaw" continues to adhere to "rule of law", they make themselves vulnerable to oppression, sacrificial lambs to their belief. Where does "due regard for the law" becomes unreasoning belief in a concept, "just law", that is no longer in practice (if it ever was)? How do one draw the line? ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: 9 cents per minute, anywhere in America Date: 16 Nov 1996 13:04:01 -0600 This shit is really getting silly. Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > This is an update on 10502 service. > > They have an 800 number, with a voice > menu. Call: > > 1-800-569-8700 > > and select menu option 1 for > residential service support. > > This will switch you to a human operator. > > The woman with whom I just spoke was > very friendly, helpful, and courteous. > > Their flat rate for long-distance calls > is $0.09 per minute, anywhere in the > continental United States of America, > Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and > the U.S. Virgin Islands. > > In Guam, peak rate is $1.32 per minute > (2 p.m. to 8 p.m.); off-peak rate is > $0.68 per minute (8 p.m. to 2 p.m.). > > I did not ask about American Samoa, > the Trust Territory of the Pacific > Islands (or other insular possessions > in the federal zone). > > That's all for now. > > /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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: testing Date: 16 Nov 1996 12:23:49 -0700 (MST) ping =========================================================== 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: BATF Date: 16 Nov 1996 13:35:17 -0700 (MST) This one gets my vote! Don't forget "LEADERLESS" (word found on BATF audio cassette case, left behind at Supreme Law Seminar) /s/ Paul Mitchell > Isn't that acronym for: Band of Arsons, terrorists, and felons? > No, you made a slight error: Band of Arsons, Terrorists, and Felons who are LEADERLESS too. =========================================================== 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: Nothing new under the sun... Date: 16 Nov 1996 13:52:01 -0700 (MST) Competent and qualified juries are the Law in America, provided that their selection is not skewed or biased by class discrimination. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 09:57 AM 11/16/96 -0800, you wrote: >On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, John Curtis wrote: > >> P.S. I believe that the integrity of the rule of law is the >> most single important pivot in all our debates. > >Isn't belief an article of faith? Or can it be rationally supported? >Doesn't every legal system start out, more or less, by declaring, "I am >The Law. Thou shalt have no other Laws before Me"? > >It occurs to me that "belief in the integrity of the rule of law" is >justified only so long as the administrators of that law adhere to it >themselves. Furthermore, it seems ridiculously easy to set it up so it >snaps back on the "faithful" simply by making so many things unlawful >that it is impossible NOT to be a "criminal" of one degree or another. >What do the faithful do about "unjust laws"? > >What do you think of this idea? To the degree that an individual who >has been made a de jure "outlaw" continues to adhere to "rule of law", >they make themselves vulnerable to oppression, sacrificial lambs to >their belief. > >Where does "due regard for the law" becomes unreasoning belief in a >concept, "just law", that is no longer in practice (if it ever was)? >How do one draw the line? > >----- >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Heard on NPR last evening... Date: 16 Nov 1996 14:14:59 -0800 At 02:14 -0600 11/16/96, Joe Sylvester wrote: >At 02:39 AM 11/16/96 -0500, you wrote: >>That the administration plans to try to limit gun ownership by expanding >>the list of (presumably misdemeanor) offenses which will disqualify people >>from owning guns. >> >>bd > >Of course quite recently in talk.politics.guns and other places, such a >possibilty was derided as the mere feverish delusions of "gun nuts". > >Chip, chip, chip...The Bill Of RIghts as it shrinks away towards >unenforceable nothingness. Have you noticed, that whenever the anti's mean to do something, they first introduce their intended course of action in an oblique way to the front organizations. Slowly the information leaks out, and as it gets wider press while still in the unofficial stages, it is declared as so much delusional nonsense being put forth by the 'alarmists', that such a course of action would never be undertaken, as it would 'never' be allowed to be enacted. Soon thereafter, when another scenario is introduced, the prior course of action _is_ undertaken, and we are all dismissed as trouble makers that need more control. In the meantime, the media lackys play-up or down as necessary. All one has to do is read the initial position paper put out by HCI to know what the ultimate goal of that org. is. Sort of like reading Mein Kampf (sp?). Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: BATF Date: 16 Nov 1996 13:35:17 -0700 (MST) This one gets my vote! Don't forget "LEADERLESS" (word found on BATF audio cassette case, left behind at Supreme Law Seminar) /s/ Paul Mitchell > Isn't that acronym for: Band of Arsons, terrorists, and felons? > No, you made a slight error: Band of Arsons, Terrorists, and Felons who are LEADERLESS too. =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: shot with his own gun Date: 16 Nov 1996 18:36:07 -0800 >>The officer, thanks to his vest, quickly recovered his weapon >>but was unable to apprehend the suspect, who fled on foot into >>the hills. >>Good thing that cop hadn't loaded with "cop-killer bullets." >>Sun Tzu Organization -- >Actually, he was shot with a 'Black Talon' bullet. You know, the kind we >can't have because they're too dangerous, might kill a cop, ect. ect...(I >don't remember the exact argument the media boobs used) Funny how its >perfectly O.K. for a cop to use them, isn't it????? Can't see much point to using BTs, myself, lessen you're gonna be shooting 'em subsonically through a suppressor. The whole media Black Talon thing was an exercise in propaganda silliness. Myself, I use .40 uranium-tipped hollowpoints dipped in vampire blood. They glow in the dark and have a spiritual velocity of approx 7000 fps., producing the equivalent of about 7,773,285 foot-pounds of pressure upon impact. And they don't over-penetrate. - 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: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Re: shot with his own gun Date: 17 Nov 1996 04:33:31 -0500 >Myself, I use .40 uranium-tipped hollowpoints dipped in >vampire blood. They >glow in the dark and have a spiritual velocity of approx 7000 >fps., >producing the equivalent of about 7,773,285 foot-pounds of >pressure upon >impact. >And they don't over-penetrate. >- Monte Wow, can I get those at Wal-mart???? And how many boxes can you store together before you reach critical mass?? Sounds like they'd be IDEAL for squirrel hunting. :-) regards (rain must be making me silly..) V. Lum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: shot with his own gun Date: 17 Nov 1996 09:06:28 -0800 >Myself, I use .40 uranium-tipped hollowpoints dipped in >vampire blood. They >glow in the dark and have a spiritual velocity of approx 7000 >fps., >producing the equivalent of about 7,773,285 foot-pounds of >pressure upon >impact. >And they don't over-penetrate. >- Monte Monte is required by law to store his ammunition at the nuclear energy sight in southern Idaho. With that being a seven hour drive from his home here in north Idaho, he failed to mention to all of you that it IS a LITTLE inconvenient. There is also the problem of ingredients. It is easy enough to pick up a little uranium now and then from Qadafi & Associates Shooters Supply, Ltd., but the vampire blood is REAL hard to locate except in late October. I am sticking with my generic "cop killer" loads that are FAR more likely to help save a cops life than kill one! Assuming, of course that we can still buy them. Rest assured however, that when a cops life is saved by an armed citizen, you will not read about it in the Daily Socialist Review. Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: 9 cents per minute, anywhere in America Date: 17 Nov 1996 12:12:12 -0800 (PST) Next you'll claim you've never heard how AT&T is working with the Vatican on new survellience technologies. Sure, -you've- never heard of the massive federal cover up ... OR have they gotten to -you- TO?? ; ) (nothing to disclaim... move along citizens... nothing to sue over here) On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Howlin' Blue wrote: > This shit is really getting silly. > > > > Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > This is an update on 10502 service. > > > > They have an 800 number, with a voice > > menu. Call: > > > > 1-800-569-8700 > > > > and select menu option 1 for > > residential service support. > > > > This will switch you to a human operator. > > > > The woman with whom I just spoke was > > very friendly, helpful, and courteous. > > > > Their flat rate for long-distance calls > > is $0.09 per minute, anywhere in the > > continental United States of America, > > Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and > > the U.S. Virgin Islands. > > > > In Guam, peak rate is $1.32 per minute > > (2 p.m. to 8 p.m.); off-peak rate is > > $0.68 per minute (8 p.m. to 2 p.m.). > > > > I did not ask about American Samoa, > > the Trust Territory of the Pacific > > Islands (or other insular possessions > > in the federal zone). > > > > That's all for now. > > > > /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: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: 9 cents per minute, anywhere in America Date: 17 Nov 1996 16:55:39 -0600 boydk wrote: > > Next you'll claim you've never heard how AT&T is working with the Vatican I haven't trusted them since bill gates bought them and put interactive confessions (for a fee, of course) on the web at www.getgod.com. That ranked up there on the disappointment scale with the time I was doing research on my thesis, subject of which was "emancipation". Turns out Lincoln wrote out and signed the Emancipation Proclamation on New Years Eve, 1862. An aide found it on his desk the next morning and released it to press and the congress. Strange among the provisions was that it ended slavery in the southern states, which were in revolt and not under Lincoln's control, but did not end it in northern states, which were. Even more interesting is the fact that Abe rolled his lanky, hungover ass out of bed in time to watch the bowl games, that New Years Day, and an aide came in to congratulate him on freeing the slaves, to which a bleary eyed Lincon replied: I freed da whut? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Clinton Quote Date: 17 Nov 1996 20:08:06 -0800 Sorry to bother the list, but I have misplaced the message: What was the source of the Clinton quote to the effect that "of the people, by the people, and for the people" was from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, or at least, that's what it had said "the last time I read them". Thanks. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm "Roaming the world as a foreign correspondent for more than a decade, I was able to observe how a variety of vastly different nations organized themselves economically. The inescapable conclusion was that no politician anywhere on the planet has ever actually created a rupee's worth of prosperity." Louis Rukeyser, "Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street" newsletter, Nov 96 !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Clinton Quote Date: 18 Nov 1996 07:35:14 -0500 (EST) I didn't catch it when it crossed the net, but I believe it was in Newsweek a couple of weeks ago. bd On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, Kenneth Mitchell wrote: > Sorry to bother the list, but I have misplaced the message: > > What was the source of the Clinton quote to the effect that "of the people, > by the people, and for the people" was from the Constitution and the > Declaration of Independence, or at least, that's what it had said "the last > time I read them". > > Thanks. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net > http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Roaming the world as a foreign correspondent for more than a decade, > I was able to observe how a variety of vastly different nations > organized themselves economically. The inescapable conclusion was > that no politician anywhere on the planet has ever actually created > a rupee's worth of prosperity." > Louis Rukeyser, "Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street" newsletter, Nov 96 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Nothing new under the sun... Date: 18 Nov 1996 10:21:35 -0500 > >On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, John Curtis wrote: > >> P.S. I believe that the integrity of the rule of law is the >> most single important pivot in all our debates. > >Isn't belief an article of faith? Or can it be rationally supported? >Doesn't every legal system start out, more or less, by declaring, "I am >The Law. Thou shalt have no other Laws before Me"? > I don't "believe" in the rule of law. I have to see that the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men is actually happening. I do believe that the only thing seperating the US from a typical banana republic (besides size and tradition) is the expectation that important men who break the law are brought to justice (maybe they bring better lawyers with them, but that is another story). >It occurs to me that "belief in the integrity of the rule of law" is >justified only so long as the administrators of that law adhere to it >themselves. You mis-parsed me, Harry. I didn't say "belief in the integrity of the rule of law", I said that "I believe the integrity of the rule of law is pivotal". Meaning, that if the law no longer applies to the rich and powerful, then we are on a bad course. I think that we don't need to have faith, we can test whether the rule of law is intact by observing: 1. are powerful wrong doers pursued by the justice system (and are the cases won in a significant proportion)? 2. are the laws, particularly the most important laws, the Constitituional ones, subject to unending revision and equivication? I think that we are definitely way downhill on 2. and starting to slide on 1. > >Where does "due regard for the law" becomes unreasoning belief in a >concept, "just law", that is no longer in practice (if it ever was)? >How do one draw the line? > Tough question. >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: THE LONDON TIMES: Clinton appointee faces spy scandal (fwd) Date: 18 Nov 1996 11:31:19 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html THE LONDON TIMES November 15 1996 Clinton appointee faces spy scandal FROM TOM RHODES IN WASHINGTON THE STATE Department's intelligence chief was under investigation in Washington yesterday over several breaches of security, including an improper demand for top secret documents linking her husband and a family friend to the Hungarian spy service. Tobi Gati, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence, a close friend of Hillary Clinton and a political appointee, was also facing inquiries by the department's inspector-general over questionable contact with foreign officials including Andrei Kozyrev, the former Russian Foreign Minister. Mrs Gati, 50, is a former vice-president of the United Nations Association who joined the National Security Council as a Russian expert in early 1993. At a time when she had no security clearance, it appears Mrs Gati obtained two highly classified documents from the National Security Agency, the surveillance monitoring service for the Washington secret service. One of the papers linked a family friend to the Hungarian intelligence service while the second suggested that Charles Gati, her husband who was then a policy planning official at the State Department, was a counter-intelligence risk because of his close ties to the Hungarian Embassy in Washington. Mrs Gati yesterday denied seeking the secret documents. http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) FWD: WW: HILLARY CLINTON AT THE CENTER OF AN INTERNATIONAL SPY SCANDAL (fwd) Date: 18 Nov 1996 13:02:01 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- "John Q. Public" wrote: >not to be used for commercial purposes >published in the 11/18 edition of the Washington Weekly >posted with permission >HILLARY CLINTON AT THE CENTER OF AN INTERNATIONAL SPYSCANDAL > Editorial > At first, the conclusions pointed to by the evidence were too >far-fetched to believe. It simply could not be possible that the >First Lady was at the center of an international spy scandal. But >the evidence now flowing in from countless sources and >investigations is no longer possible to dismiss. > Reporter Jim Norman was the first to make the still unproven >allegation that Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster sold secrets to >Israel and were the subject of a counterintelligence probe. The >recently declassified NSA documents confirm that the company >Systematics Inc., for which Hillary Clinton was a lawyer, did do >contract work for U.S. spy agencies and thus had access to >sensitive information. Other NSA documents confirm that Vince >Foster worked with the NSA on computer espionage issues and was >in a position where he had equal access to sensitive information. > Then came the revelation that possible Chinese Intelligence >operative and Lippo executive John Huang was placed by Hillary >Clinton in Ron Brown's "Government for Sale" Commerce Department >and was given a top security clearance without a background check >that could have revealed his intelligence affiliations. The CIA >and Congress are now reportedly engaged in a counterintelligence >probe. > But last week removed the final vestiges of disbelief. Both >the Washington Times and the London Times now report that Tobi >Gati, a close friend of Hillary Clinton, was placed in the >sensitive position of Assistant Secretary of State for >Intelligence and is the subject of a counterintelligence probe >linking her to the Hungarian spy service as well as Russian top >officials. In addition, it appears Mrs Gati illegally obtained >two highly classified documents from the National Security >Agency. > What are we to make of this? What, exactly, is the role of >Hillary Clinton? Is Hillary Clinton facing indictment as a >foreign spy? Is that the reason why we are now seeing Clinton >administration officials running for cover in unprecedented >numbers? Was the national security injunction after the death of >Vince Foster designed to give U.S. intelligence agencies time to >probe the full extent of foreign intelligence penetration of the >Clinton White House? Or are we going to see another cover-up, a >graceful exit to avoid rattling the markets and fueling the >outrage of the populace? > Published in the Nov. 18, 1996 Issue of The Washington Weekly >Copyright (c) 1996 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) TWA 800: The Cat is a Duck! (fwd) Date: 18 Nov 1996 13:11:55 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The New York Times November 17, 1996, Sunday How a Quack Becomes a Canard By: Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen On the night of July 17, T.W.A. Flight 800 exploded and crashed off the coast of Long Island, killing everyone on board. For months, investigators have focused on three possible causes -- a bomb, mechanical failure or a terrorist missile -- but what really happened remains a mystery. That's the formal line, anyway. Barely 36 hours after the disaster, a message posted on an Internet discussion site called "rec.aviation.piloting" suggested a darker possibility. "Did the Navy do it?" wrote someone from New York who identified himself as Evan B. Gillespie. "It is interesting how much evidence there is that it was hit by a missile." Actually, there wasn't any weightier "evidence" for this than for the other two theories. Reports from eyewitnesses -- who said they saw a streak of light approaching the jet before it crashed -- prompted investigators to entertain the idea that someone shot it down. This still hasn't been ruled out, though it's now considered the least likely possibility. Within days of the crash, however, numerous Net writers mulled over the witness reports and made a startling leap: they speculated that the jet was downed by accidental "friendly fire" from a United States Navy ship on a training cruise. Such a horrifying blunder, according to the evolving theory, was quickly covered up by a conspiracy involving Federal investigators, the military and President Clinton. Even by conspiracy standards, this one was pretty weak. But as a study in how conspiracy theories mutate in the age of easy global communication, the friendly fire story is a gem. On the Internet, conspiracy theories gestate almost instantly, and spread with dizzying speed. The theorists seize on and often distort mainstream media reports, make gross assumptions about the Government's allegedly boundless capacity for malevolence and, occasionally, fabricate reports outright. In the case of Flight 800, the process happened so fast and with such intensity that the conspiracy theory, which once might have bounced around harmlessly on the fringe, briefly elbowed its way into mainstream coverage. In September and again in October, prompted largely by the Internet's conspiratorial buzz, journalists felt compelled to ask officials about the possibility of friendly fire. The authorities labeled it "an outrageous allegation." News organizations, which subsequently took a closer look, agreed. But the fact that friendly fire came up at all says a lot about the power of the Internet. Here is a chronological review of how a theory catapulted to 15 minutes of fame. July 17-23: A Penny for Your Plots In the immediate aftermath of the crash, unhinged speculation was cheap. Some theorists suggested that the true target of the T.W.A. "attack" was Henry Kissinger, who was supposedly on board. (He wasn't.) Over time, the theories included such notions as the jet being zapped by a death ray possibly operated by a consortium of Russians, North Koreans, and the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo cult. Predictably, some asserted that a U.F.O. was responsible. But only the friendly fire theory developed real legs, thanks largely to a July 21 Jerusalem Post story in which unnamed "French Defense Ministry experts" asserted that "the infrastructure needed to fire a missile powerful enough to hit a plane at that altitude is only possessed by Army units." The story was clearly presented as "what if" speculation, but many conspiracy theorists took it as confirmation that the U.S. Government had shot down Flight 800. The Post is available on the World Wide Web, and the story spread rapidly all over the planet. "I think it's pretty obvious," stated one contributor to the "talk.politics.guns" news group, "that T.W.A. 800 was taken down by a SAM. . . . Friendly fire, as it were." July 24-29: Troopergate A posting in the news group "alt.conspiracy" made a more startling claim: Clinton was probably involved. "Two of the passengers were former Arkansas state troopers that were on Bill Clinton's security detail," it read, explaining that the men were on their way to Paris to tell all to Le Monde. The "source" for this shocker? The Miami Herald. The "Troopergate" message generated excitement among Net conspiracy theorists, many of whom believe Clinton to be capable of anything, from drug dealing to multiple homicide. "Suddenly the T.W.A. 800 explosion got a whole lot less mysterious," wrote one correspondent in "misc.survivalism." Over in "alt.politics.org.batf," an America Online subscriber wondered, "How many (total) does that make now of people who have previously known our Komrad Klinton who are now pushing up daisies?" Aug. 2: Cyberhoax The Miami Herald quickly exposed the trooper message as a hoax. The Herald traced it to the Net address of one Gene Hilsheimer, a Florida resident. The Herald said "Hilsheimer denied creating it," though he did opine later that the posting was probably designed to bait "conspiracy nuts." Despite this particular debunking, friendly fire kept on going. Other writers surged ahead with the unsupported claim that "there is a report of sailors at sea routinely locking on to airliners during mock missile practice." Aug. 22: Russell Takes Charge Friendly fire might have stalled were it not for an anonymous message that began circulating in late August. "T.W.A. Flight 800 was shot down," one version stated, "by a U.S. Navy guided missile ship which was in area W-105 . . . a Warning Area off the southeast coast of Long Island." The message was attributed to "a man who was Safety Chairman for the Airline Pilots Association for many years and he is considered an expert on safety." In fact, it was written on America Online by Richard Russell, a 66-year-old Floridian and former United Airlines pilot. Russell later told reporters that he never intended his message -- originally a private E-mail communication sent to about a dozen friends who were aviation accident investigators -- to be widely distributed. Nonetheless, replicated countless times by unknown Net-izens, it spread like a viral contagion. "Hey, those who want the truth. This is no joke!!!" wrote one fan. "Just read on and watch the papers, knowing where you heard it first. Pretty shocking." Aug. 28 - Sept. 1: Friendly Fire Skyrockets As the crash investigation of T.W.A. 800 entered its second month, friendly fire talk began to move beyond the Internet. It was helped along, inadvertently, by news reports of more eyewitness anomalies, including the murky snapshot taken by Linda Kabot, a Long Island secretary. Blown up and distributed on the Net, it showed a blip, supposedly a long cylinder streaking through the night sky, allegedly in the vicinity of the doomed jet. About this time, multiple copies of the hijacked Russell opinion began arriving in newsrooms via fax and E-mail. With populist speculation about friendly fire becoming a roar, major media outlets decided to take a closer look. On Sept. 1, Newsday launched a pre-emptive strike on the friendly fire theory, quoting a "senior Federal source" who advised, perhaps wishfully, "You can put that to bed." Sept. 5-7: Going Up, Up, Up. . . . Another mainstream report -- this one by a local TV reporter -- helped amplify the Net buzz about friendly fire. On Sept. 5, Marcia Kramer of WCBS-TV in New York broadcast that investigators were examining whether a missile from "a U.S. military plane" might have torn through the jet without exploding. Her sources? Unnamed officials close to the investigation. Kramer's report was ignored by most of her colleagues, a fact that itself inflamed Net suspicion. "This news item did not show up anywhere else on radio or TV during the following day," one Net surfer wrote. "Shades of censorship?" Sept. 8-17: Pffft! Russell Fizzles In the next several days Newsday, Newsweek, the Associated Press, Reuters and CNN decided they had to take a hard look at friendly fire. "Because so many people were talking about it we felt it was the responsible thing to do, to revisit this question," says Ron Dunsky, a CNN producer whose network investigated friendly fire in July, found no evidence to support it and didn't run a story. Why did it come to the fore again, since there was no new evidence? "The Internet was part of the reason," he says, "one of the factors that tipped the scales." At a Sept. 16 news briefing on Long Island, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Transportation Safety Board officials found themselves under unfriendly fire from a fixated press corps. The investigators responded to at least four straight questions about the theory -- including one from CNN, which later that day ran a serious report on friendly fire. It mentioned the Russell-authored message and conveyed emphatic denials from the Government. Russell can't be accused of courting publicity. He says he has been contacted by several major television shows, but they've all lost interest because he won't give up his source. Unless Russell decides to say more, or his claimed source comes forward, his now-notorious E-mail message has to remain filed under "Rumors: Unsubstantiated." Aftermath: It Lives! Though the Russell-gram seemed at a dead end, the Net has made it immortal. On Sept. 27 Tom Snyder, on his "Late Late Show," announced that he'd just found the message on the Net and wondered aloud -- albeit skeptically -- about a Government cover-up. Then on Nov. 8, friendly fire made headlines again. This time it was Pierre Salinger -- the noted journalist and Kennedy Administration press secretary -- who went public with the theory. Salinger, according to news accounts, said his source was a document given to him by "someone in French intelligence in Paris," written by an American who "was tied to the U.S. Secret Service, and has important contacts in the U.S. Navy." Apparently, though, the document was the Russell message, or at least a clone of it. CNN showed Salinger a copy of the message, and he said: Yes. That's it. That's the document. Where did you get it? He also told other reporters that he learned only after he went public on Nov. 7 (U.S. media ran the story the next day) that the same document had been on the Net for weeks. He said the message was dated Aug. 22 -- the same day Russell sent his famous E-mail. As Net writers might say: "Interesting!!!" -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: SAFE ON JURY DUTY? NOT ANYMORE! (fwd) Date: 19 Nov 1996 07:27:42 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Call 1-800-TEL-JURY to get information on the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). Fully informed juries are an important and effective way to restore our Constitutional Republic. Bill Utterback ================================================================ November 18, 1996 SENATOR DUKE (719) 481-9289 By Senator Charles R. Duke Colorado District 9 SAFE ON JURY DUTY? NOT ANYMORE! Here's betting the last time you served on jury duty, you believed you were exempt from prosecution for your actions as a juror. Well, that may have once been true in the America established by our forefathers with their bullets and their blood, but it doesn't seem to be the case in today's America. In fact, there has been overheard serious discussions by a few powerful legislators in the Colorado Legislature about the complete elimination of the jury system. Examples are cited about defendants who should have gone to jail but were found innocent by the jury. Other examples recount defendants who were actually innocent but convicted by the jury, anyway. Still others discuss defendants who were technically guilty, but should have been released, since the law was ridiculous for the particular circumstances of the case, and so on. You may not know that it was the intent of the Framers that juries have essentially ultimate authority. That is, jurors may judge not only the relative guilt or innocence of a defendant, but may also judge the appropriateness of the law for the circumstances of the case. This writer once asked a Chief Judge, now retired, whether it would be "nice" for the judge to be able to tell the jurors that they may decide whether a particular law should apply in some cases. An example might be a law which limits the term of a sentence to ten years, but because of the defendant's background or disposition, should be twenty years. Another example might be where a defendant can only receive a life sentence for a particular crime, but really deserves the death penalty. The judge agreed that would be very useful in some cases, but worried that it may upset the courtroom rigor a judge can now enforce. There is a national group, called the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA), that is attempting to re-establish the intent of the Framers regarding juries. FIJA would like to see a law passed in every state to allow juries to judge not only the defendant, but also the law, as it may apply to this case. While each finding would not nullify the law, but only assess its applicability to a particular case, a sufficient number of such findings would compel, theoretically, the Legislature to modify the law. It is an interesting idea that would have corrected some of the more outrageous findings by some juries. Given that the Colorado Legislature sentiment may be to eliminate the jury system entirely, a serious transgression of the Sixth Amendment, the chances of passing such a bill are not high. There are far too many, particularly in the Colorado Senate, that believe our Constitution can be interpreted to mean whatever they would like it to mean. Now with that as background, let's return to the business of whether you are exempt from prosecution while serving as a juror. In Gilpin County, Colorado, recently, a jury was summoned to hear the case of a 19 year old female charged with a felony for possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine). After hearing the case, the jury hung on the possession charge, with eleven jurors voting for conviction, and one, Laura Kriho, voting to release. With heated conversations in the jury room, it was discovered that Ms. Kriho believed the penalties for this particular charge and this particular defendant were inappropriate. She is said to have discussed the power of juries to judge the law, as previously discussed. The judge, Kenneth Barnhill, got wind of this and declared a mistrial, but it didn't stop there. Ms. Kriho was subsequently cited for contempt of court, despite her insistence that she was acting in good faith. She was never asked, while being interviewed for jury selection, about her feelings about what has come to be called jury nullification. The attorney for Ms. Kriho, Paul Grant, contacted this writer recently simply to introduce himself and to offer his assistance to patriots everywhere, particularly in Colorado. He resides at Parker, Colorado, and may be contacted by phone at 303-841-9649. In some recent e-mail, he is quoted as saying, "Jurors must be able to deliberate independently of the judge, without the threat of criminal prosecution hanging over their heads." If this prosecution is successful, who in the future would be willing to risk everything by serving on a jury? This could be just one more nail in the coffin of the America many of us know and love. End ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: The Threat Environment in Peace-Related Operations (fwd) Date: 19 Nov 1996 08:02:29 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Another Army intelligence briefing complements of: http://huachuca-usaic.army.mil/SCHOOL/DOTD/MIPB/miranda.html The Threat Environment in Peace-Related Operations by Alan R. Goldman, Ph.D. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Ground Intelligence Center, the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. The disintegration of the bi-polar world order, the globalization of Western culture and ideas, growing worldwide economic interdependence, and the information explosion are transforming the international environment and creating a general crisis of legitimacy for governing elites. The breakup of the Soviet empire has unleashed long-suppressed nationalistic impulses and added to the turmoil arising from ethnic and tribal conflict throughout much of the less developed world. Governments worldwide will continue to experience mounting demands for social justice, employment, the protection of lives, property and values, and even nationhood. While these demands are not likely to overthrow the nation-state as the locus of decisionmaking power on security affairs, they will create instability and occasional anarchy resulting in the erosion of state authority and the creation of new mini-states. Fortunately, there are currently no threats to Western civilization as serious as those responsible for igniting World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. However, there is always the danger that local conflicts will engage the vital interests of the major powers and set the stage for far greater conflicts. It is certain that the major powers will confront different threats than those they found most pressing for most of this century. These emerging threats will inflict violence on American civilians and servicemembers, and at times impinge upon the stability and security of the United States. Subnational conflicts will often turn violent, and when they do they will provide daunting and novel challenges to U.S. military forces that have successfully waged war against the various threats from potential hegemonic powers. The transition to the present domestic and international multipolar order will spread the kind of turmoil previously associated with such places as the Andean nations of Latin America, Central America, the Middle East, and Africa. Conflict around the perimeter of the former Soviet Union at the national and subnational level already stretches from the Balkans into the Caucuses and Central Asia and north to the Korean Peninsula. Indeed, ethnic, racial, tribal, class, and religious conflicts will likely be growing global phenomena. In the future, even the most remote and deprived populations around the world will be able to arm themselves in order to take advantage of changing circumstances, or to fend off threats to their status and way of life. As the intermixed domestic and international order seeks a new equilibrium, the necessary conditions for conflict will exist in virtually every society and nation, and especially where democratic institutions and practices are weak or nonexistent. Modernity, Change, and Conflict The pace and magnitude of global change will continue to shock and reshape foreign and domestic politics. For the time being, Western institutions and values define modernity and success, including freedom and free enterprise, and by easy access to multiple sources of information. Modernity also implies the triumph of the city over the country, industry and technology over agriculture and pastoralism, and secularist opinions and life-styles over traditionalism. Post-modernity implies the pervasive power of information that is fast becoming everyone's birthright; no longer the dominion of just the few. Influence in the information age will continue to gravitate toward those with the access and knowledge to master and manipulate the communications media in all its proliferating forms. However, there will also be a seizure of power by newly aware, propagandized and partially informed groups and leaders who are driven by often inchoate fears, but increasingly well-articulated grievances born of a rising sense of victimization and injustice. Because modernity fosters the questioning of traditional values, it will also continue to generate a violent backlash from those threatened by modernism such as the mullahs of Iran, the elite classes of Latin America, ex-communists and new fascists in Europe, and eventually perhaps the majority of the middle class in the West. Paradoxically, it is now arguable that we are witnessing both the end of history and the reemergence of it. With the breakup of the bipolar order, it is likely that the traditional forces of fragmentation, ethnicity, backlash, and conflict will be even stronger than newer competing trends toward multiculturalism, integration, interdependence, and harmony. Rapid, visual, undirected, or tenuously controlled change to the domestic and international order creates unusual turmoil and insecurity, and fosters in its wake a search for stability, order, familiarity, roots, and ethnic identity. Governments in the less developed world will continue to respond to popular and often frantic and fanatic demands and challenges to their rule with a confusing mix of forceful crackdowns and experiments with more participatory democracy. Government leaders are unlikely to find any antidemocratic model that works, although Asian countries as disparate as China and Singapore may be the exception that proves the rule, especially if anarchy and violence come to be associated with Western culture and behavior. Progress and Conflict With ever-greater effectiveness, individuals and groups will target corrupt, venal, and stultified bureaucratic elites. In parts of the Islamic world there is a pincer assault on the ruling order from frustrated college graduates demanding suitable jobs and from displaced religious elites who have lost much of their old authority. Articulate antiestablishment figures and popular demands in South Korea, Italy, and Mexico are forcing wrenching changes in the domestic political order in the direction of more openness and participation. However, in the Balkans, where the fault lines of faith and history run deep, the destruction of the bipolar status quo and the breakup of Yugoslavia have resulted in anarchy, ethnic- and religious-based violence, and an atmosphere of fear, hatred, insecurity, revenge and despotism. In general, the disequilibrium and anarchy inherent to the breakup of the old order will be exacerbated by the explosive spread of information and knowledge at a time when the income gap between rich and poor continues to widen. Modernism instructs the populace about inequities, raises popular expectations, and provokes greater demands from the disenfranchised. When the people perceive the elites as unresponsive, self-serving, corrupt, and unable to provide tolerable and equitable levels of material and psychic rewards, the tinder for conflict spreads out of control. When Conflicts Turn Violent In his book The Causes of War, military historian Michael Howard wrote one can divide it [the world] into those status quo powers for whom the existing international order is on the whole satisfactory, and those revisionist powers for whom it is not: who regard it on the whole oppressive and unjust, and who have no way of obtaining justice through the normal processes of peaceful negotiation. For whom the only way to obtain such justice may appear to be to fight Howard also said that groups can effectively threaten peace when their armament is initially almost negligible, as often as not purloined from the armories of their opponents. Violence will very often accompany the transition to a new global equilibrium. There is no indication that organized mass murder on the scale perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin, or Mao is in the offing, thanks in large part to a more informed, enlightened and tolerant public. Nevertheless, the post-Cold War world order promises to be divisive, chaotic and highly conflictual. When social disintegration occurs alongside national dissolution (as in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia with its many ethnic and religious divisions), the necessary condition for conflict is present. The sufficient condition for violent conflict exists when armaments of all types are readily available. When a people such as the Serbs perceives itself in decline and losing control over its future safety and well-being, it is likely to seek emotional outlets against scapegoats or "enemies" who may be real or imagined. The interrelated conditions of adverse power shifts result in a growing sense of personal insecurity. Social and national disintegration create a tangible environment of fear in which even a single incident such as an assassination or a political act such as the recognition of an independent Croatia or Bosnia can spark periods of prolonged violence and retaliation. Once engaged in a cycle of violence, the combatants will adopt and adapt their objectives, tactics, organization and material to suit the political and physical situation. However, one can make some broad generalizations about the milieu and motivations of rivals who take up arms against one another. The rivals live contiguously, yet there are cultural differences. Victims of subnational violence are as apt to be noncombatants as militia forces. Fear and terror can come to grip an entire people. A dread of losing power and possessions to a feared and gaining rival marks the emotional and psychological milieu. There is often an impulse to take preemptive vengeance against ancient rivals who may seem to have become benign, but are actually dangerous because they are gaining strength, different, and not trustworthy. Hardened, brutal, and implacable people motivated by ideals or plunder rise to the top. In other words, an ethic of "do unto others, before others do unto you" prevails. Externally derived (exogenous) ideals, expressions of support including calls for toleration, fair play, and compromise will be interpreted as weakness, and be met by scorn and defiance from the dominant combatant. In the pathological environment of subnational violence, arguments for peace based on cost-benefit analysis will rarely be persuasive. Only a tangible presence in the battle zone will lend weight to humanitarian appeals. A group or people that feels sufficiently threatened will obtain arms and in time will find innovative ways to employ force to insure what they perceive to be comes down to a question of their survival. Results of Violence Subnational ethnic and religious tensions evoke deep-seated prejudices. These tensions are prone to snap and erupt into protracted, relentless and bitter struggles often with no end. Consider such disparate groups as the armed Serbians, militant Palestinians, Irish Republican Army, and Tibetan nationalists. Each is fighting for a homeland, and each fears a technologically superior rival who shares neither traditions nor religion. Each group would like to gain power, wealth and territory. They would like to experience a sense of security, superiority, and revenge that comes with subduing or destroying a hated rival who in fact will never permanently succumb or go away. Some peoples such as the Chatelaines, Scots, and Bretons are willing to settle for autonomy or self-government because they have not been grossly victimized or exterminated by those with whom they share the nation-state. For others such as some Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats, Muslim Palestinians, and Israeli Jews, there is a living and even immediate memory of atrocities or extermination. For such victims of terror and violence, fear and brutal acts of revenge are not irrational responses to their situation (as is often claimed by more distant and secure spectators). For these minorities there is a strongly felt belief that they can only acquire security, even survival, within the confines of their own nation-state. Therefore, just as the one set of nation-states is undergoing fragmentation and even extinction from unprecedented subnational pressures, people without homelands are creating new nations, also of questionable strength or viability. A cycle of violence, revenge, and atrocities induces even stronger feelings of rage and insecurity, and more urgent demands for a nation-state capable of self-defense. While territorial adjustments, economic assistance, and peacekeeping operations can be vital for mitigating the intensity of the violence, they alone will not solve the causes of conflict. Minorities who have been subject to ethnic and religious warfare require reassurance, protection and the means for self-defense which often implies territory, sovereignty, and an armed force. At a minimum, threatened minorities must feel sufficiently secure so that they can separate the fear from the hatred; thereby they diminish the emotional intensity that often characterizes inter-ethnic warfare. This will be a tricky, trying, and dangerous proposition since militant nationalists, irredentists, and fundamentalists, as well as indigenous security forces, will all have access to increasingly lethal weapons. Peacekeepers' Dilemma Soldiers in peace-related operations will often be immersed in a confusing and very cruel psychological environment. Their military chain of command will ask them to witness murder, rape, and mayhem without taking sides or intervening. However, that chain of command will have a global audience consisting of opinion makers, far from the scene of violent conflict, who will naturally balk at what appears callous and even cowardly official indifference to suffering and genocide. There will be public calls to intervene and to employ force in the service of humanity. Occasionally, these demands will prove irresistible despite cool calculations of national interest to the contrary. The use of counterforce to punish the perpetrators of atrocities will become emotionally satisfying and probably even a short-term military necessity. The same public that wants to help a suffering humanity cannot articulate a vital national interest warranting large risks of casualties; thus an unresolvable tension between ends and means will assert itself. When peacekeeping forces attempt to resolve these tensions by employing force against just one side, the mission then becomes one of peace enforcement or warfighting with all the attendant risks of higher casualties and a wider war. Adopting indigenous tactics of counterterror (such as those used by the French in Algiers) undermines soldier and national morale. The use of conventional military power will also be unlikely to resolve the tension between ends and means. Military use of limited conventional force, which is all the national interest will tolerate, will not subdue a minority which has known atrocities and extermination. The ethnic warriors are even less likely to be overawed in the presence of a superior or prestigious power unwilling to use force. The terrible dilemma for the peacekeeper is that he often represents the United Nations, which lacks serious military power, or a foreign country that lacks sufficient national interest and therefore the will to commit overwhelming force to subdue a highly motivated and even modestly armed group fighting for a cause, a way of life, or even revenge. Furthermore, even if they could muster overwhelming force, it would probably only add to the object of the force's isolation, insecurity and rage. It could drive the group underground and turn it temporarily to terrorism until it recovers. Yet there is an intrinsic American interest in a stable, democratic, and tolerant world reflective of American values and free of the anarchy and injustices that result in waves of illegal immigration, and racial and ethnic wars that will reverberate in the heterogenous neighborhoods of the United States. Peacekeeper Objectives Accordingly, the central objective of the peacekeeper must be to diminish the deep sense of insecurity that feeds the cycle of violence. Comfort, reassurance, insurance and security must be the watchwords of the peacekeeper. When force is used, it should be for self-defense against a party applying military force to thwart the internationally sanctioned mission. Hence personal protective gear and precision weapons such as antisniper rifles are the appropriate accoutrements of the peacekeeper. Once the peacekeeper appears to have changed from an impartial actor carrying out a legal and essentially humanitarian mission to one engaged in war against one or another tribe, the soldier and the mission will have been placed in serious jeopardy. At that point, the force must recalculate the entire strategy, the costs, the ends and means, and explain them convincingly to the public. More and more and for better or worse in the coming age of information (and disinformation), the public will be the final arbiter of what happens next. That most experienced of United Nations peacekeepers, Brian Urquart, probably put it best: For soldiers peacekeeping can be a thankless and unglamorous task....A peacekeeping force is like a family friend who has moved into a household stricken by disaster. It must conciliate, console, and discretely run the household, without ever appearing to dominate or usurp the natural rights of those it is helping [emphasis added]. [At other] times...the peacekeeping function [is] more like that of an attendant in a lunatic asylum, and the soldiers (have) to accept abuse and harassment without getting into psychological or emotional involvement with the inmates. The feelings and reactions of peacekeepers must always come second to those of the afflicted. Thus they must often turn the other cheek, and never, except in the most extreme circumstances, use their weapons or shoot their way out of a situation. But they must also be firm and assert their authority in violent situations. It requires discipline, initiative, objectivity, and leadership, as well as ceaseless supervision and political directions. In the opinion of Danish Lieutenant General Hillingso, an officer with extensive experience in peace-related operations, it is necessary to create specific units for peacekeeping operations or to establish a special school for the training of U.S. personnel who serve as peacekeepers. The causes and dynamics of ethnic and other types of violence belong in the curriculum. Coalition politics, uncertain chains of command, and the conflicting interests of the peacekeepers are environmental factors that need to be understood and simulated. Language and culture training, mediation skills, and the attainment of high tolerances for ambiguity, frustration, and nonlethal responses to vicious and violent situations may be the most demanding subjects of all. Dr. Goldman is Senior General Military Intelligence Analyst at the National Ground Intelligence Center and an MI officer with the U.S. Army Inactive Reserve. He holds a doctorate in Political Science from Brown University. Readers can reach him at (804)980-7664 or DSN 934-7664. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: US Vetoes Boutros--Ghali (fwd) Date: 19 Nov 1996 15:33:06 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- By ROBERT H. REID .c The Associated Press UNITED NATIONS (Nov. 19) - The United States Tuesday vetoed Boutros Boutros-Ghali for re-election as secretary-general by a 14-1 vote in the 15-member Security Council. Egyptian Ambassador Nabil Elaraby, who told reporters of the closed door outcome, left to confer with Boutros-Ghali to see if he wanted his name resubmitted. U.N. rules permit supporters to resubmit Boutros-Ghali's name in subsequent rounds, setting the stage for a protracted battle. The Clinton administration offended many key allies in June when it announced it would veto the re-election of the 74-year-old Egyptian diplomat. Senior U.S. officials say replacing Boutros-Ghali is the only way to persuade the Republican-controlled Congress to pay the $1.5 billion that the United States owes the organization. Africans have insisted that their continent deserves two terms of representation in the post, as has been U.N. tradition. Ten of the 15 council members co-sponsored a resolution calling for Boutros-Ghali's re-election. African and European diplomats a day earlier had accurately predicted Tuesday's 14-1 vote. U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright told the 14 other council members Monday that she had written instructions to veto the Egyptian diplomat, saying Boutros-Ghali has lost the confidence of Congress. Ambassador Alfredo Lopes Cabral of Guinea-Bissau said the Africans were standing behind Boutros-Ghali ''with all (due) respect for the decision of one country,'' meaning the United States. If the United States sticks by its opposition, the process of selecting a new secretary-general could drag on for weeks. The five permanent members - the United States, China, Russia, France and Britain - hold veto power in the council. Diplomatic sources said China could veto any candidate put forward by the United States over objections of the Africans. China considers itself an advocate for Africa and other developing countries. In an effort to appease the Africans, the United States has agreed to a selection formula weighted in favor of African candidates. The formula calls for limiting the second round of voting to African candidates once Boutros-Ghali is vetoed. But diplomats said it was unlikely any alternative African candidate could win substantial support as long as Boutros-Ghali remains an active candidate. AP-NY-11-19-96 1130EST Copyright 1996 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dick_Stephan@krinfo.com (Dick Stephan) Subject: Re[2]: Clinton Quote Date: 19 Nov 1996 16:47:40 -0800 Candidates spend day focused on pursuit of California dreams Washington Times (WT) - Friday, October 18, 1996 By: Brian Blomquist and Warren P. Strobel - THE WASHINGTON TIMES Edition: Final Section: A Page: A1 Word Count: 992 TEXT: The two presidential candidates began their battle for the state of California yesterday, with President Clinton stomping into a Republican stronghold and Bob Dole attacking the "sleaze factor in the White House." ... In stump speeches in Riverside and Burbank, Mr. Dole repeated his port for the California Civil Rights Initiative, which would ban race and sex preferences in the hiring and firing of state workers and in education. At one stop yesterday, the president committed a gaffe. "Our friends on the other side, they complain about government all the time. . . . It's government vs. the people," Mr. Clinton said at a rally in Santa Ana. "The last time I checked, the Constitution said `of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says." Neither document says that. Abraham Lincoln used the famous phrase in the Gettysburg Address, a fact Dole aides eagerly pointed out last night. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Author: roc@xmission.com at Internet I didn't catch it when it crossed the net, but I believe it was in Newsweek a couple of weeks ago. bd On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, Kenneth Mitchell wrote: > Sorry to bother the list, but I have misplaced the message: > > What was the source of the Clinton quote to the effect that "of the people, > by the people, and for the people" was from the Constitution and the > Declaration of Independence, or at least, that's what it had said "the last > time I read them". > > Thanks. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net > http://www.gvn.net/~creative/home.htm > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Roaming the world as a foreign correspondent for more than a decade, > I was able to observe how a variety of vastly different nations > organized themselves economically. The inescapable conclusion was > that no politician anywhere on the planet has ever actually created > a rupee's worth of prosperity." > Louis Rukeyser, "Louis Rukeyser's Wall Street" newsletter, Nov 96 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Fwd: Clinton Addresses Asian Moneys (fwd) Date: 20 Nov 1996 07:46:00 -0600 (CST) --------------------- Forwarded message: 

.c The Associated Press
By TERENCE HUNT AP White House Correspondent CANBERRA, Australia (AP) -- President Clinton said Wednesday he thinks his administration should answer questions about contributions from wealthy Asians but compared the situation to the Atlanta security guard falsely accused in the Olympic bombing. ``I think we should answer whatever questions are asked. I've told everybody else to do the same thing,'' Clinton said at a news conference kicking off his Asia trip. The president has denied his administration's foreign policies were affected by contributions from people associated with an Indonesian banking conglomerate. ``One of the things I would urge you to do, remembering what happened to Mr. Jewell in Atlanta, remembering what has happened to so many of the accusations over the last four years that have been made against me that turned out to be totally baseless, I just think that we ought to make sure we've got, you know, we ought to just get the facts out.'' Last month, the FBI cleared Richard Jewell as a suspect in the bombing after months of defending himself against suspicions and little evidence. Clinton made his remarks during a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard before the president was to address a joint session of Parliament while on a 12-day tour of the region. The president said he joked with Howard about the failed Russian space probe that was once feared to crash in Australia -- but plummeted into the Southern Pacific. And the president revealed for the first time that initially, ``We thought it might land in the United States.'' Clinton has told people privately that the first indications were that the space craft would hit either in Alabama or Pakistan. U.S. Space Command officials said the impact site depended on the time of the crash. As information developed Sunday, the expected crash site was pinpointed in Australia, and even that turned out to be wrong by thousands of miles. The president was asked about Asian campaign contributions amid a fresh report that several top U.S. officials visited for lunch at the Indonesian home of Lippo Group owner Mochtar Riady in February 1994, shortly after one of the banking conglomerate's executives was given a top-secret clearance and designated for a government job. A month after the lunch meeting, Lippo's head of U.S. operations, John Huang, and his wife donated $20,000 to the Democratic Party. On other topics, Clinton: Said the recent arrest of a veteran CIA officer was the result of improved coordination he had ordered between the FBI and CIA in the wake of the Aldrich Ames spy scandal. He also said Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott met with Russian officials and demanded an explanation but he declined to go into details about the U.S. complaint to Moscow. Described the Rwandan refugee situation as improving, with many finding their own way home, and said he expected a new recommendation on how the international community would respond shortly. ``There's no question that the situation looks better than it did a couple of days ago,'' Clinton said. Said thousands of U.S. Marines will take part in military exercises with Australians in the northern part of the country next year and that he and the prime minister were happy there was ``no extra spaceship there.'' Said he and Howard talked frankly about trade issues, including Australia's frustrations with world trade rules that allow governments to subsidize food products, a large Australian export. Both men agreed that the root of the problem was with the European Union. Said he would continue to press Indonesia to peacefully resolve its internal conflict with the people of East Timor who seek independence. Among other things, the Clinton administration has sought to avoid any arms exports that ``would be most likely to be used to put down a civilian rebellion or to oppress human rights.'' AP-NY-11-19-96 2156EST 
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: John Curtis Subject: boutros boutros ghali Date: 20 Nov 1996 10:25:39 -0500 ROC seems strangely quiet the last couple of days: What's up with Dr. Ghali? 14-1, I'm listening to the BBC on Sandinista radio on the way to work, just to hear the UN people insult our Ambassador. Have we fallen through the Looking Glass? U.S. stands up to Dr. G and the UN with a straightforward "we don't think we can get Congress to pay the >$1.5 Billion that we owe the U.N., unless we get rid of Gahli". Meanwhile, the diplomatic show goes on, with various NPR and BBC clowns trying to interpret what is going on as a horse race. I thought Clinton was the NWO horror? What's he doing? Looks like he has gone a little random and maybe the whole NWO is a little over-baked. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Flame form letter(fwd) Date: 20 Nov 1996 11:49:22 -0600 (CST) Dear: [ ] Clueless Newbie [ ] Loser [ ] Republican [ ] AOLer/Euronetter/PIer [ ] Jackass [ ] Democrat [ ] Me too er [ ] Pervert [ ] Geek [ ] Spammer [ ] Nerd [ ] Elvis [ ] Fed [ ] Freak [ ] FLAMENET [ ] Smeghead [ ] Yanni fan [ ] God [ ] Neo-Nazi [ ] Cat hater [ ] Nobody [ ] Unbearably self-righteous person [ ] hysterical HCI grass eater hoplophobe [ ] Other:__________________ You Are Being Flamed Because: [ ] You can't hold a tune [ ] You posted an off-topic binary in a non-binaries group [ ] You can't spell worth a flying shti [ ] You quoted an ENTIRE post in your reply [ ] You continued a "troll" [ ] You started an off-topic thread [ ] You posted a "USA/Europe/Canada Sucks!" message [ ] You said "me too" to something [ ] You don't know which group to post in [ ] You suck [ ] You don't know Thomas Jefferson from Joe Blow [ ] You brag about things that never happened [ ] Your sig/alias/server sucks [ ] You posted a (phone-sex) ad [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting [ ] You crossposted unnecessarily [ ] You posted a message all in caps [ ] You posted racism/anti-homosexual/ anti-gun nonsense [ ] I don't like your tone of voice [ ] I'm in a bitchy mood today [ ] I think you might be a fed [ ] You appear to have no gonads [ ] I know you are a fed [ ] *MY barrel* is longer than yours To Repent, You Must: [ ] Give up your Internet access forever [ ] Tell a policeman "I'm going to kill the President!" [ ] Lick a cow's butt [ ] Massage your dad's buttocks [ ] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor [ ] Actually post something relevant [ ] Read the damned FAQ [ ] Repeat after me 1000 times People, not guns, kill people [ ] Play Mannenheim Steamroller on your gonads with a hammer [ ] Be Bill Clinton's love slave [ ] Spontaneously combust [ ] Jump in some industrial equipment [ ] Read Madison and Jefferson then send $ to NRA [ ] Apologize to everybody in this newsgroup [ ] Take your head out of your ass In Closing, I'd Like to Say: [ ] You give evolution a bad rap [ ] Get a life [ ] Never post again [ ] I know where you live [ ] I've known lettuce heads smarter than you [ ] If brains were dynamite you couldn't blow your nose [ ] Take your crap somewhere else [ ] May you be audited incessantly [ ] Do us all a favor and jump into some industrial equipment [ ] See how far your tongue will fit into the electric outlet [ ] Go share a needle [ ] Eat lead [ ] All of the above, and then some ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 70 (fwd) Date: 20 Nov 1996 12:50:11 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following is brought to you thanks, in part, to the kind assistance of CyberNews and the fine folks at Cornell University. Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 70 ====================================== ("Quid coniuratio est?") TWA 800: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED? ============================== The Government Rumor Mill Cranks Up (RMNews Agency, Sept. 5, 1996) [...continued...] -+- RMNews Presents the Unedited Story -+- "There was no Air Force plane dropping Willy Peter flares into the black sky. There was white phospherous present, but it wasn't in flares launched as decoys for heat seeking missiles. Your American sources have been caught up in misinformation. The Willy Peter came from the missile itself. It wasn't a singular payload missile! It was a double headed missile. It had White Phospherous to penetrate the skin and all layers of the fuel cell to erupt into fire." {1}. "The high explosive portion of the warhead, in fact, detonated right below the cockpit door. Because of the Willy Peter burning into the skin, droplets of an orange, fiery mass fell into the Atlantic before the explosion, which tore the plane into two parts. The fuel cell erupted into the first fire ball just about 2 seconds before the explosion of the H.E. (high explosive) segment separated the cockpit from the plane. The fire spread quickly, although the aft section of the fuselage began its almost vertical descent into the water. (RMNews has chosen to omit the next several sentences out of concern for the victims' families.)" "What has not been mentioned in any paper because it's classified is that one fuel cell didn't have time to rupture and catch fire. It was recovered intact. The pieces of the weapon that were recovered match my description of a 'Sledgehammer Rocket.' The missile came from a National Guard Armory, and was not one of the Stinger missiles that the Afghani rebels offered to sell back to the government." "'Sledgehammer Rockets' were produced by Litton Light Arms Division, a division of 'Litton Commercial Industries.' 'Sledgehammer Rockets' have nothing to do with Operation Sledgehammer which is an economic unit to disrupt new issues trading on the market. There are small parts that can turn into terror groups, but it is not the intent of the operation. Operation Sledgehammer has nothing to do with the downing of TWA 800. The name is the same as the missile that downed it. That's all." "The 'Sledgehammer Rocket' was part of a robbery from a National Guard Armory in North Carolina in the late 70's. The rest of the stolen munitions were recently recovered in a warehouse in Montana. They were stolen by an underground, homegrown terrorist group that has been active for over 20 years." "About 20 years ago, an operation was introduced by William Casey (the head of the Reagan 1980 Presidential campaign, who was appointed Director of the CIA.) He was the head of the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) at the time. In 1976, billions of dollars of counterfeit bonds and debentures were introduced into the world economies. The bonds had a 10-15 and 20 year maturity rate, before they were to be pulled out of circulation. Many banks in the U.S. also held billions of this phoney money. The last batch, the ones earmarked 20 years, was to come due in September of this year, in Paris. The bulk of these bearer bonds were 20-year bonds. It is possible that an entire section of the forward freight compartment of that plane was carrying a cargo of phony bonds. There are no duplicates of these or any of the other bonds in existence. Untold billions of dollars, gathered from all over the country, may very well have been the intended victim of TWA 800. It is only during the last 10 years or so that commercial airliners carried such freight. We used to charter cargo transporters to carry such cargo. If our theory holds any water and the phony paper was on board the TWA flight, hundreds of billions of dollars of debt would have been wiped out by downing the plane. In that case it was an internal operation without regard for any human life on board." "All indications speak of a rocket. No bomb would have left light bulbs intact! Such an act would have saved, or helped save, the national economy. If the bonds had come due, and were proved to be phony, there would have been one hell of a market crash. The American economy would have been destroyed, food shortages, riots and warring factions would have been created. Martial law would have been declared, maybe even U.N. troops would have been brought in to 'keep the peace.' Now that all the phony paper has been destroyed, the market crash probably has been averted. It was the perfect solution, and no one will ever know. Those who planned the move sacrificed 230 lives to save the American economy. As if there wasn't another way..." "Lloyds of London is currently involved in this same 'bad paper' operation. They have been asking their investors to accept a percentage of the value of the paper they hold. No one has bothered to explain the Lloyds disaster to their investors. They have used their other holdings to cover the bad bonds." "Banks in France have also discovered that they hold counterfeit bonds. But they didn't kill anyone to destroy them, they merely set a fire that gutted the entire third floor of Credit Lyonaisse in Paris. Presumably that is where they stored their phony bonds." "Every institution chooses their own way of handling the 'bad paper' crisis. Too bad a few more fires couldn't have been started. A lot of good people would still be alive." "The truth of why and how the big bird was downed will never be told to the public. It will also serve to push TWA back into Chapter 11, from where it just emerged, less than a year ago. >From what you tell me, TWA has been given a phony story... one that is close to the truth and will keep TWA quiet. The government probably told them that leaking the truth to the public would undermine morale and national security." -+- The Pieces Fit Together -+- [...to be continued...] ---------------------------<< Notes >>--------------------------- {1} "It was a double headed missile. It had White Phospherous to penetrate the skin and all layers of the fuel cell to erupt into fire." >From "Bill Clinton's Choo-Choo" by J. Orlin Grabbe (8/24/96): Why did the missile glow as it ascended toward the plane? Because the ordinary warhead of the Stinger had been replaced with a phosphorous warhead. (This replacement is not difficult.) Phosphorous incandesces as it travels through the atmosphere at high speed. Analysis of the photos shows that it was the *head*, not the tail, of the missile that was glowing. A spectral analysis shows the head was phosphorous. >From "The Phosphorous-Headed Missile and TWA Flight 800" by J. Orlin Grabbe (8/26/96): In "Bill Clinton's Choo-Choo" I reported that TWA Flight 800 had been taken down by a missile with a phosphorous head. The phosphorous head was originally designed to take out fuel tanks. An oil storage tank, for example. The low-powered explosive behind the phosphorous scatters it somewhat, and the glowing phosphorous ignites the surrounding fuel in the target. This type of missile is well-known in the intelligence community. The exterior surface of the phosphorous warhead is covered with a substance that flakes off in the atmosphere. The phosphorous will not be exposed until the missile travels a certain distance. Then the exposed phosphorous will begin to incandesce. The missile is laser-guided to a locked-in target from the body behind the head, and the glowing head does not interfere with the missile's guidance system. (This system differs from a normal Stinger, which has a passive infrared seeker.) About six inches behind the missile's phosphorous head is a small door that gives access to the missile's three or four computer boards. These boards guide the missile to its target, set the detonation configuration, and so on. In this missile, the explosive behind the head and the missile propellant are one and the same. It represents a more recent technological development than C-12. The sophistication of the missile suggests it was stolen from military inventory or purchased from a foreign power (one of the many to which the U.S. sells similar munitions). Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief. I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation." If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1") For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom See also: http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html See also: ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of the Law (fwd) Date: 20 Nov 1996 13:02:48 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive Message-ID: <56t945$11qo@news.missouri.edu> Originator: rich@pencil.math.missouri.edu U.S. high court allows police search of car WASHINGTON, Nov 18 (Reuter) - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that motorists stopped by police for speeding need not be informed they are free to go before they allow a search of their car. The 8-1 ruling written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist underscored the high court's recent trend to interpret narrowly the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence. ``We are here presented with the question whether the Fourth Amendment requires that a lawfully seized defendant must be advised that he is 'free to go' before his consent to search will be recognised as voluntary. We hold that it does not,'' he said. Rehnquist said it would be ``unrealistic'' to require that the police always inform detainees they are free to go before a consent to search may be deemed voluntary. He said the Fourth Amendment's requirement is ``reasonableness,'' which must be measured in objective terms by examining all of the circumstances of the stop. The case involved Robert Robinette, who was stopped on Aug. 3, 1992 by police for speeding on Interstate 70 outside of Dayton, Ohio. The officer, Roger Newsome, ran a computer check, which showed Robinette had no prior violations, and he gave him a verbal warning for speeding. Newsome then asked, ``Are you carrying any illegal contraband in your car? Any weapons of any kind, drugs, anything like that?'' Robinette denied having anything illegal in his car. Newsome asked if he could search the car and Robinette gave his approval. The officer found a small amount of marijuana and an amphetamine pill. Robinette, who was found guilty, sought to suppress the evidence as the result of an illegal search. The Ohio Supreme Court overturned his conviction on the grounds that the search stemmed from an unlawful detention. Ohio, backed by a number of other states, and the Justice Department all urged the high court to overturn the ruling. Justice Department lawyers said the search did not result from coercive police conduct and they argued that a ``reasonable'' person would have understood he or she would be free to leave when asked for consent to search the car. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying he would affirm the state court ruling. While federal law and the Constitution do not require that motorists be told they may leave, he said states can adopt that requirement. ``Whether such a practice should be followed in Ohio is a matter for Ohio lawmakers to decide,'' he said. --- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of the Law (fwd) Date: 20 Nov 1996 14:46:01 -0500 Hmmmmm. Interesting one. I remember reading on the net a description of the various states one may be in when under police scrutiny: just talking, being detained, and under arrest. I'm no expert but this seems to be a pretty narrow case, in that the driver had just gone from being detained (while he was pulled over and the warning issued) to "just talking" and he then gave permission for a search. One magic word: No, as in, "no you may not search my car". One magic phrase: "Am I being detained?" If the answer is no, and you have your liscense back, drive off. Just be careful that the magic phrase "Am I being detained" doesn't push you over into: "you're under arrest". Cause the guy can then search your person, and tow your car. If you do have contraband on board, then a drug dog could give probable cause for a legal search. It seems to me that one has to know how to say no. As in, "No, you can't come in my house" and "No, you can't search my car". Be polite, it probably helps. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: piml] (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of the Date: 20 Nov 1996 13:34:51 -0800 Paul, >>>>>>> The 8-1 ruling written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist underscored the high court's recent trend to interpret narrowly the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence. <<<<<<< The pigs, the friggin FASCIST pigs! Congress had damn well better tell that panel of idiots to get a High School GED or some other form of recognized E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, or more of the above is going to be the norm. How _anyone_ can read the 4th Article of amendment, and presume to prevaricate about its content and meaning to mean anything but what is said in _plain english_, is the worst form of deception. This country is heading at high speed towards another revolution. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: piml] (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of the Date: 20 Nov 1996 18:00:46 -0500 Ed, I agreee that horrible things are being done, but look at this case: guys is detained, record is searched, warning is given, (guy is now free to go, but hasn't been told so), permission to search is given, methamphetamines are found. This is a horrible case of FASCISM? The guy gave permission to search his car. He wasn't lied to, beaten, flamboozled, had a search with zero pretext, stopped for being black in a white suburb, or any of that. give me a break. All the guy had to do was say: "No." Or, ask "am I being detained?". Should the court have created a nationwide ruling that cops now have to detain somebody and then say "you're free to go" and then say "can we search your car". Do these little formulas advance freedom? My personal opinion is that you are over reacting. ciao, jcurtis > > The pigs, the friggin FASCIST pigs! > > Congress had damn well better tell that panel of idiots to get a >High School GED or some other form of recognized E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, or more >of the above is going to be the norm. > > How _anyone_ can read the 4th Article of amendment, and presume to >prevaricate about its content and meaning to mean anything but what is said >in _plain english_, is the worst form of deception. > > This country is heading at high speed towards another revolution. > >Ed > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: piml] (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of the Law (fwd) Date: 20 Nov 1996 15:41:09 -0800 (PST) Nobody asked, but I think Ed is right on. Yes, police are held to a very high standard and no I don't think that's wrong at all. Like anyone else most of them would like their jobs to be easier but I think if you ask a reasonable number of patrol officers most would agree that the hard parts of their jobs are hard for excellent reasons. Judges and cops should be paid much more then they are, and we should elect a president who won't nominate vegetables to the highest court of the land. All IMHO -Boyd (It's the judges here who were "pigs" not the police officers IMO.) On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, John Curtis wrote: > > Ed, > > I agreee that horrible things are being done, but look at > this case: > > guys is detained, record is searched, warning is given, > (guy is now free to go, but hasn't been told so), permission > to search is given, methamphetamines are found. > > This is a horrible case of FASCISM? > > The guy gave permission to search his car. He wasn't lied to, > beaten, flamboozled, had a search with zero pretext, stopped for > being black in a white suburb, or any of that. > > give me a break. All the guy had to do was say: "No." Or, > ask "am I being detained?". > > Should the court have created a nationwide ruling that cops > now have to detain somebody and then say "you're free to go" and > then say "can we search your car". > > Do these little formulas advance freedom? > > My personal opinion is that you are over reacting. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > > > > > The pigs, the friggin FASCIST pigs! > > > > Congress had damn well better tell that panel of idiots to get a > >High School GED or some other form of recognized E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, or more > >of the above is going to be the norm. > > > > How _anyone_ can read the 4th Article of amendment, and presume to > >prevaricate about its content and meaning to mean anything but what is said > >in _plain english_, is the worst form of deception. > > > > This country is heading at high speed towards another revolution. > > > >Ed > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Salinger Document NOT ANNONYMOUS (fwd) Date: 20 Nov 1996 17:54:31 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (free 2 copy (*)-------------------(free 2 forward) T H E V E R A C I T Y O F T H E R U S S E L L R E P O R T By Ian Williams Goddard The internet document declaring that TWA 800 was shot down by a Navy missile, which Pierre Salinger held as evidence, is widely reported and assumed to be an anonymous fabrication, written by some clever con-artist. This is a Big Lie. The fact is that the author is a known, retired crash investigator with connections inside the TWA 800 investigation. As USA Today (10/31/96) said, "Richard Russell, a retired United Airline pilot and former crash in- vestigator, shouldn't have been surprised when an authoritative sounding e-mail he sent to fewer than a dozen friends Aug. 22--claiming a government cover- up in the crash of TWA Flight 800--was copied across the 'Net." The article also says he sticks by his report, but must protect his source. The New York Times (11/17/96) states that the "anony- mous message that began circulating in late August... was written on America Online by Richard Russell, a 66-year-old Floridian and former United Airlines pilot. Russell later told reporters that he never intended his message -- originally a private E-mail communication sent to about a dozen friends who were aviation accident investigators -- to be widely distributed." "Russell can't be accused of courting publicity. He says he has been contacted by several major television shows, but they've all lost interest because he won't give up his source." If there was a cover-up underway, it would most logic- ally surface around the edges--that is, the real story would leak through reliable people with verifiable in- side connections within the body in which the cover-up is being purpertrated. That is exactly the case here. The Watergate affair, generally accepted as a "true cover-up," rested largely on the anonymous source "Deep Throat," yet we tend to accept the veracity of this secret source to the extent it's consistent with accepted facts. Consistency should dictate that the same standard would hold for the Russell document. CONSISTENCY WITH MULTIPLE SOURCES The St. Louis Post Dispatch (11/09/96) interviewed several TWA pilots who, based on inside knowledge, say that TWA 800 was hit by a U.S. Navy missile. Consistent with an AP report (09/23/96), one TWA pilot of 20 years said investigators found a hole going in the plane be- lieved to be caused by a missile. Another pilot said "high-level sources in the Pentagon" indicate it was a Navy missile hit. One pilot said: "At least nine out of 10 pilots will tell you they believe this was a missile. We know of military prac- tices where they will lock onto com- mercial aircraft for testing, but then do not detonate the missile." The Workers World News Service (09/19/96) reported that many TWA and airport workers, based on their inside knowledge, find the Navy guilty of the TWA 800 disaster. WCBS-TV of New York reported (09/05/96) that informa- tion leaked from the top-secret crash investigation suggests that TWA 800 may have been downed by a milit- ary missile. The report quickly disappeared, as FBI and White House officials condemn the idea of Navy culp- ability as absurd and a sign of mental imbalance. The Jerusalem Post (07/21/96) says French Defense Ministry agents believe that TWA 800 was taken out by a Navy missile. While many victims were from France, French investigators were, in violation of routine in- ternational disaster protocol, forbidden from assist- ing in the FBI-NAVY-NTSB top-secret investigation. CONSISTENCY OF RUSSELL REPORT WITH FACTS The Russell, apart from the claim of Navy guilt, gives information that is consistent with fact. It states that a U.S. Navy guided-missile ship that did the firing was in area W-105. This is true, although the Navy claims it was too far away. Area W-105 was also activated at the time for military maneuvers. The Russell report also says that the ship was intended to fire a missile over a P-3 Orion, which would measure the missile's course. In fact, a P-3 Orion was at the very location Russell's report indicates it should have been. To my knowledge, Russell's report was the initial source for many of these details. What is more, over 150 witnesses reported a missile flying across the sky, which then hit TWA 800, causing it to explode. "Deep Throat's" story was never so-well corroborated. As one witness, Lou Desyron, told ABC World News Sunday, 07/21/96): We saw what appeared to be a flare going straight up. As a matter of fact, we thought it was from a boat. It was a bright reddish-orange color. ...once it went into flames, I knew that wasn't a flare. Another witness said (N.Y. Daily News, 11/09/96): It looked like a big skyrocket go- ing up, and it kept going up and up, and the next thing I knew there was an orange ball of fire. The New York Post (09/22/96) reported that: Law-enforcement sources said the hardest evidence gathered so far overwhelmingly suggests a surface -to-air 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 TWA 800 exploded. "Some of these people are extremely, extremely credible," a top federal official said. CONCLUSIVE OVERVIEW When we piece it all together, it's an overwhelming case for Navy culpability. Yet, the FBI-NAVY-NTSB secret investigation automatically canned any possib- ility of Navy culpability as top officials and media personnel have demonized anyone suggesting such a possibility as mentally deranged idiots. In the final analysis, it's just amazing what people will swallow so long as it comes from government of- ficials. It's just amazing how a solid case derived from multiple sources with a consistent story that correlates directly with fact and is even supported by the eyewitness of over 150 people, can be so easily swept away and anyone suggesting it viciously smeared. While we don't have 100% proof of Navy guilt, that this case in which the preponderance of evidence sug- gests Navy culpability, is so viciously assaulted only shows the prelogical and primitive tribal nature of our society, wherein "reality" is measured not by care- ful analysis of facts, but by the decree of the Chiefs whose word is gospel and whose detractors are to be destroyed by slander and ad hominem. It is the tribal hierarchy of "truth control" that directs a "cover-up." It is not necessary to be told, "Don't say anything or else." When the chief says "X is absurd and anyone who says X is a nut case," that is an ORDER to which the majority will obey with hardly a second thought. Those who do not so blindly follow the orders of the chief, who in- stead question the dictate of authority where and when it conflicts with the facts, are the differ- ence that separates us from a past and a future of authoritarian autocratic dictatorship. Let us support, not demonized such skeptical inquiry. ************************************************************************ IAN GODDARD Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard ________________________________________________________________________ (c) 1996 Ian Williams Goddard - (*) free to copy nonprofit w/ attribute. TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: Salinger Document NOT ANNONYMOUS (fwd) Date: 20 Nov 1996 19:38:56 -0800 (PST) Jeez Ian, is somebody sneaking into your account or something? 'Cause it -looks- like you just sent a post to ROC that quotes the Workers World News Service. The Workers World News Service (09/19/96) reported that many TWA and airport workers, based on their inside knowledge, find the Navy guilty of the TWA 800 disaster. Nah, I'm sure you wouldnt do that. Better double check your account security and change the ol' password -; ) Boyd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: High Court Says etc. Date: 20 Nov 1996 23:05:53 -0500 "E. J. Totty" writes: >>Congress had damn well better tell that panel of idiots to get a High School GED or some other form of recognized E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, or more of the above is going to be the norm. How _anyone_ can read the 4th Article of amendment, and presume to prevaricate about its content and meaning to mean anything but what is said in _plain english_, is the worst form of deception. This country is heading at high speed towards another revolution.<< Sorry Ed, I tend to disagree. What Congress should do is pass some laws requiring mandatory, substantive education so that bonehead druggies with dope in their car don't do stupid things like this. I have my doubts that Mr. Robinette had any idea what the Fourth Amendment contained. Bet he does now. We used to call this the school of hard knocks. Education can tend to be expensive.. What this country is headed for is an entire society afflicted with ossification of the intellect due to Outcome Based Education and too many evenings tokin on a number and watching Roseanne. That dude should have listened to Nancy Reagan and "Just Said No" TWICE. Regards, Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo Subject: Re: (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of the Date: 20 Nov 1996 20:47:27 -0800 (PST) At 02:46 PM 11/20/96 -0500, you wrote: > > Hmmmmm. Interesting one. I remember reading on the net a > description of the various states one may be in when under > police scrutiny: > > just talking, being detained, and under arrest. > > I'm no expert but this seems to be a pretty narrow case, in that > the driver had just gone from being detained (while he was pulled > over and the warning issued) to "just talking" and he then > gave permission for a search. > > One magic word: No, as in, "no you may not search my car". > > One magic phrase: "Am I being detained?" If the answer is > no, and you have your liscense back, drive off. > > Just be careful that the magic phrase "Am I being detained" doesn't > push you over into: "you're under arrest". Cause the guy can then > search your person, and tow your car. If you do have contraband on > board, then a drug dog could give probable cause for a legal > search. > > It seems to me that one has to know how to say no. As in, "No, you > can't come in my house" and "No, you can't search my car". > > Be polite, it probably helps. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > While I feel for the driver involved in this case, he is a perfect example of the brainwashed, public-school trained, "Cops" watchin' public's understanding of the Constitution. One should NEVER expect the cops to know the constitution, but you should know it yourself. As jcurtis says above, a simple "no" would have saved him a trip to the supreme court -- and, if he'd stuck to his guns and not caved when the cop tried to tell him "i'll just get a warrant," probably would never have been arrested at all. S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of the Law (fwd) Date: 21 Nov 1996 07:35:47 -0500 (EST) On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, John Curtis wrote: > > Hmmmmm. Interesting one. I remember reading on the net a > description of the various states one may be in when under > police scrutiny: > > just talking, being detained, and under arrest. > > I'm no expert but this seems to be a pretty narrow case, in that > the driver had just gone from being detained (while he was pulled > over and the warning issued) to "just talking" and he then > gave permission for a search. > > One magic word: No, as in, "no you may not search my car". > > One magic phrase: "Am I being detained?" If the answer is > no, and you have your liscense back, drive off. > > Just be careful that the magic phrase "Am I being detained" doesn't > push you over into: "you're under arrest". Cause the guy can then > search your person, and tow your car. If you do have contraband on > board, then a drug dog could give probable cause for a legal > search. > > It seems to me that one has to know how to say no. As in, "No, you > can't come in my house" and "No, you can't search my car". I can't comment on how things go when the jackbooted thugs come to your door but I have personal experience about cars. Practically speaking, they can stop and search your car anytime they please. Around here, they have substituted a dog for a judge in authorizing car searches (Nice substitution: saves money and the dog may be smarter.) They stop you and ask for permission to search. If you decline, they bring out a dog who "detects" drugs on command. The jackboots regard that as "reasonable suspicion" and search away. > > Be polite, it probably helps. > It will help you keep your teeth. bd > ciao, > > jcurtis > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Salinger Document NOT ANNONYMOUS (fwd) Date: 21 Nov 1996 08:03:51 -0500 (EST) What's wrong with quoting WWNS? 1. They don't make up their facts and their opinions are pretty easily identified and disregarded. 2. They're pro-rkba, amazingly enough. bd On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, boydk wrote: > Jeez Ian, is somebody sneaking into your account or something? 'Cause it > -looks- like you just sent a post to ROC that quotes the Workers World > News Service. > The Workers World News Service (09/19/96) reported that > many TWA and airport workers, based on their inside > knowledge, find the Navy guilty of the TWA 800 disaster. > Nah, I'm sure you wouldnt do that. Better double check your account > security and change the ol' password -; ) > Boyd > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Who Were Those People, Anyhow? (Part 20, WHEM) (fwd) Date: 21 Nov 1996 07:58:20 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Text Excerpt 20, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum Entire html text of the Museum currently available at home.overthe.net/pub/showtime/wm1-1f01.zip. Excerpted by Carol Valentine from http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum. Images omitted. Who Were Those People, Anyhow? [Image of small skull with Star of David in foreground. Caption reads: Who was this child? Mt. Carmel Doe 51A has never been identified.] We have just seen that many bodies were either incinerated or dismembered, making identification of the corpses questionable. But the identity of the players in Waco has always been shrouded in mystery. Just about the first action of any public agency called to handle a disaster scene -- a hostage situation, a hotel fire, a cave-in, a structural collapse, etc., is to get a head-count of the people involved. Such a list should not have been too difficult for the FBI to come up with. The Branch Davidians who left Mt. Carmel during the siege should have been able to tell the FBI who was still inside. After all, according the Texas Ranger Alan Byrnes, each of the Davidians who left during the siege was immediately "interviewed" by the HRT. (See "Veracity of Branch Davidian Statements" in the Sources of Information section at Musuem Entrance). But the numbers and names of people inside the Mt. Carmel Center at the time of the raid and the fire shifted with the wind, inexplicably. We have already glimpsed of some reasons for the mystery in Trojan Horses and Branch Davidians in the War Gallery. The Treasury Report ("Activity In The Compound", pg. 92) hints that some former "cult" members lived in the Mt. Carmel Center posing as devout Branch Davidians but functioning as informants for the government. After all, the Waco operation was called Operation Trojan Horse, was it not? We have also seen from the London Times article that deep cover intelligence agents were in Mt. Carmel prior to the February 28 assault changing the receivers of telephones into listening devices and inserting fiber-optic surveillance devices into the walls. From the remarks below, made by Capt. Alan Byrnes, we may infer the Texas Rangers also had intelligence agents inside. Some of the "Branch Davidians" then, were not really Branch Davidians. The names of these government agents have never been released. During the 1994 San Antonio trial of the Branch Davidians, Texas Ranger Capt. Alan Byrnes, who was in charge of the Mt. Carmel crime scene, was questioned by government prosecutor Ray Jahn about plans the Texas Rangers made to execute a search warrant of the Mt. Carmel Center early in March, when it was thought the Davidians would leave their home: Texas Ranger Capt. Alan Byrnes: Well, of course, we tried to estimate how many people we thought were in the structure there and tried to make that on an estimate. The best we could get was about a hundred people, and we started making plans to process a hundred people when they came out . . . (Transcript, pgs. 604, 605). Byrnes was questioned by defense lawyer Doug Tinker about the number of people the Texas Rangers thought would be coming out (before the fire): Doug Tinker: Did you have information--and I'm not offering it for the truth, you know, that it was accurate information--but did you have information concerning what the make-up of those people would be, whether they would be young, old, middle-aged, male or female? Texas Ranger Capt. Alan Byrnes: There were several different make-ups that we were given possibilities. One -- one problem that we had was that there was some belief that our definition of adult was different from the definition of the people inside that were giving some of the information. So, I think at one time we thought it was going to be like 50/50 male/female and then 75/25 female and male. It was -- it just varied. We had a rough count of about a hundred people in there, the best we could calculate. (Transcript, pgs. 637, 638) Who were the "people inside that were giving some of the information"? Maybe their definition of "adult" was different from the Texas Rangers, but arguably the difference would only be three years--the residents would be younger than 21 or younger than 18. No problem. But why should there be any doubt about the male/female breakdown? What was going on? Defense attorney Dan Cogdell also cross-examined Capt. Byrnes. Byrnes admitted that from March 2, 1993 there never was any intention to let any of the Davidians simply leave: Texas Rangers were going to arrest anyone who came out. Asked if he was given a list of persons to be "processed," he answered evasively: Texas Ranger Capt. Alan Byrnes: We had, you know, some indication of who was in there, I don't think anyone had a complete list. Dan Cogdell: The indication, Captain, that you had, was it reduced to writing? Was there some list, however complete or incomplete, that showed who you intended to take into custody back on March 2nd, 1993? Texas Ranger Capt. Alan Byrnes: Well, there wasn't a list as such, there was a list of I assume, the people in there. I don't have that list, I've never, I don't guess, seen a list. I was told someone probably had a list. (Transcript, pg. 661) Defense lawyer Mike DeGeurin cross-examining, asked if Capt. Byrnes had been given a list of the people still in the center. Again Byrnes bobs and weaves concerning who was there: Texas Ranger Capt. Alan Byrnes: Yes, we were given a compilation of people, and it was derived from various sources. One of those sources was ATF. Mike DeGeurin: Okay. What I'd like to know--and you'd know and I can't think of anybody else that would--was there a compilation of who the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents thought were inside, compared to the separate list of who you and maybe the FBI had decided who was inside--separate lists? Texas Ranger Capt. Alan Byrnes: I suppose there was. I don't recall seeing that separate. All of the information was lumped together, Mr. DeGeurin, and-- and -- Mike DeGeurin: By the time you got involved, it was lumped together? Texas Ranger Capt. Alan Byrnes: Well, later on, because the information--I think the information was derived from information that the ATF had, information the FBI had and probably from information that our criminal intelligence people had and, then, probably from people who had been formerly in the compound. But I -- so, there was-- that was one reason there was so much, I guess, unsureness about how many people were actually in there. (Transcript, pg. 676) Throughout the above testimony, Capt. Byrnes showed himself to be a devious, evasive witness. Yet he was not called on it; he was not compelled to answer the questions. Why would the question of a list of names of the Branch Davidians provoke such devious responses? Here the picture paints itself more clearly. It is possible that some of the agents posing as Davidians (the "Trojan Horses"?) were inside the Mt. Carmel Center, left on April 19, and in their place, incinerated and dismembered bodies were substituted. The substituted bodies were then found along with the incinerated and dismembered bodies of the real Branch Davidians who were murdered, and the local stooges (the Texas Rangers and the Tarrant County medical examiners office) accepted both sets as belonging to the same population. Next: Argentina Moves to North America http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum or http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum SkyWriter@Public-Action.com Postal Address: Carol A. Valentine, Public Action, Inc., PO Box 10933, Burke, VA 22009 Copyright 1996 by Carol A. Valentine, on loan to Public Action, Inc. All commercial rights are reserved. Full statement of terms and conditions for copying and redistribution is available in the library. "Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum," "SkyWriter," and the skywriting logo are trademarks of Public Action Inc. Carol A. Valentine President Public Action, Inc. ________________________________________________ TERRORISM: The use of terror, violence, and intimidation to achieve an end. A system of government that uses terror to rule. (American Heritage Dictionary, 1976) Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum http://www.Public-Action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum | NOW-- WHO ARE THE *REAL* TERRORISTS??? ________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nra@arakis.sugar-river.net (Peter Gamble) Subject: Re: piml] (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of the Law (fwd) Date: 21 Nov 1996 11:11:42 -0500 > Paul, > > >>>>>>> > The 8-1 ruling written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist underscored >the high court's recent trend to interpret narrowly the Constitution's Fourth >Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence. > <<<<<<< > > > The pigs, the friggin FASCIST pigs! > > Congress had damn well better tell that panel of idiots to get a >High School GED or some other form of recognized E-D-U-C-A-T-I-O-N, or more >of the above is going to be the norm. > > How _anyone_ can read the 4th Article of amendment, and presume to >prevaricate about its content and meaning to mean anything but what is said >in _plain english_, is the worst form of deception. > > This country is heading at high speed towards another revolution. > >Ed What good would another revolution do? We'd kill/maim each other, take property & prisoners etc. to no avail; the basards on top would be replaced as soon as the old guard gets dusted. They'd get rich off the war, it would be another way for them to do business. Say you had a list of every primary target that was evil & unAmerican; say you engaged every target on that 20 page list. Things would stir up for a little while but after that we'd be back to the coward/slave nation that leaders now promote. Get in line? For what? If you've got some answers on how to restore the constitution I'd love to hear 'em. -Pete A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still. A lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and a truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: A Poem Date: 21 Nov 1996 08:27:16 -0800 From netland somewhere... > Listen my children and you shall hear > Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere. > To arms! To arms! To spades and hoes?!? > Bury all your guns, before the king knows! > > Imagine the redcoats, thrilled with delight- > Not one colonist stood ready to fight. > Lexington and Concord were burned to the ground; > Crackling flames, the only heard sound. > > More taxes were levied, more rights denied; > for lack of arms, patriots died. > So listen my children, and you SHALL hear- > No country was born, only suffereing and fear. > > If tyranny you want, then bury and pray > For the speedy arrival of that *brighter day.* > But- if Liberty you love, and you yearn to be free- > Live by this motto: DON'T TREAD ON ME! > > No man escapes when freedom fails- > The best men rot in filthy jails. > And those who cry *Appease! Appease!* > Are hung by those they tried to please. - 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: How to Restore the Constitution Date: 21 Nov 1996 11:58:09 -0500 Wow, what an arrogant Subject line! My answer: 1. Make the ordinary courts work better. 2. Slap the intelligence community silly. 3. Launch more education on the 2nd amendment. 4. Require Constitutional justification of *every* new piece of Federal legislation. 1. The ordinary courts are horrible. They're expensive, they punish the innocent and release the guilty, when they're not plea bargaining down to nothing. Make the whole damn loop a *lot* faster, without screwing with rules of evidence or Constitutional protections. The way it currently works is bad, because it forces legislation of *bad* fixes: a. Fix A - since convictions are few and far between and plea bargains the rule, when you do nail somebody who definitely did the crime, then impose a mandatory, extremely harsh, sentence. This is a bad fix. Its much better to efficiently convict those who need convicting to reasonable sentences, where the Judge has reasonable flexibility. Remember those English judges weeping on the bench as they sentenced petty thieves to hang? (it was a great relief to transport them to Australia instead). b. Fix B - since the Courts are slow and inefficient, legislate a lot of intrusions on the BOR, like the recent Crime Bill's habeus corpus stuff. Another horrible fix. Make the whole system more efficient, so that frustration doesn't force all kinds of tossing out of Constitutional guarantees. 2. Slap the intelligence community silly. These guys are definitely due to get slapped. Drop the damn encryption export prohibitions, examine all the Cold War failures as well as successes and have another one of those periodic 3. Launch more education on the 2nd amendment. The entire establishment media is working against us, on this one. With England, Canada, and Australia gone, we need to make the strong case for American exceptionalism. 4. Require Constitutional justification of *every* new piece of Federal legislation. This is radical fruitcake today, but could be reality in two years. Remember the Buchanan fence? A right-wing farce one year and a reality two years later. These justifications would be great news and propaganda fodder, couldn't imagine anything more amazing than Congressmen forced to read the Constitution to justify their laws. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: piml] Re: (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of Date: 21 Nov 1996 09:42:05 -0800 David, >>>>>>> Sorry, Ed, but the Court's right. Was the search a dirty trick? Assuredly, yes. Was it in violation of the law (the only test that metters)? No, both in spirit and in letter of the Constitution. <<<<<<< Well, let's see. The following was kindly posted by Robert D Baker : "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." Now, just where does it state that a cop may conduct a search without a warrant and probable cause? You must remember 'hot persuit' was not involved, and therefore was not available as a reason to search. Merely being detained (seized - in the parlance of the Court) because of a mere and minor infraction of a law (moving violation - in the traffic cop parlance), does not equate to allowing a cop to consider searching one's 'effects', unless there is suitable visible evidence or _reasonable suspicion_ that a crime is being enacted or that the person being detained is connected to a crime. In my estimation - for whatever that may be worth, the cop was wrong to ask, and the Court compounded that wrong by allowing it to continue. It wasn't a dirty trick, David, it was a violation of the ethics (spirit) of the law. It was a violation of the letter of the law in the sense that there was (by what evidence is available as to the case) not one reason for the cop to have _any_ suspicion of wrong doing on the part of the detained. Otherwise, the cops will be able to do a full body cavity check - in broad daylight, on Main Street USA, in full view of the passing public and foreign visitors - merely by asking to do so, and receiving acquiescence from a 'dumb citizen' - for whatever idiotic reason is tendered. COP: Okay, lady! We caught ya 'jay walking'! You know the law - up against the wall! Citizen: But Officer, the closest crosswalk is a mile away! COP: No excuses! Buy the way, Ma'am, may we conduct a full body and cavity check? Citizen: Why? I don't have anything illegal! COP: Good! Then you'll have nothing to hide! Do we have your permission? Citizen: Well, uh, I guess. Okay. It is no stretch of the imagination that the above will be allowed and soon, based on that decision. Oh, and one other thing, David. About the Court's decision concerning 'permission to leave', what would you like to bet, that some cop having a 'bad hair day', will not indicate to a detainee, that they do not have permision to leave from a scene, and then depart themselves just to entrap that person? In other words, the cop leaves without 'giving permission' (keeriiist!!), and the person who was detained, thinks it is now proper to exit, and upon doing so is cited for departing the scene unlawfully? I'm _sure_ you get my drift here. COP: Okay, Ma'am, you may put yer clothes back on. Citizen: Thank you, Officer, you're sooo kind! (Then the cops leave) Citizen lady, who thinks all is okay with the world, sees the cops leaving, and upon rearranging her clothing, departs in the opposite direction - without having been given permission to leave. The cops - having had a bad hair day (she wasn't a natural blond afterall!), turn and run back to detain citizen Lady once again - for illegally leaving the scene of the crime! The SC is legislating again. They aught be arrested - every damed last one of them, and jailed for _life_, the term of their office. Ed Who knows how to read - and interpret the constructs, of plain and simple English Language. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: piml] Re: (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of the Law (fwd) Date: 21 Nov 1996 11:34:30 -0800 (PST) David's post didnt make it to my site so I'm really pretty much replying to his words here. BK On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, E. J. Totty wrote: > David, > > >>>>>>> > Sorry, Ed, but the Court's right. Was the search a dirty trick? > Assuredly, yes. Was it in violation of the law (the only test that > metters)? No, both in spirit and in letter of the Constitution. > <<<<<<< > > Well, let's see. > The following was kindly posted by Robert D Baker > : text of 4th amend snipped > > Now, just where does it state that a cop may conduct a search > without a warrant and probable cause? Good argument Ed, but I really don't think it even has to be -this- complicated. Ethical matters, properly diagnosed, are as simple as dirt (well, okay dirt is complicated but you know what I mean). David agrees that what happened was "sneaky". So, the Right question isn't was this a violation of the constitution (clearly, violating the constitution means nothing to most people right now, I'm assuming those on roc are in agreement on this). The question properly put is: Is it Right to use "sneaky" means to acheive good. More succinctly, do the ends justify the means? The answer is NO. A society that must make Right by practicing Wrong has deep problems. -Boyd (No one else should be held accountable for the opinions I express) > Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: piml] Re: (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of Date: 21 Nov 1996 14:56:51 -0500 > > Now, just where does it state that a cop may conduct a search >without a warrant and probable cause? Hey, hey - the cop asked permission to search the car. The guy driving the car said "Yes". Does the Constitution mean that I can't search my sock drawer for a matching tan sock, without getting a warrent, or swearing an affadavit that I believe the tan socks are in there? No! The cop asked "can I search your car" and the guy said "Yes". > You must remember 'hot persuit' was not involved, and therefore was >not available as a reason to search. > Merely being detained (seized - in the parlance of the Court) >because of a mere and minor infraction of a law (moving violation - in the >traffic cop parlance), does not equate to allowing a cop to consider >searching one's 'effects', unless there is suitable visible evidence or >_reasonable suspicion_ that a crime is being enacted or that the person >being detained is connected to a crime. The GUY SAID YES! READ THE SUMMARY IN THE ORIGINAL PO>ST! > In my estimation - for whatever that may be worth, the cop was >wrong to ask, and the Court compounded that wrong by allowing it to >continue. If cops can't ask questions and permission to search premises, then they can't function!!. Citizens can say: "I'm sorry thats my personal business." and "No, you can't search my car." > It wasn't a dirty trick, David, it was a violation of the ethics >(spirit) of the law. > If you can't stand up to a cop and say "No". when he/she attempts to step on your rights, then you what the Constitution says means nothing. When a cop stops me, guess what: He works for Me. I'm sovereign. He's got rules limiting his behaviour. Beyond nonviolence and basic duties of citizenship, I don't have many rules governing mine. I can say "No". I tend to have a fairly messy car, cause its just my personal commuter-mobile. I've had cops on two occassions advise me not to have: a long walking stick, and a hammer in view in the car, as this would give pretext for a search as a weapon. Cops know the rules. Bad cops probably break them semi-regularly. Now, the good faith provision in the fucking Crime Bill, that is a real problem, as are the habeus corpus provisions. This thing is a no op. (i.e. meaningless). The stupid amphetamine carrying guy should have said "No". ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: piml] Re: (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of Date: 21 Nov 1996 15:01:53 -0800 John, Please see my next reply to David. That should clear things up a bit. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: Re: piml] Re: (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of Date: 21 Nov 1996 17:00:29 -0900 E. J. Totty wrote: > > David, > > >>>>>>> > Sorry, Ed, but the Court's right. Was the search a dirty trick? > Assuredly, yes. Was it in violation of the law (the only test that > metters)? No, both in spirit and in letter of the Constitution. > <<<<<<< > > Well, let's see. > The following was kindly posted by Robert D Baker > : > > "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." > > Now, just where does it state that a cop may conduct a search > without a warrant and probable cause? > You must remember 'hot persuit' was not involved, and therefore was > not available as a reason to search. > Merely being detained (seized - in the parlance of the Court) > because of a mere and minor infraction of a law (moving violation - in the > traffic cop parlance), does not equate to allowing a cop to consider > searching one's 'effects', unless there is suitable visible evidence or > _reasonable suspicion_ that a crime is being enacted or that the person > being detained is connected to a crime. > > In my estimation - for whatever that may be worth, the cop was > wrong to ask, and the Court compounded that wrong by allowing it to > continue. > It wasn't a dirty trick, David, it was a violation of the ethics > (spirit) of the law. > It was a violation of the letter of the law in the sense that there > was (by what evidence is available as to the case) not one reason for the > cop to have _any_ suspicion of wrong doing on the part of the detained. > > Otherwise, the cops will be able to do a full body cavity check - > in broad daylight, on Main Street USA, in full view of the passing public > and foreign visitors - merely by asking to do so, and receiving > acquiescence from a 'dumb citizen' - for whatever idiotic reason is > tendered. > > COP: Okay, lady! We caught ya 'jay walking'! You know the law - up > against the wall! > > Citizen: But Officer, the closest crosswalk is a mile away! > > COP: No excuses! Buy the way, Ma'am, may we conduct a full body and > cavity check? > > Citizen: Why? I don't have anything illegal! > > COP: Good! Then you'll have nothing to hide! Do we have your permission? > > Citizen: Well, uh, I guess. Okay. > > It is no stretch of the imagination that the above will be allowed > and soon, based on that decision. > > Oh, and one other thing, David. > About the Court's decision concerning 'permission to leave', what > would you like to bet, that some cop having a 'bad hair day', will not > indicate to a detainee, that they do not have permision to leave from a > scene, and then depart themselves just to entrap that person? > In other words, the cop leaves without 'giving permission' > (keeriiist!!), and the person who was detained, thinks it is now proper to > exit, and upon doing so is cited for departing the scene unlawfully? > I'm _sure_ you get my drift here. > > COP: Okay, Ma'am, you may put yer clothes back on. > > Citizen: Thank you, Officer, you're sooo kind! > > (Then the cops leave) > Citizen lady, who thinks all is okay with the world, sees the cops > leaving, and upon rearranging her clothing, departs in the opposite > direction - without having been given permission to leave. > The cops - having had a bad hair day (she wasn't a natural blond > afterall!), turn and run back to detain citizen Lady once again - for > illegally leaving the scene of the crime! > > The SC is legislating again. > They aught be arrested - every damed last one of them, and jailed > for _life_, the term of their office. > > Ed > Who knows how to read - and interpret the constructs, of plain and simple > English Language. A conservative interpretation of the Constitution would always construe powers granted to gov most narrowly, and rights acknowledged to citizens most broadly. Any other system is unstable, i.e. the power of the gov compounds, leads to tyranny, and then to revolution. We are, IMHO, well along the compounding game, and are seeing the gov seize ever-large slices of the citizens' rights. Tyranny is nigh. Lew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: Re: piml] Re: (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of the Law (fwd) Date: 21 Nov 1996 17:09:24 -0900 boydk wrote: > > David's post didnt make it to my site so I'm really pretty much replying > to his words here. BK > On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, E. J. Totty wrote: > > David, > > > > >>>>>>> > > Sorry, Ed, but the Court's right. Was the search a dirty trick? > > Assuredly, yes. Was it in violation of the law (the only test that > > metters)? No, both in spirit and in letter of the Constitution. > > <<<<<<< > > > > Well, let's see. > > The following was kindly posted by Robert D Baker > > : > text of 4th amend snipped > > > > Now, just where does it state that a cop may conduct a search > > without a warrant and probable cause? > > Good argument Ed, but I really don't think it even has to be -this- > complicated. Ethical matters, properly diagnosed, are as simple as dirt > (well, okay dirt is complicated but you know what I mean). David agrees > that what happened was "sneaky". > So, the Right question isn't was this a violation of the constitution > (clearly, violating the constitution means nothing to most people right > now, I'm assuming those on roc are in agreement on this). The question > properly put is: Is it Right to use "sneaky" means to acheive good. More > succinctly, do the ends justify the means? The answer is NO. > A society that must make Right by practicing Wrong has deep problems. > -Boyd (No one else should be held accountable for the opinions I express) > > > Ed Agreed: The allied question is "How do we want our police to be regarded by the populace?" Allowing them to be sneaky leads to us regarding them as sneaky, and the downward spiral begins. Has begun long ago, I think. In my view, we should radically simplify the law, disarm the police, keep a few as trainers for citizens, a few more to act as a civil order priesthood, elevate their social status to the max, and then have they rely entirely upon citizens for implementing anything which required force. This is a more stable state, by far, than the one we have. Lew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 71 (fwd) Date: 22 Nov 1996 07:44:49 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The following is brought to you thanks, in part, to the kind assistance of CyberNews and the fine folks at Cornell University. Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 71 ====================================== ("Quid coniuratio est?") TWA 800: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED? ============================== The Government Rumor Mill Cranks Up (RMNews Agency, Sept. 5, 1996) [...continued...] -+- The Pieces Fit Together -+- The story given to RMNews by the Euro Station Chief allows us to separate the wheat from the chaff and the rumor from reality. One of the earliest reports filed by RMNews was of the Air Force plane that was dropping Willy Peter [flares]. Since our source for that story knew that Willy Peter was seen around Flight 800, it seemed logical to assume that it came from the National Guard plane that was flying maneuvers in the area. And our logical conclusion was that the government knew a missile attack was possible, and was dropping Willy Peter to attract heat-seeking missiles. None of our American sources were familiar with double-headed Sledgehammer missiles, therefore it never would have occurred to them that the Willy Peter was in the missile. As they scrambled to make the early Euro info fit in with their info, there were many misinterpreted bits of information. The moment the name of the missile was supplied to us by our European station chiefs, our American sources misinterpreted the information and thought the missile came from Operation Sledgehammer armament stores. The unedited story supplied by our Euro Chief should have cleared up all accidental rumors put out by our sources. When a story as monumental as this one crosses our desk, there will be minor mistakes in our rush to get to print. The main point we made in our TWA 800 issue was that the airliner was brought down by a missile. On that score, we were on target. Other RMNews sources have reported that the missile casing was found on the shore, and it was a missile whose serial number matched one from National Guard armories. This piece of information fits in with the disinformation story put out that the missile was part of a National Guard training mission. Can you begin to understand how clever pieces of disinformation are sprinkled into a story to keep the truth from ever being known? The missile did come from a National Guard Armory, but it was stolen from there over 20 years ago. It was not a missile that was part of a training exercise that supposedly was going on at the time TWA 800 was destroyed. Another rumor that was circulating at the time Flight 800 was downed was that Henry Kissinger was on board. After running the European Station Chief's story past several of our American sources, they felt that Kissinger being on board would explain how the government tricked a home grown terrorist group into downing that particular plane. Kissinger is hated by almost every underground faction. Some see him as the man who sacrificed the POWs from Viet Nam. Others see him as the obedient servant of the international bankers who own the Federal Reserve. He is definitely part of the ruling elite, and in many eyes, that is enough to make him a target. It is only speculation as to how the underground terrorist cell was convinced to attack TWA 800, but if they had been told Kissinger was on board, that might explain how they were convinced to fire on Flight 800. For all we know, the New World Order elite sacrificed Kissinger. {1}. It is possible that he really was on board. Pieces of the disinformation story that circulated over the weekend report that the landing lights of TWA 800 were on, making it a perfect target. Our European source has told us that 4 to 5 Sledgehammers were fired, only one hit the plane. Sledgehammers are not heat-seeking missiles. They have to be aimed accurately. This is why all four engines were brought up intact. This also fits with the disinformation story that a Navy [cruiser] fired on the airliner. -+- Tailhook II? -+- Why would the White House want to blame the Navy? The answer to this question goes back to the death of CNO Jeremy Boorda. Forget all the crap which was circulated about Admiral Boorda's medals. His death was not a suicide and it had nothing whatsoever to do with his combat medals. Admiral Boorda was a lapdog of the New World Order. He was killed to send a message to President Clinton. Clinton had appointed Boorda as Chief of Naval Operations in order to further demoralize and destroy the Navy. The Navy harbors the American resistance force to the New World Order. This is identical to the resistance force that battled Adolph Hitler. Admiral Wilhelm Canaris headed the German Abwehr, the German WWII version of the CIA. It was the Abwehr that conspired to assassinate Hitler. The German Navy, especially the U-Boat captains, were loyal to Canaris, who was the real head of the Navy, while he ran German intelligence. The same pattern of resistance is being carried on in today's Navy. Operation Tailhook was created by the denizens of the NWO to ferret out all independent thinking, loyal American Naval officers. The most independent and brazen Naval officers are the Top Jock Flyboy Aviators who land on floating football fields. Representative Patricia Schroeder (D., Colorado) was given the job of bringing down the Flyboys. It was easy to do this. The Navy has a long history of crude, vulgar and disgusting stag parties. All Miss Schroeder had to do was wait for her marching orders to be given, and she could find dozens of parties where Naval Officers have behaved in a manner unbecoming to an officer and a gentleman. Every Naval officer has attended such parties. Their existence is legion! But her orders were to destroy the morale of the Navy, and to do this she had to attack the pride of the Navy... Naval aviators. Her Tailhook attack is history now. She ruined the careers of thousands of Naval officers. The elite aviators are history. The heroes of the Navy were brought down. This current attack on the Navy is the first part of a two prong attack which will eventually end up targeting the Navy Submarine corps. While the flyboys of the Navy may be the handsome, dashing officers that movies are made about, the brains of the Navy is in the Submarine Corps. No one ever hears about the submariners. They run silent and deep. In other words, they do not brag about their activities and they keep their thoughts and plans private. Just as the German submarine force backed Admiral Canaris and his resistance movement, so too does the American submarine force harbor the American resistance to the New World Order... which is made up of the same groups and families that financially backed Adolph Hitler. {2}. The American resistance movement is hidden in the Navy and based on the floor of the ocean. The first prong of the disinformation attack has accused a Navy [cruiser] of firing the missile. When a top secret Congressional and military review panel concludes that all missiles on Aegis class [cruisers] are accounted for, then the investigation will turn to the submarine fleet. As usual, submariners will delay giving any information to Congress or the President. The longer they delay, the more the disinformation and rumors will circulate. Eventually the White House rumor mill will have circulated so much disinformation that it will eventually seep into the mainstream media. When it does, the Navy submarine corps will have to surface and face Congressional inquiry. Those who aren't forced to resign will have their careers ended in other ways... accidents and being passed over for promotion are two that come to mind. {3} ---------------------------<< Notes >>--------------------------- {1} At this point it is doubtful that Kissinger was onboard TWA Flight 800. However as a means to motivate a terrorist group to attack the flight, by telling them (erroneously) that Kissinger would be onboard, the story is plausible. {2} "...the New World Order... which is made up of the same groups and families that financially backed Adolph Hitler." For more on the Nazi roots of the "New World Order," see the December 1996 issue of the Conspiracy Nation newsletter. For info on how to get the newsletter, send e-mail to bigred@shout.net {3} Because Rumor Mill News is not widely available, I am providing information on how to order the latest issue by mail. Note that I have no financial benefit in offering this information. *caveat emptor*. Send $5, and basic info such as an address to send to, to RMNews Agency PO Box 1784 Aptos, CA 95001-1784 Or phone (408) 699-4135 for more info. Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Conspiracy Nation, nor of its Editor in Chief. I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation." If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1") For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom See also: http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html See also: ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: LFB Book News: SEXUAL CORRECTNESS (fwd) Date: 22 Nov 1996 08:20:26 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dramatic counter-attack against bizarre "gender feminists" who are trashing individual rights SEXUAL CORRECTNESS The Gender-Feminist Attack on Women by Wendy McElroy (reviewed by Jim Powell) For two centuries, women have worked to fulfill an individualist dream--self-ownership, freedom of contract, equal rights and the right to vote. Now, incredibly, some politically correct "gender feminists" like Kate Millett, Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin, and Catherine McKinnon vehemently attack capitalism as they demand that women become dependent on an all-powerful state. They claim women are hopeless victims who must not be permitted to make choices about sex, careers, marriage and children. Now comes McElroy who exposes all this as the latest collectivist twaddle, class warfare in drag. For instance, by promoting laws which deny women responsibility for their choices, such as whether to become intimate with a particular man, these "gender feminists" would effectively go back to the dark days when women had no standing in the legal system. McElroy ridicules the insidious doctrine of "date rape." She goes on to denounce "gender feminists" who attack freedom of speech and freedom of contract, while demanding that government enforce preferential treatment. McElroy insists women should be free to make choices for their lives, even in the most controversial situations--such as whether to become a prostitute, a surrogate mother, a nude model or a wife. She explains why women are best protected by open markets and the enforcement of laws against coercion. McElroy is eloquent in her defense of individualism. "Every human being has moral jurisdiction over his or her own body," she declares. "Women, as human beings, have exactly the same rights and political interests as men do. The right is self-ownership; the political interest is freedom. And the most fundamental of these shared rights is the ability to control one's own body and peaceful actions. To claim that someone else has jurisdiction over one's body is to argue for slavery. The goal of self-ownership is equality under laws that embody individual rights." Against the dreary dogma of sexual warfare, McElroy offers a refreshing vision of mutual fulfillment for both women and men. SEXUAL CORRECTNESS FM7143 (hardcover) 190p. List price: $28.50 OUR PRICE ONLY $24.95 Please send this to anyone who you think might be interested To order SEXUAL CORRECTNESS from Laissez Faire Books . . . BY EMAIL: Address email orders to Sarah at orders@LFB.org. If you have ordered from us before, include your name and zip code (or postal code), and we will process your order using the information we have on file. If you have not ordered from us before, we will need your name, address, and credit card number (including expiration date). If you prefer not to send this information over the Internet, please write, telephone, or fax us with this information before emailing your order. PGP encrypted mail is accepted; email Russell@LFB.org or finger lfb@lfb.org for our public key. BY MAIL: Write to Laissez Faire Books, Dept L50, 938 Howard St., Ste. 202, San Francisco, CA 94103-4114, USA. BY PHONE: Call toll free 1-800-326-0996 (US and Canada) or dial (415) 541-9780. Customer service representatives are available between 9am and 6pm PACIFIC TIME. BY FAX: Fax us at (415) 541-0597. PAYMENT: Make a check or money order payable to Laissez Faire Books, or pay by credit card. (We accept Visa, Mastercard, and Discover.) California residents must include sales tax. (To learn the sales tax rate for your county, contact Laissez Faire Books or point your web browser to http://www.boe.ca.gov/boe/tsutr.htm.) SHIPPING & HANDLING: Standard US mail (1-3 weeks) is $3.25. (International customers: Surface mail is $3.75.) Contact us for other shipping options. If you'd like to receive our free monthly printed booklist, or if you'd like to receive Book News announcements via email, or if you have any other questions or comments, please let me know. Visit our web pages at http://www.lfb.org/ Russell Hanneken Laissez Faire Books Russell@LFB.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Media Bypass - Executive Order Gives Feds New Powers (fwd) Date: 22 Nov 1996 08:28:07 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >=20 > EO 13011 Appears Innocous but Look Closely >=20 > Executive Order Gives > Feds New Powers >=20 > By Berit Kjos >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- >=20 > President Clinton has signed Executive Order #13011, creating weighty > new layers of bureaucracy with authority to manage "Federal Information > Technology" and give executive agencies power to (1) propagandize the pub= lic > by disseminating politically correct information everywhere and (2) contr= ol > people through a federal data tracking and monitoring system. >=20 > Yet, at first glance, the new executive order sounds practical enough= to > silence most critics. Section One begins, "It shall be the policy of the > United States Government that executive agencies shall: >=20 > a. significantly improve the management of their information systems .= .. > b. refocus information technology management to support ... strategic > missions ... > c. establish clear accountability for information resources management > activities by creating agency Chief Information Officers (CIOs) ... > d. ... promote a coordinated, interoperable, secure, and shared > Governmentwide infrastructure that is provided and supported by a > diversity of private sector suppliers ..." >=20 > The CIOs are selected by the heads of participating executive agencie= s. > These include most of the agencies represented in the President's Commiss= ion > on Critical Infrastructure Protection (Executive Order 13010): the CIA, > FEMA, FBI as well as the Departments of Defense, Commerce, Transportation= , > Energy, etc. >=20 > Executive Order 13011 expands that network by adding the EPA > (Environmental Protection Agency), the Departments of Interior, Education= , > Health and Human Services, Labor, Housing & Urban Development (HUD), Army= , > Navy and Air Force along with NASA, the Agency for International Developm= ent > (AID), and others. >=20 > To grasp the extent of its reach, remember the controversial "Careers > Act" (HR 1617) attempts to link only three agencies; the Departments of > Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, in an effort to create a > national employment agency and a "National Electronic Data Base," part of= a > massive "National Labor Market Information System." >=20 > The Chief Information Officers make up the CIO Council, which shall > "develop ... federal information technology management policy" and "spons= or > cooperation in using information resources, procedures, and standards ...= " > It still sounds like good business practice, doesn't it? >=20 > Section Four establishes Government Information Technology Services t= hat > en_courages "cross agency cooperation" and develops "shared government wi= de > information infrastructure services." Its "major government mission areas= " > include electronic commerce, law enforcement, environmental protection, > national defense, and health care. In the name of national security and > protection from terrorists, polluters and extremists, and other enemies t= o > the global village, the all-seeing eyes of the State will have power to > search everywhere and to monitor everyone. >=20 > Section Seven links the federal information management system to "sta= te > and local governments" and "nongovernmental international organizations" = and > "intergovernmental organization." Section Nine deals with "liaison, > consultation, and negotiation with foreign governments and intergovernmen= tal > organizations on all matters related to information resources management" > and ensures "that the United States is represented in the development of > inter_ national standards ... affecting information technology." >=20 > Standing alone, this Executive Order might raise a little alarm. But > examined in the light of the United Nations agenda and stated government > intentions, it looks ominous. >=20 > The U.N. has called for a sophisticated international computerized > information system that would disseminate its politically correct data an= d > pseudoscience into every community, build consensus based on its visions, > goals, values, and choices, then monitor individual and collective > compliance everywhere: in homes, schools, offices. >=20 > "Develop gender-sensitive databases, information and monitoring > systems," states the Beijing Platform for Action (#258). Its implementati= on > calls for the "consistent flow of information" among "national, > subregional/regional and international institutions (#288)" - all under t= he > watchful command of U.N. agencies (#314). >=20 > The U.N. plan matches the Clinton administration's plan for social > transformation through a vast government-controlled information and > surveillance system. >=20 > The President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) - the U.S. > counterpart to the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development - issued a > report that echoes the U.N. agenda. >=20 > Called Sustainable America: A New Consensus, it states in Chapter Thr= ee > which deals with "Information and Education." "Citizens ... depend on the > quality and timeliness of information to alert them to hazards and to mak= e > informed decisions ... As sustainable development focuses attention on ne= w > environmental, social, or economic concerns, government must perform this > critical management function more effectively to ensure the quality and > timely availability of new kinds of information. >=20 > "The federal government is already participating in collaborative > efforts with the public, the private sector, and intergovernmental > organizations to improve information management. These efforts should be > expanded to include priority setting for data collection and analysis, > identification of the most useful formats for dissemination, and addition= al > mechanisms ... (p. 59)." >=20 > The report calls for "international cooperation" and broad government= al > networks to coordinate "comprehensive regional inventories and assessment= s > of environmental, economic, and social indicators of progress." >=20 > The public would be warned concerning "risk assessment" and would be > taught "accurate information built on basic scientific research ... neede= d > for sound decision_making (p.61)." The truthfulness of this "accurate > information" would depend on political expedience. >=20 > As Stanford environmentalist Stephen Schneider said, "We'd like to se= e > the world a better place ... to get some broad_based support, to capture = the > public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media > coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramat= ic > statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have ..." >=20 > The PCSD report calls for "policies that increase access to public > information for all segments of society and encourage the development of = the > National Information Infrastructure (p.64)." >=20 > It wants "better tools for measuring the public value" - the communit= y > consensus and solidarity based on common goals and values called "social > capital" by U.N. and World Bank leaders. >=20 > To the PCSD, "information is useful only if citizens can put it into = a > framework of knowledge and use it to solve problems, form values, and mak= e > choices" - the right choices. >=20 > This "framework of knowledge" is the new global paradigm-the new way = of > thinking and deciding that turns traditional values, facts and logic upsi= de > down. It's the bridge to the 21st Century and it burns all the bridges to > the past. >=20 > Already, "more than 100 nations" have established national councils o= n > sustainable development similar to the U.S. PCSD (p.160). Following U.N. > guidelines for "information management," they guide their unsuspecting > public toward global controls through deceptive propaganda in the name of > "accurate science." >=20 > The PCSD report was sent to me from the U.S. Department of Education > with a letter that stated, "The PCSD is now entering its implementation > phase." It seems that Executive Order 13011 is part of that phase. >=20 > As you ponder the significance of Executive Orders 13010 and 13011, > remember what Al Gore wrote in Earth in the Balance: "Adopting a central > organizing principle [saving the earth] means embarking on an all out eff= ort > to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty = and > alliance, every tactic and strategy to halt the destruction of the > environment ... Minor shifts in policy ... rhetoric offered in lieu of > genuine change-these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy th= e > public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching > transformation of society will not be necessary (p. 274)." >=20 > The world is changing fast. If our globalist leaders win this battle, > they will end the freedoms Americans have taken for granted. It's time to > awaken our neighbors, pray to the only God who can reverse these trends, > follow His guidelines, and stand together against the forces that would m= old > our minds and control our lives. >=20 > (For practical information about the new education system designed to mol= d > the minds of both children and parents, read Brave New Schools (Harvest > House Publishers) by Berit Kjos. Available through Christian bookstores o= r > by calling: 800-829-5646.) >=20 > Send comments to ceo@4bypass.com > Copyright =A9 1996 Media Bypass; Jim Thomas, Publisher ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Release: secret government experiments (fwd) Date: 22 Nov 1996 09:05:36 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >----------------------------------------- >NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY >2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 >Washington DC 20037 >----------------------------------------- >For release: November 21, 1996 >----------------------------------------- >For additional information: >Bill Winter, Director of Communications >(202) 333-0008 Ext. 226 >Internet: 73163.3063@CompuServe.com >----------------------------------------- > > >Secret government medical experiments >warrant jail, not payoffs, say Libertarians > > WASHINGTON, DC -- Jail time, not payoffs -- that's the way to >deal with 30 years of secret, gruesome government medical experiments, >the Libertarian Party said today. > > "The government should not be able to buy its way out of >responsibility by paying off victims with taxpayers' money," said Steve >Dasbach, chairman of America's third-largest political party. "Instead, >attempted murder charges should be filed against the politicians who >approved secret radioactivity, chemical, and biological experiments on >innocent Americans." > > Dasbach's comments came after Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary >announced this week that the government would pay $4.8 million to the >families of 12 human "guinea pigs" who were injected with plutonium and >uranium -- without their knowledge or consent -- during secret >government experiments in the 1940s. > > A better response, said Dasbach, would be to bring to justice >the people responsible for such experiments. > > "Politicians, bureaucrats, and government employees should be >held to the same standard as any other American," he said. "If an >average citizen, for example, secretly injected people with highly >radioactive Plutonium 239, he would be in jail facing murder charges. >Instead, the government is spending $4.8 million of our money to try to >buy a clean conscience." > > The use of taxpayers' money for the payoff is especially >reprehensible, said Dasbach. > > "If compensation is warranted, it should be in the form of >victim restitution from the specific individuals responsible for the >crimes," he said. "Taxpayers shouldn't be further punished for the >crimes of politicians." > > After all, noted Dasbach, American citizens have been >victimized ever since the secret experiments started in 1940. > > "First, thousands of individuals were the subjects of horrific >government experiments for more than three decades," he said. "Then, >Americans were kept in the dark for another two decades while the >government tried desperately to cover up its crimes. Now, we're being >taxed to pay off the victims of these ghoulish experiments -- while the >politicians and bureaucrats who committed these crimes remain at >large." > > In announcing the settlement, O'Leary said the government was >"grateful" to the victims for "the tough lessons they have taught us >about trust, responsibility, and accountability between the government >and the people." > > "The real lesson this case teaches is: Government can't be >trusted," countered Dasbach. "If politicians have power over our lives, >they will abuse it. And the more power we give politicians, the more >they abuse it. If nothing else, this tragic case should end the myth >that such atrocities can't happen in America." > > Despite the $4.8 million payoff, lawsuits continue to pile up >from as many as 20,000 other individuals who are demanding compensation >by the government for biochemical experiments conducted in the 1940s, >'50s, and '60s, according to news reports. > > But that's just the tip of the iceberg, noted Dasbach. > > A Congressional subcommittee hearing in Washington, DC on >September 28, 1994 revealed that up to 500,000 Americans were >endangered by secret defense-related tests between 1940 and 1974 -- >including covert experiments with radioactive materials, mustard gas, >LSD, and biological agents. For example, between 1949 and 1969, the >Army released radioactive compounds in 239 cities to study the effects, >according to General Accounting Office testimony the hearings. > > Other secret tests were conducted on prisoners, terminally ill >patients, military personnel, hospital patients -- even children. > > At the time of the hearings, GAO officials stressed that the >number of victims might increase, as new information was uncovered from >Pentagon, CIA, NASA, and Energy Department files. > > >-- >The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ >2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008 >Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072 > >For subscription changes, please mail to with the >word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line -- or use the WWW form. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Release: secret government experiments (fwd) Date: 22 Nov 1996 08:40:19 PST roc@xmission.com wrote : > > > > >> >> Dasbach's comments came after Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary >>announced this week that the government would pay $4.8 million to the >>families of 12 human "guinea pigs" who were injected with plutonium and >>uranium -- without their knowledge or consent -- during secret >>government experiments in the 1940s. One might suppose that anyone with enough power to authorize such an experiment would have been 35. Adding the 50 intervening years one would expect such people to be at least 85 or DEAD. Are we going to resurrect the dead to punish them now? >> >> A better response, said Dasbach, would be to bring to justice >>the people responsible for such experiments. >> >> "Politicians, bureaucrats, and government employees should be >>held to the same standard as any other American," he said. "If an >>average citizen, for example, secretly injected people with highly >>radioactive Plutonium 239, he would be in jail facing murder charges. >>Instead, the government is spending $4.8 million of our money to try to >>buy a clean conscience." Other than getting all hot and bothered that someone was injected with something radioactive, I see nothing saying anything happened to the supposed victim. For all I know he / she may well have lived far longer than those who injected him / her. I have no idea one way or the other. Was there any actual harm. All these lunatics on the left are always bent out of shape about things like radioactivity .....and they they go ski at Aspen or Vail where the background level of radiation is far higher than the levels they werer ranting and raving about as being harmful. The world is being driven to bankruptcy worrying about people exposed to lead when there is no such thing as lead poisoning only shortages of Vitamin C. The idiotic left sees a broken thermometer a mile away and wants to evacuate everyone for miles in all directions. But having had large scale exposure to Mercury decades ago and never noticied anything I can only look on this hysteria as evidence of dearranged liberal minds So, other than not telling the people they were being used as guinea pigs is there is any evidence of any actual harm. Very Curious Jack >> >> The use of taxpayers' money for the payoff is especially >>reprehensible, said Dasbach. >> Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: Release: secret government experiments (fwd) Date: 22 Nov 1996 09:49:51 -0800 (PST) Jack, the link between cancer and radiation (unlike nicotine/tar) is Absolutely proven. Moerover, you have an absolute Right to the control of your body and life. If you believe in "property rights", that is where it starts. When the government took that control away from these people it created harm. (Even army people have a right to hear the order ie be informed.) Regardless of the deadly outcome. I'm not sure yet that I agree with the LP on this one. But we can't wave away their argument because the responsible parties are old. There's no statute of limitations on the big M, if you murder someone and nobody finds out 'till your 85 don't count on that keeping you out of jail. The big question here is why should government agents be indemnified against responsibility for their actions IMHO. (Ie, just because you work for the govt., is that a reason for you not to be accountable?) -Boyd (all opinions expressed are mine alone) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) GOA-PVF Alert: Help Stockman! Date: 22 Nov 1996 11:23:07 -0800 > Rep. Stockman Again Needs Your Help > > by Larry Pratt > Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund > 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 > Springfield, VA 22151 > > > (Thursday, November 21) -- On November 5, the Second >Amendment community took a slight hit as a total of 5 seats (net) >went in Sarah Brady's favor. It is now more important than ever >to keep solid, pro-gun Congressmen in Washington, D.C. -- >especially those who will stand on the front line to battle >anti-gunners like Chuck Schumer. > > Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) won his race earlier this month >with a plurality (46%-44%). That's the good news. The bad news >is that because of a particular set of circumstances that has >arisen resulting from the redistricting in Texas, any candidate >who did not receive a 50+ majority now faces a run-off on >December 10. Furthermore, the two Democrats running against >Stockman on November 5 received more than 50% of the vote between >them. Stockman represents a very Democratic district, and >clearly, has his work cut out for him. > > Because anti-gun union bosses dumped millions of dollars >worth of negative T.V. advertising against Rep. Stockman during >the first election, he was forced to deplete his campaign funds >to combat the misinformation. > > Thus, Rep. Stockman needs your help once again. And perhaps >more than any other man or woman in Washington, this Congressman >has stood up for your Second Amendment rights. > > Stockman vigorously pushed legislation to repeal the >semi-auto ban. When the House Judiciary Committee dragged its >feet and refused to hold a vote, Stockman introduced a discharge >petition which helped push the leadership into bringing a repeal >bill to the floor of the House. > > When no one else came forward to introduce legislation >repealing the Brady law, Stockman introduced a bill to do that >too. He also introduced legislation to stop the BATF from >getting any more records of individual gun buyers, to prohibit >the use of environmental laws to ban firearms, and much more. > > I hope you will strongly consider helping this strong >defender of the Constitution! > > Please make your personal check payable to "Stockman for >Congress" ($1,000 max for the December 10 special election; >spouse and children can also give the same), and send it to >GOAPVF, 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151. > > Federal law requires political committees to request the >name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer for each >individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a >calendar year. > > If your total contributions to Rep. Stockman are not more >than $200, we only need your full name and mailing address. >Contributions are not deductible for federal income tax purposes. >We will bundle the checks and send them to the Stockman campaign >office. Please act quickly! > > Paid for by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund and > Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate's Committee. > > > > > > - 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: Lew Glendenning Subject: Re: Release: secret government experiments (fwd) Date: 22 Nov 1996 13:47:36 -0900 Jack@minerva.com wrote: > > roc@xmission.com wrote : > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Dasbach's comments came after Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary > >>announced this week that the government would pay $4.8 million to the > >>families of 12 human "guinea pigs" who were injected with plutonium and > >>uranium -- without their knowledge or consent -- during secret > >>government experiments in the 1940s. > > One might suppose that anyone with enough power to authorize such an > experiment would have been 35. Adding the 50 intervening years one would > expect such people to be at least 85 or DEAD. Are we going to resurrect > the dead to punish them now? > >> > >> A better response, said Dasbach, would be to bring to justice > >>the people responsible for such experiments. > >> > >> "Politicians, bureaucrats, and government employees should be > >>held to the same standard as any other American," he said. "If an > >>average citizen, for example, secretly injected people with highly > >>radioactive Plutonium 239, he would be in jail facing murder charges. > >>Instead, the government is spending $4.8 million of our money to try to > >>buy a clean conscience." > > Other than getting all hot and bothered that someone was injected with > something radioactive, I see nothing saying anything happened to the > supposed victim. For all I know he / she may well have lived far longer than > those who injected him / her. I have no idea one way or the other. Was there > any actual harm. All these lunatics on the left are always bent out of > shape about things like radioactivity .....and they they go ski at Aspen > or Vail where the background level of radiation is far higher than the levels > they werer ranting and raving about as being harmful. The world is being > driven to bankruptcy worrying about people exposed to lead when there is no > such thing as lead poisoning only shortages of Vitamin C. The idiotic left > sees a broken thermometer a mile away and wants to evacuate everyone for > miles in all directions. But having had large scale exposure to Mercury > decades ago and never noticied anything I can only look on this hysteria > as evidence of dearranged liberal minds > > So, other than not telling the people they were being used as guinea pigs > is there is any evidence of any actual harm. > > Very Curious > > Jack > >> > >> The use of taxpayers' money for the payoff is especially > >>reprehensible, said Dasbach. > >> > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | > ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | > jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | This issue isn't harm, it is an experiment without informed consent. "Experiment" implies that the folks who authorized it didn't know the outcome. I believe Galen admonished, "Physician, first do no harm." MDs who violate this are subject to discipline, even murder charges, except when informed consent is obtained. Put this in perspective. Your pediatritian gives your healthy child an experimental treatment without telling you. Regardless of the outcome, you should do your damndest to get that person incarcerated for a long time. Much worse when it is your own gov, acting outside of the Constitution, with police/judicial power on their side. System stability is real important. It is the alternative to periodic catastrophe, e.g. war or revolution. Do not advocate courses of action which frustrate system evolution, or which will obviously destablize the system. Excessive gov power does both, in addition to providing the basis for more accumulation of power. We must, each of us, repulse each and every attempt at gov's accreting more power, via taxes or laws. Making excuses for gov's past actions are as bad as for current actions. In this case, make an attempt to track down each and every one of the idiots who did this, and prosecute them. Then go after Lon Horiuchi and every person above him in the FBI chain of command, the Waco team of the BATF, ... Lew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: OPERATION CABLE SPLICE Date: 22 Nov 1996 22:49:26 -0700 (MST) >******************************************** >TOP SECRET >CODEWORD: CABLESPLICE >(This is a secret document being circulated among Top Government And UN. >people) > >An Aggressive Program to Counter The Disrupters Movement > >Recent efforts by The Disrupters Movement to gain political influence >are beginning to seriously and adversely affect public perceptions and >understanding of ongoing programs aimed at smoothing the transfer of >sovereignty and power from national governments to super-national >statist organizations unless such efforts are countered and discredited, >the task of creating a unified global government under UN control will >be far more difficult. The most dangerous element of The Disrupters >Movement are those that are part of the Christian Fundamentalist >majority. The following memorandum offers a set of policy prescriptions >designed to counter-act their, efforts, > >ANALYSIS OF PROBLEM > >Although there has always been opposition from groups and individuals >with a conservative, isolationist attitude, the recent growth of such >opposition, and the ability and organizational success of these groups >has raised serious concern in recent years. Unless steps are taken to >meet the challenge posed by The Disrupters Movement, it is possible that >these groups could make serious inroads into the public complacence >which has been so carefully nurtured over the past fifty Years, >The threat is two-fold. First, there is the traditional conservative >political threat, one which can be traced back to pre-W.W.II >isolationism and political conservatism. These groups are not of >particular concern as their organizing ability and numbers do not >suggest the capability for amassing significant political power. >It is the second category, the "Christian Fundamentalists," that pose >the greatest threat. These people are representative of a massive >population of Americans and if allowed to propagandize and organize that >base could present serious obstacles to further progress, > >I. Overt Programs; > >Overt programs to counter growing influence of Christian and other >groups should take various forms: > > A. An active effort aimed at promoting the benefits of global > organizations and institutions. Media stories, books, > conferences, and other means should be utilized to get the story > out in appropriate fashion. > > Appearances > > B. Appearances by political figures, well-known celebrities and > other influential figures at events connected to international > and super- national organizations and institutions. Of particular > use are events which involve "feel-good" operations such as > UNICEF, Feed the Children, Americare, etc. > > C. Promotion of peaceful uses of atomic energy, disarmament as a > necessary condition to peace and security, and tolerance and > acceptance of non-Christian faiths should be promoted > consistently but with enough subtlety so as not to turn off the > targeted populations. > > 1. Under no circumstances, however. should such efforts be > allowed to raise fears regarding those goals, nor should > they provide substantive evidence of the true objectives > of U.S.G. policy. > > 2. An important means of developing support for disarmament > and the reliance on the United Nations to impose global > order is through raising fears of nuclear weapons. By > playing up the danger of nuclear war, It should be > possible to generate considerable public support for > further movement towards the disarmament of national > states. This diverts attention from the real nature of > disarmament effort by portraying it as necessary to world > peace, rather than a step on the road to world > government. > > D. A massive attack on The Disrupters Movement, and especially > Christian religion groups. This assault would challenge them as > intolerant, hateful, exclusionist, and potentially dangerous. > Such a program would include the following: > > 1. Efforts should be made to falsely portray their > objectives as the creation of a religious theocracy and > the imposition of strict religious interpretation of the > Bible as the basis for political participation in "The > New Christian America." This can best be accomplished by > focusing on the most outrageous and extremist statements > and members, while down playing the more moderate > membership. > > 2. " Christian " groups should whenever possible be > portrayed as fringe elements of the country's religious > population, not especially numerous and certainly not > representative of "most" Christians. > > 3. At every opportunity these "Christian" groups should be > presented as vicious, intolerant, and especially as > anti-Semitic. The selective use of quotes, and if > necessary, the use of invented statements, can be most > effective means of accomplishing this task. > > Arrest > > 4. Arrest either on criminal charges or on mental Inquest > warrants certain members of The Disrupters Movement who > by their fanatical religious life-styles and/or their > EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS would be psychologically and > physically prepared to survive outside of the government > control. > > 5. Harassment on criminal charges or mental inquest warrants of those > who listen to and/or sympathize with The Disrupters Movement. > >II. Covert Programs: Covert programs may be equally as important, if not > more so, to countering the increasing effectiveness of The Disrupters > Movement. > > A. Infiltration of The Disrupters Movement by sympathetic agents is > an extremely useful tool in combating their efforts. > > 1. By carrying out extreme acts, and especially acts of > violence, such individuals can bring discredit and public > condemnation against The Disruption Movement. > > 2. By raising confusion , and care ful ly encouraging splits > and controversy within The Disrupters Movement, such > agents will be able to reduce the effectiveness and > coherency of those groups. > > B. Individuals who have been groomed to operate outside the usual > channels of political activity should be activated and placed in > positions in which they appear to be in opposition to USG policy. > > 1. These persons would speak out publicly in opposition to > our policies, but would be in fact be sympathetic to our > long term objectives. By carefully and selectively > providing false or misleading information, and > information of a seemingly scandalous or dramatic nature, > they would seem to be supporting the agenda of The > Disrupters Movement. But when the information the > promulgated was shown to be patently false, It would > further damage the credibility of the opposition. > > 2. The use of certain talk radio personalities along the > lines suggested in paragraph 1 has already proven quite > effective and further ventures along these lines could be > beneficial. > > 3. In extreme situations, it may become useful or even > necessary for these undercover assets to carry out > certain operations against members of The Disrupters > Movement who are interfering with CABLESPLICE. In some > cases, termination's with extreme prejudice may be called > for. > > Subversion > > C. Subversion and Elimination of the Second Amendment > > 1. One of the most critical efforts must be the removal of > firearms from individual control. The on-going long-term > program to accomplish this is to bear efforts along > current lines are advised. > > a. The use of "agent provocateurs," individuals who > are seemingly insane (but who are never taken > alive) who create highly publicized mass killings > with automatic weapons has been particularly > useful in molding public opinion. Similarly, the > regular use of random killings in large urban > areas as a way of creating a climate of fear and > violence has resulted in significant gains for > the gun-control point of view. Such programs are > extremely useful and should be continued and > possibly expanded. > > b. On-going efforts to gain small footholds in > gun-control are worthwhile as they open the door > to further controls later on. The importance of > eliminating the Second Amendment Right to Bear > Arms cannot be stressed too much. > > >III. DISINFORMATION PROGRAMS: > >These programs should be designed to carefully seed the media with false >and misleading information about long-term goals and plans, as well as >forged and deceptive details about The Disrupters Movement. > > A. Careful and selective placement of spurious and potentially > damaging news stories in the popular media is an excellent means > of raising doubts and fears of the population. Our opponents have > made good use of this technique, we should do likewise. > > B. One of the most effective disinformation programs has been the > selected use of "expose" books and stories, all reputedly written by > former government and super-government officials, but in fact developed > within the NSA and CIA. > > 1. Connections to actual government operations, and the bona > fides of such expose authors are deliberately vague in > order to make tracing and verifying their stories > difficult. > > 2. Although the books and information "exposed" would > seemingly be extremely critical of our long-term programs > and objectives, the contradictions contained within, the > difficulty of verifying either authors or details, and > the wild-eyed style verging on the Irrational would all > work to discredit and raise doubts. > > > The presentation > > 3. The presentation of fringe and extremist religious > doctrine and beliefs, or the presentation of Christian > religious beliefs in particularly dogmatic and intolerant > fashion, would help to turn popular opinion against The > Disrupter Movement. > > >IV. Other Propaganda Efforts > > A. Print Media/Publications > > 1. Appropriate use of popular media intended to discredit > and attack opponents is a fundamental tool of countering > The Disrupters Movement. > > 2. While control of the major media outlets is crucial to > such efforts, it is through "fringe" media publications > that the most damage can be done to The Disrupters > Movement. Continued use of assets within the counter > media can be beneficial. > > B. Electronic/Computer Systems: Electronic computer systems, > bulletin boards, and information superhighway in general is an > area of considerable importance to efforts to combat the > activities of The Disrupter Movement. The ability of opponents to > utilize computer bulletin boards to pass information and educate > people must be met with an active program of disinformation and > attack. > > 1. One means of countering the effectiveness of such > opposition efforts is the simple expedient of overloading > their bulletin boards. A single operator with one > computer can set a program in motion that will send out > thousands of messages. The sheer volume of such messages > is more then the content. Most people will give up rather > then read through hundreds and thousands of messages. > > 2. A second means of countering the opposition's use of > computer technology is through the careful placing of > disinformation agents. Such agents can take two forms: > > a. Agents may be placed who will simply argue > against the opposition, using delaying and > confusing tactics such as constantly demanding > references and "proof" of allegations, referring > to obscure and difficult to find documents as > evidence that the opposition is wrong, and > generally forcing the opposition to waste > tremendous amounts of time simply defending > itself from spurious and irrelevant attacks. > > Other > > b. Other agents have been placed with a more subtle > purpose mind. Such agents would take on the > persons WA attitudes of members of The Disrupters > Movement, but would present the opposition case > in ways that will ultimately discredit them. The > necessary effort to correct. the messages posted > by these agents, and the resulting appearance of > disarray within their camp should present > considerable opportunities for further assaults > on The Disrupters Movement. > > 3. In cases of computer networks where it is highly > imperative that the efforts of The Disrupters be > neutralized, coordinated assaults can be arranged using > aliases and multiple membership ID's to present a wide > array of negative and meddlesome messages. > > C. Diversionary efforts > > 1. Bread and Circuses > > a. Celebrities > > The use of celebrities is a proven means of > diverting attention from serious political > Issues. Moreover, the use of selected celebrity > figures as political spokesperson can be a very > effective means of getting our message across. > > b. Sports > > Sports are useful as a means of diverting > attention from serious political issues and > dulling the minds of the populace. By focusing > all their energies on sporting events, we can > prevent people from undertaking the intense and > serious study necessary to take effective > political action. > > c. Gambling > > The provision of numerous outlets for public > gambling serves multiple purposes; it serves to > keep the popular attention engaged on sporting > events, as well as what has become known as > "lottery fever. " Perhaps more important, > widespread gambling not only keeps the general > public poor, it provides needed income for our > own uses-- especially when allowed in the form of > state lotteries which purport to provide money > for education, senior citizens, or other popular > purposes. In fact, through the careful use of > accounting manipulation, much of the funds raised > are being diverted to support many of the other > programs and efforts described in this memo. > > Talk > > D. Talk Shows: Talk Shows serve a duel purpose: > > 1. By diverting attention from serious issues, such programs > dull the public intellect and prevent people from > focusing on real issues and problems. > > 2. By constantly presenting groups such as homosexuals, > feminists, etc. In a favorable light, and presenting > real "white supremacists" "religious zealots" and other > opponents unfavorably, these programs can serve to > reaffirm in the public mind which people are "good" and > which are "bad." > > >It is our belief that the above strategies.. if implemented effectively, can >be effective in countering and ultimately rendering ineffective the efforts >of The Disrupters Movement. > >***** END of document **** > > > > > >Gary Hunt wrote: > >Outpost of Freedom > Gary Hunt > November 19, 1996 > >I have, recently, posted "Informants Amongst Us" and "C3CM" to >demonstrate what means are used by government to create as much >confusion, criticism and division in the Constitutionalist Community as >possible. There are a few more pieces that I have become aware of in the >past seven or eight years. Operation Cablesplice is one of those 'items' >that, although subject to controversy, should be red for what is said, >not, necessarily, for where it comes from. >As you read the following 'document', consider that it may have been >written by someone other than the government, perhaps as a detraction, >perhaps as a spoof. In either event, the government surely has read the >document, and if they have not adopted the policies presented therein, >they are foolish enough to have relinquished power by now. >I first received a copy of Cablesplice back in the earlier days of >fax-networking. There were many (among them, myself) who felt that the >concepts of Cablesplice were being applied even then. The Internet, >however, has opened a whole new forum for the propagation of the time of >methods outlined in Cablesplice. >As most are aware, now, Marshall Richards, of the West Virginia militia, >was an informant. The means by which the government achieved 'control' >over Richards may be as outlines in "Informants Amongst Us", and is >definitely consistent with Cablesplice. >Nearly every recent 'bust' of patriots was achieved by an informant and >an active agent, working together. We can usually see these situations, >after the fact, but we know that they are there. >Let's look a little further. Look at the proliferation of >information/disinformation circulating, daily, on the Internet. Take, >for example, a recent claim that last Friday's (November 22) 20/20 >program was going to air some revealing interviews, with government >agents, that would blow the cover off of the government's involvement in >the OKC Bombing. After the program didn't air, excuses were made, and >blames laid. The bottom line, however, is that this is exactly what saps >the energy from the movement. Whether the issue be flying saucers, >comets striking earth, indictments (how many, how many times now?) >against Billary, or any other issue that is not directly relevant to the >cause, it is a drain. >Had Mike Kemp or the Georgia Militia, and soon the Viper militia, the >energy expended on them that is wasted on this irrelevant crud, perhaps >we would begin seeing change. >Start wondering what the Founders did before the events of April 19, >1775, hurled them into war. Were they as ill prepared as we are today? >The answer, quite frankly, is NO! They were prepared, and that >preparation did not come from bantering about, acting as if the >knowledge of all events was evil, and that each was an expert. They >organized themselves into Committees of Protection, Correspondence and >Safety, and they prepared themselves, mentally and physically, for what >they perceived to lie in their future. It is no surprise, when the true >history is read, that they were able to achieve what they did. And, >more, surprisingly, the odds against them were far worse than they are >against us, today. > >Now, read "CODEWORD -- OPERATION CABLESPLICE, and begin to understand >that the enemy uses his head. It is time that we start doing the same! > > > > 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; and may posterity forget > that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams > > >>>>>> http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html 1-800-677-1207 ext. 1800 >############################################################################ > > > >TO RECEIVE email from ralph: send email to ralph@TeamInfinity.com and in >the Subject make sure your email address and the word GO-RALPH (no spaces) >is in the subject. > >TO STOP RECEIVING email from ralph: send email to ralph@TeamInfinity.com >and in the Subject make sure your email address and the word WHOA-RALPH >(no spaces) is in the subject. > > > > > > =========================================================== 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: Yes, the Constitution Date: 23 Nov 1996 05:09:00 -0700 (MST) At 01:29 AM 11/23/96 -0800, you wrote: >Dear Ted: > >In the post below you lament that few people really understand what's in >the Constitution. I agree that few people have really studied it, but I >think that actually that's the way it should be, for in analyzing it in >legal terms, one must finally conclude that it does not have any legal >authority whatsoever. Aside from its massive faults, it cannot be shown to >be a compact or contract, nor really is it even a trust, for it does not >name benefactors, beneficiaries or parties, nor is it even signed as such. It is a contract, because state and federal officials take an oath to support it, an obligation which they are presumed to shoulder knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily. Furthermore, the beneficiaries are listed in the Preamble: they are the People and their Posterity. The oaths of office must be signed and recorded. See, for example, the pertinent forms within the House of Representatives pay office, to wit: "if you don't sign this form, you will not get paid." Pretty clear to me, particularly when 5 USC 3331 is an act of Congress requiring these oaths of office as a condition of federal employment. Even IRS agents are required to take the oath, on their Appointment Affidavits, an OMB-approved form. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >In reality it served at one time as an agreement to provide a coherent >money system between the several states, and was a nice agreement for the >cooperation and common defense for the states, but to assume that it >should have any realistic authority over me, my family, progeny, or even >my ancestors is absurd. And given the allowance of tender laws, the >document is more an instrument of tyranny than personal salvation. And >furthermore, just try to bring it up when you're being charged with >something in court and see how long the judge will listen to you without >convicting you of contempt. > >The Constitution is simply more statuory black letter maxim and irrelevant >in pure common law terms. Proof of this is that it forbids us to question >the validity of the public debt (Section 4, 14th AMendment), but we do >anyway, don't we? And why? Because we have individual consciences, because >we are sentient, questioning beings. Neither does it allow us to question >legislators for things they said on the floor of the House, but we do >anyway, don't we? A few words on paper prohibiting an inquisition of those >who purport to rule us aren't enough to quell an entire dynamic, are they? >Nor are they enough to secure our rights, either, are they? > >So if it is justice we are looking for, the Constitution's ashes would be >more welcome I think than its promotion for general reading. What we >really need is the ability to seek and find the principles of law as they >apply to each indvidual case. I would rather see people sitting on common >law juries than reading the Constitution. If you're going to read about >the real law, read Lysander Spooner, or Roscoe Pound, or John Marshall. Or >Alexis de Tocqueville. That's where you'll find justice, not in the >Constitution. > >We need common law indictments judged by common law juries, picked from >the country, at random, by lot. We need to put someone like Lon Horiuchi >on trial for murder in a common law court, or we need to indict Congress >for fraud in creating the Federal Reserve System, or examine Thomas >Paine's call for the death penalty for legislators who pass tender laws, >and do it by rules of the common law, just like the Constitution suggests. > >-jac > >On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 PATRIOTZ@aol.com wrote: > >> >> In accessing the competentcy of those who claim to be >> learned in the law (lawyers and judges), the following facts >> speak for themselves. >> >> * * * * * * * * * * * * * >> >> In October, 1924, [over 70 years ago] Dr. John J. Tigert, >> United States Commissioner of Education, made the challenging >> statement: >> >> "I do not believe there are more than a very limited >> number of persons, perhaps a hundred who really know >> what is in the Constitution of the United States." >> >> The report of the Committee on American Citizenship, presented >> at the meeting of the American Bar Association, Denver, Colorado, >> July 14-16, 1926, contained the following remarkable confession: >> >> "Lawyers are being graduated from our law schools by the >> thousands who have little knowledge of the Constitution. >> When organizations seek a lawyer to instruct them on the >> Constitution, they find it nearly impossible to secure one >> competent." >> Publishers forward, The Constitution Explained, Harry Atwood, >> 1927, presently produced by W.I.R., Carson City, Nevada. >> >> If constitutional illiteracy was the case in the first three, how much >> more despairing America is in the last decade of the twentieth >> century. It is a general condition for the nation at large, and in the >> midst of the ignorance, the nations fundamental law has been spoiled. >> The People lament this historic malady: >> (from the Oklahoma Writ of Mandamus): >> >> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >> Question: If you want a lawyer who will help you defend your rights, >> Where are you going to find one??? >> >> Patriotz@aol.com (Ted Pedemonti) >> >> > >-jac > >jh@teleport.com > > HOW TO JOIN HAMMERNET > > Receive the most interesting e-mail and get to know the best writers on >the Internet. Saints and flamers, they're on the Hammernet! Hammernet >strives to address the most important issues of the day and provide a >forum for discussion. > > Here's how to join. > >Send an e mail message to: > > majordomo@teleport.com > >with the following in the text area of your message: > > subscribe hammernet-l > >and/or, for the digest version: > > subscribe hammernet-l-digest. > > It's as easy as that! (-l is a lower case L) > > > > > > > > > > > ><###'> > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: piml] Re: (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of Date: 23 Nov 1996 10:37:40 -0800 Lew, >>>>>>> In my view, we should radically simplify the law, disarm the police, keep a few as trainers for citizens, a few more to act as a civil order priesthood, elevate their social status to the max, and then have they rely entirely upon citizens for implementing anything which required force. This is a more stable state, by far, than the one we have. <<<<<<< An intriguing suggestion, indeed! I can see little problem with its implementation, but citizen laziness would ultimately cause problems. It would be interesting to note the relative timidity that would ensue concerning the use of force in most situations, when one is reminded of the probable legal implications caused by the application of 'excessive force'. Of course, most of what we consider a crime now, would be decriminalized in light of the relative un-necessity to control the private lives of our fellows. Additionally, there would no longer be the 'select community' of police. It seems that they treat themselves as somehow different that the rest of us. When one of 'us' is killed, it's no big deal. But when a cop is killed - for whatever reason, no matter how legitimate, watch out! Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: piml] (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of the Date: 23 Nov 1996 10:12:10 -0800 Peter, >>>>>>> [...] What good would another revolution do? We'd kill/maim each other, take property & prisoners etc. to no avail; the basards on top would be replaced as soon as the old guard gets dusted. [...] <<<<<<< Yeah, this _is_ the general idea. The only people I know who would accept more of the same, are those who are _too comfortable_ with the status quo. Let us talk they say, talk-talk-talk. Talk is cheap, in more ways than one. In the final analysis, there are those who have _everything_, and are not willing under any circumstances to sacrifice it - freedom be damned. Then there are those who are willing to toss it all, no matter what, and demand to be free from oppression. I would rather be standing knee deep in a field of snow in a freezing blizzard naked, and _know_ I was free from ANY government tyranny, than to be provided for in guilded cage. I do not speak so easily of the use of force, nor do I lightly espouse its application. But when a government pursues a course of action that calculatedly seeks the removal of freedom in its every step, then a citizen must speak openly and plainly to his fellows warning them that too soft a stance against encroaching oppression, will lead the oppressors to believe the citizens to be soft and ineffectual, that force is unthinkable. Only when the citizens rise up and speak of the use of force - harsh force, then will an oppressor understand that further action is unthinkable, that the present course _must_ be reversed, or insurection shall result. Anything less is unacceptable. Look at it this way. Where would we be right now, had the founders thought the way you speak? As for myself, I shall not dishonour the efforts and extreme sacrifices of my forebearers, with inaction or surrender. That is unthinkable. Peruse the following poem submitted by ghostpwr@dmi.net (Monte), on 11/21/97: -- > Listen my children and you shall hear > Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere. > To arms! To arms! To spades and hoes?!? > Bury all your guns, before the king knows! > > Imagine the redcoats, thrilled with delight- > Not one colonist stood ready to fight. > Lexington and Concord were burned to the ground; > Crackling flames, the only heard sound. > > More taxes were levied, more rights denied; > for lack of arms, patriots died. > So listen my children, and you SHALL hear- > No country was born, only suffereing and fear. > > If tyranny you want, then bury and pray > For the speedy arrival of that *brighter day.* > But- if Liberty you love, and you yearn to be free- > Live by this motto: DON'T TREAD ON ME! > > No man escapes when freedom fails- > The best men rot in filthy jails. > And those who cry *Appease! Appease!* > Are hung by those they tried to please. -- Let us exhaust every _reasonable_ effort that will ensure the removal of the penumbra of tyranny. But let us not waste one moment more to show it force guarenteed to remove it. Liberty is not for the faint of heart, it is for those who are willing to wrest it with every force necessary from the tenacious grasp of oppression. >>>>>>> A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still. A lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and a truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory. <<<<<<< And dead hero's lay where they are fallen. The truth is mere words, untill it is spoken with the force of conviction, and prosecuted with the courage of those convictions. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: High Court Says etc. Date: 23 Nov 1996 08:48:55 -0800 Dennis, >>>>>>> Sorry Ed, I tend to disagree. What Congress should do is pass some laws requiring mandatory, substantive education so that bonehead druggies with dope in their car don't do stupid things like this. <<<<<<< No, Dennis, that is too much. It is, as I have been reminded a few times, one law too many. In the regards of the situation at hand, the law is already on the books. It is known as the Fourth Amendment, and it should be followed _exactly_ as written. Whenever we allow prevarications on the part of the Justices who administrate the law, and police who execute the law, we open the door to even greater violations beyond what we consider 'acceptable' practice. If what was unacceptable yesterday, is marginally acceptable today, then tomorrow that margin will be so wide that the unthinkable will ultimately achieve accepability. When we allow the police to walk the boarder and occasionally step on the other side of the law, we ultimately invite our own demise. I don't know who the author of the following statement is, but it is very true: A policeman's job is easy, only in a 'Police State'. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: piml] Re: (fwd) High Court Says Cops Can Exploit Ignorance of Date: 23 Nov 1996 10:17:18 -0800 Boyd, >>>>>>> A society that must make Right by practicing Wrong has deep problems. <<<<<<< I could not have said it better! Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Release: secret government experiments (fwd) Date: 23 Nov 1996 07:33:29 -0800 Jack, >>>>>>> Other than getting all hot and bothered that someone was injected with something radioactive, I see nothing saying anything happened to the supposed victim. For all I know he / she may well have lived far longer than those who injected him / her. <<<<<<< Isn't that just a wee bit arrogant on your part? To presume that the government - or any other entity, should be given carte blanche to do as it will with citizens, is asking for the worst sort of treatment at the hands of any petty fascist that happens to occupy whatever government office presents itself for abuse. We are a nation of free people, damnit! Not some subjects to a depot, or surfs, or any other lowly beings. The fact, Jack, is that those experimenters sought not even tacit approval from those who's lives were tampered with. It matters not one bloody iota, that any benefit may have been obtained. It matters completely, that something was taken, nay - thieved, from someone. To compound insult, the injury was never voluntarily admitted - the truth had to be extracted forcefully, as though a rotting tooth from the maw of foul beast. I find that _most_ eggregious - in the extreme. I cannot express myself in terms sufficient to describe how revolting the idea is. Those experimenters reduced their fellow human beings to the level of animals. The problem with that kind of thinking, is that it produces the same results that bread the total disregard for human life under the worst governments in this century alone. -- A Congressional subcommittee hearing in Washington, DC on September 28, 1994 revealed that up to 500,000 Americans were endangered by secret defense-related tests between 1940 and 1974 -- including covert experiments with radioactive materials, mustard gas, LSD, and biological agents. For example, between 1949 and 1969, the Army released radioactive compounds in 239 cities to study the effects, according to General Accounting Office testimony the hearings. -- Just _where_ in the United States Constitution, does the Government of the United States find the power or authority to poison its own citizens? Just who the hell do they think they are? What ramafications and repercussions do you suppose we of this country would be facing if 'our' government were discovered to have done the same thing to the citizens of a foreign land? A government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Sheeeit! Not in this lifetime. The only way to stop those abuses, is to scream bloody damn murder, and hold those accountable - even if they are dead, to the law. If you can issue a medal posthumously to a hero, then you can certainly issue a writ of extreme condemnation to the dead tyrants of the laboratory. Death does not excuse one's transgressions. I sincerely hope you will reconsider your current position. You may just find yourself at the 'business end' of your own opinion - at the pleasure of the government. 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: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Operation Cable Splice Date: 23 Nov 1996 16:14:03 -0500 GULP! Two film ending quotes come to mind: 1) Scotty, the newspaperman from Howard Hawks film "The Thing" 1951 "Keep watching the skies" 2) Dr. Miles Bennell from Don Siegels "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" 1956 "They're here, You're next" Regards, Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Secret govt. experiments Date: 23 Nov 1996 16:14:01 -0500 Jack@minerva.com wrote: >>One might suppose that anyone with enough power to authorize such an experiment would have been 35. Adding the 50 intervening years one would expect such people to be at least 85 or DEAD. Are we going to resurrect the dead to punish them now?........<< Mr. Perrine: You ought to be ashamed of yourself for using logic and common sense to counter the latest Libertarian rant. Is there not a shred of decency in your obviously conservative body? A squadron of black helicopters containing a company of specially trained trial lawyers has already been dispatched to your vicinity. These barristers are equipped with Kevlar reinforced 3 piece suits, and Assault attaché cases. Prepare to meet your doom. Don't you know the endless series of investigations, trials and appeals will cost the American taxpayer far more than the $4.8 MIL already consigned? The free market system needs this jump start. Additionally, it will confirm what we already know; that our government is evil, wicked mean, and nasty. No price is to high to disseminate the truth. Unfortunately, the truth will never get out due to the effects of “Operation Cable Splice” from the original post: >> "The government should not be able to buy its way out of responsibility by paying off victims with taxpayers' money," said Steve Dasbach, chairman of America's third-largest political party.<< Mr. H. Ross Perot, Potentate-in-Charge, of the Reform Party is incensed at this intentional slur on his organization. "Third largest my ears". A "Cuban Hit Squad" of "Volunteers" is even now on its way to Libertarian Headquarters to kidnap Director of Communications Winter, and any and all others responsible for this libelous defamation. They will subsequently be put to work in maciadoras, located along the Mexican border, with the proceeds of their labor to be laundered and funneled into the coffers of UWSA. Regards, Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Operation Cable Splice Date: 23 Nov 1996 16:05:07 -0600 BludyRed@aol.com wrote: > > GULP! > > Two film ending quotes come to mind: > > 1) Scotty, the newspaperman from Howard Hawks film "The Thing" 1951 > > "Keep watching the skies" > > 2) Dr. Miles Bennell from Don Siegels "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" > 1956 > > "They're here, You're next" An even more appropriate one comes to mind, though not an ending. In a film about making a film entitled (I can remember), actress (I forgot) looks at the chaos, then turns to the leading man, (ol' whatzizname), and says."Who do i have to blow to get out of this movie?" In typical hollywood fashion, no one knew. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Release: secret government experiments (fwd) Date: 23 Nov 1996 13:20:10 PST Last night on Art Bell's Radio show, he interviewed a Dr., (can't remember his name offhand), who hsd been documenting a number of nasty things. 1. Aids, Gulf War Syndrome and Ebola have the same genetic roots. 2. They were produced by CIA Bio-Warfare research. 3. They are the end product Nazi research by imported scientists after WW-II. 4. This research was supported before and after WW-II by the Rockefeller's as a means of removing "genetically inferior" races. Hitler references the (U.S.) research in the 20's, (Mein Kampf), which is how he got some of his support. 5. Monkeys used for production of all sorts of vaccines have been contaminated. 6. By Law our kids _have_ to have these vaccines. Fun stuff. I don't have a whole lot of it, but those interested can get tapes of Art Bell's shows, (they put the phone number out on the show), and it's probably referenced at the artbell.com website too. On Nov 23, E. J. Totty wrote: [snip] > A government of the people, by the people, and for the people? > Sheeeit! Not in this lifetime. > The only way to stop those abuses, is to scream bloody damn murder, >and hold those accountable - even if they are dead, to the law. If you can >issue a medal posthumously to a hero, then you can certainly issue a writ >of extreme condemnation to the dead tyrants of the laboratory. Death does >not excuse one's transgressions. Agreed! In this, we should emulate God. -- 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: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Cables Crossed Date: 24 Nov 1996 00:15:57 -0500 Paul Andrew Mitchell posts: >>TOP SECRET CODEWORD: CABLESPLICE (This is a secret document being circulated among Top Government And UN. people)<< Yup. A few cyperjunkies in the government and UN picked up this screed on the Internet, and posted it in assorted washrooms and on various hallway bulletin boards so their co-workers could have a good laugh at what lunatics some of us are. >>B. Electronic/Computer Systems: Electronic computer systems, bulletin boards, and information superhighway in general is an area of considerable importance to efforts to combat the activities of The Disrupter Movement. The ability of opponents to utilize computer bulletin boards to pass information and educate people must be met with an active program of disinformation and attack. 1. One means of countering the effectiveness of such opposition efforts is the simple expedient of overloading their bulletin boards. A single operator with one computer can set a program in motion that will send out thousands of messages. The sheer volume of such messages is more then the content. Most people will give up rather then read through hundreds and thousands of messages. 2. A second means of countering the opposition's use of computer technology is through the careful placing of disinformation agents. Such agents can take two forms: a. Agents may be placed who will simply argue against the opposition, using delaying and confusing tactics such as constantly demanding references and "proof" of allegations, referring to obscure and difficult to find documents as evidence that the opposition is wrong, and generally forcing the opposition to waste tremendous amounts of time simply defending itself from spurious and irrelevant attacks. Other b. Other agents have been placed with a more subtle purpose mind. Such agents would take on the persons WA attitudes of members of The Disrupters Movement, but would present the opposition case in ways that will ultimately discredit them. The necessary effort to correct. the messages posted by these agents, and the resulting appearance of disarray within their camp should present considerable opportunities for further assaults on The Disrupters Movement.<< Suspiciously left out was scenario #2c. which reads: c. Agents will continuously post rants and raves of a conspiratorial nature, usually under the guise of "intercepted secret documents". Intelligent members of lists such as NOBAN and ROC will get so fed up reading this rubbish, that they will unsubscribe, thereby becoming effectively neutralized There are undoubtedly such agents working among us even now. SURPRISE! We know who you are. Regards, Dennis Baron Secret Agent 2A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Cable (Modems) Crossed? Date: 24 Nov 1996 05:26:28 -0700 (MST) sometimes the grain of truth is buried inside a grain of salt. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 12:15 AM 11/24/96 -0500, you wrote: > Paul Andrew Mitchell posts: > >>>TOP SECRET >CODEWORD: CABLESPLICE >(This is a secret document being circulated among Top Government And UN. >people)<< > > Yup. A few cyperjunkies in the government and UN picked up this >screed on the Internet, and posted it in assorted washrooms and >on various hallway bulletin boards so their co-workers could >have a good laugh at what lunatics some of us are. > > >>>B. Electronic/Computer Systems: Electronic computer systems, > bulletin boards, and information superhighway in general is an > area of considerable importance to efforts to combat the > activities of The Disrupter Movement. The ability of opponents to > utilize computer bulletin boards to pass information and educate > people must be met with an active program of disinformation and > attack. > > 1. One means of countering the effectiveness of such > opposition efforts is the simple expedient of overloading > their bulletin boards. A single operator with one > computer can set a program in motion that will send out > thousands of messages. The sheer volume of such messages > is more then the content. Most people will give up rather > then read through hundreds and thousands of messages. > > > 2. A second means of countering the opposition's use of > computer technology is through the careful placing of > disinformation agents. Such agents can take two forms: > > a. Agents may be placed who will simply argue > against the opposition, using delaying and > confusing tactics such as constantly demanding > references and "proof" of allegations, referring > to obscure and difficult to find documents as > evidence that the opposition is wrong, and > generally forcing the opposition to waste > tremendous amounts of time simply defending > itself from spurious and irrelevant attacks. > > Other > > b. Other agents have been placed with a more subtle > purpose mind. Such agents would take on the > persons WA attitudes of members of The Disrupters > Movement, but would present the opposition case > in ways that will ultimately discredit them. The > necessary effort to correct. the messages posted > by these agents, and the resulting appearance of > disarray within their camp should present > considerable opportunities for further assaults > on The Disrupters Movement.<< > > > Suspiciously left out was scenario #2c. which reads: > > c. Agents will continuously post rants and raves of a conspiratorial >nature, usually under the guise of "intercepted secret documents". >Intelligent members of lists such as NOBAN and ROC will get so fed >up reading this rubbish, that they will unsubscribe, thereby becoming >effectively neutralized > > There are undoubtedly such agents working among us even now. >SURPRISE! We know who you are. > >Regards, >Dennis Baron >Secret Agent 2A > > =========================================================== 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: Nora Manella, "U.S. Attorney" [sic] Date: 24 Nov 1996 06:51:26 -0700 (MST) [transcription] U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information and Privacy Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3642 November 15, 1996 Mr. Paul A. Mitchell Apartment 1776 2509 North Campbell Tucson, AZ 85719 [sic] Re: Appeal No. 96-1378 RLH:SVL:ADW Dear Mr. Mitchell: You appealed from the action of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys on your request for access to records pertaining to "oaths of office, delegations of authority, fidelity bonds, and licenses to practice law." Because your Freedom of Information Act appeal was addressed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and only copied to this Office, the subject matter of your appeal was unclear; however, as a result of discussions with the EOUSA, I have been informed that you had requested the oath of office for United States Attorney Nora Manella, her formal delegation of authority, her fidelity bonds and her license to practice law. As a result of further discussions between EOUSA personnel and members of my staff, I have been informed that no records within the scope of your request could be located in its files. It has been determined that this response is correct. If you consider my response to be a denial of your appeal, you may seek judicial review in the United States District Court [sic] for the judicial district in which you reside or have your principal place of business, or in the District of Columbia, or in the Central District of California, which is where the search was conducted for the records you seek. Sincerely, /s/ Richard L. Huff Co-Director Paul Mitchell comments: Nora Manella is the one claiming to be the "United States Attorney" who is currently prosecuting Arizona Governor Fife Symington for multiple counts of bank fraud in California. She works in the office of the United States Attorneys in Los Angeles, California. This letter from Mr. Huff is very significant, since it admits that Manella has no credentials. Manella also prosecuted Elizabeth Broderick et al. recently for her traffic in warrants and commercial liens. I hereby certify that the above transcription is as correct as possible, the moment it left my hands. I can provide an affidavit, signed in blue ink, upon written request here. /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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Nora Manella, "U.S. Attorney" [sic] Date: 24 Nov 1996 07:27:35 -0700 (MST) Dear Mr. Eff, On authority of an official within the Department of Justice, Nora Manella has no credentials, and yet she and others in the offices of the United States Attorneys are prosecuting "drug offenders" and other important people, like the Governor of this State. I think this is a very important development. Just wait until you, or one of your friends, falls under their drag net. Mr. Eff, aren't you being a little too obvious now? /s/ Paul Mitchell At 07:08 AM 11/24/96 -0700, you wrote: >Paul, don't you get it? This is a list for the discussion of Libertarian >stuff. And what might that be, according to your limited definition of that term? I am all ears. /s/ Paul Mitchell What if anything does your post have to do with the Libertarian >Students at the Universtiy of Arizona? NOTHING!!! Objection. Nobody is interested >in being force fed you BS. On the contrary, I am already getting expressions of great interest, and even disbelief. The polite thing to do with crap like this, if >you think anybody wants to read it is post the URL and tell us it is on >your web-page. Thank you for your unsolicited advice. I have decided not to take it, however. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >And who gives a hoot about Elizabeth Broderick, federal informer? Do you have any information to support your allegation that she is a federal informer? /s/ Paul Mitchell > >I see that you have not yet corrected the fruadulent address on you signature? If you have a complaint, please address your complaint to the Office Manager at the official USPS collection station at 2509 North Campbell, Tucson, Arizona state. She will be happy to discuss your problem with you. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >dan eff > > =========================================================== 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: Elizabeth Broderick, federal informer? Date: 24 Nov 1996 07:34:32 -0700 (MST) >X-Sender: effdan@pop.azstarnet.com >Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 07:08:27 -0700 >Reply-To: Libertarian Students at the University of Arizona > >Sender: Libertarian Students at the University of Arizona > >From: Dan Eff >Subject: Re: Nora Manella, "U.S. Attorney" [sic] >To: LIBERTARIANS@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU > >Paul, don't you get it? This is a list for the discussion of Libertarian >stuff. What if anything does your post have to do with the Libertarian >Students at the Universtiy of Arizona? NOTHING!!! Nobody is interested >in being force fed you BS. The polite thing to do with crap like this, if >you think anybody wants to read it is post the URL and tell us it is on >your web-page. > >And who gives a hoot about Elizabeth Broderick, federal informer? > >I see that you have not yet corrected the fruadulent address on you signature? > >dan eff > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Updating email list Date: 24 Nov 1996 10:07:41 -0500 >Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 14:54:50 -0700 (MST) >From: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Updating email list >To: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com > > Jury Rights Project -- Emailing list update > > The Jury Rights Project disseminates information through the Internet >about the case of accused former juror Laura Kriho and about jury issues >in general. > Due to circumstances beyond our control (a hard disk crash), the JRP >emailing list got zapped from existence last week. > Fortunately, our clever and always helpful system administrator was able >to recover an earlier version of that list. The JRP has updated it to the >best of our ability. > However, you may find you are still on this list if you had >previously asked to be removed. If that is the case, please forgive us >and send us email again asking to be removed from the list. > To those of you who were previously on this list, but have now >been removed, you won't get this email. We hope you realize it somehow >and send us email as well. > Sorry for the inconvenience. Just another reminder to --always >make backups--! >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Jury Rights Project (jrights@welcomehome.org) > To be added to or removed from this mailing list, send email. > Background info.: http://www.execpc.com/~doreen > http://www.bend-or.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 > Email: pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > Phone: (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: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: High Court Says (cont) Date: 24 Nov 1996 17:19:25 -0500 "E. J. Totty" writes: >>No, Dennis, that is too much. It is, as I have been reminded a few times, one law too many. In the regards of the situation at hand, the law is already on the books. It is known as the Fourth Amendment, and it should be followed _exactly_ as written. Whenever we allow prevarications on the part of the Justices who administrate the law, and police who execute the law, we open the door to even greater violations beyond what we consider 'acceptable' practice. If what was unacceptable yesterday, is marginally acceptable today, then tomorrow that margin will be so wide that the unthinkable will ultimately achieve accepability. When we allow the police to walk the boarder and occasionally step on the other side of the law, we ultimately invite our own demise.<< Ed, I am certainly not advocating more laws, God knows we have enough. I was being sarcastic to make a point. The point is this. I am fed up with the Liberal "Nanny State" mindset. Nothing is ever the individuals fault, it is always someone else's fault. Personal responsibility is down the tubes. The examples are legion; labeling on products, consumer safety laws, OSHA, EEOC, etc. Whenever someone does something stupid and gets hurt or in trouble the cry heard round the world is "Blame someone else" and "Sue", "Take it to Court". When a cop asks "can I search your car", and a person answers "Yes", what is the problem? Today we have a government which deigns to dictate to us in minute detail how we should live our lives, how we should behave so as not to offend others (read political correctness), and has set up a immense bureaucratic system to offer us redress when we feel our "rights" have been trampled upon due to our own stupidity or ignorance. This fosters more of the same by rewarding stupidity and ignorance, usually with free cash (read my money) via higher taxes and higher prices. Big Momma Government wants to give us cradle to grave security, wet nursing us throughout our lives, protecting us from ourselves and from all potential harm, real or imagined. I, for one, don't want it or need it. I have had enough. I can look into my crystal ball and envision the future as Bill and Hillary would have it. Prior to being talked to by a police officer, or prior to purchasing a product each person would : 1) Be taken to a government run, taxpayer funded, information center. 2) Be shown a 6 hour video tape which explains their rights concerning same, produced along the lines of Sesame Street. (but not the responsibilities for heaven's sake) 3) Translators in 120 different languages would be available. 4) Signers for the deaf and Braille copies for the blind would be available 5) Psychologists would be on hand to assist clients through the stress involved in this procedure. 6) Attorneys from numerous disciplines would advise clients on the intricacies of what they were watching 7) De-caffinenated coffee, and fat-free, sugar-free donuts would served, all in a smoke-free, relaxing, atmosphere. They would NOT be required to sign any releases of liability, in the event a right was subsequently violated, that had not yet been foreseen or enumerated. A pick-up truck would be provided so that said client could return home with copies of the reams of MSDS documents and appropriate court decisions applicable to his/her/other situation. Client would have a minimum of 120 days to make his/her/other "informed" decision. Then and only then, would they be allowed to talk to the police or purchase the product What a "Great" society this would be, according to some. Unfortunately we are not far removed from it. Regards, Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: stockman Date: 24 Nov 1996 21:17:17 -0600 8:36 PM 11/23/1996 Democrat Sam endorses Stockman By RICHARD STEWART Copyright 1996 Houston Chronicle BEAUMONT -- The Democratic primary loser who pushed the 9th Congressional District race into a rare runoff threw her support behind incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman on Saturday. Geraldine Sam, a La Marque kindergarten teacher, came out third in the Democratic primary behind former Jefferson County Tax Assessor-Collector Nick Lampson but was allowed to enter the Nov. 5 general election after a panel of judges slightly altered the district's boundaries. The district covers all of Jefferson, Galveston and Chambers counties and parts of Harris County. Sam garnered 9.42 percent of the votes on Nov. 5. Stockman led with 46.45 percent. Lampson got 44.13 percent, but said he would have won if Sam hadn't siphoned away Democratic votes, especially in Galveston County. Sam had called herself the only true liberal in the race and favored gun control and abortion rights in opposition to Stockman's views. Although she said she still has major philosophical differences with Stockman, Sam said she endorsed the conservative congressional freshman because she considers him more honest than Lampson. "I have thought about which candidate can be trusted, which candidate has honesty and integrity," she told a small group of cheering Stockman supporters at an office being used for a phone bank. "There is no question who fits that bill. When it comes to honesty and integrity, Steve Stockman beats Nick Lampson hands down," she said. She said Lampson and other Democratic leaders had treated her and her supporters badly during the primary and general election. "After the Democratic primary in March, I extended the olive branch to Mr. Lampson," she said. "He let it fall." Sam's ire was raised by a report released last week that said a home health company started by Lampson and now operated by his wife owes Medicare providers $2,444 for medical social worker and nurse visits that didn't have sufficient documentation. Officials have not charged Lampson or the company with fraud. Lampson said the problem stemmed from paperwork errors. "Senior citizens should be in an uproar over Nick Lampson's abuse of the Medicare program," Sam said. "It's people like Nick Lampson who are causing the Medicare program to go broke." Sam admitted that her campaigns have left her $79,500 in debt, but she said she hasn't gotten or been promised any contributions for endorsing Stockman. She urged supporters who gave her 17,886 of the 189,838 votes cast in the Nov. 5 election to "go out and vote for Steve Stockman today." Although the runoff election is set for Dec. 10, many voters, especially in Jefferson County, are voting early. Stockman said he welcomes any support he can get. He said that while he and Sam disagreed on many issues, they agreed that they could openly debate those issues. Lampson campaign spokesman Jonathan Brown said, "Steve Stockman must be confused. His campaign is promoting his endorsement by a candidate who supports abortion rights and gun control -- the two positions he most stridently opposes." "This is a patent and transparent political deal made by two desperate politicians who are very afraid that Nick Lampson's momentum is going to swamp their attempts to hold on to power," Brown said. "It's sad, and 9th District residents deserve better." Clearly, not all who were in attendance were pleased by Sam's endorsement. A group of about eight people carried picket signs outside the office, asking if Stockman was still supporting gun owners' rights now that he is being endorsed by a former foe who supported gun control. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Gun/Knife control in the UK (fwd) Date: 25 Nov 1996 07:04:10 -0500 (EST) Something I saw on the net. I don't know if it's true but it sounds plausible. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This may not be totally on topic, but I was in England on=20 business during the week of October 25th and found that, in=20 addition to the just completed handgun ban (all but .22 pistols and those left only grudgingly), the British are now working=20 on a "combat knife" ban. The big deal to them on the news was=20 how to define exactly what constitutes a "combat knife." Serrated=20 edge, blood groove, large handle, compass in handle, etc. =20 I watched one segment on the news that had a young kid (maybe=20 15 years old) go into a store and, as was breathlessly stated by=20 the reporter, purchase the nastiest looking combat knife he could=20 find. All without any questions asked, no need to be 18, show ID=20 or anything - as if it was some legitimate item like a fork or a=20 kni . . . OOPS! (The reporter didn=92t actually say that!). So it seems that, just as people here have stated, once the=20 gun control fanatics are finished taking one thing its on to the next. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, combat knives - what=92s next?=20 I=92m sure there is a lesson to be learned here about not letting=20 things get that far here in the U.S. Just thought this might interest some people out there as there=20 was no mention of this sort of thing in the U.S. press when I got=20 home. Seems to have been blacked out. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Gun/Knife control in the UK (fwd) Date: 25 Nov 1996 09:49:21 -0600 At 07:04 AM 11/25/96 -0500, you wrote: >Something I saw on the net. > >I don't know if it's true but it sounds plausible. > >bd > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- It's true alright. I've been following the discussion of this on talk.politics.guns. This led to the posting of a URL for the (London?) Metro police in the U.K. Unfortunately I can't seem to locate it at the moment. > So it seems that, just as people here have stated, once the >gun control fanatics are finished taking one thing its on to the >next. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, combat knives - what's next? Sharp sticks. Current UK, or at least London metro, law criminalizes the carry of *any* sharp or pointed object. >I'm sure there is a lesson to be learned here about not letting >things get that far here in the U.S. Sniper rifles and junk guns seem be the next targets. The first because it shoots too far and is too accurate, the second because it's only usefull at short ranges and is very inaccurate. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: stockman race Date: 25 Nov 1996 17:48:12 -0600 Gun Activists Take Aim at Stockman's Runoff Opponent By Benjamin Sheffner ROLL CALL A local Texas militia leader is riding to Rep. Steve Stockman's (R-Texas) defense. Stockman, a favorite of conservative gun rights activists because of his outspoken opposition to gun control, is embroiled in a Dec. 10 runoff against Democrat Nick Lampson. And Paul Velte, a Texas gun-control opponent and militia leader, has put out an "Alert" urging allies to travel to the 9th district to aid Stockman in that fight. Velte, an Austin lawyer, issued the call in his capacity as head of Peaceable Texans for Firearms Rights, a grassroots group he founded in 1994 to fight against gun control. Velte is also a militia activist; he led the effort to create what he described as an "umbrella group" of Lone Star militia cells called the Texas Constitutional Militia and now serves as spokesman for the Central Texas Militia. The Texas Constitutional Militia is now defunct. Velte said in an interview Friday that there is no connection between Peaceable Texans and any militia group "other than a shared interest in constitutional government." In his fax alert, Velte hails Stockman as "the most pro-gun Member of Congress" and says, "Thus, it is critical for all concerned gun owners to do whatever they can to help Stockman win. In an effort to do that, we are organizing a team of volunteers to go to the Ninth District (East Texas) for one or two weekends to walk precincts, man phone banks, stuff envelopes, or whatever Stockman needs." Jonathan Brown, a spokesman for Lampson, called the expected arrival of the Velte forces "cause for real concern. The anti-government extremists that Paul Velte is going to bring here are not the kind of people the families of the 9th district want walking door to door." Brown added that he had contacted local law enforcement officials who are "alarmed" at the prospect of such activists descending on the Beaumont- and Galveston-based district. Velte said that Peaceable Texans also plans to distribute voter guides at gun shows, gun stores, and on the Internet contrasting the positions of the candidates in the three December House runoffs in Texas. Stockman and 8th district Republican Eugene Fontenot get positive descriptions of their gun-control views in the guides, while Lampson, Rep. Ken Bentsen (D), and state Rep. Kevin Brady (R) get negative write-ups and a skull and crossbones next to their names. Stockman first won election in 1994 by defeating 42-year incumbent Rep. Jack Brooks (D) and quickly became a hero to gun control opponents through his unwavering support of Second Amendment rights. He has also attracted considerable controversy. Stockman gained national attention when, in the immediate aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, his Congressional office faxed what appeared to be an advance warning about the act to both the FBI and the National Rifle Association. Roll Call has also reported on the close ties between Stockman and Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America, an anti-gun control group that takes a harder line than the NRA. Peaceable Texans, whose emblem is Lady Liberty clutching not a torch, but what appears to be an M-16 rifle, is under legal scrutiny by the Texas Ethics Commission for failing to register as a political action committee. Under state law, groups must register as such if they spend more than $500 on political activity or support or oppose political candidates. Velte maintains that such a requirement is a violation of his First Amendment rights. While Velte said he has "thousands" of people on the mail, fax, and e-mail lists for Peaceable Texans, he is not optimistic about mobilizing large numbers of activists on Stockman's behalf. "Interest has been rather lackadaisical," he admitted. "People have become tired of the political season.... But we'll be down there, even if it's only two or three people." Velte said that he has no connection to Stockman or his office other than occasional calls to his campaign offering to be of help. But Velte also served as an attorney for Gary Arthur Brooks, a Uvalde, Texas, heavy-equipment operator who filed to run in the 9th district as a Democrat with his name listed on the ballot as "G. Jack Brooks" -- an obvious source of potential confusion with the former Democratic Congressman. The Lampson campaign went to court to try to block his candidacy, and Brooks eventually dropped out of the race. Lampson charged that Brooks was planted by Stockman in an effort to draw Democratic votes away from him, but Stockman denied the charge. Velte said that he was put in contact with Brooks not by Stockman, but "through the grapevine. People said he needed help. He's a pro-gunner." In addition to his activities on behalf of pro-gun and militia groups, Velte also has worked pro bono as an attorney for the head of the New Orleans-based Cannabis Action Network, who was accused of marijuana possession. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Supreme Court Ruling Date: 25 Nov 1996 20:47:09 -0700 (MST) Larry, No, I heard this first from you. Call the Clerk first thing in the morning. If you don't have the number, call Directory Assistance for the Capitol Switchboard, then ask for the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Suter. Good luck! And let me know asap!! I am standing by. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 04:04 PM 11/25/96 +0000, you wrote: >Mr. Mitchell, > >I have been hearing rumors the Supreme court just handed down a ruling >that filing a 1040 form would be a violation of an individual's fifth >ammendment rights and it is now not "required". Wondering if you have >any confirmation of this? Sounds too good to be true, but as we all >know, it is the truth. > >Sincerely, > >LC >lcouncil@maui.net > > =========================================================== 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: Supreme Court Ruling Date: 25 Nov 1996 20:52:02 -0700 (MST) I found the number: William K. Suter Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk Washington, D.C. 20543 (202) 479-3011 or Clayton R. Higgins, Jr. (202) 479-3019 Larry, No, I heard this first from you. Call the Clerk first thing in the morning. If you don't have the number, call Directory Assistance for the Capitol Switchboard, then ask for the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Suter. Good luck! And let me know asap!! I am standing by. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 04:04 PM 11/25/96 +0000, you wrote: >Mr. Mitchell, > >I have been hearing rumors the Supreme court just handed down a ruling >that filing a 1040 form would be a violation of an individual's fifth >ammendment rights and it is now not "required". Wondering if you have >any confirmation of this? Sounds too good to be true, but as we all >know, it is the truth. > >Sincerely, > >LC >lcouncil@maui.net > > =========================================================== 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: Title 18 on military bases only? Date: 25 Nov 1996 21:55:06 -0700 (MST) 18 USC 1513 contains explicit language extending this statute with "extra-territorial application." Now, you might ask yourself, why is this qualifier not found in more statutes within Title 18? So, at least this one statute can be enforced within the several States of the Union, unlike the others which have no application outside the federal zone. So, I agree with LeRoy, but only in part, because of the obvious exception found in 18 USC 1513. Confer at "inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" in Black's Law Dictionary. See also U.S. v. Lopez, S.Ct. (1995); this is the really big case on this subject. /s/ Paul Mitchell >Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:27:55 -0800 (PST) >From: Charles Stewart >To: Timothy Lee , commonlaw@teleport.com >Subject: Re: ComLaw> Appeal or Cert? (fwd) >Sender: owner-commonlaw@teleport.com > >On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Timothy Lee wrote: > >> Charles Stewart wrote: > >Ah, Mr Richardson, > > So good to hear form you. > > But a quick correction here sir, I did not wright this message, >I only forwarded out what was composed by others. > > You are echoing Rick Schramm, of Right Way Law, True? > > And are you doing your Deprivation of Constitutionally Secured >Rights Suits under title 42 or 18? LeRoy Schwetzer says that Title 18 >only applies on military bases, and I presume tha same holds true for 42. > > And have you thought about Commonlaw Tort actions? And if not, why >not? They seem as good as anything else to me. It looks from the books >that they can do anything a t42 can do. > > Your comments would be appreciated. Your welcome to respond to >the entire list on this also, if you prefer. > > >Charles Stewart . . . > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > Date: 25 Nov 1996 07:35:16 U >> > From: John Burr >> > >> > John: >> > Could you put this question out to your law mailing list? >> > >> > I have a friend who has done a title 42 against a bunch of the judges and >> > local district attorney. The scenario is basically this: > >> > Does anyone see any good issues for Cert here? We would like to get into >> > the supreme court if possible. How can we frame the Cert so that an >> > appeal from the appellate court goes there as of right if we are denied? >> > >> > Your help is appreciated, >> > Kevin Haddock >> > Dixianne Hawks >> >> >> Do NOT appeal this case. In the 1st place, when you appeal, you as the >> appeallant are certifying that EVERY MATERIAL FACT IN THE RECORD IS >> TRUE; all you are "appealing" is some procedureal error. The whole >> appeal process was developed by judges, for judges and was designed >> specifically to protect judges from an angry populace for mistakes on >> the bench. >> >> In the 2nd place, appeals are not a right under the Common Law and in >> fact there are rules and Supreme Court Case law which specifically state >> that Citizens do not have a "right" to an appeal -- it is a process >> which can be withheld or allowed at whim. >> >> Certiorari on the other hand is a process whereby the Judge gets to >> certify the record as being complete, and then it is sent up to the >> reviewing panel where both procedure and facts can be reviewed. Once >> the Certiorari is in, then you submit various writs of errors to the >> reviewing panel. >> >> However, my guess is that this STILL won't do you any good as my guess >> is that you filed the case in the "United States District Court" under >> 42 USC >> 1985 or 1983? The Common Law as preserved in the Constitution must be >> brought into the court properly and via procedure. The United States >> District Court is a court of the territories and doesn't have >> jurisdiction to hear the case you are trying to bring. They admit the >> case of course, but then when they decide to judicially >> rape/pillage/plunder, they can, since the venue and jurisdiction are >> both wrong to begin with. >> >> We do Deprivation of Constitutionally secured rights suits regularly and >> we teach the process too. Drop me a line if you want to. >> > > =========================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state =========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Steve Stockman Date: 26 Nov 1996 00:15:14 -0500 I believe it is vitally important that gun-owners and gun-rights advocates (there is a difference) support Steve Stockman in any way we can, however small. This means continued postings on lists, BBS's and newsgroups. Money is important, my small check is already on its way, but other labors could mean as much or more. Messages and postings in the political areas of America Online, Compuserve, Prodigy etc. will be read by voters in Texas. The whole Nation is watching this run-off, especially political leaders of the two major parties and the current administration. This can be viewed as a referendum on gun rights vs. gun control. Let's not have another Carolyn McCarthy type fiasco. The results of this election can be either indispensable or disastrous to our cause. Regards Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Orrin Hatch Date: 26 Nov 1996 07:07:38 -0500 (EST) This may be a little off-topic, but only a little. The feds just noticed that a fugitive had been using a dead man's SSN for 23 years and picked him up. The fact that his attorney, Orrin Hatch, is is on his way out of the Senate probably had nothing to do with the timing. bd ******* AP 11/25/96: KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- A millionaire fugitive who fled Colorado 23 years ago to avoid a prison sentence assumed the identity of his wife's dead grandfather and lived a lavish lifestyle before his capture, authorities said. Federal marshals arrested George I. Norman, 66, on Thursday outside a Knoxville motel. His wife, Donna Sorbo Norman, 36, also was taken into custody. "There are some estimates that he may be worth $50 million," said Bobby Lloyd, a deputy U.S. marshal in Denver. "They were big high-rollers, country-club types, golf and tennis every day, black-tie affairs," Lloyd told The Knoxville News-Sentinel. [...] Norman's flight from justice began on March 13, 1973, when he was supposed to turn himself in the U.S. marshal's office in Denver to begin a two-year sentence for misappropriating more than $500,000 from a Colorado bank. One of his lawyers -- now U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah -- asked marshals if Norman could make a few final phone calls before surrendering. According to several accounts, Norman and Hatch drove to the office of another lawyer and then Norman drove off, leaving a befuddled Hatch standing on the sidewalk. [...] The couple went by the names and Social Security numbers of Sorbo's deceased grandparents, Tom and Lin Dangelis, authorities said. Marshals began to close in on the couple after discovering that the Dangelis' Social Security numbers were still being used. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Clinton quote Date: 26 Nov 1996 05:51:23 -0700 (MST) "... yes, and we cannot be so fixated on designing the next animal pen for the convictions that will surely come out of the Kenneth Starr indictments ...." Mother Goose, Ph.D. (Quacking Up is My Goal) honk honk At 10:39 PM 11/25/96 -0800, you wrote: > > "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of > ordinary Americans ..." > > - Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A) > > > > > > =========================================================== 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: Orrin Hatch Date: 26 Nov 1996 05:59:36 -0700 (MST) the "timing" is deep pockets. Quelle coincidence, n'est pas? /s/ Paul Mitchell At 07:07 AM 11/26/96 -0500, you wrote: >This may be a little off-topic, but only a little. > >The feds just noticed that a fugitive had been using a dead man's SSN for >23 years and picked him up. The fact that his attorney, Orrin Hatch, is >is on his way out of the Senate probably had nothing to do with the >timing. > >bd > >******* > > >AP 11/25/96: > > KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- A millionaire fugitive who fled Colorado 23 years >ago to avoid a prison sentence assumed the identity of his wife's dead >grandfather and lived a lavish lifestyle before his capture, authorities said. >Federal marshals arrested George I. Norman, 66, on Thursday outside a >Knoxville motel. His wife, Donna Sorbo Norman, 36, also was taken into custody. > > "There are some estimates that he may be worth $50 million," said Bobby >Lloyd, a deputy U.S. marshal in Denver. "They were big high-rollers, >country-club types, golf and tennis every day, black-tie affairs," Lloyd told >The Knoxville News-Sentinel. [...] > > Norman's flight from justice began on March 13, 1973, when he was supposed >to turn himself in the U.S. marshal's office in Denver to begin a two-year >sentence for misappropriating more than $500,000 from a Colorado bank. > One of his lawyers -- now U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah -- asked marshals if >Norman could make a few final phone calls before surrendering. According to >several accounts, Norman and Hatch drove to the office of another lawyer and >then Norman drove off, leaving a befuddled Hatch standing on the sidewalk. >[...] > > The couple went by the names and Social Security numbers of Sorbo's deceased >grandparents, Tom and Lin Dangelis, authorities said. Marshals began to close >in on the couple after discovering that the Dangelis' Social Security numbers >were still being used. >[...] > > > > =========================================================== 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: God - creation of the universe Date: 26 Nov 1996 07:53:14 -0700 (MST) In principio erat EPA. /s/ Paul Mitchell >In the Beginning - >================ >God created heaven and earth. Quickly he was faced with a class action >suit for failure to file an environmental impact statement. He was granted >a temporary permit for the project, but was stymied with the cease and >desist order for the earthly part. > >Appearing at the hearing, God was asked why he began his earthly project >in the first place. He replied that he just liked to be creative. > >Then God said, "Let there be light," and immediately the officials >demanded to know how the light would be made. Would there be strip mining? >What about thermal pollution? God explained that the light would come from >a huge ball of fire. God was granted provisional permission to make light, >assuming that no smoke would result from the ball of fire; that he would >obtain a building permit; and to conserve energy, would have the light out >half the time. > >God agreed and said he would the call the light "Day" and the darkness >"Night." Officials replied that they were not interested in semantics. > >God said, "Let the earth bring forth green herbs and such as may seed." >The EPA agreed so long as native seed was used. > >Then God said, "Let waters bring forth creeping creatures having life; and >the fowl that may fly over the earth." Officials pointed out this would >require approval from the Department of Game coordinated with the Heavenly >Wildlife Federation and the Audubonelic Society. > >Everything was okay until God said he wanted to complete the project in >six days. Officials said it would take at least 200 days to review the >application and the impact statement. After that there would be public >hearings. Then there would be 10-12 months before... > >At this point God created Hell. >-- > >Hope ya'll enjoyed this, > >Phil, pmurphy@rtd.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: ForeignCorrespondent STORM CLOUDS OVER CHINA (fwd) Date: 26 Nov 1996 13:32:19 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Foreign Correspondent Inside Track On World News By International Syndicated Columnist & Broadcaster Eric Margolis ,,ggddY"""Ybbgg,, ,agd888b,_ "Y8, ___`""Ybga, ,gdP""88888888baa,.""8b "888g, ,dP" ]888888888P' "Y `888Yb, ,dP" ,88888888P" db, "8P""Yb, ,8" ,888888888b, d8888a "8, ,8' d88888888888,88P"' a, `8, ,8' 88888888888888PP" "" `8, d' I88888888888P" `b 8 `8"88P""Y8P' 8 8 Y 8[ _ " 8 8 "Y8d8b "Y a 8 8 `""8d, __ 8 Y, `"8bd888b, ,P `8, ,d8888888baaa ,8' `8, 888888888888' ,8' `8a "8888888888I a8' `Yba `Y8888888P' adP' "Yba `888888P' adY" `"Yba, d8888P" ,adP"' `"Y8baa, ,d888P,ad8P"' ``""YYba8888P""'' STORM CLOUDS OVER CHINA by Eric Margolis 25 Nov 1996 President Clinton held a long-overdue meeting last Sunday in Manila with China's President, Jiang Zemin. Their main topic was the soaring US trade deficit with China, which, in American eyes, has now replaced Japan as Economic Enemy Number 1. As usual, in the long love-hate relationship between the two superpowers, China's dismal human rights record and Tibet was alluded to, then forgotten. Nothing at all was said about worsening Chinese repression of 24 million rebellious Muslims of China's Sinkiang Province. This vast region, one sixth of China's territory, was known as Eastern Turkestan before being annexed by China. While Tibet remains a highly fashionable cause in the west, oppression of Central Asian Muslim by both China and Russia is ignored. Clinton will try to repair some of the serious damage to Sino-American relations caused by his erratic policy towards Beijing, which has alternated threats and concessions. Clinton's China policy has been exclusively driven by domestic politics: labor unions want to ban imports of cheap Chinese goods; the Democratic Party leftwing is angry about Chinese dissidents and Tibet. On the other side, US industry wants more business in China. Whenever the US criticizes Beijing, major contracts go to Europe. Beijing's recent policies have been equally inept. The ham- handed attempts to bully Taiwan by missile attack backfired, further souring China's foreign relations and badly scaring its neighbors. The intensifying power struggle now underway in Beijing to succeed the moribund Deng Xiaoping has made China's behavior sullen, unpredictable, and foolishly beligerant. Lately, a new concern is clouding Sino-American relations. The Pentagon and members of the US defens establishment have been raising alarms about `the Chinese missile threat.' China, they claim, is working full speed to develop long- ranged missiles capable of devestating North America. At present, China has only about seven ICBM's capable of striking North America - the venerable, liquid-fueled, single warhead Dong Feng DF-5. Earlier this year, a number of Chinese `engineers' were arrested at the Yuzhnoye missile plant in Ukraine while trying to steal blueprints for the SS-18 `Satan' ICBM. This monster, Soviet-designed misisle can carry up to ten, 500 kiloton independently targeted warheads over 11,000 kms. China also has ten 7,000 km ranged DF-4's which could strike Alaska, Hawaii - as well as Moscow, Tokyo, and New Delhi. Plus about 70 1,800-2,700 km ranged IRBM's and some obsolete nuclear bombers. China's nuclear arsenal is modest - well below those of France, Britain and Israel. In recent years, however, China has been modernizing its strategic forces by acquiring advanced nuclear military technology from Ukraine, Israel, and Russia. Israel, in particular, has sold key items of top-secret US military nuclear and conventional technology to China- over bitter Pentagon protests. Alarmists claim China is building to a nuclear warfighting capability. They cite reports China is developing a new ICBM, the DF-41, that may be ready within three years. Threats by an idiotic Chinese diplomat that his nation might hit Los Angeles with nuclear weapons if the US went to war with China over Taiwan set off alarm bells in the US defense community. Cooler heads should prevail. China appears to be building its nuclear forces up to the level of France and Britain - a moderate capability that deters nuclear blackmail, gives China membership in the big five nuclear powers club, and develops strategic muscle. Claims that Sino-American trade disputes over the price of pajamas might lead to nuclear war are overblown. Chinese are generally cautious (except over Taiwan) and have no desire to go to war with the US. In the event of a war, the US, not China, would be more likely to resort to nuclear weapons. China does, however, have one active nuclear foe: India. China and India are already major strategic rivals in Asia. India has a massive, secret nuclear weapons program that is producing atomic and hydrogen weapons, and the missiles to deliver them. Simmering territorial disputes on their long, poorly-demarcated Himalayan border, over which China and India went to war in 1962, or a clash over Tibet or Burma, could produce a major conflict between the two powers. India will deploy missiles and aircraft with nuclear warheads that can hit Chinese strategic targets on the Tibet Plateau, Sinkiang, central China, and, soon, Beijing. China's nuclear-armed missiles already deployed in Tibet can reach as far south in India as Bombay. A nuclear and/or conventional conflict between China and India is far more likely than one between China and the west. Neither the need to find new foreign enemies nor false alarms over China's nuclear program should be allowed to delay urgently needed improvement of relations between Washington and Beijing- or to develop a long-term strategic entente between these two powers whose economic and military interests coincide far more than they conflict. Remember, too, Chairman Mao's observation that China is the only nation on earth that could fight a nucler war, loose hundreds of millions of dead - and still win. . copyright eric margolis 1996 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** To receive Foreign Correspondent via email send a note to Majordomo@lglobal.com with the message in the body: subscribe foreignc To get off the list, send to the same address but write: unsubscribe foreignc WWW: www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm For Syndication Information please contact: Email: emargolis@lglobal.com FAX: (416) 960-4803 Smail: Eric Margolis c/o Editorial Department The Toronto Sun 333 King St. East Toronto Ontario Canada M5A 3X5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Speaker Keyes, er' Gingrich (fwd) Date: 27 Nov 1996 07:56:50 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Thanks to Steve Cappelli for supplying this excellent article from Paul Weyrich. I had the pleasure of meeting him last Friday and he said (it may have been Tom Jipping who said, and in any event, I paraphrase) "It's only rhetoric, but it is at least rhetoric! IMO, it's a start. Happy Thanksgiving all--we leave tonight to drive all night to Austin, Texas. "See" ya next week. Christina I hope you enjoy these comments by Paul Weyrich, they concern a speech given by Speaker Newt Gingrich to the Republican Caucus. He sounds an awful lot like Alan Keyes... ======================================== The Speaker's Profound Remarks by: Paul M. Weyrich Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who was approved by his party caucus for another term as leader of the House of Representatives, said something very important which got little coverage yesterday. The media was busy talking about the Speaker's pledge to cooperate with President Clinton and his acknowledgment that he had made some mistakes. Yet of far more profound significance were these words by Speaker Gingrich: "The country will never again be healthy if we don't have the courage to confront the spiritual and cultural and moral deficit that is an even greater threat to our future than the economic deficit. "In the core documents of our freedoms, the Declaration of Independence, it says unequivocally, we are 'endowed by Our Creator with certain unalienable rights'. And I think we have an obligation to reassert in a calm, open way, involving people of all backgrounds, each approaching God in their own unique way, that this nation comes from God, that it is in fact only successful when it is submissive to God's will, that while all of us are sinners and all of us fall short, that does not excuse any of us forgetting where our powers and our responsibilities come [from]; and somehow reestablishing in the public square that it is legitimate, in fact it is vital, that we recognize the degree to which, in the broadest sense, if America does not get its rights from Our Creator, there is no explanation of America and there is no way of thinking of the future. "I am not suggesting here in any way a state religion. I'm not suggesting in any way a theocracy. But I am suggesting to you that if you read Lincoln and you read the Founding Fathers and you read as recently as FDR, and then you look at our modern 30-second attack commercials and you look at the decay in our society, that maybe we lost a great deal when we became too timid to talk openly about the source of the American dream and the source of our rights and that we have an obligation to re-establish them." To this I can only add "Amen and Amen." It is a mark of our time that the Speaker feels he would have to add as many qualifiers as he did in making a very valid statement. The early leaders of our nation were much more straight forward in proclaiming their belief in God. Important civil documents invoke the name of the "Most Holy Trinity." The argument then was between those such as Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged a distant deity and those who proclaimed that we were a Christian nation, albeit one which was tolerant of other beliefs. Today the argument is between those who want only to acknowledge God in the public square, as the Speaker did in his speech, and those who insist that belief in God is at most a private matter, and any utterance or acknowledgment of God in the outside world is not only improper but should be forbidden. Unfortunately, in what the New York Times has described as the "post-Christian era in America," those who want not to separate church and state but to ban God from government, have won the day. Viewers know I have many differences with the Speaker. But I applaud him for raising this issue. He did so on the day on which his father, Robert Gingrich, who had adopted him at age three, died of cancer at age 71. The words of Speaker Gingrich were a fitting tribute to the only father he ever knew. There is something that happens to us when our fathers die. We begin to look at life more seriously. Somehow when they are still alive, we think of ourselves still as kids, no matter how old we or they may be. But when we lose our fathers, we understand that the future now is up to us. We take responsibilities more seriously. I believe in the Providence of God. I believe nothing happens by accident. The Speaker said with the passing of his Dad, he felt strongly that he had to bring up the issue of God in the public square, even though it might be a little controversial. I believe he was inspired to do so. The Speaker spoke the truth. Let us ask Almighty God to find rest for Robert Gingrich in a place where there is no pain nor grief but only everlasting life. Let us ask that same God to inspire and bless Speaker Gingrich that he might find the wisdom and strength to do exactly what he suggested needs to be done: namely, to help to reestablish God's rightful place in the affairs of mankind. **************************************************** TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL FREEDOMS **************************************************** "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny." --Edmund Burke "The law often allows what honour forbids." -- William Saurin (Irish Politician) **************************************************** Harvey Wysong National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 **************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo Subject: Re: Speaker Keyes, er' Gingrich (fwd) Date: 28 Nov 1996 13:03:57 -0800 (PST) It would be nice if Speaker Gingrich actually believed any of this. His remarks last year about how Buchanan was an "extremist" and his actions in the House prove that this is just eyewash for the conservatives who are desperate to believe that they are actually winning. S. At 07:56 AM 11/27/96 -0600, you wrote: > > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 04:20:41 -0500 >From: Harvey Wysong >To: hwysong@mindspring.com >Subject: Speaker Keyes, er' Gingrich > >Date: 26 Nov 96 11:31:18 EST >From: Robert Jeffrey Family <72420.3540@CompuServe.COM> >Subject: Speaker Keyes, er' Gingrich > >Thanks to Steve Cappelli for supplying this >excellent article from Paul Weyrich. I had >the pleasure of meeting him last Friday and >he said (it may have been Tom Jipping who said, >and in any event, I paraphrase) > >"It's only rhetoric, but it is at least rhetoric! IMO, it's a start. > >Happy Thanksgiving all--we leave tonight to drive all >night to Austin, Texas. "See" ya next week. > >Christina > > >I hope you enjoy these comments by Paul Weyrich, they concern a speech given >by Speaker Newt Gingrich to the Republican Caucus. He sounds an awful lot >like Alan Keyes... > ======================================== > >The Speaker's Profound Remarks > >by: Paul M. Weyrich > >Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who was approved by his party caucus >for another term as leader of the House of Representatives, said something >very important which got little coverage yesterday. The media was busy >talking about the Speaker's pledge to cooperate with President Clinton and >his acknowledgment that he had made some mistakes. > >Yet of far more profound significance were these words by Speaker Gingrich: > >"The country will never again be healthy if we don't have the courage to >confront the spiritual and cultural and moral deficit that is an even greater >threat to our future than the economic deficit. > >"In the core documents of our freedoms, the Declaration of Independence, >it says unequivocally, we are 'endowed by Our Creator with certain >unalienable > >rights'. And I think we have an obligation to reassert in a calm, open way, >involving people of all backgrounds, each approaching God in their own unique >way, that this nation comes from God, that it is in fact only successful when >it is submissive to God's will, that while all of us are sinners and all of >us fall short, that does not excuse any of us forgetting where our powers and >our responsibilities come [from]; and somehow reestablishing in the public >square >that it is legitimate, in fact it is vital, that we recognize the degree to >which, in the broadest sense, if America does not get its rights from Our >Creator, there is no explanation of America and there is no way of thinking >of the future. > >"I am not suggesting here in any way a state religion. I'm not suggesting in >any way a theocracy. But I am suggesting to you that if you read Lincoln and >you read the Founding Fathers and you read as recently as FDR, and then you >look at our modern 30-second attack commercials and you look at the decay in >our society, that maybe we lost a great deal when we became too timid to talk >openly about the source of the American dream and the source of our rights >and > >that we have an obligation to re-establish them." > >To this I can only add "Amen and Amen." It is a mark of our time that the >Speaker feels he would have to add as many qualifiers as he did in making a >very valid statement. The early leaders of our nation were much more straight >forward in proclaiming their belief in God. > >Important civil documents invoke the name of the "Most Holy Trinity." The >argument then was between those such as Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged >a distant deity and those who proclaimed that we were a Christian nation, >albeit one which was tolerant of other beliefs. > >Today the argument is between those who want only to acknowledge God in the >public square, as the Speaker did in his speech, and those who insist that >belief in God is at most a private matter, and any utterance or >acknowledgment > >of God in the outside world is not only improper but should be forbidden. >Unfortunately, in what the New York Times has described as the >"post-Christian > >era in America," those who want not to separate church and state but to ban >God from government, have won the day. > >Viewers know I have many differences with the Speaker. But I applaud him >for raising this issue. He did so on the day on which his father, >Robert Gingrich, who had adopted him at age three, died of cancer at age 71. > >The words of Speaker Gingrich were a fitting tribute to the only father >he ever knew. There is something that happens to us when our fathers die. >We begin to look at life more seriously. Somehow when they are still alive, >we think of ourselves still as kids, no matter how old we or they may be. >But when we lose our fathers, we understand that the future now is up to >us. We take responsibilities more seriously. > >I believe in the Providence of God. I believe nothing happens by accident. >The Speaker said with the passing of his Dad, he felt strongly that he had >to bring up the issue of God in the public square, even though it might be > a little controversial. I believe he was inspired to do so. The Speaker >spoke the truth. > >Let us ask Almighty God to find rest for Robert Gingrich in a place where >there is no pain nor grief but only everlasting life. Let us ask that same >God to inspire and bless Speaker Gingrich that he might find the wisdom and >strength to do exactly what he suggested needs to be done: namely, to help >to reestablish God's rightful place in the affairs of mankind. > > > > **************************************************** > TRIAL BY JURY PROTECTS ALL FREEDOMS > **************************************************** > "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny." > --Edmund Burke > > "The law often allows what honour forbids." > -- William Saurin (Irish Politician) > **************************************************** > Harvey Wysong > National Spokesman, Fully Informed Jury Association > 701 Longleaf Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, U.S.A. > hwysong@mindspring.com (404) 266-0930 > **************************************************** > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Republicans appear incapable of learning. Date: 28 Nov 1996 21:05:56 -0500 (EST) If I ran guy X as a "moderate" and he got 39% and I ran guy Y as "moderate" and he got 41%, I would think about trying something else. bd AP, 11/26/96 WASHINGTON (AP) -- When Bob and Elizabeth Dole swept into a small cocktail party of conservatives last week, the room buzzed with whispers of another Dole race in 2000. But this one would be HER turn. "There was a lot of talk about that -- Dole again, Elizabeth Dole, at the top of the ticket," said Bill Bennett, co-founder of the Empower America think tank that hosted the Doles at one of their first post-election outings. Added California GOP strategist Ken Khachigian: "I don't think there's any question if she doesn't run for president in 2000, she'll be Number 1 in line for vice president." For the record, Mrs. Dole is having none of it. "I have no plans to run. None at all," she said on election night. Already, she's begun shipping file boxes to the American Red Cross, where, after a year off to help with her husband's run for the White House, she will resume the helm by year's end. But from her corner office there, only a tree line obscures her view of the White House and a "draft Liddy" undercurrent -- whether post-election musing or serious prognosticating -- has begun to tug. Dole himself has said this would have been Mrs. Dole's year as a running mate if he hadn't been the nominee. As it was, his campaign half-seriously floated her name in private polling on vice presidential possibilities. She proved popular even as voters flinched at a husband-and-wife team. Florida Rep. Tillie Fowler, a friend for 30 years, says Mrs. Dole never expressed any private interest in running. But, Fowler added, "Who knows? 2000 is a long time from now and she would be fabulous. She might be convinced." "The party would be lucky to have her," said Khachigian, a top consultant to Dole. "She's proven herself." Indeed, Mrs. Dole, commanding a staff of 30, ran a relentless campaign against Clinton that, in its discipline, consistency and polish, outperformed her husband's efforts. An unconventional address to the Republican National Convention made her a star and by campaign's end, she went solo in Dole's television ads and weekly radio broadcast. Loyal to her party and home state, the former two-time Cabinet secretary also stumped for North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms in the last days of his close re-election race. State officials there tried twice before to recruit Mrs. Dole for her own Senate or gubernatorial race. Hardly fading in the shadow of her husband's defeat, the Harvard-trained lawyer is being featured next month with actor Tom Cruise in Barbara Walters' ABC special, "The Ten Most Fascinating People in America." And given her previous tenure at the Red Cross, Mrs. Dole is certain to maintain the high profile. In 3 1/2 years as president of the relief organization, she made more than 200 trips around the country, often to publicity hot spots like Southern California after the Northridge earthquake and coastal Florida to help with the ravages of Hurricane Andrew. On the campaign trail, Republican audiences -- particularly Christian conservatives -- gushed over the spiritual ring she gave to the Dole-Kemp agenda for family tax cuts, smaller government, a balanced budget and a strict abortion ban. "She has a leader's view of the big picture that's inspiring and motivating," said Mary Ann Henry, a 54-year-old business manager, after Mrs. Dole spoke at a Kentucky Christian college. Well-known and well-liked, at least superficially, among the Republican activists who dominate primary voting, Mrs. Dole has already "moved pretty high up the list of potential candidates for 2000," said GOP pollster Linda DiVall. "And anybody who dismisses her would be seriously underestimating her appeal, particularly among women and older voters." Not that the Republican nomination would be Mrs. Dole's for the asking. A Washington Post-ABC News survey before the Nov. 5 balloting found that only 33 percent of respondents were more likely to support Mrs. Dole for president some day based on her performance this year; 45 percent were less likely to support her. Having never run for political office (the last elective post she held was as Duke University student government president in 1957), Mrs. Dole remains substantively unknown with views that have not stood the scrutiny of a campaign. Yet her only choice in aiming for the White House would be to jump directly into the 2000 mix. If Mrs. Dole took time to condition herself with an interim Senate or governor's race, she would be 68 by the 2004 presidential election. Squeezing in a race before 2000 would mean establishing residency outside the District of Columbia. Nearby Virginia or North Carolina would be her most likely bases, but they afford just two unlikely options: challenging Virginia GOP Gov. George Allen in 1997 or North Carolina GOP Sen. Lauch Faircloth in 1998. "Though everybody would perceive her to be qualified, there are serious obstacles," DiVall said. Among them, a field likely to be crowded by already-popular Republicans who would dull Mrs. Dole's luster: retired Gen. Colin Powell, who surpasses her in star power; former Vice President Dan Quayle, also a darling among conservatives; and New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, a formidable drain on Mrs. Dole's appeal among women. Bennett, who campaigned extensively with Bob Dole this year and is mentioned as a possible 2000 contender, sounded certain Mrs. Dole would be drafted. "She's a star," he said, nodding. "Can you imagine? We could finally give the Democrats their nightmare ticket -- Dole-Powell." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Speaker Keyes, er' Gingrich (fwd) Date: 28 Nov 1996 18:40:14 -0800 >It would be nice if Speaker Gingrich actually believed any of this. His >remarks last year about how Buchanan was an "extremist" and his actions >in >the House prove that this is just eyewash for the conservatives who are >desperate to believe that they are actually winning. > >S. Agreed. - 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: [FWIW] Truth Versus Revisionism Date: 29 Nov 1996 08:32:00 -0500 Food for thought. Tom >Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 19:22:13 -0600 (CST) >From: James Fish >X-Sender: jfish@earth >To: fwiw@execpc.com >Subject: [FWIW] Truth Versus Revisionism >Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > >FWIW > > COMMUNISM'S HUMAN TOLL MUST NOT BE PAPERED OVER > ----------------------------------------------- > Lee Edwards > >The urgent need for an institution that will tell the public the >truth about communism is reinforced by each succeeding attempt by >revisionists to minimize, rationalize and even dismiss Marxism- >Lenninism's manifold crimes against humanity. > >In "Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941," for example, >revisionist Robert W. Thurston concludes that "Stalin was not >guilty of mass first-degree murder" during that period. This is >like saying that Al Capone was not responsible for the gangland >murders that riddled Chicago during the 1920s. > >Mr. Thurston further argues that the terror of 1937-38 was not >all that pervasive and that not many people felt much fear. As >Robert Conquest of the Hoover Institution points out, with exqui- >site British understatement, an equivalent reign of terror in >America would have meant the murder of most of the government >and three-fourths of Congress, hundreds of writers and thousands >of military officers which "might have intimidated the citizenry >a little." > >The diagnosis is irrefutable: Mr. Thurston suffers from a bad case >of revisionist myopia. In his examination of the not-so-terrible >days of Stalin, he includes a map of major prison camps that shows >only one site in the notorious Kolyma area of Siberia, where other >historians have documented more than 120 camps. As writer Adam >Hochschild says, "There are millions of living survivors" who >could have informed Mr. Thurston about Kolyma and other outposts >of the Gulag archipelago. > >And then there is Pulitzer Prize winner Tina Rosenberg, author of >a much-lauded study of post-communist Eastern Europe, who declares >that communism and Nazism should not be judged by the same standard. >Whereas fascist ideas are "repugnant," communist ideas are "beautiful" >and the "New Socialist Man" is an "ideal" for all humanity. > >Ms. Rosenberg has obviously not read a revealing new work by >Harvard's Richard Pipes that uses the Kremlin's own archives to >document V.I. Lenin's "utter disregard" for human life. As >columnist Richard Grenier writes, Lenin resembled Genghis Khan >more than someone who had come to "liberate mankind from oppression." > >It is the obduracy of Mr. Thurston, Ms. Rosenberg, J. Arch Getty, >Gabor Rittersporn and other revisionists that helped convince us that >the countless victims of communism in this century require a museum >as well as a memorial. The museum will collect, analyze and publicize >the ever increasing flow of information about the horrors of commu- >nism, past and present, including: > >More than 15 million people were killed, shot or perished in Soviet >prisons and labor camps between 1917 and 1956, according to the head >of a Russian commission on rehabilitating victims of political >repression. Alexander Yakovlev, a former top adviser to Mikhail >Gorbachev, says, "We do not have the right to forgive and forget >the guilt of the Communist Party which installed a bloody terror >for the entire period of Soviet power." > >A Human Rights Watch/Asia report details how children in Chinese >Communist orphanages are now routinely starved and brutalized to >death. This state-sponsored extermination of mostly abandoned >girls is called "summary resolution." As the Wall Street Journal >observes, for a government that mandates forced abortion, "it >isn't such a huge step to kill the recently born." > >Freedom House concludes that with the possible exceptions of >South Africa, Indonesia and China, Communist Cuba under Castro >"has had more political prisoners per capita for longer periods >than any other country." At present, more than 100 prisons and >prison camps hold between 60,000 and 100,000 prisoners of all >categories. > >A researcher in Yale University's Cambodia Genocide Program >reveals that the number of Cambodians who died in the killing >fields of the Communist Khmer Rouge may be close to 2 million - >out of a total population of 7.5 million. > >The newest batch of Soviet intelligence cables intercepted during >World War II and decrypted under the Venona project provides >"strong new evidence," reports the New Republic, that Alger Hiss >was a Soviet agent until at least 1945, when he helped organize >the founding session of the United Nations in San Francisco. > >We must never forget the millions of innocents whom the "Old >Socialist Man" starved and tortured and buried. So said Congress >and President Clinton when they authorized our memorial museum, >now scheduled to open in December 2000. > >In the meantime, we will keep telling the truth about communism >and helping revisionists to understand the difference between >Joe McCarthy and Joe Stalin. > >[end] > >Lee Edwards is president of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. > >Source: The Washington Times > National Weekly Edition > Commentary, p.34 > November 24, 1996 > >Subscriptions: 1-800-311-8353 > > =================================================================== > The above text comes from The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070 > (long distance callers require manual upgrade, usually within hours) > =================================================================== > To subscribe to FWIW simply send the following: > To: listserv@execpc.com > Subj: (leave blank) > Message: > subscribe fwiw > > That's it! The welcome letter will tell you more! > =================================================================== > To unsubscribe, simply send the above instructed message, > substituting "unsubscribe" where appropriate. > =================================================================== > Home page: http://www.execpc.com/~jfish > > > > > > "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: Brad Dolan Subject: Ex post facto laws (Slapped mama 10y ago? Turn in your gun) Date: 29 Nov 1996 10:32:58 -0500 (EST) Don't forget that wonderful Newt and the wonderful Republican freshmen did this to us. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20226 26 November 1996 OPEN LETTER TO ALL STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS The purpose of this letter is to provide information to all State and local law enforcement agencies regarding one specific aspect of the recently enacted Omnibus Connsolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 (the Act). One part of the Act amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) to make it unlawful for any person convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition. It also makes it unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the recipient has been convicted of such a misdemeanor. This new prohibition does apply to all law enforcement officers. Act adds new firearms disability As defined in the GCA, a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" means an offense that: (1) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and (2) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim. This definition includes all misdemeanors that involve the use or attempted use of physical force (e.g., simple assault, assault and battery) if the offense is committed by one of the defined parties. This is true whether or not the State statute or local ordinance specifically defines the offense as a domestic violence misdemeanor. For example, a person convicted of misdemeanor assault against his or her spouse would be prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition. Moreover, the prohibition applies to persons convicted of such misdemeanors at any time, even if the conviction occured prior to the new law's effective date, September 30, 1996. As of the effective date of the new law, such a person may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition. However, with respect to all persons, a conviction would not be disabling if it has been expunged, set aside, pardoned, or the person has had his or her civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) AND the person is not otherwise probited from possessing firearms or ammunition. New disability applies to law enforcement officers In addition, the Act amended the GCA so that employees of government agencies convicted of qualifying misdemeanors wouldd not be exempt from this new disability with respect to their receipt or possession of firearms or ammunition. Thus, law enforcement officers and other government officials who have been convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor will not be able to lawfully possess or receive firearms or ammunition for any purpose, including performing their official duties. This disability applies to firearms and ammunition issued by government agencies, firearms and ammunition purchased by officials for use in performing their official duties, and personal firearms and ammunition possessed by such officials. In view of this amendment's effect on law enforcement officers, your department may want to determine if any employee who is authorized to carry a firearm is subject to this disability and what appropriate action should be taken. Employees subject to this disability must immediately dispose of all firearms and ammunition in their posssession. The continued possession of firearms and ammunition by persons under this disability is a violation of law and may subject the possessor to criminal penalties. In addition, such firearms and ammunition are subject to seizure and forfeiture. In cases where your agency becomes aware of individuals subject to this disabilitiy, we recommend that such persons be encouraged to relinquish all firearms and ammunition in their possession imediately to a third party, such as their attorney, their local police agency, or a firearms dealer. If such a person refuses to relinquish the firearm or ammunition, and your agency is without authority to retain or seize the firearm or ammunition, you should contact the local ATF office. Brady Act In the so-called "Brady States" Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) "shall make a reasonable effort" to determine whether a prospective buyer's receipt of a handgun would be in violation of the law. CLEOs have five business days in which to make that reasonable effort. What constitutes a "reasonable effort" is to be determined by each law enforcement agency based on its own circumstances, e.g., the availability of resources, access to records, and the law enforcement priorities of the jurisdiction. This "reasonable effort" standard is not altered by the addition of this new disqualifying category. It remains fully within the discretion of the CLEO to determine what effort is reasonable. For example, even if the CLEO determines that a misdemeanor assault conviction has occurred, it remains fully within the CLEO's discretion to determine whether to make further inquiry. ATF forms are being revised to reflect the new category of prohibited persons. If you have any questions concerning these new provisions, contact your local ATF office or the Firearms and Explosives Regulatory Division at 202-927-8300. John W. Magaw, Director. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Q. X was convicted of misdemeanor assault on October 10, 1996. The crime of assault does not make specific mention of domestic violence but the criminal complaint reflects that he assaulted his wife. May X still possess firearms or ammunition? A. No. X may no longer possess firearms or ammunition. Q. X was convicted of the same crime on September 20, 1996, 10 days before the effective date of the new statute. He possesses a firearm on October 10, 1996. May X lawfully possess firearms? A. No. If a person was convicted of the crime at any time, he or she may not lawfully possess firearms or ammunition on or after September 30, 1996. Q. Officer C was charged with felony assault on her child in 1989. She pled guilty to a misdemeanor and the felony charge was dismissed. She was suspended from the police force and ordered to undergo counseling. After successful completion of the counseling, she was reinstated. May Officer C lawfully possess firearms or ammunition? A. No. Officer C may no longer lawfully possess firearms or ammunition either on or off duty. NOTE: For one who has been convicted of a misdemanor crime of domestic violence, the prohibition on the possession of firearms and ammunition does not apply if that individual has received a pardon for the crime, the conviction has been expunged or set-aside, or the person has had civil rights restored (if there was a loss of civil rights) AND the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Kaiser propaganda Date: 29 Nov 1996 21:43:28 -0500 For anyone who belongs to Kaiser Permanente HMO,(first my condolence) here is some quotes from their latest 'Partners in Health', and 'Partners in Prevention' mailings. Top Prevention Priorities for Teenagers -snip- 4) Don't use guns. Guns Kill. (on the side..) 'more young people are killed by handguns in California than by car crashes, diseases, or drugs.' Well, well. Kaiser is jumping on the post election bandwagon I see. No facts or figures, just progaganda. And I guess Kaiser has an entire office dedicated to putting out these rags, anyone who wants to write them can at: Kaiser Permanente Editorial Offices 1950 Franklin St. Oakland, Ca. 94512 Perhaps something to the effect.. 'Dear Kaiser, why don't you stay the HELL out of politics and stick to medical issues, since you seem to have enough trouble just getting the medical stuff straight anyway??' Anyway, thats what they spend members money on. Makes ya feel good, don't it?? (gotta go drop my B.P. now) Regards Vanze Lum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Heads Up Date: 29 Nov 1996 19:13:40 -0800 >Doug Fiedor wrote, Mike Kemp forwards: >> >> Heads Up >> >> A Weekly edition of News from around our country >> >> November 29, 1996 #11 >> >> by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> Please Distribute Widely >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> SHE'S BACK >> Hillary Clinton, was muzzled by White House >> handlers before the election. The election is over. >> So, she's at it again, wanting to play co-president. >> Besides pulling half of the administrative >> strings of government behind the scenes, she also >> wants another important position out front in the >> administration. Well, hide your wallets, folks, cause >> this time she wants to "fix" welfare. >> Now, lest anyone forget, Hillary's first fix in >> her husband's administration was in Arkansas. >> There, she "fixed" education. Consequently, >> Arkansas is number 49 in the nation for >> education -- about equal to a poor third world >> country. >> Then, as soon as Slick was president, she tried >> to "fix" immunizations for school children. Under her >> plan, the federal government took over the distribution >> of all vaccines for childhood diseases. Hence, drugs >> worth millions and millions of dollars spoiled in >> government warehouses. Suddenly, under Hillary's >> "fix," schools, clinics and organizations that previously >> had easy access to abundant vaccines for children >> had none. >> Her next major attempt at a "fix," of course, was >> the national health care fiasco. In that program, she >> attempted to socialize the worlds best health delivery >> system and put it under what would quickly develop >> into the largest bureaucracy ever known to man. >> To date, everything Hillary has done in the >> public sector has been an unmitigated disaster! And >> now she wants to do it to welfare? >> Judging by her past writings and speeches, >> Hillary has some grandiose plans for welfare, too. >> She obviously believes that government should take >> complete charge in schooling all American children -- >> except hers, that is. She wants government to provide, >> and control, all medical treatment to children -- except >> hers. And she, of course, is pushing "free" >> government run baby-sitting for all children. >> In other words, she supports full government >> control of children from womb through the second >> year of college. >> Oh. And you, the taxpayer, will pick up the >> tab, of course! Government does the controlling >> and indoctrination. You do the paying. >> >> THE SERPENT HAS COILED >> Slick Willie turned loose his good-buddy, >> Democrat strategist James Carville, again. You >> know, that "serpent head" looking motor mouth >> with a law degree who ran Clinton's first presidential >> campaign. (Now, before anyone writes, it is Carville's >> wife who tagged him publicly with the name "serpent >> head." The "motor mouth" part, however, is self >> evident.) >> Last Sunday, Carville bragged that he is going >> to set up a full national campaign to discredit >> Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Part of the >> campaign is to convince the American public that >> Starr is working for the Republicans. >> "I'm going to get incorporated," Carville said >> on NBC television's 'Meet the Press'. "We're going to >> be able to raise a lot of money and we're going straight >> dead ahead with this." >> However, when asked about the appointment >> of the Democrat, Archibald Cox, to investigate >> President Richard Nixon's White House in 1973, he >> seemed to think that was fine. That's because there >> aren't many socialists in the world as completely >> partisan as the "ragin Cajun" Jimmy Carville. And, >> if you pay him for it, Carville becomes a positive >> fanatic over the chosen issues. >> And, no one has asked him about Hillary's >> role as a young lawyer in the Nixon impeachment >> hearings, either. Even Democrats working with her >> admitted that she, like Carville today, was so >> vindictive that she was willing to pull every dirty >> trick against the Nixon White House she could think >> of. >> Back then, she didn't even want those in the >> Nixon Administration to be allowed benefit of personal >> legal council. But now that the shoe is on the other >> foot, she has dozens of lawyers working in her >> defense -- many of whom are paid with taxpayer funds. >> We should probably also remember that >> Nixon's "enemies list" fit on a rolodex. Billary's >> enemies list requires a big computer -- complete with >> detailed personal information supplied from FBI, Secret >> Service and IRS computers and files. >> If Kenneth Starr was playing partisan politics >> in this investigation, all he would have had to do was >> to release the indictments before the election. Or, he >> could release them now, before the electoral college >> convenes, in hopes that they would then elect someone >> else. Starr is waiting so the indictments will not affect >> the election in any way. Many of us do not agree with >> that plan of action, but that was his decision. >> Also remember that Jim Carville is little more >> than a paid mouthpiece. And as such, he doesn't do >> anything for free. So, by the way, who's paying him? >> Oh oh. Ken Starr; here's another one! >> >> WE HAVE ALL BEEN SAYING THAT >> A few days ago, New York's top court said >> that laws immunizing "official violations of >> substantive rules" leave victims without any >> realistic remedy, and that monetary damages >> are "a necessary deterrent for such misconduct." >> That's good stuff in and of itself. But, >> this time there is more! >> In their Sunday editorial, The New York >> Times -- which is usually a staunch supporter of big, >> powerful government -- writes: >> "Constitutional provisions safeguarding >> individual rights do not mean much if people are >> prevented from seeking meaningful redress when their >> basic liberties are violated. That is the driving >> principle behind last week's ruling by New York's >> highest court, the Court of Appeals. The ruling opens >> the door for people to seek monetary damages from >> state government for violating their rights under the >> State Constitution. >> "By overturning years of lower court rulings >> that held state government immune from such civil >> damage actions, the landmark decision adds new >> muscle to the State Constitution's guarantees of >> equal protection and freedom from unreasonable >> searches, making clear they are not just empty >> promises." >> Wow! This is one time that we owe the >> New York Times a big hardy "Thank You" and >> a couple "Right On's"! >> Support the Constitution's guarantees >> against unreasonable searches. What a neat concept! >> Now, if we could also put the violators in prison for >> a while, we've got something here. >> OK, so that's only one in a row. It's a start, >> though. And this stuff could also catch on in other >> states. >> The big question is: Will the New York >> Times also support a citizen's right against the same >> actions by the federal government, too? >> Let's see. There's the IRS, the FBI, the CIA, >> the BATF, NSA. . . . >> >> HONOR THAT OATH OF OFFICE >> After a 12-year absence, Ron Paul, the Texas >> Republican, won a seat in the House of >> Representatives again. Paul, of course, is really a >> Libertarian. >> "I'm not going to go out of my way to >> challenge the [GOP] leadership on purpose," he >> told the Washington Times. "But my obligation >> is to my oath of office. I think when you vote, that's >> the bottom line. That's when you should really >> decide if it is constitutional or not. Most things >> they do on the Hill are unconstitutional." >> Is there some way we can bottle some of >> that and pass it around on Capitol Hill? >> >> MILITIA NEWS >> Below is another public message from >> the newly forming National Leadership Council. >> This is getting interesting, folks! So interesting, in >> fact, that even if you have absolutely nothing to do >> with a militia, you may definitely wish to read >> this. You may also wish to participate. >> ------------------------------------------------ >> -- Begin public message -- >> We are happy to report that the vast majority >> of the replies we have received [concerning a >> National Leadership Council and a Code of Conduct] >> are positive in nature. Thus we shall continue to >> structure a national organization. >> The first stage in our attempt to reclaim the >> America intended by the founders will be a public >> relations effort to deter mainstream media attention >> against the militia movement. This is a must, >> considering the negative publicity concerning recent >> arrests of members within the movement. >> At least ninety-five percent of all militia >> members are good, outstanding citizens, and an asset >> to their community. We want this related in the news. >> Our goal will also be to call for TV news >> networks and publishers to begin weeding out the >> extreme liberals in the media, and to provide more >> balanced and conservative news reports. The United >> States is becoming more conservative every year, and >> Americans are growing increasingly uncomfortable >> with the steady dose of extreme liberalism today's >> national media presents. >> We also call for Constitutional issues, from >> the viewpoint of the original understanding of the >> Founding Fathers, to be regularly discussed in the >> news. Americans need an understanding of the >> original intent of the authors of our Constitution. >> This important information is woefully neglected >> by today's major media. >> Our first efforts in this project will be to state >> our concerns to the media head on. However, should >> the liberal media not respond to the will of the people, >> we will then concentrate our activities on their >> sponsors and advertisers. Advertisers will then be >> notified that, until they sponsor more acceptable news >> programming and news publications, their products >> will be boycotted on a nation level. >> Our numbers are great, and many groups >> throughout the country agree with this action. >> When we interrupt their cash flow, and affect their >> profit margins, they will begin paying close attention >> to our wants and desires. >> We ask that all Americans join us in this project. >> Meanwhile, work on the National Leadership >> Council and Code of Conduct is in progress. More will >> be reported on that later. >> Over the last few weeks Doug Fiedor, the editor >> and principle writer of this publication, received >> numerous responses concerning his editorials in support >> of the efforts of various militia leaders to establish a >> National Leadership Council. Because Doug is a >> concerned citizen and a true patriot, he has allowed >> those of us interested in uniting all Americans the >> privilege of using his newsletter. >> Anyone wishing further information concerning >> our efforts may E-Mail: Lance R. Crowe at: >> psico1@bgn.mindspring.com >> Other public announcements concerning our >> efforts will be placed in future editions of "Heads Up." >> -- End public message -- >> ------------------------------------------------ >> Yup, this is getting interesting. Good, workable >> plans based on goals and an agenda we can all agree >> with are being readied. >> Most Americans agree that the mass-media is >> far too liberal, and it shows in the published ratings. >> TV news viewers are way down, newspaper >> subscriptions are way down, and most news magazine >> subscriptions are down. People are just fed up with all >> the socialist garbage being sent our way. >> There is a strong message for the news media >> here. But because the national media is so strongly >> infested with staunch proponents of big-government >> socialism, they presently choose to deny that the >> problem is them. >> On the other hand, conservative newspapers, >> like the Washington Times, have an ever increasing >> subscription rate. So too with any and all >> conservative radio and television programming. >> Sponsors and advertisers are starting to notice this >> trend. Consequently, conservative publications and >> programming demand and get big bucks from >> advertisers. >> Truly, this national organization is a plan >> whose time has come. Judging by the vast amount of >> mail received these past three weeks, it seems as >> though there is a great deal of interest out there. >> And this first project will be something we can all >> participate in from the comfort of our own home. >> There has likewise been quite a lot of >> interest concerning the Militia National Leadership >> Council and Code of Conduct. Many of the >> requests for information were from militia members. >> Still, there was also a surprising amount of interest >> from other citizen's organizations. >> Lance Crowe went public with the project >> in this issue, which will give "Heads Up" time to >> catch up with the mail already received. (Whew!) >> All in all, it looks as though 1997 is going >> to be an interesting year, folks. There are a whole >> lot of people out there looking for a peaceful method >> of causing change. So Lance, you're going to be a >> busy, busy guy! >> -- Editorial Note: Those of you who are >> regular "Heads Up" readers know that we have >> already started two weeks ago by writing to ABC >> News and asking them to get rid of Sam Donaldson. >> Sam is a Canadian citizen. Therefore, if he wants to >> preach socialism in government, let him do it in Canada, >> not here. >> For the full text on this, look up issue #9 of >> "Heads Up" at http://mmc.cns.net/headsup/hu-9.txt >> You can write to Roone Arledge, President, >> ABC News, at 77 W. 66th St. New York, NY 10023. >> The telephone number is (212) 456-7777. >> The e-mail address for "Prime Time Live" is: >> PTLive@aol.com. >> The e-mail address for the "This Week With >> David Brinkley" Sunday morning news program is: >> tvabc@abc.com. >> >> WHAT'S IN A NAME >> Has anyone noticed that those of us who >> support the Constitution as written, and the original >> intent of the authors of our Constitution, are now >> labeled as "radicals" and "right-wing extremists" >> by many in government and in the media? >> That's because socialists do not like our >> Constitution. It (was intended to) limits the >> functions of the central government. Socialists >> support womb to tomb regulation of everything >> affecting human existence. Therefore, the bigger >> and more powerful the central government, the better >> they like it. >> Yet, would America have developed into the >> great nation it is today, had the federal government >> not originally supported the original ideals of >> personal freedom and personal responsibility >> championed by the Founding Fathers? Probably not. >> Why, then, do we allow government to turn >> away from those ideals responsible for making this >> country great? And, why then, do we citizens allow >> some in government, and most in the media, to >> continue making disparaging remarks about those >> of us supporting these original ideals? >> The liberals -- the socialists -- are the >> proponents of un-American ideals. Those on the >> extreme left are the ones constantly proposing new >> federal laws and programs contrary to the authority >> allowed the central government by our Constitution. >> Take a look at the recent laws: Brady, Health >> Care, Family Leave, Search and Seizure, Safe >> Schools, Welfare, etc., etc. In no stretch of the >> imagination can authority for any of these laws be >> found anywhere in the Constitution. Yet, they are >> the law! And, more such laws are proposed every day. >> What should we call these people -- those who >> continually propose new socialist programs foreign to >> our Constitution? They are not really "liberals." >> They are certainly not conservatives. Sure, they are >> out and out socialists. But we need a better term. >> They try to label us as "right-wing." We could >> call them "left-wing," but that doesn't seem to work. >> We need a new term -- one that is both short and >> snappy, as well as memorable --to properly describe >> these big-government loving socialists. >> Any ideas? >> >> UNALIENABLE RIGHTS >> When he wrote the Declaration of >> Independence, Thomas Jefferson took a little editorial >> liberty with the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of >> Happiness." Consequently, if we modern Americans are >> to fully understand our own personal rights and liberties, >> this requires a little explanation. >> Back in the days of the Founding Fathers, every >> family was said to have two well studied books in their >> library. The most important best seller around 1775, of >> course, was "The Bible." The second best seller in the >> Colonies was "Blackstone's Commentaries on The >> Law," then a new three volume set on English >> common law. >> For the Founding Fathers, "Blackstone's >> Commentaries" was the law book of the day. Of course, >> the writings of John Locke and others were freely quoted >> too. But, they were theory. "Blackstone's" was an >> accurately written description of our Common Law. >> Since then, "Blackstone's Commentaries" has >> been used for over two-hundred years in every English >> speaking law school in the world. Even today, a well >> read copy of "Blackstone's" can be found in any >> American law library. >> Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James >> Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin >> all studied "Blackstone's" at length, as did all of the >> Founders. That is very obvious in their writings. >> They quote and paraphrase the text extensively. >> So, it is no surprise that the phrase written by >> Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence originated >> in Chapter One of Book One of Blackstone's, titled >> "Absolute Rights of Individuals." Blackstone describes >> the absolute rights of individuals as being our right to >> life, liberty and property. Jefferson took the editorial >> liberty of changing "property" to "pursuit of >> happiness," knowing full well that all Colonial >> Americans would understand exactly what was meant. >> It is us, today's Americans, who seem to have >> a problem with that meaning. We Americans have lost >> the concept of true freedom because we no longer know >> exactly what our rights are. In today's United States, >> the word "rights" has been corrupted so completely >> that few Americans any longer know the difference >> between the terms procedural rights and civil rights, >> and our unalienable rights and liberties. However, >> the basics can be learned in less than a minute, so >> let's examine a little of Blackstone's original text. >> Sir William Blackstone defines our absolute >> rights as "those which are so in their primary and >> strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons >> merely in a state of nature, and which every man is >> entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it." >> These rights have also been called natural rights by >> some. >> Blackstone then breaks these rights down into >> three basic categories: >> LIFE -- The Right of Personal Security: >> "This right consists of a person's legal and >> uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his >> body, his health and his reputation." Herein can >> also be found your right of self defense. >> LIBERTY -- The Right of Personal Liberty: >> "This consists in the power of locomotion, of >> changing situation, of moving one's person to >> whatever place one's own inclination may direct, >> without imprisonment or restraint, unless by course >> of law." We find this right protected, to a limited >> extent, within the body of our Constitution, and >> further guaranteed within the Bill of Rights. >> PROPERTY - The Right of Private Property: >> "This is the third absolute right, and consists in the >> free use, enjoyment and disposal by a man of all his >> acquisitions, without any control or diminution, >> save only by the laws of the land." >> Our Founding Fathers called these absolute >> rights "unalienable" -- incapable of being given up, >> taken away, or transferred to another. In Jefferson's >> first draft of The Declaration of Independence, the >> word was conventionally spelled inalienable. >> However, the newspaper editor among them, >> Benjamin Franklin, thought unalienable sounded >> stronger. And, as they say, the rest is history. >> Thus, the protection of Life, Liberty and >> Property -- our natural, absolute and unalienable >> rights -- became the underlying reason our country was >> formed. >> There is, of course, a caveat here: As members >> of society, we are also required to respect these rights >> in all others. Therefore, the most important reason we >> empower governments to make and enforce laws is to >> insure that everyone respects the rights of others. >> Towards this end, the body of our Constitution >> was carefully crafted by the Founding Fathers to allow >> the central government only certain enumerated >> powers. Although it may not seem like it today -- with >> our hundreds of thousands of pages of imposing laws, >> rules and regulations -- the powers of the federal >> government were designed to be few, and the freedoms >> of citizens were intended to be many. >> Because of the lack of vigilance on the part of >> the American public, this ratio of government powers >> to personal freedom has recently reversed. We can >> probably recoup many of our unalienable rights >> again. But folks, it's going to take some effort from >> all of us. Bureaucrats are not about to relinquish >> their control over us without a lot of kicking and >> screaming. >> >> MESSAGE TO CONGRESS >> Isn't it time Congress stopped legislating >> to protect big government, which should have no >> rights, and began legislation to protect the rights of >> the American citizens? And isn't it also time you >> stopped ripping off money from our great >> grandchildren via that ever growing national debt? >> Towards these goals, we herein offer two >> suggestions: >> First: That 15% tax reduction proposed by >> Bob Dole did not go far enough. However, let's >> use Dole's number for a while anyway. There >> should be a 15% reduction in the federal >> government -- across the board, except for >> military -- next year. >> Let's get fiscally responsible here, Congress. >> You're broke! So, stop spending. Rip up the damn >> credit cards. You're over extended. >> Until the budget is balanced, each year, lay >> off 15% of the federal workforce. Then, use the >> savings to pay down the national debt. >> Second: Perhaps it is time we dusted off that >> Liberty Amendment that was becoming so popular >> about 1978. Towards that end, "Heads Up" will >> publish the text for public comment next week. >> Sure, proposing the Liberty Amendment >> may give the socialists among you a heart attack. >> But it does, after all, echo many of the ideals of the >> Constitution's authors. And it will, incidentally, >> answer many of the concerns of today's American >> citizens. It will also go far in lowering the national >> debt. >> The 105th Congress had better pay close >> attention to the unalienable rights and liberties of >> the people. Else, the 106th Congress is going to >> look significantly different. >> >> WE'RE ON THE NET >> Thanks to the efforts of Jeff at the Central >> Michigan Regional Militia -- http://mmc.cns.net -- >> "Heads Up" is now archived on the Internet. The >> newsletter can be reached through their address, or >> directly at http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html >> Stop by and say hello to the people from Kent >> County Michigan, a really beautiful place to live and >> play. And, while you are there, thank Jeff for all of >> the work he has done to make "Heads Up" available. >> >> -- 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: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Kaiser propaganda Date: 29 Nov 1996 19:29:12 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 29 Nov 1996 Tsuma@aol.com wrote: > Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 21:43:28 -0500 > From: Tsuma@aol.com > Reply-To: roc@xmission.com > To: ba-firearms@shell.portal.com > Cc: roc@xmission.com > Subject: Kaiser propaganda > > For anyone who belongs to Kaiser Permanente HMO,(first my condolence) here is > some quotes from their latest 'Partners in Health', and 'Partners in > Prevention' mailings. > > Top Prevention Priorities for Teenagers > -snip- > 4) Don't use guns. Guns Kill. (on the side..) 'more young people are killed > by handguns in California than by car crashes, diseases, or drugs.' > > > Well, well. Kaiser is jumping on the post election bandwagon I see. No facts > or figures, just progaganda. And I guess Kaiser has an entire office > dedicated to putting out these rags, anyone who wants to write them can at: > Kaiser Permanente > Editorial Offices > 1950 Franklin St. > Oakland, Ca. 94512 > > Perhaps something to the effect.. > 'Dear Kaiser, why don't you stay the HELL out of politics and stick to > medical issues, since you seem to have enough trouble just getting the > medical stuff straight anyway??' A better slogan for them might be, "Kaiser Permanente Kills", as in the case of a perfectly healthy mother who checked in a few years ago to deliver a baby, was anesthetized, then suffocated by this bunch of assholes. After the damage judgment against them for that and many other cases of medical maplpractice and negligence, I'm surprised they are still in business. Personally, I wouldn't take my pet spider there. Classic example of what happens when socialists take over medicine. ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Ft.Lauderdale v. Army Date: 29 Nov 1996 20:35:46 -0800 (PST) PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE CITIZEN GROUP STOPS ASSAULT ON FT.LAUDERDALE AND EXPOSES NEW FEDERAL POLICE People For Sovereignty and Restoration headed by Carol Lido was supported by hundreds of local travel agents, hotels, and various advocacy groups, along with elected officials of Florida and Washington, D.C. who together mustered the support necessary to stop a current operational exercise planned for Ft.Lauderdale. This marks the first time any city in the US has successfully thwarted the governments' efforts to bring nights of terror to its' residents. Previously, only Pittsburgh was able to get the government out after experiencing 1 night of 3 planned nights of urban assault exercises. What Ft.Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle failed to tell the residents were the secret arrangements he had made with 160 SOAR[helicopter assault wing], Navy SEAL Team 6, and "black budget" Special Forces Operations Detachment-DELTA to permit Night Urban Assault "exercises" in Ft.Lauderdale. Clint Sperber, Public Information Rep. for Broward County, Florida continued the veil of deceit stating the night urban exercise was an "armed force air show". This was subsequently proven to be a lie when the Public Affairs Office for the Navy Blue Angels, Air Force Thunderbirds, and Army Knights all denied any planned night air show for the Ft.Lauderdale area through this holiday season. Had it not been for the People for Sovereignty and Restoration, Ft.Lauderdale could have looked forward to the experiences of other cities: awakened at 2am[Chicago], troops rappelling from helicopters [Pittsburgh&Memphis], improperly detonated explosives [New Orleans], crashing helicopter with injuries [Houston], and automatic live fire[Dallas, Detroit, L.A., Pittsburgh, Houston, New Orleans, Chicago]. Folks, these are not ordinary Special Forces but "black budget" operations being carried out by future federal "extra legal" regional police that operate in violation of the Constitution. After taking office in 1992, Pres. Clinton illegally and without approval from Congress issued an Executive Order known as Presidential Decision Directive-25 [PDD-25]. He claimed authority from March 9,1933 revised "Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917" which declared each citizen an enemy of the federal government. Exec.Orders may be obtained from the White House at 202-395-7332 or your Congressman. The full text of PDD-25 exempts Joint Special Operations Command from the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 18USC Sec. 1385, PL86-70, Sec.17[d]. which makes it illegal for military and law enforcement to exercise jointly. Special Forces Operations Detachment-DELTA is subordinate to JSOC and thus claims, exemption from the Posse Comitatus Act "flows" through to SFOD-D. With their "black budget" SFOD-D and Hostage Rescue Team[HRT] of FBI train together at the $80million upgraded Range19 in Ft.Bragg, N.C. HRT also maintains an office at JSOC HQ in FT.Pope adjacent to Ft.Bragg. Both SFOD-D and HRT train together at Quantico, Va. where they have exclusive use of a new airstrip with enlarged C141capability. 160 SOAR out of Ft.Campbell, KY flies SFOD-D/HRT to their city urban assault assignments. Several SOAR pilots have expressed uneasiness over the illegal SFOD-D/HRT relationship with local police and the plans to expand SFOD-D/HRT operations by 6 X's the current size. There will be a team in each of 6 regions around the nation which they refer to as "war zones". For those not understanding, SFOD-D has, and rightly so, as their Standard Operational Procedure a "take no survivors" policy once forces are committed. The same operational policy, weapons, and uniforms are used by HRT. The question you must ask - do you want an internal federal police force that has as its' Standard Operational Procedure a "take no survivor" mentality? We need only think of Waco. Because of the success of JSOC integrating SFOD-D with HRT, there is a changing mindset within the "regular" military to expand the concept of military use of force against Americans. This is evident in The Marine Gazette, Sept.1996 an article entitled "New Threats Require New Orientations" written by Col. James A.Lasswell, Planning Div., and Col.Randolph A.Gangle, Senior Operations Advisor at Commandants Warfighting Lab. Together, they draw upon fictitious Hollywood plots [3Lies, Sneakers, The Rock,] as justification to suspend The Posse Comitatus Act and implement the use of all necessary operational military force against Americans. Career officers using Hollywood scripts to formulate operational policy. Folks, we are at a point in the course of our nations history where many events are coming together to dramatically and unfavorably alter life, liberty, and freedom in America. We accomplished something in Ft.Lauderdale the past 10 days but it isn't over. The People For Sovereignty and Restoration can not, by themselves, right all that is wrong. We need your help, your children need your help, and future generations need your help. We beg you to contact your local, state, and national officials and demand a Congressional investigation to STOP THE ILLEGAL FEDERAL REGIONAL POLICE FORCE, NOW!!! Stars1776@aol.com, john-potter@worldnet.att.net, plcoffr@alpha.wcoil.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: She's Back Date: 30 Nov 1996 01:08:22 -0500 Liberty or Death posts: >> SHE'S BACK Hillary Clinton, was muzzled by White House handlers before the election. The election is over. So, she's at it again, wanting to play co-president....<<< Yeech! Monte: You are a low down dirty polecat. You could have at least waited until I digested my Thanksgiving dinner before posting this I do not feel well. I think my dinner is starting to come up. I'll get you for this. Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Waco Date: 30 Nov 1996 01:08:24 -0500 FYI The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) "documentary investigative" series "Frontline" will broadcast an episode entitled "WACO" The time is Tuesday Dec 3, 1996 at 9PM EST. in the New York City area. Check local listings for time and channel if you are interested. Regards, Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: She's Back Date: 30 Nov 1996 13:37:49 -0800 >>> SHE'S BACK > Hillary Clinton, was muzzled by White House > handlers before the election. The election is over. > So, she's at it again, wanting to play co-president....<<< > > Yeech! > >Monte: > > You are a low down dirty polecat. You could have at least waited >until I digested my Thanksgiving dinner before posting this > > I do not feel well. I think my dinner is starting to come up. > > I'll get you for this. > >Dennis OOPS!!! Sorry; what was I thinking? Shoulda at least waited a coupla hours after that pumpkin pie & whipped cream ;) - 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: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Kaiser propaganda Date: 30 Nov 1996 09:48:41 -0800 Vanze, >>>>>>> Perhaps something to the effect.. 'Dear Kaiser, why don't you stay the HELL out of politics and stick to medical issues, since you seem to have enough trouble just getting the medical stuff straight anyway??' <<<<<<< To properly make a point, one must first address the opposition in a calm and reasoned demeanor, with the facts. Counter their 'facts' with the _real_ facts, answering each of them with as many quotable references as you can muster. Don't skimp on references, and when you are done, write a letter to your local paper with photocopies of the Kaiser mailing, and address your concerns to the public. Do so in a multiple fashion, that is, write your letter and make 10 copies. At regular intervals, send them to Kaiser, and if necessary to the local paper to be sure they print it. The object here, is to make darned sure that they who harass you with lies, get equally harassed with the truth. Ed