From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: Re: Kaiser propaganda Date: 01 Dec 1996 13:25:02 -0500 -snip- > The object here, is to make darned sure that they who harass >you >with lies, get equally harassed with the truth. Very good advice, Thanks. V. Lum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Kaiser propaganda Date: 01 Dec 1996 15:12:31 -0800 At 01:25 PM 12/1/96 -0500, you wrote: >-snip- >> The object here, is to make darned sure that they who harass >you >>with lies, get equally harassed with the truth. > > >Very good advice, Thanks. > >V. Lum This sounds like a very wise saying originating in ancient Chinese philosophy. Do you have any more like this? I love it! /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: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: TWA 800: KKV Vicitim ? (fwd) Date: 02 Dec 1996 08:20:06 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: flight800@sunlink.net (free 2 copy (*)-------------------(free 2 forward) W A S T W A F L I G H T 8 0 0 A KINETICALLY KILLED VEHICLE ? By Ian Williams Goddard The Discovery Channel special, "The Crash of TWA Flight 800" (11/17), reported that investigators had found "fist-size holes above the center fuel tank." What would account for multiple "fist-size holes" in the central area of the plane? Currently being deployed by Naval assets for test firings, the SM-2(IVA) is an advanced radar-guided missile that locks onto the center of mass of its target. As the SM-2(IVA) nears its target, it re- leases a warhead known as a Kinetic Kill Vehicle (KKV), which has its own propulsion and guidance system. This release is called the "end-game." Within a few feet of its target, triggered by a proximity fuse, the KKV unleashes a barrage of small spheres, or "fragments," which rip apart the target's structure. In short, the KKV is a self-guided and -propelled fragmentation warhead. If the SM-2(IVA) was the missile-like object seen by over 150 people and radar shooting up from an activated Naval test-firing zone to intercept TWA 800, then investigators should discover multiple "fist-size holes" around the center of the plane. Investigators have discovered multiple fist-size holes around the center of the plane; therefore it would be logical to propose that the missile-like object 150 people and radar saw shooting up from an activated test-firing zone to intercept TWA 800 was the SM-2(IVA) with KKV fragmentation warhead. You can find an illustration of a KKV in action against an incoming ballistic missile here: http://www.ssdc.army.mil/ssdc/peels.html OTHER CULPABLE SM-2(IVA) FEATURES While witness Lou Desyron told ABC News (7/21/96) that the missile-like object that hit TWA 800 ap- peared to "come from a boat," the Navy claims that it's closest ship, an Aegis guided-missile cruiser, was 185 miles away. Could it have hit TWA 800 at this range? No problem: the SM-2(IVA), designed for Aegis missile systems, has a range well over 320 miles. No other missile the Navy deploys is likely to have exceeded the 185 mile distance. Newsday (9/1/96) reported that radar from Islip, NY recorded the missile "rising, tracking toward the plane, circling to the front of the plane and then disappearing in the plane's underbelly." This describes a missile with amazing maneuvering cap- abilities. The SM-2(IVA), with its Advanced Solid Axial Stage (ASAS) built by Thiokol, has highly advanced "thrust-vectoring control" allowing for previously unheard-of maneuverability. Apart from the many fist-size holes and consistent with the full mass of the warhead and missile slam- ming into the plane, the Associated Press (9/23/96) reported that there is "a hole going in and a hole going out" of the plane. Confirming this report, the St. Louis Post Dispatch (11/9/96) interviewed TWA pilots who said that "investigators had found a hole in the center of the aircraft they believed was caused by a missile." The Post also reported that "the crash investigation committee and sour- ces in the Pentagon had told them [ the pilots ] that wreckage supported the Navy missile theory." CONCLUSION Considering that, as The New York Post (9/22/96) reported, "the FBI interviewed 154 'credible' witnesses -- including scientists, school teach- ers, Army personnel and business executives -- who described seeing a missile heading through the sky just before TWA 800 exploded," and that two radar systems also recorded the same, it seems inconceivable that a missile did not strike down TWA flight 800. Newsday (9/1) also reports that Heidi Krieger photographed the missile from a boat, which is not the same photo Pierre Salinger held. Heidi said, "I think it is a missile only because I have this photograph; otherwise I would believe whatever is on television." The photograph shows a thin white line streaking up to where TWA was about to exploded. The FBI took away the nega- tives, which have since disappeared from sight. When we add it up -- (1) the widespread eyewit- ness accounts of a missile strike, plus (2) the radar reports and the photographic evidence of a missile strike, plus (3) the area was activated for Naval operations, plus (4) the physical dam- age sustained by the plane consistent with a KKV missile hit, a variety of missile currently under- going off-shore testing -- to conclude that we have an overwhelming case for a "friendly fire" incident seems to be a gross understatement. ************************************************************************ 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: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] JUST DON'T DO IT (fwd) Date: 02 Dec 1996 09:17:26 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- December 2, 1996 SENATOR DUKE (719) 481-9289 By Senator Charles R. Duke Colorado District 9 JUST DON'T DO IT Many people have had the experience of being stopped by law enforcement authorities, some for infractions and some for routine checking, such as for being under the influence or license verification. There is today a disturbing occurrence that not only are law-abiding citizens restrained, but also a search of their vehicles is sometimes made. In still other cases, this Senator has been contacted by constituents who have been notified that the Tax Assessor would be visiting their home to make an interior inspection. Most will allow this without question. Some, however, question whether they are obligated by law to allow the search. A search of the Colorado Revised Statutes by Legislative Legal Services revealed no law requiring these people to allow the interior search. In at least a few other cases, real and personal property have been seized by law enforcement and disposed of before court action can be taken to stop the disposition. In all these examples, these people do not at all understand why our Constitution is not followed. Prior to the War for Independence, incorrectly referred to by most as the American Revolution, these actions were all being perpetrated by King George and his tax collectors. In 1761, the king was issuing "writs of assistance" to allow his tax collectors to search the ships, warehouses, and homes of the colonists, looking for contraband. This so terrorized the colonists that, when our Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution, two amendments were added to restrict the power of government to perform these acts. The Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the persons or things to be seized." In colloquial terms, this means that searches of your private property, on a routine or otherwise inspection, is prohibited without law enforcement having some probable cause to believe that a law has been broken. It further specifies that a warrant is necessary, supported by an oath or affirmation before a judge. Therefore, you may think you are required to allow these searches, but a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in an Ohio case declares that the searches without probable cause or warrants are permitted if you "volunteer," then it compromises the ruling by stating that law enforcement does not have to tell you that you are volunteering, as the Ohio law implied that they must. Well, this isn't a whole loaf, but it is a better ruling than many by the U.S. Supreme Court. It means that the proper response when you are asked to allow a search is, "I choose not to volunteer to allow the search." This, of course, may not sit well with the law enforcement and they may search your vehicle or home, anyway. But now you will have a U.S. Supreme Court ruling behind your explicit denial of volunteering. As this ruling becomes known, the suggested response should be sufficient to stop the search. Everyone is familiar with the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against self-incrimination, but the Amendment contains many other passages and concludes with, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Thus, private property may not be seized and disposed of without compensating the owner with fair value for the property seized. These are not rights that you have been granted by government. In fact, it is the nature of government to encroach upon rights. Our Forefathers believed that these were unalienable rights granted by our Creator. They also believed so strongly that these rights were not subject to the rule of Man that two of ten Amendments constituting our Bill of Rights dealt with explicit denial to the power of government to encroach upon them. It is not necessary to change our form of government in order to regain these rights. It is necessary to recognize that blood has already been spilled to secure these rights for you. It is now your responsibility to understand these rights and to use them properly. So, borrowing a phrase from Bob Dole's recent campaign, the next time law enforcement asks you to volunteer your private possessions for searches, just don't do it. End ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: ComLaw> STOP IMMEDIATELY (fwd) Date: 02 Dec 1996 18:54:18 -0700 (MST) >Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 18:27:25 -0700 (MST) >From: Gregg Tivnan >X-Sender: greggt@goodguy >To: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: Re: ComLaw> STOP IMMEDIATELTY (fwd) > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 17:11:41 -0700 (MST) >From: xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx >To: Gregg Tivnan >Subject: Re: ComLaw> STOP IMMEDIATELY (fwd) > >>ask him if 2PQH855 means anything to him? ;-} > >well, what does it mean? > > >>>>Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 08:39:10 -0800 >>>>To: tttorch@ix.netcom.com >>>>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >>>>Subject: STOP IMMEDIATELY >>>> >>>>STOP IMMEDIATELY. >>>> >>>>IF YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO THREATEN ME, >>>>I AM OBLIGED TO TELL YOU THAT I AM >>>>A FEDERAL WITNESS, AND THREATENING >>>>A FEDERAL WITNESS CARRIES A PENALTY >>>>OF 10 YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON, AND A >>>>FIND OF $250,000. >>>> >>>>CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED, BECAUSE >>>>I HAVE TO TELL YOU THIS. >>>> >>>>DO YOU UNDERSTAND, SIR? >>>> >>>>YOUR COMMUNICATIONS FROM THIS POINT >>>>FORWARD WILL BE RECORDED AND SENT >>>>TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. >>>> >>>>I AM SERIOUS. >>>> >>>>/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: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: SAFAN NO. 170. Stop the Illegal Federal Regional Police Force - Now!!! (fwd) Date: 03 Dec 1996 07:53:33 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW!! S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 170, December 2, 1996 STOP THE ILLEGAL FEDERAL REGIONAL POLICE FORCES, NOW! by Carol Lido (STARS1776@aol.com) My Friends, We have another fantastic opportunity here to nail these guys into their coffin. Let's circulate this release everywhere- get the people fired up- and start calling your legislators and demanding an investigation into this. This is just the beginning of what we can accomplish with this opportunity. By Christmas we'll have a lot more to celebrate. God Bless Us All For the Republic Carol Lido (Stars1776@aol.com) ========================================================= 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 Congress- man. 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 [3 Lies, 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 cannot, 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!!! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SAFAN %Dot Bibee (SafanNews@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on David Feustel's page http://feustel.mixi.net 219-483-1857 Email to: feustel@mixi.net +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: SAFAN NO. 171. U.S. Violates the Posse Comitatus Act? (fwd) Date: 03 Dec 1996 08:00:20 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW! S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 171, December 2, 1996 U.S. Violates the Posse Comitatus Act?? Posted by: Cory Brickner (brickner@imap2.asu.edu) The Freedom Pages http://www.public.asu.edu/~brickner/ U.S. DRAFTS MILITARY IN DRUG WAR by Jim McGee, Washington Post FORT BLISS, Texas -- Through night-vision goggles, the drug smugglers resembled a pack team in an old Western movie: three riders and nine horses, winding single file down a rugged ravine in the Coronado National Forest near Nogales, Ariz. Army Special Forces soldiers, watching the remote mountain pass from two camouflaged observation posts in the trees, waited until the procession sauntered past before issuing an alert over a secure radio channel. At Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., a U.S. Forest Service officer sitting in the base command center jotted down the Green Berets' information and relayed it to a National Guard OH-58 helicopter crew, which took off and headed for the ravine. Using an infrared radar system and map coordinates provided by the Army, the helicopter crew soon spotted the horses and riders. Within minutes, a posse of sheriff's deputies and Forest Service officials driving Ford Broncos arrested the smugglers and seized their booty: 2,404 pounds of cocaine. The Coronado Forest episode last year may have had more drama than most drug busts. But the case was typical in illuminating the extent to which the U.S. military has become embedded in the nation's drug war. With little public fanfare and scant congressional scrutiny, the military's domestic role has become broad and deep. Since 1989, when Congress and the Bush administration formally ordered the military into the drug fight, the Pentagon has spent more th an $7 billion on counterdrug operations. Last year, more than 8,000 active duty and reserve soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel -- a force almost equivalent to an infantry division -- participated in 754 counterdrug support missions on U.S. soil that led to 1,894 arrests. Special Forces teams monitor the Rio Grande, marines patrol the California desert and Army intelligence officers watch for criminal activity from investigative centers in Miami, New York, Los Angeles, Houston and Greenbelt, Md. Many supporters of the military's involvement in drug enforcement, citing the threat to the nation's social and economic order, believe the Pentagon's role should be even greater. "I think it should be getting larger," said Rep. Bill Zeliff, R-N.H., chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight sub- committee on national security, international affairs and criminal justice. "We should use the military. It all boils down to : Do we want to declare war on drugs or don't we?" For some military commanders, counterdrug operations provide useful training while making soldiers feel that they're involved in a vital mission. Civilian law enforcement officials are generally grateful for the technological acumen and professional co mpetence the armed forces provide, particularly with sophisticated surveillance and communications systems. "Even if there was an argument that someone else ought to be doing it," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, "the fact that (the military) is there argues for it being used." The billions spent mustering the military for anti-drug duty has yielded an uncertain dividend. The availability of cocaine, heroin and marijuana in U.S. cities has not decreased, according to federal drug officials. And critics contend the military ha s edged toward a legal threshold that has been a singular feature of U.S. civil-military relations for more than a century: a general ban on military involve- ment in routine domestic law enforcement. "There is a very strong claim that we are already pressing the outer bounds of what is constitutionally desirable," said James Dempsey of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington. McCaffrey expresses wariness about overstepping a legal tradition that has its roots in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The statute was a response to post-Civil War abuses by occupation troops in the South during Reconstruction. The law prohibits Army involvement in domestic arrests or searches and seizures, a ban that has since extended to the other services. Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, argues that the open-ended nature of the military's commitment is a potential hazard. "It should (have been) a temporary stopgap," Korb said, "but it's been institutionalized." "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!" - Adolph Hitler, 'Berlin Daily', April 15th, 1935 **************************************************************************** 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 **************************************************************************** SAFAN %Dot Bibee (SafanNews@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on David Feustel's page http://feustel.mixi.net 219-483-1857 Email to: feustel@mixi.net +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Part 2, GOV'T ATROCITIES: Gulf War Vets Infected (fwd) Date: 03 Dec 1996 08:57:51 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: act@efn.org, lindat@iquest.net, rich@pencil.math.missouri.edu, pauls@cic.net, bigred@shout.net, blazing@crl.com, dothb@aol.com, hpbiii@aol.com, pnpj@db1.cc.rochester.edu, jwhitley@Inforamp.net, tfs@adc.com, eplurib@megalinx.net, clarkm@cnct.com, patrick@silcom.com ____ ____ --____ ____---- ----____ ____---- ----____ ____-- ---- ---- ---- T H E P E O P L E'S S P E L L B R E A K E R ____ ____ ____ __---- ----____ ____---- ----____ ____---- ----__ ---- ---- News They Never Told You .... News They'll Never Tell You DATE: _________ __, ____ PRICE: __ CENTS THE NEWSPAPER FOR THE PEOPLE OF MISSISSIPPI * * * * * MORNING EDITION * * * * * EDITOR: John DiNardo From the free airwaves of the People's radio station in Nashville, Tennessee, WWCR, 5.065 (or 5.070) megahertz Shortwave: PROTECTING YOUR WEALTH, broadcast weekdays from 8:00 to 9:00 P.M., E.S.T. 1(800)451-4452 Part 2, 10/22/96, GOV'T ATROCITIES: Gulf War Vets Infected ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The Seifert Family: `Our son died a horrible tragedy.' This is a case in which a young man came back from serving proudly [in the Persian Gulf War]. He was 27 at the time. And he began to lose ground very fast. He deteriorated, and, believe it or not, the Veterans Administration told him that they were going to have to remove every inch of his skin from his body in order to save his life. They surgically removed every inch of his skin. Of course, you cannot live like that. They said they would do a pig transplant on him. It did not work. He died a most horrendous death. This is the REAL story that CNN-TV is not telling you, and that NBC-TV news is not telling you." JOYCE RILEY: We know that mustard gas was utilized in the Gulf War. We know that seran gas was released, and a gas called [unintelligible; sounds like GF]. So what we have now is a group of people in the Pentagon .... primarily, that would be Dr. Stephen Joseph, who is a point man for the Pentagon, and who is continuing this facade, only because America doesn't know the difference. So, America, now, does not have any patience with these Gulf War veterans, thinking that, They didn't fight like we did in WW II. They go over there and get a few rashes, some headaches, and the come home and probably just want a Government hand-out. That's what they want you to believe on the news. Now, one thing I want to tell you is that this bunker that was blown up at Kamisayeh .... the reason that information came out and the reason it came to the forefront is because those troops went to [the television show] SIXTY MINUTES and reported that they had a video. The video showed, very plainly, seran gas in the cannisters with the yellow bands around them, with U.S. markings. I repeat. In the Iraqi bunker -- which was about the size of a Wal-Mart [department store] -- there were seran gas cannisters with *U*S* MARKINGS! SIXTY MINUTES would NOT zero in on this. SIXTY MINUTES would not show it, and they would not let you know that our Government [Pres. George Bush] sold the seran gas to Saddam Hussein. So, the upshot of all of this now is that they are saying that approximately a hundred thousand troops were exposed. I believe the true figure to be closer to seven hundred thousand, or all of them having been exposed to either SCUD [missiles] .... JEFF BENNETT: Joyce, let me interrupt with a quick question. You say, "they are now saying `a hundred thousand.'" Who are "they"? JOYCE RILEY: The Pentagon. JEFF BENNETT: Interesting. Let me share this with you. This, you may not have seen, came off the Associated Press very late this afternoon -- a very brief little ... you can't call it a report: "The Defense Department plans to TRY to contact around twenty thousand troops who MAY have been exposed to chemical agents during the destruction of an Iraqi chemical weapons depot in 1991, officials said on Tuesday. Officials previously said that more than fifteen thousand could have been exposed, and said the number could go higher." They're still playing numbers games. Aren't they? JOYCE RILEY: Yes. Every day they're release a different figure. And it's kind of like the old red wine issue: one day they tell you that red wine is good for you. The next day they say it's NOT good for you; so that after awhile you'll say, "I don't care. I'm going to drink it anyway." And now they're using that issue [these tactics] with the Gulf War veterans' illness [to befuddle the American People by reporting]: They're sick. ..... They're NOT sick. ..... There IS an illness. ..... There is NOT an illness. ..... Oh, well, I don't care!@#$&* And that's kind of where we are right now. America has lost sight of its military heroes. Any individual who served in this Military, I consider a hero. The sad part is that they are sick. They are dying. And no one knows it. I got about seven phone calls today from SERIOUSLY ill Gulf War Veterans. Their FAMILIES are now sick. Their CHILDREN are now sick. And they are desperately wanting America to know how ill they are. In fact, I had two people call me and say, "I don't think there is anything that can be done for me. It's too late for me. But keep trying. And LET AMERICA KNOW WE'RE SICK." That's exactly why I'm on this program today -- to say: We need treatment for the Gulf War veterans. They are DESTITUTE! They cannot afford the medicine that can keep them alive." So here's what the troops are doing: The Delta Forces are going to MEXICO to get their doxycycline, because they have access to aircraft. The Gulf War veterans who don't have the money, who are barely feeding their families (because many of them have declared bankruptcy by now) ... they are going to feed stores; they are getting vibromyacine for cattle, and they are getting tetracycline for fish. What they [our Government] has done is debase our Military and lower them to the level of animals, to the point where they have to go and get animal feed or animal drugs to keep them alive. And, America, I am telling you: this is the worst story, not of the Twentieth Century, but of ALL of America's history. JEFF BENNETT: I agree! ... Oh, it's sickening. I remember walking in here one Friday night, about two-and-a-half months ago. You and Michael had finished up an hour like this. And, frankly, I had never seen Michael so emotional. And that is what this story should do to every American who hears it, whether they hear it on this broadcast or on SIXTY MINUTES. If Americans are able to see any of the hearings that were televised late last month or early this month. I did not get to see all of those hearings. You and I talked briefly about those yesterday. They have done their best to keep Joyce Riley out of those hearings, for reasons I think many of our listeners need to know about. They don't want the truth to be known. ~~ TO BE CONTINUED ~~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To receive an episode of these many series in your e-mail box each weekday, just send an e-mail message with the word "SUBSCRIBE" in the "Subject" line, to jad@locust.cic.net . I urge you to post the episodes of this ongoing series to other newsgroups, networks, computer bulletin boards and mailing lists. It is also important to post hardcopies on the bulletin boards in campus halls, churches, supermarkets, laundromats, etc. -- any place where concerned citizens can read this vital information. Our people's need for Paul Reveres and Ben Franklins is as urgent today as it was 220 years ago. John DiNardo jad@locust.cic.net ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// | If we seriously listen to this God within us [conscience, if you will], | | we usually find ourselves being urged to take the more difficult path, | | the path of more effort rather than less. | | .... Each and every one of us, more or less frequently, will hold | | back from this work .... Like every one of our ancestors before us, | | we are all lazy. So original sin does exist; it is our laziness. | | | | M. Scott Peck | | THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED | ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Monday Night Football Date: 03 Dec 1996 07:32:15 -0800 Anybody else notice the F-14s that are a big part of the Monday Night Football computer-generated lead-in hoopla? Is this another case of getting the public used to seeing military stuff at every bend? Are we being primed for seeing tanks, planes, etc. in our streets? Am I paranoid? Is there a conspiracy? Anybody seen America lately? - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: f14's at football games Date: 03 Dec 1996 11:03:33 -0500 I don't think that you are neccessarily paranoid, I just think that you are on to the way in which mass opinion is manipulated in a modern democracy. Its not really accidental that: 1. Guns in private hands are uniformly painted as bad, evil, and the source of societal problems. 2. The U.S. Armed Forces are generally portrayed as a unique force for good and the users of glamorous high tech toys. No offense to current or former members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, but the reality is more like: they are a somewhat disciplined, disparate group of men (and some women) who do what they are told by politicians, and engage in constant maneuvering (at high levels) to defend their share of the procurement pie. Good and Evil have very little to do with it. 3. When war, police actions, or humane missions break out, as soon as US troops hit the ground the news media generally shuts up and touts the party line. I think that all three of these views are 85-90% propaganda. There is "white" propaganda and "black" propaganda, but the reality is most propaganda consists of shades of grey. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: TWA 800: Kabot Photo Revealed (fwd) Date: 03 Dec 1996 16:32:43 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- On the evening of April 17, 1996, the night TWA 800 blew up, Linda Kabot was taking photos at a party in Southampton Beach, New York. One of the photos revealed a long cylindrical object with a glowing light at one end. Was it the missile that over 150 people saw inter- cept TWA 800? No. It cannot be, it's heading inland. So what was it? Go and find out (see Fact 7): http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm Graphic is copyright free. ************************************************************************ 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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: AP wire on Ray Looker Date: 03 Dec 1996 17:28:37 -0800 >Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 17:20:55 -0800 >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: AP wire on Ray Looker > >Dear Friends, > >The Associated Press wire has run a >story on Ray Looker's case in >West Virginia, and the Arizona press >picked it up, because the new Counsel >is from Tucson. I just got off the >phone with a reporter from a local >newspaper, and I am sure her ears >are still smoking from what she heard. > >She wanted to know what the future >strategy is, and I told her that >much of it is confidential, but that >I could tell her this much: we will >leverage our challenge to the Jury >Selection and Service Act into a >full-blown hearing on the whole >jury selection process, including >a subpoena to the President to compel >his appearance to answer allegations >that he has been routinely receiving >big kick-backs when indictments are >issued against his political opponents. > >"Mr. President, are you telling me that >you received big money from the PMRS, >in return for directing your Justice >Department to indict ONE OF YOUR OWN MEN, >a Major General in the West Virginia >Militia? Is that what you are telling me? >Are you, or are you not, Ray Looker's >Commander-in-Chief? Mr. President, please >answer the question!" > >Stay tuned, this roller coaster is >now out of the gate, and rolling. > >/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: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: Monday Night Football Date: 03 Dec 1996 19:52:12 -0500 At 07:32 AM 12/3/96 -0800, you wrote: >Anybody else notice the F-14s that are a big part of the Monday Night >Football computer-generated lead-in hoopla? > >Is this another case of getting the public used to seeing military stuff >at every bend? Are we being primed for seeing tanks, planes, etc. in >our streets? > >Am I paranoid? Is there a conspiracy? > >Anybody seen America lately? > No > >- 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- > > > "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: Re: Monday Night Football Date: 03 Dec 1996 22:28:20 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 3 Dec 1996, [various roc-ers] wrote: > >Is this another case of getting the public used to seeing military stuff > >at every bend? Are we being primed for seeing tanks, planes, etc. in > >our streets? > > > >Am I paranoid? Is there a conspiracy? > > > >Anybody seen America lately? > > > > No > Thought I saw it in my rear view mirror but when I looked up I saw this crazy fellow with a toothbrush mustache. bd p.s. There's a made-for-TV kidnapping movie, "Gone in a Heartbeat," babbling in the background as I type this. I've heard at least three propaganda plugs so far for "roving" wiretaps, wherein the gendarmes tap all the phones in an area in hopes of catching somebody doing something bad. Far as I know, Hollywood types don't know a roving wiretap from a ham sandwich. Maybe Louis Free's name will appear among the credits as a technical advisor. > > > >- 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- > > > > > > > "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: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: [Fwd: Volume I, Issue 2, August 1994] (fwd) Date: 04 Dec 1996 07:53:57 -0600 (CST) This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --------------49086CBC7EB1 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- --------------49086CBC7EB1 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-ID: >Return-Path: Received: from x1.boston.juno.com (x1.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.21]) by tribune.concentric.net (8.7.5/(96/11/08 1.11)) id RAA20834; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 17:55:49 -0500 (EST) [1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network] Errors-To: Received: (from mark.s@juno.com) by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id RAD04920; Tue, 03 Dec 1996 17:52:38 EST Thunderstrikes@juno.com, ghenry@juno.com, drayner784@aol.com, ks4he@aol.com, ukfan1a@aol.com, larryv@elnet.com, drydel@concentric.net, tdreste@juno.com, bulwark7@aol.com Cc: mark.smith@wae.gmpt.gmeds.com Message-ID: <19961203.175155.7095.33.mark.s@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-86,88-114,116-188,190-269,271-302,304-318 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 ------------------- This Present Window of Opportunity Volume I Issue IV October, 1994 [Excerpt:] Martial decrees advanced by degree While the military/MJTF alliance turns up the heat on the streets, authoritarian forces in Congress are busy laying the legal groundwork for the next upward ratchetting of federal control. Barbara Mikulski, U.S. representative from Maryland has introduced Senate Bill 1697, which calls for expanded powers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The bill, just out of the Governmental Affairs Committee calls for FEMA to take on an "all hazards" preparedness role and emphasizes man-made civil disturbances. Section 6 grants FEMA "pre- declaration authority" (to pre-emptively quash civil disturbances before they begin?) and Section 7 creates a "Domestic Crisis Monitoring Unit" to operate out of the White House under the direct control of the Vice President, cabinet designees and the FEMA director (the investigative and surveillance tools at the disposal of this "Monitoring Unit" alone should strike fear into civil libertarians). In trying to penetrate the bill's boilerplate "bureaucratese" we asked: "Exactly what are they preparing for?" In light of the above military exercises, note that under the bill: "The Chief, National Guard Bureau, shall require National Guard units or members to participate in specialized training and exercises designed to enhance the readiness of the National Guard to respond to all hazards. In addition to integration between the guard and state and local entitites, the bill calls for "the development by the Chief, National Guard Bureau, of a format for an interstate compact to facilitate the mutual use of National Guard assets across State borders during disasters and domestic emergencies." This appears to be a subtle, insinuation of FEMA control over the states' traditional authority in utilization of the National Guard. Although the Guard is a federal entity, it is called out primarily by the states, serving at the pleasure of the governor. Under this "nationwide compact" for mutual assistance, which, according to the bill, "states are encouraged to enter into," who is going to coordinate their use? Let's say a "civil disturbance" is identified in four adjoining states. Normally, each state would be authorized to deal with the problem in its own way. But since some problems might "transcend state boundaries" the mutual assistance compact will be invoked. Now who is going to call the shots in such a scenario? Why FEMA of course (FEMA will tell the states, "We're from the federal government, and we're here to help you.") In the event of a "national emergency," resulting from, for example, an organized resistance to mass gun confiscation, (or a popular uprising against a federal attempt at "Waco II"), individual states would offer their Guard forces for use under the "mutual assistance compact." The actual coordination of the forces would naturally be granted to FEMA by virtue of its regional/national scope. If National Guard forces were to be used in house-to-house gun searches or to enforce curfews, it would make sense to send units from one state into another state where the soldiers at least do not live and work amongst their civilian targets. In the August, 1992 Randy Weaver confrontation in Idaho, the National Guard troops reached a near mutiny precisely because they were asked to violate the civil rights of people from their own community. In fact, many of them actually knew the Weaver family. In contrast, the murderous federal agents on the scene displayed no qualms when they shot Weaver's fourteen-year-old son in the back and shot his wife Vicki in the face -- killing them both. In our August issue, we explained why U.N. troops of one nation will be used to quell disturbances in another -- to avoid soldiers having to fire on their own countrymen. By the same token, sending Guard troops from the state of Ohio into Indiana or Kentucky neighborhoods would lessen the risks of Guardsmen refusing to carry out an already unpalatable task. Just such a scenario of swapping National Guard troops for use across state lines was predicted by former military intelligence analyst Mark Koernke in his prescient 1993 video, "America in Peril." Although it has, thankfully, not yet occurred, Senate Bill 1697 now provides the enabling legislation. Congress Calls out the Guard Last month we described the proposal of Washington mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly to call out three thousand national guard troops to quell the District of Columbia's crime epidemic. On October 5th, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice held hearings on the Justice Department's proposed "Use of the National Guard in Domestic Law Enforcement." [To obtain a copy of these important hearings call 202/224-3121 and ask for the above Subcommittee, or call your Congressman= ]. The panel heard glowing testimony about the use of the National Guard to fight crime in Puerto Rican neighborhoods from its governor (See Relevance, September, 1994) and of Sumter, South Carolina's "Operation Crackdown" conducted a year and a half ago. The latter was described by Sumter Police Chief Harold B. Johnson as "an intense operation that involved the Sumter Police Departent, the S.C. Law Enforcment Division, the National Guard, the S.C. State Guard and many other Law Enforcement Agencies. Results of a similar operation in Phoenix, Arizona were also presented. Dissenting views based on fears of Kent State-style catastrophes were allowed and included those of the ACLU. Its Nkechi Taifa, charged "scandalous abuses of military power" which included excessive use of force and at least one alleged murder in the Puerto Rican Guard deployment. In addition, the Cato Institute and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms pointed to the Posse Comitatus Act (P.C.A.) of 1878 which forbids the use of the military in enforcing civilian laws. The1981 amendment to the P.C.A. does allow the use of military resources in the enforcement of drug laws and this drug loophole is the technicality the feds are using to militarize their control over the country. (The cold logic of federal involvement in the drug trade should now be apparent). The House panel also heard testimony from Janet Reno's Deputy Assistant, Mark M. Richard. He cited the Constitution's Article I Sec. 8 provision for the Congress to call up the militia "to execute the laws of the union= , suppress insurrections and repel invasions." He then stated: Moreover, there are both judicial and legislative precedents suggesting a more expansive reading of this authority. Accordingly, Congress could probably authorize federalization of the Guard for federal law enforcement purposes beyond those presently authorized in the Title 10 provisions. He later offered that Guard members could undergo criminal law enforcement training and specifically mentions training in the areas of search and seizure and making arrests. On page 11 of the report on the Guard's expanding role, he almost casually informs us that "options include posting members of the National Guard on street corners of high crime areas in an attempt to deter crime by their mere presence." Naturally, he is quick to reassure us with talk of "safeguards" (long one of the most feared terms in Washington's Orwellian arsenal of "Brave New Words"). The Circle Closes As we have demonstrated in our July and September issues, the same elements of goverment which clandestinely import drugs for distribution on our streets, offer unconstitutional military law solutions to the drug problem they created. German philosopher Georg Hegel's dialectic of "thesis" conflicting with "anti-thesis" to produce a new "sythesis" provides the basis for this strategy. The Commu-Nazis in the One World Movement have taken a page out of Hegel 101. You start by creating the thesis: the drug problem, which naturally results in public demands for a solution, or anti-thesis, in the form of tougher government laws against drugs. The struggle between thesis and anti-thesis ultimately results in the synthesis: martial law and the destruction of the Constitution. This allows near total control over the populace and the desired installation of a fascio-socialist world order. "But this is all directed at criminals, not law-abiding Americans, right?" Technically, yes, but remember that in the eyes of the Clinton Administration, law-abiding gun-owners are now being viewed as criminals. As the martialization process advances, more among the ranks of law-abiding citizens will be branded as criminals. With history as our guide, we predict that this will shortly begin to include those now loosely refered to as "patriots." Anyone espousing the views of what Mr. Rockefeller referred to as "ethnic nationalism" or simply "nationalism" (such as pro-Constitution, patriotic Americans who oppose his New World Order ideology), will begin to find themselves demonized, isolated and ultimately criminalized as are gun owners today. Returning to one of the dreaded scenarios broached last month, there do exist provisions and an entire infrastructure for detaining millions of these, shall we say, "disruptive" Americans. Nevertheless, as the various federal detention facilities go up around the nation, it is difficult to distinguish them from standard federal prisons. However, until now, the latter were not found on military bases. We have obtained a copy of an August 29th Department of the Army memorandum entitled "Draft Army Regulation on Civilian Inmate Labor Program." The opening paragraph states: "Enclosed for your review and commment is the draft Army regulation on civilian inmate labor utilization and establishing prison camps on Army installations." Yes, they're talking about setting up work camps for civilians inside Army bases. (Remember those crazy right wing scenarios about the government putting "those who resist the New World Order" into military detention camps? Well, these appear to be the camps). This editor spoke with C. Dean Rhody, Director of Resource Management for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. His was the name that appeared at the bottom of the memorandum. He spoke very openly and freely about it, and if he thought there was anything sinsister or top secret about the program, it certainly wasn't evident. He politely described the innovative project, whose pilot program is in Ft. Bliss, Texas, where there are approximately 350 white collar prisoners doing blue collar work. Rhody was quick to point out that they were not out breaking rocks in a chain gang, but were performing such tasks as daily laundry and garbage duty for the base. The Bureau of Prisons still handles the actual direct contact with the inmates but according to the memo, the army will be assisting in most phases of the program's operation. Once again we see the militarization of a traditionally civilian governmental service. Of course, there are a host of pragmatic arguments in support of this latest "creative" approach to the correctional sciences. Still, we must take all these little steps in context and look at them as a whole. The gradual implementation of martial law continues by degree... Though we have focused above on the National Guard, no segment of the services seems to be safe from molestation by corrupt federal power mongers. Even the Army Reserve is being restructured to add to the New World Order infrastructure. The Summer, 1994 issue of Army Reserve Magazine carries an article entitled, "New shape of Army Reserve supports new missions." The "new missions" turn out to be another of the nauseatingly familiar attempts to turn the military inwards toward the government's new threat: an increasingly uncooperative civilian population. The article states: The proposed structure will also permit the Army Reserve to provide more efficient military support to civilian authorities and federal agencies in support of domestic support missions. We learn that the Reserve is now reorganizing its continental U.S. structure to fit it into the complex web of FEMA contingency plans for coping with civil emergencies: The Regional Support Command boundaries correspond with Standard Federal Region (SFR) boundaries used by all federal agencies including FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We're also told "the reorganization will eliminate approximately 2,000 drilling Reservist positions and reorganize the remaining 3,000 positions into a new structure with new missions." The article quotes the head of the Army Reserves, Maj. General Max Baratz: "In addition to providing fully ready units for our international missions, we'll have an enhanced capability to support domestic actions." [Emphasis ours]. These will include, "regional planning related to Military Support to Civilian Authorities and FEMA activities." All this restructuring and redirection fits right into the overall plan drafted in the early sixties for "Freedom From War: The United States Plan for General And Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World" (See Relevance, August, 1994). The melding of guard and reserve military forces with state, local and federal law enforcement entities (which are themselves integrating) and the addition of select military special forces units, each coordinated under the "all-seeing eye" of FEMA, comprise the nucleus of the "internal security forces" called for in "Freedom From War" to "maintain internal order." We will now turn once again to the massing on our soil of the men and equipment of that other budding "security" force envisioned way back in 1962: the United Nations New World Army. Foreign forces update U.N. Empowerment/U.S. Dis-Empowerment In our most recent abuse of the military we have sent our service personnel to restore Aristide-style Marxism in Haiti. By asking permission to occupy Haiti from a U.N. body instead of the Congress our president has taken another calculated step in the U.N. empowerment and U.S. dis-empowerment process, initiated by George Bush in the Persian Gulf War. Columnist Charley Reese of the Orlando Sentinel stated it well recently: Americans must decide: Are we going to be governed by Americans or by an international organization? I for one, owe no allegiance to the United Nations nor will I give it any. I obey only the U.S. Constitution. On the subject of our Haiti incursion, which is turning out to be a glorified gun confiscation exercise, he makes an important point: "You had better think about this issue, for if the United Nations can violate the sovereignty of Haiti, Iraq and other countries, it can violate ours... The United States may not be the top dog 15 years from now. U.N. Security Council resolutions, backed by, say Chinese soldiers, could be aimed at us." In last month's Relevance Special Report, "The New Lies Strategy", we introduced the National Guard State Partnership Program, which is also referred to as the "Bridge to America," a part of the Joint Military Contact Team Program. We showed how this entailed link-ups between 14 American states and corresponding "sister states" from the ranks of the newly "independent" former Communist nations. Recapping some examples, the Tennessee National Guard is hosting Bulgarians, Alabama has the Albanians, Lithuanian soldiers are in Pennsylvania and so on. According the a letter from the National Guard Bureau, "formal state partnerships are now being developed" the purpose of which is "to encourage long term institutional and people-to-people linkages and to cement sustained relationships that can extend well beyond military matters. The words of Rowan Gaither of the Ford Foundation, about the United States being "comfortably merged" should return to mind. (See Relevance, August, 1994). The Russian army has been, thus far, conspicuously absent from all the "warm and fuzzy" military exchanges. However, we have learned that the National Guard Bureau is working to correct this oversight. According to a fact sheet on the program signed by a Colonel Gosnell, "..the National Guard is anxious to extend the State Partnership Program to the Russian Federation. He innocently continues with the following ominous line: Russian acceptance [of the program] would involve them directly with Heartland America, the citizen- soldiers and airmen of the U.S. National Guard and Reserves, and through them with the U.S. private sector. Further, we learn that fourteen states' Adjutants General have volunteere= d their states (with near zero media coverage and thus no public consent) to become state partners with members of the Russian Federation, inviting Russian troops into the following "lucky" states: "Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia. (To obtain a fact sheet on the program contact Col. A. Vance Renfroe of the National Guard Bureau at 703/ 693-3435). ------------------- Copyright 1995 by Relevance Corporation. All rights reserved. --------------49086CBC7EB1-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Innerarity Date: 04 Dec 1996 09:13:03 -0500 Dear List: Just days ago Governor David Beasley of South Carolina ordered that the Confederate flag be removed from the statehouse. Whether or not you have a Southern heritage this issue has importance to you. The governor obviously caved in to PC and other pressure groups who do not represent the view of the majority of Carolinans or the rest of America. The flag represents state's rights and defense of the state and federal constitutions as a whole. We must not allow PC leftist groups to dictate policy to our officials on whatever level of government. It does not begoin or end with the Confederate flag but covers a broad spectrum of rights we Americans cherish. Please help and let your voice be heard. If you are not from a Southern state, all the better to show Gov. Beasley that it is not just a local issue. Please fax your dis-satisfaction to the governor at the following: 1-803-734-1598 or you can write: Hon. David Beasley, Governor % The Statehouse Columbia, South Carolina Thanks Mike I. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Capitol Hill Eagle Alert -- 12/2/96 (fwd) Date: 04 Dec 1996 12:53:54 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Eagle Forum Legislative Office, Washington, DC Phone: (202) 544-0353 December 2, 1996 Let's Demand "Truth in Testimony," from Congressional Witnesses Groups such as Planned Parenthood, AARP, and others who receive millions of taxpayer's dollars testify before Congress every year to demand more federal funding without having to disclose that they receive federal money or how much. This outrage must be corrected!! Congressman John Doolittle (R-CA) is leading the charge to require "Truth in Testimony" He has proposed a change in the rules of the House of Representatives that would require all witnesses who testify at a Congressional hearing to disclose publicly (in their written statement) how much federal funding is received by the groups they represent. This essential reform must be accepted by the House Republican Conference when they do their Rules Changes Package during the first week of January 1997. If it is not included then, it will not be considered again for at least two years! This policy, is already optional, but unfortunately no Committee Chairmen have ever asked to submit the information. Public disclosure is a time-tested way to reduce abuses by government and by those active in the public policy process. If we continue to allow spending interests to dominate the funding process, America will move further into a situation where the recipients of federal funds politically overpower the taxpayers' interests. Disclosure will allow legislators to evaluate not only the substance of the testimony given, but its objectivity as well. ACTION: Immediate action is needed! The House Republican Leadership has made it clear that they will not push this reform without first having support from the current committee chairmen. As of today, only Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston has formally signed on (see his letter to Rules Chairman Gerald Solomon.) We need to get the other Committee Chairmen to send similar letters of support for the Truth in Testimony Rule to Chairman Solomon. Please make phone calls and write letters. If any of the following Members is in your area, schedule meetings with either the Representative or his staff in the district office. =================================================== The Committee Chairmen are: Don Young (AK) - Resources Jim Leach(IA) - Banking Henry Hyde (IL) - Judiciary Dan Burton(IN) - Govt. Reform & Oversight Ben Gilman(NY) - Intl. Relations John Kisich (OH) - Budget Bill Goodling (PA) - Economic and Educational Opportunities Bud Shuster (PA) - Transportation Floyd Spence (SC) - Natl. Security Bill Archer(TX) - Ways & Means Bob Stump (SC) - Veterans' Affairs Thomas Bliley(VA) - Commerce James Sensenbrenner(WI) - Science Capitol Switchboard: (202) 225-3121 or (800) 962-3524 =================================================== Lack of education on this issue is the main reason most of the Chairmen have not expressed their support. (Some staffers think it will require too much work on their part -- but that is an unsatisfactory reason!!) Here are important answers to some of the most common concerns that we have heard: * The disclosure is required only when testifying at a committee or subcommittee hearing, not when writing letters or having face-to-face machines with Members or staff. * Only recipients of federal grants or contracts are covered, not individuals who receive Social Security, Medicare, etc. * This rule will not affect Members of Congress or representatives of federal agencies who testify at hearings. * It applies equally to all recipients of federal grants and contracts, both friend and foe alike. No favoritism!! * Those who fail to disclose are not subject to criminal or civil penalties. The only penalty is having one's testimony stricken from the record. The letter by Chairman Livingston is an excellent example of what we need from the other Chairmen. Contact the above Chairmen and encourage them to support, in writing, the Truth in Testimony rule. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Feminist Assault on Reasonableness (fwd) Date: 04 Dec 1996 15:24:36 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Phyllis Schlafly Report -- Vol. 30, No. 5 * Box 618, Alton, Illinois 62002 * December 1996 -- Feminist Assault on Reasonableness Twenty years after women began attending law schools in greater numbers, feminists are turning up as law school professors, law review writers, state legislators, congressional staffers, prosecutors, law clerks and even judges. It's splendid to have women in all those positions, but large numbers of feminists are causing ominous dislocations in basic concepts of American law and justice. An excellent policy analysis on "feminist jurisprudence" by the CATO Institute explains why. The feminist goal is not fair treatment for women, but the redistribution of power from the "dominant" class (the male patriarchal system) to the "subordinate" class (nominally women, but actually only the feminists who know how to play by rules they have invented). Feminists have peddled the fiction that men are engaged in a vast conspiracy against women, that something like 85 percent of employed women are sexually harassed in the workplace, and that something on the order of 50 to 70 percent of wives are beaten by their husbands. Feminists want to establish the rule that offenses against women should be defined (not objectively, but subjectively) on the basis of how the woman felt instead of what the defendant did. Before the feminist movement burst on the scene in the 1970s, there were literally hundreds of laws that gave advantages or protections to women based on society's common sense recognition of the facts of life and human nature. These included the prohibition against statutory rape, the Mann Act, the obligation of the husband to support his wife and provide her with a home, special protections for widows (e.g., one state gave widows a little property tax exemption, another prescribed triple penalties against anyone who cheated a widow), and laws that made it a misdemeanor to use obscene or profane language in the presence of a woman. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the premier feminist lawyer in the 1970s. Then a professor at Columbia University Law School, she argued that all such differences of treatment based on gender were sex discriminatory and, therefore, should be abolished. She won several Supreme Court cases on that theory. In state after state, as well as in Congress, feminist lawyers persuaded legislators to gender-neutralize their laws. In theory, Ginsburg appeared to demand a doctrinaire equality, opposing the Mann Act because it "was meant to protect weak women from bad men," which she believed was demeaning to women. But in practice, she demanded affirmative action for women, even in the military. Ginsburg's exposition of her views on the "equality principle" are contained in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code (published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1977, and summarized in the Phyllis Schlafly Report, July 1993). In the 1990s, the feminists no longer even pay lip service to a gender equality goal (except, of course, when it suits their purposes). Their goals are the feminization and subordination of men, and their tactics are to cry "victimization" and "conspiracy." They have launched a broadside attack on such basic precepts as equality under the law, judicial neutrality, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and guilt or liability should be judged according to the traditional "reasonable man" theory. Female plaintiffs had always been able to sue for offensive sexual actions in the workplace by using the common law remedies of tort and contract. Feminists reject these remedies because they want sexual harassment cases to be based on the nutty notion of a male conspiracy to victimize women and/or their newly-invented legal theory that a "hostile work environment" is a form of "sex discrimination" prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The U.S. Supreme Court adopted this feminist theory in the 1986 case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, where the Court even went so far as to say that "'voluntariness' in the sense of consent" is not a defense. This notion had been invented by Michigan Law School professor Catharine Mackinnon, who was reported to have boasted, "What the decision means is that we made this law up from the beginning, and now we've won." That's exactly what happened. In a 1991 Jacksonville, Florida case, a federal district court found an employer guilty of a "hostile work environment" even though there was no evidence of sexual language or demands directed at the plaintiff who claimed she felt sexually harassed. The other female workers said they did not feel sexually harassed, but the judge said that their testimony merely provided "additional evidence of victimization." In order to accommodate their claim that 85 percent of employed women are sexually harassed, the feminists have defined it so broadly that it is trivialized to include behavior that is merely annoying. A 1991 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision replaced the common law "reasonable man" standard with a "reasonable woman" test, embracing the 1990s feminist notion that men and women can't see the same events in the same way. The court declared that the old common law standard "systematically ignores the experiences of women." The "unreasonable woman" rule is what the feminists are demanding now. The feminists want the victim rather than the law to define the offense. Remember, the feminists repealed the old laws making it a misdemeanor to speak "any obscene, profane, indecent, vulgar, suggestive or immoral message" to a woman or girl. Now, they argue that it's just as actionable for a man to call a woman "honey" or "baby" as to call her a "bitch." The feminists are trying to enforce rules that any man's words can be punished if a woman subjectively doesn't like them, and the basis is how the woman felt rather than what the man said. The feminists are actively promoting college speech codes to prohibit what they call discriminatory or harassing speech. Of course, jokes are not allowed because feminists have no sense of humor. Nearly 400 colleges and universities have these anti-First Amendment speech regulations, about a third of which target mere "advocacy of offensive or outrageous viewpoints or biased ideas." The feminists want the battered woman syndrome to free any woman from conviction of violent crime. The feminists are even pushing the Catharine Mackinnon fantasy that all heterosexual sex should be considered rape unless an affirmative, sober, explicit verbal consent can be proved. The feminists want the action of a battered woman who kills her husband to be considered as normal. They want us to believe that killing a man in his sleep can be excused as self-defense. They want to establish a license for women to kill their allegedly abusive spouses. More lawyers, scholars and academics are badly needed to speak up and expose the feminist foolishness for what it is: a scurrilous attack on our Bill of Rights. (See CATO Institute, Feminist Jurisprudence: Equal Rights or Neo-Paternalism, June 19, 1996) ========================================================== The Feminists' War on VMI The successful legal and media campaign to force the all-male Virginia Military Institute to admit women wasn't about "ending sex discrimination" or "allowing women to have access to the same educational benefits that men have at VMI." It was a no-holds-barred fight to feminize VMI waged by the radical feminists and their allies in the Federal Government. The feminists just can't stand it that any institution in America would be permitted to motivate and train real men to manifest the uniquely masculine attributes. Feminists want to gender-neutralize society so they can intimidate and control men. The feminists' longtime, self-proclaimed goal is an androgynous society. Repudiating constitutional intent, history, tradition and human nature, they seek to forbid us, in public or private life, to recognize the differences between men and women. Feminist strategy is straightforward: whine that women are victims of centuries of "oppression" and "stereotyping," lay a guilt trip on men, and use all the stereotypical cultural techniques that women have always used to wheedle what they want out of men. Then, use feminists on the public payroll in all three branches of government to change the laws in order to force us to conform. So, the Supreme Court, speaking through Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ruled that it is unconstitutional for VMI to exclude women. The notion that a military institution that functioned with success, public acceptance, and significant prestige for 157 years, suddenly, one day in June 1996, could be rationally said to violate the Constitution is patently ridiculous. Black robes and Ginsburg's devious rhetoric about "scrutiny" can't make sense out of such judicial arrogance. VMI is now trying to admit women and treat them just like the male cadets (which is what the feminists said they wanted before the Supreme Court decision). Now it turns out that equality wasn't what the feminists wanted after all. Janet Reno's feminist Justice Department has gone into court to argue that failing to make adjustments for female recruits would amount to "discrimination" because it would discourage women from applying or lead them to drop out. Government lawyers are arguing that VMI must make far-reaching efforts to attract and retain female recruits and develop special training for them. The VMI case is just one more example of the lies and double standards, the chicanery and hypocrisy, that are part and parcel of feminist strategy, tactics, and objectives. ========================================================== The Feminists Have Global Goals, Too Did you think that those United Nations Conferences held in Cairo, Beijing and Istanbul were just consciousness-raising sessions where the feminists in the Clinton Administration could commiserate with females from 189 countries about how badly women are treated by the male patriarchal society? Well, think again. When we give the feminists a tax-paid junket to cultivate their grievances, you can bet they will use that opportunity to cook up a lot of mischief. Did you think that, in our constitutional government, "all legislative powers" are vested in the Congress, where laws, to be valid, must be passed by a majority in both Houses? Well, think again. The feminists have devised a sneaky way to bypass the constitutional process, achieve what they want by "consensus" at a UN conference, and then use the federal bureaucracy to implement their policies as though they were law. In May 1996, the Clinton Administration set up the President's Interagency Council on Women chaired by those two longtime friends and co-conspirators in feminist activism, Hillary Rodham Clinton and HHS Secretary Donna Shalala. Its mission is to "follow up on U.S. commitments made at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, September 4-15, 1995." On September 28, 1996 the President's Interagency Council held a national conference via satellite to report on the "progress" made toward Beijing's "Platform for Action." Soon after the feminists returned from China in 1995, UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, who was the U.S. Delegation chair in Beijing, spelled out the goals in a document called "Bring Beijing Home." These included "family responsibilities must be shared" (obviously, the government should force husbands to do the dishes and the diapers) and, of course, assuring abortion rights. Albright announced that Beijing had produced "an international women's movement of activists, advocates and advisors to the nations of the world." U.S. taxpayers paid one-third of the $14 million bill for the gab session. The Beijing commitments are now being implemented through a federal entity composed of high-level representatives from 30 federal agencies. It holds monthly meetings, engages in outreach activities, conducts local seminars, and uses a White House address. The longtime feminist goal called "comparable worth" is a major goal of this President's Interagency Council. The feminists think it's unfair that jobs held mostly by men, such as plumber and prison guard, have higher pay than clerical jobs held mostly by women. The feminists allege that paper credentials are "worth" more than unpleasant or dangerous working conditions. Although nobody is stopping more women from becoming plumbers and prison guards, the feminists say "pay equity" requires freezing the wages of male-dominated jobs in order to increase the wages of the jobs women prefer. This "comparable worth" notion has been rejected by all U.S. legislatures and courts that have considered it, but the feminists continue to pursue it. The Interagency Council's mission statement reveals that the feminists are trying to enforce it through their pals in the Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance, using new reporting requirements and "corrective remedies." Another "top priority" of this group is ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Only radical feminists could believe the silliness that the lot of American women would be improved by allowing a UN agency to define our rights. Domestic violence is another major item on the Beijing agenda. This will allow the feminists to assure that the $1.6 billion voted by Congress for the Violence Against Women Act is treated as feminist pork and channelled to their friends. The National Education Association has produced a video on the Beijing Conference called "Cornerstone for the Future" featuring (surprise, surprise) Hillary Rodham Clinton. Designed to promote discussions in middle schools about women as victims who need more government services, the video was launched by Mrs. Clinton at a middle school in Fairfax County, Virginia. The behind-the-scenes activist who has been coordinating this agenda is Bella Abzug, the former Congresswoman who is now head of the Women's Environment and Development Organization, which (as expected) is a recipient of U.S. taxpayer grants. At Feminist Expo '96, organized by former National Organization for Women head Eleanor Smeal and held in Washington, D.C. in February, Abzug boasted: "You made a contract with the world's women, and that has to be enforced. And how does it get enforced? By politics, by political action." Abzug is an experienced activist. In addition to her 12-point "Contract with American Women" that includes demands for comparable worth and affirmative action, she boasts that work is under way to promote her platform in high schools, colleges and universities through courses and seminars on Beijing's notion of "gender equity." If she runs out of U.S. taxpayer grants, she can call on the United Nations Development Fund for Women, whose literature announces that it is working with governments to transform Beijing's 362 paragraphs into "national strategic plans and programs." The 1996 UN conference in Istanbul, called Habitat II, even wants to add the "right to housing" to the UN's Global Plan of Action. ========================================================== Feminists Try to Monitor Corporations Feminists Try to Monitor Corporations The Sisters of St. Francis in Philadelphia used their ownership of a little stock to engage in feminist mischief-making by demanding that a Silicon Valley company called Cypress Semiconductor select its board of directors on the basis of racial and gender diversity. CEO T.J. Rodgers wrote back with the put-down the nuns deserved. He rejected their arguments as "not only unsound, but even immoral." He admonished them that Cypress's board of directors "is not a ceremonial watchdog, but a critical management function." The nuns had tried to lay a guilt trip on Cypress by suggesting that it lacks corporate "morality" and Christianity by failing to appoint a board of directors with "equality of sexes, races, and ethnic groups." Rodgers didn't hedge in his response. "I am unaware," he said, "of any Christian requirements for corporate boards; your views seem more accurately described as 'politically correct,' than 'Christian.' " Contrary to the nuns' argument, Rodgers explained that "a woman's view on how to run our semiconductor company does not help us, unless that woman has an advanced technical degree and experience as a CEO." Sounds like common sense, doesn't it? "I believe," he said, "that placing arbitrary racial or gender quotas on corporate boards is fundamentally wrong." Then, Rodgers went on to argue that the nuns' presumptuous requirements for corporate boards are "immoral," which he defined as "causing harm to people." He pointed out how all the retirees whose pension funds invest in Cypress would suffer if Cypress were run on anything other than a profit-making basis. The letter from the nuns was so sanctimonious that it did not allow for any possibility that a CEO could be moral if he disagreed with their position! Rodgers told the sisters to "get down from your moral high horse." He reiterated that "choosing a board of directors based on race and gender is a lousy way to run a company. We will never be pressured into it. We simply cannot allow arbitrary rules to be forced on us by organizations that lack business expertise." Rodgers obviously warmed up to the challenge from the nuns' do-good busybodyism. "The political pressure to be what is euphemized as a 'responsible corporation' today," he said, "is so great that it literally threatens the well being of every American." He listed some of the other special-interest groups that are harassing corporations about their pet issues. These include the complaints that corporations are not sufficiently "environmentally conscious," that they do business with certain countries, or supply the Armed Forces, or pay their CEO too much, or give to certain charities. Rodgers cited a Fortune magazine report showing that the so-called "ethical mutual funds" that invest according to a social-issues agenda, which control $639 billion in investments, produced an 18.2 percent return in the last 12 months, while the S&P 500 returned 27.2 percent. Thus, the investors in the "ethical funds" lost 9 percent of $639 billion, or $57.5 billion in one year, because they invested on a social-issues basis! Rodgers concluded by stating that he stands for "personal and economic freedom, for free minds and free markets, a position irrevocably in opposition to the immoral attempt by coercive utopians to mandate even more government control over America's economy." May his tribe increase, and may his forthright statement embolden other CEOs to speak up, too. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Mounties charge dealer over sales of U.S. Dishes (fwd) Date: 04 Dec 1996 17:15:42 -0500 (EST) Looks like the Canadians are really outdoing themselves these days ... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- By Robert Brehl - Toronto Star Business Reporter Canada's satellite wars have heated up with the first dealers of the U.S. DirecTV dishes being arrested and charged under the federal Radiocommunication Act. ``Iraq doesn't allow its citizens to have satellite dishes either,'' said Stan LeBlanc, a dealer in Yarmouth, N.S., who was charged. ``Never thought I'd see the day when 12 or 15 Mounties would storm into my building because I'm selling things the public wants.'' LeBlanc was charged this week after Royal Canadian Mounted Police raided his electronics store Nov. 13 and seized 83 access cards for DirecTV set-top boxes, some computers, cash and two satellite dishes. The Mounties have raided dozens of satellite dealers from coast-to-coast, except in Ontario, since June. Now formally charged are LeBlanc; his father, Ray Sr.; and David Lloyd Williams. LeBlanc said the access cards were not the so-called pirate cards that allow viewers to watch DirecTV programming for free. The cards seized require customers to have U.S. addresses for DirecTV bills, he said. The dealers have been charged with possessing and selling equipment that decodes encrypted satellite signals. LeBlanc said he has seven competitors in Yarmouth that also sell U.S. satellite dishes, and none was charged. ``When they raided me, they even parked in one of my competitor's parking lots under a sign advertising the 18-inch dishes,'' LeBlanc said. Last month, Industry Minister John Manley issued a warning to satellite dealers and TV viewers that selling or using U.S. dishes could be illegal. Canada is estimated to have more than 200,000 U.S. dishes. Three Canadian firms have been licensed to offer direct-to-home satellite service, but none has yet launched. RCMP officials in Nova Scotia could not be reached last night. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: morgan@PACIFIER.COM (doug cable) Subject: Re: SAFAN NO. 170. Stop the Illegal Federal Regional Police Force - Now!!! (fwd) Date: 04 Dec 1996 18:16:47 -0800 >I appologize for bothering you with this, but I must take a leave of absence for a period of time and have misplaced the paper I had saved which told me the proper method of unsubscribing. If you would be so kind as to give me that information I would appreciate it very much. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Doug Cable (morgan@pacifier.com) > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 20:18:24 -0500 >From: DotHB@aol.com >To: SafanNews@aol.com >Subject: piml] SAFAN NO. 170. Stop the Illegal Federal Regional Police Force - Now!!! > > STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW!! > S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 170, December 2, 1996 > >STOP THE ILLEGAL FEDERAL REGIONAL POLICE FORCES, NOW! >by Carol Lido (STARS1776@aol.com) > >My Friends, > >We have another fantastic opportunity here to nail these guys into >their coffin. Let's circulate this release everywhere- get the people >fired up- and start calling your legislators and demanding an >investigation into this. This is just the beginning of what we can >accomplish with this opportunity. By Christmas we'll have a lot more >to celebrate. > >God Bless Us All >For the Republic >Carol Lido (Stars1776@aol.com) >========================================================= >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 Congress- >man. > >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 [3 >Lies, 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 cannot, 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!!! > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > SAFAN %Dot Bibee (SafanNews@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 > SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on David Feustel's page > http://feustel.mixi.net 219-483-1857 Email to: feustel@mixi.net > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Monday Night Football Date: 05 Dec 1996 00:58:31 -0500 Liberty or Death writes: >>Anybody else notice the F-14s that are a big part of the Monday Night Football computer-generated lead-in hoopla? Is this another case of getting the public used to seeing military stuff at every bend? Are we being primed for seeing tanks, planes, etc. in our streets?<< Monte, Fer Cryin Out Loud, Most of us get all pissed off when U.S. protestors burn our flag and disparage the military. For years foreign governments have spit on our Nation, our Principles, and our troops. Sometimes we are outraged, most times we are not. CNN broadcast Desert Storm from Bagdad. Many called the reporters heros. How brave they must have been. Now we have a network, showing F-14's (the military by proxy) in a patriotic light for a change, and some are bellyaching, searching high and low for sinister motives. Football and patriotism go together. The motive is crass commercialism, and for a change, I kinda like it. As a returning Vietnam vet, I went back to college in 1968. I know, first hand, what is is like to be ridiculed, insulted, and accused of conspiricies and atrocities, all of which were untrue. Sometimes, you just can't win. >>Am I paranoid? << If not, you're trying real hard. >>Is there a conspiracy?<< Probably, but this ain't one of them. >>Anybody seen America lately?<< Yep. Right here in my living room. Regards, Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Feminist Assault on Reasonableness Date: 05 Dec 1996 00:58:39 -0500 Good subject. May I recommend the book: "Who Stole Feminism" By Christina Hoff Sommers 1996 Regards, Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Fwd: CAJI! WRMI to Begin New Daytime North American Service Date: 04 Dec 1996 23:20:55 -0800 (PST) >From: Clido@aol.com >Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:51:29 -0500 >To: Veretas@aol.com, Moriarty@ici.net, Powens19@mixcom.com, GARTHOC@aol.com, > MRHUMMOR@aol.com, JOHN-POTTER@worldnet.att.net, Zofo@gate.net, > EVERFAIR@gate.net, deant@ix.netcom.com, willy@caribsurf.com, > Sage@hbop.com, Wingate@netdor.com, loub1@earthlink.net, > Duncan@kansas.net, radonley@paloverde.com, PagnGod@aol.com, > top-6@juno.com, gburke1@juno.com, keithk@icsc.net, rtfm@earthlink.net, > joeaprile@juno.com, DreamerZZZ@aol.com, AJDX69A@prodigy.com, > rmplstlskn@flinet.com, jwhitley@inforamp.net, Toaster@flinet.com, > gdoty@earthlink.net, cmdr77th@gte.net, GACM5@aol.com, afn39378@afn.org, > Jmullins.florida@worldnet.att.net, Lin@clark.net, ABuck1247@aol.com, > scotsman@n-jcenter.com, realcnn@world2u.com, dwe@sprintmail.com, > PBR5000@aol.com, jcalsis@flinet.com, paracles@magg.net, > bigjer@ix.netcom.com, jubilee@netrus.net, bodymagnetics@finet.com, > wcwynar2@newreach.net, 74157.2725@compuserve.com >Subject: Fwd: CAJI! WRMI to Begin New Daytime North American Service >X-UIDL: daca6ee7440f097c929d4a354508d619 > > >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: powens19@mixcom.com (Pat Owens) >To: Clido@aol.com >CC: arleneb@bulldog.afsc.k12.ar.us >Date: 96-12-03 17:33:52 EST > >>Date: 03 Dec 96 13:39:13 EST >>From: Jeff White <71163.1735@CompuServe.COM> >>To: BlindCopyReceiver:;;;;@CompuServe.COM;;; >>Subject: CAJI! WRMI to Begin New Daytime North American Service >>Sender: owner-caji@majordomo.pobox.com >>Reply-To: Jeff White <71163.1735@CompuServe.COM> >> >>Privately-owned shortwave station WRMI (Radio Miami International) will soon >>begin a new daytime service to North America, from approximately 9:00 a.m. >to >>5:00 p.m. Eastern time on 9,955 kHz. >> >>Propagation studies, test broadcasts and monitoring have shown that WRMI's >>frequency provides good coverage of North America -- especially the central >and >>eastern parts of the continent -- during daytime hours, when the station is >>currently not on the air. The new service will enable WRMI to better serve >>clients who wish to have their programs heard in North America, and a >>promotional airtime rate of $1.00 per minute is currently being offered. >> >>For more information, contact Jeff White at: >> >>Radio Miami International >>E-mail: 71163.1735@compuserve.com >>Fax: (305) 267-9253 >>Phone: (305) 267-1728 >>Mailing Address: 8500 SW 8 Street, Suite 252, Miami, FL 33144 >> >>---------- >> >>FAQ'S ABOUT WRMI >>Frequently-asked questions about Radio Miami International >> >>WHO OWNS WRMI? WRMI belongs to a privately-owned company called Radio Miami >>International. We are not affiliated with any governmental, political or >>religious organization. >> >>WHAT KIND OF PROGRAMS DO YOU BROADCAST? Unlike most shortwave stations >(which >>are owned by governments or religious organizations) WRMI is a commercial >>shortwave station. We sell airtime to religious, political, cultural and >>commercial organizations -- even to individuals. So we have a very wide >variety >>of programming, including news, music, culture, talk and entertainment. We >call >>our format "international public access radio." >> >>DOES THE PROGRAMMING ON WRMI REPRESENT RADIO MIAMI INTERNATIONAL'S OPINIONS? >>No. Most programs on WRMI come from outside organizations, and opinions >>expressed are those of the respective programmers. Programs on WRMI >represent a >>wide range of viewpoints, and we do not necessarily endorse any of them. > The >>one exception to this rule is "Viva Miami," the only program we produce >>ourselves. We have both English and Spanish editions of "Viva Miami," which >is >>a magazine-style program with a variety of information about events in >Miami, >>tourist information about Florida, letters from our listeners, DX news for >>shortwave hobbyists, international travel features, music from around the >world >>and tropical weather updates from the National Hurricane Center in Miami. >> >>HOW MUCH POWER DO YOU USE? WRMI's transmitter power is 50,000 watts. >> >>WHERE CAN WRMI BE HEARD? By law, shortwave stations in the United States >must >>beam their programs abroad. Our antenna is directed south from Miami, >covering >>the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America. However, we have a good >>signal off the back of our beam in North America, which we consider our >>secondary coverage area. In fact, we have applied to the U.S. Federal >>Communications Commission for permission to install an additional antenna to >>improve our signal even more in North America. WRMI is regularly heard in >>Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania as well. Shortwave is not like AM, FM and >TV, >>which provide constant limited coverage areas. Shortwave reception >conditions >>(we call it "propagation") vary from hour to hour, from day to day, and from >>season to season, depending on conditions in the ionosphere (a layer of the >>earth's atmosphere) and on the sun. So when the conditions are right, WRMI >can >>be heard anywhere in the world. >> >>HOW MANY FREQUENCIES DO YOU BROADCAST ON? Some shortwave stations change >>frequencies every few hours. WRMI uses only one frequency, to make it >easier >>for listeners to find us. We have used the frequency of 9,955 kHz in the >>31-meter band since WRMI first went on the air, although it is subject to >>change. Shortwave frequencies are regulated by the International >>Telecommunication Union in Geneva. >> >>WHEN DID WRMI FIRST BEGIN BROADCASTING? Our first regular broadcast was on >the >>night of June 12, 1994 (actually, June 13 according to UTC). We conducted >test >>broadcasts for several months prior to this. And Radio Miami International >has >>broadcast programs via other shortwave stations since 1989. >> >>WHERE ARE YOUR STUDIOS AND TRANSMITTERS LOCATED? Our main studio and >offices >>are located on SW 8th Street (Miami's famous "Calle Ocho"). Our >transmitter and >>antenna are located just northwest of Miami, near the city of Hialeah. >> >>HOW MANY LANGUAGES DO YOU BROADCAST IN? Most of our programs are in English >or >>Spanish -- the two most widely-spoken languages in the Americas. But we >often >>have programs in other languages as well, such as Portuguese, French or even >>Dutch. >> >>DO YOU RECEIVE A LOT OF LETTERS? Every month we receive hundreds of >letters, >>faxes, telephone calls and electronic mail messages from listeners around >the >>world. We reply to each and every letter and message we receive, usually >>sending our program schedule and other items that the listener may request. > >> >>FAQ'S ABOUT BROADCASTING ON WRMI >>Frequently-asked questions we receive from programmers >> >>HOW DOES BILLING WORK? Generally, spots and programs are payable monthly in >>advance. Invoices will be sent to the client in advance of each month, and >will >>be payable by the first of the month. Alternatively, payments may be sent >along >>with tapes or program material. >> >>HOW LONG CAN SPOTS AND PROGRAMS BE? Generally, 60-second spots should be a >>maximum of 59 seconds long. Similarly, 60-minute programs should be a >maximum >>of 59 minutes in length; 30-minute programs a maximum of 29 minutes; and >>15-minute programs a maximum of 14 minutes. Feel free to run music past >these >>maximum times; we will fade it out where necessary. >> >>ARE THERE ANY PROGRAMMING RESTRICTIONS? WRMI has no restrictions, except >that >>program material must comply with applicable laws and Federal Communications >>Commission regulations. Essentially, this means two things: 1) Please >avoid >>the use of profanity; and 2) If you give telephone numbers, you may not >give a >>number that is only accessible from the United States (such as a "900" >number) >>unless you also give a number accessible to international listeners. >> >>HOW SHOULD I SEND PROGRAMS AND SPOTS TO WRMI? Most clients send their >spots and >>programs on cassette tapes. While we prefer cassettes, we can also accept >>reel-to-reel tapes. We also have the capability of receiving live programs >by >>standard telephone, Comrex or satellite. We have an array of satellite >dishes >>and receivers capable of picking up virtually any satellite signal which >covers >>Miami. For spot announcements, we prefer that clients produce their own >spots, >>but we will record spots (or read them live) in English or Spanish at no >>additional charge, if scripts are provided to us. >> >>HOW FAR IN ADVANCE DO I NEED TO GET PROGRAM MATERIAL TO YOU? Usually, we >can >>get programs and spots on the air if they are received anytime up to >broadcast >>time -- even the same day. However, for Saturday and Sunday programs we >>generally need the material by 8:00 p.m. Eastern time on Friday evening. > (Of >>course, telephone- and satellite-fed programs can be broadcast live.) >> >>WHERE SHOULD PROGRAM MATERIAL BE SENT? Please send all tapes, scripts, >etc. to: >>WRMI, 8500 SW 8 Street, Suite 252, Miami, Florida 33144 USA. If you use an >>express delivery service such as Express Mail, Federal Express, UPS, >Purolator, >>DHL, etc., please sign the signature waiver on the airbill. This will >permit >>the carrier to leave the package through our mail slot in the event that no >one >>is in our business office to sign for it at the time of delivery. Because >we >>are dealing with a variety of time zones around the world, and because most >of >>our transmissions are in the early morning and evening hours, our business >>office hours are variable. However, we have a 24-hour voice mail line >>(305-267-1728) and fax line (305-267-9253). >> >> >> >>************************************************ >>To subscribe or unsubscribe send mail to: >>caji-owner@pobox.com with: >>(un)subscribe caji youremail@yourprovider.com >>in the body of the message. >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Fwd: ALERT ON EPA "DRAFT DISCUSSIONS" Date: 04 Dec 1996 23:21:05 -0800 (PST) >From: Clido@aol.com >Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:51:37 -0500 >To: Veretas@aol.com, Moriarty@ici.net, Powens19@mixcom.com, GARTHOC@aol.com, > MRHUMMOR@aol.com, JOHN-POTTER@worldnet.att.net, Zofo@gate.net, > EVERFAIR@gate.net, deant@ix.netcom.com, willy@caribsurf.com, > Sage@hbop.com, Wingate@netdor.com, loub1@earthlink.net, > Duncan@kansas.net, radonley@paloverde.com, PagnGod@aol.com, > top-6@juno.com, gburke1@juno.com, keithk@icsc.net, rtfm@earthlink.net, > joeaprile@juno.com, DreamerZZZ@aol.com, AJDX69A@prodigy.com, > rmplstlskn@flinet.com, jwhitley@inforamp.net, Toaster@flinet.com, > BBercovicz@aol.com, dsamler@icanect.net, BJB95@aol.com, > gdoty@earthlink.net, cmdr77th@gte.net, GACM5@aol.com, > hchart@digital.net, afn39378@afn.org, > Jmullins.florida@worldnet.att.net, Lin@clark.net, ABuck1247@aol.com, > scotsman@n-jcenter.com, realcnn@world2u.com, dwe@sprintmail.com, > PBR5000@aol.com, jcalsis@flinet.com, paracles@magg.net, > bigjer@ix.netcom.com, jubilee@netrus.net, bodymagnetics@finet.com, > wcwynar2@newreach.net, 74157.2725@compuserve.com >Subject: Fwd: ALERT ON EPA "DRAFT DISCUSSIONS" >X-UIDL: 1edcacdfbd5cf892a1db848213d76788 > > >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: powens19@mixcom.com (Pat Owens) >To: bpbethan@theramp.net >CC: Clido@aol.com >Date: 96-12-03 17:22:13 EST > >>Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 17:28:08 >>To: caji@poxbox.com >>From: Pat Owens >>Subject: ALERT ON EPA "DRAFT DISCUSSIONS" >>Cc: uwsa@uwsa.com >> >> NATIONAL STATE SOVEREIGNTY COALITION >> Information/Action Of, By and For the People >12/03/96 >> >> >>The following message is to all AMERICANS who may be tired of being >suppressed by their government. If you receive this messge, please pass it >along, we want to cover the entire United States with this information. >> >>I heard a discussion on a Milwaukee radio station several weeks ago about a >50 cents gas tax and the EPA was involved and also something referred to as >"revenue recycling policies". I sent out a couple of requests to Wisconsin >Federal Legislators and Congressman Mark Neumann (R-1st) came up with the >following unbelievable answers. This information was released by >Congressman John Boehner (R-8th) of Ohio. There are about 45 pages of >breakdown explanations of what the Clinton Administration and the >Environmental Protection Agency have "drafted for discussion" to possibly >use against the citizens of the United States. >> >>The "corker" that popped my lid was the .25 cents per gallon of gas at the >pump to cover uninsured motorists along with an addition .50 cent tax per >gallon. I guess they figure to jack the price of gasoline so high the >average American will no longer be able to afford to drive their vehicles >and therefore the percentage of pollutants from vehicle emissons will be cut >down. >> >>Like Congressman Boehner mentions, this will eventually start putting some >Americans on bicycles and jammed into mass transit. I do believe this to be >called "people control". I strongly believe an alert on this "draft >discussions" should be put out nationwide so Americans well know what to >expect from their government under Clinton and the EPA. >> >>A resolution was introduced into the House of Representatives on September >26, 1996 by Rep. Charles Schumer (D-9th-NY). The bill number is HR4218. >This bill is believed to be concerned about the Environmental Crimes and >Enforcement ACt which President Clinton mentioned in a campaign speech while >in Michigan. >> >>In part, if you change your cars oil in your back yard, the EPA would have >the power to confiscate your property if you happen to spill some drain oil >on the ground. This contaminates your property and therefore gives the EPA >the power to take your property from you and I would imagine if you still >have an outstanding mortgage on your property, you would have to pay it off. >This people is AMERICA? the land of the brave and home of the free? A >government of the people, by the people and for the people? THINK! >> >>If anyone should like a copy of the 43 page breakdown, call your >Congressman and ask for a copy it's free. If I were to make up copies and >mail them out, the cost would be about $6.00 for copies and postage. >> >>Posted for Gerald M. Mueller, 1618 North 7th Street, Sheboygan, WI 53081 >Fax 414/457-8977 >> >> >>Send news/information to NSSC e:mail address nssc@vulcan.inlink.com >> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Filipak Subject: Re: Capitol Hill Eagle Alert -- 12/2/96 (fwd) Date: 05 Dec 1996 01:13:15 -0800 On 12/2/96 EAGLE FORUM forwarded to the ROC list: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Subject: Capitol Hill Eagle Alert -- 12/2/96 > > Eagle Forum Legislative Office, Washington, DC > Phone: (202) 544-0353 > > December 2, 1996 > > Let's Demand "Truth in Testimony," > from Congressional Witnesses > > Groups such as Planned Parenthood, AARP, and others who receive > millions of taxpayer's dollars testify before Congress every year > to demand more federal funding without having to disclose that > they receive federal money or how much. This outrage must be > corrected!! Why limit this to just groups that receive federal funding? (I'm not conceding that these particular groups do receive fed funding - I don't believe they do.) Why not include industry lobbyests? How about foreign governments or their paid representatives? Shouldn't Congress make public the funding sources of all groups that testify before them? Why not have real disclose for all? > * The disclosure is required only when testifying at a > committee or subcommittee hearing, not when writing letters > or having face-to-face machines [sic] with Members or staff. Was this a Freudian slip? > * It applies equally to all recipients of federal grants and > contracts, both friend and foe alike. No favoritism!! "No favoritism"? Hardly. It would favor groups that don't have to reveal their funding sources. -- Regards, If there's one thing I can't . . __ stand, it's intollerance. |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com _ ____________ _ | | \ | \ 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. | \ / : \ | \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html | \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. | / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. | / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right | / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for | / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. | / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - |_/____________|_/ _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Filipak Subject: Re: Fwd: CAJI! WRMI to Begin New Daytime North American Service Date: 05 Dec 1996 01:34:22 -0800 Please do not send me bulk commercial email. I don't know how the rest of the list feels about this, but I for one don't want it. (Note that sender is identified as "owner-roc@xmission.com") Your message follows: -------- Return-Path: Received: from kudonet.com by kudo20.kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA06599; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:37:31 -0800 Received: from mail.xmission.com by kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA23682; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:45:18 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mail.xmission.com (8.8.3/8.7.5) id AAA25997 for roc-goout; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 00:22:34 -0700 (MST) Received: from lithuania.it.earthlink.net (lithuania-c.it.earthlink.net [204.250.46.58]) by mail.xmission.com (8.8.3/8.7.5) with ESMTP id AAA25984 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 00:22:30 -0700 (MST) Received: from LOCALNAME (Cust119.Max3.Miami.FL.MS.UU.NET [153.34.117.247]) by lithuania.it.earthlink.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA04822; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:20:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:20:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612050720.XAA04822@lithuania.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: gdoty@earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: commonlaw@teleport.com, roc@xmission.com From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Fwd: CAJI! WRMI to Begin New Daytime North American Service Sender: owner-roc@xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: roc@xmission.com X-UIDL: 64eaf55ccde23a465d828fdee3131550 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Greg Doty wrote: > > >From: Clido@aol.com > >Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:51:29 -0500 > >To: Veretas@aol.com, Moriarty@ici.net, Powens19@mixcom.com, GARTHOC@aol.com, > > MRHUMMOR@aol.com, JOHN-POTTER@worldnet.att.net, Zofo@gate.net, > > EVERFAIR@gate.net, deant@ix.netcom.com, willy@caribsurf.com, > > Sage@hbop.com, Wingate@netdor.com, loub1@earthlink.net, > > Duncan@kansas.net, radonley@paloverde.com, PagnGod@aol.com, > > top-6@juno.com, gburke1@juno.com, keithk@icsc.net, rtfm@earthlink.net, > > joeaprile@juno.com, DreamerZZZ@aol.com, AJDX69A@prodigy.com, > > rmplstlskn@flinet.com, jwhitley@inforamp.net, Toaster@flinet.com, > > gdoty@earthlink.net, cmdr77th@gte.net, GACM5@aol.com, afn39378@afn.org, > > Jmullins.florida@worldnet.att.net, Lin@clark.net, ABuck1247@aol.com, > > scotsman@n-jcenter.com, realcnn@world2u.com, dwe@sprintmail.com, > > PBR5000@aol.com, jcalsis@flinet.com, paracles@magg.net, > > bigjer@ix.netcom.com, jubilee@netrus.net, bodymagnetics@finet.com, > > wcwynar2@newreach.net, 74157.2725@compuserve.com > >Subject: Fwd: CAJI! WRMI to Begin New Daytime North American Service > >X-UIDL: daca6ee7440f097c929d4a354508d619 > > > > > >--------------------- > >Forwarded message: > >From: powens19@mixcom.com (Pat Owens) > >To: Clido@aol.com > >CC: arleneb@bulldog.afsc.k12.ar.us > >Date: 96-12-03 17:33:52 EST > > > >>Date: 03 Dec 96 13:39:13 EST > >>From: Jeff White <71163.1735@CompuServe.COM> > >>To: BlindCopyReceiver:;;;;@CompuServe.COM;;; > >>Subject: CAJI! WRMI to Begin New Daytime North American Service > >>Sender: owner-caji@majordomo.pobox.com > >>Reply-To: Jeff White <71163.1735@CompuServe.COM> > >> > >>Privately-owned shortwave station WRMI (Radio Miami International) will soon > >>begin a new daytime service to North America, from approximately 9:00 a.m. > >to > >>5:00 p.m. Eastern time on 9,955 kHz. > >> > >>Propagation studies, test broadcasts and monitoring have shown that WRMI's > >>frequency provides good coverage of North America -- especially the central > >and > >>eastern parts of the continent -- during daytime hours, when the station is > >>currently not on the air. The new service will enable WRMI to better serve > >>clients who wish to have their programs heard in North America, and a > >>promotional airtime rate of $1.00 per minute is currently being offered. > >> > >>For more information, contact Jeff White at: > >> > >>Radio Miami International > >>E-mail: 71163.1735@compuserve.com > >>Fax: (305) 267-9253 > >>Phone: (305) 267-1728 > >>Mailing Address: 8500 SW 8 Street, Suite 252, Miami, FL 33144 > >> > >>---------- > >> > >>FAQ'S ABOUT WRMI > >>Frequently-asked questions about Radio Miami International > >> > >>WHO OWNS WRMI? WRMI belongs to a privately-owned company called Radio Miami > >>International. We are not affiliated with any governmental, political or > >>religious organization. > >> > >>WHAT KIND OF PROGRAMS DO YOU BROADCAST? Unlike most shortwave stations > >(which > >>are owned by governments or religious organizations) WRMI is a commercial > >>shortwave station. We sell airtime to religious, political, cultural and > >>commercial organizations -- even to individuals. So we have a very wide > >variety > >>of programming, including news, music, culture, talk and entertainment. We > >call > >>our format "international public access radio." > >> > >>DOES THE PROGRAMMING ON WRMI REPRESENT RADIO MIAMI INTERNATIONAL'S OPINIONS? > >>No. Most programs on WRMI come from outside organizations, and opinions > >>expressed are those of the respective programmers. Programs on WRMI > >represent a > >>wide range of viewpoints, and we do not necessarily endorse any of them. > > The > >>one exception to this rule is "Viva Miami," the only program we produce > >>ourselves. We have both English and Spanish editions of "Viva Miami," which > >is > >>a magazine-style program with a variety of information about events in > >Miami, > >>tourist information about Florida, letters from our listeners, DX news for > >>shortwave hobbyists, international travel features, music from around the > >world > >>and tropical weather updates from the National Hurricane Center in Miami. > >> > >>HOW MUCH POWER DO YOU USE? WRMI's transmitter power is 50,000 watts. > >> > >>WHERE CAN WRMI BE HEARD? By law, shortwave stations in the United States > >must > >>beam their programs abroad. Our antenna is directed south from Miami, > >covering > >>the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America. However, we have a good > >>signal off the back of our beam in North America, which we consider our > >>secondary coverage area. In fact, we have applied to the U.S. Federal > >>Communications Commission for permission to install an additional antenna to > >>improve our signal even more in North America. WRMI is regularly heard in > >>Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania as well. Shortwave is not like AM, FM and > >TV, > >>which provide constant limited coverage areas. Shortwave reception > >conditions > >>(we call it "propagation") vary from hour to hour, from day to day, and from > >>season to season, depending on conditions in the ionosphere (a layer of the > >>earth's atmosphere) and on the sun. So when the conditions are right, WRMI > >can > >>be heard anywhere in the world. > >> > >>HOW MANY FREQUENCIES DO YOU BROADCAST ON? Some shortwave stations change > >>frequencies every few hours. WRMI uses only one frequency, to make it > >easier > >>for listeners to find us. We have used the frequency of 9,955 kHz in the > >>31-meter band since WRMI first went on the air, although it is subject to > >>change. Shortwave frequencies are regulated by the International > >>Telecommunication Union in Geneva. > >> > >>WHEN DID WRMI FIRST BEGIN BROADCASTING? Our first regular broadcast was on > >the > >>night of June 12, 1994 (actually, June 13 according to UTC). We conducted > >test > >>broadcasts for several months prior to this. And Radio Miami International > >has > >>broadcast programs via other shortwave stations since 1989. > >> > >>WHERE ARE YOUR STUDIOS AND TRANSMITTERS LOCATED? Our main studio and > >offices > >>are located on SW 8th Street (Miami's famous "Calle Ocho"). Our > >transmitter and > >>antenna are located just northwest of Miami, near the city of Hialeah. > >> > >>HOW MANY LANGUAGES DO YOU BROADCAST IN? Most of our programs are in English > >or > >>Spanish -- the two most widely-spoken languages in the Americas. But we > >often > >>have programs in other languages as well, such as Portuguese, French or even > >>Dutch. > >> > >>DO YOU RECEIVE A LOT OF LETTERS? Every month we receive hundreds of > >letters, > >>faxes, telephone calls and electronic mail messages from listeners around > >the > >>world. We reply to each and every letter and message we receive, usually > >>sending our program schedule and other items that the listener may request. > > > >> > >>FAQ'S ABOUT BROADCASTING ON WRMI > >>Frequently-asked questions we receive from programmers > >> > >>HOW DOES BILLING WORK? Generally, spots and programs are payable monthly in > >>advance. Invoices will be sent to the client in advance of each month, and > >will > >>be payable by the first of the month. Alternatively, payments may be sent > >along > >>with tapes or program material. > >> > >>HOW LONG CAN SPOTS AND PROGRAMS BE? Generally, 60-second spots should be a > >>maximum of 59 seconds long. Similarly, 60-minute programs should be a > >maximum > >>of 59 minutes in length; 30-minute programs a maximum of 29 minutes; and > >>15-minute programs a maximum of 14 minutes. Feel free to run music past > >these > >>maximum times; we will fade it out where necessary. > >> > >>ARE THERE ANY PROGRAMMING RESTRICTIONS? WRMI has no restrictions, except > >that > >>program material must comply with applicable laws and Federal Communications > >>Commission regulations. Essentially, this means two things: 1) Please > >avoid > >>the use of profanity; and 2) If you give telephone numbers, you may not > >give a > >>number that is only accessible from the United States (such as a "900" > >number) > >>unless you also give a number accessible to international listeners. > >> > >>HOW SHOULD I SEND PROGRAMS AND SPOTS TO WRMI? Most clients send their > >spots and > >>programs on cassette tapes. While we prefer cassettes, we can also accept > >>reel-to-reel tapes. We also have the capability of receiving live programs > >by > >>standard telephone, Comrex or satellite. We have an array of satellite > >dishes > >>and receivers capable of picking up virtually any satellite signal which > >covers > >>Miami. For spot announcements, we prefer that clients produce their own > >spots, > >>but we will record spots (or read them live) in English or Spanish at no > >>additional charge, if scripts are provided to us. > >> > >>HOW FAR IN ADVANCE DO I NEED TO GET PROGRAM MATERIAL TO YOU? Usually, we > >can > >>get programs and spots on the air if they are received anytime up to > >broadcast > >>time -- even the same day. However, for Saturday and Sunday programs we > >>generally need the material by 8:00 p.m. Eastern time on Friday evening. > > (Of > >>course, telephone- and satellite-fed programs can be broadcast live.) > >> > >>WHERE SHOULD PROGRAM MATERIAL BE SENT? Please send all tapes, scripts, > >etc. to: > >>WRMI, 8500 SW 8 Street, Suite 252, Miami, Florida 33144 USA. If you use an > >>express delivery service such as Express Mail, Federal Express, UPS, > >Purolator, > >>DHL, etc., please sign the signature waiver on the airbill. This will > >permit > >>the carrier to leave the package through our mail slot in the event that no > >one > >>is in our business office to sign for it at the time of delivery. Because > >we > >>are dealing with a variety of time zones around the world, and because most > >of > >>our transmissions are in the early morning and evening hours, our business > >>office hours are variable. However, we have a 24-hour voice mail line > >>(305-267-1728) and fax line (305-267-9253). > >> > >> > >> > >>************************************************ > >>To subscribe or unsubscribe send mail to: > >>caji-owner@pobox.com with: > >>(un)subscribe caji youremail@yourprovider.com > >>in the body of the message. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- Regards, If there's one thing I can't . . __ stand, it's intollerance. |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com _ ____________ _ | | \ | \ 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. | \ / : \ | \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html | \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. | / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. | / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right | / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for | / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. | / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - |_/____________|_/ _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Filipak Subject: Re: Date: 05 Dec 1996 01:58:47 -0800 On 12/4/96 Mike I. wrote: > > Dear List: > > Just days ago Governor David Beasley of South Carolina ordered that the > Confederate flag be removed from the statehouse.... > ... It does not begoin or end with > the Confederate flag but covers a broad spectrum of rights we Americans > cherish... Give me a break. This isn't a real issue of freedom or liberty. The confederate flag is an insult to freedom and state's rights and any sense of justice. Things like this and doctored pictures of Bill Clinton giving a nazi salute (remember NaziBill?) just make the distributors look like fools, deflect us from real issues, and discredit anyone associated with this list who try to raise real issues with people on the outside. Sorry for the flames, but I've been on this list for a while and have seen a bunch of nonsense sprinkled in with a few gems. (Guess I've been having a rough day.) Cheers to all. -- Regards, If there's one thing I can't . . __ stand, it's intollerance. |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com _ ____________ _ | | \ | \ 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. | \ / : \ | \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html | \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. | / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. | / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right | / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for | / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. | / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - |_/____________|_/ _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Monday Night Football Date: 05 Dec 1996 08:37:59 -0800 -snip- > Now we have a network, showing F-14's (the military by proxy) >in a patriotic light for a change, and some are bellyaching, searching >high and low for sinister motives. Football and patriotism go together. >The motive is crass commercialism, and for a change, I kinda like it. Don't misunderstand me; aside from the fact that we're not supposed to *have* a standing army, I'm IN FAVOR of the US military. By and large I'm on their side. Long as they follow that tattered document we call the Constitution and stay out of UN-sponsored terrorism. I hope you're right and this is just patriotism & excitement. Could be. But propaganda is an insidious thing, and the Bad Guys are *way* good at it, having learned from the masters (Lenin & Marx). -snip- > >>Anybody seen America lately?<< > > Yep. Right here in my living room. I was hoping it was around here someplace; I've seen significant traces of it here in North Idaho, and I keep hearing that Texas has quite a bit of it as well. Wonder if we can reproduce it elsewhere? - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Monday Night Football Date: 05 Dec 1996 12:09:06 -0500 >> >>Anybody seen America lately?<< >> >> Yep. Right here in my living room. > >I was hoping it was around here someplace; I've seen significant traces >of it here in North Idaho, and I keep hearing that Texas has quite a bit >of it as well. > >Wonder if we can reproduce it elsewhere? > Well, my living room here in New Hamshire feels like America, as long as I keep the TV off. I must confess that people at work are generally less outraged by current events than I would expect the average American to be -> largely cause Mass. is such a hotbed of radical liberalism, but also cause high tech is doing pretty well and people tend to go to sleep when times are good. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Reno rejects outside counsel for citizenship probe Date: 05 Dec 1996 13:51:32 -0600 Reno rejects outside counsel for citizenship probe Attorney General Janet Reno Wednesday rejected a request by five House Republicans for an independent investigation into the Clinton administration's program to naturalize 1.3 million new citizens. The Justice Department said Reno decided the information from the lawmakers did not provide "a specific and credible basis" that a person covered under the independent counsel law may have committed a federal crime. The Republicans charged that officials had rushed the naturalization program for political gain. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=675923-78b The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Eight days of Gulf War logs missing (Log-gate??) Date: 05 Dec 1996 13:51:31 -0600 (from Mercury Mail news service) *** Eight days of Gulf War logs missing Eight days of military logs, covering a period U.S. troops may have been exposed to nerve gas and other chemical weapons in the Gulf War, cannot be found despite an exhaustive search, The New York Times said Thursday. The logs, either removed or lost, were maintained for Gen. Schwarzkopf to record any detection of chemical or biological agents. The story reports several gaps in otherwise meticulous logs, including a period in early March 1991 when troops blew up Kamisiyah ammunition depot, which may have exposed thousands of U.S. troops to nerve gas. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=679665-531 *** Columbia astronauts prepare for landing The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: Monday Night Football Date: 05 Dec 1996 12:44:45 -0800 >> >>Anybody seen America lately?<< >> >> Yep. Right here in my living room. > >I was hoping it was around here someplace; I've seen significant traces >of it here in North Idaho, and I keep hearing that Texas has quite a bit >of it as well. > >Wonder if we can reproduce it elsewhere? We can! I have seen moderate success at turning around previously liberal friends, even in Seattle! The trick is to not dislike them because they have been brainwashed. Just keep pecking away at them with well thought out facts. We have logic on our side, where they only have emotionalism. When they begin to learn that our views are also more emotionally sound, they begin to topple. As anti gun folks, or strong supporters of big brother welfare programs begin to learn the guns SAVE lives, and welfare DISTROYS people, they usually come around. The only acception to this is when you are dealing with a person who WANTS to undermine our once great nation. The true closet socialists, one worlders, and yes, even full blown communists at heart know full well that their agenda is distructive to our nation. That is why they spead it. So to point out to them the distructiveness of their goals only brings a smile to their faces. I would like to think that they are truly a small segment of our society. (Got to go bake some cookies to leave out for Santa now!) ;-) Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: OKLAHOMA CITY UPDATE (fwd) Date: 05 Dec 1996 14:59:59 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- OKLAHOMA CITY UPDATE: David Hoffman at the Haight Ashbury Free Press wrote: =20 Bob Macy's 'Can of Worms' By David Hoffman, Haight Ashbury Free Press =20 Oklahomans may have won a significant victory yesterday as the Oklahoma Court of Appeals entertained arguments on behalf of impaneling a new Grand Jury to investigate the Oklahoma City bombing. The original petition, brought by State Representative Charles Key (R-OKC), and Glenn Wilburn, th= e grandfather of two dead boys, was quashed by District Judge Daniel Owens o= n grounds that it would be "reinventing the wheel." =20 Mark Sanford, Key's attorney, argued that the people of Oklahoma saw it as an "opportunity to fill in the missing spokes of the wheel." The two men brought the petition in December of 1995 after discovering numerous discrepancies in the Federal Government's case. This included evidence of foreknowledge, including a government "sting" operation underway at the time; indications of additional bombs in the building; attempts by Federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials to protect the identity of certain suspects, namely John Doe 2; and intimidation of witnesses by FBI agents. =20 About 25 spectators, including some bombing victims, filled the courthouse to hear the arguments before the three-judge panel. Sanford's opening argument was simple and brief. He stated that the petition was properly brought, that much evidence has already been ignored by the Federal Government, and that the State Constitution grants the people the right to convene a Grand Jury when the facts so dictate. =20 Beverly Palmer from District Attorney Bob Macy's office, arguing in defens= e of Judge Owens, claimed that the petition was "insufficient on its face," and the request was duplicitous of the Federal Grand Jury's efforts. =20 Yet, as Judge Ronald Stubblefield pointed out, nowhere did Judge Owens state why the petition was insufficient. Palmer replied that "obstructing justice" was too broad, and there wasn't enough "specificity" in the claim of other suspects. Palmer then tried to play the issue of the petition's "legal sufficiency" against the judge's "exercise of discretion." In this case, she argued, Judge Owens had the "discretion" to quash the petition even if it was "sufficient" on its face. =20 Both Judges Daniel Boudreau and Stubblefield called her on it, stating tha= t it wasn't necessary to state specific facts, being necessary only to state a sufficient reason why a crime had been committed. "What more can they say?" asked Judge Stubblefield. =20 It was Stubblefield who really put Palmer to the wall. He was skeptical that Judge Owens had any facts to advise him properly in his decision. "I question whether Judge Owens has the discretion=8A" said Stubblefield. "He= 's just operating on what he knows about the bombing. Do you think it's right to make a judgment based on what he reads in the newspaper?" Even Palmer admitted that the statutes were limited as to what Judge Owens could do or how he could interpret the law. =20 As Sanford stated, "Legally he didn't have the right to quash the petition= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: CURRENT: FOP on the DV bill. (fwd) Date: 05 Dec 1996 15:21:34 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com Is it just me, or could the NRA pick up some much needed PR by publicly and loudly jumping on this and why aren't they? Nothing like this DV bill to explain to ALL cops, all military, all security people what feel good gun control is like and how it is to be affected by such nonsense legislation. jh \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\forwarded message\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ This issue, I feel, is of sufficent concern to all law enforcement officers and that the political tactics used to pass the law will require an unusually large and vocal response in order to "fix it." The original "Domestic Violence Gun Ban" (S. 1632) was introduced in the Senate by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). It was introduced as an amendment to the "Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996." This "anti-stalking" bill, introduced by Representative Ed Royce (R-CA) in the House aimed to protect women by broadening the definition of a stalking victim from "offender's spouse" to simply "victim." In addition, the Act also protected the victim's immediate family. It would have made restraining orders issued in one State effective across State lines. An individual with a restraining order could no longer pursue his victim across State lines and have law enforcment unable to enforce the court's order. In addition, because of the Brady bill a person under a court restraining order cannot possess, ship, receive, import, transport or export firearms or ammunition UNLESS THAT PERSON IS EXEMPTED UNDER 18 USC 925(a)(1). This exemption covers law enforcement officers, government agenst on government business, and military personnel. These folks were not to be disarmed, and this exemption, this specific group of persons has been exempt from every firearms and gun control legislation since the adoption of the original Gun Control Act of 1968. The F.O.P. supported the "anti-stalking" legislation, and it was thought that this bill would pass quickly. It was passed by the House on 7 May, and was reported to the Senate two days later. The goal of the bill's co-sponsor in the Senate, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), was to pass the measure without changing it, without amending it, so that it could be sent directly to the President for his signature. If it were amended, the entire bill would have to be sent back to the House for approval, and possibly a conference if there was no agreement. Senator Hutchinson expected, as did many who were tracking the legislation, the measure to pass as soon as it was placed on the floor. She did not count on Senator Lautenberg. Senator Lautenberg viewed the "anti-stalking" bill as the ideal vehicle for his new gun ban--the "Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban." The essentially elements of the bill (which I include to demontsrate, IMHO, what a nut Lautenberg is) would have disabled *permenently* anyone who was *indicted* for a domestic violence misdemeanor (as defined by the States). The statute further provided that no one disabled as a result of the law could have his or her Second Amendment rights restored either by pardon, expungement, or set-aside. Note that this is for an *indictment*, not conviction and that domestic violence as defined by the several States varies greatly and could/may include nonviolent offenses like lewdness or trespassing, or even spanking (corporal punishment) of children by their parents. As the legislative analyst for the F.O.P. in Washington I recommended to the F.O.P. oppose this legislation, regardless of what it was attached. I felt that the proposed amendment was obviously unconstitutional and stated in a memo that nowhere else in United States law can an indiidual lose a constitutional right because of a *misdemeanor*. At the time, I thought for sure that this latest bit of anti-gun nonsense would never get anywhere. I misinterpretted the commitment of Senator Lautenberg to this legislation and the cynical political tactics he employed in his rhetoric. He used the media and other policitcal allies of Lautenberg and the anti-gun Left to characterize opponents of this legislation as defending "wife beaters" and "pro-gun extremists." Senator Hutchinson wisely decided not to permit Senator Lautenberg to amend the "anti-stalking" bill. He responded by objecting to the consideration of the "anti-stalking" bill. This prevented the "anti-stalking" bill from reaching the Senate floor from 9 May to 25 July--almost three months. National President of the F.O.P., Gil Gallegos wrote a letter in early July, asking the Senator to withdraw his objection and let the bill go forward *without his amendment.* The Senator never acknowledged or responded to this letter. Both Majority Leader Dole (before his departure) and then Dole attempt to find a compromise, but Senator Lautenberg was unyielding. Then, unwisely, Senator Hutchinson brokered her own deal. Correctly predicting that the much more conservative House would never pass such an awful gun ban, she allowed the original bill to be amended with the following corrections: no disability for indictments (I guess that was just *too* out there), and that in order for the disability to take effect as a result of conviction, the individual must have been represented by counsel. In return, if the House did not act on the amended bill, Senator Lautenberg would join her in co-sponsoring the original "anti-stalking" bill to be passed without amendment and send it directly to the President for his signature. This package passed the Senate unanimously, and all the credit went to Lautenberg. The House did not act on the amended bill and sent out word that they would not debate the measure becasue of its "political heat." Senator Hutchinson called on Senator Lautenberg to honor his commitment, and he refused. Following the return of Congress from the August recess for political conventions (gun control and the Brady's were highlighted in Chicago), Senator Lautenberg moved to amended the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary appopriations bill with his gun ban. At this point in time, the F.O.P. Executive Board voted to oppose the Lautenberg amendment, on which ever piece of legislation it might appear. It was thought that the likelihood of its passage was low. It should be noted here that most other police labor organizations (IBPO, IUPA) supported the gun ban. Congress was nearing adjournment with most budget issues unresolved, which was the reason that Senator Lautenberg included it in a spending bill, so that it would be harder to remove. It passed the Senate 97-2, with no Senator speaking in opposition. This is inexplicable. Pro-gun Senators like Larry Craig were silent, and it was two Democrats--Senators Jeff Bingaman (NM) and Howell Heflin (AL) that opposed it. Neither was up for re-election, and the Washington Post reported that neither would issue a statement to "expalin" their vote--which should indicate to you how badly the anti-gun Left wanted this to pass. Again, it was generally thought that the House would never agree to such a thing, and that its high-profile would doom it. After all, this was the Congress that voted to repeal the assault weapons ban, how and why would it impose a new gun ban, and revoke a constitutional right for a misdemeanor conviction? In the final week of Congress as the final mammoth bill was being drafted, I learned that the gun ban was not only part of the finished-but-not-yet-released omnibus bill, but that the long-standing 925(a) exemption, which I described above was deleted for "misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence." Law enforcement officers, other government agents, and military personnel who, if they incurred a firearms disability could not hunt or pleasure shoot, were permitted to carry their weapons while on duty or otherwise mandated by their department/agencies/commanders. Under the new law, this exemption does not apply to domestic violence misdemeanors, which are defined as the "use or attempted use" of force against a person defined in the Federal statute. I discovered that this was not included at the behest of the liberal, anti-gun Left, but by Representative Bob Barr (R-GA). Rep. Barr was listed on the NRA homepage as a "preferred candidate"--you should check this out, as this is lengthy enough a post without quoting the praise the NRA has for Bob Barr. Not only did he single-handedly gain the inclusion of Senator Lautenberg's language, but also wrote in the elimination of the exemption for police officers. I, personally, suspect that Rep. Barr did so to "pay back" police groups, virtually all of whom endorsed Clinton for re-election, and virtually all of whom had opposed legislation introduced or supported by him as a member of the House Subcommittee on Crime. This, however, is pure speculation. I was told that the provision was "in there, it's written, we're not going to change it." The omnibus spending bill passed on 28 September 1996, and the new gun ban went into effect 30 September. The F.O.P. tried to stall the issue through ATF, but the means and enforcement of the new gun ban was a "policy" decision made by the Administration, and ATF guidelines were released to local and State law enforcement agencies on 26 November. The effect of the legislation is clear: anyone who was represented by counsel and convicted by a jury, or waived his/her right to both, has a firearms disability. That person no longer enjoys his constitutional right to bear arms, and violation of this law is a Federal felony. The exemption does not apply, so police officers, government agents, and military personnel need to dispose of their firearms, or they are subject to prosecution and their firearms subject to seizure. Note as a morbid aside that a law enforcement officer who shoots and kills his wife has committed a domestic violence felony, not a misdemeanor. He would still be covered by the exemption (in the highly unlikely event that the department retained him) and his firearm would not be subject as an asset forfeiture. If he slaps his wife and is convicted of a misdemeanor, he incurs the diability and his firearms and ammunition are forfeit. We are advising our membership not to answer questions regarding misdemeanor convictions without first speaking with an attorney. I've seen posts where the attitude is "Let the Feds enforce this law." I share your frustration--it's a bad law, it's unconstitutional, and it's wrong. However, departments, local and State, will likely have to do additional background checks to see if any of its officers are disabled under the new law, as involvement in even a "good" shooting could result in an astronomical liability for the officer and the department. Imagine if a suspect who has committed a felony, even the murder of a law enforcement officer, is shot by an officer who has a disability because he spanked his child in 1982. The suspect or convict now sues the department and officer because the officer was armed in violation of Federal law. Conviction overturned, rich sleaze ball wins. This is not, as I have seen on the list an "ex post facto" law because it disables persons with convictions prior to the passage of the law. This element, too, was carefully crafted by Rep. Barr. Just as prior convictions play a role in "three strikes, you're out" legislation, where sentence length increases as a result of prior convictions. The bill affects persons who have a conviction on their records, not a penalty applied to someone who is convicted. Approximately 200 Deputy Sheriffs in Los Angeles County have been terminated because they now have a firearms disability, or their status is sufficiently unclear as to whether or not they are disabled. I understand three Denver police officers ae on "restricted or desk duty" beacsue of the new law. A half a dozen officer in Cinncinatti may be in the same boat. I hear that 200+ Depuites in Riverside, MO will lose their jobs. I heard yesterday from a research center on battered women who counsels militray personnel with domestic problems that there are a LOT of Marines who will incur firearms disabilities. I would like to know when or if your department starts checking your personnel, and how many officers are affected and how? Are they fired, placed on restrictive duty or (un)paid leave? The only route for relief is to get a pardon, expungement, or set-aside. Though not a lawyer, I would strongly advise that if you suspect yourself to be disabled that you apply for one immediately. I've seen posts that, I think, miss the point. No one that I know of wants to see a whacko who beats his kids, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, or dog, for that matter, armed--cop or not. Many departments out there wouldn't have hired a person with a conviction in their background, and many might dismiss someone who received one. This is not the point. The point is that CONGRESS IS LEGISLATIVELY STRIPPING AWAY A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BECAUSE OF A MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION. The fact that it is the Left-hated right to bear arms is irrelevent in my mind. The elimination of the exemption for law enforcement (intact for nearly 30 years) may or may not have been political, but this is also not the point. But I repeat myself. The F.O.P. has made a "legislative remedy" to this its highest priority for the 105th Congress. I hope this answers and/or clears up a lot about the new law, which is only now being picked up by the curiously short-memoried press/media. Tim Richardson Grand Lodge FOP -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: CURRENT: FOP on the DV bill. (fwd) Date: 05 Dec 1996 17:29:32 -0500 Thanks, Mr. Watson for posting this. Please keep up the flow of information, even as roc waxes and wanes - I see things from you that I don't see elsewhere. Re: the paragraph below. This is NUTS. These guys are talking about taking away a fundamental right permanently, upon indictment (whats that line about the DA being able to get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich?) for a *misdemeanor* without any way to remove it. This seems to violate both due process, the 2nd amendment, and any reasonable sense of punishment fitting the crime. You know the U.S.S.R. had a Constitution with a lot of fine sentiments expressed in it. With U.S. Reps filing this kind of crap, what seperates us from a police state? >Senator Lautenberg viewed the "anti-stalking" bill as the ideal vehicle for >his new gun ban--the "Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban." The essentially >elements of the bill (which I include to demontsrate, IMHO, what a nut >Lautenberg is) would have disabled *permenently* anyone who was *indicted* >for a domestic violence misdemeanor (as defined by the States). The statute >further provided that no one disabled as a result of the law could have his >or her Second Amendment rights restored either by pardon, expungement, or >set-aside. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Reno rejects outside counsel for citizenship probe Date: 05 Dec 1996 13:51:32 -0600 Reno rejects outside counsel for citizenship probe Attorney General Janet Reno Wednesday rejected a request by five House Republicans for an independent investigation into the Clinton administration's program to naturalize 1.3 million new citizens. The Justice Department said Reno decided the information from the lawmakers did not provide "a specific and credible basis" that a person covered under the independent counsel law may have committed a federal crime. The Republicans charged that officials had rushed the naturalization program for political gain. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=675923-78b The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Eight days of Gulf War logs missing (Log-gate??) Date: 05 Dec 1996 13:51:31 -0600 (from Mercury Mail news service) *** Eight days of Gulf War logs missing Eight days of military logs, covering a period U.S. troops may have been exposed to nerve gas and other chemical weapons in the Gulf War, cannot be found despite an exhaustive search, The New York Times said Thursday. The logs, either removed or lost, were maintained for Gen. Schwarzkopf to record any detection of chemical or biological agents. The story reports several gaps in otherwise meticulous logs, including a period in early March 1991 when troops blew up Kamisiyah ammunition depot, which may have exposed thousands of U.S. troops to nerve gas. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=679665-531 *** Columbia astronauts prepare for landing 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: Zedillo Sends Bill to Allow Mexicans to Hold Dual Nationalit (fwd) Date: 06 Dec 1996 07:32:35 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- In a highly unusual move, Mexican President Zedillo states his intent to influence US politics with this controversial legislation. Mexico City, Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Mexico's President Ernesto Zedillo sent a bill to Congress aimed at giving Mexicans the opportunity to hold two nationalities. If the bill is approved, people born in Mexico will be allowed to keep their Mexican nationality even when they decide to become citizens of another country. The Mexican government began thinking of permitting dual nationality when U.S. voters in the state of California approved proposition 87. The proposition restricts state health and education benefits to illegal immigrants. Some observers believe proposition 87 could had been defeated if legal Mexican immigrants had become U.S. citizens and voted. They didn't because of fears of loosing their Mexican nationality, they said. ``With this measure we intend to give to those who choose another nationality the possibility to exercise their rights in their place of residency'' without loosing their Mexican citizenship, the Mexican government said in a statement. -- Eduardo Garcia in Mexico City (52-5) 514-3042, through the New York newsroom (212) 318-2300/jp Copyright 1996 Bloomberg Business Wire. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: FYI: Supreme Law Fund Date: 06 Dec 1996 06:29:18 -0800 >Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 06:17:19 -0800 >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: Supreme Law Fund > >[This is a forward from a private > message I sent earlier today.] > >Dear Friends, > >We are sharing our thoughts to >develop the Supreme Law Fund. >Details follow: > >I am working up an idea to do >MLM using these five-digit >long-distance carriers, e.g. >10502-1-xxx-xxx-xxxx costs you >9 cents per minute anywhere in the >Union, and 8.9 per minute if you >make them your primary carrier, i.e. >default when you dial 1-[ac]-xxx-xxxx. >Call 1-800-569-8700 for customer >service (World Exchange - CTS). > >Let me know if you want more >information about these programs. > >The one we have already started is >Lifeline, which pays 10% into the >Call to Decision Ministries, >founded by Pastor Butch Paugh. >For the next 3 months, Butch will >donate 50% of his 10% to the Ray >Looker defense fund. He started >announcing it last night on his >Short Wave (SW) radio talk show. >To use this Long Distance (LD) >carrier, dial: > > 1-800-318-9396 > >and mention account #22838: >Call to Decision Ministries. >You must call this number first >for the charity of your choice >to get the credit. > >To access that carrier, dial: > > 10555-1-xxx-xxx-xxxx > >You will pay about 10 cents per >minute using this LD carrier, >and approximately 1 cent per >minute will go into Pastor >Paugh's fund. > >The program(s) I want to start >will retain marketing people like >you to spread the word. The penny >per minute will go into the >Supreme Law Fund, which will be >a charity to cover the litigation >costs of indigent pro bono cases. >Part of the overrides will pay >commissions to the marketing people. > >I am very excited about this program, >because 10 cents per minute is way >below the normal LD rates, and for >bringing this option to millions >of people, I am sure they will be >happy to donate one penny per minute >to a worthwhile fund. > >If we can get 10,000 LD minutes >contributing 1 penny each to the >Supreme Law Fund, that is $100 per >day, enough to cover one legal expert >and a part-time secretary/paralegal. > >/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: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: News release from OKC (fwd) Date: 06 Dec 1996 07:45:37 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Bob Macy's 'Can of Worms' By David Hoffman, Haight Ashbury Free Press Oklahomans may have won a significant victory yesterday as the Oklahoma Court of Appeals entertained arguments on behalf of impaneling a new Grand Jury to investigate the Oklahoma City bombing. The original petition, brought by State Representative Charles Key (R-OKC), and Glenn Wilburn, the grandfather of two dead boys, was quashed by District Judge Daniel Owens on grounds that it would be "reinventing the wheel." Mark Sanford, Key's attorney, argued that the people of Oklahoma saw it as an "opportunity to fill in the missing spokes of the wheel." The two men brought the petition in December of 1995 after discovering numerous discrepancies in the Federal Government's case. This included evidence of foreknowledge, including a government "sting" operation underway at the time; indications of additional bombs in the building; attempts by Federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials to protect the identity of certain suspects, namely John Doe 2; and intimidation of witnesses by FBI agents. About 25 spectators, including some bombing victims, filled the courthouse to hear the arguments before the three-judge panel. Sanford's opening argument was simple and brief. He stated that the petition was properly brought, that much evidence has already been ignored by the Federal Government, and that the State Constitution grants the people the right to convene a Grand Jury when the facts so dictate. Beverly Palmer from District Attorney Bob Macy's office, arguing in defense of Judge Owens, claimed that the petition was "insufficient on its face," and the request was duplicitous of the Federal Grand Jury's efforts. Yet, as Judge Ronald Stubblefield pointed out, nowhere did Judge Owens state why the petition was insufficient. Palmer replied that "obstructing justice" was too broad, and there wasn't enough "specificity" in the claim of other suspects. Palmer then tried to play the issue of the petition's "legal sufficiency" against the judge's "exercise of discretion." In this case, she argued, Judge Owens had the "discretion" to quash the petition even if it was "sufficient" on its face. Both Judges Daniel Boudreau and Stubblefield called her on it, stating that it wasn't necessary to state specific facts, being necessary only to state a sufficient reason why a crime had been committed. "What more can they say?" asked Judge Stubblefield. It was Stubblefield who really put Palmer to the wall. He was skeptical that Judge Owens had any facts to advise him properly in his decision. "I question whether Judge Owens has the discretion=8A" said Stubblefield. "He'= s just operating on what he knows about the bombing. Do you think it's right to make a judgment based on what he reads in the newspaper?" Even Palmer admitted that the statutes were limited as to what Judge Owens could do or how he could interpret the law. As Sanford stated, "Legally he didn't have the right to quash the petition. But because he's a judge he has the power, whether it's legal or not." Arguments and counter-arguments flew back and forth as two sides battled for the legal right of way. While Palmer argued that a County Grand Jury would be "duplicitous," Sanford coolly replied that there is nothing to prevent multiple Grand Juries from operating simultaneously. Palmer, visibly nervous, seemed to grasp for straws. She argued that the County Grand Jury shouldn't be convened because of the need for "judicial economy." And that it contravenes "public policy concerns." "What policy concerns?" asked Judge Boudreau. The County doesn't possess the resources and funds, Palmer argued, to pursue such a big case. Besides, she pleaded, the "investigation" is already "complete," being a "thorough investigation" from "several different Federal agencies." "This case isn't a matter of public policy," said Oklahoma resident Art Fisher, who attended the hearing, "it's one of law. And they're trying to strip the public's right to determine the law." Palmer claimed a County Grand Jury would "jeopardize the Federal case." The Federal gag order prevents interviewing prospective witnesses, she claimed. Sanford countered that there would be no interference with the Federal case as long as they were interviewing witnesses and suspects that Federal prosecutors ignored, which seem to be in abundance. This reporter has interviewed numerous witnesses-those who've been questioned by the FBI, and those who haven't, eventhough they've attempted to be interviewed. Several have even been threatened when they've tried to tell their apparently credible stories. Finally, Palmer, borrowing a favorite acronym of DA Robert Macy's, claimed that impaneling a Grand Jury would "open up a new can of worms," the same line Macy used to dissuade Key from bringing the Grand Jury early on. Interestingly, it was just two months ago that Macy claimed to this reporter that he intended to prosecute McVeigh and Nichols in a state trial on 161 counts of First Degree Murder. "I don't like taking a second seat to the [Federal] prosecution," stated Macy. "The bombing killed 10 of my friends." Macy claimed he was interested in getting to the truth. "I'm prepared to do what ever it takes to get to the truth, Macy added. "My sole intent is in learning the truth." Curiously, when asked if he intended to conduct an investigation independent of the Feds', he said, "Well, I don't want to be a party to anything that will interfere with the Feds' prosecution. I Don't want to open up a new can of worms." Yet as Sanford correctly points out, there are holes in the Feds' case big enough to drive a truck through. It is, literally, a can of worms begging to be opened. As Judge Stubblefield concluded, "The people have the right to circulate a petition if the people find that things aren't going the way they ought to be.=8A Is it not the right, by the sanctified right of the Grand Jury in Oklahoma, to inquire whether a crime is committed? =8ADon't they have the right to investigate people who they think are involved? This is a highly protected right.=8A" David Hoffman, Publisher Haight Ashbury Free Press 6118 N. Meridian, #621 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 http://www.webcom.com/haight (405) 948-1330 (temorarily in Oklahoma City) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Zedillo Sends Bill to Allow Mexicans to Hold Dual Nationalit (fwd) Date: 06 Dec 1996 10:01:27 PST Sounds like it's getting to be time to declare war on Mexico. Then again, it would be much cheaper to simply sprinkle enough reactor waste along the border to cook anything trying to cross at anything besides a regulated crossing..... On Dec 6, pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 18:22:32 -0700 >From: 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com >Subject: Zedillo Sends Bill to Allow Mexicans to Hold Dual Nationalit > > In a highly unusual move, Mexican President Zedillo states his intent to >influence US politics with this controversial legislation. > > Mexico City, Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Mexico's President Ernesto Zedillo > sent a bill to Congress aimed at giving Mexicans the opportunity to > hold two nationalities. > > If the bill is approved, people born in Mexico will be allowed to keep > their Mexican nationality even when they decide to become citizens of > another country. > > The Mexican government began thinking of permitting dual nationality > when U.S. voters in the state of California approved proposition 87. > The proposition restricts state health and education benefits to > illegal immigrants. > > Some observers believe proposition 87 could had been defeated if legal > Mexican immigrants had become U.S. citizens and voted. They didn't > because of fears of loosing their Mexican nationality, they said. > > ``With this measure we intend to give to those who choose another > nationality the possibility to exercise their rights in their place of > residency'' without loosing their Mexican citizenship, the Mexican > government said in a statement. > > -- Eduardo Garcia in Mexico City (52-5) 514-3042, through the New York > newsroom (212) 318-2300/jp > > > Copyright 1996 Bloomberg Business Wire. > > > -- 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: Mark Filipak Subject: Re: Zedillo Sends Bill to Allow Mexicans to Hold Dual Nationalit (fwd) Date: 06 Dec 1996 11:50:49 -0800 Bill Vance wrote: > > Sounds like it's getting to be time to declare war on Mexico. Then again, > it would be much cheaper to simply sprinkle enough reactor waste along the > border to cook anything trying to cross at anything besides a regulated > crossing..... > Bill, I find your comment to be offensive and counterproductive. We have a serious problem vis-a-vis unregulated and illegal immigration from Mexico. Further, it is a problem for them. Imagine if the sides were reversed and our best, most productive, most energetic people felt they needed to leave the US and to go to Mexico to find opportunities. The impact on our economy would be dramatic. Instead, we are the recipients of a positive flow of people that enriches our economy. This assumes that our government is selective in it's admissions policy. Though I don't advocate open borders and find the people who do totally unrealistic, bashing all immigration is just plain silly and denies the benefits that we who are already here accrue from it. Remember that, though illegal immigration from Mexico (and from other countries, I must add) is trumpeted to be a huge problem and an offense it is actually a drop in the ocean. For the most part, we are getting the cream of their crop. That some politicians try to make a issue of this speaks more to their mentality of manipulation than to the scope of the actual problem. There are many countries that permit dual citizenship. Perhaps this move by Zedillo is meant to help. I would like to see some discussion by people who know and can enlighten the rest of us. Inflamatory statements like yours just don't contribute and do much to blur the issue with emotions. Please be thoughtful and reconsider your attitude. -- Regards, If there's one thing I can't . . __ stand, it's intollerance. |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com _ ____________ _ | | \ | \ 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. | \ / : \ | \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html | \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. | / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. | / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right | / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for | / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. | / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - |_/____________|_/ _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh) Subject: IMPORTANT NOTICE for subscribers of ROC Date: 06 Dec 1996 14:46:18 -0700 IMPORTANT NOTICE: Subscribers are forbidden to use the ROC list for SPAM type junk email messages, including most commercial uses. Anyone posting a junk email SPAM type message will be billed US$500 for each occurence. Posting of said messages constitutes acceptance of this restriction. The Management Chad Leigh Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net chad@pengar.com info@pengar.com info@shire.net Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites. Low cost virtual servers. Web Design. DB integration. Tango. Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Filipak Subject: Seeking Supreme Court Case: Corporations are Individuals Date: 06 Dec 1996 16:05:06 -0800 Hi All, I'm trying to find the Supreme Court case that held that corporations are to be treated as individuals vis-a-vis the Constitution. I believe it was in the 1880's (1883?) but don't know the litigants so I've had no luck finding it. Any help out there? -- Regards, If there's one thing I can't . . __ stand, it's intollerance. |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com _ ____________ _ | | \ | \ 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. | \ / : \ | \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html | \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. | / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. | / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right | / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for | / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. | / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - |_/____________|_/ _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Zedillo Sends Bill to Allow Mexicans to Hold Dual Nationalit (fwd) Date: 06 Dec 1996 18:19:14 PST On Dec 06, Mark Filipak wrote: >Bill Vance wrote: >> >> On Dec 06, Mark Filipak wrote: >> >> >Bill Vance wrote: >> >> >> >> Sounds like it's getting to be time to declare war on Mexico. Then again, >> >> it would be much cheaper to simply sprinkle enough reactor waste along the >> >> border to cook anything trying to cross at anything besides a regulated >> >> crossing..... >> >> >> > >> >Bill, >> > >> >I find your comment to be offensive and counterproductive. >> >> My comment merely frames the far extreme of the discussion, so take your >> whining and stuff it. ... > >Oh, excuse me if you think I'm whining (personally, I'd rather be wining >and dining). > >> ... I never worry about being "offensive" or >> "insensitive" any more,... > >Bill, I really don't think a macho guy like you ever worried about being >offensive. Not once I took note of the caracter of most of those being "offended" and/or their purposes, (or agendas), in being so offended. >> ... and further, use comments about being that way as >> guide posts to indicate that I am indeed headed in the right direction. >> Putting a far end limit on possible responces to a situation is never >> "counterproductive". ... > >Possible responses? Declaring war on Mexico and/or sprinkling nuclear >waste along the border are possible responses? Of course they're possible, not likely but possible. Like I said, it frames the discussion, (or debate if you will), between doing nothing or going to war over it. this leaves a rather wide latitude for discussing anything in between. > Just listen to >yourself. You sound ridiculous! I'm not going to waste the time of the >rest of the ROC group on this babble. I intended to get you to stop and >think rationally about what you are saying. If you want to carry this >further, please contact me off-list. (I'm really doing you a favor as >your reputation is being damaged by such a public display of >silliness.) As for myself, I have better things to do. Just listen to your childish Ad Hominem attack instead. You sound immature and ignorant, like most closet communists when they argue from "feelings" instead of facts. I intend to get you to stop and think rationally about what you are saying. Now that I've returned the "favor" of pissing all over everything _you_ had to say in public, if you want to carry this any further, _you_ can contact _me_ off list. Don't do me any favors, my reputation is not being damaged by dousing you with cold water. If you truely have better things to do, why make such stupid responces in the first place? I'm sure you're overjoyed by the fact that I didn't have to cut out pertinent parts of _your_ post in order to try to make my points, but that's ok, I forgive you. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Zedillo Sends Bill to Allow Mexicans to Hold Dual Date: 06 Dec 1996 19:21:54 PST On Dec 06, Mark Filipak wrote: >Hello Bill, > >I didn't notice you'd already taken this discussion off the ROC list >until it was sent out (I had just hit the "Respond" button and had not >filled in an explicit address). That's fine. Please don't mail me >about this unless you are willing to do some thinking about real >solutions to the immigration problem. We all get enough propaganda. Ok, leaving your snotty and offensive condescention out of it, what do you regard as "real" solutions? How about repeal, or better yet the editing of Amendment XIV section 1? -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Seeking Supreme Court Case: Corporations are Individuals Date: 07 Dec 1996 03:22:16 -0800 Corporations are "persons" per IRC 7701(a)(1). Also, see the litigation surrounding the so-called 14th Amendment, because section one uses the term "all persons" [sic]. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 04:05 PM 12/6/96 -0800, you wrote: >Hi All, > >I'm trying to find the Supreme Court case that held that corporations >are to be treated as individuals vis-a-vis the Constitution. I believe >it was in the 1880's (1883?) but don't know the litigants so I've had no >luck finding it. Any help out there? > >-- >Regards, If there's one thing I can't > . . __ stand, it's intollerance. > |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, > | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com > _ ____________ _ | >| \ | \ 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. >| \ / : \ >| \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html >| \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) >| /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. >| / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. >| / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right >| / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for >| / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. >| / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - >|_/____________|_/ > _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ > > ==================================================================== [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: pquixote@ix.netcom.com (Pat Fosness) Subject: Re: Date: 06 Dec 1996 21:49:01 -0800 Does Gov. Beasley have an email address perchance? >Dear List: > >Just days ago Governor David Beasley of South Carolina ordered that the >Confederate flag be removed from the statehouse. Whether or not you have a >Southern heritage this issue has importance to you. The governor obviously >caved in to PC and other pressure groups who do not represent the view of >the majority of Carolinans or the rest of America. The flag represents >state's rights and defense of the state and federal constitutions as a >whole. We must not allow PC leftist groups to dictate policy to our >officials on whatever level of government. It does not begoin or end with >the Confederate flag but covers a broad spectrum of rights we Americans >cherish. Please help and let your voice be heard. If you are not from a >Southern state, all the better to show Gov. Beasley that it is not just a >local issue. Please fax your dis-satisfaction to the governor at the >following: > > 1-803-734-1598 > >or you can write: > > Hon. David Beasley, Governor > % The Statehouse > Columbia, South Carolina > >Thanks > >Mike I. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Filipak Subject: Re: Seeking Supreme Court Case: Corporations are Individuals Date: 06 Dec 1996 22:47:19 -0800 Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > > Corporations are "persons" per IRC 7701(a)(1). > Also, see the litigation surrounding the > so-called 14th Amendment, because section > one uses the term "all persons" [sic]. > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > At 04:05 PM 12/6/96 -0800, Mark Filipak wrote: > >Hi All, > > > >I'm trying to find the Supreme Court case that held that corporations > >are to be treated as individuals vis-a-vis the Constitution. I believe > >it was in the 1880's (1883?) but don't know the litigants so I've had no > >luck finding it. Any help out there? > > Thanks for the lead, Paul. I'm going to check out IRC 7701(a)(1). Logically, if corporations are not just individuals but are "persons," then by Amendment 14.1 they are citizens (provided you can get past the requirement that they be "born or naturalized" - come to think of it, incorporation is a sort of naturalization). If they are citizens, then corporations can run for Congress and for President, the basic requirement being that one be a person and a citizen and, in the case of President, a native. If you hear of a Supreme Court ruling on the subject of corporations being either individuals or people, would you please pass it on to me. IRC 7701(a)(1) is definitely going to make interesting reading but it had to come from law. Not even the IRC can create department regulations out of thin air. If there is law, I'd like that also. And if there is law, there may have been a challange. That's what I've heard about and that's what I ultimately seek. Cheers. -- Regards, If there's one thing I can't . . __ stand, it's intollerance. |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com _ ____________ _ | | \ | \ 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. | \ / : \ | \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html | \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. | / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. | / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right | / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for | / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. | / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - |_/____________|_/ _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Filipak Subject: Seeking Supreme Court Case: Corporations are Individuals Date: 07 Dec 1996 00:23:53 -0800 Paul, Oops. I was reading the thread on this subject and caught my error. In my last post I wrote: ... Not even the IRC can create department regulations out of thin air. ... I should have said "IRS" of course, not "IRC." Hope I this didn't throw you off. -- Regards, If there's one thing I can't . . __ stand, it's intollerance. |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com _ ____________ _ | | \ | \ 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. | \ / : \ | \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html | \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. | / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. | / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right | / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for | / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. | / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - |_/____________|_/ _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Seeking Supreme Court Case: Corporations are Individuals Date: 07 Dec 1996 06:53:02 -0800 At 10:47 PM 12/6/96 -0800, you wrote: >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> Corporations are "persons" per IRC 7701(a)(1). >> Also, see the litigation surrounding the >> so-called 14th Amendment, because section >> one uses the term "all persons" [sic]. >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> At 04:05 PM 12/6/96 -0800, Mark Filipak wrote: >> >Hi All, >> > >> >I'm trying to find the Supreme Court case that held that corporations >> >are to be treated as individuals vis-a-vis the Constitution. I believe >> >it was in the 1880's (1883?) but don't know the litigants so I've had no >> >luck finding it. Any help out there? >> > > >Thanks for the lead, Paul. > >I'm going to check out IRC 7701(a)(1). Logically, if corporations are >not just individuals but are "persons," then by Amendment 14.1 they are >citizens (provided you can get past the requirement that they be "born >or naturalized" - come to think of it, incorporation is a sort of >naturalization). If they are citizens, then corporations can run for >Congress and for President, the basic requirement being that one be a >person and a citizen and, in the case of President, a native. No, the requirements at 2:1:5 mention "Person", not "person". There is a difference, which some people on LLAW are disputing. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >If you hear of a Supreme Court ruling on the subject of corporations >being either individuals or people, would you please pass it on to me. >IRC 7701(a)(1) is definitely going to make interesting reading but it >had to come from law. Not even the IRC can create department >regulations out of thin air. If there is law, I'd like that also. And >if there is law, there may have been a challange. That's what I've >heard about and that's what I ultimately seek. I think the IRC was conceived under the mode of thinking which created the so-called 14th amendment. But, to "simplify" the code, it was just convenient to use the term "person" when referring to all the entities, including individuals, that are mentioned at IRC 7701(a)(1). But, this is just my opinion. Remember Frank Brushaber: he was a state Citizen who had a tax liability. Actually, in the strictest sense, the Union Pacific Railroad Company had the liability, because they were the withholding agent. Brushaber was not a person, but a Person. The Company was a person. /s/ Paul Mitchell > >Cheers. >-- >Regards, If there's one thing I can't > . . __ stand, it's intollerance. > |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, > | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com > _ ____________ _ | >| \ | \ 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. >| \ / : \ >| \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html >| \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) >| /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. >| / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. >| / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right >| / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for >| / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. >| / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - >|_/____________|_/ > _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Seeking Supreme Court Case: Corporations are Individuals Date: 07 Dec 1996 06:54:24 -0800 No, it did not throw me off. Individuals and corporations are two separate and distinct entities, for purposes of the IRC. Otherwise, they would not be separately mentioned at IRC 7701(a)(1). /s/ Paul Mitchell At 12:23 AM 12/7/96 -0800, you wrote: >Paul, > >Oops. I was reading the thread on this subject and caught my error. > >In my last post I wrote: > > ... Not even the IRC can create department >regulations out of thin air. ... > >I should have said "IRS" of course, not "IRC." > >Hope I this didn't throw you off. >-- >Regards, If there's one thing I can't > . . __ stand, it's intollerance. > |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, > | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com > _ ____________ _ | >| \ | \ 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. >| \ / : \ >| \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html >| \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) >| /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. >| / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. >| / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right >| / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for >| / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. >| / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - >|_/____________|_/ > _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: intollerance [sic] Date: 07 Dec 1996 06:55:31 -0800 >Regards, If there's one thing I can't > . . __ stand, it's intollerance. If there's one thing I can stand, it's bad speling. :) /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: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Seeking Supreme Court Case: Corporations are Individuals Date: 07 Dec 1996 00:42:00 PST Up until around the 1880's, only corporations for Public purposes were allowed in the USA, no private ones. They do however, go way back in the Common Law, so you might be in for some digging, if what you're looking for isn't in the more recent texts, or is just hinted at there. Blackstone's Commentaries and Legal Dictionary would be of help in pointing things out for you there. There are other references to the Common Law side of things too, but those are ubiquitous. Inheritance laws, (heirs, assigns and successors etc.) would be part of the roots leading up to it. Also Maritime, Mercantile and Tort Law feed into cororations. The terms used for corporations around the world can be illustrative as well. The Brits use Ltd., or "Limited Liability", in S. America SA, ot "Society Anonime" etc. For more direct info, write the Secretary of State for whatever State you wish to incorporate in. The cheapest is Delaware, but the most secure, (no reciprocal data sharing with the IRS or any other Federal Agency), is Nevada. You can incorporate anywhere, though your State may have "Foreign Corporation" requirements. On Dec 06, Mark Filipak wrote: >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> Corporations are "persons" per IRC 7701(a)(1). >> Also, see the litigation surrounding the >> so-called 14th Amendment, because section >> one uses the term "all persons" [sic]. >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> At 04:05 PM 12/6/96 -0800, Mark Filipak wrote: >> >Hi All, >> > >> >I'm trying to find the Supreme Court case that held that corporations >> >are to be treated as individuals vis-a-vis the Constitution. I believe >> >it was in the 1880's (1883?) but don't know the litigants so I've had no >> >luck finding it. Any help out there? >> > > >Thanks for the lead, Paul. > >I'm going to check out IRC 7701(a)(1). Logically, if corporations are >not just individuals but are "persons," then by Amendment 14.1 they are >citizens (provided you can get past the requirement that they be "born >or naturalized" - come to think of it, incorporation is a sort of >naturalization). If they are citizens, then corporations can run for >Congress and for President, the basic requirement being that one be a >person and a citizen and, in the case of President, a native. > >If you hear of a Supreme Court ruling on the subject of corporations >being either individuals or people, would you please pass it on to me. >IRC 7701(a)(1) is definitely going to make interesting reading but it >had to come from law. Not even the IRC can create department >regulations out of thin air. If there is law, I'd like that also. And >if there is law, there may have been a challange. That's what I've >heard about and that's what I ultimately seek. > >Cheers. >-- >Regards, If there's one thing I can't > . . __ stand, it's intollerance. > |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, > | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com > _ ____________ _ | >| \ | \ 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. >| \ / : \ >| \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html >| \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) >| /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. >| / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. >| / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right >| / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for >| / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. >| / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - >|_/____________|_/ > _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ > -- 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: sabutigo Subject: Re: Seeking Supreme Court Case: Corporations are Individuals Date: 07 Dec 1996 11:37:32 -0800 (PST) At 10:47 PM 12/6/96 -0800, you wrote: >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> Corporations are "persons" per IRC 7701(a)(1). >> Also, see the litigation surrounding the >> so-called 14th Amendment, because section >> one uses the term "all persons" [sic]. >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> At 04:05 PM 12/6/96 -0800, Mark Filipak wrote: >> >Hi All, >> > >> >I'm trying to find the Supreme Court case that held that corporations >> >are to be treated as individuals vis-a-vis the Constitution. I believe >> >it was in the 1880's (1883?) but don't know the litigants so I've had no >> >luck finding it. Any help out there? >> > > >Thanks for the lead, Paul. > >I'm going to check out IRC 7701(a)(1). Logically, if corporations are >not just individuals but are "persons," then by Amendment 14.1 they are >citizens (provided you can get past the requirement that they be "born >or naturalized" - come to think of it, incorporation is a sort of >naturalization). If they are citizens, then corporations can run for >Congress and for President, the basic requirement being that one be a >person and a citizen and, in the case of President, a native. > >If you hear of a Supreme Court ruling on the subject of corporations >being either individuals or people, would you please pass it on to me. >IRC 7701(a)(1) is definitely going to make interesting reading but it >had to come from law. Not even the IRC can create department >regulations out of thin air. If there is law, I'd like that also. And >if there is law, there may have been a challange. That's what I've >heard about and that's what I ultimately seek. > >Cheers. >-- >Regards, If there's one thing I can't > . . __ stand, it's intollerance. > I would also be interested in getting the cite on the 1800s case on corporations and persons which Mark originally requested. I would like to check out their reasoning on the decision as I have heard second-hand and would like to verify what I've been told. Anyone know the case? S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: When your home is not your castle Date: 07 Dec 1996 15:00:24 PST When your home is not your castle by John Worthen This is from the Wolf Hybrid Times that was in the noon Mail Gillete, Wyoming Residents angered by pet law that limits the number of cats and dogs in a household to three are even more upset by a proposal that allows animal officials to inspect a home when somebody makes a complaint, even if the complaint is anonymous Hugo, Minnesota A recently adopted ordinance provides that: " Any person who owns, possesses or harbors a dog within the city limits grants implied consent for entry upon his/ hers premises, WITHOUT express consent, to the Animal Control Officer for the purpose of investigating complaints related to this Ordinance The old adage that a person's home is their castle is being threatened by an increasing number of local ordinances which would negate the right to privacy and protection from warrantees search and seizure. These ordinances authorize law enforcement personnel to enter private property and search it or seize objects found there. Warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate and are based on probable cause or justification for such an intrusion. But the wave of new ordinances cropping across the country that are primarily directed at canine ownership negate the need for obtaining such warrants. As a general rule, they seem to include most of the following elements: Presumptions that owners have granted implied consent to allow entry onto their properties and searches of their homes without any particular legal justification Authorization for entry onto residential property, for investigative purposes, regardless of any reasonable grounds or probably cause to conduct a search Permission to enter private homes without warrants to seek out dogs on the premises, and Enabling law enforcement officers to arrest or cite individuals on the preemies for any offenses observed or detected during the search and seizure process In spire of the protection of the Fourth Amendment more and more canine owners are finding themselves subjected to warrantees searches. They may be triggered by something as unrelated as an anonymous complaint by an unfriendly neighbor who does not like your fencing or philosophies or by someone living blocks away who simply does not like dogs period. The ordinances do not discriminate between owners with "nuisance" dogs and owners whose animals have never caused any problem whatsoever and are seldom seen or heard. Owners argue that the ordinances can be used selectively, targeting particular individuals who may not be as popular with their neighbors as others. Even more frightening to some is the fact that while in the house, with or without a warrant, anything that law enforcement officials observe in "plain view" which they feel is suspect, is subject to criminal prosecution -- a hunter's gun collection, a knife collection, papers lying on a table which contain confidential information that is totally unrelated to the reason for the search-- all could be subject to seizure and prosecution. The laws and the prosecution that follows are subject to legal challenge; however most challenges, successful or unsuccessful, generally occur after the fact. Some of the ordinances can be set aside as being overly vague. However, in the case of "Conway vs Pasadena Humane Society", the court ruled that a search and seizure constituted a violation of a dog owner's rights under the Fourth Amendment. In this case, animal control officers committed two separate warrantees entries to seize a dog that was seen "running at large" in violation of the city's leash law. The dog had dashed into its owner's home, where it was pursued by two police officers. The first entry was ostensibly was due to a suspicion of a burglary because a door to the home was wide open. Once in the house, they spotted the dog lying on a bed in one of the bedrooms. They left the house for a moment, and after consulting with two to other animal control officers, the four re-entered the home and impounded the dog. The dog's owners later were fined and placed on probation. They sued the city and other's claiming violations of their constitutional rights. The court ruled in their favor. The "Conway" ruling does not, however, set a precedent which must be adopted by other courts or jurisdictions and it does not preclude further warrantees searches even in Pasadena. Additionally, court challenges occur after the fact, and may not prevent destruction of the dog before the case can be heard. The ordinances referred to are not "breed specific." so defense along those lines is not relevant to the case As is so often said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The most effective way of preventing an erosion of your Constitutional rights is to become actively involved in the regulatory decisions in your community, county and your state. Become a "watchdog" and keep yourself constantly aware of any new ordinances or legislative bills that are being proposed. Lobby all of your representatives, council members if restrictive regulations are to be introduced and make sure that the general public has plenty of notice of what may be forthcoming. Use the media to your advantage and gather as many supporters as you can to follow suit. Wrongful entry does not just threaten you as canine owners, but also threatens the privacy and security of all Americans, particularly where "suspicion" can be used as justification for warrantees entry. If such laws do become enacted, be prepared to challenge their validity thru the courts Remember, there is strength in numbers and just because your neighbors may not have canines themselves or may not like the "kind" of canine you own, the sanctify of their homes may be just as "suspect" as yours and may be subjected to the same sort of warrantees search. Not many citizens feel comfortable with that thought Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Zedillo Sends Bill etc. Date: 07 Dec 1996 16:19:09 -0500 Mark Filipak writes: >>...Further, it is a problem for them. Imagine if the sides were reversed and our best, most productive, most energetic people felt they needed to leave the US and to go to Mexico to find opportunities. The impact on our economy would be dramatic. Instead, we are the recipients of a positive flow of people that enriches our economy.<< >snip< >>For the most part, we are getting the cream of their crop. There are many countries that permit dual citizenship. Perhaps this move by Zedillo is meant to help. << Mark, If you will permit a question? If as you say, we are getting the "cream of their crop" their best and brightest, so to speak. Why then does President Zedillo, want them to hold dual citizenship, thereby creating MORE American voters who will vote to keep our borders open causing an even larger drain on Mexico's talent pool? I would think that President Zedillo would want to keep these "assets" in Mexico to help his own country. I have no doubt that this move by Zedillo is meant to help, however I highly suspect that the intended beneficiary is the United States. Maybe this flow of people is not composed of Mexico's best and is not as positive to us as you claim. Does the "Mariel Boat Lift" from Cuba ring any bells? Good old Fidel sure sent us his best and brightest. Regards, Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pquixote@ix.netcom.com (Pat Fosness) Subject: Re: Seeking Supreme Court Case: Corporations are Individuals Date: 07 Dec 1996 17:29:46 -0800 >>If you hear of a Supreme Court ruling on the subject of corporations >>being either individuals or people, would you please pass it on to me. >>IRC 7701(a)(1) is definitely going to make interesting reading but it >>had to come from law. Not even the IRC can create department >>regulations out of thin air. If there is law, I'd like that also. And >>if there is law, there may have been a challange. That's what I've >>heard about and that's what I ultimately seek. This is a fairly recent case but it does deal with first amendment rights of a corporation: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti US Supreme Court, 98 S.Ct 1407 (1978) There was a case in the early 1800's that discussed the nature of a corporation as "an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law" which may also be of some help: Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 U.S. (Wheat) 518, 4 L.Ed.629 (1819) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: URGENT !!!!!! (fwd) Date: 07 Dec 1996 21:42:42 PST On Dec 7, Norman Olson wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ATTN: MILITIA Just got a report from Colo. Member that drives truck heard on the radio out of Colo. Springs that right now the military and the police are going door to door and taking guns out of homes. Think it has to do with the new law on domestic violence. Might want to get into contacts ASAP for further intel. If you get anymore intel, please pass it on to all. Donald K. Rudolph, Commander San Joaquin County Militia [------------------------- 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: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net) Subject: Re: URGENT !!!!!! (fwd) Date: 08 Dec 1996 01:26:24 -0700 We probably should be verifying such things before we pass them on. I for one do not believe it. Chad >On Dec 7, Norman Olson wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:07:59 -0800 >From: Don >To: yava@cwnet.com >Subject: URGENT !!!!!! > > ATTN: MILITIA > > Just got a report from Colo. Member that drives truck heard on the >radio out of Colo. Springs that right now the military and the police are >going door to door and taking guns out of homes. Think it has to do with the >new law on domestic violence. > Might want to get into contacts ASAP for further intel. > If you get anymore intel, please pass it on to all. > >Donald K. Rudolph, Commander >San Joaquin County Militia > >[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] > ------------------------- 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: sabutigo Subject: Re: URGENT !!!!!! (fwd) Date: 08 Dec 1996 09:27:39 -0800 (PST) At 09:42 PM 12/7/96 PST, you wrote: >On Dec 7, Norman Olson wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:07:59 -0800 >From: Don >To: yava@cwnet.com >Subject: URGENT !!!!!! > > ATTN: MILITIA > > Just got a report from Colo. Member that drives truck heard on the >radio out of Colo. Springs that right now the military and the police are >going door to door and taking guns out of homes. Think it has to do with the >new law on domestic violence. > Might want to get into contacts ASAP for further intel. > If you get anymore intel, please pass it on to all. > >Donald K. Rudolph, Commander >San Joaquin County Militia > Speaking of the new domestic violence law prohibiting ownership or possession of firearms by those convicted of misdemeanors (including generic assaults where the victim was a family member), are you aware that there is NO EXEMPTION for law enforcement or military? The FBI reportedly is sending out forms to all agents where they have to (on penalty of perjury) state they have never been so convicted. Some jurisdictions have already collected guns from police officers. Others seem unaware of the law's provision despite an ATF notice to all law enforcement agencies. Many agencies HAVE NO RECORD of whether their people have been convicted of such things. Isn't it about time to get the feminist and domestic abuse activists to start hammering on the city, county, and state leaders to have background checks on ALL law enforcement officers with this law in mind? These groups can also provide a lot of pressure against any attempt for the law to be modified to exclude law enforcement and military personnel. Despite the fact that this law is ALL WRONG, it is unlikely to get changed in the current political climate. We may as well enjoy the unintended consequences and begin pushing for full implementation with law enforcement types. (It could be lots of fun.) I understand that the mere accusation of domestic violence by a spouse, significant other, domestic partner, or family member triggers the requirement to surrender firearms. S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: URGENT !!!!!! (fwd) Date: 08 Dec 1996 12:38:41 -0800 -snip- > I understand that the mere accusation of domestic violence by a >spouse, significant other, domestic partner, or family member triggers the >requirement to surrender firearms. > >S. Not according to the new law; it requires a *misdemeanor conviction*. - 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: URGENT !!!!!! (fwd) Date: 08 Dec 1996 13:16:48 -0800 (PST) At 12:38 PM 12/8/96 -0800, you wrote: >-snip- >> I understand that the mere accusation of domestic violence by a >>spouse, significant other, domestic partner, or family member triggers the >>requirement to surrender firearms. >> >>S. > >Not according to the new law; it requires a *misdemeanor conviction*. > > >- Monte > > You are probably right, but if we are able to "sensitize" the various police agencies to the need to protect the person allegeing domestic violence, we can probably get them to demand that the alleged perp surrender of all firearms until there is a final judgment in the charge. Maybe we can take a hint from the forfeiture laws and "charge" the weapon itself with the perp's violence and seize them the way we seize a drug dealer's property. (I think I've been studying the enemy's perverted tactics so long, I'm beginning to think like them. Yuk!:-) S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tsuma@aol.com Subject: my Kaiser Letter Date: 08 Dec 1996 16:33:32 -0500 Here's the letter I sent to Kaiser. Only took me about a week and a half to calm down enough not to curse them. Not bad, I may make it to 50 yet...;-) >> Partners in Prevention Handbook 7301 Mines Rd. Livermore, Ca. 94550 Dear Kaiser, I find your Partners in Prevention handbook disturbing. My complaint is with the section entitled 'Top Prevention Priorities for Teenagers' . Number 4 lists 'Don't use Guns. Guns kill.' Now really, guns don't kill anymore than cars, knives or baseball bats do. It takes a person using a gun to kill. And the person using the gun in an inappropriate manner is a criminal. Yes, even people who commit suicide, since it is illegal. Your statement is obviously very politically correct, but highly inaccurate. Also, the side bar says that 'More young people are killed by handguns in Ca. than by car crashes, disease, or drugs.' Implying that most of these people are murdered. When you know that is not true! Most of these fatalities are suicides. And it hardly matters what the method of suicide is. Perhaps if the Kaiser policy allowed for a more thorough Psychiatric program, there would be LESS suicides among teenagers. You can include yourselves in the blame for these deaths. As far as the remainder, a great number of them are criminals engaged in illegal activities. Oh, well. I have no sympathy for these types, and neither should anyone else. Its a choice to commit a crime, if you get hurt or killed doing it, or being associated with it, thats the natural consequences of your actions. Please cease these political statements in your future publications and try to reflect the facts. Better yet, stick to Medicine and try to improve your teen counseling programs, and drug treatment programs. It certainly would be more effective than misleading and outright lying to your members. Sincerely, Vanze Lum << If you are planning to write to Kaiser, feel free to use any part of my letter, improve on it as you see fit. Kaiser Permanente Editorial Offices 1950 Franklin St. Oakland, Ca. 94612 Regards, Vanze Lum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: URGENT !!!!!! (fwd) Date: 08 Dec 1996 14:00:26 PST On Dec 8, sabutigo wrote: >At 12:38 PM 12/8/96 -0800, you wrote: >>-snip- >>> I understand that the mere accusation of domestic violence by a >>>spouse, significant other, domestic partner, or family member triggers the >>>requirement to surrender firearms. >>> >>>S. >> >>Not according to the new law; it requires a *misdemeanor conviction*. >> >>- Monte >> > You are probably right, but if we are able to "sensitize" the >various police agencies to the need to protect the person allegeing domestic >violence, we can probably get them to demand that the alleged perp surrender >of all firearms until there is a final judgment in the charge. Maybe we can >take a hint from the forfeiture laws and "charge" the weapon itself with the >perp's violence and seize them the way we seize a drug dealer's property. (I >think I've been studying the enemy's perverted tactics so long, I'm >beginning to think like them. Yuk!:-) > >S. Yeah, but the big deal here, is that if the Military is involved, Habeas Corpus is being violated, bigtime. None of us can afford to just let that go, regardless of the reason for it. -- 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: Mark Filipak Subject: Re: Zedillo Sends Bill to Allow Mexicans to Hold Dual Nationalit (fwd) Date: 08 Dec 1996 13:42:38 -0800 BludyRed@aol.com wrote: > > Mark Filipak writes: > > >>...Further, it is a problem for them. Imagine if the sides were > reversed and our best, most productive, most energetic people felt they > needed to leave the US and to go to Mexico to find opportunities. The > impact on our economy would be dramatic. > > Instead, we are the recipients of a positive flow of people that > enriches our economy.<< > > >snip< > > >>For the most part, we are getting the cream of their crop. > There are many countries that permit dual citizenship. Perhaps this > move by Zedillo is meant to help. << > > Mark, > > If you will permit a question? If as you say, we are getting the > "cream of their crop" their best and brightest, so to speak. > Why then does President Zedillo, want them to hold dual citizenship, > thereby creating MORE American voters who will vote to keep our > borders open causing an even larger drain on Mexico's talent pool? > > I would think that President Zedillo would want to keep these > "assets" in Mexico to help his own country. I have no doubt that this > move by Zedillo is meant to help, however I highly suspect that the > intended beneficiary is the United States. > > Maybe this flow of people is not composed of Mexico's best and > is not as positive to us as you claim. > > Does the "Mariel Boat Lift" from Cuba ring any bells? > Good old Fidel sure sent us his best and brightest. > > Regards, > Dennis Baron Hi Dennis, I have to admit that when I first heard this subject I thought of the Mariel boat lift, too. I doubt you are implying that illegal immigration from Mexico is at all similar, but I'll give you the chance to explain rather than make any assumptions. Btw, every time I hear someone say "undocumented immigrants" my hair just stands on end. I want to grab them and make them write "illegal aliens" 100 times. Before I proceed to rip your arguments to shreds I should clarify something. The "cream of the crop" is a relative measure. Sure there will be criminals and deadbeats who will try to stay in the US by any means, but I have no doubt that the talent, potential, honesty, and energy of the average person who leaves Mexico is higher than the average Mexican who stays. Do you have any doubt of that? (You'd go to the US if you were Mexican, wouldn't you?) As far as dual nationality is concerned, look at the pros and cons as Zidillo would see them (pretend you're a Mexican politician ... just kidding). Your people are leaving. If they are ever to come back (after gaining skills and/or money in that country to the north) the door has to remain open. But unless Congress passes an exemption, naturalized citizens are required to renounce their existing citizenship -- I believe Congress passed just such an exemption for Rupert Murdock, the Australian media tycoon (in addition to some sweet tax exemptions, but that's another corrupt story). I don't see a down side for Zidillo. Now, to answer your points: > Why then does President Zedillo, want them to hold dual citizenship, > thereby creating MORE American voters who will vote to keep our > borders open causing an even larger drain on Mexico's talent pool? How will dual citizenship create "MORE American voters?" Do you think that more illegals will "go for the border" if they know they won't lose their Mexican citizenship? First, if an immigrant is illegal, he/she is not eligable for American citizenship in the first place and, thus, takes absolutely no risk of losing his/her Mexican citizenship. Second, if an immigrant is legal, at least he/she will be able to go back - that would be good, right? Third, with the exception of their family, the vast majority of Mexicans who are here legally don't want Mexican illegals to follow them - they tend to be rather conservative in that respect. (I wish I had the figures to back that up, but it is what I have heard from exit polls.) Fourth, legal immigrants who commit fellonies, and are thus subject to deportation, will be easier to get rid of if they have retained their Mexican citizenship - or would you rather have them plug up or prisons? And fifth, it does not change the status of illegals - when caught, they will still be guilty of a fellony and, ipso facto, barred from any future application for legal immigration for which they might otherwise have been eligible. > I would think that President Zedillo would want to keep these > "assets" in Mexico to help his own country. I have no doubt that this > move by Zedillo is meant to help, however I highly suspect that the > intended beneficiary is the United States. I suspect that you're being facetious here when you refer to the US as the intended "beneficiary." If the existence of dual citizenship could somehow increase legal immigration, then you might have a point, but dual citizenship cannot increase legal immigration. Only Congress can increase legal immigration by increasing Mexico's immigration quota (something it's not very likely to do). So neither legal nor illegal immigration will be affected. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that you could establish a link between dual citizenship and increased illegal immigration, you are still left with one insurmountable problem: illegal immagrants are not US citizens and cannot become US citizens and, hence, cannot vote. So how would this increase the number of US voters supporting open borders or have any political effect? Please be specific when responding. > Maybe this flow of people is not composed of Mexico's best and > is not as positive to us as you claim. Congress, and the Executive (through the INS) determine the requirements for legal immigration. Since dual nationality will not affect illegal immigration, if you have a problem, take it up with the INS. In my opinion, Zidillo and anything he or the Mexican legislature does regarding dual nationality will have negligible effect. I'll be happy to entertain any arguments you can put forward to show my thinking is flawed, but I will not accept blind paranoia or groundless conspiracy theories. -- Regards, I'd be President by now . . __ if I hadn't inhaled. |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com _ ____________ _ | | \ | \ 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. | \ / : \ | \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html | \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. | / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. | / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right | / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for | / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. | / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - |_/____________|_/ _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Filipak Subject: Re: Zedillo Sends Bill to Allow Mexicans to Hold Dual Nationalit (fwd) Date: 08 Dec 1996 14:05:23 -0800 Bill Vance wrote: > > On Dec 06, Mark Filipak wrote: > > >Bill Vance wrote: > >> > >> On Dec 06, Mark Filipak wrote: > >> > >> >Bill Vance wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Sounds like it's getting to be time to declare war on Mexico. Then again, > >> >> it would be much cheaper to simply sprinkle enough reactor waste along the > >> >> border to cook anything trying to cross at anything besides a regulated > >> >> crossing..... > >> >> > >> > > >> >Bill, > >> > > >> >I find your comment to be offensive and counterproductive. > >> > >> My comment merely frames the far extreme of the discussion, so take your > >> whining and stuff it. ... > > > >Oh, excuse me if you think I'm whining (personally, I'd rather be wining > >and dining). > > > >> ... I never worry about being "offensive" or > >> "insensitive" any more,... > > > >Bill, I really don't think a macho guy like you ever worried about being > >offensive. > > Not once I took note of the caracter of most of those being "offended" > and/or their purposes, (or agendas), in being so offended. > > >> ... and further, use comments about being that way as > >> guide posts to indicate that I am indeed headed in the right direction. > >> Putting a far end limit on possible responces to a situation is never > >> "counterproductive". ... > > > >Possible responses? Declaring war on Mexico and/or sprinkling nuclear > >waste along the border are possible responses? > > Of course they're possible, not likely but possible. Like I said, it frames > the discussion, (or debate if you will), between doing nothing or going to > war over it. this leaves a rather wide latitude for discussing anything in > between. > > > Just listen to > >yourself. You sound ridiculous! I'm not going to waste the time of the > >rest of the ROC group on this babble. I intended to get you to stop and > >think rationally about what you are saying. If you want to carry this > >further, please contact me off-list. (I'm really doing you a favor as > >your reputation is being damaged by such a public display of > >silliness.) As for myself, I have better things to do. > > Just listen to your childish Ad Hominem attack instead. You sound immature > and ignorant, like most closet communists when they argue from "feelings" > instead of facts. I intend to get you to stop and think rationally about > what you are saying. Now that I've returned the "favor" of pissing all over > everything _you_ had to say in public, if you want to carry this any > further, _you_ can contact _me_ off list. Don't do me any favors, my > reputation is not being damaged by dousing you with cold water. If you > truely have better things to do, why make such stupid responces in the first > place? I'm sure you're overjoyed by the fact that I didn't have to cut out > pertinent parts of _your_ post in order to try to make my points, but that's > ok, I forgive you. > > -- > 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. Bill, I strongly rejected your suggestion to declare war on Mexico and salt the border with nuclear waste as ridiculous, offensive, and unconstructive. You chose to respond off-list which was totally appropriate considering the names you were going to call me. Then after I respond, you brought it back on-list. Did you intend to repost to the list or was that a mistake? Shall we take this flame-throwing contest back off-list or can we let the flames die? -- Regards, If there's one thing I can't . . __ stand, it's biggots. |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com _ ____________ _ | | \ | \ 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. | \ / : \ | \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html | \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. | / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. | / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right | / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for | / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. | / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - |_/____________|_/ _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: 49er Steve Young is a Gun Grabber Date: 08 Dec 1996 14:57:27 -0800 I just moseyed over to the 49ers web page, hoping for an email address to complain to about Young's support of HCI. Didn't find one, but I *did* find the 800 number for Steve Young's "Forever Young Foundation," whatever that is. 1-800-994-3837 (1-800-994-EVER). I'll be making a call on Monday. Anybody care to join me? - Monte >For what's its worth, >Steve Young donated $25,000.00 to HCI, and I have been pissed at him >since, >for this. I am a 49'er fan and its hurts me to cheer the team and Young, >but I can't cheer one without the other. Believe me, I have written >letters >to Young, via the 49'er org., and received no response. Also Young was a >guest speaker at some HCI funtion in the Bay Area awhile back. >For some reason, the pro-gun people of Hollywood keep quiet, and the >Sports >pro-gun people (when they speak up) are nailed by the Media (maybe that is >why the Hollywooed'ers keep quiet ??) Damn near every movie star has used >a firearm or been in movies where firearms were used in a positive light >(ie. saving the "good guys/gals"), yet they lone up with HCI and add their >names to the Liberal list........makes me sick.! >Al Barth >>Return-Path: ca-firearms-errors@lists.best.com >>From: Sun Tzu Organization >>Subject: Re: Tank McNamara comic strip >>Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 19:24:27 -0700 >>BestServHost: lists.best.com >>Sender: ca-firearms-errors@lists.best.com >>Errors-To: ca-firearms-errors@lists.best.com >>To: ca-firearms@lists.best.com >> >>>From: dyoung@qualcomm.com (donyoung) >>>Subject: Re: Tank McNamara comic strip >>>Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:41:22 -0800 (PST) >>>BestServHost: lists.best.com >>>Sender: ca-firearms-errors@lists.best.com >>>Errors-To: ca-firearms-errors@lists.best.com >>>To: ca-firearms@lists.best.com >>> >>>If I have my facts straight, Steve Young of the SF 49'ers was one of the >>supporters of the HCI convention that was held some time ago. >>> >>> >>>>Recent Tank McNamara comic strips are asking for votes for "Sports Jerk >>>>of the Year." >> >>[snip] >> >>This past week there was discussion on KNBR Sports Radio, in >>particular Gary Radnich's show, about a Bay Area NFL professional >>that was pushing a guns for tickets offer, or something like that. >> >>Perhaps 49er's fans or Raiders fans can shed light on who that was. >>Sun Tzu Organization -- http://www.ccnet.com/~suntzu75/rkba.htm >> >>"Slaves can't own guns." "A familiar sight provokes no attention" >> >> >This whole fight is not about firearms, it's about FREEDOM ! > > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Zedillo Sends Bill to Allow Mexicans to Hold Dual Nationalit (fwd) Date: 08 Dec 1996 16:01:03 PST On Dec 08, Mark Filipak wrote: [snip] >Bill, > >I strongly rejected your suggestion to declare war on Mexico and salt >the border with nuclear waste as ridiculous, offensive, and >unconstructive. You chose to respond off-list which was totally >appropriate considering the names you were going to call me. Then after >I respond, you brought it back on-list. Did you intend to repost to the >list or was that a mistake? > >Shall we take this flame-throwing contest back off-list or can we let >the flames die? I meant to keep it on list as long as you did, but I forgot about the filter program I wrote to get rid of the "Reply-To:" line as the mail comes in. Elm has some occaissional problems with dealling with that line. I was pointing out an example not calling names, though I suppose it could have been taken that way. You may recall making your own share of implications. I do tend to express myself with a deal of sarcasm from time to time, but basically it was as I said; To frame the discussion between the extremes of doing nothing or doing the unthinkable. Actually I geuss both are unthinkable when you get down to it. Let 'em die. I don't mind a good row from time to time though; We are at those times, as the Bible says, "iron sharpening iron". :-) -- 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: Jack@minerva.com Subject: When your home is not your castle part II Date: 08 Dec 1996 16:45:53 PST When I posted the article yesterday, I left out some information of possible interest since I have already had one request WHT (Wolf Hybrid Times ) is published by Dorothy Prendergast Phone numbers are 505 863 5408 FAX 505 722 0679 Its address is box 1423 Gallup New Mexico 87305 I have been taking it for about six years. About half the articles are concerned with new laws in states and cities to control / restrict the ownership of wolves / wolf hybrids / ordinary dogs. That is the same function as this list: To relay the steady erosion of constituional rights ....... 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: request for stamp money Date: 09 Dec 1996 04:30:19 -0800 Dear Friends, Ray Looker is now desperate for money to buy stamps. The feds have issued four (4) separate indictments against him, and we must quadruplicate every pleading, adding immensely to the postage fees. Ray can buy stamps in the Northern Regional Jail, but he must receive U.S. Postal Money Orders to do so. If you can, please send USPMO's in any amount you can afford to: Ray Looker, Sui Juris c/o NRJ, Jail Side, B4-4 RD 2, Box 1 Moundsville, West Virginia state Postal Zone 26041/tdc Complete the USPMO as follows: PAY TO: Ray Looker Many thanks, everyone! /s/ Paul Mitchell Counselor at Law ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Home/Castle Date: 09 Dec 1996 00:15:39 -0500 Jack@minerva.com writes: >>When your home is not your castle by John Worthen This is from the Wolf Hybrid Times that was in the noon Mail Gillete, Wyoming Residents angered by pet law that limits the number of cats and dogs in a household to three are even more upset by a proposal that allows animal officials to inspect a home when somebody makes a complaint, even if the complaint is anonymous. Subject: Re: URGENT !!!!!! (fwd) Date: 08 Dec 1996 22:27:10 -0800 At 12:38 PM 12/8/96 -0800, Liberty or Death wrote: >-snip- >> I understand that the mere accusation of domestic violence by a >>spouse, significant other, domestic partner, or family member triggers the >>requirement to surrender firearms. >> >>S. > >Not according to the new law; it requires a *misdemeanor conviction*. > The _original proposal_ in the Lautenberg bill would have caused forfeiture upon indictment. Thank God, that's not _quite_ what passed. 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: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: URGENT !!!!!! (fwd) Date: 09 Dec 1996 12:32:06 PST Latest update indicates that while it was _heard_ about in Colorado Springs, the incident supposedly happened in _Dallas_. This may turn out to be a false alarm, but if so, i'll try to keep everyone informed of that too. -- 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: "Ken L. Holder" Subject: Re: URGENT !!!!!! (fwd) Date: 09 Dec 1996 15:06:20 -0800 At 12:32 PM 12/9/96 PST, you wrote: >Latest update indicates that while it was _heard_ about in Colorado Springs, >the incident supposedly happened in _Dallas_. This may turn out to be a >false alarm, but if so, i'll try to keep everyone informed of that too. Maybe the following is what it was about. -- Ken Holder kholder@liberty.com Webmaster for L. Neil Smith's _The Libertarian Enterprise_ http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/libemain.html --------------------- begin forward ------------------------------ Drug-trafficking arrests rattle residents in border town FRONTON, Texas - It was just after dawn when federal agents swooped in on this tiny farming community along the Rio Grande. They set up a roadblock on the only street out of town, stopping every car to check the identifications of bewildered passengers headed to work. They knocked on front doors, hauling off mothers and fathers as their children got ready for school. In all, 15 of the town's 300 residents were arrested - entire families in some cases. Some are nurses, teachers and bookkeepers. All, authorities allege, are connected to two families accused of operating a marijuana-smuggling organization for more than 10 years out of this nondescript hamlet in remote Starr County. The Fronton residents were among 40 people arrested Nov. 19 in Hidalgo, Starr and Zapata counties. They are among more than 70 people charged in a 197-count drug-trafficking indictment federal prosecutors plan to discuss at a news conference Monday in Houston. The raid has rattled those who remain in Fronton, even though some say it was inevitable. "The community more or less knew that something like this was bound to happen," said Starr County Commissioner Adrian Gonzalez, who has lived here 20 years. "There are a lot of drugs and illegal aliens coming through. There are a lot of law-abiding people, but unfortunately there's the few that are involved, and most people knew about it," he said. From the winding road on the outskirts of town, Fronton looks ordinary enough. Prickly pear cacti and mesquite trees front miles of farmland, where some of the locals work picking melons and peppers. But for all its ordinariness, Fronton is a known drug-trafficking corridor from Mexico into the United States, authorities contend. The signs, albeit subtle, are there. While one street is lined with rickety trailer houses and uninhabitable shanties, just around the corner stand beautiful white stucco villas and brick homes with souped-up pickups parked in the driveways. The town's location is perfect for smuggling drugs or immigrants. It's just a short hike from the banks of the Rio Grande, yet 30 miles west of the nearest U.S. Border Patrol station, in Rio Grande City. "They know it takes Border Patrol about 30 minutes to get there," said Rick Aguirre, the station supervisor at Rio Grande City. "There's a couple of direct routes that go straight down to the river where a person could load 1,000 pounds and be hidden in the neighborhood or on the street in less than three minutes." Since Oct. 1, Mr. Aguirre's agents have confiscated more than 13,000 pounds of marijuana in Starr County, including 500 pounds seized in Fronton days after the arrests. "We had a rest for about two days," Mr. Aguirre said. "But like anything else, take a bad guy off the street and, heck, there's two more to replace him." With the government's indictment still under seal, little is known about the case. The 197 counts include charges of trafficking and possession of marijuana, racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy. A Starr County sheriff's deputy is among those accused. However, defense attorneys said the charges primarily target two families - the Moreno and Riojas clans. Some defense attorneys accused the government of going too far to get to the heads of the families, arresting women and others who they said are anything but drug traffickers. "It's the theory of just dragging a net and seeing what they can catch, and they'll discard the fish that they don't want to keep," said Michael Garza, who represents Renato Riojas, brother of one of the alleged leaders. "They tried to pick people up on the smallest technicalities of the law, and it gets to a point where it's an injustice," Mr. Garza said. "There are children right now with both parents locked up in jail." Zaragoza Sandoval was arrested in the roundup, but his wife, Mari, remains in Fronton with their three children. She declined to discuss the arrest, but Mr. Sandoval's father, 74-year-old Juan Sandoval, tearfully defended his son, saying, "He is a very good boy." "It hurts me, not seeing him here. But what can we do?" said the elder Mr. Sandoval, who has lived in town 43 years. Federal prosecutors declined to discuss the indictment until Monday, but one agent familiar with the case said it is not unusual for entire families to be involved in the drug trade. "There is a significant family infrastructure that has historically been involved in drug trafficking," said the agent, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They support each other, they reach out to each other and through extended family, lots of things are done." In Fronton, most residents were reluctant to talk about the arrests. One woman retrieving the paper from her driveway scurried inside when questioned. Many are just sick of the publicity, Mr. Gonzalez said. Others don't want to disparage their friends and neighbors. "We knew most of those people, and they're not violent people," he said. "They're good family men. Some of them don't even drink or smoke. They just happened to be in the wrong business." Associated Press 12/08/96 (c) 1996 The Dallas Morning News http://www.dallasnews.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd) Judicial Selection Monitoring Project Date: 09 Dec 1996 19:19:58 -0500 >From: Darcy Garthwaite >Subject: Judicial Selection Monitoring Project >Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:28:59 -0500 > >Dear KI-USA team member, >I am asking for your help regarding our federal judiciary. President >Clinton has already appointed 202 activist judges, more than 25% of the >entire federal bench. One of the most important things we can do is >send a clear and united statement of our concern to the President and >the Senate. > >The letter below is designed to allow ALL INTERESTED GROUPS, REGARDLESS >OF TAX STATUS, to sign on. The letter delivers a unified message from a >large and varied number of grassroots organizations that judicial >selection must be a high priority in the next four years. > >Signing the letter below is a very simple step. Whether or not your >organization participates in individual judicial nominations or in any >lobbying activity, you should be able to join this basic statement of >principle. In order to sign, you have to 1) BE REPRESENTING A >PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION. You CANNOT sign as an individual representing >yourself. 2) All you have to do is type your name AND ORGANIZATION YOU >REPRESENT in the appropriate place below and email it back to me at >(lsdean@fcref.org) or simply reply to Darcy and she will forward it to >me. > >We are trying to get 150 organizations to sign the letter so that we >show that grassroots activists throughout the country are tired of >activist judges who base their decisions on their own personal >preferences rather than what is right and are ready for a restrained >judiciary. > >Please help, if you can and I look forward to hearing from you! >Happy Holidays to you and your families! >Lisa Dean >Director, KI-USA > >January, 1996 > >Dear President Clinton/Senator X: > >We represent millions of Americans deeply concerned about an activist >federal judiciary. Judicial activism threatens self-government; without >self-government, there is no liberty. In America, lawmakers must be >accountable to the people, yet unaccountable judges with life tenure too >often assume that role by making our laws mean something other than what >the real lawmakers intended. > >Some of us lobby, others educate. We have different methods, different >means, but one message. We will promote judicial restraint and fight >judicial activism with whatever tools and resources are legitimately at >our disposal. The Constitution names the President and the Senate as >the key players in judicial selection, but both are accountable to the >people. > >As the 105th Congress opens, we want you to know of our common resolve >and commitment to see a more restrained judiciary, one more consistent >with self-government and liberty. > >Sincerely, > > >(Please type your name here if you'd like your organization to be listed >on the original letter. Email it back to us at lsdean@fcref.org or by >hitting the Reply button on your system.) > > > > "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: (fwd) Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 81 Date: 09 Dec 1996 19:24:46 -0500 Let's see if this takes place! I'm not holding my breath, though. Tom >Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 16:59:39 -0600 (CST) >Reply-To: bigred@SHOUT.NET >Sender: owner-CN-L@cornell.edu >From: Brian Redman >To: Conspiracy Nation >Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 81 >X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) >X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN > >Thanks to all paid subscribers, without whose >support this effort would not be possible. > > > Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 81 > ====================================== > ("Quid coniuratio est?") > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > >COVERT COMMENTS FROM WASHINGTON INSIDER >======================================= >Letter to Editor, From Latest "Rumor Mill News" >----------------------------------------------- >(PO Box 1784, Aptos, CA 95001-1784 -- $5 per issue) > >Just saw your October Rumor Mill. I'd love to subscribe, but I'm >never in one place long enough. Fortunately there's lots of >copies of it floating around the Pentagon and Langley. If you >had a dollar for all the ones I've seen, you'd be rich. > >Just thought you'd like to know that the subcommittees are >working overtime in order to nail Clinton. He has more problems >staring him in the face than Bush ever thought of. The enemies >that Clinton has made on the "Hill" are the meanest people in the >whole world! > >He didn't join the Rogues, as you speculated. He submitted fully >to Faction II [see CN 9.74], my guys. You were pretty good in >your analysis of the whole thing. If I didn't know better about >you, I would say you were trained at Langley. But then again, if >you were trained by your husband, you were trained at Langley... > >But you were wrong about the dates. The actual power shift took >place November 8th. Not on the weekend before the election. The >deal went down at 8AM on Friday the 8th of November. Up until >that time, there had been a full sanction against him [Clinton] >by the Company. > >He has saved his hide and through it, has prolonged his job >period by 4-5 months. It doesn't stop the investigations running >against him. > >Hillary will be formally indicted before the new government is >sworn in. Just wait until James Carville leaps onto the scene >trying to discredit Kenneth Starr. It's going to be the best >show we've seen in years. > >Lord only knows the compromises that Clinton is going to have to >make to save his wife from prosecution... and if he doesn't save >her, she will sink him. I have the feeling that he will have to >turn the powers of his Veto over to our people. You now have a >man in the White House who has no power whatsoever. It won't >help the Republicans, in the House or the Senate, but it will >make Faction II more than a mere "off the shelf" type of >operation. > >Thank God that he made the deal! Operation Mount Rushmore (as in >dead presidents) had been called for and was about to be put into >deed. It won't change the end effect one bit. Clinton will step >down before May 31st. Al Gore is aware of it, as he is the one >who suggested to Clinton to take the offer before it was too late >for an alternative. Tipper will have a ball redecorating the >White House! > >Everyone on the Hill (who has any real say so) knows that Clinton >cut the deal. This will take one hell of a lot of pressure off >the Navy. The word Tailhook will soon die. The thing that >finally tipped the scales was that Internet story about the Navy >shooting down TWA800. We saw the handwriting on the wall and >knew that if we didn't come together and move, Tailhook Part >Two... as you so aptly put it... would destroy everyone who might >be able to stop him. > WDC Insider > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > > "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: Replacement digest request. Date: 10 Dec 1996 01:17:29 -0500 Would one kind ROC subscriber please send me a copy of the latest ROC Digest #150 as an attached file. Cybermail corrupted my copy and it is useless. I'd be much obliged. I use a PC and Windows. Thank you, Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: CAN YOU HEAR THAT LIBERTY BELL? (fwd) Date: 10 Dec 1996 08:24:29 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- December 9, 1996 SENATOR DUKE (719) 481-9289 By Senator Charles R. Duke Colorado District 9 CAN YOU HEAR THAT LIBERTY BELL? In the closing days of the 1996 session of Congress, several measures were passed that showed the blatant disregard for our Constitution. One of the worst was a life-time ban on the possession of firearms to those who had a conviction for domestic abuse in their past. No civilized person supports the practice of domestic abuse. It can be recognized, however, that one might easily rehabilitate oneself for these actions and be perfectly normal the rest of one's days. This is particularly true if there had been only one such incident and a sufficient time had elapsed to demonstrate a true change of character. Congress ignored these potential mitigations and slapped a life-time ban on all, even those with misdemeanors. The ramifications are now being felt all across America. The language of the ban failed to exempt (on purpose? of course!) local police, sheriffs' deputies, and, for that matter, anyone in the Armed Forces. So, now we see several members of the local police in Denver being relegated to unarmed desk jobs. It is assumed this is happening in all major cities across America. As of this writing, no information is yet made public about the impact on our Armed Forces. This ban is unconstitutional on several grounds. First and foremost is the very clear abuse of our Second Amendment rights, again. From its actions over the last several years, this may be assumed to be a continuation of the government's goal to eventually ban the possession of firearms by everyone. You will never get the leaders of Congress to publicly admit that is their goal, since that would likely result in at least recall of many members of Congress that the leaders now control. No, they will come at us just a piece at a time until they finally get it all. This is the same process as boiling a frog. By just cranking up the fire a little at a time, the frog never knows it is being boiled. There is, however, an even more ominous aspect to this ban. Article I, Section 8, of our Constitution enumerates the 18 explicit powers granted to our federal government. They constitutionally have no other power. Through the deliberate ignorance of our Constitution, the liberal extremists seem to be in full control of our national policy. You see, Article I, Section 9, of our Constitution explicitly prohibits the passing of ex post facto laws. These are laws that recognize events after the fact, or, after they have occurred. If this were not prohibited, a law-abiding person today could be breaking some as yet unknown future law. Our nation's Founders wanted to make sure their descendants were never again subject to this absolute corruption of power. By passing a ban on those who, at some time in their past, may have been involved in domestic abuse, an ex post facto law has been passed. This is not the first time this provision of the constitution has been ignored, nor will it likely be the last. This Senator believes it is now time for the American people to demand an explicit statement on our Constitution by our national leaders. It is believed you will hear that our Constitution is a really fine document but just not suited for today. Be very wary with people who talk like this. They may certainly be considered a working part of the entourage who want to subvert our Constitution. In a few cases, they may have been brainwashed into believing our Constitution is outdated, but don't let them brainwash you. Our Constitution does apply to today because it was written, along with our Bill of Rights, to protect individual rights against abject tyranny. Ironically, the tyranny of colonial times doesn't even begin to describe the tyranny of today. Virtually every facet of the subterfuge of the individual may be traced to a serious departure from our Constitution by Congress and several Presidents. We must no longer tolerate the dishonesty of those in Congress who one day swear an oath to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, then, on the next day, submit their will and their vote to those who treat our Constitution with contempt. Our America is seen as the symbol of liberty and freedom to the rest of the world. It is time for the American people to show the world those ideas are not dead. End ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: [Fwd: L&J: KS gov calls some "uneducated"] (fwd) Date: 10 Dec 1996 08:37:25 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- litz@pta6000.pld.com wrote: > > Hutchinson News 11-20-96 > > Graves deplores "intellectual amnesia' > By Traci Carl > > Associated Press Writer > > WICHITA - It seemed like a proposal that would get little attention > a bill allowing the Kansas National Guard to assist neighboring > states during emergencies. > > But the idea, introduced during the 1995 Legislature, didn't go > unnoticed. Lawmakers were unable to pass the bill because of dozens > of calls and letters from people concerned that the government had > a secret agenda. > > Gov. Bill Graves on Tuesday used the defeat of the bill as an > example of "shrill, loud and uneducated" voices that are fueling a > growing mistrust of government. > > Those who helped stop the National Guard bill were afraid of a "Big > Brotherism" that didn't exist, the governor's spokesman, Mike > Matson, said in a telephone interview from his office in Topeka. > > In a speech for the George Van Riper Distinguished Lecture Series > at Wichita State University, Graves said the world has changed > since he took office in 1994, with a rise in militia groups, new > political parties and religious organizations. > > Although Graves, a moderate Republican, did not mention say > organization by name, he has had philosophical differences with the > conservative Christian majority that dominates the state Republican > party. Other grass-roots conservative groups, such as the Kansas > Education Watch-Network, have become more influential in government > by motivating supporters. > > Graves said the media and a bloated bureaucracy are partly to blame > for a growing national cynicism, but the-two largest contributing > factors are what he called "intellectual amnesia" and "microwave > society." He defined intellectual amnesia as purposefully and > conveniently ignoring the truth when it helps a personal belief. > > "Never let the facts get in the way of what you support," he said, > explaining the use of intellectual amnesia. > > Graves' "microwave society" theory stems from the fact that > Americans can get photos developed in an hour, food cooked in > minutes and dozens of television channels at their fingertips with > a remote control. > > "We're all becoming incredibly self-centered," he said. > > But people cannot expect government or democracy to be an instant > process, he said. > > Younger generations seem to be picking up this culture from adults, > Graves said. To the crowd of about 400, mostly high school and > university students, he read letters from Johnson County > fourth-graders who wrote that they were concerned about paying high > taxes and giving prisoners more money than students in public > schools. > > He said the letters reflect a society that has an insatiable > appetite for government services but also wants lower taxes. > > The answer to part of the problem is to require that people be > accountable for what they say, espedially during political > campaigns, Graves said. > > He also said public officials, such as himself, must be available > to constituents. > > Graves was in Wichita for the two-day Governor's Education Summit, > which ended Tuesday. > > He said the summit focused on showing people positive aspects of > the state's education system and how it can be improved with > parental and business involvement. > > Schools are an example of public organizations subjected to > mistrust and criticism that is sometimes unfounded, he said. > > The summit was one way to fight that cynicism, Graves said. > > -- > Brian Litzenberger > litz@pta6000.pld.com > (Garden City, KS) > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Unsub info - send to liberty-and-justice-request@pobox.com with "unsubscribe" > in body (not subject) of the msg. List-Owner - Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: FWD: PA's new gun law (fwd) Date: 10 Dec 1996 08:41:37 -0600 (CST) What follows are relevant parts of an article concerning PA's newest gun law. Read and learn what's in store... My comments are in [] ****************************************** Pittsburgh Post-Gazette December 8, 1996 --page A1 & A21 System not ready for strict gun laws Computerized checks will take another year By Peter J. Shelly Harrisburg--On Jan. 1, a new state law will require criminal background checks on anyone buying a long-barreled weapon, such as a rifle or shotgun, in Pennsylvania. One problem: The instant computerized system for doing the checks will not be in place for another year. So people who buy long-barreled weapons will be allowed to take them home while the checks are done. And they will have to bring them back if the checks show that a conviction for violent crime or some other misdeed disqualifies them from owning the weapon. [ready for this?] If the weapon isn't returned voluntarily, state police will have to confiscate it --after first obtaining a warrant. And if state police see other guns in the home, they will have to confiscate those weapons as well... [surprise, surprise...] ...The new law now requires those checks (for long-barreled weapons) and also expands the reasons gun ownership can be denied, including: *) Having a history of mental illness. [Patriotism is an illness...] *) Being convicted of drunken driving three times in a five-year period. This provision bans gun ownership for 10 years after the most recent conviction. [how drunk driving relates to guns I'll never know] *) Being the subject of an active protection from abuse order. The law will also allow authorities to review juvenile records. A person convicted of a violent crime as a juvenile is barred from buying a gun. A person convicted of a non-violent crime as a juvenile cannot buy a gun until he or she is at least 30 years old... [commit a non-violent crime --you're a hardened, deadly criminal-- at least until the age of 30...] -- 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: ForeignCorrespondent WHY THE PENTAGON HAS BEEN COVERING UP ABOUT GULF WAR SYNDROME (fwd) Date: 10 Dec 1996 14:45:02 -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""'' WHY THE PENTAGON HAS BEEN COVERING UP ABOUT GULF WAR SYNDROME by Eric Margolis 9 Dec 1996 New revelations last week reinforce the widely held belief that the Pentagon has been covering up the extent and gravity of the complex of illnesses known as Gulf War Syndrome. Military logs covering eight days in March 1991 are missing. a period in which tens of thousands of US and allied troops were accidentally exposed to chemical and/or biological agents. During this mysterious eight-day gap, US troops blew up the huge Kamisiyah munitions dump in southern Iraq, that held 6,000 shells and 297 rockets containing the nerve agent Sarin, or mustard gas. The cloud produced by the explosion drifted south, blanketing at least 15,000 allied troops, according to a CIA study. Other studies suggest 100,000 men were affected by the toxic cloud. The Pentagon, coalition leader Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, and former US Chief of Staff Colin Powell, all insist there is no proof allied forces were exposed to chemical-biological weapons (CBW), in spite of many alarms by chemical sensors. Indeed, Gulf War veterans have not died, or been hospitalized, at an abnormal rate. Nevertheless, it's by now clear that large numbers of Gulf War vets are suffering a host of ill-defined, unknown, or undiagnosed ailments. Having been one of the first to report the extent of Iraq's CBW plans, and based on my own investigation just before the war in Baghdad, here is my conclusion: : Besides Kamisiyah, US forces destroyed a score of other CBW plants in Iraq. The largest was Salman Pak, outside Baghdad. This huge facility was bombed even though the US believed it contained 150 litres of deadly anthrax, and quantities of botulism toxin. Fortunately, the Iraqis moved these toxins before the war began. Otherwise, the US attack would have released a cloud of anthrax and botulism over Baghdad - enough to kill a million of its inhabitants. Substantial quantities of toxins, nerve agents, and mustard gas were spewed into the air from other bombed plants, blowing south into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Add to this miasma a black rain of toxic hydrocarbons from Kuwait's burning oil wells, and widespread use by US forces of poisonous depleted uranium tank and cannon shells. Not since the Western Front in World War I had troops been so intensively exposed to a lethal soup of environmentally toxic elements. In addition, most coalition forces were given powerful, untested drugs against chemical attacks, and potent inoculations that almost certainly caused severe, lingering reactions in many soldiers. Put troops in an ecological hellhole, douse them with small amounts of airborne toxins and chemicals, inject them with other chemicals, and it's inevitable that mass illness will ensue. Ironically, the Gulf War - the most modern of wars - was like a medieval war in that illness laid low far more soldiers than combat. The Pentagon covered up the extent of CBW-induced illness and civilian casualties for two principal reasons: First, the war was a made-for-TV triumph. Reports about large numbers of sick veterans - or great numbers of Iraqi civilian dead - would have spoiled President Bush's victory parade. Second, the US and Britain did not want attention drawn to their central role in developing Iraq's vast arsenal of toxins and germs. Last month, it was revealed that a senior scientist -who chaired the Pentagon study that concluded CBW had not caused illness among Gulf vets - had been director of firm that had supplied Iraq with toxic cultures before the war. His biotech firm, American Type Culture Collection of Rockville, Maryland, had supplied Iraq 70 shipments of anthrax, botulism, and other extremely deadly pathogens in the 1980's. Iraq used these breeder stocks to produce a witch's brew of biological warfare agents. Britain also supplied raw materials and manufacturing equipment, as did Germany. Most important, Britain sent technicians - many of whom I interviewed in Baghdad. Three were working on the Salman Pak anthrax project; one on Iraq's top secret nuclear weapons program. Their information provided one of the first comprehensive looks at Iraq's biological and nuclear weapons program. Why did the west build Saddam's CBW capability? At the time, Iraq, was locked in a long, bloody war with far more populous Iran. The US and Britain secretly backed Saddam Hussein with arms and money in the hope he would crush Iran's Islamic revolution that threatened Anglo-American oil interests in the Mideast. Iran, short of weapons but with large numbers of troops, resorted to mass infantry attacks, delivered with suicidal bravery, to break Iraqi lines. Outnumbered Iraq needed wide-area weapons to halt these attacks. The US and UK secretly supplied the means: chemicals and toxins. Both agents were used intensively by Iraq, killing or fearfully maiming tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers. Western- supplied CBW played a key role in defeating Iran. Iraq also developed CBW as a counter-force to Israel's nuclear weapons. But the Pentagon cannot reveal US troops were sickened by agents whose biological progenitors came from Rockville, Maryland. Nor that blowing up Iraq's CBW plants and depots may have been a grave error. Or, for that matter, that the entire `surgical' Gulf War, and the subsequent poisoning of so many soldiers, may have been avoided by diplomacy. 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: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: ForeignCorrespondent WHY THE PENTAGON HAS BEEN COVERING UP ABOUT GULF WAR SYNDROME (fwd) Date: 10 Dec 1996 13:45:23 -0800 Before you read the subject line here and decide that all the Admirals and Generals are SOB, there's one fact I'd like to review. The basic principle of our Constitution concerning the U.S. military establishment is Civilian Control. That means no information comes out of DOD channels unless the politically-oriented civilian "controllers" in charge approve it. And it means that if there's a coverup, it's the civilians who decided to hold the information back, just like CIA, Congress, White House, or any other "politics-first, truth-second" government agency. FWIW, Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Texas round up of dead beat dads Date: 10 Dec 1996 17:22:09 -0600 (CST) As best as I can figure, I think this is what started the Gun round up rumor in Texas. I am getting real "tard" of these folks yelling fire because someone smelled smoke. A lot of these guys will be your average "bluecollar" gun toting "redneck" gun owner, thus the rumors.. Paul Watson ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Updated: Monday, Dec. 9, 1996 at 18:37 CST Deadbeat parents arrested in roundup effort By Laura A. Stromberg Associated Press AUSTIN (AP) -- Christmas time or not, parents who are delinquent on their child support payments might find themselves in jail during the holiday season, Texas Attorney General Dan Morales said Monday. "Far too many children will not have a special meal nor receive a special gift because one of their parents is not contributing to their financial support," Morales said. "Spending time behind bars during the holidays is the proper message for these delinquent parents." Thirteen people were arrested in Travis County Monday as part of a special roundup of delinquent parents, Morales said, adding that similar efforts will be occurring across the state. Delinquent parents in Houston, Dallas and the rest of the state need to know "that similar types of activities will be ongoing in their areas as well," Morales said. Of the more than 408,000 in Texas who owe back child support, about 219,600 were making no efforts to pay up as of October 1996, Morales said. An undetermined amount of cases also are handled by private child support collection agencies, domestic relations offices and private attorneys. An estimated 5,400 arrest warrants were issued between Sept. 1, 1995 and Aug. 31, 1996. During that period, about 600 delinquent parents were arrested, Morales said. Warrants are issued for parents who either fail to make child support payments for three months or fail to appear in court if they are summoned, said Liz Hernandez, an investigator with Morales' office. A total of 29 persons who owe nearly $300,000 have been arrested in Travis County since the roundup began Dec. 1. Ms. Hernandez said those who have been arrested in Travis County will appear before a judge during the next two days. The bond money posted by any of those arrested could be ordered by the court to be used for child support, according to Ms. Hernandez. Deadbeat parents face a maximum of six months in jail, she added. In a related matter, Morales repeated his claim that efforts by some critical lawmakers to move child support enforcement out of his office were "foolhardy." _________________________________________________________________ © 1996 Fort Worth Star-Telegram -- Terms and Conditions -- Send us your Feedback. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Judicial Selection Monitoring Project Date: 10 Dec 1996 21:34:35 -0800 Not a single one is qualified to preside over a true Article III court, because they all pay income taxes on their compensation, in violation of Article III. See Evans v. Gore, S.Ct. (1920). The courts over which they can preside were created for the federal zone only. For proof of undue influence upon the federal judges, see Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp 167, 169 (1965). /s/ Paul Mitchell At 07:19 PM 12/9/96 -0500, you wrote: >>From: Darcy Garthwaite >>Subject: Judicial Selection Monitoring Project >>Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:28:59 -0500 >> >>Dear KI-USA team member, >>I am asking for your help regarding our federal judiciary. President >>Clinton has already appointed 202 activist judges, more than 25% of the >>entire federal bench. One of the most important things we can do is >>send a clear and united statement of our concern to the President and >>the Senate. >> >>The letter below is designed to allow ALL INTERESTED GROUPS, REGARDLESS >>OF TAX STATUS, to sign on. The letter delivers a unified message from a >>large and varied number of grassroots organizations that judicial >>selection must be a high priority in the next four years. >> >>Signing the letter below is a very simple step. Whether or not your >>organization participates in individual judicial nominations or in any >>lobbying activity, you should be able to join this basic statement of >>principle. In order to sign, you have to 1) BE REPRESENTING A >>PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION. You CANNOT sign as an individual representing >>yourself. 2) All you have to do is type your name AND ORGANIZATION YOU >>REPRESENT in the appropriate place below and email it back to me at >>(lsdean@fcref.org) or simply reply to Darcy and she will forward it to >>me. >> >>We are trying to get 150 organizations to sign the letter so that we >>show that grassroots activists throughout the country are tired of >>activist judges who base their decisions on their own personal >>preferences rather than what is right and are ready for a restrained >>judiciary. >> >>Please help, if you can and I look forward to hearing from you! >>Happy Holidays to you and your families! >>Lisa Dean >>Director, KI-USA >> >>January, 1996 >> >>Dear President Clinton/Senator X: >> >>We represent millions of Americans deeply concerned about an activist >>federal judiciary. Judicial activism threatens self-government; without >>self-government, there is no liberty. In America, lawmakers must be >>accountable to the people, yet unaccountable judges with life tenure too >>often assume that role by making our laws mean something other than what >>the real lawmakers intended. >> >>Some of us lobby, others educate. We have different methods, different >>means, but one message. We will promote judicial restraint and fight >>judicial activism with whatever tools and resources are legitimately at >>our disposal. The Constitution names the President and the Senate as >>the key players in judicial selection, but both are accountable to the >>people. >> >>As the 105th Congress opens, we want you to know of our common resolve >>and commitment to see a more restrained judiciary, one more consistent >>with self-government and liberty. >> >>Sincerely, >> >> >>(Please type your name here if you'd like your organization to be listed >>on the original letter. Email it back to us at lsdean@fcref.org or by >>hitting the Reply button on your system.) >> >> >> >> >"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. > > ==================================================================== [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: Calling all (female) ediitors, writers, etc. Date: 10 Dec 1996 17:05:32 PST According to John Carlson, (Carlson's Commute), on KVI Radio in Seattle there's been a recent study that points out why there are so many female Liberal, Pro Big-Bro Government, Anti-Gun etc., types around these days. Virtually all Women's, Family, and Fashion magazines are totally Lockstep Liberal in orientation. These magazines have millions more subscribers than what are normally regarded as Liberal Rags, like Time or News Week etc. A conspiracy? Not per se. It seems that they are all being published out of Manhattan. All the editors are Liberals, and everyone they know are Liberals. The solution then is to write the editors when you see Liberal garbage in print, Write Conservative articles for them, and being as there is such a dearth of Conservative Women's, Family, and Fashion Mags, etc., consider publishing your own, especially if they refuse to print your articles..... -- 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: iwilsker@ih2000.net Subject: STOCKMAN - LAMPSON - EARLY RESULTS Date: 10 Dec 1996 19:16:47 -0700 (MST) Early returns in the TX 9th District Runoff: 7:50 pm (polls closed for 50 minutes) Lampson 30,600 Stockman 27,600 Ira Wilsker iwilsker@ih2000.net http://www.ih2000.net/ira/ira.htm OR http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1814/ira.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: iwilsker@ih2000.net Subject: Stockman - Lampson - 8:30PM Date: 10 Dec 1996 19:37:01 -0700 (MST) In Texas 9th District: With 12% of precincts reporting (8:30 pm) Lampson 53% Stockman 47% Ira Wilsker iwilsker@ih2000.net http://www.ih2000.net/ira/ira.htm OR http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1814/ira.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: iwilsker@ih2000.net Subject: Stockman - Lampson 8:50pm Date: 10 Dec 1996 19:57:14 -0700 (MST) With 68% of the precincts reporting: Lampson 55% Stockman 45% Jefferson County, the most populous county in the district, with 100% of the county precincts reporting, Lampson 59% Stockman 41% Unless Stockman can pull BIG in Harris County in the last precincts reporting, the lead will be unpassable (CBS), and Lampson will win ;-( Ira Wilsker iwilsker@ih2000.net http://www.ih2000.net/ira/ira.htm OR http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1814/ira.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: iwilsker@ih2000.net Subject: STOCKMAN - LAMPSON 9:15pm Date: 10 Dec 1996 20:24:27 -0700 (MST) Lampson claiming Victory 9:15pm With 80% of the precincts reporting: Lampson 55% Stockman 45% Lampson carried Jefferson County, 59% (100% in), and Galveston County, 54% (some precincts not yet counted) Stockman carried Chambers County, 63% (this is NOT a populous county) Harris County (metro Houston) is coming in slowly, as there was a "rush" to vote just before the polls closed at 7pm, with a very heavy turnout (not yet counted) in Stockman's home area of Friendswood. Local Beaumont radio, and 1 local TV station are saying that Lampson's lead is now insurmountable. Ira Wilsker iwilsker@ih2000.net http://www.ih2000.net/ira/ira.htm OR http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1814/ira.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: iwilsker@ih2000.net Subject: STOCKMAN loses to Lampson 9:45pm Date: 10 Dec 1996 20:47:33 -0700 (MST) With 97% reporting: Lampson 53% Stockman 47% The heavy last minute support from Harris County was not enough to overcome the democratic stronghold of Jefferson County. Turn out the lights, the party is over...The fatwoman sang Ira Wilsker iwilsker@ih2000.net http://www.ih2000.net/ira/ira.htm OR http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1814/ira.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: URGENT !!!!!! (fwd) Date: 10 Dec 1996 23:17:36 -0600 (CST) I agree with Chad, I think the San Joaquin Militia is eating horse apples and producing worse Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > We probably should be verifying such things before we pass them on. I for > one do not believe it. > > Chad > > >On Dec 7, Norman Olson wrote: > > > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:07:59 -0800 > >From: Don > >To: yava@cwnet.com > >Subject: URGENT !!!!!! > > > > ATTN: MILITIA > > > > Just got a report from Colo. Member that drives truck heard on the > >radio out of Colo. Springs that right now the military and the police are > >going door to door and taking guns out of homes. Think it has to do with the > >new law on domestic violence. > > Might want to get into contacts ASAP for further intel. > > If you get anymore intel, please pass it on to all. > > > >Donald K. Rudolph, Commander > >San Joaquin County Militia > > > >[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] > > > > ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- > Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! > Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) > http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com > http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface > Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and > Activism Info > --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Texas round up of dead beat dads Date: 11 Dec 1996 07:09:59 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: [...] > Updated: Monday, Dec. 9, 1996 at 18:37 CST > > Deadbeat parents arrested in roundup effort > > By Laura A. Stromberg > Associated Press > > AUSTIN (AP) -- Christmas time or not, parents who are delinquent on > their child support payments might find themselves in jail during the > holiday season, Texas Attorney General Dan Morales said Monday. [...] > > Deadbeat parents face a maximum of six months in jail, ... Nobody is going to argue that people ought not to pay to support their kids. However, until lately we thought that sending people to debtor's prison was unproductive. Looks like we're getting more like Dickens' England ever day. bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: TWA 800: Kabot Photo Analysis (fwd) Date: 11 Dec 1996 07:32:37 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- See the new extended graphical analysis of the "Kabot cruise-missile photo" taken on the night of the tragic demise of TWA 800, which shows the most probable course of the missile, plus a very likely accident scenario: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm At FACT 7 select "Further analysis of Kabot photo." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Linda Smith Reelected Date: 11 Dec 1996 08:09:20 -0800 Some of you asked to be informed of the final outcome of the very close Linda Smith race. The final results are in. Based on an automatic and mandatory recount, triggered by a margin of less than 1/2%, she won - by fewer than 900 votes. Incidentally, vote fraud was pretty much ruled out by the fact that the recount produced the same result as the original count, only 1 vote difference out of tens of thousands. WA uses a computer punch card as the countable ballot. Now voter-registration fraud is another thing. Under motor voter, we, like everyone else, have completely lost control of any accountability. Regards, Skip. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: URGENT !!!!!! (fwd) Date: 11 Dec 1996 09:56:20 -0800 (PST) That's assuming of course that it was actually sent by someone who actually is associated with something calling itself the San Joaquin Militia. When you get anything on the net (that isnt PGP signed) just remember the popular cartoon of the computer user leaning to over to his black lab friend and saying "and of course when you're on the internet nobody knows you're a dog.". Boyd Kneeland... or maybe... not. On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, larry ball wrote: > I agree with Chad, I think the San Joaquin Militia is eating horse > apples and producing worse > > Larry Ball > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > > > We probably should be verifying such things before we pass them on. I for > > one do not believe it. > > > > Chad > > > > >On Dec 7, Norman Olson wrote: > > > > > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:07:59 -0800 > > >From: Don > > >To: yava@cwnet.com > > >Subject: URGENT !!!!!! > > > > > > ATTN: MILITIA > > > > > > Just got a report from Colo. Member that drives truck heard on the > > >radio out of Colo. Springs that right now the military and the police are > > >going door to door and taking guns out of homes. Think it has to do with the > > >new law on domestic violence. > > > Might want to get into contacts ASAP for further intel. > > > If you get anymore intel, please pass it on to all. > > > > > >Donald K. Rudolph, Commander > > >San Joaquin County Militia > > > > > >[------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] > > > > > > > ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- > > Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! > > Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) > > http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com > > http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface > > Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and > > Activism Info > > --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] SAFAN NO. 191. Nicholsons Warn of Biological Warfare Link (fwd) Date: 11 Dec 1996 14:37:09 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- STOP ALL FEDERAL ABUSES NOW!! S.A.F.A.N. Internet Newsletter, No. 191, December 11, 1996 NICHOLSONS WARN OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE LINK by Ed Offley, c1996 Seattle Post-Intelligencer Evidence exists that could link the ailments of sick Persian Gulf War veterans to Iraqi biological weapons, independent medical researchers warn. Such weapons pose a more serious health threat than chemical agents because they are designed to spread germs throughout a wide population, including soldiers, their spouses, children and even family pets, experts say. And, they say, symptoms can appear years after exposure. While the Pentagon has acknowledged that U.S. troops in the Gulf War were exposed to chemical agents, officials said they still are checking data on biological weapons. Garth Nicolson, a research biochemist who has tested the blood of hundreds of sick Gulf War veterans and members of their families, said he has discovered a mycoplasma -- a primitive bacterium -- that had been genetically altered in many of the samples. The only logical conclusion to draw, he said, was that the germ had been deliberately manipulated to use as a weapon. "We found very unusual infections that have genetic structures not found in the wild," said Nicolson, scientific director of the nonprofit Institute for Molecular Medicine in Irvine, Calif. Given the artificial structure of the bacterium, its widespread detection among hundreds of Gulf War veterans and their families and Iraq's confirmed work on such weapons, Nicolson said he concluded that people are sick as a result of "invasive . . . biological weapons." In separate interviews, two experts in related medical fields confirmed the validity of Nicolson's research. They also shared most of Nicolson's premise that many Gulf War veterans show signs of bacteriological infection and not chemical poisoning. Whether Gulf War troops were exposed deliberately or accidentally is not clear. It is possible, for instance, that exposure occurred when biological agents were dispersed into the air as a result of allied bombing of Iraqi storage bunkers, Nicolson and other experts said. Nicolson and his wife, Nancy, both of whom are biomedical researchers, became interested in the issue when their daughter, an Army soldier, returned from the war with multiple ailments. Secretary of Defense William Perry said last week there is no evidence U.S. Gulf War troops were exposed to Iraqi biological weapons. But, Perry said, "since we know that the Iraqis had the weapons we have to continue to examine data and we cannot categorically rule it out." Earlier, the Pentagon ended more than five years of denial and admitted that thousands of soldiers in the Gulf War were exposed to chemical agents. Biological warfare uses bacteriological agents that are infectious and can cause illness and death not just after initial contact but even years later, Nicolson said. Chemical warfare agents, in contrast, are chemical compounds that attack the skin and nervous system but can be washed off. They leave victims sick but not infectious. Since the seven-week Gulf War, which began Jan. 17, 1991, tens of thousands of veterans and their family members have complained of a wide array of ailments, including memory lapses, chronic fatigue, aching joints, dizziness and benign tumors. Some Gulf War veterans have reported children born with severe birth defects. The ailments are loosely classified as "Gulf War syndrome." But the cause remains under debate. Complicating the issue is the fact, discovered in 1994 during a Senate Banking Committee investigation, that even three years after the war the Pentagon had no means to detect biological warfare agents on the battlefield. John Deutch, then-deputy secretary of defense and now head of the CIA, told a government conference in New Mexico in 1994 that the United States has "no biological-detection capability deployed with any forces, anywhere," the Banking Committee noted in a report after its investigation. The year before, according to the Banking Committee report, Deutch said that the Department of Defense was "withholding classified information on the exposure of U.S. forces (in the Gulf War) to biological materials." The report contained the results of a survey of 4,000 veterans reporting medical symptoms after serving in the Gulf War. It noted that 77 percent of their spouses and 65 percent of their children showed similar symptoms. Since 1991, the Pentagon, Veterans Administration and a number of federal scientific organizations have studied the widespread rash of illnesses afflicting between 35,000 veterans (the VA's estimate) and as many as 100,000 veterans and family members (the estimate by outside researchers, such as Nicolson). The Pentagon initially said Gulf War veterans reporting ailments were suffering from psychological stress. Before the Pentagon admitted last week that nerve agents may have been dispersed over the battlefield, theories about the cause of the ailments included exposure to pollution from oil-field fires, reaction to experimental vaccines or parasitic infections, such as leishmaniasis found in the desert environment. Garth Nicolson and Nancy Nicolson, who hold doctorates in biochemistry and biophysics, respectively, say a growing number of veterans and their families still are becoming sick in the years since the Gulf War ended. Their research is supported by other experts. Dr. Charles Hinshaw of Wichita, Kans., former president of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, reviewed the scientific procedure Nicolson used to detect the genetically manipulated bacterium. Hinshaw said of Nicolson's work, "The scientific techniques used to identify the (bacterium) in these Gulf War veterans is valid." Dr. Ed Hyman, a New Orleans-based specialist in kidney and urinary tract medicine who was cited by the Senate Banking Committee in 1994 for his work with sick Gulf War veterans, said that he, too, has found a bacterial link to Gulf War syndrome. Hyman said he concluded the ailments stem from a source that is either a bacterium that exists in the desert environment or a biological warfare agent. "I think the best bet is (a bacterium) endemic to that region. The second best bet is germ warfare," Hyman said. Hyman supported Nicolson's assertion that chemical agents such as sarin could not cause symptoms among family members of veterans. "Once a person is damaged by sarin there's no way they can pass it on to their wife and children," Hyman said of the veterans. "The Nicolsons are dead right about it." The Nicolsons and Hinshaw also said they have received information from colleagues in the Persian Gulf region that the type of illness afflicting U.S. veterans is rampant among the civilian populations there, particularly in Iraq, Kuwait, northern Saudi Arabia and Jordan. A survey of Iraqi health conditions published last March by the United Nations World Health Organization disclosed "an explosive rise" in the incidence of diseases in Iraq since the war, including cholera, typhoid, malaria and meningitis." The UN agency report attributes the health crisis to the deterioration of the medical system, breakdown in water and sewage treatment and hardships caused by economic sanctions. The UN agency also documented a fivefold increase in reported cases of leishmaniasis between 1989-1992, from 2,159 cases to 12,645 per 100,000 population. There also is evidence Iraq's infant mortality rate increased after the war. No studies have suggested a connection between the deaths and possible exposure to chemical or biological agents. A study of Iraqi civilians comparing records before the war and in late 1991, conducted by the International Team on the Gulf Crisis, found a 380 percent increase in the mortality rate of children under 5. The rate went from 27.8 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 104.4 deaths per 1,000 live births a year later. The survey attributed this to "a complex interaction of factors" including shortages of food and medicine, lack of clean water and poor sanitation. The survey, funded by UNICEF, the MacArthur Foundation and other organizations, also noted the epidemic outbreaks of typhoid, cholera, hepatitis, measles and tetanus throughout Iraq. Hinshaw said a Kuwaiti physician told him an ailment mirroring Gulf War syndrome is widespread among the Kuwaiti population. "The word is the Kuwaitis have this (illness) and the Kuwaiti government is suppressing this whole issue," Hinshaw said. Neither the Pentagon nor Veterans Affairs Department have compared health data on Gulf War veterans and Iraqi civilians with the government of Iraq, officials said. "There is currently no cooperation in health programs betwen the United States and Iraq in looking at Gulf War illness," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday. He said the Pentagon task force on Gulf War health issues had received Nicolson's research findings and was reviewing them, along with other independent medical studies. "We are interested in looking at all research that may help us better understand the causes of Gulf War illness," Whitman said. Iraq's biological and chemical warfare capability never has been questioned. U.S. military commanders during and after the Gulf War freely admitted their greatest fear was that advancing allied units might get pinned down in the Iraqi minefields and obstacle belts in Kuwait and Iraq, then slaughtered by massive attacks with chemical and biological weapons. Then-Secretary of State James Baker explicitly warned Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz in a final diplomatic meeting on Jan. 8, 1991, that the United States would react in kind if Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against the allies. Lt. Gen. Calvin A.H. Waller, upon his return to I Corps and Fort Lewis after a wartime assignment as deputy commander of all Desert Storm troops, said in April 1991 that the U.S. military had positioned nuclearweapons in the Persian Gulf region as a deterrent to Iraqi use of chemical or biological weapons. As for Iraqi biological warfare capability, the Pentagon and the United Nations reported after the war that Iraq possessed a sophisticated biological warfare industry by the late 1980s. The Banking Committee probe found evidence Iraq was working on the following biological warfare agents at the time of the Gulf War: -- Anthrax -- An often fatal infections disease caused by the ingestion of anthrax spores, which blocks breathing and leads to fatal blood poisoning; -- Botulinium toxin -- Symptoms of exposure, which is often fatal, are vomiting, thirst, weakness, fever and dizziness and muscle paralysis. -- Other biological agents identified include histoplasma (similar to tuberculosis), brucella melitensis (which causes damage to major internal organs), and clostridium perfringens, a toxic bacteria which causes gangrene. Iraq started in 1986 to initiate an offensive biological warfare capability, according to the United Nations special commission that investigated alleged manufacturing and storage sites beginning in 1991. UN inspectors said that while no explicit evidence of Iraqi biological weaponry was found, they noted that the main site was razed by the Iraqi government a week before inspectors were allowed in. The Senate Banking Committee also discovered that from 1986 to 1989 a nonprofit medical institute called the American Type Culture Collection exported to Iraq, with approval of the U.S. Commerce Department, 70 shipments of bacterial cultures that could have been used for producing biological weapons. The newspaper Newsday on Nov. 27 reported that Joshua Lederberg, the head of a U.S. scientific panel that earlier had denied any links between biological weapons and Gulf War syndrome was a director of the American Type Culture Collection. However, Lederberg, a Nobel Prize-winning geneticist and former president of Rockefeller University, told The New York Times Monday that the Pentagon had withheld key evidence from his panel, including the presence of chemical agents at the Iraqi bunker complex blown up by U.S. troops. Lederberg said the disclosures mandate an intensified effort to determine whether low doses of nerve gas can cause long-term illnesses. While the Nicolsons have specialized in microbiology and infectious illnesses for decades, it was their role as parents that first led them into the hunt for the source of Gulf War syndrome. Their daughter, Sharron, served in Operation Desert Storm with the 101st Air Assault Division, which made the deepest penetration into Iraqi territory and from whose ranks many of the sick Gulf War veterans have come, Nicolson said. She returned from the war with symptoms of Gulf War syndrome and with many friends who also became sick, Garth Nicolson said. After compiling a database of common Gulf War syndrome symptoms among ailing veterans, Nicolson said, he and his wife began to suspect the immediate cause was an unknown "mycoplasmic infection." Mycoplasmas, he explained, are small micro-organisms related to bacteria, some of which can aggressively invade blood cells. Using a technique he calls "gene tracking," Nicolson in one study made a detailed analysis of the DNA structure of blood samples of several dozen sick Gulf War veterans. He found that 55 percent of the sample group were victims of an "invasive" mycoplasma that had "penetrated deeply into the patient's blood cells." In analyzing the samples, Nicolson said, he discovered evidence of "genetic manipulation" of the mycoplasma that converted it from a relatively benign bacterium to "a much more invasive and pathogenic mechanism." Preliminary surveys of Gulf War veterans are turning up a possible pattern of infection linked to specific areas of the battlefield. "The soldiers that were involved in the deep insertions (attacks) in Iraq and those that were near Saudi and Kuwaiti Scud-B (missile) impact sites . . . may be at highest risk," Nicolson wrote in an article this past May in The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. Antibiotics tailored to treat the mycoplasma have helped alleviate symptoms for many Gulf War veterans, Nicolson said, but he noted that it is too early to know if the drugs will provide a permanent cure. Joyce Riley, a civilian intensive care nurse in Houston and co-founder of the American Gulf War Veterans Association, said the group is compiling extensive reports from sick veterans who say their family members and even pets and domestic livestock also have become ill. Riley, an Air Force Reserve captain, said she developed symptoms of Gulf War syndrome while on active duty in an Air Force C-130 unit during the war. But, Riley added, she did not even travel to the Persian Gulf; her air crew ferried sick and injured troops within the continental United States. She said a former Special Forces soldier with 22 years on active duty told her last month that he called her group after military doctors could not explain why his wife and two children also were plagued with symptoms of Gulf War syndrome. "I asked him, `Did your pets die?"' Riley said. "Yes," the soldier said. "How did you know?" Riley said dead pets is common in reports the veterans association receives from the 20 to 30 sick veterans who contact it each day. For the Nicolsons, perhaps the most startling information they have collected on Iraqi biological warfare turned up two years ago with a knock on their front door in Houston. Nicolson said he and his wife were stunned to find an Iraqi army general standing on the doorstep. The middle-aged man in civilian clothes was sweating profusely as he handed Nicolson a letter in Arabic and introduced himself in fluent English. "He said he was sick with the Gulf War illness," recalled Nicolson, who at the time was chairman of the Tumor Biology Department at the University of Texas' M.D. Anderson Medical Center. "He wanted to talk about it to see what we knew about it." The Iraqi said he had learned of Nicolson through several of his articles in medical journals. "He tested positive for this mycoplasmic infection," Nicolson said. The Iraqi, who used an Iraqi diplomatic passport to travel quietly to Texas, told the Nicolsons that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had deliberately released biological agents in southern Iraq. "He told us there were at least 300,000 (Iraqis) dead and 1 million sick because of the release of chemical and biological weapons in southern Iraq," Nicolson said. Unofficial reports from medical colleagues at Middle East health research facilities indicate that up to 25 percent of the civilian populations of Kuwait, Jordan, southern Iraq and northern Saudi Arabia are experiencing Gulf War syndrome ailments, Nicolson said. "He (the Iraqi general) told us there were both chronic and acute biological agents used in the Gulf War," Nicolson said. Mike Weber, a Fort Lewis-based soldier who has been treated for tumors after serving with an Army unit that blew up the Iraqi weapons bunker complex now confirmed to have contained chemical agents, said recently that he recalled a radio news item picked up shortly before the ground war began. "The BBC reported Saddam Hussein threatened not only the soldiers in the Gulf but their wives and babies as well," Weber said. "Maybe this is what he meant." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * 1996 Fort Worth Star-Telegram -- Terms and Conditions -- Send us your Feedback. http://www.startext.net/news/doc/1047/1:TOPSTORY/1:TOPSTORY121196.html +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SAFAN %Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on David Feustel's Page http://feustel.mixi.net 219-483-1857 mailto: feustel@mixi.net +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: *** UN Flags *** Date: 11 Dec 1996 14:36:32 -0800 Since I've seen a number of posts recently about UN flags being flown in various places around what's left of our country, I've decided it's time to make a suggestion. I met a guy in Denver several months ago who has a UN flag that he keeps in his car. Well, actually, he keeps it hanging out the bottom of his driver's door, into the street, dragging through the mud. People will get his attention at stoplights and point out that he's dragging something; he just tells them it's OK - it's a UN flag, and that's where it belongs. He also has one in front of his table at gun shows, on the floor. In the 15 minutes or so I was there talking to him a number of people stopped by just to wipe their feet. I'm sure there are more possible uses for a UN flag; anybody got any ideas? You can buy them from your local flag store. And they don't cost that much. I'm getting one for a doormat inside the front door. Since I'm living in North Idaho, feet get pretty muddy in the winter. More suggestions? LET'S GET CREATIVE AND *DO* SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!! - 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: Reno asks for more Police Power in WOD. (fwd) Date: 11 Dec 1996 17:25:12 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Joe Horn <6mysmesa@1eagle1.com> If there has been nothing yet that was the straw, this ought to be it. In the unlikely event the Court agrees to this,(perhaps not THAT unlikely) this should be the one issue where thousands of motorists roll up their windows, lock their doors and say, "You better get a warrant, I'm not letting you in nor am I getting out without one." All this in the name of Officer safety and the War on Drugs....what crap. The majority of peace officers are shot with their own guns by people they got out of the car in the first place, and Reno wants them to get everyone out. Now she wants all stops to be felony stops. I can see it now, wheelchairbound MS patient shot when he/she fails to comply with vehicle exit order from police. Honestly, if these cops today are THAT scared, they should seek new employment. After all, they weren't drafted. Everyone else knows it's a dangerous job. That's why they're given training, weapons and radios and in most places, fair salaries and benefits. I am unaware of cop conscription or impressment. Joe Horn //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 01:52 PM ET 12/11/96 Reno urges U.S. high court to expand police powers By James Vicini WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Attorney General Janet Reno, whose future in President Clinton's Cabinet is uncertain, tried Wednesday to convince a skeptical Supreme Court to give police more power in traffic-stop cases. Making her debut in arguing a case before the high court after nearly four years in office, Reno ran into a barrage of questions on whether police should be allowed to order all passengers out of cars in routine traffic stops. Justice Antonin Scalia asked, for example, whether a police officer could stop a bus driver for a traffic violation and require that everyone get out. Reno said ``that might be a more difficult question'' but the officer would still be facing potential dangers and should have authority to keep passengers in or out of the bus. Her 10-minute appearance continued a tradition followed by many, but not all, attorneys general of arguing at least one case in person before the Supreme Court during their tenure. Government presentations are normally made by the U.S. solicitor general, a Reno deputy, or one of his assistants. Reno has made clear she wants to remain in office as Clinton begins his second four-year term in January, and says no one at the White House had ever directly criticized her. But the White House has remained silent on her future, saying only that Clinton expects to meet with her soon as he makes decisons regarding the shape of his second-term Cabinet. That has inevitably spawned talk Reno may have fallen out of favor because she has appointed special prosecutors to investigate ethics questions involving Clinton, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and high administration officials. The Justice Department was not even a party to the case Reno picked for her widely watched court debut. It pitted the state of Maryland against a passenger who was ordered out a car during a routine police stop and was arrested when some crack cocaine fell to the ground. The man argues that constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures prohibit police from ordering passengers out of cars during routine checks without grounds to suspect a crime has been committed. Reno argued in support of the state, saying traffic stops present a ``special danger for police officers who are vulnerable to attack.'' Justice John Paul Stevens asked if the officer might not be in greater danger of a confrontation by ordering passengers out of the car. But Scalia later asked if states that require reasonable suspicion of a crime might have even more problems. Reno was unable to answer the questions. She said it was ``reasonable'' for a passenger to be told to get out of a car and wait while the officer checks the driver's license and writes up the ticket, even if it lasts 20 minutes. ''That is a limited duration,'' she said. She described it as a minimal intrusion on passengers and emphasized police officer safety over the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed concern the police as routine practice would make large families wait outside the car while lecturing the driver on a traffic violation. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor posed the situation of a mother with a young baby forced out of the car in a driving snowstorm or a hard rain and made to put up her hands. ``This can be carried to extremes,'' she said. Scalia agreed, saying: ``They will make everybody get out. That will be an invariable rule.'' Byron Warnken, arguing for the passenger who sought to suppress the drug evidence, said, ``Officer safety is an issue, but it cannot take all Fourth Amendment rights away.'' A ruling is due by the end of the court's term in June. Reuters......................................................................... This is reproduced for non-profit educational and research purposes. -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: *** UN Flags *** Date: 11 Dec 1996 18:36:48 -0500 At 02:36 PM 12/11/96 -0800, you wrote: >Since I've seen a number of posts recently about UN flags being flown in >various places around what's left of our country, I've decided it's time >to make a suggestion. > snip > >I'm sure there are more possible uses for a UN flag; anybody got any >ideas? You can buy them from your local flag store. And they don't >cost that much. I'm getting one for a doormat inside the front door. >Since I'm living in North Idaho, feet get pretty muddy in the winter. > >More suggestions? LET'S GET CREATIVE AND *DO* SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!! > > >- 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- > > > Last year on UN day (Oct 24) we held a celebration on public square and proceeded to burn the UN flag. I thought that this was quite apropos. Tom "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A lie on the throne is a lie, still, and truth in a dungeon is truth, still; and a lie on the throne is on the way to defeat, and truth in a dungeon is on the way to victory." --Anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: IO - Americans Dying for Martial Law? Date: 11 Dec 1996 17:53:11 -0800 I saw Capt. Joyce Riley speak last night in Sandpoint Idaho, just north=20 of where I live. She's the Air Force nurse who developed Gulf War Illness= =20 while treating soldiers involved in Desert Storm. She's been trying to=20 wake what's left of America up to the reality of the disease ever since. To say the least, it was an impressive presentation. Here's an article soon to appear in the first edition of The Idaho=20 Observer, written by my partner and fellow Conspiracy Monger, Don Harkins. Americans Dying for Martial Law? Will you please get mad enough already that we can declare martial=20 law? What is going to take to get you mad enough that we can finally justify ending this silly little game of thrust and parry with your=20 Constitutional rights by declaring a state of emergency to get those=20 pesky rights out of the way once and for all? We have pushed every button we can think of and you refuse to get=20 angry enough to engage in acts of social unrest: We have methodically=20 stripped you of your Constitutional and civil rights; we have shot,=20 bombed and burned hundreds of innocent men, women, children and dogs and=20 cats; we fuel both sides of little wars all over the world with profits=20 generated from the sale of drugs to your children; we overrule your jury=20 decisions and declare the initiatives and referendums you vote for=20 unconstitutional; we are stripping you of your right to keep and bear=20 arms as fast as we can; we have created trade agreements with foreign=20 nations which are killing your ability to make a decent living and raise=20 a family and we are taxing you to death to pay for all the evil things we=20 are doing to you. What is it going to take to make you get mad enough so we can finally pound the last nail into your Constitutional coffin? When are you going=20 to give us the perfect reason to suspend forever the silly document which=20 is the only thing that stands between you and the slavery we want to give=20 you to protect you from yourselves? Let us draw you a map: Gulf War Illness is the most likely issue to bring about the=20 critical mass of social tension in this country necessary for the federal=20 government to justify a declaration of martial law. For those of us who=20 know beyond doubt that our government is an evil monster hell-bent on=20 reducing inalienably sovereign citizens to the status of slaves who exist=20 as an expendable pool of human resources, the moment we have both dreaded=20 and hoped for is about to be upon us. Unable to get a rise out of the American people, no matter how blatantly they are abused and murdered, the U.S. government has drawn us=20 a three-dimensional, full-color map of how it has betrayed our troops,=20 then their wives and children, and now the rest of us, by at least=20 facilitating, if not initiating, the epidemic infection of our population=20 with a cocktail of man-made chemical and biological substances against=20 which we are virtually defenseless.=20 The map it drew for us is about to be pictured on every TV screen=20 and mounted within the pages of every magazine and newspaper in the=20 country. The government is even going to give the dominant media full=20 reign to expose every sordid and treasonous detail of its conspiracy=20 to kill a lot of Americans and is going to allow their silly political=20 pundits to talk openly about its inhuman treachery. Why? Why would it do that? Because the American people are too fat, lazy, stupid and apathetic to react angrily at anything short of having a map drawn which illustrates an obvious plan to make them agonizingly sick for the several years prior to their inevitable deaths. Is there anything the U.S. Government could have done to make it=20 more obvious that it wished to be caught in the act of killing its own=20 troops and infecting its own population with indefensible contagions? Consider the following: =B7 The government entities which documented their plans to go to war with Iraq in 1988;=20 =B7 the government entities which approved the documented sale of chemical= =20 and biological materials by American companies to Iraq and Iran from=20 1983 to as recently as 1993;=20 =B7 the government entities which knew that chemical and biological weapons were awaiting "coalition" forces in the Gulf;=20 =B7 the government entities which inoculated their unsuspecting troops with strange, experimental chemicals to supposedly protect them;=20 =B7 the government entities which knew what mustard gas, Sarin gas, anthrax, and a full menu of other deadly toxins do to ravage the human body;=20 =B7 the government entities which have incessantly denied that American = troops were exposed to these contagions which were sold from the laboratories=20 of American companies to support the biological weapons programs in=20 Iraq and Iran prior to the war;=20 =B7 the government entities which refuse to treat their soldiers, and now=20 the spouses and children of soldiers, for the multitude of contagious, agonizing and eventually fatal symptoms they are enduring;=20 =B7 the government entities which will prescribe psychotropic drugs like Prozac for those they view as mental patients but will not prescribe antibiotics to sick people because they still maintain that a disease=20 which does not exist cannot be treated.=20 Consider also: =B7 That they are the same government entities which knew that eventually people would follow the paper trail, which is no less than a mile wide=20 and purposefully left for them to find, so they would finally get mad=20 enough to demand accountability;=20 =B7 that the American people would become justifiably indignant at being=20 lied to and purposefully put in harm=92s way so that a plan to slowly,=20 torturously and painfully kill thousands (millions?) of people could=20 be put into motion;=20 =B7 that they knew that once it inevitably became common knowledge that=20 "our" government purposefully contaminated the American people with=20 unstoppable diseases for which they neither have natural immunities=20 nor access to cures, that they would finally become outraged enough=20 to demand the culprits be held accountable;=20 =B7 that they knew that Gulf War "Syndrome" involved heinous enough crimes against humanity that the collective anger of the American public=20 would swell to the point that martial law could be declared. Will the plot to kill us and ruin our children make us mad? Once the sleeping American public understands that, contrary to the position our government has maintained from the beginning, our troops=20 were exposed to chemical and biological agents during the Gulf War,=20 there will be no media or government barriers short of a declared state=20 of emergency (martial law) which will stop the public disclosure of a=20 mountain of evidence which suggests that the U.S. government more than=20 knew the chemicals and biologicals were awaiting our troops: It arranged=20 in advance for those nightmarish contagions to be there to greet them. Was that the government=92s plan for the World Trade Center Bombing? Waco? Ruby Ridge? Oklahoma City? Was that why the government admitted,=20 30 years too late, that the second Gulf of Tonkin incident which was=20 credited for U.S. ground troops being sent to Viet Nam never actually=20 happened? To make us mad and riotous enough that it could declare a=20 national state of emergency?=20 Are we so unbelievably apathetic that it will take nothing short of=20 an insidious plan to kill us off and cripple our children with birth=20 defects to make us civilly disobedient enough to demand real=20 investigations into the activities of a government which has slowly and=20 methodically dismantled our Constitutional Republic? Have the government entities responsible for infecting our=20 population with man-made diseases, which are not likely to ever go away,=20 been trying to make us mad enough at them that we would become so=20 socially disobedient they could justify the declaration of a state of=20 emergency? We are about to find out. But, never fear, if killing us and=20 creating a generation of horribly birth-defective children won=92t do it,=20 I hear that the government has imminent plans to ban all of our older,=20 pre-1990 model automobiles. That ought to make people pretty mad. Sincerely, Don Harkins The Idaho Observer =20 - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< =20 * Psalm 33 * =20 "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude=20 greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in =20 peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick=20 the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and=20 may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams=20 O- =20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: I goofed with DOS! Please re-send. Date: 11 Dec 1996 21:22:32 -0800 Dear Friends, I made a serious error with DOS today, which I would like to share with you. First, I did this: I:\EUDORA> move in.mbx 961211.fol If the file you are moving is large, the MOVE command is a LOT faster than the combination of COPY and ERASE. Second, I ran Eudora, which created a new (empty) in.mbx. Third, I was going to move out.mbx to this same sub-directory, but I erred by doing the following instead: I:\EUDORA> move in.mbx 961211.fol The DOS MOVE command overwrites the target file. When I attempted to recover with the Norton UNERASE, I found that I had really snookered myself -- UNERASE told me that prospects were "poor" for recovering the old in.mbx. So, the upshot of this error is that I lost about 1 month's worth of inbound email. If you sent me anything of great importance during this period, please re-send it. And, by all means, please learn from my mistake above. If you are unsure about the DOS MOVE command, use COPY followed by ERASE, even though it is slower. /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: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: *** UN Flags *** Date: 11 Dec 1996 17:47:00 PST On Dec 11, Liberty or Death wrote: >Since I've seen a number of posts recently about UN flags being flown in >various places around what's left of our country, I've decided it's time >to make a suggestion. > >I met a guy in Denver several months ago who has a UN flag that he keeps >in his car. Well, actually, he keeps it hanging out the bottom of his >driver's door, into the street, dragging through the mud. > >People will get his attention at stoplights and point out that he's >dragging something; he just tells them it's OK - it's a UN flag, and >that's where it belongs. He also has one in front of his table at gun >shows, on the floor. In the 15 minutes or so I was there talking to him >a number of people stopped by just to wipe their feet. > >I'm sure there are more possible uses for a UN flag; anybody got any >ideas? You can buy them from your local flag store. And they don't >cost that much. I'm getting one for a doormat inside the front door. >Since I'm living in North Idaho, feet get pretty muddy in the winter. > >More suggestions? LET'S GET CREATIVE AND *DO* SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!! Anyone know where I can get the UN emblem prited up on toilet paper? -- 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: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: *** UN Flags *** Date: 11 Dec 1996 19:25:00 -0800 My wife, Carol, suggests using a UN Flag for a dog bed. I, on the other hand, have more respect for our dogs. We should take a lesson from the flag burning hippies of yesteryear. Put them on the butt of your bib overalls, use them as toilet seat covers, they would make good shop rags, etc. In fact now that I think about it, paper shop towels like those dispensed in gas stations ARE UN blue. Maybe I'll throw one in my chainsaw case as a wipe down rag. If your car has any oil leaks, you should have one under it to keep the garage clean. They could be sold at gun shows as gun cleaning rags. What we should look for though is a higher visibility use, like the guy in Denver with it hanging out his car door. We self employed types should use them for door mats at our place of business. I bet I could get a lot of my North Idaho neighbors to do that. As a dipstick rag carried under the hood of your vehicle, you could make sure people saw it each time it was used. Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pquixote@ix.netcom.com (Pat Fosness) Subject: Re: *** UN Flags *** Date: 11 Dec 1996 20:16:23 -0800 >>I'm sure there are more possible uses for a UN flag; anybody got any >>ideas? You can buy them from your local flag store. And they don't >>cost that much. I'm getting one for a doormat inside the front door. >>Since I'm living in North Idaho, feet get pretty muddy in the winter. >> >>More suggestions? LET'S GET CREATIVE AND *DO* SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!! > >Anyone know where I can get the UN emblem prited up on toilet paper? We were just discussing that at my house and decided that the blue dye may be bad for your, er.. private parts. But it would sure make a great handkerchief, particularly during cold and flu season. And I'll bet you can get small, cotton ones. I'll pay a visit to the UN website to see if they have any for sale soon as I post this. FWIW, I know the gentleman who hangs the UN flag out of his car door. When people mention it (at stop lights and so on), he gives them a 15 second earful on the evils of the UN. With how fast he talks, that's a good paragraph and a half :) So brush up on your Evelyn Wood speed talking lessons in order to reap the greatest benefits from *your* particular form of "due respect" to the UN flag. In Liberty, Pat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: *** UN Flags *** Date: 11 Dec 1996 22:28:29 -0800 >My wife, Carol, suggests using a UN Flag for a dog bed. I, on the other >hand, have more respect for our dogs. Agreed; although somebody said that, Scotchgard coated for repeated use, they'd come in handy for house-training a puppy! >We should take a lesson from the flag burning hippies of yesteryear. Put >them >on the butt of your bib overalls, use them as toilet seat covers, they >would >make good shop rags, etc. In fact now that I think about it, paper shop >towels like those dispensed in gas stations ARE UN blue. Maybe I'll throw >one >in my chainsaw case as a wipe down rag. If your car has any oil leaks, you >should have one under it to keep the garage clean. They could be sold at >gun shows as gun cleaning rags. > >What we should look for though is a higher visibility use, like the guy in >Denver with it hanging out his car door. We self employed types should >use >them for door mats at our place of business. I bet I could get a lot of >my North Idaho neighbors to do that. As a dipstick rag carried under the >hood of >your vehicle, you could make sure people saw it each time it was used. > >Jerry *Lotsa* good ideas. NOW LET'S DO SOME OF THEM!!! It's funny to come up with this stuff, but we really could start influencing people if we actually *did* some of this. I was way impressed with the guy in Denver; he gets to talk to all kinds of folks because of the one hanging out of his car door. I'm not kidding; I'm getting one for a doormat. And several of Jerry's ideas are good too. Anybody else? Go buy one or two, and start thinking of places where you use rags, etc., where people would see you do 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: Mark Filipak Subject: Re: IO - Americans Dying for Martial Law? Date: 12 Dec 1996 01:43:05 -0800 Liberty or Death wrote: > > Here's an article soon to appear in the first edition of The Idaho > Observer, written by my partner and fellow Conspiracy Monger, Don Harkins. Hello, (I'm not quite sure who I'm replying to.) What is (or will be) The Idaho Observer? -- Regards, If there's one thing I can't . . __ stand, it's intolerance. |\/| _ ._ |, |_ . | . _ _ |, | | (_| | |\ | | | | |_) (_| |\ mailto:filipak@kudonet.com _ ____________ _ | | \ | \ 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. | \ / : \ | \ _/ : \ Get PGP: http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html | \ : \ (The Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | /_ : / Free, strong cryptography for your protection. | / \ : / Don't send your mail out into the world naked. | / \ : / Put it in an envelope and exercise your right | / \ : / to privacy at the same time. Why settle for | / \ : / for that wimpy government brand? Demand PGP. | / \: / - Did I mention that it's free? - |_/____________|_/ _________ End shameless ad for PGP __________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: ***ATF STANDOFF*** Read ASAP Date: 12 Dec 1996 07:52:07 -0800 Still rolling on the floor here. more More MORE!!! /s/ Paul Mitchell >From: Jason Russo > >-- [ From: Jason Russo * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- > >------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > >Northpole Standoff > > A fierce battle ended in a stand-off today as a multi-jurisdictional >task force of federal law enforcement agents tried to arrest the leader of a >militant doomsday cult, who call themselves "Elves," living in a heavily >fortified compound at the Northpole. According to witnesses, federal agents >hid in livestock trailers as they drove up to the compound. > > The approach was difficult in the snow using wheeled vehicles. Several >agents were reportedly thrown from the trailer when it hit a snowbank. The >agents were unable to use dogteams and sleds because the ATF agents shot all >the dogs during training at a nearby recreational facility where agents had >practiced for weeks on a mock-up of the compound in preparation for the raid >. > > As three National Guard helicopters approached, over 100 law officers >stormed the main compound, a heavily fortified gingerbread structure, >throwing concussion grenades and screaming "Come out!" Cult members and law >officers negotiated a cease-fire about 45 minutes after the incident began. > > For the next several hours, ambulances and helicopters swarmed the >premises. The area was cordoned off and ATF agents with machine guns were >posted in the roadways to keep reporters at least two miles from the main >battle area. > > In a lengthy report on the group Saturday, The Northpole Tribune-Herald >said that the cult was known to have a large arsenal of high-powered weapons >, probably produced in a workshop disguised as a "toy factory." This toy >factory is also believed to be the sight of a mephamphetamine laboratory, >according to sources inside the ATF. > > The article quoted investigators as saying the crazed cult leader, who >uses several aliases, "Santa Claus," "Saint Nick," "Sinterclaas," and "Saint >Nicholas," age unknown, has abused children and claims to have at least 15 >wives. Santa Claus denies these accusations of abuse and said he has had >only one wife, Mrs. Santa Claus. > > Authorities had a warrant to search the Northpole compound for guns and >explosive devices and an arrest warrant for its leader, Santa Claus, said >Mess Stanford of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in Washington, >D.C. Mr. Stanford added it would be useless to attempt to get a copy of >this warrant, however, because it had been sealed, "for national security >reasons." > > The assault came one day after the Northpole Tribune-Herald began >publishing a series on the cult, quoting former members as saying the >deranged cult leader, Santa Claus, abused children and had at least 15 wives >. > > ATF spokesman Jack Killchildren in Washington said the assault had been >planned for several weeks, although he added, "I think the newspaper's >investigation set up heightened tension." > > The cult's fortress, called "The Toy Factory," is dominated by a tower >with lookout windows facing in all directions. Guards reportedly patrol the >77-acre grounds at night. > > Attorney General Janet Reno ordered the raid after cult members refused >to surrender documents relating to national security. A source inside the >Justice Department said that the documents were lists of cabinet members and >highly placed government officials who were naughty or nice. Despite >preliminary, secret negotiations to obtain the list, the Elves refused to >surrender the document to the Justice Department. > > The raid was scheduled early, because December 25 is believed to be a >traditional cult holiday and all the militant elves would be engaged in cult >rituals in preparation for the event. > > At a press conference this afternoon, Attorney General Reno said, "These >militants abuse children in the most vile manner, by teaching them to expect >charity. They have even distributed free, working replicas of 'assault >weapons' and 'handguns.' It is a matter of dire importance to our future >and the future of all our children, that this peril be ended by every means >at our disposal." > > She went on to say that "I do not want to surround the compound and >shoot everyone and then burn it to the ground in order to prevent this child >abuse from occurring again, but that appears to be our only alternative." > > According to Reno, the "Toy Factory" itself is a sweatshop and >conditions inside were horrendous. The Department of Justice is also >looking into allegations of animal cruelty. Former members of the cult have >claimed that Santa Claus frequently uses leather restraints on at least >eight reindeer, housed in sordid conditions on the compound. Witnesses >reported seeing a reindeer with a protruding red nose, which Janet Reno said >was further indication of the abusive conditions inside the compound. > > Several of the elves were reported by the BATF to have been carrying >automatic weapons. However, independant sources dispute this, claiming that >the "automatic weapons" were nothing more than large candy canes. > > ATF leader Ted Oyster, shaken after the ordeal, spoke to reporters as >hundreds of agents, many of them in tears, were taken away from the >Northpole in military airlifts, ambulances, and private vehicles. > > "We had our plan down, we had our diversion down, and they were waiting. >.." Oyster said resignedly, shaking his head. > > A hospital spokesman said that most of the wounded ATF agents appeared >to be suffering from shrapnel wounds from broken candy canes, as well as >frostbite, apparently suffered from wearing forest-green camoflage in the >wintery terrain. > > Attorney General Reno offered no comment on these reports. > > Mack "the knife" McWarty was seen strolling across the White House lawn, >chuckling to himself as he read what inside sources say was a copy of the >naughty/nice list. > > One highly placed government official was found dead in Marcy Park. His >name and the cause of death are unknown at this time, however, the White >House immediately issued a statement claiming the official had committed >suicide after learning his name was not on the nice list. > > Patsy Thomahawk refused to comment on the advice of her attorney on >whether she had any part in removing copies of the naughty/nice list from a >safe in the White House. > > A spokesman from the MJTF said that it was indeed a tragedy that Santa >Claus had caused this confrontation, but this should be a lesson to anyone >who tries to give to everyone without permission from the welfare department >, and that gathering sensitive data without a permit from official sources >will be stopped by any means. > > FBI spokesman Bob Pricks, the former national Abortion Poster Child of >1944, relayed that "We are dealing with a madman. We have cut off all >electricity, water, and communications to the compound. Santa Claus has >demanded that we relay a message to the world. It reads, 'Merry Christmas >to all and to all a good night.' FBI psychological experts are presently >analyzing the message, however, preliminary reports indicate this is an >encrypted threat to invade the neighboring towns near the Northpole. It may >also be a doomsday message that the cult intends to commit suicide, like >Jonestown." > > Shortly after the raid, a smiling Reno was seen strolling through the >pile of rubbish looking for anatomically correct Barbie dolls. She claimed >that she was going to confiscate any that she found as "evidence" and that >they were for a personal investigation that she was conducting. > > Attorney General Reno also disclosed some information about plans to raid >Mr. E. Ster Bunny sometime next spring. According to the FBI's report on Mr. >Bunny, he has been hording food all year. This is in direct violation of a >secret Presidential Directive. "This ingratitude for everything that we have >done will stop, even if it means raiding every house in the USA to enforce >these new laws that were made to insure your freedom...." Reno said. > > This, boys and girls, should make us all sleep just a little bit better >tonight. The government will protect us from overindulging in freedom. If >they didn't step in and take control of that "naughty/nice" list, just think >what shape we might be in..... > > > > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: poems of white house Date: 12 Dec 1996 08:23:32 -0800 Christmas at White House by Paul Andrew Mitchell all rights reserved Twas the nite before Christmas and all through the White House just Hillary was stirring a huge pot of fat grouse. She'd bagged 'em while Bill her Hubby of lateness was sleeping and dreaming new world's on the take. Slicing and cutting and whirling and shaking, spices and veggies were all in the making. Lo and behold, cames down thru the chimney, her friend and companion the Starr man named Kenneth. These papers are yours, my dearest of lovelies, so sorry to hamper your kitchen well runneth. You didn't! You didn't!! cried Lady of White House; my name is now sunken like white apple dumplings. No worry! No worry!! sighs Kenneth the Starr man. Just get thyself over to Janet's dull palace. The makeover crew awaits your arrival, for this is the season, for truth and obstruction. Your skin will be softened your hair will be coiffured your eyes will be colored your name will be inmate. /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: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: about time for a pro-2nd editorial (fwd) Date: 12 Dec 1996 08:30:42 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: robert-springfield-mo Yes, ladies and gentlemen, a refreshing wind of intelligence has overcome the blind and ignorant goose-step of the Olathe print media to political correctness. Heavens, if this keeps up in the Wheat State, a wave a patriotism may show in the state deliberating body herein known as the legislature. Can you imagine that? Sometimes though, freedom is a state of mind. Be ever vigilant and maybe, just maybe, we will be able to bring this nation back from the precipice of ignominious defeat and statist collectivism. ====================================================== THE OLATHE DAILY NEWS---OLATHE, KANSAS 66061 EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT: TIMOTHY P. O'DONNELL - PUBLISHER SCOTT SMITH - MANAGER CHUCK KURTZ - MANAGING EDITOR GERALD HAY - NEWS EDITOR DECEMBER 5, 1996 EDITORIAL PACKIN' HEAT CURRENT INFORMATION SUPPORTS THE BELIEF THAT CONCEALED GUN LAWS REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME To allow citizens to cary a concealed gun or not to allow them to carry a concealed gun? That is the question expected to be taken up by the Kansas Legislature in its next session, whch narrowly defeated a concealed gun bill last session. This past week, The Olathe Daily News has presented both sides of the concealed gun ussue in a series of stories . Follow up stories will be published as warranted, especially when the issue is debated in the Kansas Legislature. This is an issue that will affect everyone in the way we look at each other, and in the way we might possibly defend ourselves or others in certain situations. The united States Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to own a gun. In Kansas, it is legal to openly carry a gun or rifle. So why are so many people concerned if the state allows people to carry handguns in their pockets rather than on their hips? Opponents argue society needs less rather than more guns in public. In a perfect society, there would be no guns available for criminals to use against law abiding citizens. Law enforcement officers and agencies differ in their opinions whether a concealed gun law would be a deterrent or lead to an increase in crime and accidental deaths. But society is not perfect. Far from it. In the United States criminals are going to get and use guns on decent citizens whether it's legal to carry guns openly or inside a purse or pocket. Thirty-one states across the country have already passed concealed gun laws. The only study done on the issue is one that came out of the University of Chicago. It indicates that violent crime decreases in states where concealed guns are allowed. There were no dramatic increases in accidental deaths. Criminals, instead of confronting people, turned to other forms of crime: burglarizing homes, stealing cars, etc. When states have concealed gun laws, the playing field between law abiding citizens and criminals becomes even. And criminals appear to not like the odds of facing someone who might be armed. Representative Kay O'Connor might have said it best during The Daily News' series when she said, "If I have a guy with a gun in my back, I don't have the time to dial 911. He may not know I have a concealed weapon, and it may still only be a 50/50 chance, but give me the 50/50." The issue needs to be discussed thoroughly by our representatives. But we think, based on current data there can be only one conclusion: A concealed gun law in Kansas would be in the best interest of the state's law abiding citizens. And if passed in the legislature, we urge Gov. Bill Graves to sign the bill into law. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: IO - Americans Dying for Martial Law? Date: 12 Dec 1996 09:05:08 -0800 >Liberty or Death wrote: >> >> Here's an article soon to appear in the first edition of The Idaho >> Observer, written by my partner and fellow Conspiracy Monger, Don >>Harkins. >Hello, > >(I'm not quite sure who I'm replying to.) > >What is (or will be) The Idaho Observer? The Idaho Observer is (going to be) the brother publication to The Oregon Observer; folks that have been on ROC for a while will have seen various articles I've forwarded from The OO in the past. They're monthly newspapers whose primary mission is to educate the people in what's left of America as to what's going on in our corrupt(ed) government, legal system, etc. As well as to write about the good things that are going on out there (when there are some). I'll keep forwarding an article now and again...hope you all enjoy 'em. - 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: Reno asks for more Police Power in WOD. (fwd) Date: 12 Dec 1996 09:06:43 -0800 (PST) At 05:25 PM 12/11/96 -0600, you wrote: > > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:04:10 -0700 >From: Joe Horn <6mysmesa@1eagle1.com> >Subject: Reno asks for more Police Power in WOD. > >Posted to texas-gun-owners by Joe Horn <6mysmesa@1eagle1.com> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >If there has been nothing yet that was the straw, this ought to be it. In >the unlikely event the Court agrees to this,(perhaps not THAT unlikely) this >should be the one issue where thousands of motorists roll up their windows, >lock their doors and say, "You better get a warrant, I'm not letting you in >nor am I getting out without one." All this in the name of Officer safety >and the War on Drugs....what crap. The majority of peace officers are shot >with their own guns by people they got out of the car in the first place, >and Reno wants them to get everyone out. Now she wants all stops to be >felony stops. I can see it now, wheelchairbound MS patient shot when he/she >fails to comply with vehicle exit order from police. > >Honestly, if these cops today are THAT scared, they should seek new employment. >After all, they weren't drafted. Everyone else knows it's a dangerous job. >That's why they're given training, weapons and radios and in most places, >fair salaries and benefits. I am unaware of cop conscription or impressment. > >Joe Horn > A friend of mine calls this country Alarmica because we start making new laws (and trampling the constitution) every time someone gets alarmed. It might be somewhat reasonable to allow the cops to tell the driver to get out of the car, but, if it is a traffic stop, there is no probable cause to ask the others to exit. If it is a traffic stop, the cop can safely deal with the traffic issue with the one who is responsible -- the driver. If he is worried about the passengers, he should have the driver go with him to the rear of the squad car -- or, as you so wisely suggest, get another job. I recall the recent video of the officer dragging a woman out of a car in Louisiana when she didn't get out. Her seatbelt was stuck. I suppose he shoud have just shot her. Reno would evidently have approved. S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: urgent Date: 12 Dec 1996 12:23:40 -0800 Monte, >>>>>>> Not according to the new law; it requires a *misdemeanor conviction*. <<<<<<< I don't know if anyone has addressed the Tenth Article item here concerning this law, but with reference to the requirements of the Brady Act, and the apparent reaction to it by the current S.C., one wonders whether this law will be upheld upon challenge. The Federal Government has taken it upon itself to force a law upon the States that it really has no power to do. Where in the U.S. Constitution does the Fed find the power to determine what a misdemeanor is and, just where does it find the power to regulate what the punishment for a misdemeanor? Further, just where does it get the authority to interefer in the lawful venue of the States? It is ludicrous that the Federal Legislature has taken upon itself the lawfull and rightfull duties of the legislatures of the several States. Are we to assume that the States are no longer able to act for themselves? In this guise, it would seem that Schumer and company hold the States in the same relative contempt as they do the individual citizen - incapable of making any decision. The permanent deprivation of a Right, for the simple act of an indescretion of the part of most people who, would not otherwise be considered a threat to the community at large, is perhaps the most egregious part of this law. If the intent was to ensure that the affected citizen would not attempt further harm to the person or persons whom he/she was convicted of attacking, then a simple signed statement, with a sworn affirmation mandated by the community to be signed by the convict, to the affect that they would be subject to a felony conviction with a manadatory minimum sentence of significant length as a result of a conviction for attack with _any_ weapon - regardless of the outcome, would in all but the most 'looney' cases be sufficient deterance to a repeat offense. This matter properly belongs directly under the purview of the States - not the Fed. But, in the most usuall operation of the most powerful government of the face of the earth, they have overreacted with a knee jerk sure to have repercussions for years to come, unless quickly nullified by the current occupants in both houses. I saddens me to watch our representaives make such damned fools of the rest of us, simply because they are trying to 'impress' their colleagues with daily theatrics, and attempts to outdo the competition. Ed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: litz@pta6000.pld.com Subject: UN flag ideas Date: 12 Dec 1996 16:17:42 -0600 A few more ideas for UN flags: Emergency heating fuel - burn in fireplace Test acids on Bird cage liner Cat box liner Temporary gas cap Oil soak Shop rags Use as a filler material in roofing shigles Dog poop cleaner upper Extract blue dye, darken, use as gun barrel blue!!! Shred, use blue fibers in FRN paper stock Roadpatch - Place flag in pothole, pour tar generously, pack down Wrap spoiled food in, for disposal Wrap around post, to make a cat scratching post -- Brian Litzenberger litz@pta6000.pdd.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: need help for Ray Looker Date: 12 Dec 1996 11:56:14 -0800 Hi Friends, This is a gentle reminder that Pastor Butch Paugh ("paw") is actively and anxiously striving to raise funds for Ray Looker's legal defense. The easiest way is to sign up for Lifeline long- distance service, at least for the next 3 months. Lifeline pays Pastor Paugh 10% of users' long-distance billings, but you must get the account number and call customer service to sign up. Pastor Paugh's telephone number is (304) 846-6947 in Nettie, West Virginia. If you decide to use Lifeline and you remember to write to me at the shipping location shown below, we will express our appreciation by sending you a certified hard copy of the U.S. Constitution as provided by the President's assistant counsel, in response to my FOIA request for same. Also, if you are not inclined to switch long-distance providers, Ray Looker also desperately needs postage stamps, because we must quadruplicate pleadings, due to the four (4) separate indictments which have been filed (so Bill Clinton can make $35,000 per indictment, per the Internal Revenue Manual, page 1229). For details, browse over to URL: http://www.supremelaw.com and read "The Kick-Back Racket." Thanks, everyone, for your mutual support. Please let us know if there is anything we can do for you in return. /s/ Paul Mitchell Counselor at Law ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: urgent Date: 12 Dec 1996 15:39:38 -0800 Hi Ed - I'd agree with what you wrote below *if* we were still living in a Constitutional Republic. But I've come to the conclusion that the belief that the Constitution means anything to those in power is simply a delusion. They truly don't care. I'd suggest, sadly, that we get used to the idea that we are actually living under martial law, *without* a Constitution, and start living and planning with that in mind. Wisdom would dictate that we do so. Unfortunately, that's reality. At least as I see it. And I don't see it getting better any time soon. - Monte > I don't know if anyone has addressed the Tenth Article item here >concerning this law, but with reference to the requirements of the Brady >Act, and the apparent reaction to it by the current S.C., one wonders >whether this law will be upheld upon challenge. > > The Federal Government has taken it upon itself to force a law upon >the States that it really has no power to do. Where in the U.S. >Constitution does the Fed find the power to determine what a misdemeanor is >and, just where does it find the power to regulate what the punishment for >a misdemeanor? > Further, just where does it get the authority to interefer in the >lawful venue of the States? > It is ludicrous that the Federal Legislature has taken upon itself >the lawfull and rightfull duties of the legislatures of the several States. >Are we to assume that the States are no longer able to act for themselves? >In this guise, it would seem that Schumer and company hold the States in >the same relative contempt as they do the individual citizen - incapable of >making any decision. > The permanent deprivation of a Right, for the simple act of an >indescretion of the part of most people who, would not otherwise be >considered a threat to the community at large, is perhaps the most >egregious part of this law. > > If the intent was to ensure that the affected citizen would not >attempt further harm to the person or persons whom he/she was convicted of >attacking, then a simple signed statement, with a sworn affirmation >mandated by the community to be signed by the convict, to the affect that >they would be subject to a felony conviction with a manadatory minimum >sentence of significant length as a result of a conviction for attack with >_any_ weapon - regardless of the outcome, would in all but the most >'looney' cases be sufficient deterance to a repeat offense. > > This matter properly belongs directly under the purview of the >States - not the Fed. > > But, in the most usuall operation of the most powerful government >of the face of the earth, they have overreacted with a knee jerk sure to >have repercussions for years to come, unless quickly nullified by the >current occupants in both houses. > > I saddens me to watch our representaives make such damned fools of >the rest of us, simply because they are trying to 'impress' their >colleagues with daily theatrics, and attempts to outdo the competition. > >Ed. > > > - 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: Here We Go Again... Date: 12 Dec 1996 15:44:23 -0800 (forwarded) Gun Rights Activist Arrested On Friday evening, December 1, (coincidentally, his birthday) Dan Misuraca was turning left on to Dixie Highway in Waterford, Mi. He was pulled over by officer Cook, who has been on the Waterford police department only 2 years. According to the police report, the light had changed and Dan slid through on red rather than yellow. Asked where he was going, Dan said he was on his way to Dunham's Sporting Goods and then on to his buddy's cabin for a weekend hunt. Shining his light into the back of Dan's station wagon, Officer Cook spotted Dan's hunting knife, which was in a belt containing Dan's hunting tools. The officer asked if Dan had any other weapons in the car to which he replied in the affirmative, gesturing towards the rear of the car to where his unloaded, cased .22 rifle was stored for the trip. Taking Dan's license and registration, the officer returned to his patrol car to call in the license and request back up. (Leaving our dangerous felon in his vehicle with his weapons and ammunition for about ten minutes.) After an Oakland county sheriff arrived, officer Cook went back to Dan and asked him to step out of the car. Dan asked if he was under arrest. The officer said no, not at this time. He then requested permission to search the car, to see for himself if the rifle was unloaded. Dan politely refused. The officer then removed him from his car, and put him under arrest for a CCW violation: the knife! A hunting knife: on a belt with other hunting gear, in the back of the car, while he was on his way to go hunting! Upon searching the car, the officer also discovered Dan's 9mm, which was in a locked box. End of story. Dan spent 5 days in the Oakland county jail while his poor wife tried desperately to raise the $5,000 cash required on the bail that the weekend magistrate set at $50,000. (The Magistrate did, however wish him a happy birthday after setting this absurd amount for his bail) Dan Misuraca is not a dangerous criminal. He is a business owner (Dan's Oil Can- a one-man mobile oil change business.) He is a husband and father, and they just put everything they had into buying a new home. He was an honor roll student in school. He's a Marine Corps vet who received two meritorious promotions while in the service. He has never been arrested for anything before. He has, however been an outspoken defender of the Second Amendment and active with Brass Roots, the former Gun Owners of Oakland County, and Justice Pro Se. During the preliminary hearing, the officer and the prosecutor also made it a point to mention that he was "wearing cammo" at the time of the traffic stop. This whole thing is set up to ruin the life of a man who is, in my opinion, an outstanding citizen. So we are trying to put together a defense fund. Dan has a good attorney, but he is not cheap. Dan sold his car to get the first part of the retainer but beyond that he's tapped out, and scared to death that they will lose everything. If we could just find 1000 individuals to send $10.00 each we could get him the legal service that he needs to get out of this, and save him and his beautiful family. Contributions can be sent to : Dan Misuraca Defense Fund 3128 Walton Blvd. Suite 198, Rochester Hills, MI 48309 Thanks for your help. Scott W. Allen Secretary - Brass Roots swallen@pipeline.com - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: litz@pta6000.pld.com Subject: More uses for UN flags Date: 12 Dec 1996 19:33:20 -0600 Outhouse wipes (use with caution, may cause rash) Contribute flags for AIDS quilt Fill material in nuclear waste shipping containers Gun barrel swab Clothing, veils, and alter covers for new age teachers / gaia gurus Paint filter (Nylon flags) Re-weave for gay/lesbian pantyhose Mud flaps Send flags to drug king pins (or CIA) for wrapping illegal drugs Kindling to help start campfires -- Brian Litzneberger litz@pta6000.pld.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: More uses for UN flags Date: 12 Dec 1996 21:02:43 -0800 Brian, you're a man after my own heart ;) - Monte > Outhouse wipes (use with caution, may cause rash) > Contribute flags for AIDS quilt > Fill material in nuclear waste shipping containers > Gun barrel swab > Clothing, veils, and alter covers for new age teachers / gaia gurus > Paint filter > (Nylon flags) Re-weave for gay/lesbian pantyhose > Mud flaps > Send flags to drug king pins (or CIA) for wrapping illegal drugs > Kindling to help start campfires > >-- >Brian Litzneberger >litz@pta6000.pld.com > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: The Ghost of Christmas Future? Date: 13 Dec 1996 00:10:29 -0500 To all list subscribers of ROC This is posted in the hope that it will help all get into an early Christmas Spirit and will spread a message of joy, laughter and maybe a few thoughts of "I'm surprised it ain't happened yet. It is also in keeping with the recent spate of Christmas parodies. I am posting it early because of all the scuttling and jumping ship now occurring in the Clinton administration. I have already revised it heavily, due to several White House "re-alignments" since it was first published in 1994, and any further revisions will probably make the participants indecipherable without a scorecard. I have had my differences, especially politically, with some on this list. Still and all, those differences were essentially a matter of tactics and degree, in most cases. We are ALL in agreement on one thing however, which is: " 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." Unwavering belief in the above, and the rest of the Document it is attached to, makes us far more attuned to the concept of "old time values" than all the others combined who consider us dysfunctional (or worse). I am proud and honored to be associated with all of you. Happy Holidays, Dennis Baron Bayonne, New Jersey December 1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------- **************************THIS IS A PARODY********************************* ASTOUNDING FEDERAL INDICTMENTS RELEASED, ARRESTS MADE. by Dennis Baron December 1996 Washington D.C. An unprecedented number of sweeping federal indictments were made public today. A secret Federal Grand Jury handed down hundreds of indictments as a result of a year long investigation by a combined governmental task force comprised of several federal agencies. This culminated in multiple arrests. The alleged ringleader, a Mr. Nicholas Claus (alias Santa, Jolly Ole St. Nick) and several of his vertically challenged accomplices were taken into custody today at their residence and workshop at the North Pole. Agents of the FBI, BATF and INS participated in the arrests. The U.S. Park Police unfortunately were not involved as they got lost and could not find the staging area. Attorney General Janet Reno led the assault on Mr. Claus's compound and is recovering from wounds received in action. Doctors at Walter Reed Army Hospital say the frostbite of her nose should clear up in a few days. Details of the indictments are sketchy however the following partial summary was obtained from undercover informants at Inside Edition and Hard Copy. 1) The Fish and Wildlife Service (EPA) contends that flying reindeer are protected under the Endangered Species Act 2) The National Transportation Safety Board (DOT) notes a lack of seat belts and air bags in Mr. Claus's sleigh and that child safety restraints are applicable to elves. 3) The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) claims that an inordinate amount of soot was discharged into the atmosphere every time Mr. Claus descended a chimney, thereby violating provisions of the Clean Air Act. Breaking and entering charges are pending in several state courts. 4) The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) contends that on numerous occasions Mr. Claus entered the US illegally without a valid passport or visa. The ethnic origins of his alleged accomplices (elves) has yet to be determined however none of them were able to produce valid Green Cards at the time of apprehension. 5) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) charges Claus with failure to file proper flight plans along with numerous violations of Air Safety Regulations such as multicolored running lights, lack of passenger safety equipment, failure to properly secure cargo (toys), and smoking a pipe while onboard an aircraft. 6) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claims that Mr. Claus consistently ignored mandates of the Civil Rights Act and of having a severe lack of minority representation and gender equity in his elfin work force. An EEOC spokesperson told this reporter, "All them buggers were short white men wearing real weird shoes and funky hats". Secretary of Labor, Robert B. Reich, who was supposed to arrive shortly, is apparently buried under a 3 1/2 ft. snowdrift. EMS workers are attempting to locate him for comment. 7) The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has charged Mr. Claus with failing to file any income tax returns since the inception of the Income Tax Law and with numerous violations of the Federal Tax Code such as failure to withhold FICA and Medicare taxes from himself and his employees. 8) The Office of Health and Human Services attests that Claus & Co. neglected to provide any handicapped parking spaces or wheelchair ramps in any areas about and around the North Pole in direct violation and disregard of The Americans With Disabilities Act. OSHA also claims that no effort was made to remove accumulated snow from around the North Pole thereby creating unsafe working and driving conditions Unverified reports suggest that Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, is also among the missing. She is presumed to be in the vicinity of the heretofore mentioned Secretary of Labor. During the raid agents of Treasury's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) seized a huge quantity of assault weapons. Agents on site stated that "These weapons were fabricated mainly of plastic and could easily slip through airport metal detectors. I'd hate to think what would happen if these guns got into the hands of children". Thousands of boxes of ammunition for these weapons, deceptively labeled "CORKS", were also confiscated. Under federal RICO Statutes all toys in the workshop and residence were seized and impounded. The Justice Department will shortly issue directives ordering parents to turn over all presents that their children received last Christmas, to the nearest FBI or US Marshals office, for use as evidence in upcoming federal trials. The Congressional Black Caucus is expected to initiate legislation requiring that all toys in federal custody at the conclusion of these trials be given to the poor of Rwanda, Haiti, and Somalia. Distribution of such toys will be at the discretion of a newly formed Commission headed by Mr. Randall Robinson and composed of assorted warlords and thugs from the individual countries. As a result of the foregoing arrests, President Clinton is expected to announce tomorrow, at a White House press conference, that this Christmas will be canceled. Also U.N. Ambassador Madeline Albright will petition the United Nations to impose economic sanctions against the North Pole "until such time as all illegal activities cease and a democratic form of government is restored". Secretary of State Warren Christopher said we would break off diplomatic relations with the North Pole, except for the fact that we never had any to begin with. He is expected to schedule a Summit Meeting on this issue just as soon as he wakes up. On a happier note, our Co-President, Hillary Rodham Clinton, tried to console all Americans who were feeling depressed about not being able to receive any gifts this year. She stated that "all citizens should urge their legislators to support the Clinton Health Security Plan so that they can receive the gift of free health care not only at Christmas-time, but all year round". The vice-presidents wife, Tipper, was too depressed to comment In somewhat related stories, Mrs. S. Claus filed for divorce today. Speaking through her attorney, Ms. Gloria Allred, Ms. Claus stated "That fat SOB kept me locked in the kitchen all the time baking cookies and shining his big black boots." The only time he let me out was to take care of those damn reindeer". Ms. Claus is facing legal problems of her own charged with several counts of failing to clean up after her pets, in violation of numerous local "Pooper-Scooper" ordinances. "Getting all that crap off of all those rooftops is gonna be a bitch, not to mention damned expensive. Wait till fatso hears my alimony demands. He won't be saying HO!, HO!, HO!, for a helluva long time". When informed of the above, former Surgeon General Joceyln Elders, evidently under the influence of some type of agitating medication screamed "Ho's? What Ho's"? "Why can't some minority women earn a livin' without being harassed? At least dey doin sumpin' about the rut causes of poverty". Also, former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy's body was found today in Fort Marcy Park, apparently the victim of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the back of the head. White House sources claim there is no connection between his death and the rumor that Tyson Foods planned to open a humpback whale blubber processing plant near the North Pole. (C) 1994 Dennis Baron (BludyRed@aol.com) This is intended for personal use only and may be re-posted only if not edited and appropriate credit is given. Commercial use for profit requires permission of the author. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: urgent Date: 13 Dec 1996 00:14:32 -0600 At 03:39 PM 12/12/96 -0800, you wrote: > >I'd agree with what you wrote below *if* we were still living in a >Constitutional Republic. But I've come to the conclusion that the >belief that the Constitution means anything to those in power is >simply a delusion. They truly don't care. > >I'd suggest, sadly, that we get used to the idea that we are actually >living under martial law, *without* a Constitution, and start living >and planning with that in mind. Wisdom would dictate that we do so. > >Unfortunately, that's reality. At least as I see it. And I don't see >it getting better any time soon. There may still be hope, remeber the Lopez decision, and the court's relativetreatment of the government and plaintiff's lawyers in the Brady law challenge during oral argument seems to indicate that they still respect the 10th amendment, which is nothing short of miraculous since it's been violated more than even the 2nd over the past several decades. >> I don't know if anyone has addressed the Tenth Article item here >>concerning this law, but with reference to the requirements of the Brady >>Act, and the apparent reaction to it by the current S.C., one wonders >>whether this law will be upheld upon challenge. >> >> The Federal Government has taken it upon itself to force a law upon >>the States that it really has no power to do. Where in the U.S. >>Constitution does the Fed find the power to determine what a misdemeanor is >>and, just where does it find the power to regulate what the punishment for >>a misdemeanor? >> Further, just where does it get the authority to interefer in the >>lawful venue of the States? >> It is ludicrous that the Federal Legislature has taken upon itself >>the lawfull and rightfull duties of the legislatures of the several States. >>Are we to assume that the States are no longer able to act for themselves? >>In this guise, it would seem that Schumer and company hold the States in >>the same relative contempt as they do the individual citizen - incapable of >>making any decision. > 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: Sustainable Development (fwd) Date: 13 Dec 1996 08:26:20 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Our Global Prison? Part I by Richard R. Biondi In Our Global Neighborhood, the Commission on Global Governance stated that the "environment, perhaps more than any other issue, has helped crystallize the notion that humanity has a common future."(1) The Commission further suggests that "sustainable development is now widely used and accepted as a framework within which all countries, rich and poor, should operate."(2) In essence, the masters of the collective mind are once again trying to enslave the human spirit through the use of strategic symbols that serve as both concepts and anti-concepts. The oxymoron, "sustainable development," is a brilliant manifestation of the collectivist savage. Not only does this efficacious symbol cripple the hearts and minds of the philosophically challenged, it stimulates the political brute who then feels "anointed" by the "common good" to rape, loot, and redefine the individual's right to life, liberty, and property through force. Essentially, the propagandist uses this symbol to shove humanity into common bottle so he can throw it off a common cliff and then cry: "we are all going to die unless we sell our souls to the Witch Doctor and obey Attila!" The issue is NOT whether the Commission on Global Governance is, or is not, trying to enslave us. Here is an example of a path to tyranny. The philosopher, Nietzsche, sends a message to the German people that the individual exists for the collective, and are thus poisoned by the subjectivist theory of good. The people are thus looking for a leader, not a representative, and are unable to recognize the signs of a potential tryant--Adolf Hitler. Now look at the message of sustainable development. According to Bruntland the Brute, sustainable development is defined as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."(3) Of course the insatiable avarice associated with Americanism is unsustainable, for such a society of selfish seekers is incapable of making the selfless sacrifice for the common good. If only those freemen in America would accept that "Perceived needs are socially and culturally determined, and sustainable development requires the promotion of values that encourage consumption standards that are within the bounds of the ecological possible."(4) In order to reach sustainable development, the world will need leaders, not representatives of individual interests, to determine what constitutes the needs of society or cultures. Who has the balls to enforce their will on others? The subjectivist savage! Free individuals in the United States, working for the "common good," often fail to recognize that the "common good" is an undefinable and meaningless concept that should have been eradicated after the modern lessons of fascism and communism. If the "common good" is taken literally, meaning "the sum of the good of all the individual men involved," according to Ayn Rand, we are faced with a moral dilemma, for "it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how do you determine it." (5) Life is too precious to have your Liberty raped by collectivists looting your Property. "When 'the common good' of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members," according to Rand, "it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals."(6) When collectivists such as Hitler and Stalin sacrificed the Jews, the Gypsies, or, in essence, the individuals who conceived their individual needs separately from the collective, they smiled, for deep in their hearts they knew it was for the common good. But the environmentalist would never do such horrible things! Not in a democracy! Consider the democratic notion that the "common good" is the "the good of the majority." Do not the subjectivist savages in the EPA loot a man's life, liberty, and property when they place the intrinsic value of a rat above man's unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness? If the regulator was an objectivist, he would at least give the man a trial by a jury of his peers. Under the principles of the free, the "common good" becomes common tyranny, for the "violation of an individual's rights means the abrogation of all rights."(7) Funny, liberals tend to argue this when it is in their best interest to spread subversive symbols, but never apply it to other manifestations of liberty. Collectivists are individuals who have subscribed to the "tribal premise of primordial savages, who, unable to conceive of individual rights," believe that the "tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler."(8) These selfless savages truly believe that the tribe "owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own "good."(9) The only way that a freeman can become a collectivist is through either voluntary of involuntary enslavement, for the rights of man are unalienable, and can only be surrendered to a conquering ideology antagonistic to the notion of freedom--such as sustainable development. Once again consider the definition of sustainable development offered by the Bruntland Report: "economic growth that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." In a free capitalist society, it is impossible to determine the needs of the present or the future, for it is up to the individual--not a fictitious collective brain--to determine what is, or is not, needed for the achievement of happiness. In essence, a free society is incapable of sustainable development because the sole purpose of government is to protect, rather than redefine and loot, the rights of individuals. This is why the proponents of sustainable development are determined to conquer the unalienable rights of man, for they must exterminate freedom with extreme prejudice in order to achieve sustainability. If you are sitting in a cell and the jailer determines your choices, freedom of speech is mere rhetorical masturbation, and the freedom of religion is reduced to a tool that keeps your from going insane. As a concept, sustainable development is a slippery manifestation laced with uncertainty that the modern altruist cannot resist. When a man is fooled to believe in a collective mind, the savage can convince him that mankind is about to commit suicide if he, as an individual, does not submit to the wishes of the tribe. Once a man believes in the concept of sustainable development, it becomes an anti-concept that leads to the conclusion that the concept of freedom, i.e., capitalism based on rational self-interest, is suicidal. The fact is, there is no such thing as a collective mind, and humanity isn't trapped in a common bottle. 1 Commission on Global Governance. Our Global Neigborhood. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 208. 2 Ibid. 3 World Commission of Environment and Development. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. 4 Ibid. 5 Rand, Ayn. "What is Capitalism?" The Objectivist Newsletter. November and December, 1965, reprinted in Rand, Ayn. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New York: The New American Library, 1966, pp. 12 - 13. 6 Ibid. p. 13. 7 Ibid. 8 Rand, Ayn. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New York: The New American Library, 1966, ("The Roots of War.") p. 29. 9 Ibid. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: [Fwd: SCUMBAG THIEF Re: ***ATF STANDOFF*** Read ASAP] Date: 13 Dec 1996 08:56:27 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4D443665767B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And she's not kidding. I remember it the first time around as do, i suspect, several others on roc. --------------4D443665767B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from iquest.net (iquest4.iquest.net) by ICSI.Net (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA26319; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 05:19:04 -0600 Received: from ind-0000-26.iquest.net by iquest.net with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vYVaz-003idvC; Fri, 13 Dec 96 06:16 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: lindat@iquest.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: boone@tima.com, liberty@hollyent.com, pmitch@primenet.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" You are a plaguarizing thief and dishonest scum. I wrote that three years ago and it's copyrighted. I do NOT appreciate your changing the name and parts of the first part. FIX it and put it out with MY name on it and APOLOGIZE. It is called "NORTHPOLE STANDOFF." You removed a LOT of the humor trying to change it so it wasn't precisely mine but you forgot to change the names I used. >>Return-Path: liberty@hollyent.com >>From: liberty@hollyent.com >>Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 06:42:30 -0700 >>Subject: ***ATF STANDOFF*** Read ASAP >>To: boone@tima.com >> >>================[ Distributed Message ]================ >> ListServer: liberty (BRASSROOTS Liberty Watch Listserver) >> Type: Not Moderated >> Distributed on: 12-DEC-96, 06:41:32 >>Original Written by: IN:pmitch@primenet.com. >>======================================================= >> >> >> >> >>Still rolling on the floor here. >> >>more More MORE!!! >> >>/s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >>>From: Jason Russo >>> >>>-- [ From: Jason Russo * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- >>> >>>------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- >>> >>>Northpole Standoff >>> >>> A fierce battle ended in a stand-off today as a multi-jurisdictional >>>task force of federal law enforcement agents tried to arrest the leader of a >>>militant doomsday cult, who call themselves "Elves," living in a heavily >>>fortified compound at the Northpole. According to witnesses, federal agents >>>hid in livestock trailers as they drove up to the compound. >>> >>> The approach was difficult in the snow using wheeled vehicles. Several >>>agents were reportedly thrown from the trailer when it hit a snowbank. The >>>agents were unable to use dogteams and sleds because the ATF agents shot all >>>the dogs during training at a nearby recreational facility where agents had >>>practiced for weeks on a mock-up of the compound in preparation for the raid >>>. >>> >>> As three National Guard helicopters approached, over 100 law officers >>>stormed the main compound, a heavily fortified gingerbread structure, >>>throwing concussion grenades and screaming "Come out!" Cult members and law >>>officers negotiated a cease-fire about 45 minutes after the incident began. >>> >>> For the next several hours, ambulances and helicopters swarmed the >>>premises. The area was cordoned off and ATF agents with machine guns were >>>posted in the roadways to keep reporters at least two miles from the main >>>battle area. >>> >>> In a lengthy report on the group Saturday, The Northpole Tribune-Herald >>>said that the cult was known to have a large arsenal of high-powered weapons >>>, probably produced in a workshop disguised as a "toy factory." This toy >>>factory is also believed to be the sight of a mephamphetamine laboratory, >>>according to sources inside the ATF. >>> >>> The article quoted investigators as saying the crazed cult leader, who >>>uses several aliases, "Santa Claus," "Saint Nick," "Sinterclaas," and "Saint >>>Nicholas," age unknown, has abused children and claims to have at least 15 >>>wives. Santa Claus denies these accusations of abuse and said he has had >>>only one wife, Mrs. Santa Claus. >>> >>> Authorities had a warrant to search the Northpole compound for guns and >>>explosive devices and an arrest warrant for its leader, Santa Claus, said >>>Mess Stanford of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in Washington, >>>D.C. Mr. Stanford added it would be useless to attempt to get a copy of >>>this warrant, however, because it had been sealed, "for national security >>>reasons." >>> >>> The assault came one day after the Northpole Tribune-Herald began >>>publishing a series on the cult, quoting former members as saying the >>>deranged cult leader, Santa Claus, abused children and had at least 15 wives >>>. >>> >>> ATF spokesman Jack Killchildren in Washington said the assault had been >>>planned for several weeks, although he added, "I think the newspaper's >>>investigation set up heightened tension." >>> >>> The cult's fortress, called "The Toy Factory," is dominated by a tower >>>with lookout windows facing in all directions. Guards reportedly patrol the >>>77-acre grounds at night. >>> >>> Attorney General Janet Reno ordered the raid after cult members refused >>>to surrender documents relating to national security. A source inside the >>>Justice Department said that the documents were lists of cabinet members and >>>highly placed government officials who were naughty or nice. Despite >>>preliminary, secret negotiations to obtain the list, the Elves refused to >>>surrender the document to the Justice Department. >>> >>> The raid was scheduled early, because December 25 is believed to be a >>>traditional cult holiday and all the militant elves would be engaged in cult >>>rituals in preparation for the event. >>> >>> At a press conference this afternoon, Attorney General Reno said, "These >>>militants abuse children in the most vile manner, by teaching them to expect >>>charity. They have even distributed free, working replicas of 'assault >>>weapons' and 'handguns.' It is a matter of dire importance to our future >>>and the future of all our children, that this peril be ended by every means >>>at our disposal." >>> >>> She went on to say that "I do not want to surround the compound and >>>shoot everyone and then burn it to the ground in order to prevent this child >>>abuse from occurring again, but that appears to be our only alternative." >>> >>> According to Reno, the "Toy Factory" itself is a sweatshop and >>>conditions inside were horrendous. The Department of Justice is also >>>looking into allegations of animal cruelty. Former members of the cult have >>>claimed that Santa Claus frequently uses leather restraints on at least >>>eight reindeer, housed in sordid conditions on the compound. Witnesses >>>reported seeing a reindeer with a protruding red nose, which Janet Reno said >>>was further indication of the abusive conditions inside the compound. >>> >>> Several of the elves were reported by the BATF to have been carrying >>>automatic weapons. However, independant sources dispute this, claiming that >>>the "automatic weapons" were nothing more than large candy canes. >>> >>> ATF leader Ted Oyster, shaken after the ordeal, spoke to reporters as >>>hundreds of agents, many of them in tears, were taken away from the >>>Northpole in military airlifts, ambulances, and private vehicles. >>> >>> "We had our plan down, we had our diversion down, and they were waiting. >>>.." Oyster said resignedly, shaking his head. >>> >>> A hospital spokesman said that most of the wounded ATF agents appeared >>>to be suffering from shrapnel wounds from broken candy canes, as well as >>>frostbite, apparently suffered from wearing forest-green camoflage in the >>>wintery terrain. >>> >>> Attorney General Reno offered no comment on these reports. >>> >>> Mack "the knife" McWarty was seen strolling across the White House lawn, >>>chuckling to himself as he read what inside sources say was a copy of the >>>naughty/nice list. >>> >>> One highly placed government official was found dead in Marcy Park. His >>>name and the cause of death are unknown at this time, however, the White >>>House immediately issued a statement claiming the official had committed >>>suicide after learning his name was not on the nice list. >>> >>> Patsy Thomahawk refused to comment on the advice of her attorney on >>>whether she had any part in removing copies of the naughty/nice list from a >>>safe in the White House. >>> >>> A spokesman from the MJTF said that it was indeed a tragedy that Santa >>>Claus had caused this confrontation, but this should be a lesson to anyone >>>who tries to give to everyone without permission from the welfare department >>>, and that gathering sensitive data without a permit from official sources >>>will be stopped by any means. >>> >>> FBI spokesman Bob Pricks, the former national Abortion Poster Child of >>>1944, relayed that "We are dealing with a madman. We have cut off all >>>electricity, water, and communications to the compound. Santa Claus has >>>demanded that we relay a message to the world. It reads, 'Merry Christmas >>>to all and to all a good night.' FBI psychological experts are presently >>>analyzing the message, however, preliminary reports indicate this is an >>>encrypted threat to invade the neighboring towns near the Northpole. It may >>>also be a doomsday message that the cult intends to commit suicide, like >>>Jonestown." >>> >>> Shortly after the raid, a smiling Reno was seen strolling through the >>>pile of rubbish looking for anatomically correct Barbie dolls. She claimed >>>that she was going to confiscate any that she found as "evidence" and that >>>they were for a personal investigation that she was conducting. >>> >>> Attorney General Reno also disclosed some information about plans to raid >>>Mr. E. Ster Bunny sometime next spring. According to the FBI's report on Mr. >>>Bunny, he has been hording food all year. This is in direct violation of a >>>secret Presidential Directive. "This ingratitude for everything that we have >>>done will stop, even if it means raiding every house in the USA to enforce >>>these new laws that were made to insure your freedom...." Reno said. >>> >>> This, boys and girls, should make us all sleep just a little bit better >>>tonight. The government will protect us from overindulging in freedom. If >>>they didn't step in and take control of that "naughty/nice" list, just think >>>what shape we might be in..... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>==================================================================== >>[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 >>==================================================================== >> >> >> >>======================================================================== >>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 >> Help to save your liberties! mailto: info@hollyent.com SUBJECT: bernie >>======================================================================== >>via: Holly Enterprises 602-922-1639 - www.hollyent.com >> >> >> >Michael G.Boone boone@tima.com >God's Valley, Padanaram, URL >If it's politics or religion, I'm interested. > > > --------------4D443665767B-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: [Fwd: Good-bye.] Date: 13 Dec 1996 09:00:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from iquest.net (iquest4.iquest.net) by ICSI.Net (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA26727; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 05:39:13 -0600 Received: from ind-0000-26.iquest.net by iquest.net with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vYVuj-003idxC; Fri, 13 Dec 96 06:36 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: lindat@iquest.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This will be my last post on internet. Do not send me any more mail. Take me off whatever list you have me on. Do not ask me for anything, period. Yes, this means you. I won't read it, I won't reply to it. I have gotten my last letter from paid operatives, circulated five hundred times by the hopelessly stupid. I have seen the last "PROOF" that "Waco happened some OTHER way, so long as it's 'negligence' by the government and not murder, or so long as it's a "screw up" by anyone but who did it: MERCENARIES AND SPECIAL OPERATIONS TROOPS -- with all these bullshit, lying "WONDERFUL" tapes having the amazing common denominator of being put out by the VERY people who were involved in the murders and massive propaganda efforts, and ALWAYS connected to Soldier of Fortune. Just a coincidence. The latest piece of government-sponsored bullshit is going to "air" at the Sundance film festival. Doubtlessly, it will be ballyhooed in the press. This, of course, will be the "ultimate" proof and truth. I've already heard at least two ninnies talking about it, even AFTER the authors were exposed before it was even finished. If you're so damned STUPID that you don't notice that the two most important and truthful works on Waco were totally ignored, while the media has ballyhooed, in some way, every sponsored version, then God have mercy on your stupid ass. I have waded through my last "READ THIS! SOVEREIGN TRUTH!" propaganda malarky about licenses and the U.C.C., droning endlessly boring nonsense for pages. I've been confronted by my last knuckle-dragger who wants me to wade through the morass for them, page by page, and prove why it's junk, or call me names when I won't do it for him. No thanks. I've bankrupted my family, I've wasted and missed the last four years of my kids' growing up, I've been beaten, shot at, stolen from, for absolutely not one damned thing. I've been called every name in the book, in public, and watched patriots make sure THEY weren't treated like that as they adopted a safe fence-straddle somewhere. I can't go in the downtown courthouse without being attacked. All because I wanted to put out the truth about Waco, three years ago. The truth is just as buried as it ever was, and now, I am, too. I'm done. I am shutting up and shutting down. And no, I don't expect to see a single damned soul do anything for anybody. The internet should, by rights, have intelligent people on it. It does, indeed, have a lot of intelligence, but not too many bright folks, from the looks of things. Kind regards, Linda Thompson ******************** V *************************** *************************************************** Dr. Linda Thompson Attorney at Law Chairman, American Justice Federation Internet: lindat@iquest.net **************************************************** Remember Waco. The Murderers are still free. **************************************************** Have you seen this yet? http://206.55.8.10/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: CIA and drugs. Date: 13 Dec 1996 09:46:30 -0900 The following is an exerpt from a Contra Cocaine CIA symposium. See link at bottom. II. Separating Fact from Fiction in the CIA's Drug Role -- A Presentation by Jonathan Kwitny. (Mr. Kwitny is a journalist and author, formerly employed by the Wall Street Journal.) Mr. Kwitny noted that he had written a review of Professor McCoy's book in 1971. He had told his editors that these were not wild charges, unsubstantiated or unverifiable. On the contrary, Professor McCoy had named every name. His reporting was factual. In his review, he had called for an official investigation of Professor McCoy's charges. Twenty-five years later, Mr. Kwitny said, he was still waiting for that investigation. This is an excellent reference. Provided by Larry of the Whitewater news group. Lew Mr. Kwitny showed the audience a copy of a refueling slip from the Ilopango airport, the Salvadoran military facility, in the mid-1980s. They were refueling a C-47 identified as PPCED. It was signed by Marcus Agualdo, a contra and son-in-law of Contra leader-Eden Pastora, close to John Hull, the American who had a munitions base in Costa Rica. The plane was owned by Jorge Morales. He was then indicted for cocaine dealing in the United States and was serving sixteen years in a Florida jail. He showed another refueling slip signed by Geraldo Duran, identified by the Department of Justice as a major drug dealer. He showed a bill of sale for a Cessna 404 sold by Adolfo Calero to a front organization. The agent handling the sale was Sam Vieres of Memphis and the receiver was Dennis Martin. It was sold for $264,000 in small bills brought by Jorge Morales. The importation of cocaine by CIA people and the use of dollars to buy equipment for the contras was a fact, Mr. Kwitny said. It had been known for nine years. At that time, he recalled that he had accumulated documents on it. No one was interested. The only one they were interested in prosecuting was Barry Seale because that would implicate Sandinista leaders. But they never had evidence that Sandinista leaders were involved in the drug trade. They only had an allegation against a minor official. The information was totally unreliable, which didn't keep it from being used in a U.S. president's speeches. These false charges got far more attention than the substantiated charges against the contras. At the time, Mr. Kwitny recalled, he couldn't get the Wall Street Journal to run articles on the importance of cocaine-running by the contras. The Journal did run gutsy articles on a number of other issues. FOR THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION-- http://www.us.net/cip/drugs2.htm -- "Ideology? We don't got no ideology. We don't need no stinkin' ideology! We have a Constitution!" The CONSTITUTION, the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, and NOTHING BUT the CONSTITUTION. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Our Christmas Tree Date: 13 Dec 1996 10:53:39 -0800 I just thought you folks might enjoy hearing about the tree we put up last night. It's got a red star garland, white lights, and blue Christmas balls. It's got 4-inch-wide stars hanging from the branches, some red, some white, and some blue. It's got a bunch of American flags on toothpicks, hanging upside down. And finally, it's got a Gadsden rattlesnake Don't-Tread-On-Me flag on top. Ho ho ho. - 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: Bad news Date: 13 Dec 1996 15:54:17 -0500 (EST) Bad news... and worse news. First, the bad news. Today's _Wall Street Journal_ reports results from a recent WSJ/NBC poll of ~2,000 people: [...] Guns: A resounding 69% either strongly or somewhat favor making it more difficult to own handguns or assault weapons. A huge percentage of women, 79%, want these gun controls, compared with 58% of men. "I don't like going to a shopping mall at night. I think about kids carrying guns," says Debbie Lingl, a himemaker and mother of two. [...] Since approximately 1/2 of all households own handguns or current or potential future "assault" weapons, one has to conclude that several percent of the population doesn't believe it should be allowed to possess what it currently owns. Now, the worse news. Also in the news today is the following poll result: AP 12/13/96: [...] [A] poll, released Friday, was conducted by Louis Harris and Associates, which telephoned 3,004 adults between Nov. 8 and 30. It was commissioned by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonprofit research organization. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent. [...] [The poll found, among other things] --53 percent said they would favor requiring a license to practice journalism, like law and medicine. [...] If these polls are to be believed (a big IF, I grant), then people not only want to trash the second amendment but they would like to trash the first as well. I'm pretty cynical but this takes my breath away. Let the government "license" reporters? Like in the USSR? Amazing! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Piss off the system, go to jail... Date: 13 Dec 1996 15:55:12 -0500 (EST) AP 12/13/96 (Troy, Mo.) Jurors unswayed by anti-government arguments convicted 15 people of judicial tampering for their involvement in a "common-law court." Jurors Thursday recommended two years in prison for 13 defendants and seven-year sentences for two others depicted as the group's leaders, Clifford K. Hobbs and Dennis Logan. The members also face fines of up to $5,000. No sentencing date has been set. The 13 men and two women were part of a common-law court group that filed a $10.8 million claim in Lincoln County Circuit Court against Associate Circuit Judge Patrick Flynn. Prosecutors called it an attempt to harass Flynn, who was scheduled to preside over a traffic charge against another member of the movement. "The only issue is punishment -- guilt is clear," prosecutor Ted Bruce said. "It is time that they be held responsible. The common-law court is silly. It was just made up." [...] Let me get this straight. 15 or more people may go to jail for 2-7 years for (1.) filing a lawsuit (potentially) without merit and (2.) being "silly"? -bd Three other members of the movement are to be tried separately on the same charge. While most of the 80 courtroom members appeared to support the defendants, Bruce said it didn't bother him. "This trial has been a magnet for a very small, misguided group of people," he said. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: Bad news Date: 13 Dec 1996 14:11:45 -0800 And now the good news: Time after time we have seen polls that were totally untrue, and slanted to fit the agenda of the reporter or organization that commissioned the poll. For example, if you took a poll on how the public feels about California's initiative 209, and only called homes in south central LA, what do you know, the American public is opposed to 209. If only registered voters in highly democrat loaded areas, such as south central LA, metro New York, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. were asked the question on guns and media, you would get the results reported. If you include Arizona, Texas, Idaho, Nebraska, etc., the figures begin to change drastically. Polls conducted by the mainstream media, and the Klintoon administration should be reported on 4" wide rolls of tissue paper with perforations every four inches so that they can be used for what they are worth. The only problem that they DO create is that so many Americans are ME TOO oriented. If they believe that this is how all their neighbors feel, they will jump on the band wagon. Our job, should we decide to accept it, is to continue to spread the truth to everyone we know. Even your relatives who do not want to discuss politics. That is what I do, and I annoy a few and convert a few. The converted ones are the important ones. Take care, Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skip Leuschner Subject: Re: Bad news Date: 13 Dec 1996 14:53:57 -0800 Brad Dolan wrote: > [The poll found, among other things] > > --53 percent said they would favor requiring a license to practice > journalism, like law and medicine. [...] > > If these polls are to be believed (a big IF, I grant), then people not only > want to trash the second amendment but they would like to trash the first > as well. I'm pretty cynical but this takes my breath away. Let the > government "license" reporters? Like in the USSR? Amazing! Seems to me Brad that the 53% figure isn't nearly large enough to include all the people who are still in the mode of "there oughta be a law to - - - - (you fill in the self-serving blank) - - -." with no appreciation whatsoever for the constitutional implications. They're the same folks who go to the polls knowing nothing but what they've seen in the TV ads. I'd say the right number is nearer 75-80%. I'd feel better if I thought it was a mere 53%. Skip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Bad news Date: 13 Dec 1996 18:33:24 -0500 Gentlefolk, I agree. Both of the items below are bad news. I think that journalists ought to be held up to a lot more scrutiny, government liscensing is insane. I also think that what 90% of the population thinks about the Constitution doesn't concern me - 90% of the people in any country are going to be simple sheep, unconcerned with the deteriation of our Constitution. Maybe we need to publish a "State of the Constitution". We've had "States of Planet Earth", both pro-environmental action and reactive against excessive environmental action. We've also had "STates of the United STates", predominantly economic. A "State of the Constitution" could measure broad trends in interpretation of basic rights, trends in legislation, trends in enforcement of S.C. decisions, amount of illegal evidence gathering, public sentiment *against* the Constitution, public teaching of the Constitution, % of Fed. government operating *outside* the Constitution, etc. Maybe I'll write to Mr. Bovard. ciao, jcurtis > >Bad news... and worse news. > > >First, the bad news. > >Today's _Wall Street Journal_ reports results from a recent >WSJ/NBC poll of ~2,000 people: > > [...] > > Guns: A resounding 69% either strongly or somewhat favor making it more > difficult to own handguns or assault weapons. A huge percentage of > women, 79%, want these gun controls, compared with 58% of men. "I don't > like going to a shopping mall at night. I think about kids carrying > guns," says Debbie Lingl, a himemaker and mother of two. [...] > >Since approximately 1/2 of all households own handguns or current or >potential future "assault" weapons, one has to conclude that >several percent of the population doesn't believe it should be >allowed to possess what it currently owns. > > > >Now, the worse news. > >Also in the news today is the following poll result: > > AP 12/13/96: > > [...] > > [A] poll, released Friday, was conducted by Louis Harris and Associates, > which telephoned 3,004 adults between Nov. 8 and 30. It was commissioned > by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonprofit research > organization. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent. > [...] > > [The poll found, among other things] > > --53 percent said they would favor requiring a license to practice > journalism, like law and medicine. [...] > > > >If these polls are to be believed (a big IF, I grant), then people not only >want to trash the second amendment but they would like to trash the first >as well. I'm pretty cynical but this takes my breath away. Let the >government "license" reporters? Like in the USSR? Amazing! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: People v. United States Date: 13 Dec 1996 01:38:38 -0800 >Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:30:02 -0800 >To: Liberty Law >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: People v. United States > >[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] > > >Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. >Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, >Counselor at Law, and Relator >c/o 2509 N. Campbell Avenue, #1776 >Tucson, Arizona state >zip code exempt > >Under Protest, Necessity, and >by Special Visitation > > > > > > > DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES > > JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONTANA > > BILLINGS DIVISION > > >People of the United States ) Case No. CV-96-163-BLG >of America, ex relatione ) >Paul Andrew Mitchell, ) NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE: > ) FRCP Rules 9(b); 12(b)(1),(2); > Petitioners, ) 28 U.S.C. 1746(1); Rule 201(d), > ) Federal Rules of Evidence; > vs. ) Petition Clause; Supremacy > ) Clause; Universal Declaration >United States et al., ) of Human Rights; International > ) Covenant on Civil and Political > Respondent. ) Rights, enacted with explicit >______________________________) Reservations > >COME NOW the People of the United States of America (hereinafter > >"Petitioners"), ex relatione Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., > >Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, and Counselor at Law > >(hereinafter "Relator"), to provide formal Notice to all > >interested party(s) of Petitioners' formal Refusal of the alleged > >ORDER of the honorable Jack D. Shanstrom, Chief Judge, United > >States District Court (hereinafter "Chief Judge"), issued and > >filed erroneously in the instant case on October 28, 1996. > >Petitioners refuse said ORDER for fraud, and for all of the > >following valid causes, to wit: > > > > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 1 of 14 > > 1. Because Petitioners seek to enjoin the United States, > >and its alleged agents in the instant case, from depriving > >Citizens of Montana state of life, liberty, or property without > >due process or law, Petitioners have invoked a three-judge panel > >to preside over the District Court of the United States. The > >Chief Judge, presiding over the United States District Court, is > >not a three-judge panel. See 28 U.S.C. 2284, which was expressly > >invoked by Petitioners in Their VERIFIED PETITION FOR WARRANT OF > >REMOVAL BY THREE-JUDGE PANEL (hereinafter "VERIFIED PETITION"). > > 2. The Chief Judge's ORDER is plainly issued from the > >United States District Court for the District of Montana, > >Billings Division. Petitioners' VERIFIED PETITION was presented > >to the District Court of the United States. The former is an > >Article IV territorial tribunal, with territorial and subject > >matter jurisdiction tightly constrained by Acts of Congress; the > >latter is an Article III judicial power Court, with general > >jurisdiction to hear all matters arising under the Constitution, > >laws, and treaties of the United States. > > 3. One of the other stated purposes for removing the > >instant case into the District Court of the United States [sic] > >is to enforce production of the documents requested in Relator's > >original Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request, submitted > >to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., for the > >official credentials (if any) of all six hundred thirty-three > >(633) alleged federal agents who rotated in and out of the > >standoff with the so-called Montana Freemen in Garfield county, > >Montana state. This is a "federal question" which requires a > >federal court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate. > > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 2 of 14 > > 4. The court of original jurisdiction to compel production > >of documents requested under the FOIA is the District Court of > >the United States ("DCUS"), not the United States District Court > >("USDC"). See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B); Full Faith and Credit > >Clause; and the ORDER of United States District Judge John M. > >Roll, dated May 21, 1996, In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on New > >Life Health Center Company, Case No. GJ-95-1-6 (JMR), USDC, > >Tucson, Arizona state, to wit: > > "... [T]his [USDC] is not the proper forum to bring a > request under the Freedom of Information Act. > > 5. The instant case was not properly dismissed through > >lawful action by Garfield County District Judge Kenneth Wilson, > >as alleged in the Chief Judge's ORDER, because Judge Wilson > >failed to provide Petitioners with a proper hearing on Their > >application for leave to appear in writing. While Petitioners > >were awaiting a ruling on said application, Judge Wilson > >attempted to dismiss the case because Petitioners had failed to > >appear as scheduled. This worked a gross injustice against > >Petitioners by violating Their fundamental Right to due process > >of law. Petitioners never waived this fundamental Right. > > 6. Judge Wilson's alleged dismissal was also improper for > >the several reasons as stated in Petitioners' PETITION FOR > >RECONSIDERATION, dated July 29, 1996. Judge Wilson's failure to > >rule upon motions which were properly placed before his court is > >proof that two (2) international human rights treaties were > >violated thereby in the instant case. Specifically, Petitioners > >are guaranteed effective judicial remedies, notwithstanding that > >the violations were committed by persons acting in their official > >capacities, e.g. state and/or federal judges. Treaties are > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 3 of 14 > >rendered supreme Law of Our Land, pursuant to the Supremacy > >Clause. See Petition Clause; Universal Declaration of Human > >Rights; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. > > 7. The Chief Judge erred by misinterpreting Petitioner's > >NOTICE AND DEMAND to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a > >Certificate of Necessity to be served upon the Chief Justice of > >the Supreme Court of the United States. The Chief Judge alleged > >that Petitioners sought to "empanel [sic] a Court of > >International Trade to perform the judicial duties of this > >Court." This statement is misleading and incorrect. Petitioners > >are entitled to a 3-judge panel of competent and qualified > >federal judges, whose compensation(s) are not currently being > >diminished by federal income taxes. See Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. > >245 (1920) (never overturned). > > 8. Petitioners argued that the only competent and > >qualified candidates for temporary assignment to preside on a > >three-judge panel in this honorable District Court of the United > >States ("DCUS") are those who preside upon the United States > >Court of International Trade, which is expressly an Article III > >forum, by Act of Congress. See 28 U.S.C. 251(a), to wit: > > The court is a court established under article III of the > Constitution of the United States. > > 9. The authority in Evans is particularly poignant. It is > >apparent to Petitioners, because of exhaustive research which > >Relator has conducted for more than seven (7) years, that all > >sitting United States District Judges in America are appointed to > >serve in either an Article I or in an Article IV capacity at the > >present time. In this capacity, said Judges do not enjoy the > >explicit immunity which is found in Article III, Section 1 > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 4 of 14 > >("3:1") of the Constitution for the United States of America, as > >lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution"), to wit: > > The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall > hold their Offices during good Behaviour [sic], and shall, > at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, > which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in > Office. > [U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1] > [emphasis added] > > 10. Petitioners submit that one of the major reasons why > >said Judges do not enjoy the explicit immunity at 3:1 is the > >doctrine of territorial heterogeneity. Confer in The Federal > >Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue, Fourth Edition, > >previously available on the Internet via the Alta Vista search > >engine; see also U.S. v. Lopez, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995): > > Each of these [schools] now has an invisible federal zone > [sic] extending 1,000 feet beyond the (often irregular) > boundaries of the school property. > [Kennedy concurring] > [emphasis added] > >Here, the U.S. Supreme Court utilized this term as a common noun, > >without any citations or footnotes. The doctrine of territorial > >heterogeneity, as such, is summarized as follows in the > >Conclusions of The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal > >Revenue, to wit: > > In exercising its exclusive authority over the federal zone, > Congress is not subject to the same constitutional > limitations that exist inside the 50 States. For this > reason, the areas that are inside and outside the federal > zone are heterogeneous with respect to each other. This > difference results in a principle of territorial > heterogeneity: the areas within the federal zone are > subject to one set of rules; the areas without (or outside) > the federal zone are subject to a different set of rules. > The Constitution rules outside the zone and inside the 50 > States. The Congress rules inside the zone and outside the > 50 States. The 50 States are, therefore, in one general > class, because all constitutional restraints upon Congress > are in force throughout the 50 States, without prejudice to > any one State. The areas within the federal zone are in a > > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 5 of 14 > > different general class, because these same constitutional > restraints simply do not limit Congress inside that zone. > > [The Federal Zone, electronic Fifth Edition, Conclusions] > > 11. In the pivotal case of Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 > >(1901), which is discussed at several places in the book The > >Federal Zone supra, the U.S. Supreme Court established a doctrine > >whereby the Constitution of the "United States", as such, does > >not extend beyond the limits of the states which are united by > >and under it. This doctrine of territorial heterogeneity is now > >commonly identified as the "Downes Doctrine." > > 12. This doctrine has been reinforced by subsequent > >decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, notably, the case of Hooven > >& Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), in which the high Court > >ruled that the guarantees of the Constitution extend to the > >federal zone only as Congress has made those guarantees > >applicable. The United States District Courts ("USDC") are > >currently established by Congress as territorial (federal zone) > >courts, with constitutional authority emanating from Article IV, > >Section 3, Clause 2, to wit: > > The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all > needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or > other Property belonging to the United States; .... > > [U.S. Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 3, Cl. 2, emphasis added] > > 13. Petitioners wish to litigate Their civil case against > >the United States, and against other Respondents as yet unnamed, > >in an Article III Court of competent jurisdiction. In > >particular, Petitioners wish to invoke the judicial power of the > >United States of America, among several reasons, in order to > >enjoin the Respondent(s) from withholding the agency records > >which Relator has requested in lawful and proper requests under > > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 6 of 14 > >the FOIA, and to order the production of any agency records > >improperly withheld from Relator. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), to > >wit: > > On complaint, the district court of the United States ... > has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding > agency records and to order the production of any agency > records improperly withheld from the complainant. > > [5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B)] > [emphasis added] > > 14. There is a distinct and definite difference between a > >"United States District Court" and a "District Court of the > >United States". The words "District Court of the United States" > >commonly describe constitutional courts created under Article III > >of the Constitution, not the legislative courts which have long > >been the courts of the Territories. See International > >Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 > >U.S. 237 at 241 (1952), 72 S.Ct. 235, 96 L.Ed. 275, 13 Alaska > >536. > > 15. The term "District Court of the United States" commonly > >describes Article III courts or "courts of the United States", > >and not legislative courts of the territories. See American > >Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511 (1828), 7 L.Ed > >242; International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union v. > >Wirtz, 170 F.2d 183 (9th Cir., 1948), cert. den. 336 U.S. 919, 93 > >L.Ed. 1082, 69 S.Ct. 641, reh. den. 336 U.S. 971, 93 L.Ed 1121, > >69 S.Ct. 936. > > 16. Though the judicial system set up in a territory of the > >United States is a part of federal jurisdiction, the phrase > >"court of the United States" when used in a federal statute is > >generally construed as not referring to "territorial courts." > > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 7 of 14 > >See Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1921), 42 S.Ct. > >343, 66 L.Ed. 627. In Balzac, the High Court stated: > > The United States District Court is not a true United States > court established under Article III of the Constitution to > administer the judicial power of the United States therein > conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign > congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, Section 3, > of that instrument, of making all needful rules and > regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United > States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true > United States courts in offering an opportunity to > nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local > influence, does not change its character as a mere > territorial court. > [emphasis added] > > 17. The distinction within the dual nature of the federal > >court system is also noted in Title 18 U.S.C. 3241, which states > >that the United States District Court for the Canal Zone shall > >have jurisdiction "concurrently with the district courts of the > >United States, of offenses against the laws of the United States > >committed upon the high seas." > > 18. This honorable Court is directed to one of the great > >masters of U.S. Constitution, Chief Justice John Marshall, > >writing in the year 1828. Here, Justice Marshall makes a very > >clear distinction between judicial courts, authorized by Article > >III, and legislative (territorial) courts, authorized by Article > >IV. Marshall even utilizes some of the exact wording of Article > >IV to differentiate those courts from Article III "judicial > >power" courts, as follows: > > These [territorial] courts then, are not Constitutional > courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the > Constitution on the general government can be deposited. > They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative > courts, created in virtue of the general rights of > sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of > that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules > and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the > United States. The jurisdiction with which they are > invested, is not a part of that judicial power which is > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 8 of 14 > > defined in the 3d article of the Constitution, but is > conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general > powers which that body possesses over the territories of the > United States. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be > exercised in the States in those courts only which are > established in pursuance of the 3d article of the > Constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the > territories. In legislating for them, Congress exercises > the combined powers of the general and of the State > government. > > [American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton] > [1 Pet. 511 (1828), emphasis added] > >Other supporting authorities now follow, to wit: > > > Constitutional provision against diminution of compensation > of federal judges was designed to secure independence of > judiciary. > [O'Donoghue v. U.S., 289 U.S. 516 (1933)] > [headnote 2. Judges] > > The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in > Criminal Appeals Rules, without an addition expressing a > wider connotation, had its historic significance and > described courts created under article 3 of Constitution, > and did not include territorial courts. > > [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201] > [headnote 2. Courts, emphasis added] > > Where statute authorized Supreme Court to prescribe Criminal > Appeals Rules in District Courts of the United States > including named territorial courts, omission in rules when > drafted of reference to District Court of Hawaii, and > certain other of the named courts, indicated that Criminal > Appeals Rules were not to apply to those [latter] courts. > > [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201] > [headnote 4. Courts, emphasis added] > > 19. The following paragraph from Mookini is extraordinary > >for several reasons: (1) it refers to the "historic and proper > >sense" of the term "District Courts of the United States", (2) > >it makes a key distinction between such courts and application of > >their rules to territorial courts; (3) the application of the > >maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius is obvious here, > >namely, the omission of territorial courts clearly shows that > >they were intended to be omitted: > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 9 of 14 > > Not only did the promulgating order use the term District > Courts of the United States in its historic and proper > sense, but the omission of provisions for the application of > the rules to the territorial courts and other courts > mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the > limitation that was intended. > > [Mookini et al. v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201] > [emphasis added] > > > The words "district court of the United States" commonly > describe constitutional courts created under Article III of > the Constitution, not the legislative courts which have long > been the courts of the Territories. > > [Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al.] > v. Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237 (1952)] > [emphasis added] > > > The phrase "court of the United States", without more, means > solely courts created by Congress under Article III of the > Constitution and not territorial courts. > > [Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union et al.] > [v. Wirtz, 170 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1948), headnote 1] > [emphasis added] > > > United States District Courts have only such jurisdiction as > is conferred by an Act of Congress under the Constitution. > U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3, sec. 2; 28 U.S.C.A. 1344] > > [Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir., 1972)] > [headnote 2. Courts] > > > The United States district courts are not courts of general > jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction except as > prescribed by Congress pursuant to Article III of the > Constitution. [many cites omitted] > > [Graves v. Snead, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976)] > > > Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the > proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and > execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus. > > [U.S. v. Anderson, 60 F.Supp. 649 (D.C.Wash. 1945)] > > The United States District Court has only such jurisdiction > as Congress confers. > [Eastern Metals Corp. v. Martin] > [191 F.Supp 245 (D.C.N.Y. 1960)] > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 10 of 14 > > 20. Petitioners are not proceeding "Pro Se" [sic]. They > >are proceeding in Their own Right, Sui Juris. In Latin, the term > >"Pro Se" means "For It", because "Se" is a singular neuter > >pronoun which is utilized in law to refer to an artificial > >entity, such as a statutory trust, partnership, association, > >company, or corporation. Compare IRC 7701(a)(1) in pari materia. > >The Relator herein speaks for Petitioners, because He is one of > >Them, in good standing, by Right of birth. See jus soli. > > 21. The Chief Judge has confused "licensed attorney" and > >"Counselor at Law". A Counselor at Law is not necessarily a > >licensed attorney. See original Thirteenth Amendment. Confer at > >"Counsellor at Law" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856), to wit: > > > COUNSELLOR AT LAW, offices. An officer in the supreme > court of the United States, and in some other courts, who is > employed by a party in a cause, to conduct the same on its > trial on his behalf. He differs from an attorney at law. > (q. v.) > > 2. In the supreme court of the United States, the two > degrees of attorney and counsel are kept separate, and no > person is permitted to practise both. It is the duty of the > counsel to draft or review and correct the special > pleadings, to manage the cause on trial, and, during the > whole course of the suit, to apply established principles of > law to the exigencies of the case. 1 Kent, Com. 307. > > 3. Generally in the other courts of the United States, as > well as in the courts of Pennsylvania, the same person > performs the duty of counsellor and attorney at law. > > 4. In giving their advice to their clients, counsel and > others, professional men have duties to perform to their > clients, to the public, and to themselves. In such cases > they have thrown upon them something which they owe to the > fair administration of justice, as well as to the private > interests of their employers. The interests propounded for > them ought, in their own apprehension, to be just, or at > least fairly disputable; and when such interests are > propounded, they ought not to be pursued per fas et nefas. > Hag. R. 22. > > 5. A counsellor is not a hired person, but a mandatory; > he does not render his services for a price, but an > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 11 of 14 > > honorarium, which may in some degree recompense his care, is > his reward. Doubtless, he is not indifferent to this > remuneration, but nobler motives influence his conduct. > Follow him in his study when he examines his cause, and in > court on the trial; see him identify himself with the idea > of his client, and observe the excitement he feels on his > account; proud when he is, conqueror, discouraged, > sorrowful, if vanquished; see his whole soul devoted to the > cause he has undertaken, and which he believes to be just, > then you perceive the elevated man, ennobled by the spirit > of his profession, full of sympathy for his cause and his > client. He may receive a reward for his services, but such > things cannot be paid for with money. No treasures can > purchase the sympathy and devotedness of a noble mind to > benefit humanity; these things are given, not sold. See > Honorarium. > > 6. Ridley says, that the law has appointed no stipend to > philosophers and lawyers not because they are not reverend > services and worthy of reward or stipend, but because either > of them are most honorable professions, whose worthiness is > not to be valued or dishonored by money. Yet, in these > cases many things are honestly taken, which are not honestly > asked, and the judge may, according to the quality of the > cause, and the still of the advocate, and the custom of the > court, and, the worth of the matter that is in hand, appoint > them a fee answerable to their place. View of the Civil and > Eccles. Law, 38, 39. > > A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution > and Laws of the United States of America > and of the Several States of the American Union, > Sixth Edition, John Bouvier (1856) > [emphasis added] > > 22. Petitioners hereby demand mandatory judicial notice, > >pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, of > >Relator's NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST: > >Rupert Randall Parsons, Keven Entzel, WITH VERIFICATION PER 28 > >U.S.C. 1746(1), dated December 12, 1996 and addressed to the > >Postmaster, Billings, Montana state, Postal Zone 59108/tdc > >["Threat, Duress, and Coercion"], which NOTICE OF INTENT is > >attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth > >fully herein. Petitioners were denied timely service of the > >Chief Judge's ORDER, due to deliberate and premeditated mail > >tampering and obstruction of mail. See attached. > > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 12 of 14 > > SUMMARY > > Petitioners are entitled to a competent and qualified three- > >judge panel to preside over this honorable District Court of the > >United States [sic] and to consider Petitioners' proper petition > >for warrant of removal. Chief Judge Shanstrom is neither a 3- > >judge panel, nor is he competent or qualified to preside over > >this honorable Court, because his judicial compensation is > >currently being diminished by federal income taxes, in violation > >of Article III, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, and in > >violation of the pivotal holding in Evans v. Gore supra. > > > VERIFICATION > >The Undesigned, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., hereby > >verifies, 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 December 13, 1996 > > >Respectfully submitted, > >/s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. > >Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, >Counselor at Law, and Relator > > > > > > > > > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 13 of 14 > > PROOF OF SERVICE > >I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state, > >federal witness, and Counselor at Law, do hereby certify, under > >penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of > >America, without the "United States", that I am at least 18 years > >of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and > >that I personally served the following document(s): > > NOTICE OF REFUSAL FOR CAUSE: > FRCP Rules 9(b); 12(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. 1746(1); > Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence; Petition Clause; > Supremacy Clause; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; > International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, > enacted with explicit Reservations > >by placing one true and correct copy of same in first class U.S. > >Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to: > >Attorney General William H. Rehnquist, C.J. >Department of Justice Supreme Court of the U.S. >10th and Constitution, N.W. 1 First Street, N.E. >Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. > >Solicitor General Warren Christopher >Department of Justice U.S. Secretary of State >10th and Constitution, N.W. Department of State >Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. > >James M. Burns LeRoy Michael; Schweitzer >United States District Court c/o Yellowstone County Jail >316 North 26th Street 3165 King Avenue, East >Billings, Montana state Billings, Montana state > >Office of the U.S. Attorneys Judge J. Clifford Wallace >United States District Court Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals >Federal Building c/o P.O. Box 193939 >Billings, Montana state San Francisco, California > >Chief Judge Judge Alex Kozinski >Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals >c/o P.O. Box 193939 125 South Grand Avenue, #200 >San Francisco, California state Pasadena, California state > >Executed on December 13, 1996 > >/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. > >Citizen of Arizona state, federal witness, >Counselor at Law, and Relator > > > Notice of Refusal for Cause: Page 14 of 14 > ==================================================================== [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: From "Heads Up" Date: 13 Dec 1996 22:21:56 -0800 >AMERICA UNDER SIEGE > American cities are under armed attack by >military forces. Sure, it's only a few squads of >military at a time doing the attacking. And, usually >only one city is invaded at a time, and then only for a >few days. > But, like prostitution, it is not the amount that >is important to define the action. You either are, or >you are not. And, in this case, there most definitely >are armed combat troops attacking American metropolitan >areas. > To date, areas of Chicago, Pittsburgh, >Memphis, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, Detroit, >and Los Angeles have all been attacked in the dead of >night by armed uniformed military forces. An attack >was also planned for Ft. Lauderdale, but a coalition of >concerned citizens ran the culprits off. > Usually, they come as a sneak attack, by >helicopter. The choppers lay a cover of automatic >gunfire, while the attacking squads repel from the >aircraft to rooftops or the ground. They use standard >combat practices, and fire off a variety of weapons and >grenades to "sterilize the area" for the invading troops. > In other words, standard invasion techniques are >used to "kill a civilian area." . . . In American cities. >Where American citizens live. While the American >people are still living there. . . . And Washington >encourages this!? > A report from an eye witness with years of >military experience said that there were also European >troops intermixed with the United States forces. The man >is fluent in Slavic languages, and reports that he distinctly >heard foreign troops making very disparaging remarks >about the concerns of American civilians during a >midnight attack. > What the hell is going on here, people? > If we have American military personnel with so >little personal honor that they will prepare for attack on >American citizens . . . well . . . it appears that we are >going to have one hell of a bumpy ride down that road >to tyranny! > These military miscreants need to be stopped, >and pronto! Don't ask -- demand -- that your Members >of Congress put an end to this. For, it was Congress, >after all, that funded the attacks. - 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: Congressman Needs Our Help Date: 14 Dec 1996 09:58:36 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net >Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 21:25:27 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: militia@megalinx.net (J.J. & Helen Johnson) >Subject: Congressman Needs Our Help > > >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >Subj: Congressman in Need Now >Date: 96-12-13 20:40:01 EST >From: Tango Bird >To: Finchley >CC: JanJean > >This is a fax that I rec'd that was sent to my friend from Congressman Cooley >I have retyped it for email purposes...I just received this and retyped it >quickly and if there are any typos I apologize..THIS NEEDS TO BE IN ALL THE >NEWSGROUPS SO PLEASE GET THIS OUT...I PROMISED THAT THIS WOULD BE CARRIED >OUT. Thanks..... > >From:Congressman Wes Cooley >Date: 12/13/96 >Subj: Indictment/ Arraignment > >I am not exactly sure how to begin this one page brief; however, you can >rewrite this in your own words, I will just give you the facts, > >I, Wes Cooley, U.S. Congressman from the Second Congressional District of >Oregon, am being attacked by every liberal organization in this country for >my stand on such issues as timber, private property rights, comman sense and >the Endangered Species Act, Right to Life for my stand on Pro Life and my >stand on later-term abortion, Also for being so outspoken against special >rights for gays and lesbians and same-sex marraige, as well as some of the >extreme liberal attitudes by the "green" community. > >I have been accused and indicted for allegedy making felonious statements in >two voters pamphlets as follows, "U.S. Army, Special Forces, Korea." > >I am being arraigned on Monday morning Dec. 16th, 1996 @ 8:00AM PST at 4000 >Aumsville Highway, S.E. Salem (Marion County Court Annex). > >We have informed that all those groups that I have openly opposed with my >conservative views, both personally and as a Member of Congress, will be >there at my arraignment to try and put pressure on the court and to influence >public opinion. > >An all out character assassination to destroy my reputation and credibility >has been carried out to such a degree that now I have been indicted on >trumped up charges to try to take away my freedom and destroy me financially. > >I want to say to you that if I do not have some outward and public support >from those groups that I have supported because I beleive in the same things >they beleive in...the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I say to you that >if I am prosecuted to the full extent of the law because I have been >railraoded, I doubt seriously that any individual, such as I, will stand up >and be counted without fear for his life and liberty. > >I need your support on Monday morning to get as many people as possible >together to be in Salem to offset those groups who oppose me. > >Your support and assistance would be most welcome and appreciated at my >arraignment, a very serious situation indeed. > >Wes Cooley >=========================================================== >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: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: FW: FAXALERT: New Law Ta (fwd) Date: 14 Dec 1996 14:32:05 PST Some good points plus my reply, from the FAP list. On Dec 14, Bill Vance wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] On Dec 14, Jim Zoes wrote: >--- On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 23:19:11 -0800 (PST) sabutigo > wrote: > >>At 10:21 PM 12/13/96 EST, you wrote: >>>>Looks like it's going to backfire in Clinton and Sarah's face. We're >>>>going to have to watch closely and act quickly to get it repealed >entirely >>> >>>They'll probably change it to exempt law enforcement officials. >>> >>>Paul >>> >>This is why we should start now to covertly agitate feminist and domsetic >>violence groups to clamor against it. I'm sure they could testify quite >>truthfully that domestic abusers who are cops are even worse than those >who >>are not. If Congress gets a lot of response from these groups, they may >find >>it too hot to change the law. >> >>S. > >-----------------End of Original Message----------------- > >Absolutely! > >We must keep the political pressure up by refusing an out for law >enforcement. Making common cause with the feminist movement almost has a >delicious taste to it, considering how they've been solidly pro-gun >control for the last 2 decades or so. If this can cause them to split >ranks, then gun control is weakened by the infighting of one of their >core groups. that would be helped by increasing women's Pro-Gun Agitprop too. >Similarly, if LEAA continually reminds the FOP membership how FOP support >for gun control sold them down the river, it might be possible to >neutralize FOP next time -- denying Sarah Brady the ability to say that >her agenda is supported by law enforcement. That's a big blow to Schumer, >Feinstein, the Brady's, et al. They're the main ones involved in this last election cycle, but there are other Anti-Gun Police groups out there too. Hopefully this will defuse them too, but they shouldn't be forgotten. The main one I remebmer off hand, was the Police Chiefs, but I don't recall the acronym. >And, of course, as I said yesterday, this puts the politicos running the >police departments between the rock and the hard place: What to do with >the officers that cannot carry a gun due to legal disability, who must be >able to as part of their job. Who at the same time, it should be noted, >cannot be cheaply fired (think about all the wrongful discharge suits), or >simply sidelined while the departments go deeply over budget in hiring >additional officers to cover for the ones on desk duty. There really are only so many desk, School Crossing Guard, and "Officer Friendly" jobs to go around. >Oh, I *really* like this because it puts them (LEO, officers and troopers >alike) in the pot with us. And that silences all those police unions and >politicos while we go about the business of dismantling the AW ban through >linking it to repeal of the domestic violence law. What's the connection? I don't object, but it isn't that obvious at this point, and that needs to be expanded on if we expect others to see it that way. If it's JACAL, (Just Another Clintonista A$$h*le Law), the connection isn't that strong yet and needs working on. >Linkage makes it hard for Clinton to veto the AW ban repeal without >ruining the chances of Democrats in 2 years. Mister "centrist-Democrat" >won't want that to happen, because Republicans will own the "Law and >Order" issue once again. > >And linkage makes it hard for Senate Democrats to filibuster it, as well, >for the same reasons. > >This is not the same thing as shutting down the government, because if >Republicans do *nothing*, a Clinton backed law *stays* on the books as >passed this year. Nobody in the Federal Government (beyond the LEO's >newly prohibited from carrying) are furloughed, there's no government >shutdown, and very little political fallout. I wonder how many of "Klinton's 10,000 new police Officers" are getting filtered out by this. If it happens to be a significant chunk, that's another horse laugh in his direction. >And the propaganda battle for us goes like this: "Hey, we've left intact >a law that protected women from brutes with guns....You want us to repeal >it? If you shut up and go along with the AW Repeal, we'll repeal the >misdemeanor provision for everybody, including LEO's" > >If the Democrats take to the airwaves like they did for the budget and >tell lies like the past 2 years, then nothing happpens at all -- no >committee hearings about revision, no votes, nothing. The LEO provision >remains, and in 2 years, Republicans are claiming that those pro-criminal >Democrats wanted the police disarmed. Now that's one _everyone_ will believe! Matter of fact the Socialist/ Statist types in all Parties need that label hung on them more strongly. If they support such garbage, they're PRO-CRIMINAL! One of the problems with the way these things are pushed, is the promulgation of an attitude of, "If you fall afoul of one of our all too damn many confusing laws, then you'd want color TVs, weight training programs, and all these other goodies, wouldn't you?" Both that _and_ a lot of these laws need reversing. >But all this requires that the Republicans and gun rights democrats stand >firm in refusing to bifurcate LEO's from the provisions of the law. Agreed. >Once repealed, they won't get it reinstated so easily, I bet. And agreed again. >Tanya, are you reading this? > >Jim Zoes [------------------------- 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: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: FW: FAXALERT: New Law Ta (fwd) Date: 14 Dec 1996 15:26:58 -0800 >Tanya, are you reading this? > >Jim Zoes Probably not, but she should be. If someone who is still on NOBAN posts it over there, she will see it. At least she used to claim to monitor that list. I left it some time ago, so can't say for sure. If NRA and our conservative force in congress lets this op slide by, we will know that they have given up for sure! Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: FW: FAXALERT: New Law Ta (fwd) Date: 14 Dec 1996 16:04:17 -0800 >If NRA and our conservative force in congress lets this op slide by, we >will know that they have given up for sure! > >Jerry Or that they never really cared in the first place, which is the direction I'm strongly leaning in these days... Can you say "bought and paid for"? Sure. I knew you could. - 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: Alfred Lord Tennyson Date: 14 Dec 1996 23:26:55 -0800 To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield ... these are the standards of excellence. Alfred Lord Tennyson ==================================================================== [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: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: off topic Date: 14 Dec 1996 23:08:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from nic.cerf.net by ICSI.Net (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA21340; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 22:12:08 -0600 Received: from lainet1.lainet.com (lainet1.lainet.com [199.107.22.1]) by nic.cerf.net (2.4.1/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA12405; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 20:10:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mattdrud (a1p2r.lainet.com [199.107.22.52]) by lainet1.lainet.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id FAA05159; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 05:04:19 GMT Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961215040823.0072981c@lainet.com> X-Sender: drudge@lainet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" XXX DRUDGE REPORT BREAK XXX DECEMBER 14, 1995 17:09 PST XXX THE WRATH OF WATKINS By Matt Drudge LOS ANGELES -- Did President Bill Clinton commit adultery on the very night Vince Foster was found dead? Was the First Lady kept away from the Foster family at the funeral because wife Lisa Foster knew and was still sore about Vince and Hillary's love affair? Was a top Clinton aide fired for getting caught carrying out the president's wishes: scouting for golf courses around Camp David using a U.S. Marine helicopter? Those shocking allegations (and many more) are made in the January issue of the AMERICAN SPECTATOR magazine, which is previewed in Sunday's LONDON TELEGRAPH. SPECTATOR editor, R. Emmett Tyrrell, not content to let inaugural month pass with just parties and poetry, is unleashing a on the record interview with former Director of Administration in the Clinton White House, David Watkins. Turn the C-SPAN cameras off; it isn't pretty. The exclusive interview marks the first time that a member of the "Clinton family" has broken ranks and agreed to talk about sensitive issues that continue to plague the administration. Watkins confirms that Hillary Clinton was actively having an affair with White House aide Vince Foster early on in Clinton's first term, a notion that Mrs. Clinton has strongly denied publicly. (This new alligation, from such a close Clinton intimate, is bound to send shockwaves throughout the nation's capitol.) Watkins also reveals that President Clinton was having an affair with Marsha Scott, the White House Director of Presidential Correspondence. (Watkins, now completely out of political life, does not know if Clinton's affair with Scott is still active.) She allegedly slept with Clinton to comfort him on the night of Foster's death. According to Watkins, Scott, who attended school with the president and is from a well-connected family in Arkansas, had free reign in the White House and openly boasted about her talent for pleasing Bill Clinton. David Watkins, currently under investigation by independent counsel Kenneth Starr for his role in the Travel Office firings, is direct and bold in his interview with the SPECTATOR. The White House damage control team is preparing to get back into battle mode; they'll charge that Watkins is a scorned, bitter man -- humiliated after getting fired for using a military helicopter to play golf. "This is laughable," an influential Democrat in Hollywood told the DRUDGE REPORT late Saturday after being briefed. "David Watkins is disgraceful. He failed. He let the president down while he worked in the White House -- he just can't face it. I guess now he's turning on his friends. How sad. More trash for right wing cash." This is not the first time that Watkins has caused a commotion within the White House walls. It was during the height of the congressional hearings looking into the firings of the White House travel office employees that a damning internal memo authored by Watkins surfaced. "Once this made it onto the First Lady's agenda, Vince Foster became involved, and he and Harry Thomason regularly informed me of her attention to the Travel Office situation -- as well as her insistence that the situation be resolved immediately by replacing the Travel Office staff," he wrote, again sharply conflicting the public stand of Mrs. Clinton. Is the sex life of our President relevant? Has Hillary lied (to investigators) about the depths of her involvement with the late Vince Foster? Is Washington, DC set to sink into one big game of "he said, she said" -- where there's bound to be no winners. The wrath of Watkins is about to begin. Merry Christmas from the AMERICAN SPECTATOR. The REPORT is issued when circumstances warrant. Information contained in this report is believed to be truthful and is moved for private recreational use only. All comments: drudge@lainet.com http://www.lainet.com/~drudge P.O. BOX 1171, Hollywood, CA 90028 (c)DRUDGE REPORT 1996 not for reproduction without permission of the author ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: the article Date: 14 Dec 1996 23:15:39 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------520A6CB32F3B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et/access?ac=111146825878&pg=//96/12/15/wamb15.html --------------520A6CB32F3B Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="wamb15.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="wamb15.html" Content-Base: "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et/access?a c=111146825878&pg=//96/12/15/wamb15 .html" Foster dead . . .and so Clinton goes to bed
International News Electronic Telegraph
Sunday 15 December 1996
 Issue 571
See text menu at bottom of page
Foster dead . . .and so Clinton goes to bed
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

External Links

The Death of Vince Foster


Death of Vince Foster: Evidence of a Cover Up


American Spectator home page


Whitewater Information Interchange

THE inner circle is beginning to crack. David Watkins, the former Director of Administration in the Clinton White House, has decided to spill some beans in the next edition of the American Spectator.

It is the first time that a member of the so-called "Arkansas Group" has broken ranks and agreed to talk on the record. What he has to say is no doubt self-serving, devious, and limited to a fraction of what he knows. He is under investigation for his involvement in firing the White House travel office staff.

But he offers a fascinating glimpse into the bohemian underworld of the Clinton coterie. He confirms that Hillary Clinton was having an affair with White House aide Vincent Foster, who was found dead in a Virginia park in July 1993. (The case is still under investigation) He describes how Mrs Clinton was kept away from the Foster's family at the funeral.

He also reveals that President Clinton was having an affair with Marsha Scott, the White House Director of Presidential Correspondence. Ms Scott is an eccentric flower child from a well-connected family in Arkansas who attended school with Bill Clinton. She was an environmental radical in Santa Cruz, California, for a number of years before her sudden elevation to epistolary duties at the White House. According to Watkins, she had free rein in the White House and openly boasted about her talent for pleasing the President.

She allegedly slept with Clinton to comfort him on the night of Foster's death. According to the FBI statement of one of the secretaries in the White House counsel's office, where Foster worked, Scott had a meeting with Foster on the day before his death. "She came to see Foster for a closed-door session which lasted over an hour, possibly as long as two hours. This was highly unusual," said the secretary.

Scott was not forthcoming about this meeting when she spoke to the FBI. But she did reveal that "Foster had painted himself into a box with no windows. He had come to some sort of a decision and was somehow relaxed as a result."

Watkin's wife, Ileene, told the American Spectator that Scott was more deeply involved than she has let on. "I think she just knew things," she said. "They act like they don't know, but they knew there were big problems."

Mr and Mrs Watkins know perfectly well that the White House story of events on the night of Foster's death was a tissue of lies. They were watching the film In the Line of Fire at a cinema in Georgetown when Watkins was bleeped by the White House to notify him about the discovery of Foster's body.

That was at 7.10 or 7.15pm, he says, which is consistent with the testimony of the Fairfax County paramedics who checked the body, and the first doctor at the scene. So how come the White House claims that it was not notified until 8.30pm? "Something wrong here," to use the immortal words of pathologist, Henry Lee.

In the end, Watkins came to grief over golf. On behalf of the President, he was scouting for golf courses around the presidential retreat at Camp David when he was photographed by a newspaper boarding a Marine helicopter with a set of golf clubs. The image did not sit well with the American public.

Before Watkins had time to explain why he was using White House helicopters for golf trips, the President appeared on live television to sack him.

"Mr Watkins has resigned, and the taxpayers will be reimbursed. The Treasury will not be out one red cent for what happened there," announced Mr Clinton.

The American Spectator reports that the political life of David and Ileene Watkins is now over: "Their only involvement in the 1996 elections came when Ileene affixed a bumper sticker to their Jeep. It was in support of Bob Dole."

28 November 1996: Clinton aides 'face charges next year'
Next Story: Diplomats diagnose insanity after Tudjman outburst
Front | UK | International | City | Sport | Crossword | Weather | Matt | Connected | etcetera | A-Z | Search | Marketplace | Classified | Help |

© Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1996. Terms & Conditions of reading.

Information about Telegraph Group Limited and Electronic Telegraph.

"Electronic Telegraph" and "The Daily Telegraph" are trademarks of Telegraph Group Limited. These marks may not be copied or used without permission. Information for webmasters linking to Electronic Telegraph.

Email Electronic Telegraph.

--------------520A6CB32F3B-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: false accusation Date: 15 Dec 1996 17:05:31 -0800 Dear America, Now I have been falsely accused of embezzling funds which were donated to the Schweitzer defense fund, attention: The Freedom Center. The truth is that, while I was working in Billings, I was asked to develop fund-raising programs, in order to get paid (?). To that end, I prepared two press releases, which I now append to the end of this email message, without any changes whatsoever. When I returned to Tucson, one contributor made the mistake of mailing a blank $100 U.S. Postal Money Order to me in Tucson. I showed this check to the accountant for the Supreme Law Firm, and I told him I would mail it to Randy Parsons. The following day, I did just that. The letter immediately following is proof that I mailed that $100 USPMO to Randy Parsons. The two pertinent press releases follow that. The Supreme Law Firm accountant has now accused me of embezzling this money, evidently because I did not deposit that money into the account which he was managing for us. He accused me of using that money to fly to Texas recently to take a badly needed R&R. The truth is that those Texas friends paid for the entire trip, round-trip, and all meals while I was there, spending most of my daylight hours asleep, after sleeping all through the night. I did make a new friend in their orange tabby cat. He spent most of his daylight hours asleep on the couch, right next to my ear, as he purred non-stop. When I left, my Texas friends told me that orange tabby got very lethargic. /s/ Paul Mitchell documentation follows, including USPMO serial number, a copy of which can be ordered from the USPS: MEMO TO: Robert ben John, Sui Juris c/o 9450 East Becker, #2006 Scottsdale, Arizona state FROM: Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law DATE: October 16, 1996 SUBJECT: FREEMAIL private electronic email list for Montana Freemen litigation updates This is to acknowledge your prepayment of one (1) annual subscription to the FREEMAIL private electronic email broadcasts of news, briefs, and related files in the Montana Freemen litigation in Billings, Montana state. I have forwarded your UNITED STATES POSTAL MONEY ORDER number #64425527627-961014-857171, in the amount of $100.00, to The Freedom Center, Attention: Randy Parsons, c/o P.O. Box 80446, Billings, Montana state, Postal Zone <59108>/tdc. If you have any questions about your subscriptions, please contact Randy at (406) 652-7412. Thank you for joining. Sincerely yours, /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Counselor at Law and federal witness c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state Postal Zone 85719/tdc email: pmitch@primenet.com (586/Eudora Pro) tel: (520) 320-1514 (private line) (please request permission to share) fax: (520) 320-1513 (dedicated Internet line) (call: 520-320-1514 first to switch software) # # # [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 4, 1996 The Freedom Center Petitions a 3-Judge Federal District Court under Article III BILLINGS, MONTANA. The Freedom Center filed a Petition today with the District Court of the United States for a 3-judge panel to authorize the removal of an overlooked state case seeking a restraining order against the FBI during the Freeman Standoff. At the height of the standoff in Jordan, Montana, Freemen supporters scouting the highways reported a convoy of ambulances in route to Jordan. These reports were fed into the Internet, and a Counselor at Law in Arizona, Paul Andrew Mitchell, decided the FBI had gone far enough. In a court case which has received absolutely no press coverage, Mitchell filed a petition on behalf of the People of the United States of America, to restrain the federal government from using lethal force, and to enjoin them from depriving the People in Garfield county of any life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Clerk of the county court in Jordan was gracious enough to waive the $95 filing fee for this case, titled People v. United States et al., because of the emergency that was developing. The Clerk was surprised to hear that ambulances were headed for Jordan, because she also serves on the local ambulance crew, and her crew had not been dispatched. , Paul Mitchell reasoned that the ambulances moving towards Jordan must have been dispatched by the federal government, without informing local authorities. The electronic mail Mitchell was receiving, in near real-time, convinced him that bloodshed was imminent. Kenneth Wilson, the county judge assigned to the case, immediately overruled the Clerk and required the Plaintiffs to pay the filing fee, or face immediate dismissal. Wilson issued an order that the filing fee must be paid in U.S. dollars, and not with Freeman checks or other like tender. Mitchell paid the fee under protest, using ninety-five Susan B. Anthony one-dollar coins, and then requested Judge Wilson to clarify the meaning of "U.S. dollars", "Freeman checks", and "other like tender." Conspicuous for its absence was any mention in Wilson's order of Federal Reserve Notes. Mitchell wanted to know into what category Judge Wilson would place Federal Reserve Notes. Wilson also ordered Mitchell to appear in his courtroom to explain why the county court would have any legal jurisdiction over the federal government within Garfield county. In response, Mitchell petitioned Judge Wilson for leave to appear in writing, since Mitchell was living in Arizona at the time, and traveling to Montana for every court appearance would become prohibitively expensive. Judge Wilson never ruled on this request. Mitchell immediately filed a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to the United States Attorney General for certified copies of the official credentials, if any, of all 633 federal agents who reportedly rotated in and out of the Freeman Standoff in Jordan. Under the FOIA, Congress has made it relatively simple for Citizens to obtain government documents. After the first request, written on plain stationery without legalese, a simple one-page appeal is all that is necessary to The Freedom Center -- Press Release #2: Page 1 of 2 exhaust administrative remedies, and then to place the matter before the proper federal court, to compel production of the requested documents under court order. It was at this point that Mitchell, and several other legal investigators around the nation, made a remarkable, and fundamental discovery. The court of original jurisdiction over FOIA enforcement is the district court of the United States, not the United States District Court. In its infinite wisdom, our vaulted Congress has played some tricky word games with court names, in order to confuse all Americans into thinking that there is only class of federal district court. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has already explained, in clear and unmistakable language, that there are two classes of federal courts, just as there are two classes of citizenship, in America. One class of federal courts is authorized by Article III in the U.S. Constitution. These courts are true constitutional forums, with judicial power to hear all matters arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties. The other class of federal courts is authorized by Article IV in the Constitution. These are strictly territorial courts, with absolutely no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever. LeRoy Schweitzer and his colleagues are now being criminally prosecuted in the Article IV territorial court, also known as the United States District Court. Mitchell then followed up with another FOIA request for the Federal Register regulations, if any, which implement the statute granting criminal jurisdiction to any federal courts. In Title 18 of the United States Codes, section 3231 grants criminal jurisdiction to the district courts of the United States, but not to the United States District Courts. Furthermore, without regulations published in the Federal Register, this statute can only be applied to federal officers, agents, and employees of the United States. In response to Mitchell's FOIA request, the Attorney General's office has, once again, failed to produce certified copies of these regulations, because they do not exist. Litigation under FOIA is the best, if not only way to prove, as a matter of fact and law, that these regulations do not exist. Since numerous federal questions have already arisen in the Freeman Standoff case -- such as FOIA enforcement, the presence of federal agents within Montana state, and federal criminal jurisdiction -- it was only natural to remove the Garfield county case into federal court, in order to litigate these questions in the proper forum. Mitchell, at the suggestion of Randall Parsons, Executive Director of The Freedom Center, persuaded the Center staff to convene a 3-judge district court of the United States at the federal courthouse in Billings, Montana state. Parsons reasoned that a 3-judge panel is rooted in biblical law, and proper when injunctions are sought against the United States (federal government). This case has now been officially filed with docket number CV-96-163-BLG. For more information, contact The Freedom Center at email: liberty@mcn.net; telephone (406) 652-7412; fax: (406) 652-1813. Copies of previous press releases, and of all the filings in the Garfield county case, are distributed electronically to people who subscribe to the FREEMAIL private electronic email list. The FREEMAIL list was recently announced by The Freedom Center, and the response was immediate. The Freedom Center -- Press Release #2: Page 2 of 2 # # # [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 25, 1996 Montana Freemen Start Subscription Email List BILLINGS, MONTANA. The Freedom Center today announced the start of their subscription email list -- FREEMAIL -- for anyone willing to support the legal defense fund recently developed for the Montana Freemen. For a nominal fee, FREEMAIL subscribers will receive, for 12 months, electronic copies of all legal briefs as they are filed in the case, in addition to periodic press releases and other related files as they become available. The Freedom Center has recently retained Paul Andrew Mitchell, Counselor at Law, federal witness and Citizen of Arizona state, to help defend the Montana Freemen against criminal charges which were filed after their protracted stand- off with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in mid-June, 1996. Mitchell has worked for over 25 years as an advanced systems development consultant, in addition to 7 years investigating corruptions in federal constitutional and statutory law. Mitchell immediately recommended that The Freedom Center develop a private electronic mailing list, in order to keep the nation informed of developments in the case. Conventional media are now boycotting the case. Mitchell is considered a leader in the application of high-performance computer workstations to distributed alternative media for research and education. More than 20 years ago, he was recommending that Internet bandwidth be expanded to accommodate full-motion interactive video and audio communications. LeRoy Michael Schweitzer, a Citizen of Montana state, has become one of the nation's leading experts on the federal and state constitutions, commercial and common law, and American banking practices. In a series of in-depth seminars which were sponsored by Justus township in Garfield county, Montana, Schweitzer single-handedly tackled the Federal Reserve System and its successor in interest, the International Monetary Fund, for their corrupt lending practices and the unlawful assessments they have imposed upon the American People and American businesses. The case has already earned international recognition for its complexity, and the importance of the issues it has raised. James M. Burns, the federal judge assigned to one facet of the case, has recently ruled that it deserves special treatment because of that complexity. More than a dozen defendants are being assisted or represented by as many licensed attorneys and unlicensed counselors, some of whom were placed into "stand-by" status by Judge Burns. Schweitzer has chosen to reject licensed bar members and to proceed in His own stead, to perfect the lawful claims which he continues to make from his prison cell. Schweitzer is regarded by many as a political prisoner of His own government, for having both decoded and exposed intentional deceptions in federal and state judicial practices. The Freedom Center -- Press Release #1: Page 1 of 2 Most recently, Schweitzer was placed under a 23-hour lock- down regimen within Yellowstone County Detention Center in Billings, Montana, reportedly for refusing to yield His fingerprints to the booking officers at the jail. This regimen has meant that Schweitzer no longer has any access to legal Counsels to assist with the preparation of His response to charges alleged against him by the federal government. Yesterday, Rupert Randall; Parsons, executive director of The Freedom Center, authorized the preparation of a formal Notice and Demand to Montana State Governor Marc Racicot to halt deprivations of Schweitzer's fundamental Rights, specifically including His Right to the assistance of Counsel, and His immunity against cruel and unusual punishment. Governor Racicot's office has yet to respond to this Notice and Demand from The Freedom Center. The telephone number at Governor Racicot's office is (406) 444-3111. Subscribers to the FREEMAIL private electronic mailing list will receive copies of all briefs submitted to the Clerks of the various courts now involved in this complex set of cases. In addition, as press releases and related documents are produced and released to the public, all subscribers will automatically receive copies of these documents as well. The Freedom Center is also considering a proposal to publish electronically, and in hard copy, all of Schweitzer's prison writings, including such works on topics incorporated within His brilliant analysis of judicial power versus legal authority in America, and His unique insights into the complex nature of federal and state laws. Schweitzer has already made important moral and intellectual contributions to our understanding of the characters of the American legal experience, and the many ways in which alien laws have overlaid and hidden the true American identity. His focus has been to reveal a lawful process for restoring the American dream of true freedom and individual self-government, using fundamental principles to power the best of American ideals. Anyone is eligible to subscribe to the FREEMAIL private electronic mail list, provided that they already have an email address to share with The Freedom Center. Subscriptions can be purchased from the Center for an annual fee of $100, payable in insured cash or blank U.S. Postal Money orders mailed to The Freedom Center, c/o P.O. Box 80446, Billings, Montana state. Upon receipt of the annual fee, the Center's professional staff will acknowledge receipt of the annual fee, and register the subscriber on the FREEMAIL private email list. Subscribers should include their email address with their annual fee. Questions concerning FREEMAIL should be directed to Keven Eugene; Entzel at email address: liberty@mcn.net. Keven is also available to speak briefly at telephone number: (406) 652-7412, fax: (406) 652-1813. The Freedom Center -- Press Release #1: Page 2 of 2 # # # ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: People v. United States et al. Date: 15 Dec 1996 03:28:25 -0800 For the record, a word to the wise is sufficient here: [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 Tucson, Arizona state zip code exempt Under Protest, Necessity, and by Special Visitation DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD People of the United States Case No. 2721 of America, ex relatione Paul Andrew Mitchell, EMERGENCY PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Petitioners v. United States et al., Respondent ______________________________/ COME NOW the People of the United States of America, ex relatione Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness, hereinafter "Petitioners", to Petition this honorable Court for an immediate Temporary Restraining Order restraining all officers, agents, and employees of the United States from using any lethal force in its pending negotiations with the so-called "Freemen of Montana" at Justus Township now situated within the geographic venue of this Court. The recent federal court order removing the news media from the area constitutes probable cause to believe that bloodshed is imminent, that email just now received by me states that "a convoy of vehicles, including 5 ambulances are moving towards the Freemen ranch and that the press have been told to move away by 9 p.m. local time," and therefore the doctrine of necessity now controls in this situation, in order to guarantee the objectives of the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, which prohibits summary punishment, to wit: "... [N]or shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; .... Executed on May 30, 1996 /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state and federal witness all rights reserved without prejudice ORDER Good cause having been demonstrated for same, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all officers, agents and employees of the United States now situated within Garfield County, Montana, are hereby restrained from using any lethal force in their ongoing negotiations with inhabitants of Justus Township, until further notice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there will be no further deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of Law, consistent with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended. The Clerk will serve this Order upon the nearest office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation with all deliberate speed. Dated: ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ District Court Judge, Garfield County, Montana state PROOF OF SERVICE I, Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Citizen of Arizona state, do hereby certify, under the laws of the United States of America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and that I personally served the following document: PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by placing one true and correct copy of same in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to the following individuals: Attorney General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington, D.C. zip code exempt Solicitor General Department of Justice 10th and Constitution, N.W. Washington, D.C. zip code exempt Dated: May 30, 1996 /s/ Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. Citizen of Arizona state all rights reserved without prejudice # # # ==================================================================== [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: Gulf War Illness Date: 16 Dec 1996 09:20:29 -0800 The following exchange came from a Gulf War mailing list a friend of mine is on. MOPP suits are what allegedly protected our troops from chemical/biological agents. - Monte >>>Does anyone out there every remember being issued new MOPP suits after >>>removing them from their sealed bags? I could swear I remember that >>>those suits have a life span even in a non-contaminated enviroment. I >>>spent time on our units NBC team and seem to vaguely remember being >>>told that after 30 days out of their sealed bags they need to be >>>replaced.....If that is true...I was never issued a new suit even after >>>running several mock alarms prior to the war even starting. >>Yes most definitely they have a life span. If you were not issued new >>MOPP suits, as most of us were not(being infantry recon and away from >>the rear units), you were subjected to the same unfortunate experience >>as most of us were; more than likely the suits were not any good anyway, >>because in my combat experiences, it was raining the majority of the >>time anyway which makes the suits uselesss. >> >> Scott >Another factor in the dependability of the MOPP suits is that the suits >have a shelf life even unopened. > >On my ship, USS Okinawa LPH-3, while enroute to the Gulf, we inventoried >all of our MOPP gear including our Mark-V gas masks. > >All but about 100 of our MOPP suits were out-of-date. Those 100 had >about a month left. > >We sent an emergency requisition for new suits for the ship's crew and >the embarked Marines. I think we ordered two suits for each person, so >it was approx. 6000 suits. > >The suits showed up about three months later, well into our deployment in >the Gulf. When we inspected the boxes, we found that the shelf life had >already passed. > >In other words, all of these new suits were useless. > >We reordered by message - the CO was highly pissed, and we carried the >Admiral, and HE was highly pissed - he didn't have a good suit either - >and we got new suits about 30 days later. > >Upon inspection of these new suits, we found that the shelf life was >already passed. > >Our Mark-V gas masks were so old that the straps would break when you >tightened them. The plastic facepieces were yellowed and cracked. The >air-tube seals were cracked and broken. We tried to requisition new >masks, the newer models, and were told that Sea forces didn't rate the >newer models. The Mark-V would have to do. > >On the same subject, our M265 kits were also out of date. > >Bottom line, we never had the appropriate gear. > >Jeff - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: CCW Debate (fwd) Date: 16 Dec 1996 08:43:12 PST Sounds like we've got some interesting new "ammo" to use..... On Dec 16, E. J. Totty wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] John (and the rest of you, too), >>>>>>> [...] Prediction: The next move from the HCI crowd is to deliberately play on the ignorance of the American public (they are good at this) and accidently-on-purpose confuse the "shall issue" CCW states with the discretionary ones. This can be done most effectively on programs such as Good Morning America or the Today Show, where there is essentially a sound-bite format. I hope I am wrong... <<<<<<< Consonant with your above statement, is the need to be 'literarily' armed with ever more facts. May I suggest a book most recently printed by the Second Amendment Foundation (address below), that will blow your socks off (well, almost!). Reading it is almost an epiphany in itself. Titled "JOURNAL ON FIREARMS AND PUBLIC POLICY", this newly released publication contains the intellectual gems from the likes of Glenn Harlan Reynolds & Don B. Kates, T. Markus Funk, Heinrich Harke (umlaut over the 'a'), David B. Kopel, Clayton E. Cramer and Scott B. Hattrup. The latter three authors collaborate on a work titled "A Tale of Three Cities: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in State Supreme Court Cases. Their findings are absolutely astounding - and that's putting it lightly. This book is _required reading_ for anyone who cares about the Second Article of Amendment. As an example of what you'll find therein, I quote from pages 133 and 134, concerning RKBA concealed carry: "Moreover, the framers of the Missouri Constitution felt that the state legislature would need authorization to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons, since a Kentucky state court had held that "a provision in the Constitution declaring that the right of any citizen to bear arms shall not be questioned, prohibited the legislature from preventing the wearing of concealed weapons." (155) Since explicit authorization was necessary to regulate the bearing of concealed weapons, obviously no legislative power existed to prohibit the keeping of arms." That little gem is going to cause a _lot_ of heartburn for the anti's. Get the book! Second Amendment Foundation James Madison Building 12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 454-7012 Ed [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Liberty Law hacked? Date: 15 Dec 1996 18:57:35 -0800 Can anyone tell me if the Liberty Law (LLAW) list has been hacked? Take a look at the following: /s/ Paul Mitchell >Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:34:09 -0500 >From: Mail Delivery Subsystem >Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 >To: >Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) > >The original message was received at Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:34:09 -0500 >from root@mailhost01.primenet.com [206.165.5.52] > > ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications ----- > (unrecoverable error) > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >YOU HAVEN'T DISABLED SET-ID SCRIPTS IN THE KERNEL YET! >FIX YOUR KERNEL, PUT A C WRAPPER AROUND THIS SCRIPT, OR USE -u AND UNDUMP! >554 ... unknown mailer error 2 >Reporting-MTA: dns; blake.sharpcomm.com >Received-From-MTA: dns; mailhost01.primenet.com >Arrival-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:34:09 -0500 > >Final-Recipient: rfc822; libertylaw@ultimate.org >Action: failed >Status: 5.0.0 >Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:34:09 -0500 >Return-Path: pmitch@primenet.com >Received: from primenet.com (root@mailhost01.primenet.com [206.165.5.52]) by blake.sharpcomm.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA00944 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:34:09 -0500 >Received: from ip205.tus.primenet.com (ip205.tus.primenet.com [198.68.42.205]) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id NAA17282 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:31:23 -0700 (MST) >Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961216024126.36d78870@mailhost.primenet.com> >X-Sender: pmitch@mailhost.primenet.com >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 18:41:26 -0800 >To: >From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 > >>Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:28:30 -0500 >>From: Mail Delivery Subsystem >>Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 >>To: >>Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) >> >>The original message was received at Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:28:28 -0500 >>from root@mailhost01.primenet.com [206.165.5.52] >> >> ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications ----- >> (unrecoverable error) >> >> ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >>YOU HAVEN'T DISABLED SET-ID SCRIPTS IN THE KERNEL YET! >>FIX YOUR KERNEL, PUT A C WRAPPER AROUND THIS SCRIPT, OR USE -u AND UNDUMP! >>554 ... unknown mailer error 2 >>Reporting-MTA: dns; blake.sharpcomm.com >>Received-From-MTA: dns; mailhost01.primenet.com >>Arrival-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:28:28 -0500 >> >>Final-Recipient: rfc822; libertylaw@ultimate.org >>Action: failed >>Status: 5.0.0 >>Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:28:30 -0500 >>Return-Path: pmitch@primenet.com >>Received: from primenet.com (root@mailhost01.primenet.com [206.165.5.52]) >by blake.sharpcomm.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id PAA00246 for >; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:28:28 -0500 >>Received: from ip205.tus.primenet.com (ip205.tus.primenet.com >[198.68.42.205]) by primenet.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id NAA15063 for >; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:24:16 -0700 (MST) >>Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961216021632.36d73902@mailhost.primenet.com> >>X-Sender: pmitch@mailhost.primenet.com >>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) >>Mime-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 18:16:32 -0800 >>To: >>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell >>Subject: privacy is a fundamental Right >> >> >>In Title 5, U.S.C., Congress has declared >>privacy to be a fundamental Right. >> >>In Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Congress >>has defined deprivations of fundamental >>Rights to be felonies. >> >>This is the lawful basis for the mail fraud >>statutes, because the contents of U.S. mail >>are private. >> >>Thus, mail tampering is a violation of >>privacy, as codified in the mail fraud >>statutes enacted specifically for that >>offensive conduct. >> >>/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 >>==================================================================== >> >> > >==================================================================== >[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 >==================================================================== > > ==================================================================== [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: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net) Subject: Re: Liberty Law hacked? Date: 16 Dec 1996 14:41:08 -0700 >Can anyone tell me if the Liberty >Law (LLAW) list has been hacked? >Take a look at the following: > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > > >>Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:34:09 -0500 >>From: Mail Delivery Subsystem >>Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2 >>To: >>Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) >> >>The original message was received at Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:34:09 -0500 >>from root@mailhost01.primenet.com [206.165.5.52] >> >> ----- The following addresses have delivery notifications ----- >> (unrecoverable error) >> >> ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >>YOU HAVEN'T DISABLED SET-ID SCRIPTS IN THE KERNEL YET! >>FIX YOUR KERNEL, PUT A C WRAPPER AROUND THIS SCRIPT, OR USE -u AND UNDUMP! >>554 ... unknown mailer error 2 Na und? (german for: yeah, so?) Sometimes software breaks. Software upgrades, etc. can all cause problems like this. Let's not look for boogie-men behind every corner. You might miss the real ones. Chad Chad Leigh Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net chad@pengar.com info@pengar.com info@shire.net Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites. Low cost virtual servers. Web Design. DB integration. Tango. Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: People v. United States et al. Date: 15 Dec 1996 22:17:08 -0800 Paul Mitchell responds, point-by-point, to lies, innuendo, and unfounded nonsense. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> Date Sun, 15 Dec 1996-0800 Mitchell wrote: >>> "If anyone on this email list so much as insinuates once more that >>> I am some kind of "government agent" or "paid informant" or agent >>> provocateur" or words to that effect, I hereby announce my intention to >>> print and forward all such messages to the proper authorities...If I do not >>> report such crimes to the proper civil or military authorities, then I am >>> guilty of misprision of a felony myself, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4." Wire fraud is a crime. See Title 18. If I do not report it, I am subject to prosecution for violating 18 USC 4. That is the law; I did not make it. Congress did. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> >>> Mr. Mitchell you sure got every one on this list paralyzed with fear. I >>> must have missed judged you. I thought you were just an statutory pleader, >>> but your much more than that. Your a self righteous Nincompoop. Do you >>> always use the government to put the fear in anyone who opposes you? I am using the law here, specifically, Title 18, United States Code, and Title 28, United States Code. I do not necessarily equate the government with the law. /s/ Paul Mitchell Is it >>> that you can't stand on your own two feet? I've seen a few and very few so >>> called patriots of your Ilk. I don't know what you led the Freemen to >>> believe, but reading their side of this issue it sounds like you built them >>> up to believe your promotions would pay for your services. This is false. Only when I arrived in Billings did Randy Parsons inform me that I would have to spend time raising funds for my legal fees. So, I started working double time (about 15-16 hours per day), doing two jobs: litigation, and fund-raising. I worked double time for almost the entire 18.5 days I was there. My invoice only reflects the time I spent on the litigation -- about 8 hours per day. Mr. Al Verschoot of Absarokee is a witness to the hours I put into their projects. /s/ Paul Mitchell Be that as it >>> may your conduct as of now needs to be reviewed. Just let me say up to now >>> I just disliked you, it goes far beyond that now. Your the kind of cancer >>> that needs to be cut out of the patriot movement. This is libel, because I am not a cancer, and I do not have cancer. This is a deliberate insult which is obviously based on false and misleading premises which are not based on fact. As such, you are lying here. This is a baseless insult, and I prove that in all the rest of this message. Read it! /s/ Paul Mitchell You pray on people in >>> trouble and use fear to bring >>> them around to your warped way of thinking. I object strongly to this intentional character assassination. I have published several seminal works on the Internet, and no one has been able to rebut what I have posted there, no one. /s/ Paul Mitchell I >>> don't agree with a lot of the Freeman issues, but I'm not going to add to >>> the burden of people who's love ones are probably facing the rest of their >>> lives in jail. I can tell you this: their chances are much worse, if the staff of the Freedom Center cannot bring themselves to carry an arm full of mail down to the Post Office, because I am behind schedule, and the Post Office is on their way to the shopping center. I asked Keven one Friday to take the mail to the Post Office, around 4:00 p.m. When he returned around 6:30, he had the mail in his arms; he had failed to go to the Post Office. When I asked him why he didn't mail the envelopes, his answer was something to the effect of, "I ran out of time." I will accept a defense of temporary insanity from him. If he was not suffering from temporary insanity, I cannot imagine what excuse he might bring to defend such actions. I then had to go out of my way to get all that mail posted, and I didn't have a car up there. You weren't there; I was. And YOU are telling me what happened? That is very strange, indeed. Very strange .... /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> >>> FREEMAN CENTER: >>> "HERE I MUST SAY ....ARE WE CONDEMNED JUST BECAUSE MR. MITCHELL...SAYS WE >>> ARE" I filed a Notice of Intent to File Criminal Complaints. I can change my mind, but my mind will need to be changed by something pretty persuasive. If I am not so persuaded, I will go with the Postal Inspector's findings. This may entail a formal criminal complaint; but I had to document the specifics, while I had the evidence in my hands, on my desk. That evidence is now in the hands of the Postal Inspector. Maybe Keven should call him up, make an appointment, and go down there to straighten out this controversy. Why was the mail delayed: there is proof in the various post marks. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> >>> SO LETS REVIEW THE RECORD OF YOUR CONDUCT MR MITCHELL >>> >>> 1. "I say it is time to remove and burn all the dead wood that has >>> accumulated in the freedom movement. A nice bon fire is long over due". >>> /s/ Paul Mitchell I have explained my use of this metaphor. The only thing you can do with dead wood is to do something useful with it. Burning it during a cold winter is good use for it, provided that you cannot mill it into lumber. Are you having trouble understanding when I am speaking metaphorically? I am opposed to capital punishment, and I told that to everyone I could up there, as the need arose. I repeat here: I am opposed to capital punishment. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> >>> Wangrud: >>> Pharaoh don't you remember when you ordered all the first born of the >>> Israelites to be put to death? >>> >>> 2.Freeman paid: >>> $350.00 Air fare >>> $480.00 a gold coin and 100.00 frn This gold coin was a $50 piece. In order to get it changed to FRN's, I would have had to go shopping for the best deal, wasting further time. I did not think that a good use of my time. So, I tendered it to the USDC for a filing fee; they refused. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> $600.00 Pauls rent >>> $500.00 Air fare >>> $275.00 expenses Three invoices have been submitted, and there have been no rebuttals at all from the people who requested the invoice. If there were errors on those invoices, it was the obligation of those who requested them to find and resolve the errors. That has just not happened. "Silence can be equated with fraud where there is a legal or a moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry unanswered would be intentionally misleading." U.S. v. Tweel. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> Total $2205.00 Add what ever for food for 18 days and what ever Paul wanted >>> over that for his comfort [as he puts it] plus the Freeman were talking >>> about selling some live stock to raise $2000.00 more for Mitchell, which >>> Paul told them to use for Freedom Center expenses, but how much Paul wanted >>> them to spend of that money on Pauls expenses? You are making no sense here. I asked Randy at almost every meal what my share was, and he continued to pick up the restaurant bills. I have Al Verschoot as a witness; there are other witnesses. I never agreed to get paid with food; I agreed to work for my standard rate -- $75 per hour against a $500 retainer. /s/ Paul Mitchell To off set this I don't know >>> how much the Freeman E-mail hot line took in? And that is none of your business. We know a $100.00 came in >>> Paul said so, but it doesn't sound like this fund is keeping the Freeman >>> "Rolling in Money" If people were opening other people's mail, doesn't that make you wonder? /s/ Paul Mitchell and now that Mitchell is gone it is unlikely any more >>> info or money will be forth coming if any was forth coming to begin with. All the funds which came into my hands were given, or forwarded, to Randy Parsons immediately, with the sole exception of the money order and cash which I spent on the filing fee for People v. United States. Before tendering those funds, however, I first tendered the $50 gold piece which was given to me as part of my retainer. The Clerk refused it. When I returned to Tucson, one person sent me a single $100 USPMO, to join the electronic email list. I immediately forwarded this USPMO to Randy Parsons. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> >>> 3. Mitchell has to return home to do seminar. Freeman expect Mitchell to >>> return' but Mitchell demands full payment as condition of his return. Yes, I wrote out a multi-page justification for the decision I made, only after returning to Tucson, where several drunks disrupted our seminar, and the BATF came to spy. Yes, I offered to return on certain conditions. No one called or wrote to counter with any different proposals. I even went so far as to draft a room layout for the bedroom they wanted me to construct. I later felt that using me to do carpentry was a misuse of my time, which would be better spent on the litigation. After all, there were only 20 defendants, and about 5 different cases going at the same time, e.g. Russell Landers got extradited to North Carolina, and working with him there was a logistical nightmare, given all the other impossible hurdles I had to deal with (no sleep, no bed, no pay). Amateurs, really; amateurs. /s/ Paul Mitchell What >>> happen to $500.00 retainer and $75.00 an hour? Precisely. I was asked to prepare an invoice, and I computed that invoice based upon the standard rate which I quote to all my prospects and clients. So, I think is a good question, namely, what happened to the $500 retainer and the $75 per hour? /s/ Paul Mitchell Which I think is too much, >>> but as I have said I wouldn't hire Mitchell to mow my lawn, but lets >>> remember Paul only billed the Freeman for half of his time. He probably >>> spent the other half sleeping. I was asked to sleep on a couch right next to the kitchen. I worked until midnight on many nights, and found myself being awakened every morning at 3:30 a.m. by ranch hands who woke up at that hour to get ready for their day. So, I was getting all of three and one-half hours of sleep when I stayed in the bunk house. There were some nights when I was provided with an inexpensive motel room. That was nice; at least I got a full night's sleep in the motel room, Motel Six I believe it was. And I didn't have to clean up a very dirty bathroom; it took several rounds of scouring powder to return the shower stall to a clean slate. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> >>> 4. Mitchell went to the Freeman Center to help defend the Freeman and ends >>> up filing a complaint with Postal Inspectors against the Freeman. There are 20 defendants in jail. I have not filed any complaints against any of them. I have filed complaints of probable cause against Randy Parsons and Keven Entzel, for 16 pieces of U.S. Mail which were unnecessarily delayed, and tampered with (opened), despite the fact that I had mailed a formal written request that they forward all my mail to me in Tucson. My witness in Tucson is the office manager of the postal substation where I do all my post office business. And now today, a spy confronts me and refuses to show me any identification, in a post office. /s/ Paul Mitchell There is >>> something wrong with this . A party hires Mitchell and gets charged by >>> Mitchell?? If your boss hires you, and then steals your labor (slavery), I should think you would have very good cause to charge him with something. But, as of this date, the only formal charges on the table involve 16 counts of mail fraud and 12 counts of mail tampering, for each individual. It will be up to the USPS to bring those charges formally. I am waiting to see what happens with my USPS request. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> >>> 5. It sounds like Mitchell spent a lot of time challenging various >>> personalities among the Freeman group. That is just not true. I spent my available time getting the computers working on the Internet, and writing as much as I could. Morley and Keven brought up the subject of "Niggers and Jews" [sic], while I was trying to get my work done. I don't like the terms, and I don't like the subject, particularly when it was distracting me from more pressing work (e.g. fund raising). I tried to bring this debate to a close by challenging Keven to produce evidence of biblical authorities for apartheid. He said he couldn't remember any. That was the last I heard from him on that subject. I went back to my work. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> >>> 6. In various post Mitchell has referred to: >>> a. Building rooms without a permit I asked the owner if he wanted me to do work without a permit, and I followed his decision in that regard. I started work on a basement bedroom, about 12x12', as I recall. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> b. A lleged Herb Crawford was arrested for stolen property [computer >>> equipment and money] You don't know why he was arrested. I am a witness to his federal indictment in Oregon for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. I helped him write one response letter to the Forfeiture Counsel [sic] on that case, a Mr. Timothy J. Colahan, 450 North Buena Vista, Burns, Oregon, Postal Zone 97720. /s/ Paul Mitchell Didn't Mitchell post a while back Herb stole the same >>> from him. Is he trying to put pressure on the Freemen to pay or have more >>> trouble with the Building Authorities? There is no direct connection that I know of, other than the reaction of Crawford when I told him I had decided to testify against Broderick for using a fraudulent rubber stamp "U S CRIMINAL COURT" on her Orange County lien. This is a matter of public record now. My investigators did not locate her lien in the list of secured creditors in the Orange County, California, bankruptcy case, despite the fact that she had told me that her lien had precipitated that largest municipal bankruptcy case in the history of America. That is why I asked the investigators to check it out. When I told this to Crawford, to test his true loyalties, rather than explore this finding as an affirmative defense for his use of those liens, he threatened me 12 times. I had to ask him to move out, because he was staying with me, under an original agreement permitting him to move into my apartment for 2 weeks at most; it was week 5 when he threatened me. He moved out with the help of one of his associates, and when I returned home, I discovered that several of my things were missing (computer equipment, cash, software, etc.). /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> c. Mitchell attacks Robert Wangrud before the Freeman. On this one >>> Mitchell are you man enough to say to me what you said to the Freeman, or >>> are you going to threaten me with federal charges to get me to be quiet? We went over all of this right after I got back from Billings. I believe that propping up martial rule, because one has spent so much time studying it, runs the risks of making one an apologist for treason, because warring on the several States of the Union is defined as treason right in the Constitution. That is the shortest summary I can give of a very complicated subject. I do not care to go over all of the same ground again here; it is off point, as far as I am concerned. /s/ Paul Mitchell I >>> believe you to be a Coward and a false witness. I believe the Freeman, you >>> don't have the guts to stand with real men. I am still standing by LeRoy Schweitzer, Russell Dean Landers, and Dana Dudley, but I have had to make it abundantly clear to everyone that I cannot work pro bono, nor can I work on a contingency in these cases. My recent pleading in People v. United States is evidence of my public position in this matter. If those 20 prisoners are truly Free Men, then they are free to join that action or not. All the research now shows that the United States has been bringing criminal actions in the wrong forum; we have res judicata on that matter, via a collateral action which I brought in the USDC in Tucson. "This [USDC] is not the proper forum to bring a request under the Freedom of Information Act." ORDER of John M. Roll. The Freemen claim to know judicial procedure; they can apply for intervention, pursuant to FRCP Rule 24(a); this is the rule I recently invoked to apply for intervention in Broderick's civil case in Los Angeles, because her civil prosecutor, Nora Manella, was recently shown to have no credentials. I know this, because an official in the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., admitted it on DOJ letterhead. That is enough proof for me. Probable cause, anybody? /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> >>> Mitchell calls for a Bon Fire I agree let the first log be a Mitchell >>> Log. For those who are displeased with this public airing I say you are >>> wrong, this airing is necessary to the health of those that look to hire >>> any one to help them. I do agree with you. But, it is important to separate fact from fiction; otherwise, someone might go off into fiction land, and never return. :) /s/ Paul Mitchell Come on you hire Mitchell and end up facing charges >>> by Mitchell and alledged by Mitchell to be a government agent??? I am willing to let a competent and qualified jury make the final decision on this matter. I just know that much of my mail was time-sensitive, and now I have to scramble to remedy the damages which I have experienced because of missed deadlines, and also the extra costs of returning mail which is now out-of-date, like pleadings which were time-sensitive. /s/ Paul Mitchell >>> >>> Conclusion >>> I don't know if Mitchell is or isn't a Agent Provocateur, but my life >>> would be enriched if I never heard from him again. >>> >>> /s/ Robert Wangrud. That's entirely up to you, Mr. Wangrud. You can go your way, and I will go mine. I know I will be much happier with that arrangement. By the way, what are the constitutional authorities for martial law, for the 47th time? I am still waiting -- for Godot. /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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Courts on Trial: Cracking the Code of Judicial Review Date: 15 Dec 1996 05:34:00 -0800 Courts on Trial: Cracking the Code of Judicial Review An abstract of a work in progress: The court procedures for conducting judicial review, as found in Title 28 of the United States Code, use special language to conceal two separate district courts. One court was established for territories which have not yet joined the Union; this court is known as the United States District Court (USDC). The other court was established for the areas within the several States of the Union; this court is known as the District Court of the United States (DCUS). There are important, even fundamental differences in the respective powers and authorities of these two court systems. The DCUS was authorized by Article III of the Constitution, and the judges who preside on these courts cannot have their compensation diminished by federal income taxes. The USDC, on the other hand, was authorized by Article IV of the Constitution, and the judges who preside on these courts can have their compensation diminished by federal income taxes. This doctrine separating the state zone from the federal zone was established by the Supreme Court in 1901, in a controversial series of decisions known as The Insular Cases. The problem now is that the USDC has expanded the scope of its operations, unlawfully, by moving into the geographic areas of the several States, where the DCUS has authority. Furthermore, the USDC has been given absolutely no criminal jurisdiction by any Acts of Congress, severely limiting the kinds of cases which can be brought before those courts. This is subject matter jurisdiction. The USDC has no geographic or subject matter jurisdiction inside the several States of the Union, except over federal officers, employees, and agents. It has no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever. None. Paul Andrew Mitchell Common Law Copyright (1996) all rights reserved ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: fair warning Date: 15 Dec 1996 06:08:01 -0800 Paul Mitchell responds to Dan Eff, as follows: At 08:10 PM 12/16/96 -0700, you wrote: >You have a moral duty to not lie to the students on the LSUA listserv. I have not lied to any students on the LSUA listserv. I verify this statement here under penalty of perjury. /s/ Paul Mitchell >The first words from you keyboard to our eyes included a fraud (box 1776). This is not a fraud; it is an exercise of the First Amendment. There was a man at The Letter Box today, when I was waiting in line to pick up my mail, and to send a big pile of mail I prepared over the weekend, for several important court cases in which I am deeply involved. He said he was "Dan Eff," but he would not present any identification when I asked for it. Was that you? If The Letter Box location listed below is a lie, then how was it that this "Dan Eff" was able to find me waiting in line to pick up my mail? I hope you weren't loitering in that lobby. Such conduct could get you into trouble. Are you part of that group of people who currently have me under surveillance? I don't mean to belabor this point, but it is painfully obvious to me, and it should be fairly obvious to everyone who sends me mail, that I am getting my mail, even though some of it has been delayed and opened, unlawfully, in recent weeks. I don't think you have a very good idea what mail fraud is. I must now inform you that I am presently involved in several mail fraud investigations, and I must politely ask you to mind you own business. Please, Dan, you are treading into a criminal investigation here, which involves several people who deserve to have their privacy honored. If you tread into it too far, you might become implicated, and I do not want to see that happen to you. For confirmation, contact Mr. James A. Crawford, Postal Inspector, at 1-800-729-3324. This is a fair warning which I must provide to you, by law. See 18 U.S.C. 1513, particularly the legislative history of this statute. It is not my intention to threaten you or to instill fear in you, but I am obliged to inform you that I am a federal witness, and poking your nose into the work I am doing might lead to some negative consequences which you could easily avoid by minding your own business. If you want a clue, check with the Clerk of the Ninth Circuit and buy yourself a copy of the case file for Appeal Case No. 96-16145. That should provide you with ample information that is already in the public domain, if you are willing to pay for all the copying that will be necessary to obtain the full case file (about 7 inches of pleadings, not counting the documentary exhibits). If you will not show me your identification when I ask for it, I really don't see how you cannot apply your own standards, such as they are, to yourself. /s/ Paul Mitchell ... ... following in Mark Twain's footsteps. copy: James A. Crawford, Postal Inspector U.S. Postal Inspection Service P.O. Box 26320 Tucson, Arizona 85726-6320/tdc (520) 388-5188 (800) 729-3324 se Habla Espanol > >>ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state > >You shrugged off the fact of your fraud when it was pointed out. ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: request for help Date: 15 Dec 1996 06:31:13 -0800 Dear Friends, Are there any members of Liberty Law who would be willing to assist me with the Freedom Center in Billings, Montana? I need to get paid for the many hours of work which I performed up there. I have important files which must be returned to my control, so that I can continue the work I have begun in People v. United States. I have clothes which belong to me, and to a friend who loaned me a jacket. I have miscellaneous toiletries which I left up there, expecting to return. I have computer equipment, such as a ZIP drive, and cartridge disks with important data on them. I have law books that must be returned to their rightful owners, because I have some of them on loan; others are mine. There are legal papers which must be served on various parties, and court clerks. There is material evidence there which belongs to me, which may need to be presented to a federal grand jury. There are important data files which are copy protected, such as the electronic edition of The Federal Zone, in addition to about 500 megabytes of files which belong to me, because I developed that database. I obviously need help here, because my every effort has been dashed. Please help me, if you can, if you will. I will be deeply appreciative just to hear something positive from you, rather than a deluge of lies, falsehoods, and unfounded accusations. Thank you. /s/ Paul Mitchell ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: People v. United States (strategy) Date: 15 Dec 1996 06:45:49 -0800 Hot stuff FYI (anonymous comment) ---------- > From: Paul Andrew Mitchell > To: Richard Ginn > Subject: People v. United States (strategy) > Date: Monday, December 16, 1996 12:46 AM > > Richard, > > The opening move was a petition to > state court for an injunction against > the United States to prevent it from > depriving the Citizens of Montana state > of life, liberty, or property without > due process of law. > > "Due process of law" is now the subject matter. > > Following that is the FOIA to the FBI for > the official credentials of all 633 federal > agents who rotated in and out of the Freeman > standoff in Jordan, Montana, last Spring. > This vaults us into the District Court of > the United States, using res judicata we > got in Tucson last Spring: In re Grand > Jury Subpoena Served on New Life Health > Center Company, USDC, Tucson, Arizona; > federal judge ruled that this [USDC] > "is not the proper forum to bring a request > under the Freedom of Information Act." !!!!!! > > Enjoining the United States justifies > a 3-judge panel. We petitioned a > 3-judge panel for a Warrant of Removal, > to litigate the subject matter ("due > process of law") and to compel production > of the documents requested by the FOIA > Request. We then asked a 3-judge Ninth Circuit panel to prepare a certificate of necessity, to be served on the Chief Justice, William H. Rehnquist, to appoint 3 competent and qualified judges from the U.S. Court of International Trade, or other competent court, to preside on the 3-judge DCUS panel. > > 2 international human rights treaties > guarantee effective judicial remedies, > notwithstanding that the violations > were committed by persons acting in their > official capacities. Due process of law > is an effective judicial remedy, by definition, > because it is in the federal and state > constitutions -- all of them. > > Read the treaties! They reinforce 18 USC 242, > and lots of other federal laws, which > protect fundamental Rights and penalize > violations of them with felony penalties. > > The Supremacy Clause renders treaties > the supreme Law of the Land. > > Warren Christopher is responsible for > being the custodian of record for the > Reservations which Congress attached to > the enactment of these treaties; said > Reservations reserve to the "localities" > standing to sue the United States, > if the United States should fail to > obey the treaties. This leaves open the > possibility that "common law courts" > do have standing, in law. > > I submitted a FOIA request for Christopher's > Appointment Affidavit, which they have now > actually produced; it shows an Oath of Office > to support and defend the Constitution for > the United States of America, containing > the familiar Supremacy Clause. This can be > enforced as a contract, in equity. The > Appointment Affidavit is an OMB-approved form! > > The version of the U.S. Constitution > which the White House produced, in response > to a FOIA request, is DIFFERENT from the one > published by Gaunt & Sons in 1989 (very VERY > recently). This violates due process of law!! > > This latter version is a reprint of the > U.S. Constitution as of 1815. It contains > the original 13th Amendment!!! > > We can use this evidence to argue that these > federal officers are in the wrong contract > with the American People, because the White > House Constitution says one thing; other > published versions say something else; and > the Utah Supreme Court says something else > again, altogether. > > I say we can sue out the exact provisions > of the Constitution, and assemble a > qualified and competent trial jury to issue > declaratory relief as to the correct provisions, > specifically, is there probable cause to justify > a legal conclusion that the original 13th > amendment is actually in the Constitution which > the White House should be producing, but does not; > and other similar questions (e.g. 16th amendment, > 17th amendment, and so on). > > If they don't have their oath of office, then > we sue them for piracy, because they are going > on the highway under color of law, and kidnapping > people without authority and placing them in > federal prison without authority; and so on, > and so on. We can do a Quo Warranto against > the entire FBI, for that matter, since they > brought in a small army to arrest 20 Citizens, > evidently without authority. > > Furthermore, recent evidence shows that the > FBI is an unchartered rogue agency; I know, > but this is unbelievable, don't you agree? > The "due process of law" here will compel > testimony on this very point. Imagine all > the heavy consequences, if this proves to > be true. > > The jury selection must first await final > determination of our challenge to the Jury > Selection and Service Act, which is rising > up the federal judicial ladder right now, > as we speak. The most advanced case is > USA v. Looker, in which the United States > finally responded, to wit: Plea in Abatement > must be filed by an "Attorney of Record"; > U.S. rebuttal does not go to the merits AT ALL!! > > Do you catch the drift here? It is not really > drift, but strategy, to tie up the United States > in a mountain of litigation, justifying a > Habeas Corpus to get certain people out of prison, > at least, if not out of courts' (and the Marshals') > jurisdiction totally, until such time as all of > these questions can be decided finally. > > I find it rather exciting. How about you? > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > > > At 05:50 PM 12/16/96 -0500, you wrote: > >Paul Andrew Mitchell writes: > >> > >> Richard, > >> > >> Do you have the Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc. > >> reprint of "Laws of the United States of America," > >> published in 1989, at 3011 Gulf Dr., Holmes Beach, > >> Florida 34217-2199, USA? > >> > >> It has Constitution thru and including March 4, 1815, > >> with the original 13th Amendment (last amendment > >> as of that date). > >> > >> It is printed with excellent margin notes. > >> > >> We just filed it in the USDC in Wheeling, West > >> Virginia (as soon as my client signs and dates it), > >> using a NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL > >> NOTICE. > >> > > > >Step-by-step, what effect are you trying to get, and what is the history > >of this case? Interesting chess moves are good to see, but to really > >understand the game you need to follow it from the opening move. > > > > > >-- > >Richard Ginn ginn@cornell.edu > >510 Utica Street http://www.neuron.net/~ginn > >Ithaca, New York USA 607-277-5058 > > > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Lott debate (fwd) Date: 16 Dec 1996 23:38:41 PST While it diverts a little at the start, the following is one of the best tactics I've seen for countering the gun grabbers, the Clintonista's, and various other lower life forms when they bludgeon us with the attrocity du jour. It'll also work against demands for onerous legislation inspired by the same. This form of using a tragedy against us and our Rights is so ubiquitous these days, it's become known as "Waving a dead baby on a stick". The idea being that you can't argue with a sobbing Mother, relative etc. If you're tired of this kind of thing being used against us, read on! [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] On Dec 16, Jim Zoes wrote: --- On Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:11:57 -0500 Jim De Arras=20 wrote: >>=20 >Folks,=20 > >We will not win a body count battle. =20 > >If you have trouble with that, look at the current air bag controversy. > >There can be no dispute that the numbers GREATLY favor air bags. They >save many more lives than they cost. Like guns. But also like guns, >they have killed babies. Therefore, they are suddenly very evil. =20 >Remember the commercials a few years back where they paraded folks >across the screen who had been saved by Air Bags? Think you will ever >see those PSAs again? No. They would be in poor taste. Like parading >folks saved by guns in front of a mother that lost her child to "a gun". > >The opposition to Air Bags now have babies on sticks, so they will win. >Doesn=92t matter how many lives are saved by Air Bags. Doesn't matter >that the driver causing the accident may have been drunk. One baby dead >is too many. > >Watch. > >Learn > >Jim > -----------------End of Original Message----------------- Two points (one off topic -- please forgive me). I remember the initial opposition to airbags from the auto industry and a= =20 number of consumer groups. The basis of the opposition (back in the 70's= )=20 was (1) the loud noise when the silver-azide charge "exploded" exceeded=20 OSHA's noise regs, (2) premature (and unnecessary)deployment, and (3)=20 short people could get hurt. =20 My recollection is that the gub'ment overrode the opposition to airbags=20 with that ole refrain: "if it saves one life..." --- and to heck with=20 the people who die from it -- or rely upon it to the exclusion of=20 seatbelts. Well, I've always worn seatbelts (and insisted that everybody else in my=20 car did so too). My un-informed (I readily admit it!) opinion is that th= e=20 risk of airbags (as they were manufactured way-back-when) exceeded the=20 possible reward. It's kind of refreshing to see the grub'ment let people= =20 to chose what kind of protection to use -- instead of the "we know what's= =20 good for you" one. Now on the other topic. I've read Jim's comments about this before. Maybe there is a counter to=20 the dead baby argument we get bludgeoned with. I've been using it lately= =20 both in talk.politics.guns, and in fact-to-face conversations. I think i= t=20 works... My argument goes like this: --- How come we never see HCI (et. al.) working to keep violent criminals in=20 jail like NRA's Crimestrike. How come we never seen HCI advocating for=20 "victim's" rights? How come we never see HCI at a parole hearing for a=20 sex offender, opposing parole -- or supporting *any* "3 strikes and your=20 out" laws, much less sex offender community notification.=20 How come HCI never criticizes those officials who fail to do their job by= =20 refusing to go after obviously dangerous offenders, by refusing to=20 prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, who refuse to act when=20 confronted with existence of a violent criminal, and those who are using=20 their office to posture to the public for their personal political gain? Where was HCI when 3-time felon Dwayne Vinson was released on parole, onl= y=20 to be accused of raping, beating, and strangling a 30 year old law studen= t=20 in her own appartment (happened last week in Chicago -- handgun ban cente= r=20 of the US). If HCI and the gun control lobby were really interested ending violent=20 crime, then why don't they work with the NRA in areas where they *could*=20 overlap -- such as in opposing early release of violent felons and=20 victim's rights. Could it be that gun control isn't interested in keeping violent criminal= s=20 in prison? Could it be that they *use* the victims of crime to advance=20 their politicial agenda? But no, gun control won't do that because they prefer use the dead babies= =20 to advance their politicial agenda, one which doens't care about violence= =20 and crime. They prefer to stand knee-deep in the blood, and stand over=20 dead baby's bodies to advance their political agenda rather than helping=20 to stop the slaughter in the first place. ---- Now, maybe Jim won't think it's effective, but I've used it for a couple=20 of weeks both online and in face to face conversations. It stops the gun= =20 grabbers cold because it is a direct attack on their belief structure. I= t=20 makes them look uncaring and machiavellian and evil. It shuts them up an= d=20 in comments I've received electronically, and also in face to face=20 conversatins with "lurkers" or the listening public, it exposes gun=20 control as manipulative. Nobody (especially the general public) likes to have their emotions=20 manipulated -- and then have that realization thrust upon them when=20 organized gun control has no answer as to why they haven't tried to keep=20 the violent criminals away from society. It makes the gun control lobby seem uncaring and petty. It evokes the=20 image of dead babies alright, but with an afterimage that the gun control= =20 lobby *did* *nothing* to prevent it, and cares *nothing* about that dead=20 baby -- while at least the NRA is trying to keep violent criminals in=20 jail. My personal experience is that the proponents of gun control have no=20 answer to this barrage of questions -- and we and they know it. So they=20 instinctively evade the question -- making them look like the=20 opportunistic scum they are. Because Jim is right, we can't prove that guns save lives. But we can=20 smear the motives of those who use those dead babies. We can make them=20 look like slime for being so crass as to take a tragedy and use it for=20 their partisan purposes. We can take the dead baby out of the debate by making the debater who use= s=20 it out to be untrustworthy and opportunistic. That's my two cents.... Jim [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Re: Safan No. 196 (fwd) Date: 17 Dec 1996 08:01:16 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: act@efn.org Earlier this month I wrote to the editors of the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News regarding misdemeanor DV offenses used to disarm people (copy of letter follows this note). The Denver Post, in particular, has a reputation for not printing pro-gun letters. But, in this case, both papers printed the letter (tho slightly edited). At least it indicates that people are open to hearing the absurdities of this totally unconscionable legislation. FWIW, I've been roughed up by a few boyfriends and thank God that I never called the police, since they certainly didn't deserve this sort of thing. And I do think that there are a lot of vindictive women who are thrilled to press charges on trivial incidents that they, themselves, have brought on. True, there are some dangerous men (and women) out there, but I doubt that this law would deter them from killing their spouse. >---------- >Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 1996 12:51 PM >To: 'letters@denverpost.com' >Cc: 'letters@denver-rmn.com' >Subject: Re: Gun Law Disarms 3 Cops > >To the Editor: > >For several months, I have been dismayed about the legislation to disarm >people who have been found guilty of a misdemeanor domestic abuse offense. Now we see just how far this slippery slope reaches. I wonder how many >federal agents in the FBI, BATF and other agencies are going to be affected by >this ruling? How many men and women will be removed from the military? >And how many of these people are not only losing a career but losing a >pension, as well? All for a misdemeanor offense. What next? Will carpenters >be relieved of their nail guns? Will butchers be relieved of their knives? And >what about those who live with these people? Will they lose their right to keep >firearms and ammunition, as well? > >The legislation, itself, violates the 2nd amendment regarding the right to keep >and bear arms, the 5th amendment "nor be deprived of life, liberty or property >without due process of law" (this punishment being after the fact, I wonder how >many plea bargains would have gone to jury trials, instead?) and the 10th >amendment which reserves powers to the states (retroactive federal penalties >for state offenses!?) > >When will we realize that our problems with violence are not going to be >solved by demonizing an object and expecting the government to protect us >from those who may use such an object against us? In the gravest extreme, >we stand alone against our assailant, whether they are armed with a gun, knife >or fists. Among the means at our disposal to use against such an individual, I find it hard to believe that threatening to deprive them of their right to keep >and bear arms, and possibly their career and their pensions would at that point >have a positive deterrent effect. Indeed, it could escalate the confrontation. > >It is time to take a long, hard look at where we are heading by throwing away >constitutionally enumerated rights in order to give ourselves the illusion of >safety. As we move inch by inch to disarm the citizens of this country, we >must realize that we will not improve our society by reducing our individual >strengths to match those of our weakest members. Indeed, such a society is >exactly the kind where tyrants rise and flourish. > >Respectfully, >Patricia Fosness >Arvada, CO > > Pat Fosness "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: LITERACY + UNDER UTILZED not very well KNOWN DOC = HOPE... (fwd) Date: 17 Dec 1996 08:08:12 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- =20 THAT FREEDOM SHALL NOT PERISH [Image] Vol. 13, No. 1 - January 6, 1997 - With literacy AND the CONSTITUTION there is a lot of hope, but little time.= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Was our constitution meant for a different time? Date: 17 Dec 1996 08:10:24 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Editors and Friends: I will be on vacation for the remainder of 1996. The regular columns will resume when 1997 begins. As a suggestion piece, this article was originally released March 20, 1995, and is one for which I have had many requests. Merry Christmas to all, the happiest of New Years to you, and may God bless America. December 16, 1996 DUKE (719) 481-9289 By Charles R. Duke State Senator - District 9 WAS OUR CONSTITUTION MEANT FOR A DIFFERENT TIME? Frequently critics of the constitutional debates sweeping the country today will assert that the Framers of our Constitution could not possibly have known what the present day United States is about. They contend that we live in a global marketplace with responsibilities to ourselves and our neighbors. Crime on the scale we know it wasn't even an issue, these critics claim, to those involved with the American War for Independence. They would have us draw the conclusion that our Constitution was meant for a different time and is inadequate to deal with the world we know today. In 1761, King George was issuing "writs of assistance" to his tax collectors. These writs permitted no-knock searches of ships, warehouses, and homes without a warrant by the King's agents, ostensibly looking for contraband. It was these writs that lead to the insertion of the Fourth Amendment to our Bill of Rights. That Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." It means we have a right to be secure without fear the government will intrude without probable cause. Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 666. This resolution states that evidence obtained with or without a warrant will be admissible in court if the evidence was obtained under a "reasonable objective belief" that the gaining of the evidence was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. In other words, neither probable cause nor warrants will be necessary if the agents have a reasonably objective belief that the evidence is necessary. At Concord in 1775, British General Thomas Gage used informants to determine the location of caches of arms held by the patriots. His intention was to march through and seize the arms, in particular the cannon, thereby disabling the ability of the patriots to resist. The British fetish about banning arms led to the Second Amendment to secure, supposedly forever, the right of the people to defend themselves against the government. In 1994, the Congress passed the Crime Control Act, which banned "assault weapons," some by model name and others by descriptions so vague that over 190 actual models of weapons will actually be banned. The ban has led to the greatest caching of weapons and ammunition in the hands of private citizens one could possibly imagine. Coincidentally, one of the commanders of the British forces during the War for Independence was General Henry Clinton. In 1783, the Treaty of Paris concluded the War for Independence and the colonies were declared to be free and sovereign states. Our Constitution would not have been adopted had the Tenth Amendment not been added to ensure freedom and liberty for states and individuals. In 1994, the Congress adopted the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which effectively abolished sovereignty not only for states, but also our nation. It brings any state or federal law under the control of a World Trade Organization. This law was heavily promoted by the internationalists who view state sovereignty with contempt. Any person who supported GATT should not be given future opportunities to violate that person's oath to the nation. The Constitution was not written about the life and times of 1789, when the Bill of Rights was adopted. It was written about tyranny; it was written about freedom; it was written about liberty. The Framers did indeed understand what government in 1995 is about. The challenge for us is to understand what 1776 was about. End ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: 7-11 manager fired for apprehending robbery suspect (fwd) Date: 17 Dec 1996 11:32:45 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ______ [Contents....]- StarText.Net Home - Community News - InterAct - Market Place Updated: Monday, Dec. 16, 1996 at 22:34 CST Manager fired hours after being honored for work By The Associated Press ODESSA -- One minute, Wiley Berggren was a 7-Eleven star, honored at a company dinner for increasing sales and controlling overtime. But 21/2 hours later, Berggren was out of a job, fired for violating company policy by apprehending a robbery suspect. "This has sort of ruined the holidays," said Berggren, an eight-year veteran until his Dec. 10 firing. Three youths were trying to steal an 18-pack of beer Dec. 9 when Berggren, manager of the Odessa store, walked out of a storeroom. He said that he headed for a female customer whom he was concerned about and that one of the three youths attacked him. "So, I wrapped him up and took him to the ground," said Berggren, who bound the suspect's hands with a trash bag until police arrived. The other two escaped. Berggren said he merely acted in self-defense. "These punk kids have no regard for anybody or anything," he said. "I didn't want anybody to get hurt." Employees who intervene in suspected criminal activity will be fired, according to the policy of Southwest Convenience Stores, a licensee of Dallas-based Southland Corp. "There is no challenge to this policy," said District Manager Nick Pappes, who conceded that firing Berggren was a tough decision. "We can't allow any gray area." The policy is in place in all 35 of Southwest's Odessa locations, said claims manager Laurie Lindsey. "We are not going to jeopardize employee or customer safety," she said. After a similar incident four years ago, Berggren was "a hair from being fired," Pappes said. Two other major West Texas convenience store companies have similar employee nonaggression policies, a check by the `Odessa American' found. Dan McCurdy, spokesman for San Angelo-based Town & Country Food Stores, said employees are expected to give bandits full cooperation, "even if it's ripping off the cash register from the roots." _________________________________________________________________ © 1996 Fort Worth Star-Telegram -- Terms and Conditions -- Send us your Feedback. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net) Subject: Re: 7-11 manager fired for apprehending robbery suspect (fwd) Date: 17 Dec 1996 10:53:00 -0700 >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > ______ [Contents....]- StarText.Net Home - Community News - InterAct - > Market Place > Updated: Monday, Dec. 16, 1996 at 22:34 CST > > > > >Manager fired hours after being honored for work > > By The Associated Press > > > ODESSA -- One minute, Wiley Berggren was a 7-Eleven star, honored at a > company dinner for increasing sales and controlling overtime. > > But 21/2 hours later, Berggren was out of a job, fired for violating > company policy by apprehending a robbery suspect. > > "This has sort of ruined the holidays," said Berggren, an eight-year > veteran until his Dec. 10 firing. > > Three youths were trying to steal an 18-pack of beer Dec. 9 when > Berggren, manager of the Odessa store, walked out of a storeroom. He > said that he headed for a female customer whom he was concerned about > and that one of the three youths attacked him. > > "So, I wrapped him up and took him to the ground," said Berggren, who > bound the suspect's hands with a trash bag until police arrived. The > other two escaped. > > Berggren said he merely acted in self-defense. > > "These punk kids have no regard for anybody or anything," he said. "I > didn't want anybody to get hurt." > > Employees who intervene in suspected criminal activity will be fired, > according to the policy of Southwest Convenience Stores, a licensee of > Dallas-based Southland Corp. > This is great -- a newspaper broadcasting to the world that 7-11 wants everyone to come rip them off. Big neon sign -- RIP US OFF!. We all need to send them copies of "A Nation of Cowards" Chad Chad Leigh Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net chad@pengar.com info@pengar.com info@shire.net Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites. Low cost virtual servers. Web Design. DB integration. Tango. Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Prognostications (fwd) Date: 17 Dec 1996 13:27:29 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear Multiple Recipients Recently, at a dinner with a group called the F.R.E.E. supper club, we chose as a subject for the evening's discussion "Scenarios for the Third Millenium." Some of the presentations were serious and thought-provoking, and some were not (what else, in a group like this one?). The following was one of the more potentially accurate, in my opinion (fortunately, it's easier to type than it would be to talk with my cheek so distended by my tongue). DECEMBER, 1999 As Reported by David A. Dorn The F.R.E.E. Supper Club is having the last meeting of the year, the century, and the millenium. The topic, moderated by our founder Jack McVaugh, is "Sex in the 90's -- Get It While You Can." Many exciting things have happened over the past few years. (former Sheriff) Joe Arpaio's Pink Underwear Company has gone public at $5 per pair, uhh, I mean share. Joe needs the work. Now that marijuana has been legalized for those suffering from such diverse maladies as the heartbreak of psoriasis, menstrual cramps, and horniness, his tent cities are empty except once a year when Ringling Brothers comes to town. Life on Mars was verified by the Martian Explorer vehicles. Although primitive, the Martians are known to like bowling and Jack Daniels. They have hired John Karow to go after the Mars candy bar company for trademark infringement. John is known throughout the universe as the one responsible for the removal of (Attorney General) Grant Woods from political office. Grant looks lovely in pink underwear. The Arizona Cardinals, in their continual quest for a domed stadium, have moved to the Tucson area and now play football (if you can call it that) in Biosphere II. Both fans are happy. The Bank One Ballpark was never completed, due to legal wrangling by the world renowned pizza mogul, Ernie Hancock. The site was donated to the AZLP. Politically, Bill Clinton is _literally_ history. It wasn't Whitewater, nor Travelgate, nor even the complicity in Vince Foster's and Ron Brown's murders that brought him down. It was a rare venereal disease now known to affect only politicians. His last words were, "I feel my pain." Hillary, now firmly ensconced in the newly-created Cabinet position as Secretary of Shredding, blamed the lack of Universal Health Care for his demise. Al Gore, the _real_ Al Gore, took over. But his regime lasted only days. On a visit to California to declare white males an endangered species, he fell in a wetland and was attacked and killed by a gang of Kangaroo Rats, formerly associated with the Crips. The press called his cremation a tribute to Global Warming. This Constitutional crisis caused the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, to take over, but not for long. His half-sister, a known lesbian activist, along with Barney Frank and Jim Kolbe, kidnapped him and forced him to listen to Melissa Etheridge and Michael Jackson tapes for hours on end. He was never the same. Newt resigned, moved to Hawaii, and married Barney Frank and Jim Kolbe. Next in line for the job was the President pro tempore of the Senate. Yes, Strom Thurmond became the oldest President of the United States. His first words upon entering the oval office were, "Sex in the 90's -- Get It While You Can." Rick Tompkins "A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." Lysander Spooner ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: 7-11 manager fired for apprehending robbery suspect (fwd) Date: 17 Dec 1996 11:48:24 -0800 >>Manager fired hours after being honored for work >> >> By The Associated Press >> >> >> ODESSA -- One minute, Wiley Berggren was a 7-Eleven star, honored at a >> company dinner for increasing sales and controlling overtime. >> >> But 21/2 hours later, Berggren was out of a job, fired for violating >> company policy by apprehending a robbery suspect. >> >> "This has sort of ruined the holidays," said Berggren, an eight-year >> veteran until his Dec. 10 firing. >> >> Three youths were trying to steal an 18-pack of beer Dec. 9 when >> Berggren, manager of the Odessa store, walked out of a storeroom. He >> said that he headed for a female customer whom he was concerned about >> and that one of the three youths attacked him. >> >> "So, I wrapped him up and took him to the ground," said Berggren, who >> bound the suspect's hands with a trash bag until police arrived. The >> other two escaped. >> >> Berggren said he merely acted in self-defense. >> >> "These punk kids have no regard for anybody or anything," he said. "I >> didn't want anybody to get hurt." >> >> Employees who intervene in suspected criminal activity will be fired, >> according to the policy of Southwest Convenience Stores, a licensee of >> Dallas-based Southland Corp. >> > > >This is great -- a newspaper broadcasting to the world that 7-11 wants >everyone to come rip them off. Big neon sign -- RIP US OFF!. > >We all need to send them copies of "A Nation of Cowards" > >Chad Anybody know how to get ahold of these idiots at 7-11? - 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: Book donations Date: 17 Dec 1996 12:00:11 -0800 >>Hello all, >> >>Houghton Mifflin Publishing Corporation will donate one book to >>a children's hospital for every 25 e-mails they receive. In other >>words when 25 people e-mail to the below address and simply >>write "Seasons Greetings!" , then one book is donated by >>Houghton Mifflin Interactive to a children's hospital. This is the >>second year of this charity donation. The goal is to receive >>50,000 messages and thereby give away 2000 books. >> >>Please e-mail them at: >> >> share@hmco.com >> >>I hope you can spare the seconds . . . and let your friends know. >>So far they have only received 3, 400 messages. Last year they >>reached 23,000. - 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: DIA on TWA800 Missile (fwd) Date: 17 Dec 1996 17:42:47 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Published in Washington, D.C. December 17, 1996 Focus on Politics Inside the Beltway: Political tidbits and other shenanigans from the nation's capital ------------------------------------------------------ By John McCaslin THE WASHINGTON TIMES ------------------------------------------------------ A missile An official with the Defense Intelligence Agency, spy arm of the Pentagon, has informed congressional staff members that, in his opinion, a shoulder-fired missile brought down TWA Flight 800. The same DIA official, described as an expert in missile technology, told the staff members last week that he personally was called in by the FBI in the days following the explosion of the TWA jet to assist with witness interviews, a source present for the congressional briefing told Inside the Beltway yesterday. Even now, the DIA official said he spends as many as two or three days a week on Long Island, near the site of the explosion and recovery efforts. Our source refused to reveal the identity of the DIA official. "In his opinion, the plane was brought down by at least one shoulder-fired missile," said the congressional source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "When he said that, we all took a deep breath," the source added. When asked by the congressional team what new evidence has been found to bolster the missile theory, the DIA official acknowledged "none," and he said perhaps none will ever be found. But he reminded those present that not all sections of the downed Boeing 747-100 have been recovered. The FBI has long considered a surface-to-air missile attack, of the kind that might be launched from a shoulder-launched Stinger, as a possibility in the massive explosion of the aircraft. An Air National Guard pilot flying in the area at the time of the explosion told FBI investigators that he saw a bright, flarelike object streaking toward the jet seconds before it blew up. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: !!! Forget the Book Donations !!! Date: 17 Dec 1996 16:31:09 -0800 Hi everybody - You can't win; try to do something nice and it causes trouble. Don't email those book folks - see below... >H/M has requested >that the emailings stop. This has taken essentially taken down their >system. > >If anybody has forwarded this any further, please consider digging up the >plea from Houghton Mifflin to STOP and forwarding that wherever you have >spread the original request. Yes - they screwed up, and they are >admitting >it. Now they need a bit of help. Their intentions were good, but they >drastically underestimated the power of the internet! > >Pete... - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: 7-11 manager fired for apprehending robbery suspect (fwd) Date: 17 Dec 1996 23:36:03 -0600 At 11:32 AM 12/17/96 -0600, you wrote: >Posted to texas-gun-owners by pwatson@utdallas.edu > ______ [Contents....]- StarText.Net Home - Community News - InterAct - > Market Place > Updated: Monday, Dec. 16, 1996 at 22:34 CST > > > > >Manager fired hours after being honored for work > > By The Associated Press > > > ODESSA -- One minute, Wiley Berggren was a 7-Eleven star, honored at a > company dinner for increasing sales and controlling overtime. > > But 21/2 hours later, Berggren was out of a job, fired for violating > company policy by apprehending a robbery suspect. > > "This has sort of ruined the holidays," said Berggren, an eight-year > veteran until his Dec. 10 firing. > > Three youths were trying to steal an 18-pack of beer Dec. 9 when > Berggren, manager of the Odessa store, walked out of a storeroom. He > said that he headed for a female customer whom he was concerned about > and that one of the three youths attacked him. > > "So, I wrapped him up and took him to the ground," said Berggren, who > bound the suspect's hands with a trash bag until police arrived. The > other two escaped. > > Berggren said he merely acted in self-defense. Time to boycott 7-11, aka Stop and Rob, along with the other chains that have such a ridiculous policy. Fired for defending a customer and himself, sheesh. I suppose if the scum were raping a customer, he's supposed to hold their pants for them. Here in Sherman we had an execution style shooting at an Overland Express, same kind of place, about a week agos. Three perps caught on tape, one was an employee of the chain at another Sherman location. You couldn't pay me enough to work in those places while forbidding me to be armed. You'd have to pay me alot to work there even if I could be armed. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: Re: 7-11 manager fired for apprehending robbery suspect (fwd) Date: 17 Dec 1996 15:11:13 -0900 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > ______ [Contents....]- StarText.Net Home - Community News - InterAct - > Market Place > Updated: Monday, Dec. 16, 1996 at 22:34 CST > > > > > Manager fired hours after being honored for work > > By The Associated Press > > > ODESSA -- One minute, Wiley Berggren was a 7-Eleven star, honored at a > company dinner for increasing sales and controlling overtime. > > But 21/2 hours later, Berggren was out of a job, fired for violating > company policy by apprehending a robbery suspect. > > "This has sort of ruined the holidays," said Berggren, an eight-year > veteran until his Dec. 10 firing. > > Three youths were trying to steal an 18-pack of beer Dec. 9 when > Berggren, manager of the Odessa store, walked out of a storeroom. He > said that he headed for a female customer whom he was concerned about > and that one of the three youths attacked him. > > "So, I wrapped him up and took him to the ground," said Berggren, who > bound the suspect's hands with a trash bag until police arrived. The > other two escaped. > > Berggren said he merely acted in self-defense. > > "These punk kids have no regard for anybody or anything," he said. "I > didn't want anybody to get hurt." > > Employees who intervene in suspected criminal activity will be fired, > according to the policy of Southwest Convenience Stores, a licensee of > Dallas-based Southland Corp. > > "There is no challenge to this policy," said District Manager Nick > Pappes, who conceded that firing Berggren was a tough decision. "We > can't allow any gray area." > > The policy is in place in all 35 of Southwest's Odessa locations, said > claims manager Laurie Lindsey. > > "We are not going to jeopardize employee or customer safety," she > said. > > After a similar incident four years ago, Berggren was "a hair from > being fired," Pappes said. > > Two other major West Texas convenience store companies have similar > employee nonaggression policies, a check by the `Odessa American' > found. > > Dan McCurdy, spokesman for San Angelo-based Town & Country Food > Stores, said employees are expected to give bandits full cooperation, > "even if it's ripping off the cash register from the roots." > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > © 1996 Fort Worth Star-Telegram -- Terms and Conditions -- Send > us your Feedback. Seems like these idiots could be sued for entrapment? "They promised not to resist, don't even get mad!." Also, the first time a customer is hurt despite their idiot policy, the customer should sue on the basis of 7-11's eliciting robberies in which customers might be hurt, and their refusal to provide security for customers. Lots of motels have been sued on the security issue. At that point, all of these chain stores will begin to provide quick-draw pistol training and have armed guards in a hidden room at random intervals. -- "Ideology? We don't got no ideology. We don't need no stinkin' ideology! We have a Constitution!" The CONSTITUTION, the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, and NOTHING BUT the CONSTITUTION. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: TWA 800: A Pilot's Report (fwd) Date: 18 Dec 1996 08:42:02 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- (free 2 copy (*)----------------(free 2 forward) T W A F L I G H T 8 0 0: A P I L O T' S R E P O R T by Ian Williams Goddard What happened on the night of July 17 when TWA 800 exploded in midair? Sven Faret, pilot of a private plane, along with passenger Ken Wendell, were both flying in the area and, with an eagle's-eye view, were on top of it all. Sven spoke on FOX News and CNN the night of the crash. So what did they see? According to Sven's written report [1], Sven and Ken were flying at 8,500 feet over Riverhead, LI, NY at about 8:40 pm, on July 17, 1996 when, accord- ing to the report, "Ken pointed out traffic at 3 o'clock low (actually 2:30). Sven saw a white light steady in the sky." That light, was TWA flight 800. Then the report states that a "short 'pin flash of light' appeared on the ground (perhaps water)." When I asked Sven if this flash rose upwards vertically from the surface, he confirmed that it did. He also told me it was "like a rocket launch at a fireworks display," and that its point of origin was "near the shoreline or in the water." "Very shortly" after they saw this "rocket launch" below TWA 800, their report states that: ...the white light [TWA 800] exploded instantaneously into a huge red-orange ball. My initial thoughts were "who's shooting fireworks tonight." The magni- tude of the fire ball, and altitude, quickly...ruled that out. Notice the harmony of Sven and Ken's observation with that of these ground-level eyewitness ac- counts, 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. The New York 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. Roland Penney and his family, who were in a boat at the time, reported (Newsday, 9/1/96) that they saw "a pencil-thin white trail rising up...that hit that plane." Now back to Sven's report. Moments after TWA 800 exploded, Sven states in the report: I asked Ken "What was that!?... It's probably the National Guard boys losing a C130 or something... Maybe they shot down one of their own planes." It looked like the military shot-down the plane! When asked if the military conducts such activity in the area, Sven replied: "On a regular basis." That military activity is frequent in the area is also evident in the account given by S. Beach resi- dent John Bauman (The Independent, 07/24/96), who said "people continued fishing" after the blast thinking it was probably "the Westhampton Air Force Base doing some kind of testing offshore." CONCLUSION With over 150 eyewitnesses who saw a "streak of light" and a "skyrocket" shoot up and hit TWA 800 initiating its annihilation, and with these wit- nesses on land, in the Great South Bay, out at sea and even up in the air, all giving virtually ident- ical accounts, to say that this is an overwhelming case for a missile hit is an major understatement. How many criminal cases can you recall with uniform testimony from over 150 witnesses? It's a prosecu- tor's wildest dream come true. But in the la-la-land of TWA 800, anyone who considers this testimony as proof of a missile strike is portrayed as a mentally unbalanced idiot by the GovtMedia and are, on the Internet, assaulted with vicious ad hominem attacks and threats of physical violence. How strange. For some, no amount of evidence will shatter their unfaltering faith in the FBI-NAVY-NTSB cover-up; and with all the physical evidence -- debris, radar and satellite records -- locked away, off-limits to public viewing, it's a cover-up by definition. And speaking of a cover-up, why are we not hearing all of pilot Sven Faret and Ken Wendell's eyewit- ness testimony in the media? It's painfully clear that the major media is now following the lead of the government in suppressing all evidence of a missile strike, hence the term "GovtMedia" [2]. ************************************************************************ IAN GODDARD (igoddard@erols.com) 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 [1] The Sven Faret and Ken Wendell report is at: http://home.dc.lsoft.com/wa.exe?A2=ind9612&L=flight-800&O=T&P=6880 [2] "GovtMedia" was coined by William Johnson, who publishes NorthStar: http://www.iuc.org/northstar.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Car grab or enviro-protection? (fwd) Date: 18 Dec 1996 10:05:51 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FYI to PIML subscribers. Below are an article and an editorial that appeared in the Tuesday, December 17, 1996 issue of the White Mountain [Arizona] Independent. At worst this is a less than ingenious attempt to separate us from our personal vehicles. At best it is the result of unchecked enviro-zealots let loose with regulatory powers. Whatever it is, it smells strongly like another attempt to deny the American citizenry self-determination and the ability to go where one wants, when one wants, in the guise of environmental protection. Decide for yourself: --------------- Article: Pollution may keep Smog Dogs sniffing the trail Mike Allen The Independent WHITE MOUNTAINS - If Paul Revere were alive today, he would be riding through the highways and byways of Arizona crying "the new gas and the Smog Police are coming, the new gas and the Smog Police are coming." The new fuel, classified as a reformulated unleaded 87 octane gasoline, will probably be approved for use in Arizona by the beginning of the new year and, according to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), will help to clean up the air in Phoenix. The reformulated gasoline is only one point of a 37-point plan presented to Gov. Fife Symington to try and reduce the emissions in Phoenix and Tucson. The spokesperson for the DEQ said they were aware of the hue and cry from Californians who have been using the new gasoline but, that (DEQ) hasn't seen conclusive proof that the fuel actually destroys gasoline engines. The story on the reformulated gasoline was first broken by Huntington Beach, Calif. investigative reporter Karen-Lee Bixman when the first wave of vehicles using the new fuel started belching smoke and leaking oil a few months after the fuel was introduced. The fuel was originally developed by the ARCO company and at first the company claimed that it was at the request of the state of California. Bixman was able to prove that the state had not requested the company to develop a new fuel and, in California, the fight was on. Shortly after the fuel was introduced, former Arizonan Chester Davenport, owner of Envirotest Inc., made a move to try and tie up the Smog test regulations across the country by developing what has come to be called SMOG II. First introduced in New Jersey, opponents of Envirotest were quickly branded as "right-wing militia and gun groups." To try and counter information circulated by opponents, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded ALA (the lobbyist for Envirotest) a $200,000 grant to sway public sentiment in New Jersey. Bixman reports that California has long been the testing ground for new legislation and that "the rest of the country need only look at the Golden State to see what is headed their way," regarding the Clean Air Act. As an example she cites AB 260, which requires the owner of any vehicle that is manufactured on or after Jan 1, 1998, to meet the same emission standards for the life of the vehicle, with unlimited cost to the owner to keep the vehicle in compliance. AB 1675 would prohibit the operation of diesel-powered trucks or tractor-trailers older than 1987, with the exception of emergency vehicles. Broken down, the machinery of SMOG II, according to Bixman, is designed to fail 60 to 80 percent of the vehicles tested, and under the gross polluters law, the state can seize any vehicle that is not, or cannot, be brought into compliance with the law. Citing one example, under the new law, any vehicle(s) not registered are subject to seizure. In California, a Corvair collector had 120 vintage Corvairs seized from his property and crushed. The old adage "follow the money trail" also holds true regarding the new law. The new gasoline and SMOG II are part of a scheme to take vehicles from the nation's highways and includes car-crushing programs, with the companies that take part in the programs receiving pollution credits. Pollution credits were created under the Clean Air Act. California's UNOCAL Corporation created a subsidiary company called Eco-Scrap Inc., which charges businesses a fee to find old cars, process the paperwork and have the emission credits issued in the company's name. Started in 1990, the company purchases (whether or not the buyer wants to sell) and crushes older vehicles under the gross polluter law and then receives from the government credits that can then be sold to other businesses. According to Bixman, getting your car off the highway is now big business - and it starts at the pump. Editorial: DEQ/EPA overrules against common sense Mike Allen The Independent Now I'm ticked. I received some information from an investigative reporter in La-la land (California) about the "reformulated gasoline" and SMOG II. After reading the information, I decided to call the Department of Environmental Quality in Phoenix and see when the new fuel was going to be introduced into the Arizona market. The answer is that a 37-point document has been sent to the governor for his signature and the new gas is one of the points they are recommending. When asked about the effect(s) the new fuel has on pre-1991 vehicles, the DEQ spokesperson said that "that is a subjective opinion, and that they have not seen any hard evidence that shows the reformulated gas is responsible for the problems many older vehicles are having." When I told her I was looking at results and information from Karen-Lee Bixman, writer and publisher of "The investigative Reporter" in Huntington Beach, California, the DEQ person stated that the department was aware of the problems, but that the bottom line is that it will help to reduce pollution. Gov. Fife Symington is expected to sign the plan designed by the DEQ before Dec. 25. When Bixman released her story in California, through the printed press and on the radio, state legislators were besieged by telephone calls, faxes and letters demanding that the new gasoline and new automobile testing be delayed until more tests could be done. The testing has been delayed. Several rallies were held on the steps of the Capitol Building with more than 10,000 people showing up for the last one. Because of an additive, the fuel degrades the rubber seals in the engine and is causing premature engine failure. SMOG II is designed and promoted by former Arizonan firm Envriotest headed by Chester Davenport. According to information from California, vehicles older than 10 years will have a 60 to 80 percent failure rate under Davenport's machine. In a speech to 500 regulatory and EPA employees, on Sept 29, 1994, Denver Regional Administrator of the EPA, William Yellowtail exposed the EPA's agenda for the automobile. "Denver has adopted a ban of resale of older vehicles that have been impounded or abandoned. We considered, of course, a general impoundment if you will, or removal from the road of those older cars, but that is not politically feasible at this time," he said. "Unfortunately, the fleet turnover doesn't happen fast enough. If it were going to make a real difference, it isn't going to be tomorrow, unless we get fairly aggressive about what we do. But cleaning up the cars and the roads is only half the solution, the other half, and in fact the much more difficult half, involves getting people out of their cars. Somehow you people, and all people, have to figure out a way to convince the public that mass transportation is the way to go." While it sounds good in theory, a good public transportation system is largely a myth in most cities. ________________________________________________________ \ / \ Steve Greenhow / \ Austin, Texas USA / \ email: magbo@bga.com / \ / \ "And gentlemen in England now-a-bed / \ Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, / \ And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks / \ That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day." / \ --Henry V (iv, iii) / \________________________________________________________/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ken L. Holder" Subject: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 18 Dec 1996 15:20:17 -0800 ------------- Begin forward from Nando Times ------------------ Parents of young Scottish massacre victims disgusted with Duke of Edinburgh's comments Copyright 1996 Nando.net Copyright 1996 Agence France-Presse LONDON (Dec 18, 1996 6:01 p.m. EST) - Parents of children shot dead in the Scottish town of Dunblane earlier this year were outraged Wednesday after the Duke of Edinburgh said members of shooting clubs were no more dangerous than golfers or squash players. Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth, told a radio interviewer that planned legislation -- drawn up after the 16 schoolchildren and their teacher were massacred in March -- to outlaw most handguns would not be effective as it would not prevent weapons getting into the hands of criminals. Leaders of the anti-gun Snowdrop Campaign, which is supported by the bereaved parents, said they were "sickened" by Prince Philip's backing for gun sports. And Alison Crozier, whose five-year-old daughter Emma was killed in Dunblane by gunman Thomas Hamilton -- who held his weapons legally -- described the duke's remarks as "outrageous" and "very insensitive." Prince Philip's comments also sparked off a storm in the House of Commons, with legislators denouncing him as "crass" and "insensitive," and calling for him to stop blundering into sensitive debates. Prince Philip said in an interview with BBC Radio that he sympathized "desperately" with the bereaved at Dunblane, but was "not altogether convinced that it's the best system to somehow shift the blame onto a very large and peaceable part of the community. "If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean are you going to ban cricket bats?" he added. His comments come as the government pilots through parliament the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which will take 160,000 higher calibre handguns out of circulation but will spare 40,000 of the smaller .22 Olympic-style pistols -- provided they are kept under lock and key at gun clubs. Shooting is a long-established favorite pastime of the British royal family. Earlier this month Prince Charles came under attack for taking his youngest son Prince Harry, 12, on a pheasant shoot. ------------- end forward from Nando Times ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION EXCISE TAXES (fwd) Date: 19 Dec 1996 07:53:07 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Lyle Yarnell Well folks, I just crawled out from under that rock over there in that pumpkin patch. I haven't seen this posted or discussed here. This, my friends, is the camel's nose under the tent. And guess what? The camel has seen your bed and wants it for himself. Good luck stopping him now... (Thanks to Joe Horn for his earlier post. It took me to the Treasury Dept's websight where I found this.) Source: http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/comments/pn0013.htm FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION EXCISE TAXES, PARTS AND ACCESSORIES Washington--The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in today's Federal Register to amend regulations relating to the manufacturer's excise tax on firearms and ammunition. A tax is imposed on the sale by the manufacturer, importer, or producer of pistols, revolvers, firearms (other than pistols and revolvers), shells, and cartridges. The tax is 10 percent of the sale price for pistols and revolvers, 11 percent of the sale price for firearms (other than pistols and revolvers), and 11 percent of the sale price for shells and cartridges. Current regulations provide that no tax is imposed on the sale price of parts or accessories of firearms, pistols, revolvers, shells, and cartridges when sold separately or when sold with a complete firearm. This notice proposes regulations to clarify which parts and accessories must be included in the sale price when calculating the tax on firearms by providing definitions for "component parts" which must be included in the taxable sale price and "nontaxable parts" and "nontaxable accessories" which are excluded from the taxable sale price. Written comments must be received on or before November 27, 1996. Comments must be addressed to: Chief, Wine, Beer, and Spirits Regulations Branch Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Post Office Box 50221 Washington, DC 20091-0221 (ATTN: Notice No. 836) For further information, see today's issue of the Federal Register, or contact the Office of Public Information on (202) 927-8500. -- Lyle Yarnell -- 10% today 25% next year 50% the next 1000% Before Uncle Bill leaves office... -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION EXCISE TAXES (fwd) Date: 19 Dec 1996 10:00:23 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:21:58 -0600 > From: Lyle Yarnell > To: Texas Gun Owners > Subject: FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION EXCISE TAXES > > Posted to texas-gun-owners by Lyle Yarnell > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Well folks, I just crawled out from under that rock over there in > that pumpkin patch. I haven't seen this posted or discussed here. > This, my friends, is the camel's nose under the tent. And guess > what? The camel has seen your bed and wants it for himself. > Good luck stopping him now... Actually, I think the camel is eyeing something else. I think he wants *you* for himself. Please assume the position... bd P.S. Nobody commented on the CBS hit-piece the other night about how the "gun-lobby" is the only thing standing in the way of Charles Schumer's brilliant plant to make us all much safer by mandating taggants in smokeless and black powder. Get this: the latest plan for taggants is to insert volatile material which will emit odors detectable by whiz-bang hig-tech gizmos. Wonder what said volatile junk might do for the stability of the powder? > > (Thanks to Joe Horn for his earlier post. It took me to the > Treasury Dept's websight where I found this.) > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Source: http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/comments/pn0013.htm > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION EXCISE TAXES, PARTS AND ACCESSORIES > > Washington--The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is publishing > a notice of proposed rulemaking in today's Federal Register to amend > regulations relating to the manufacturer's excise tax on firearms and > ammunition. A tax is imposed on the sale by the manufacturer, importer, or > producer of pistols, revolvers, firearms (other than pistols and revolvers), > shells, and cartridges. The tax is 10 percent of the sale price for pistols > and revolvers, 11 percent of the sale price for firearms (other than pistols > and revolvers), and 11 percent of the sale price for shells and cartridges. > Current regulations provide that no tax is imposed on the sale price of > parts or accessories of firearms, pistols, revolvers, shells, and cartridges > when sold separately or when sold with a complete firearm. This notice > proposes regulations to clarify which parts and accessories must be included > in the sale price when calculating the tax on firearms by providing > definitions for "component parts" which must be included in the taxable sale > price and "nontaxable parts" and "nontaxable accessories" which are excluded > from the taxable sale price. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Written comments must be received on or before November 27, 1996. Comments > must be addressed to: Chief, Wine, Beer, and Spirits Regulations Branch > Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Post Office Box 50221 Washington, DC > 20091-0221 (ATTN: Notice No. 836) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > For further information, see today's issue of the Federal Register, or > contact the Office of Public Information on (202) 927-8500. > > -- > > Lyle Yarnell > -- > 10% today > 25% next year > 50% the next > 1000% Before Uncle Bill leaves office... > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net > with the word help in the message body. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION EXCISE TAXES (fwd) Date: 19 Dec 1996 09:46:12 -0800 Of course anyone who ticks off the BATF (Bureau of Absolutely Treasonous Felons) by responding in a "negative" manner to one of their NPRM's will instantly earn a position of honor on their Fecal Roster! Sort of a catch .22, or more likely catch a 9mm or .308. Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Safe or Free? (fwd) Date: 19 Dec 1996 13:03:20 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by Joe Horn <6mysmesa@1eagle1.com> SAFE OR FREE? THAT'S THE GUN CONTROL ISSUE >From the perspective of the Second Amendment, the problem with 28 years of federal gun control legislation certainly is that they infringe the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore deserve to be struck down. But there is another perspective from which it may be said that the problem with laws like the free school zone act, Brady, and the assault weapon ban has NOTHING to do with guns. >From this other perspective, gun laws are only a part of a general class of laws that all share a certain fundamental characteristic, that all spring from a common purpose and desire. If we truly wish to stop legislation like Brady, we must grasp the underlying impulse from which this legislation springs. Unless we understand and reject that impulse, and the principle behind this TYPE of legislation, the impulse will remain a well-spring for thousands of new laws. Gun control laws of the last 28 years all share the following fundamental characteristic: THEY OUTLAW OR RESTRICT AN ACTIVITY THAT IS NOT INHERENTLY WRONG IN ORDER TO PREVENT HARM BEFORE IT OCCURS. MAKING CRIMINALS Stated simply, the laws CREATE crimes in order to STOP crimes. English common law distinguished between crimes that were "malum in se", or morally wrong in themselves, like rape, murder or robbery, and crimes that were "malum prohibitum", wrong because prohibited by a legislative pronouncement. There is nothing inherently wrong, or evil, with purchasing a firearm across state lines, entering a post office while carrying a firearm, purchasing a firearm without first enduring a background check, or owning an "assault weapon" or magazines capable of hold more than 10 rounds. These activities in and of themselves harm no one; the deed in itself is not immoral. And so that there's no quibbling here, let's be clear about this: Ethically speaking, there is nothing wrong with a convicted felon purchasing a firearm, regardless of whether he has an intention of using it in the commission of a crime. The ACT of acquiring and owning a firearm harms no one. Until the very moment he commits his crime, the felon is free, like each of us to choose good over evil. The purchase of a handgun across state lines, or without a background check, has been made "malum prohibitum", declared wrong. This is said to be a means of preventing the wrong people from obtaining firearms out of certain places. TO PREVENT HARM BEFORE IT OCCURS. Law-abiding citizens, such as firearm dealers, are now subject to the risk of becoming criminals, not because THEIR conduct or activity harms any one, but solely to prevent OTHER persons from perpetrating criminal misdeeds. Yes, the concept of prevention sounds appealing. Why WAIT only to punish people AFTER the fact, when the murder or rape has already been committed? Then it's TOO LATE? What could possibly be wrong with preventing person from selling firearms to convicted felons? Why should society knowingly take a risk that convicted felons MIGHT have reformed? What could possibly be wrong with taking steps to prevent crime BEFORE it occurs, with saving lives? PURSUIT OF SAFETY Perhaps the pursuit of safety through prevention seems reasonable, even though one perhaps recognizes that there is certain madness in the notion of creating new crimes to eliminate others. But listen to what we're saying: we agree to restrict liberty to purchase safety. Perhaps we believe, as Sarah Brady likes to say, that "If it saves even one life ..." How touching. But if we propose to make this bargain, let us look squarely at what it means to criminalize otherwise innocent activities as a means of preventing crime before it occurs. First, recognize that only laws that criminalize behavior "malum in se" and impose restriction on liberty (punishment) AFTER THE FACT, when it is TOO LATE, accord with the presumption of innocence- the principle that government honors the liberty of its citizens until their deeds convict them. Laws that criminalize innocent behavior in order to prevent crimes BEFORE they occur effectively presume guilt. Brady, for example, in seeking to prevent harm BEFORE it occurs, effectively presumes that all handgun purchasers are madmen or felons, and all firearm dealers are engaged in criminally abetting the commission of a crime with a firearm, unless the purchaser's innocence is PROVEN by an absence of damning records in the hands of the authorities. Second, laws that criminalize conduct not wrong in itself to prevent crime before it occurs make the behavior of criminals the measure of the rights and scope of liberty that the law will permit to the innocent. Assault weapons are dangerous in the hands of criminals, therefore, no one shall have them. Such laws tell the law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the lawless. That the law will permit the innocent to have only such rights and liberties as criminals will allow. FEAR OF CRIME A law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior of the guilty, that rests on the principle that the conduct of criminals dictates the scope of liberty for the rest of society, in no sense "fights" crime. For society has permitted its fear of crime, and craving for safety, to turn the force of law against the innocent and law-abiding. Far from FIGHTING crime, the criminalization of otherwise innocent activities represents a society in RETREAT from crime. This is a society desperately accommodating itself to crime. A society that is, instead, outraged over crime would boldly direct its energies against criminals. A righteously indignant society would angrily resolve to surrender no ground, forfeit no liberties to the lawless. For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding. Third, laws that criminalize innocent behavior in order to prevent harm before it occurs make a mockery of, and trivialize, laws that criminalize behavior that is truly wrong. SELECTIVE LAWS Guns are banned in post offices and school zones. Why this partiality to post offices and schools? Are we protecting hallowed places from being defiled? Is it okay to shoot up a gas station or a library, but not a post office? The selectivity in the law is inherently unsupportable. It is apparent that the law is merely a political, manipulative ploy, purely symbolic. What do such laws say? That murder is wrong, but it is really, really wrong - and we really, really mean it! - in schools and post offices? In its implicit suggestion that murder is "more wrong" in some places than in others, the law undermines the seriousness of murder and reveals, in fact, that we do not take "mere murder" seriously. PRESUMED INNOCENCE Faced with the dire fact of murder and crime, we retreat into symbolism.Yet to one who believes that by relinquishing a little liberty, and bearing some slight inconveniences, we might truly purchase greater safety, the foregoing may be regarded as so much libertarian gibberish, and less than convincing. Yes, a rigid adherence to the presumption of innocence grants maximum scope to individual liberty. But, the critics might bray, too much emphasis is placed on individual freedom. We do not live alone, we live in society. The actions of some members - such as gun dealers, regardless of whether they are evil or wrong in themselves - have consequences that adversely affect others. There is no reason that some persons in a good position to thwart criminal endeavors should not be compelled to join in the fight against crime, to prevent crime before it occurs to make our society a safer place. The problem with this "interconnectedness of all things" argument is that it has no logical or natural stopping place: it can be used to justify absolutely anything! Once the principle of punishing only activities that are actually wrong is abandoned, we have no start to guide us. THE DRUG ANALOGY Consider: the use of drugs for pleasure (rather than for therapeutic reasons) is wrong, according to our society. To PREVENT this, we have completely banned the purchase and sale of drugs except as prescribed by a physician. Alas, this has not been sufficient; drug use continues at unacceptable levels. Accordingly, bankers, car dealers and anyone who receives payment in cash exceeding $10,000 must report the fact to the authorities, so that the authorities may trace "drug money". Landlords who rent property where drug dealing occurs risk loss of their property to the government for failing to prevent the very activity that the government could not. A landlord should know what happens on his premises and take action to evict the dealers. Oh, but why stop here? Surely the grocery store managers in drug infested neighborhoods know who the druggies are. Why not prohibit them from selling food to these scum? Are we serious about ostracizing these people and condemning their behavior, or not? If just one life is saved ... The "interconnectedness of all things" argument has no objection, no principle that would say, "Thus far, and no further!" Why just landlords and bankers? Why not grocery store clerks? Aren't they all part of the Great Drug Chain? GOOD FIRST STEP So here let us note the fourth characteristic of laws that criminalize innocent conduct in order to prevent crime before it occurs. To the extent that they "work" they do not so much actually PREVENT the crime from occurring - they LOCATE the battleground for our next prevention efforts. Each prevention effort is thus "a good first step". The problem is that each step is only a first step: the goal endlessly recedes before us. This is easy to see with gun control legislation. Brady prevents criminals from buying guns from legitimate dealers. Next we must shut down unregulated sales at flea markets and gun shows. Next we must require homeowners to keep their guns in vaults so criminals cannot steal them. Once these efforts have succeeded - so that the gun market for criminals is converted into an illegal, underground market, like the market for illegal drugs - we will need to tighten import restrictions to shut down the borders. Eventually, we will need to regulate sales of metal-working tools by Sears, and implicate everyone in the Great Gun Chain. Soon it will be a crime to own a hacksaw. By now it should be evident what the project of these laws is: TO SO ARRANGE THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS OF LIFE THAT THOSE DISPOSED TO ACT UPON THEIR EVIL INTENTIONS WILL HAVE NO MEANS OF REALIZING THEIR DESIGNS. Matters must be so arranged that, though criminals will WANT to use guns, they just won't be able to GET them. People will WANT drugs, they just won't be able to buy them. Crazy people will WANT to blow up buildings, they just won't be able to. Thus will the world be made a safer place. RESPONSIBILITY And now we come to the critical point, the self-destructive contradiction inherent in laws that criminalize innocent conduct to prevent crime before it occurs: THEIR GOAL IS TO MAKE RESPONSIBILITY IRRELEVANT. It doesn't matter if criminals WANT to commit murder with guns; we will arrange things so that they simply CANNOT. Pass Brady and a few other well-crafted laws, vigorously enforce them, and it won't MATTER whether people act responsibly or not. Their irresponsible intentions will be rendered impotent and irrelevant. Query: how does the law have the moral authority to hold people responsible for their behavior if the law is engaged in a project whose operative presumption is that responsibility and irresponsibility can be made irrelevant? How do criminals - how does ANYONE - learn that they are responsible for their actions, if the law is engaged in a mighty project to render it irrelevant whether one does or does not want to act responsibly? And if we think that laws designed to prevent crime BEFORE it occurs can indeed make the world a safer place, by making self-control and responsibility irrelevant? [Jeff Snyder is the Gun Rights Editor for American Handgunner who has written widely on second amendment issues including his nationally acclaimed essay "A Nation Of Cowards". Jeff publishes a provocative newsletter called Arms, Law & Society for $28 a year available from ALS Publications, Inc., P. O. Box 114, Chenago Bridge, NY 13745-0114.] We thank Jeff for permission to place this article on the web. -- 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: Kevlar Cowboys Albuquerque operation (fwd) Date: 19 Dec 1996 13:18:54 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Well, Monday the 16th of December was a dark day for one 69 year=20 old Albuquerque man, his last day, too. The "jack booted thugs" made famou= s in Waco a few years back were alive and well in New Mexico that day. =20 Monday morning a "joint task force" of the Albuquerque Police and the Bernalillo County Sheriff Departments executed a search warrant and one person simultaneously. The predawn "raid" was ostensively to obtain evidence from a residence. The offense was counterfeiting checks and motor vehicle type IDS, hardly a "violent" crime. An Albuquerque man, 69 year old Ralph Garrison, was awakened by the predawn commotion outside his house in the 2600 block of Quincy NE. Turns out Garrison not only owned the house he was living in, but the house next door= , the target of the "raid". His concern was someone was attacking his proper= ty. =20 In Garrison's first encounter with the police that morning, they shined flashlights in his face and ordered him to return to his house. He did so reluctantly, but he called 911 and reported the disturbance. The conversation between 911 and Garrison, released and played on the local new= s very clearly shows that Garrison was consumed with fear for himself and his property. He clearly indicates in the audio clips he could not identify those individuals who ordered him back into the house as police and asked for police assistance. The transcript of the call shows "They're breaking into my house -- a whole bunch of people." Later in the call Garrison told the dispatcher, "They've got lights and everything (inaudible) in my face." and "Oh, yes. I can't, I can't see (inaudible) going on." Garrison indicates, "I'm gonna go out there now." The dispatcher asked Garrison to take the phone with him. As Garrison walks out the door he says, "I've got my gun. I'll shoot the sons of bitches." There is a long pause and someone is heard yelling and Garrison seems to try to say something. A roar of gun fire ensues. News reports indicate he was shot b= y three officers armed with "AR15" rifles. One individual claims to have heard shot bursts on the airing of the 911 tape, which indicates M16's not AR15's. Evidence markers at the scene indicate at least a dozen shots were fired. Did not these officers realize that the same disorientation they hope for in the targets of these predawn affairs can be experienced by anyone who is woken up from a sound sleep? One of the three officers involved in this shooting has been a defendant in three federal excessive-force lawsuits since 1991 for which the city has already paid $375,000 in settlements. In one case in March 1993 this officer was involved in the fatal shooting a subject while police were attempting to arrest that person on a charge of parole violation from an arson conviction. The man had threatened officers with a "locomotive-shape= d cologne bottle" after a 4 1/2 hour standoff. The city paid $100,000 for that one and I suspect they will pay for this one as well. (With our money.) Police have said all three officers who shot Garrison were wearing SWAT gear, which includes black fatigues and police patches but no gold badges. Another portion of the story indicates the officers "were wearing outfits that say 'POLICE' and 'SHERIFF' on the back". =20 (So a guy is supposed to read a mans back when he shines a flashlight in your face.) The newspaper indicates, "one police vehicle had its spotlight on. The U. S. Customs Service also took part in the search, and a Customs helicopter also was providing light." Where I come from, police cars have rotating re= d lights. Where were they? A police spokesman said=20 marked police vehicles and uniformed officers were also on the "outer perimiter" of the scene, but he didn't know exactly where. Was this a cowboy operation or what(I hate to disparage good cowboys)? Police have said Garrison apparently didn't know he was dealing with police and went back inside, phoned 911 and told the dispatcher people were breaking into his property. The Albuquerque Police Department has announced they will probe the issue o= f why the 911 dispatch center was not aware of the operation going on next door to Garrison's. (Nice move, but a little short of the problem in my estimation.) =20 The picture of the event, carried in the Albuquerque Journal, on=20 Tuesday morning shows only "Kevlar Cowboys" on the scene. You know the "Jack Booted Thugs" image, so familiar in news coverage these days. Most police departments in New Mexico require a uniformed officer to be involved in these actions. It is apparent from the news coverage of this event that no one, recognizable to Mr. Garrison as a police officer, was available to talk "non-targets" that morning. Also apparent is the fact that when the adrenaline flowed that morning, not one of the officers on the scene had ever been in the Boy Scouts, where all are taught that shining ones flashlight in someones eyes is not only impolite, but it renders ones visio= n inoperative for a period of time. This was a fatal problem forced upon Mr. Garrison. =20 To add insult to injury, Garrison's dog was shot as well. I guess the poor dog had a "police recognition" problem as well. The dog attempted to guard Garrison, after the Kevlar Cowboys shot him and they claim they had to kill the dog to be able to administer first aid to the victim. Garrison died a couple of hours later at the hospital. Another fact that has not been covered by the "media" is the fruitfulness o= f the search operation in the first place. Did they find anything? No word yet. I suspect they did not or they would be using those facts to justify the event. =20 This whole situation could have been prevented by reasonable operational tactics from the Albuquerque Police Department. First, there was not even = a violent crime involved in the criminal complaint which yielded the search warrant. Was a "SWAT TEAM"-early morning operation really necessary for this event(SWAT team operations are probably never justifiable by civilian police anyway)? Second, the Kevlar Cowboys running the operation felt no need to handle public relations at the scene with other than the finesse offered by a conquering army. Third, the Kevlar Cowboys did not have a presence at the dispatch center and the dispatch center was totally unaware of the operation. (Maybe the police chief should be more involved in running his department than his lobbying efforts on the behalf of social causes.) Another interesting note is the County Sheriff, who had members of his department involved in this event, was present at the press conference the afternoon after this event and did not take an active role in the press conference. This is the only constitutionally recognized law enforcement officer in the county and he kept his mouth shut. We need to return to the old days when cops were recognizable and their job was to protect citizens, not gun them down. Lets return the police to civilian (as opposed to paramilitary) status and see if the violence level does not return to a decent level. Lets get rid of the Kevlar Cowboys and start doing business the old fashioned way, legally and within the bounds o= f the United States Constitution. I don't think anyone can justify a no-knoc= k search warrant for a counterfeiting operation under any stretch of any imagination. =20 =1A=95 ************************************************************** Did OJ commit a Furhman last week? Wonder how long it will take to get the perjury charges out on that one?=20 ************************************************************** John Gordon - Albuquerque, N. M. - WD5DHR =1A=95 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: so much for brit courage... (fwd) Date: 19 Dec 1996 13:19:08 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Subject: so much for brit courage... >Forwarded message: >Date: 96-12-19 09:24:48 EST > >.c The Associated Press > LONDON (AP) -- Buckingham Palace apologized today after Prince >Philip angered grieving relatives of slain schoolchildren by >speaking out against a new law banning most handguns. > In a BBC radio interview Wednesday, the 75-year-old husband of >Queen Elizabeth II said he sympathized with the bereaved people of >Dunblane, Scotland, where 16 children and a teacher were killed >this year, but suggested that a handgun ban was not a rational >response. > ``If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a >school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, >which he could do very easily, I mean are you going to ban cricket >bats?'' Philip said. > Philip, who is president of the World Wide Fund for Nature, his >wife and most of their family hunt deer and game birds for sport. > ``I can't believe that the members of shooting clubs are any >more dangerous than members of a squash club or a golf club or >anything else,'' he said. > Alison Crozier, whose 5-year-old daughter Emma was killed in the >Dunblane massacre, called Philip's remarks outrageous and >insensitive. > ``Golf clubs are made for sport, for enjoyment. Guns are made to >kill. There is no comparison,'' she said. > Tony Blair, leader of the opposition Labor party, said Philip's >reference to cricket bats ``was not a wise analogy.'' > Buckingham Palace tried to smooth over the ruckus. > ``Prince Philip had no intention whatsoever of causing offense >or distress to anyone and he is sorry if he has done so,'' >Buckingham Palace said today. > ``His personal views were very much focused in the area of how >difficult it is to apply the law sensibly in these difficult >situations,'' the statement said. > The massacre at Dunblane kindergarten on March 13 stirred a wave >of revulsion in Britain against handgun ownership. Legislators >voted last month to ban private ownership of all handguns except >.22 caliber guns. The ban takes effect next year. > Dunblane gunman Thomas Hamilton, who also killed himself, was a >member of a local target shooting club and had a police license for >his guns. > AP-NY-12-19-96 0919EST > 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 19 Dec 1996 12:14:10 -0800 Ken, >>>>>>> [=8A] Leaders of the anti-gun Snowdrop Campaign, . . . [=8A] <<<<<<< Snowdrop. I guess that is supposed to be some kind of touchy feely kind of British analog to HCI? Snowdrop. Just what the hell, may I ask, is a friggin' 'snowdrop'? Sounds cute, eh? Sounds like a lot of other pinko-psycho machinations that are calculated to deceive people into a warm and fuzzy feeling of supporting yet another hell on earth, by using the old bait-and-switch routine. The Prince has it right, but aint it kind of late in the game to all of a sudden 'get religion'? I mean, the door has all but slammed his ass on the way out. I next expect to hear him proclaiming something about the ol' Magna Carta, and Rights, and all that. But then, _they_ don't have a Second Article of Amendment. And they ain't American either. My parents are dyed-in-the-wool Americans of the New England yankee tradition, and if there's one thing they imparted to me, it's that I must never let go of my _earned_ and inherited pride. Maybe that's why the Brit's and Scot's have given up so easily - they have none left. It must be that, since they so easily accept such bankrupt arguments when giving up what freedom they have left. Big Brother awaits with open arms. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 19 Dec 1996 16:56:02 -0500 > My parents are dyed-in-the-wool Americans of the New England yankee >tradition, and if there's one thing they imparted to me, it's that I must >never let go of my _earned_ and inherited pride. > Ditto, here. Its no coincidence that the Australians, the Canadians, and the British are all Commonwealth countries without the fierce tradition of the Bill of Rights. All have gone way down the rat hole of prohibiting gun ownership. I'm afraid that America is getting dumbed down on the significance, moral, judicial, and Constitutional of the awful erosion of the BOR. Let's hope the checks and balances of the Constitution do their job if we do ours. regards, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 19 Dec 1996 16:24:55 -0600 "E. J. Totty" wrote: > Ken, > > >>>>>>> > [=8A] > Leaders of the anti-gun Snowdrop Campaign, . . . > [=8A] > <<<<<<< > > Snowdrop. I guess that is supposed to be some kind of touchy feely >kind of British analog to HCI? It's a small, white, flower, I believe, and is intended to represent the children and their teacher who were killed by a lunatic in a massacre earlier this year, which took place in Dunblane, Scotland. > Snowdrop. Just what the hell, may I ask, is a friggin' 'snowdrop'? > Sounds cute, eh? > Sounds like a lot of other pinko-psycho machinations that are >calculated to deceive people into a warm and fuzzy feeling of supporting >yet another hell on earth, by using the old bait-and-switch routine. I think I already answered your question. Actually, the parents of the slain children, who are behind the Snowdrop Campaign, *have* been through hell on earth. What's not happening is the application of reason to the problem. Their celebrity status and obvious bereavement have afforded them considerable political influence, as would be the case in this country as well. That Prince Philip has applied reason to an issue which most thought already decided on emotional grounds, is the cause of considerable uproar. Especially given the parlous state of the Monarchy in Britain these days, it took considerable courage for him to do even what he did. > The Prince has it right, but aint it kind of late in the game to >all of a sudden 'get religion'? In Great Britain, the Royal Family is expected to remain above partisan politics, that is to say, to be silent on such issues. That he has spoken at all is rather unusual. As with a dog walking on its hind legs, the wonder is not that it is done well, but that it is done at all. > I mean, the door has all but slammed his ass on the way out. Other than his Royal (celebrity) status, or, rather, that of his wife, Prince Philip has no political standing. Again, that he spoke at all is unusual. > I next expect to hear him proclaiming something about the ol' Magna >Carta, and Rights, and all that. But then, _they_ don't have a Second >Article of Amendment. > And they ain't American either. True by definition. > My parents are dyed-in-the-wool Americans of the New England yankee >tradition, and if there's one thing they imparted to me, it's that I must >never let go of my _earned_ and inherited pride. Be careful with pride. See Pope, the "Essay on Criticism." Never let it blind you. > Maybe that's why the Brit's and Scot's have given up so easily - >they have none left. It must be that, since they so easily accept such >bankrupt arguments when giving up what freedom they have left. Big Brother >awaits with open arms. They never understood that they had a right, which they were losing, to own firearms. Such a right is nowhere recognized in English law, as is also the case in Australia, of ongoing song and story. Pride really has nothing to do with it. The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)[FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [1 of 7] Date: 19 Dec 1996 17:45:44 -0500 >Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 22:11:16 -0600 (CST) >From: James Fish >X-Sender: jfish@earth >To: fwiw@execpc.com >Subject: [FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [1 of 7] >Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > >FWIW > >The New American * January 6, 1997 > >Special Report: >How Congress Can Save America > > > Restore the Constitution > ------------------------ > by Gary Benoit > >Congressmen have only to honor their sacred oath to the >Constitution to reverse the growth of leviathan government. > >If it is true, as Robert Service wrote in his spellbinding poem The >Cremation of Sam McGee, that "a promise made is a debt unpaid," >then the federal government's gargantuan $5 trillion national debt >must be dwarfed by all of the broken and failed promises of >politicians. How many times have we experienced more taxes instead >of the promised tax cuts, more deficits instead of the promised >balanced budgets, more bureaucratic controls instead of the >promised regulatory relief, and (in general) more government >instead of the promised slashing of leviathan? How many times have >we been assured that "the era of big government is over," only to >discover that it has not yet reached its apex? > >Like its predecessors, the new 105th Congress elected in November >has piled up its share of promises. Yet, in spite of the poor >performance of previous Congresses, there is no reason why the >debts cannot be paid. In fact, a realistic payment plan already >exists, a plan to which every congressman swears allegiance. But >that plan is not a party platform or a political stump speech. It >is not the "Contract With America." It is a much older document >that remains timeless because it is based on immutable principles >of governance that were once well understood in this country but >are now largely forgotten. It is the Constitution of the United >States. > >The oath that every congressman takes at the beginning of each new >two-year congressional term - an oath to "support and defend" the >Constitution - is the most important promise of all. Fulfill that >one promise, and there is little doubt that the budget would be >balanced because the government would eventually shrink to about >one-fifth of its present size. Abide by the Constitution, and an >unshackled American free enterprise system would usher in a new era >of economic prosperity that government planners could never >achieve. Pay that one debt, and America would have good and honest >government limited to its proper constitutional role. > >This is not to say that other political promises are not >significant or worthwhile. But their worthiness should be judged on >the basis of their compatibility with the supreme law of the land >that enabled a backward wilderness nation to become the envy of the >collectivist old world. Times may have changed, but the principles >embodied in the Constitution are as applicable today as in 18th- >century America. Those principles include a recognition that >government must have sufficient power to protect unalienable >rights, but not enough power to abrogate those rights. > >Delegated Powers > >Because of the limiting features of the Constitution, the federal >government possesses relatively few powers, all of which are >explicitly enumerated. As James Madison explained in The >Federalist, No. 45, "The powers delegated by the ... Constitution >to the federal government are few and defined." Those delegated >powers "will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, >peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power >of taxation will, for the most part, be connected." On the other >hand, "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all >the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the >lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal >order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." This concept of >federalism provides a double barrier against encroaching tyranny; >the powers of government are not only divided horizontally among >three branches of the federal government, but vertically between >the federal government and the states. > >There are no non-enumerated federal powers. As Alexander Hamilton >stated in The Federalist, No. 78, "There is no position which >depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated >authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it >is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to >the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm >that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is >above his master; that the representatives of the people are >superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of >powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what >they forbid." > >The enumerated powers of Congress are listed principally in Article >I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Yet it is not an exaggeration to >state that the typical congressman violates the clear provisions of >the Constitution on a routine basis since most of what the >government does these days is unconstitutional. Examples include >the food stamp program, education assistance, agricultural price >supports, subsidized housing, foreign aid, and (yes) even the >massive Social Security and Medicare programs that now consume >about one-third of the federal budget. Complete restoration of the >Constitution would mean the elimination (or privatization) of all >of these programs. Of course, while some programs such as foreign >aid should be eliminated immediately, others (such as Social >Security) would have to be phased out gradually in recognition of >the commitments that the government has made and the dependency >that has developed as a consequence of those commitments. > >Only by moving boldly in this direction can the budget be balanced >and sound government achieved. Merely slowing down the rate of >growth in government, as previous Congresses have done, will not >prevent government from eventually acquiring total power, but will >only delay it. The fact that decades of encroaching socialism >cannot be eradicated overnight is no excuse for not reversing >direction and beginning the long trek back to freedom. > >First Steps > >A good first step for the 105th Congress to undertake would be to >chain legislative actions to the Constitution by requiring that any >bill that is introduced cite the specific portion of the >Constitution (the article, section, and clause numbers) giving it >legitimacy. Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) introduced this very >proposal under the title Enumerated Powers Act in the previous >Congress. Although the measure never came up for a vote, it gained >the support of 103 co-sponsors and a belated promise from House >Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) that he would allow it to be voted on >in the new Congress. > >Capitol Hill sources inform The New American that there is an >excellent chance that this proposal will be incorporated into the >new rules determining how the 105th Congress conducts its >proceedings. If that proves not to be the case, congressmen should >be challenged to support the Shadegg legislation (which would then >be reintroduced). Either way, congressmen should constantly be >asked to cite the specific constitutional power(s) justifying >whatever legislation they sponsor. > >Congress cannot restore sound government, however, unless it >reclaims its constitutionally authorized powers that have been >usurped by the other two branches of government. Even though >Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that Congress >possesses all legislative powers, both the Executive and the >Judiciary have effectively become quasi-legislative bodies through >their freedom-threatening regulations, orders, and rulings. >Congressmen must be encouraged to reclaim their exclusive >legislative authority; the constitutional means for achieving this >end can easily be implemented and are explained in the articles on >pages 26 and 29. > >An example of usurped congressional power is the President's >deployment of American troops in "police actions" without the >constitutionally required declaration of war and without even the >solicitation of congressional approval. The Founding Fathers never >intended that a single man possess the awesome authority to plunge >the nation into the crucible of war, and Congress must immediately >end this dangerous abuse of power (see page 27). > >Congressmen must also be encouraged not to do any further damage to >the delicate system of checks and balances by surrendering >additional congressional powers to the Executive. The line-item >veto legislation adopted by the previous Congress is an example of >such a transfer of power. Designed ostensibly to create another >check on spending, the line-item veto enables the President to >interject himself in the legislative process by picking and >choosing which parts of an integrated bill he would preserve or >discard. He could use this immense power to reward or punish >congressmen for supporting or opposing his programs by, for >instance, overlooking a congressman's pet pork barrel project in >exchange for a key vote. Fortunately, since every new law >supersedes existing law, Congress could circumvent this new veto >power simply by writing language into appropriations bills >exempting them from the line-item veto. > >Ironically, congressional impetus for the transfer of power from >the Legislative to the Executive branch has generally come from GOP >"conservatives." (The line-item veto, for instance, was a plank in >Gingrich's "Contract With America.") Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), >who himself has supported many unconstitutional programs, was >nevertheless on target when he remarked last April: "The >Legislative branch appears to have lost the energy needed to >zealously guard the powers which the Framers so carefully preserved >for the people's branch.... The perverse solution for making >government more efficient and more simple appears to be to cede >power from the people's duly elected representatives and, again, in >the name of efficiency, to transfer power to the Executive, the >President, who is, of course, not directly elected by the people." > >Our congressmen must reclaim this "lost energy." Convincing them to >do so should be relatively easy since they have a vested interest >in guarding their powers from the encroachments of the other two >branches of government. A much more difficult task, but one that is >at least as vital, is to convince them to stop committing their own >unconstitutional abuses (that is, voting for unconstitutional >legislation). > >In light of what must be done, it is indeed tragic that the >Establishment-defined congressional debate places so much emphasis >on amending the Constitution while ignoring the unconstitutionality >of myriad federal programs. Examples include proposed >constitutional amendments to balance the budget and to limit >congressional terms. Such "solutions" are based on a premise that >the U.S. Constitution is the problem when in fact the problem is a >lack of adherence to the Constitution. Why add a balanced-budget >amendment to the Constitution when the deficits are caused by >unconstitutional spending? And why limit congressional terms, >thereby creating a large pool of "lame duck" congressmen with no >accountability to the voters, when the problem is a lack of >understanding of constitutional principles? > >Key to Freedom > >Over the next two years, every congressman should be held >accountable for how well he fulfills his promises - in particular >his promise to uphold the Constitution. Regardless of how far the >105th Congress may fall short of the ideal, however, it would be >unfair to blame the result on Congress alone. Because we elect our >office holders, we ultimately get the kind of government we >deserve. How can we expect a politician to deliver on his campaign >promises when we pay no attention to what he does between >elections, or when we listen only to his rhetoric while ignoring >his record? > >The key to freedom is to create sufficient understanding among the >American people. If voters are sufficiently informed, they will >more probably vote for candidates who promise a return to >constitutional government and will hold the feet of these >candidates to the fire once they are elected. The entire political >process - the issues that are debated in a campaign, the promises >that a candidate makes, and a politician's actual performance in >office - is determined ultimately by the understanding of the >voters. > >There are growing signs that the needed awakening is taking place. >Witness the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. (The fact that the >Gingrich-led revolutionaries attempted to slay the big government >dragon with a toothpick instead of a sword does not alter the >reality that the American people demanded change.) Witness Mr. >Clinton's signing of the 1996 welfare overhaul bill. Granted, this >legislation did not end federal welfare as the bill's critics >claimed, but it does at least cut planned spending by $54 billion >over six years compared to previous law. Who could have imagined >that welfare champion Bill Clinton would respond to the growing >sentiment for less government by signing it? And just imagine the >extent to which most politicians will respond as that sentiment >continues to grow and the American electorate becomes better >informed! > >The public sentiment should impact congressmen even more than the >President, in fact, because of congressmen's smaller constituencies >and (in the case of House members) more frequent elections. >Moreover, Congress is actually the most important of the three >branches of government since it is the only one empowered to >legislate while the President's role with regard to enacted >legislation is merely that of an administrator. Devoting less >attention to electing a "good" President and more attention to >improving Congress would do much toward restoring good government. >(For a suggested plan for accomplishing this see the sidebar on >pages 32-33.) > >The articles that follow include additional advice for Congress, >all of them based on the principle of restoring the Constitution. >We encourage readers to present this advice to their own U.S. >representative and senators, and, whenever practical, to ask them >to read this special report for themselves. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996 >American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated >P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 >Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna >Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE >WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for >informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, >and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright >privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or >the above address. >------------------------------------------------------------------- > > =================================================================== > 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. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: [FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [1 of 7] (fwd) Date: 19 Dec 1996 16:49:51 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: "against cons. terrorists" ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FWIW The New American * January 6, 1997 Special Report: How Congress Can Save America Restore the Constitution ------------------------ by Gary Benoit Congressmen have only to honor their sacred oath to the Constitution to reverse the growth of leviathan government. If it is true, as Robert Service wrote in his spellbinding poem The Cremation of Sam McGee, that "a promise made is a debt unpaid," then the federal government's gargantuan $5 trillion national debt must be dwarfed by all of the broken and failed promises of politicians. How many times have we experienced more taxes instead of the promised tax cuts, more deficits instead of the promised balanced budgets, more bureaucratic controls instead of the promised regulatory relief, and (in general) more government instead of the promised slashing of leviathan? How many times have we been assured that "the era of big government is over," only to discover that it has not yet reached its apex? Like its predecessors, the new 105th Congress elected in November has piled up its share of promises. Yet, in spite of the poor performance of previous Congresses, there is no reason why the debts cannot be paid. In fact, a realistic payment plan already exists, a plan to which every congressman swears allegiance. But that plan is not a party platform or a political stump speech. It is not the "Contract With America." It is a much older document that remains timeless because it is based on immutable principles of governance that were once well understood in this country but are now largely forgotten. It is the Constitution of the United States. The oath that every congressman takes at the beginning of each new two-year congressional term - an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution - is the most important promise of all. Fulfill that one promise, and there is little doubt that the budget would be balanced because the government would eventually shrink to about one-fifth of its present size. Abide by the Constitution, and an unshackled American free enterprise system would usher in a new era of economic prosperity that government planners could never achieve. Pay that one debt, and America would have good and honest government limited to its proper constitutional role. This is not to say that other political promises are not significant or worthwhile. But their worthiness should be judged on the basis of their compatibility with the supreme law of the land that enabled a backward wilderness nation to become the envy of the collectivist old world. Times may have changed, but the principles embodied in the Constitution are as applicable today as in 18th- century America. Those principles include a recognition that government must have sufficient power to protect unalienable rights, but not enough power to abrogate those rights. Delegated Powers Because of the limiting features of the Constitution, the federal government possesses relatively few powers, all of which are explicitly enumerated. As James Madison explained in The Federalist, No. 45, "The powers delegated by the ... Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." Those delegated powers "will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected." On the other hand, "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." This concept of federalism provides a double barrier against encroaching tyranny; the powers of government are not only divided horizontally among three branches of the federal government, but vertically between the federal government and the states. There are no non-enumerated federal powers. As Alexander Hamilton stated in The Federalist, No. 78, "There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." The enumerated powers of Congress are listed principally in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Yet it is not an exaggeration to state that the typical congressman violates the clear provisions of the Constitution on a routine basis since most of what the government does these days is unconstitutional. Examples include the food stamp program, education assistance, agricultural price supports, subsidized housing, foreign aid, and (yes) even the massive Social Security and Medicare programs that now consume about one-third of the federal budget. Complete restoration of the Constitution would mean the elimination (or privatization) of all of these programs. Of course, while some programs such as foreign aid should be eliminated immediately, others (such as Social Security) would have to be phased out gradually in recognition of the commitments that the government has made and the dependency that has developed as a consequence of those commitments. Only by moving boldly in this direction can the budget be balanced and sound government achieved. Merely slowing down the rate of growth in government, as previous Congresses have done, will not prevent government from eventually acquiring total power, but will only delay it. The fact that decades of encroaching socialism cannot be eradicated overnight is no excuse for not reversing direction and beginning the long trek back to freedom. First Steps A good first step for the 105th Congress to undertake would be to chain legislative actions to the Constitution by requiring that any bill that is introduced cite the specific portion of the Constitution (the article, section, and clause numbers) giving it legitimacy. Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) introduced this very proposal under the title Enumerated Powers Act in the previous Congress. Although the measure never came up for a vote, it gained the support of 103 co-sponsors and a belated promise from House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) that he would allow it to be voted on in the new Congress. Capitol Hill sources inform The New American that there is an excellent chance that this proposal will be incorporated into the new rules determining how the 105th Congress conducts its proceedings. If that proves not to be the case, congressmen should be challenged to support the Shadegg legislation (which would then be reintroduced). Either way, congressmen should constantly be asked to cite the specific constitutional power(s) justifying whatever legislation they sponsor. Congress cannot restore sound government, however, unless it reclaims its constitutionally authorized powers that have been usurped by the other two branches of government. Even though Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that Congress possesses all legislative powers, both the Executive and the Judiciary have effectively become quasi-legislative bodies through their freedom-threatening regulations, orders, and rulings. Congressmen must be encouraged to reclaim their exclusive legislative authority; the constitutional means for achieving this end can easily be implemented and are explained in the articles on pages 26 and 29. An example of usurped congressional power is the President's deployment of American troops in "police actions" without the constitutionally required declaration of war and without even the solicitation of congressional approval. The Founding Fathers never intended that a single man possess the awesome authority to plunge the nation into the crucible of war, and Congress must immediately end this dangerous abuse of power (see page 27). Congressmen must also be encouraged not to do any further damage to the delicate system of checks and balances by surrendering additional congressional powers to the Executive. The line-item veto legislation adopted by the previous Congress is an example of such a transfer of power. Designed ostensibly to create another check on spending, the line-item veto enables the President to interject himself in the legislative process by picking and choosing which parts of an integrated bill he would preserve or discard. He could use this immense power to reward or punish congressmen for supporting or opposing his programs by, for instance, overlooking a congressman's pet pork barrel project in exchange for a key vote. Fortunately, since every new law supersedes existing law, Congress could circumvent this new veto power simply by writing language into appropriations bills exempting them from the line-item veto. Ironically, congressional impetus for the transfer of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch has generally come from GOP "conservatives." (The line-item veto, for instance, was a plank in Gingrich's "Contract With America.") Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who himself has supported many unconstitutional programs, was nevertheless on target when he remarked last April: "The Legislative branch appears to have lost the energy needed to zealously guard the powers which the Framers so carefully preserved for the people's branch.... The perverse solution for making government more efficient and more simple appears to be to cede power from the people's duly elected representatives and, again, in the name of efficiency, to transfer power to the Executive, the President, who is, of course, not directly elected by the people." Our congressmen must reclaim this "lost energy." Convincing them to do so should be relatively easy since they have a vested interest in guarding their powers from the encroachments of the other two branches of government. A much more difficult task, but one that is at least as vital, is to convince them to stop committing their own unconstitutional abuses (that is, voting for unconstitutional legislation). In light of what must be done, it is indeed tragic that the Establishment-defined congressional debate places so much emphasis on amending the Constitution while ignoring the unconstitutionality of myriad federal programs. Examples include proposed constitutional amendments to balance the budget and to limit congressional terms. Such "solutions" are based on a premise that the U.S. Constitution is the problem when in fact the problem is a lack of adherence to the Constitution. Why add a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution when the deficits are caused by unconstitutional spending? And why limit congressional terms, thereby creating a large pool of "lame duck" congressmen with no accountability to the voters, when the problem is a lack of understanding of constitutional principles? Key to Freedom Over the next two years, every congressman should be held accountable for how well he fulfills his promises - in particular his promise to uphold the Constitution. Regardless of how far the 105th Congress may fall short of the ideal, however, it would be unfair to blame the result on Congress alone. Because we elect our office holders, we ultimately get the kind of government we deserve. How can we expect a politician to deliver on his campaign promises when we pay no attention to what he does between elections, or when we listen only to his rhetoric while ignoring his record? The key to freedom is to create sufficient understanding among the American people. If voters are sufficiently informed, they will more probably vote for candidates who promise a return to constitutional government and will hold the feet of these candidates to the fire once they are elected. The entire political process - the issues that are debated in a campaign, the promises that a candidate makes, and a politician's actual performance in office - is determined ultimately by the understanding of the voters. There are growing signs that the needed awakening is taking place. Witness the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. (The fact that the Gingrich-led revolutionaries attempted to slay the big government dragon with a toothpick instead of a sword does not alter the reality that the American people demanded change.) Witness Mr. Clinton's signing of the 1996 welfare overhaul bill. Granted, this legislation did not end federal welfare as the bill's critics claimed, but it does at least cut planned spending by $54 billion over six years compared to previous law. Who could have imagined that welfare champion Bill Clinton would respond to the growing sentiment for less government by signing it? And just imagine the extent to which most politicians will respond as that sentiment continues to grow and the American electorate becomes better informed! The public sentiment should impact congressmen even more than the President, in fact, because of congressmen's smaller constituencies and (in the case of House members) more frequent elections. Moreover, Congress is actually the most important of the three branches of government since it is the only one empowered to legislate while the President's role with regard to enacted legislation is merely that of an administrator. Devoting less attention to electing a "good" President and more attention to improving Congress would do much toward restoring good government. (For a suggested plan for accomplishing this see the sidebar on pages 32-33.) The articles that follow include additional advice for Congress, all of them based on the principle of restoring the Constitution. We encourage readers to present this advice to their own U.S. representative and senators, and, whenever practical, to ask them to read this special report for themselves. THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996 American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or the above address. =================================================================== 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 19 Dec 1996 17:17:14 -0800 >> Snowdrop. I guess that is supposed to be some kind of touchy feely >>kind of British analog to HCI? >It's a small, white, flower, I believe, and is intended to represent the >children and their teacher who were killed by a lunatic in a massacre >earlier this year, which took place in Dunblane, Scotland. AAAAAAIEEEEEEAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I survive 1997, which is destined to be "The Year of the Child", based on all the "for the children" blather we've been hearing, it's gonna be a miracle. I love children. They're wonderful. I was even one myself, once. BUT I'M ABOUT AS SICK AND TIRED AS SICK AND TIRED GETS OF HEARING THAT TAKING AWAY *MY* FREEDOM, WHICH WAS GIVEN TO ME BY GOD HIMSELF, IS FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --- --- -------- Sheesh. I feel better now. Don't even *think* about saying the 'c' word around me from here on out... - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Support for HCI Date: 19 Dec 1996 17:25:54 -0800 Might I suggest others do the same? And tell Rita that Rocky and I said "hi". - Monte >Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Rocky Clayton" >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >My e-mail to AT & T. > >Rocky Clayton, President >Dallas Sheriff's Union > > > >---------- >> From: Rocky Clayton >> To: rita.ullrich@att.com >> Subject: Support for HCI >> Date: Thursday, December 19, 1996 5:40 PM >> >> Check your records. I just switched to Excell. >> I had been an AT & T customer for many years. >> >> Why did I switch? Because of your support of the >> loonies in Handgun Control Inc. >> >> I do not want any of the money I spend with you >> going to support these idiots! >> >> >> Rocky Clayton, President >> Dallas Sheriff's Union - 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: BINHEX.ABC (alphabet in BinHex: 1 of 3) Date: 20 Dec 1996 05:27:03 -0800 --=====================_851117223==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Help with File Transfers To help isolate the various problems that arise between pairs of email software, I used MS-WORD for DOS to write the alphabet, upper and lower case, in several different character formats (bold, underline, italics, etc.) This file is named ALPHABET.DOC, using the standard WORD .DOC suffix. Then, I copied this file to three other identical files, with three different names: BINHEX.ABC for BinHex encoding MIME.ABC for MIME encoding UUENCODE.ABC for Uuencode encoding I then attach each of these files to three separate email transmissions, encoding differently each time (using the filename to indicate which encoding I used). If the email software at the other end cannot read any of these files, then I usually recommend that the user buy Eudora Pro at a retail software store, and get on an Internet Service Provider which supports Eudora. For your information, here are the ASCII contents of ALPHABET.DOC (without character formats, of course): abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz plain ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz underlined ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz italics ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold underlined ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold italics ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz underlined italics ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold underlined italics ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ Best regards, /s/ Paul Mitchell p.s. BINHEX.ABC is attached (in BinHex, of course!) --=====================_851117223==_ Content-Type: application/mac-binhex40; name="BINHEX.ABC" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BINHEX.ABC" (This file must be converted with BinHex 4.0) :#N**6NK&@#j"3N-!3NP13@eNEh-!!!!!#!!!!!!!30Ja[J!!!+X!!!!!!!!!!,` #!!!)!!X!#`!-!!`!$!"16e*038`Z8e4C!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!%K3-`!!!!!!$3"!!"G (d!,BH!8"#`!,!!!!$!#e!@&LBf4PCQGSD@TVE'eZEh"aFR0dGAChH(Pk)#"`E'& TEJd+38*$4%9'4dK*5NY-68j28&&58e499PGB@9S0#Jd+B@*MC'9QCfKTDQYXE@j [F(&bFh4eGRGiHASJ)'*[E'30#Nd4&4NG)58T,6%e16e"48P0899CA@&PD$3S 0#Q&LBf4PCQGSD@TVE'eZEh"aFR0dGAChH(Pk)#"eEQ4PFQaTEQ9N$3T"3N0%48C (5%P+5da06Np389*69&9@9eKC@Jd+$3TKBQ0NC@CRD'PUDfaYEQp`FA*cG(9fGhK jHL!JDA4KE'PMF`d+38*$4%9'4dK*5NY-68j28&&58e499PGB@9S0#Jd+B@*MC'9 QCfKTDQYXE@j[F(&bFh4eGRGiHASJ)'*[E'3JG@jNCA*XD@jPC!d+38*$4%9'4dK *5NY-68j28&&58e499PGB@9S0#Jd+B@*MC'9QCfKTDQYXE@j[F(&bFh4eGRGiHAS J)'*[E'3JDA4KE'PMF`d+38*$4%9'4dK*5NY-68j28&&58e499PGB@9S0#Jd+B@* MC'9QCfKTDQYXE@j[F(&bFh4eGRGiHASJ)(9ZC'9bE'PZC@3JDA4KE'PMF`d+38* $4%9'4dK*5NY-68j28&&58e499PGB@9S0#Jd+B@*MC'9QCfKTDQYXE@j[F(&bFh4 eGRGiHASJ)'*[E'3JG@jNCA*XD@jPC#"TG'&XD@0c$3T"3N0%48C(5%P+5da06Np 389*69&9@9eKC@Jd+h0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0b!!!!!`3!!!2rrr3!!!(J !!3%!!2rr'`%!!(-!(3%!!2rr43%!!'i!4`%!!2rrB3%!!'X!B`%!!2rrL!%!!'J !LJ%!!2rrT!%!!'-!TJ%!!2rrd`%!!&i!e3%!!2rrh0cFh!3!!4J""!!"'!%#!!) #!!)%!!!B!33!!"J"!J!"$p8"!!!E!J!!H!!G!J!!rrmh!J!!F`!j!J!!rrpT!J! !EJ"V!J!!rrq&!J!!D3#(!J!!rrqm!J!!C!#)!3!!D!#+!3!!rrqN!3!!B`#Q!3! !rrr6!3!!AJ$9!3!!rrrFh0cF"!!"'!%%"!!$'!%%!!-B!33!!KJ""!!#'!%#!!- *J!!!!+-!!!$rrlm!!!$rrm%!!!$rrq-!!!$rrrm!!!$rr`%"!!$rrbN"!!$rrd8 "!!$rrdF"!!$rrf`"!!$rr`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)!!`TX!3!!L!%!!2rrLJ%!!2r rY`%!!2rrd`%!!2rre3%!!2rrr`%!!2rr'`)!!2rr(3)!!2rr63)!!2rrD3)!!2r r!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!J!$#QN#!!"V!J!!rrqJ!J!!rrqm!J!!rrqp!J!!rrm!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"0!J!!rrpT!J!!rrm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!#!!- %!3!+!!!!!!!m!J!!#!)"!!!!!3!!!0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0`5!"-!&!!9!"B!&`!B!#! !+!!!!!!!!!!a-Lm`-bmj0M%b,c!a,cNf2!)!!0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh)U3!!!!: --=====================_851117223==_ Content-Type: application/mac-binhex40; name="ALPHABET.DOC" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ALPHABET.DOC" (This file must be converted with BinHex 4.0) :$%&-8%K"3N98,N423`"#58j"690A4!!!!!!)!!!!!!!eVc'q!!!!U`!!!!!!!!! ![!)!!!J!#`!,!!`!$!!-!%j28Ne"6#j69&N!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5&!c!!!!!!!0!%! !&dI3!YKi"3%,!!X!!!!-!,8"B@*MC'9QCfKTDQYXE@j[F(&bFh4eGRGiHASJ)(" XB@PZ$3T"3N0%48C(5%P+5da06Np389*69&9@9eKC@Jd+$3TKBQ0NC@CRD'PUDfa YEQp`FA*cG(9fGhKjHL!JBQpXC!d+38*$4%9'4dK*5NY-68j28&&58e499PGB@9S 0#Jd+B@*MC'9QCfKTDQYXE@j[F(&bFh4eGRGiHASJ)(9ZC'9bE'PZC@30#Nd4 &4NG)58T,6%e16e"48P0899CA@&PD$3S0#Q&LBf4PCQGSD@TVE'eZEh"aFR0dGAC hH(Pk)#"TG'&XD@0c$3T"3N0%48C(5%P+5da06Np389*69&9@9eKC@Jd+$3TKBQ0 NC@CRD'PUDfaYEQp`FA*cG(9fGhKjHL!JBQpXC#"eEQ4PFQaTEQ9N$3T"3N0%48C (5%P+5da06Np389*69&9@9eKC@Jd+$3TKBQ0NC@CRD'PUDfaYEQp`FA*cG(9fGhK jHL!JBQpXC#"TG'&XD@0c$3T"3N0%48C(5%P+5da06Np389*69&9@9eKC@Jd+$3T KBQ0NC@CRD'PUDfaYEQp`FA*cG(9fGhKjHL!JG@jNCA*XD@jPC#"TG'&XD@0c$3T "3N0%48C(5%P+5da06Np389*69&9@9eKC@Jd+$3TKBQ0NC@CRD'PUDfaYEQp`FA* cG(9fGhKjHL!JBQpXC#"eEQ4PFQaTEQ9N)'PdB@aTBh-0#Nd4&4NG)58T,6%e 16e"48P0899CA@&PD$3VFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh)!!!!$"!!!!rrrp!!! !H!!"!3!!rrmE!3!!F`!G!3!!rrp&!3!!EJ"(!3!!rrpK!3!!D`"M!3!!rrq)!3! !D!#+!3!!rrqN!3!!B`#Q!3!!rrr6!3!!AJ$9!3!!rrrFh0cF"!!"'!%%!!%B!3) !!J)!!J3!!"J""!!!'!%#!!%2e3%!!"X#!!"i!"d#!!$rrcF#!!"c!$N#!!$rrfN #!!"Z!'X#!!$rri8#!!"T!)F#!!$rrl`#!!"N!)J"!!"S!)S"!!$rrk3"!!"M!+B "!!$rrp-"!!"H!08"!!$rrpcFh0`%!!%B!33%!!-B!33!!aJ""!!#'!%%!!)B!3) !!`Q!!!!!S`!!!2rr[`!!!2rr`3!!!2rri`!!!2rrr`!!!2rr!3%!!2rr+3%!!2r r43%!!2rr4`%!!2rrE!%!!2rr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!J!$#Q`"!!#)!3!!rrq+!3! !rrqh!3!!rrr6!3!!rrr9!3!!rrrr!3!!rrmE!J!!rrmG!J!!rrp0!J!!rrpT!J! !rrm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!#!!-+D3)!!'X#!!$rrk!#!!$rrl`#!!$rrld#!!$rr`! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!%d#!!$rrfN#!!$rr`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) !!`3"!!S!!!!!!$`#!!!)!J%!!!!"!!!!h0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh")!%`!8!"8!&J!A!"J !)!!S!!!!!!!!!$%b,c!c,cNf-6)[-$%[16Bm!J!!h0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0c Fh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFh0cFLT!!!!!!: --=====================_851117223==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ==================================================================== [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 ==================================================================== --=====================_851117223==_-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: MIME.ABC (alphabet in MIME: 2 of 3) Date: 20 Dec 1996 05:31:26 -0800 --=====================_851117486==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Help with File Transfers To help isolate the various problems that arise between pairs of email software, I used MS-WORD for DOS to write the alphabet, upper and lower case, in several different character formats (bold, underline, italics, etc.) This file is named ALPHABET.DOC, using the standard WORD .DOC suffix. Then, I copied this file to three other identical files, with three different names: BINHEX.ABC for BinHex encoding MIME.ABC for MIME encoding UUENCODE.ABC for Uuencode encoding I then attach each of these files to three separate email transmissions, encoding differently each time (using the filename to indicate which encoding I used). If the email software at the other end cannot read any of these files, then I usually recommend that the user buy Eudora Pro at a retail software store, and get on an Internet Service Provider which supports Eudora. For your information, here are the ASCII contents of ALPHABET.DOC (without character formats, of course): abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz plain ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz underlined ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz italics ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold underlined ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold italics ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz underlined italics ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold underlined italics ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ Best regards, /s/ Paul Mitchell p.s. MIME.ABC is attached (in MIME, of course!) --=====================_851117486==_ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="MIME.ABC" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="MIME.ABC" Mb4AAACrAAAAAAAAAAC8AgAACAALAAsADAAMAAwATk9STUFMLlNUWQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIUDMAAAAAAA0AQAAXR9AC 2HgFAQsACwAAAAwAtQFhYmNkZWZnaGlqa2xtbm9wcXJzdHV2d3h5eiAgcGxhaW4NCkFCQ0RFRkdI SUpLTE1OT1BRUlNUVVZXWFlaDQoNCmFiY2RlZmdoaWprbG1ub3BxcnN0dXZ3eHl6ICBib2xkDQpB QkNERUZHSElKS0xNTk9QUVJTVFVWV1hZWg0KDQphYmNkZWZnaGlqa2xtbm9wcXJzdHV2d3h5eiAg dW5kZXJsaW5lZA0KQUJDREVGR0hJSktMTU5PUFFSU1RVVldYWVoNCg0KYWJjZGVmZ2hpamtsbW5v cHFyc3R1dnd4eXogIGl0YWxpY3MNCkFCQ0RFRkdISUpLTE1OT1BRUlNUVVZXWFlaDQoNCmFiY2Rl ZmdoaWprbG1ub3BxcnN0dXZ3eHl6ICBib2xkIHVuZGVybGluZWQNCkFCQ0RFRkdISUpLTE1OT1BR UlNUVVZXWFlaDQoNCmFiY2RlZmdoaWprbG1ub3BxcnN0dXZ3eHl6ICBib2xkIGl0YWxpY3MNCkFC Q0RFRkdISUpLTE1OT1BRUlNUVVZXWFlaDQoNCmFiY2RlZmdoaWprbG1ub3BxcnN0dXZ3eHl6ICB1 bmRlcmxpbmVkIGl0YWxpY3MNCkFCQ0RFRkdISUpLTE1OT1BRUlNUVVZXWFlaDQoNCmFiY2RlZmdo aWprbG1ub3BxcnN0dXZ3eHl6ICBib2xkIHVuZGVybGluZWQgaXRhbGljcw0KQUJDREVGR0hJSktM TU5PUFFSU1RVVldYWVoNCtzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3NzcgAAAAMEAAAD///0AAAB4AAEBAAD//xsBAABzAB0B AAD//0UBAABuAEcBAAD//2EBAABrAGMBAAD//4gBAABoAIoBAAD//6QBAABjAKYBAAD//9MBAABe ANUBAAD//9zc3NwEAAEYAQQAARgBAgACAgACBAAAGAEEAAAYAQIAAQ/VAQAAGwIAAHgAHQIAAP// NwIAAHMAOQIAAP//aQIAAG4AawIAAP//hQIAAGkAhwIAAP//vAIAAGQAiAEAAGgAigEAAP//pAEA AGMApgEAAP//0wEAAF4A1QEAAP//3Nzc3AQAARgBBAQAAxgBBAADGAEEAAIYAQQAAhgBAgADCYAA AACjAAAA//+/AAAA///BAAAA///jAAAA////AAAA//8BAQAA//8pAQAA//9FAQAA//9HAQAA//9s AQAA//8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAACAAMKbAEAAIgBAAD//4oBAAD//7cBAAD//9MBAAD//9UBAAD///8BAAD//xsCAAD/ /x0CAAD//00CAAD//2kCAAD//wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAwppAgAAawIAAP//oAIAAP//vAIAAP//vQIAAP//AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATQIAAP//aQIAAP//AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgADBAEACgAAAAAAPAIAAAgCAQAA AAEAAADc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3NzcEgAT ABQAFQAWABcAGAAgACgAAAAAAAAAMTIvMDMvOTYxMi8wMS85NjwCAADc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nw= --=====================_851117486==_ Content-Type: application/msword; name="ALPHABET.DOC"; x-mac-type="42494E41"; x-mac-creator="4D535744" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ALPHABET.DOC" Mb4AAACrAAAAAAAAAAC8AgAACAALAAsADAAMAAwATk9STUFMLlNUWQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIUDMAAAAAAA0AQAAXR9AC 2HgFAQsACwAAAAwAtQFhYmNkZWZnaGlqa2xtbm9wcXJzdHV2d3h5eiAgcGxhaW4NCkFCQ0RFRkdI SUpLTE1OT1BRUlNUVVZXWFlaDQoNCmFiY2RlZmdoaWprbG1ub3BxcnN0dXZ3eHl6ICBib2xkDQpB QkNERUZHSElKS0xNTk9QUVJTVFVWV1hZWg0KDQphYmNkZWZnaGlqa2xtbm9wcXJzdHV2d3h5eiAg dW5kZXJsaW5lZA0KQUJDREVGR0hJSktMTU5PUFFSU1RVVldYWVoNCg0KYWJjZGVmZ2hpamtsbW5v cHFyc3R1dnd4eXogIGl0YWxpY3MNCkFCQ0RFRkdISUpLTE1OT1BRUlNUVVZXWFlaDQoNCmFiY2Rl ZmdoaWprbG1ub3BxcnN0dXZ3eHl6ICBib2xkIHVuZGVybGluZWQNCkFCQ0RFRkdISUpLTE1OT1BR UlNUVVZXWFlaDQoNCmFiY2RlZmdoaWprbG1ub3BxcnN0dXZ3eHl6ICBib2xkIGl0YWxpY3MNCkFC Q0RFRkdISUpLTE1OT1BRUlNUVVZXWFlaDQoNCmFiY2RlZmdoaWprbG1ub3BxcnN0dXZ3eHl6ICB1 bmRlcmxpbmVkIGl0YWxpY3MNCkFCQ0RFRkdISUpLTE1OT1BRUlNUVVZXWFlaDQoNCmFiY2RlZmdo aWprbG1ub3BxcnN0dXZ3eHl6ICBib2xkIHVuZGVybGluZWQgaXRhbGljcw0KQUJDREVGR0hJSktM TU5PUFFSU1RVVldYWVoNCtzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3NzcgAAAAMEAAAD///0AAAB4AAEBAAD//xsBAABzAB0B AAD//0UBAABuAEcBAAD//2EBAABrAGMBAAD//4gBAABoAIoBAAD//6QBAABjAKYBAAD//9MBAABe ANUBAAD//9zc3NwEAAEYAQQAARgBAgACAgACBAAAGAEEAAAYAQIAAQ/VAQAAGwIAAHgAHQIAAP// NwIAAHMAOQIAAP//aQIAAG4AawIAAP//hQIAAGkAhwIAAP//vAIAAGQAiAEAAGgAigEAAP//pAEA AGMApgEAAP//0wEAAF4A1QEAAP//3Nzc3AQAARgBBAQAAxgBBAADGAEEAAIYAQQAAhgBAgADCYAA AACjAAAA//+/AAAA///BAAAA///jAAAA////AAAA//8BAQAA//8pAQAA//9FAQAA//9HAQAA//9s AQAA//8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAACAAMKbAEAAIgBAAD//4oBAAD//7cBAAD//9MBAAD//9UBAAD///8BAAD//xsCAAD/ /x0CAAD//00CAAD//2kCAAD//wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAwppAgAAawIAAP//oAIAAP//vAIAAP//vQIAAP//AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATQIAAP//aQIAAP//AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgADBAEACgAAAAAAPAIAAAgCAQAA AAEAAADc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3NzcEgAT ABQAFQAWABcAGAAgACgAAAAAAAAAMTIvMDMvOTYxMi8wMS85NjwCAADc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc 3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nw= --=====================_851117486==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ==================================================================== [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 ==================================================================== --=====================_851117486==_-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: UUENCODE.ABC (alphabet in Uuencode: 3 of 3) Date: 20 Dec 1996 05:33:35 -0800 --=====================_851117615==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Help with File Transfers To help isolate the various problems that arise between pairs of email software, I used MS-WORD for DOS to write the alphabet, upper and lower case, in several different character formats (bold, underline, italics, etc.) This file is named ALPHABET.DOC, using the standard WORD .DOC suffix. Then, I copied this file to three other identical files, with three different names: BINHEX.ABC for BinHex encoding MIME.ABC for MIME encoding UUENCODE.ABC for Uuencode encoding I then attach each of these files to three separate email transmissions, encoding differently each time (using the filename to indicate which encoding I used). If the email software at the other end cannot read any of these files, then I usually recommend that the user buy Eudora Pro at a retail software store, and get on an Internet Service Provider which supports Eudora. For your information, here are the ASCII contents of ALPHABET.DOC (without character formats, of course): abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz plain ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz underlined ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz italics ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold underlined ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold italics ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz underlined italics ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold underlined italics ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ Best regards, /s/ Paul Mitchell p.s. UUENCODE.ABC is attached (in UUENCODE, of course!) --=====================_851117615==_ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="UUENCODE.ABC" Content-Transfer-Encoding: x-uuencode Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="UUENCODE.ABC" begin 600 UUENCODE.ABC M,;X```"K``````````"\`@``"``+``L`#``,``P`3D]234%,+E-460`````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M``````````!(4#,```````T`0``71]`"V'@%`0L`"P````P`M0%A8F-D969G M:&EJ:VQM;F]P<7)S='5V=WAY>B`@<&QA:6X-"D%"0T1%1D=(24I+3$U.3U!1 M4E-455976%E:#0H-"F%B8V1E9F=H:6IK;&UN;W!Q'EZ("!B;VQD M#0I!0D-$149'2$E*2TQ-3D]045)35%565UA96@T*#0IA8F-D969G:&EJ:VQM M;F]P<7)S='5V=WAY>B`@=6YD97)L:6YE9`T*04)#1$5&1TA)2DM,34Y/4%%2 M4U155E=865H-"@T*86)C9&5F9VAI:FML;6YO<'%R7H@(&ET86QI M8W,-"D%"0T1%1D=(24I+3$U.3U!14E-455976%E:#0H-"F%B8V1E9F=H:6IK M;&UN;W!Q'EZ("!B;VQD('5N9&5R;&EN960-"D%"0T1%1D=(24I+ M3$U.3U!14E-455976%E:#0H-"F%B8V1E9F=H:6IK;&UN;W!Q'EZ M("!B;VQD(&ET86QI8W,-"D%"0T1%1D=(24I+3$U.3U!14E-455976%E:#0H- M"F%B8V1E9F=H:6IK;&UN;W!Q'EZ("!U;F1E'EZ("!B;VQD('5N9&5R;&EN960@:71A;&EC M`-4!``#__]S7H@(&ET86QI M8W,-"D%"0T1%1D=(24I+3$U.3U!14E-455976%E:#0H-"F%B8V1E9F=H:6IK M;&UN;W!Q'EZ("!B;VQD('5N9&5R;&EN960-"D%"0T1%1D=(24I+ M3$U.3U!14E-455976%E:#0H-"F%B8V1E9F=H:6IK;&UN;W!Q'EZ M("!B;VQD(&ET86QI8W,-"D%"0T1%1D=(24I+3$U.3U!14E-455976%E:#0H- M"F%B8V1E9F=H:6IK;&UN;W!Q'EZ("!U;F1E'EZ("!B;VQD('5N9&5R;&EN960@:71A;&EC M`-4!``#__]S Subject: Re: BINHEX.ABC (alphabet in BinHex: 1 of 3) Date: 20 Dec 1996 07:49:16 -0500 Paul, Please stop sending this spamage to the list. Tom At 05:27 AM 12/20/96 -0800, you wrote: > > Help with File Transfers > >To help isolate the various problems >that arise between pairs of email >software, I used MS-WORD for DOS to >write the alphabet, upper and lower >case, in several different character >formats (bold, underline, italics, etc.) >This file is named ALPHABET.DOC, using >the standard WORD .DOC suffix. > >Then, I copied this file to three >other identical files, with three >different names: > >BINHEX.ABC for BinHex encoding >MIME.ABC for MIME encoding >UUENCODE.ABC for Uuencode encoding > >I then attach each of these files to three >separate email transmissions, encoding >differently each time (using the filename >to indicate which encoding I used). > >If the email software at the other end >cannot read any of these files, then >I usually recommend that the user buy >Eudora Pro at a retail software store, >and get on an Internet Service Provider >which supports Eudora. > >For your information, here are the ASCII >contents of ALPHABET.DOC (without character >formats, of course): > >abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz plain >ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ > >abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold >ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ > >abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz underlined >ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ > >abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz italics >ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ > >abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold underlined >ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ > >abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold italics >ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ > >abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz underlined italics >ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ > >abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz bold underlined italics >ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ > >Best regards, >/s/ Paul Mitchell > >p.s. BINHEX.ABC is attached (in BinHex, of course!) > > >Attachment Converted: c:\windows\desktop\bright.net\eudora\attach\BINHEX.ABC > > >Attachment Converted: c:\windows\desktop\bright.net\eudora\attach\ALPHABET.doc > >==================================================================== >[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 >==================================================================== > "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. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)[FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [2 of 7] Date: 20 Dec 1996 07:50:50 -0500 >Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 21:12:08 -0600 (CST) >From: James Fish >X-Sender: jfish@earth >To: fwiw@execpc.com >Subject: [FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [2 of 7] >Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > >FWIW > >The New American * January 6, 1997 > >Special Report: >How Congress Can Save America > > > Regulatory Law-Making > by > Robert W. Lee > >Because all legislative powers are vested in Congress, that body >has the constitutional means to disallow any regulations it does >not approve. > >In The Federalist, No. 47, James Madison observed, "The >accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, >in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether >hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced >the very definition of tyranny." To guard against such an >accumulation of power, the Constitution not only divides the >limited powers of the federal government among the three branches, >but contains a brilliant system of checks and balances intended to >head off the unconstitutional encroachments by any one branch on >the constitutional duties of another. > >One example of this separation of powers is found in the very first >sentence in Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution: "All >legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of >the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of >Representatives." Neither the President nor the regulatory agencies >(all of which inhabit the Executive branch) are granted law-making >authority. And there is no provision authorizing Congress, to whom >the power to make laws has been delegated by "We the People," to >breach the separation of powers by delegating unconstitutional >authority to the President or other federal executives. Yet this is >exactly what Congress has done, not just by tolerating outright >usurpations, but by authorizing myriad Executive branch regulatory >agencies that then issue countless regulations possessing the force >of law once published in the Federal Register. Today the American >people are subjected to more laws imposed by the regulatory >agencies (administrative law) and by Executive Orders than by >Congress itself. > >The now-defunct Interstate Commerce Commission, established in >1887, was the first federal regulatory body allowed to propose >rules having the force of law. Its alphabet-soup heirs (EPA, OSHA, >CPSC, FDA, FTC, NLRB, etc.) have followed that illicit course to >the point that the Federal Register now contains some 60,000 pages >of directives annually - largely "administrative law" that Congress >has not approved - which must be meticulously scrutinized by >businesses, property owners, and others who risk fines or worse for >running afoul of some obscure regulatory requirement. > >Executive Action > >In our country's early years, Executive Orders were employed by >Presidents or Cabinet officers as in-house directives intended to >affect only government administrators and agencies - not the >general public. During this century, however, they have >metastasized to the point that they often have an enormous impact >on both foreign and domestic policy, and the lives of all citizens. > >Executive Orders have been employed to instigate or fuel many of >the tumultuous political issues of our time. For instance: > >* In February 1960, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly >approved a Concurrent Resolution aimed at precluding the Panamanian >flag from being raised in the U.S.-owned Panama Canal Zone. But on >September 17th of that year, President Eisenhower issued an >Executive Order directing that Panama's flag be flown alongside the >Stars and Stripes in one area of the Zone. It was an important step >on the road to the 1978 treaties transferring the vital American- >built waterway to Panama at the end of this century. > >* In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson instigated the drive for race- >based "affirmative action" programs with an Executive Order >mandating non-discrimination in hiring practices for firms working >on government contracts. > >* As one of his first acts as President in 1989, George Bush issued >an Executive Order banning the importation of dozens of military- >style semi-automatic rifles, a move which helped pave the way for >eventual passage of the Clinton Administration's controversial 1994 >"assault"-weapons ban. > >* On January 22, 1993, two days after being sworn in as President, >Bill Clinton signed a series of Executive Orders striking down >federal prohibitions on sundry abortion-promoting practices, >including a ban on abortions in U.S. military hospitals. > >In the area of environmental regulation, the Environmental >Protection Agency is the biggest bully on the block, with more than >13,000 full-time equivalent employees and a budget of nearly $6 >billion. On May 29, 1969, President Richard Nixon issued an >Executive Order creating the Environmental Quality Council, a >maneuver which served as a precursor to creation of the EPA in >1970. > >The contempt in which the EPA holds the constitutional law-making >process is evident in the recent disclosure of an October 31, 1994 >in-house memo prepared by the agency's Office of Policy, Planning, >and Evaluation. The memo included a scenario for imposing, without >congressional approval, a 50-cent-per-gallon hike in the federal >gasoline tax to discourage automobile use and thereby reduce so- >called "greenhouse" gases in compliance with the UN global warming >treaty signed by President Bush in 1992. The U.S. Senate has not >even ratified the treaty. The memo claimed that "the administration >has the authority to begin rulemaking on its own, without >legislation." Such authority, claimed the memo, derived from an >obscure provision of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act in which Congress >delegated to the President authority to impose a 50-cent-per-gallon >gasoline tax increase if (in the memo's words) the Commerce >Secretary "finds that oil imports threaten or impair national >security." > >The tax has yet to be imposed, for as the memo noted, "the option >would require the use of substantial political capital since the >levying of a gasoline fee would probably be politically unpopular." >Now that President Clinton has been re-elected to the last term >that the Constitution allows, he need not worry so much about the >loss of "political capital." > >Reining-in the Thieves > >In December 1995, Representative J. D. Hayworth (R-AZ) introduced >a commendable bill which, hopefully, he will reintroduce in the new >Congress. The purpose of the proposed Congressional Responsibility >Act, as stated in the legislation itself, is "to promote compliance >with Article I of the United States Constitution, which grants >legislative powers solely to Congress. Article I ensures that >Federal regulations will not take effect unless passed by a >majority of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives >and signed by the President, or that the members of the Senate and >House of Representatives override the President's veto. This Act >ends the practice whereby Congress delegates its responsibility for >making regulations to unelected, unaccountable officials of the >executive branch and requires that regulations proposed by agencies >of the executive branch be affirmatively enacted by Congress before >they become effective. The Act will result in a more democratic and >accountable Congress and protect the public from regulations for >which elected, accountable officials are unwilling to take >responsibility." > >Under terms of the Hayworth bill, proposed regulations could not >take effect unless passed into law by Congress. Whenever an agency >promulgates a regulation, it would be required to "submit to each >House of Congress a report containing the text of the proposed >regulation and an explanation of the proposed regulation." A bill >to approve the regulation and give it "the force and effect of law" >would then be introduced, debated, and either passed or scuttled. >The Hayworth bill would be an important step toward restraining the >current congressional tendency to delegate law-making authority to >the Executive branch. > >It should be noted that terminating its existing delegation policy >would not by itself preclude Congress from adopting further >destructive regulatory legislation. As the Cato Institute's Jerry >Taylor has observed, theoretically "the entire code of federal >regulations as it exists today could have been enacted under the >rules changes proposed by Rep. Hayworth." But from a practical >standpoint it would not have happened, since senators and >representatives would then have been directly and fully accountable >to their constituents for the impact of the regulations. As Taylor >notes, it is likely "that a return to nondelegation will mean a >return to prescriptive laws, a new respect for federalism, and a >renewed appreciation of the Framers' view that the chief danger to >republican government lies in legislative overzealousness, not >legislative inaction. If Congress is to reclaim the law, it will be >necessary for Congress to do less, do it properly, and be held >accountable for the results." > >The House, by itself, could bring the regulatory war on America to >a conclusion were it motivated to do so. Article I, Section 7 of >the Constitution states unambiguously, "All bills for raising >revenues shall originate in the House of Representatives...." Were >the House to refuse to "originate" bills to fund the EPA and the >other rampaging regulatory Godzillas that are trampling the >Constitution, such entities and their costly, freedom-eroding, >government-expanding edicts would be vanquished virtually >overnight. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996 >American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated >P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 >Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna >Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE >WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for >informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, >and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright >privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or >the above address. >------------------------------------------------------------------- > > =================================================================== > 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. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cap Schwartz" Subject: Re: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 20 Dec 1996 07:07:44 -0800 Monte: > > >AAAAAAIEEEEEEAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Don't you think that's rather childish of you? =C= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 20 Dec 1996 09:09:10 -0600 Monte wrote: >I love children. They're wonderful. I was even one myself, once. Now, that I don't believe for a minute. I have it on excellent authority that you crawled out from under a rock in a fully developed state. ;-) >BUT I'M ABOUT AS SICK AND TIRED AS SICK AND TIRED GETS OF HEARING THAT >TAKING AWAY *MY* FREEDOM, WHICH WAS GIVEN TO ME BY GOD HIMSELF, IS >FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Actually, it's the Brits this time, and they never had that sort of freedom, at least not in this century. At one time their government required them to be armed, but that was in the day of the longbow, Agincourt, and Cressy, and before their government developed good cause to fear what they might do to it. It is my understanding that they were allowed to possess arms until something like the 1930s, when the government began to worry about a socialist revolution and therefore started to curtail private ownership of weapons. The problem with the "for the children" argument is that it's very nearly unstoppable, politically. Unfortunately, the only way I see that it will be defeated is when those who use it commit such egregious excesses that even the indifferent political center recognizes the outrage; that is, not anytime soon. I think that's what's so frustrating about it: *Any* sort of codswallop can sail through the legislatures and into law if it can, however tenuously, be linked to the survival of children as we know them. >Don't even *think* about saying the 'c' word around me from here on out... children, Children, CHILDREN, *C*H*I*L*D*R*E*N* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....... Gotcha, Monte. ;-) The opinions which I have expressed herein are entirely my own, unless other- wise noted. No-one else should be held responsible for what I think. | D. N. Dickey | Virtuous motives, trammeled by inertia and | | Research Associate | timidity, are no match for armed and | | Northern Illinois Univ. | resolute wickedness. | | neil@earth.geol.niu.edu | - W. S. Churchill | | **Finger for public key** | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Save the Children Date: 20 Dec 1996 10:22:15 -0500 Monte - (sorry, I biffed your post after reading, then decided I wanted to reply). I'm sick of children being used as the universal foil for every ill conceived, liberty trampling, liberal scheme that comes down the pike. I'm trying to "save the children" too, mainly I'm trying to save the U.S. Constitution as a living form of government so that my children will enjoy the freedoms that generations of Americans have enjoyed. So let's save the Constitution for the children. (this is a powerful hook, cause in 30 years or so I'm going to be DEAD, but my kids are going to be in the prime of their lives, maybe raising kids of their own). ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: BINHEX.ABC (alphabet in BinHex: 1 of 3) Date: 20 Dec 1996 10:27:38 -0500 Give me ASCII, or give me death! ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: Viper news (fwd) Date: 20 Dec 1996 11:07:05 -0600 (CST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Last week, according to reports from an inside source, two members of the so-called 'Viper Team,' Gary Bauer and Hank Overturf, were attacked (reportedly by 'Mexican gang members') in prison. It was ostensibly over some kind of dispute about a chair in the recreation room. Bauer was beaten up and Overturf was stabbed through the neck. Both survived. I've seen or heard nothing about these attacks on the news as yet. Yesterday it was reported on the news that Gary Bauer and another of the defendants had decided to plead guilty, without benefit of plea bargain, to several felonies each (none of which included anything about conspiring or planning to blow up anyone or anything -- just firearms and explosives violations, and in one case 'conspiring to teach others to use explosives'). Their lawyers said their clients were 'tired of the battle, and just wanted to get it over and get on with their lives.' According to the lawyers and news reports, the expectation is that they will get lighter sentences in return for not making the government go through the process of a trial. The government's grinding process is very effective, guilt or lack thereof notwithstanding. Whether there is any connection with the government to the beating/stabbing incident, we'll probably never know for sure. Rick Tompkins >>> "What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." Adolph Hitler <<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 20 Dec 1996 09:16:55 -0800 (PST) Wow, after reading Montes message.. er "desperate plea for help" I had typed up a quick warm fuzzy telling him how everything's going to be okay and we're all here for him and all. BOY!! Am I ever glad I deleted -that- one! `;- ) -Boyd "There is a little 'small exploitable human' in all of us." Kneeland On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Cap Schwartz wrote: > Monte: > > > > > >AAAAAAIEEEEEEAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > Don't you think that's rather childish of you? > > =C= > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: berg stephen erik Subject: Re: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 20 Dec 1996 11:43:31 -0600 (CST) We need to be careful about thinking that the Constitution will be adequate to stop the Leviathan in its tracks. Unlike most of the other members of this list, I am immersed in liberal academics. These people, at least the thinking ones, firmly believe that the feds can do whatever they want, and cite the necessary and proper clause, and the commerce clause as supporting evidence. They need not even hold that the Constitution is a "living" document. At best, we are viewed as something along the lines of Constitutional fundamentalists. This Liberal view of the Constitution is threatened by such court cases as the Lopez case, which is why it became such a necessity for the Left to overtun that decision by legislation. Steve z931086@corn.cso.niu.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cap Schwartz" Subject: Re: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 20 Dec 1996 09:54:06 -0800 One does what one can to help one's comrades, ya know? ;^) =C= At 09:16 AM 12/20/96 -0800, you wrote: >Wow, after reading Montes message.. er "desperate plea for help" I had typed >up a quick warm fuzzy telling him how everything's going to be okay and >we're all here for him and all. > >BOY!! Am I ever glad I deleted -that- one! `;- ) > >-Boyd "There is a little 'small exploitable human' in all of us." Kneeland > > >On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Cap Schwartz wrote: > >> Monte: >> > >> > >> >AAAAAAIEEEEEEAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> > >> Don't you think that's rather childish of you? >> >> =C= >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 20 Dec 1996 10:03:07 -0800 Boyd, How goes it with you? We have not seen you on the list much of late. I have been in and out of Seattle a lot lately, but always on very short notice, and with a lot to get done in a short time. I am heading over again today, but will be working 14 hour days on Saturday and Sunday, then heading back over here. We are currently blizzarding, so it should be another exciting drive. January 5th, I go to Kialua-Kona, Hawaii for an installation. Carol was to have gone with me, but our schedule got shortened so much that we realized it made no sense. Bummer, man! The weather over here has brought me to start saying, " "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas." , then it occured to me, I'm even starting to have nightmares about a white Easter!" Merry Christmas to you and all of the group! Pass it on if you would. Jerry & Carol ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Tainted Vaccines Date: 20 Dec 1996 11:57:25 -0800 > >This is just one example of the dangers from vaccinations >where millions of persons were exposed to the SV-40 virus >in the 1950's as a result of a tainted polio vaccine. >This tainted vaccine may be a major cause of brain tumors >in the population, which were virtually unheard of before >massive inoculations. Read this and of other tainted >vaccines at the Center For Comples Infections Diseases - >http://www.ccid.org/ > >In freedom, > >Tony Sgarlatti >tonys@the-truth.org >http://www.future.net/~thetruth/ > >"The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with > the destruction of the truth." -- President Bill Clinton > >+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ >SV-40 is a small double stranded, circular DNA virus of >rhesus monkey origin. It is closely related to JC and BK >viruses of human origin. While BK virus may not cause >human disease, JC virus can cause a very severe brain illness >in HIV infected patients, that is called progressive multifocal >leukoencephalopathy or PML. SV-40 is also distanly related >to human papillomaviruses, some of which cause cervical >cancers. > >SV-40 infection is now widespread within the human >population almost certainly as a result of poliovaccine >produced in rhesus monkey kidney cells during the 1950s. A >recent study showed infection in 23% of blood samples from >normal individuals. The virus can also be detected in sperm >fluid and is likely to be passed congenitally to future >generations (Martini et al. SV40 Early Region and Large T >Antigen in Human Brain Tumors, Peripheral Blood Cells, and >Sperm Fluids from Healthy Individuals. Cancer Research 56: >4820-4825, 1996). As the title indicates this paper also >confirms previous reports that SV-40 is present in a significant >proportion of human brain tumors. Other reports have shown >SV-40 in human brain tumors, e.g. Bergsagel et al. New >England Journal of Medicine 326: 988-993, 1992. SV-40 has >also been detected in a high proportion of human >mesotheliomas (Carbone et al. Oncogene 9: 1781-1790, >1994); and in bone tumors called osteogenic sarcomas >(Carbone et al. Oncogene 1996). > >FDA has been reluctant to act on reports of SV-40 but will >have to respond to forthcoming publications in the "New >Yorker" and "Money" magazines. > >SV-40 contamination was detected in the rhesus monkey >kidney cells used to make poliovaccine as early as 1960. A >Federal employee, Dr. Bernice Eddy, decided on her own >inititive, to test extracts from the monkey kidney cells used to >make poliovaccine for possible cancer causing agents. She >chose to use newborn hamsters since these animals developed >tumors with a type of virus she and Sarah Stewart had >discovered in mice and named polyoma virus. The inoculated >hamsters developed tumors similar to those induced with >polyoma virus. The results of Dr. Eddy's unauthorized testing >was met with the same scorn and indifference as her earlier >warnings that some of the initial lots of Salk vaccine retained >live poliovirus. Again, frustrated by the unwillingness of her >supervisors to act on her tumor findings, Dr. Eddy went >around channels and disclosed her results in a 1960 scientific >meeting. Her punishment was to be taken off poliovaccine >safety testing and prohibited for over a year from submitting >her work for publication. > >Dr. Eddy's findings did however leak out and were replicated >by Drs. Sweet and Hilleman at Merck. Initially, Hilleman >thought the SV-40 problem would apply mainly to the live >polio vaccines developed by Dr. Sabin and used extensively >in the Soviet Union. He even suggested that the Russians >would be no threat at the upcoming 1962 Olympics because >they would be dragging with tumors (The Health Century by >Edward Shorter). Unfortunately, it was soon realized that the >polio vaccine developed by Dr. Salk was the more dangerous >because the 1:4,000 dilution of formaldehyde, which barely >inactivated the poliovirus, did not fully inactivate SV-40. >Because the Salk vaccine was injected through the skin, it >allowed the SV-40 a better chance to infect. > >To his credit, Dr. Hilleman repeatedly sounded warnings >about the risks inherent in the use of monkey tissue for >vaccine production. For example, he has made the following >comments " ...use of tissues of wild-caught animals is just >asking for trouble because of the lack of control and the >known high probability for viral contamination. Monkeys are >too expensive to be grown in specific pathogen-free colonies >and, hence, the simple solution to the monkey problem is to >eliminate the monkey" and also "The tissues of wild-caught >animals, and certainly monkeys, are commonly infected with >wild viruses. The simplest way to solve the monkey problem >is to eliminate the monkeys and this is being done using >diploid cells. Monkey tissues came into use by historic >decisions to use monkey kidney to make poliovaccine. There >is no need to continue using monkeys when acceptible >alternatives are available. This advice was never taken >especially in the face of pressure from Lederle/American >Cyanamid to continue to use monkeys. > >The main result of finding SV-40 virus in rhesus monkeys >was simply to switch poliovaccine production to African >green monkeys. Existing stocks of SV-40 poliovaccines were >not withdrawn from the market, nor was any effort made to >suspend the military's use of adenoviral vaccines, also known >to contain SV-40. Short termed follow studies on some of the >children exposed to SV-40, to see if brain tumors had >developed, satisfied those in charge of Public Safety, that no >harm had been done. > >Since the hamster tumor model required virus exposure to >newborn animals, Public Health officials should have >predicted the need to maintain surveillance for the subsequent >human generation. Now that evidence is accumulating that a >problem exists, the continued reluctance of FDA to respond >is, to say the least, disappointing. > >The overall story with SV-40 is being replicated with the >resistance of FDA and of Industry to meaningly address the >question of other monkey viruses having been transmitted to >humans through poliovaccines. While the African green >monkey is generally free of SV-40 virus, it does carry a >number of viruses, including simian cytomegalovitrus >(SCMV). As an aside, rhesus and not African green monkeys >are used for testing the virulence of live polio vaccines, >because even the control African green monkeys often show >evidence of neural infection. > >In an effort to underscore the need for a more responsive >FDA, samples of a 1954 polio vaccine, held by Dr. Ratner, a >Public Health official whose concerns about poliovaccine >safety had been largely ignored, have been sent to >investigators studying SV-40 to show how easy it is to detect >contaminants using the PCR assay. This assays was not >available in the 1950s, but now that it is, there is no excuse for >not using it on polio and other vaccines to exclude >contaminants including SCMV and related stealth viruses. > >A copy of Dr. Carbone's latest paper will be posted shortly. >Additional information can also be found in the Handouts >under Publications and Presentation section. > >For information on SV-40 testing please refer to the Clinical >Laboratory. - 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: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 20 Dec 1996 12:13:16 -0800 >-Boyd "There is a little 'small exploitable human' in all of us." Kneeland Boyd, I like your name better all the time - 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: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 20 Dec 1996 12:19:23 -0800 >We need to be careful about thinking that the Constitution will be >adequate to stop the Leviathan in its tracks. Unlike most of the other >members of this list, I am immersed in liberal academics. These people, >at least the thinking ones, firmly believe that the feds can do whatever >they want, and cite the necessary and proper clause, and the commerce >clause as supporting evidence. They need not even hold that the >Constitution is a "living" document. At best, we are viewed as something >along the lines of Constitutional fundamentalists. This Liberal view of >the Constitution is threatened by such court cases as the Lopez case, >which is why it became such a necessity for the Left to overtun that >decision by legislation. > >Steve This is a good, if unfortunate, point. I'm of two minds (which could explain a lot...) 1) I keep trying to do what I can to wake up the sheep to the fact that the Constitution is all that stands between us and tyranny 2) I also realize that, truthfully, the Constitution is dead. And that's really all there is to it. The people running the show hardly even give lip service to the Constitution any more. And the huge majority of the "laws" they pass are totally unconstitutional. And they know it. More and more I realize that the most expedient thing for us to do may be to simply admit that the Constitution is gone and start acting and planning accordingly. Those of us who do so will have a leg up when the Schumer hits the fan big time. Having two minds is not an easy thing... - 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: Save the Children Date: 20 Dec 1996 12:11:03 -0800 Extremely well put, John. Thank you. - Monte > > Monte - > > (sorry, I biffed your post after reading, then decided I wanted > to reply). > > I'm sick of children being used as the universal foil for every > ill conceived, liberty trampling, liberal scheme that comes down > the pike. > > I'm trying to "save the children" too, mainly I'm trying to save the > U.S. Constitution as a living form of government so that my children > will enjoy the freedoms that generations of Americans have > enjoyed. > > So let's save the Constitution for the children. > > (this is a powerful hook, cause in 30 years or so I'm going to be > DEAD, but my kids are going to be in the prime of their lives, > maybe raising kids of their own). > > ciao, > > jcurtis > - 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: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: Brit Royals against gun ban! Date: 20 Dec 1996 15:47:20 -0800 Sorry all, I was bit by the "reply to" ICON again. And dang it, I know better by now! Dont think I said anything too objectionable though. Well, Merry Christmas to all anyway. Jerry Wootan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: 2 WIPO Treaties Pass, Database Treaty doesn't (fwd) Date: 21 Dec 1996 08:20:47 -0500 (EST) Klinton tried to pass this same stuff through Congress but did not succeed, and his Hollywood/Business Software Alliance contributors were piqued. No problem, though, he just rammed it through as an international law. bd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Today in Geneva two of the three WIPO treaties were approved. The database treaty (No. 3) failed, but the treaties on Internet Copyright (Treaty No. 1, for "the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works") and the so-called the "new instrument" for the "Protection of The Rights of Performers And Producers of Phonograms" (Treaty 2) were passed. The treaties were changed from the August 30, 1996 drafts which had been published on the Internet. We haven't had the opportunity to see the new language yet, but reportedly there have been a few concessions to the treaty critics. I have been told that the controversial Article 7 of Treaty No. 1, which concerns the "Right of Reproduction," was dropped at the last minute. This was the Article which deals with "direct and indirect reproduction of their works, whether permanent or temporary, in any manner or form." If this is true, this is a significant victory for the critics of the treaty. In general, we are gratified that the database treaty was rejected -- in our judgment this was the worst of the three treaties, by far. We are also deeply disappointed that Treaties 1 and 2 were approved. These both involved matters of first impression, and should not have been legislated by government employees at a meeting of a United Nations Agency before any national legislature (including our own) had addressed the most important and controversial issues. The Librarian of Congress and many others have expressed similar views. The WIPO meetings are further evidence that in a wide range of important areas, the relevant legislative body is often an International body, like WIPO or the World Trade Organization (WTO), and it is increasingly important for citizens to think AND act globally. Much of the commentary about the WIPO proceedings is available from the Union for the Public Domain (UPD) web page at http://www.public-domain.org CPT held a press conference in Geneva, and the briefing document for that press conferenc is at: http://www.public-domain.org/copyright/briefing.html CPT also joined with several groups to send an open letter to the WIPO delegates, which is at: http://www.public-domain.org/copyright/signon.html More later. jamie ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ James Love / love@tap.org / P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax 202/234-5176 Center for Study of Responsive Law Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.tap.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)[FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [3 of 7] Date: 21 Dec 1996 08:25:51 -0500 >Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:20:29 -0600 (CST) >From: James Fish >X-Sender: jfish@earth >To: fwiw@execpc.com >Subject: [FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [3 of 7] >Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > >FWIW > >The New American * January 6, 1997 > >Special Report: >How Congress Can Save America > > > Battle for War Powers > by > William Norman Grigg > >Congress must reclaim its war-making powers and insist that our >troops be deployed only to defend American citizens and property. > >When the Clinton Administration announced shortly after last >November's election that American troops would remain in Bosnia >until at least 1998, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) professed startled >outrage. "I've never seen anything like it," groused the senator, >"a press report that we're going to keep 5,000 men and women >overseas without any consultation with Congress." > >McCain's anger was ironic, given the fact that in December 1995 he >told ABC News that he had "no choice" but to support President >Clinton's unauthorized deployment. McCain even co-sponsored a >resolution with Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole expressing >support for the unconstitutional deployment and mandating that the >U.S. arm and equip the Muslim-led Bosnian government - thus setting >the stage for the protracted deployment that McCain now professes >to oppose. Bob Dole was even more explicit in his capitulation to >the deployment, asserting on the Senate floor, "We have the >responsibility [to support troop deployments], whenever the >President of the United States, whoever that may be, gives his word >to the world community." > >The McCain-Dole resolution passed on December 13, 1995, the same >day that the House voted down a resolution sponsored by >Representative Bob Dornan (R-CA) that would have cut off funding >for the Bosnia venture. During the debate over the Dornan measure, >House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) was AWOL, prompting California >Republican Dana Rohrabacher to complain that Gingrich had been >avoiding a confrontation with the Administration on an issue of >constitutional importance. But it diminishes Gingrich's complicity >in the Clinton Administration's unconstitutional militarism to say >that he has merely avoided a fight. In fact, the Speaker and the >GOP leadership have actively abetted Bill Clinton's usurpation of >Congress' war-making powers.* > >On June 7, 1995, the GOP-led House narrowly voted down a bill, >sponsored by Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL), which was intended >to repeal the Executive-limiting War Powers Act. Unlike the Dornan >amendment, the Hyde bill received the personal attention of >Gingrich, who gave the measure a ringing endorsement in the closing >speech of the debate. Republican freshmen who had been propelled >into the House by a wave of anti-Clinton revulsion must have been >nonplussed to hear their Speaker urging them to "increase the power >of President Clinton.... I want to strengthen the current >Democratic President because he is President of the United States." > >The remarks of Congressman Hyde were similarly shocking. Hyde had >apparently discovered a previously undisclosed constitutional >amendment re-assigning the power to declare war from the >Legislative branch to the Chief Executive. "I think it is a fact of >modern history that declarations of war are gone," Hyde >pontificated. "I think they are anachronistic.... Instead what you >do is you call it a police action, as we did in Korea, or you call >it something else, but you do not formally take that giant leap of >declaring war." > >If Congress were to disapprove of a particular military excursion, >Hyde assured his colleagues, "We have the untrammeled authority to >unappropriate, disappropriate funds. That is the key; and that >makes us the king of the hill." Six months later, when given an >opportunity to disappropriate funding for Bill Clinton's >unconstitutional Bosnia occupation, the GOP-led Congress took a >dive. > >Nor was the GOP leadership disposed to offer principled opposition >to the Administration's plans to deploy an unspecified number of >American troops to a Canadian-led UN mission in Zaire. Mr. Clinton >may soon give his "word to the world community" to send American >troops to police the Golan Heights, or - in fulfillment of a recent >request by Yassir Arafat - the West Bank and Gaza. Other military >opportunities beckon elsewhere in the Middle East, as well as in >Northern Ireland and the former Soviet Union. American troops are >also engaged (without uniform insignia) in UN-approved "de-mining" >activities in Laos, special forces are conducting "operations other >than war" in Sri Lanka, and Americans remain stationed under UN >authority in Saudi Arabia, where they are subject to lethal >terrorist attacks. Speaking of the proliferation of UN-mandated >"operations other than war," Representative Lee Hamilton (D-IN) >insists that although the "American people have some doubts about >this ... this is the kind of intervention that we are likely to see >more of in the future. The Congress will have to adjust to this, >and so will the Pentagon." > >Work of the Lord? > >Why will the "Congress have to adjust" to this extra-constitutional >military regime? According to outgoing Defense Secretary William >Perry, it is because the Administration claims its authority from >a higher source than the Constitution. During a Thanksgiving >meeting with U.S. soldiers serving in Bosnia under NATO command, >Perry declared that the UN-authorized occupation force is "doing >the work of the Lord." Perry did not deign to explain how the Lord >chose the United Nations Security Council as the instrument of his >will, or how the UN's NATO subsidiary - which is presided over by >Spanish Marxist Javier Solana - fits into this "divine" scheme. >Most importantly, he failed to explain how the Administration's >"heavenly" mandate managed to bypass Congress entirely. > >Granted, Perry's statement was a facile blasphemy deployed as a >rhetorical flourish. However, this is not the first time that >supporters of UN-mandated "peacekeeping" missions have employed >such language to justify the usurpation of Congress' >constitutionally assigned war powers; as we will see, similar >conceits abounded during the congressional debate over passage of >the United Nations Participation Act (UNPA) in December 1945. The >UNPA specifies, "The President shall not be deemed to require the >authorization of the Congress" to make American troops and military >assets available for use in military ventures authorized by the UN >Security Council - as if Congress could surrender its >constitutional power to a foreign entity. > >Since UNPA was passed more than 50 years ago, Congress has never >carried out its constitutionally mandated role of declaring war - >yet Americans have died in undeclared wars in Korea, Vietnam, and >the Persian Gulf, and have been dispatched in UN-authorized >invasions of Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Rwanda. All of this >fulfills a dire 1945 prediction by Representative Clare Hoffman (R- >MI), who warned his colleagues during the UNPA debate that the >measure would require Congress to surrender "at least a portion, >not only of our sovereignty, but of our freedom of action, and be >bound by the decision of the Security Council." > >During that debate, several representatives suggested that the UN >represented the fulfillment of Christ's teachings. Representative >Howard Buffett (R-NE) pierced the dense fog of sanctimony by >pointing out that "it was probably the first international police >force of all times that crucified the lonely Nazarene. It was the >Roman legions that were in this land foreign to their own that >crucified the lonely Nazarene whom we revere as the founder of >Christianity." Far from advancing the sacred cause of Christianity, >Buffett continued, the creation of a UN military would lead to "the >spectacle 2,000 years later of an international police force >crucifying Christianity that the lonely Nazarene died for years >ago." Whatever damage the UNPA eventually does to Christianity, it >has done immense damage to America's constitutional system. >Representative Frederick Smith (R-OH) pointed out that the UNPA >"strikes at the very heart of the Constitution. It provides that >the power to declare war shall be taken from Congress and given to >the President. Here is the essence of dictatorship, and dictatorial >control over all else must inevitably tend to follow." > >Presidential Directives > >Bill Clinton has been enchanted with the dictatorial war-making >powers surrendered to the Executive by Congress, and he has sought >to systematize those extra-constitutional powers in two secret >presidential decrees: Presidential Decision Directives (PDDs) 13 >and 25. While neither of these documents has been made public, >portions of PDD-13 were leaked in the press and a 15-page >"unclassified summary" of PDD-25 has been made available by the >Administration. > >According to the New York Times, PDD-13 envisioned "an expanded >role in United Nations peacekeeping operations that would include >having Americans serve under foreign commanders on a regular >basis." Opposition from the public and Congress prompted the >Administration to re-tool the directive into PDD-25, which >(according to the Administration's summary) establishes a framework >for making "disciplined and coherent choices about which peace >operations to support" and "Defining clearly our policy regarding >the command and control of American military forces in UN peace >operations." > >Furthermore, while PDD-25 states that "the President will never >relinquish command authority over U.S. forces," the summary >explicitly states that a transfer of authority to foreign >commanders may occur on a "case by case basis." Granted, serving >under the present occupant of the White House - a veteran of the >communist-controlled anti-Vietnam war movement who expressed a >generational "loathing" for the military - is an abiding indignity >to self-sacrificing military personnel. However, being compelled to >wear UN insignia and serve under foreign command is an even greater >affront, and the Administration's eagerness to court-martial Army >Specialist Michael New illustrates the seriousness of its intention >to consummate such a betrayal of American servicemen who are oath- >bound to serve the U.S. Constitution. > >First Tool of Tyrants > >One unavoidable effect of war or the threat of war, Alexander >Hamilton pointed out in The Federalist, No. 8, is that it "will >compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose >and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their >civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become >willing to run the risk of being less free." It is for this reason, >notes West Point history instructor Wesley Allen Riddle, that "If >patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, then certainly, war is >the first tool of tyrants." As documented elsewhere in this issue, >the Clinton Administration's lust for foreign military adverturism >is matched by its appetite for domestic tyranny, and both of these >impulses spring from the same source - a contempt for the >Constitution. > >Alexander Hamilton observed in The Federalist, No. 69: "The >President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the >United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the >same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much >inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme >command and direction of the military and naval forces ... while >that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the >raising and regulating of fleets and armies - all which, by the >Constitution ... would appertain to the legislature." Hamilton >later elaborated in the first Pacificus essay, "In this >distribution of powers the wisdom of our Constitution is >manifested. It is the province and duty of the Executive to >preserve to the Nation the blessings of peace. The Legislature >alone can interrupt those blessings, by placing the Nation in a >state of War." > >The constitutionally ordained mission of the U.S. military is a >simple one: It is to protect the freedom and property of American >citizens. It is not to engage in "nation-building," "peacekeeping," >"peace enforcement," "operations other than war," or >"stabilization" missions, nor is it to provide mercenaries for the >UN or its subsidiaries. Our military exists, as Douglas MacArthur >famously declared, to win America's wars - constitutionally >declared wars fought for constitutionally sound purposes. > >Take It Back > >Congress must take back the war-making powers it has surrendered to >the Executive branch. One promising approach would be to append >amendments to all military appropriations bills denying funds to >all military missions not specifically approved by Congress. Such >measures would de-fund ongoing unconstitutional deployments, as >well as prevent future deployments on a country-specific basis >(Northern Ireland, Zaire, the Golan Heights, etc.). Provisions >could be made in such measures acknowledging the inherent authority >of the President to use our armed forces to repel "sudden attacks" >(a function recognized during the Philadelphia debates). > >Another possible approach would be to propose resolutions (in >either house) or joint resolutions (in both houses) emphatically >enunciating Congress' exclusive authority to declare war and to >"make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval >forces" (Article I, Section 8); the resolutions would also point >out that the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces >"when called into the actual service of the United States" (Article >II, Section 2), rather than a monarch who can, of his own volition, >commit troops overseas. While such measures are purely hortatory in >nature, they would place the issue of the President's imperial >pretensions before the public in a dramatic fashion. Perhaps the >most important initiative would be the repeal of the UNPA and >decisive action to compel the Administration to make public PDD-25, >using whatever legal means necessary - including, perhaps, the >threat of impeachment for misfeasance of office. > >Shortly after election day, House Speaker Gingrich stated that >while the 104th Congress was the "confrontation" Congress, the >105th would be the "implementation" Congress. Thanks to Gingrich's >treacherous leadership, the GOP-led House avoided an overdue >confrontation over the Executive's usurpation of congressional >authority concerning matters of war and peace. That confrontation >must occur in the 105th Congress if America is to arrest the >surrender of its sovereignty and its decline into tyranny. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996 >American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated >P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 >Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna >Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE >WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for >informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, >and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright >privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or >the above address. >------------------------------------------------------------------- > > =================================================================== > 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. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Interesting rant and rant-response from another list Date: 21 Dec 1996 08:47:15 -0500 (EST) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>Flew down to LA recently with a firearm (checked, of course). >> >>Looking over the ticket later, I was mildly surprised to find "GUN" in >>a string of otherwise unintelligible text. > >This is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. The last time that >I declared (as the legal notices at the check-in podium admonished me to do) >a firearm in my luggage, my bag sported a large, chromium yellow GUN tag >that also featured a graphic representation of a pistol (I guess for baggage >handlers who can't read, or can't read English, and would still like to take >advantage of one of the perks of their position). And speaking of "damned if you do, damned if you don't," on a recent flight from San Diego to San Jose I answered a ticketwoman's questions honestly. She asked in a perfunctory manner if my bags had ever been out of my sight. I answered honestly, that, yes, they had, but only briefly. She immediately chirped up that my bags would have to be re-x-rayed. I followed her toward the security point. She then asked how it was they'd been out of my sight. I told her that the men's restroom had stalls that were far too tiny for one's baggage, and that I'd placed my bags outside. She frowned, and seemed confused by this. I averred that I had no idea if the women's restroom stalls were larger, or if women simply placed their bags in the filth behind the commode. She said nothing, but said "If we re-x-ray your bags, can you promise me you won't do this again?" I politely told her no, that the stalls were simply not large enough to accomodate carry-on luggage. Then, I added helpfully, "but you won't really know, will you, so what's the point?" She froze just as we were about to enter the escalator down to the security point, commanded me to remain in that spot, and went off to consult with her security co-workers. After about 10 minutes, she and another Southwest employee returned to where I was patiently standing, gave me a lecture on how the measures were designed for my own protection, handed me a boarding pass, and complimented me on my "honesty." (I suspect they had realized then, if not long before, that the "Have your bags left your sight?" question is ill-considered, given the design of restrooms, restaurants, etc., and that most people were simply lying to them.) As with most such situations, the laws don't catch the real terrorists. [...] Last note: I once agreed to fill out an "anonymous poll" given to me by United Airlines as we awaited takeoff from Albuquerque, back in 1987. I expressed my opinion that Allegis, the parent corporation of United at that time, deserved to face financial ruin (I was pissed at the 2-hour delay on the ground). My "anonymous poll" was apparently not so anonymous. I was met in San Jose by four security heavies, who demanded to know what I "meant" by my comments. I pointed out that my comments, whatever they were, were promised to be "anonymous." They pressed me for an explanation and said I would be arrested by airport police on grounds of making a threat unless I explained. I yielded, and blathered about Allegis and its ill-founded policies and how I believed the stock market would reward its stupidity with a much lower share price, blah blah blah. They seemed to lack any basis for throwing me in jail, so they let me go. That was the last time I flew on United, by the way. (I'm sure that had my ticket had the indication "GUN" somewhere in the validation string, I'd've gotten even rougher attention. Citizen-units who express independent opinions and who carry guns are dangerous to the Order.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Ho Ho...What? Date: 21 Dec 1996 09:22:39 -0800 Supposedly written for & sung at a US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel Christmas party . . . You'd better watch out, You'd better not cry, You'd better not pout; I'm telling you why. Santa Claus is tapping Your phone. He's bugging your room, He's reading your mail, He's keeping a file And running a tail. Santa Claus is tapping Your phone. He hears you in the bedroom, Surveills you out of doors, And if that doesn't get the goods, Then he'll use provocateurs. So--you mustn't assume That you are secure. On Christmas Eve He'll kick in your door. Santa Claus is tapping Your phone. - 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: iwilsker@ih2000.net Subject: New ANTI-2nd Amendment Page by HCI Activist Date: 21 Dec 1996 11:55:31 -0700 (MST) Look at: http://www.redshift.com/~jamesm2/2nda2.htm It is a new website by a self described "James Mason, Activist member,Handgun Control Inc" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)[FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [4 of 7] Date: 21 Dec 1996 14:29:01 -0500 >Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 10:09:54 -0600 (CST) >From: James Fish >X-Sender: jfish@earth >To: fwiw@execpc.com >Subject: [FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [4 of 7] >Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > >FWIW > >The New American * January 6, 1997 > >Special Report: >How Congress Can Save America > > > Judicial Usurpation > by > William F. Jasper > >The congressional power to determine the appellate jurisdiction of >the federal courts provides the key for ending judicial tyranny. > >A federal judge's order overturns the U.S. military's ban on >homosexuals, including the Clinton Administration's liberal "don't >ask, don't tell" policy, and orders the reinstatement of homosexual >service members. > >The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court strikes down as unconstitutional the >official English Language Amendment to Arizona's state >constitution. > >A U.S. district judge orders the Kansas City School District to >spend $740 million to meet educational standards set by his >dictates. > >Since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, over 30 >million babies have been "legally" murdered through abortion in >"the land of the free and the home of the brave." > >A federal judge overturns a law passed by California voters through >the initiative process barring certain welfare benefits to illegal >aliens. > >The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down an amendment to Colorado's >state constitution which had been passed by that state's voters to >prohibit special legal privileges for homosexuals. > >The list goes on and on - interminably. The omniscient potentates >of the federal judiciary find no difficulty in conjuring up absurd >pretexts from nonexistent "penumbras formed by emanations" from the >Constitution to free murderers, overturn the death penalty, condone >flag burning, order jails and prisons to release thousands of >dangerous felons, ban school prayer and voluntary school Bible >studies, banish Christian symbols from the public square, rewrite >congressional district boundaries according to racial formulas, >order millions of school children to be bused to distant districts >to meet racial quotas, strike down laws aimed at dangerous >subversives, order tens of thousands of patients in mental >institutions released onto the streets, etc., etc., ad nauseam. >Clearly, if the 105th Congress does not deal with the issue of >judicial tyranny as a top priority, any conservative victories or >accomplishments which may be claimed will have little, if any, >lasting value. > >Despotic Potential > >Surveying the social carnage that has been wrought over the past >five decades by tyrannical activists on the bench, the views of >some of our most illustrious Founding Fathers concerning the >judicial magistracy may seem hopelessly short sighted and naive. In >The Federalist, No. 78, Alexander Hamilton opined that of the three >branches of the national government established by the >Constitution, "the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, >will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the >Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or >injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors but holds >the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the >purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of >every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, >has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction >either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can >take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have >neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment; and must ultimately >depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of >its judgments." > >However, reading on in the same essay, it becomes apparent that >Hamilton was very much aware of the potential for judicial >despotism if constitutional vigilance were not maintained. He >wrote: > >... though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the >courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be >endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary >remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the executive. >For I agree [with Montesquieu] that "there is no liberty if the >power of judging be not separated from the legislative and >executive powers." And it proves, in the last place, that as >liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, [it] >would have everything to fear from its union with either of the >other departments.... > >Quite obviously, Hamilton recognized that maintaining the >separation of powers is one of the most important checks and >balances against judicial oppression. It is just as obvious, >though, that the separation has already been breached and that >widespread usurpation and oppression are longstanding faits >accomplis. This has come about, says constitutional scholar and >Oklahoma state legislator William Graves, "by the Court's own fiat >and by the cowardly acquiescence of Congress and the People. As a >result, the Supreme Court operates de facto as virtually a sitting >constitutional convention and a superlegislature. It sees itself as >a 'steward' or 'overseer' as to the other branches of government - >and particularly the states." > >How can we remedy this desperate predicament? Unfortunately, most >of the leaders of the "conservative" movement in Congress and the >Beltway seem to favor amending the Constitution to deal with each >and every judicial excess. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary >Committee in 1981, Professor Jules B. Gerard of Washington >University cogently explained why this is an unacceptable course: > >The claim that amending the Constitution is the proper remedy for >bad decisions is not a legitimate response. That requires super- >majorities at every stage of the process. But why should society >have to shoulder the burden of mustering super-majorities to >overturn decisions like the abortion and death penalty cases, >decisions without even a semblance of an anchor in the language, >structure, or history of the Constitution? Amending the >Constitution was designed to provide for unanticipated changes in >our society, not to be a corrective for abuses of judicial power. >Furthermore, resorting to the amendment process lends an aura of >respectability to such decisions that they on no account deserve. >It implies that the problems are created by the Constitution >instead of by the judicial usurpations of legislative power, and >regular resort to the amending process is bound to encourage rather >than discourage misbehavior by the courts. > >Judicial Checks > >But the designers of our Constitution did not leave us bereft of >means to deal with the crisis. They provided four important powers >with which to keep the courts in check: > >1) Appointment. The Constitution provides for the President to >appoint federal judges "by and with the advice and consent of the >Senate." President Clinton will likely be appointing at least three >Supreme Court justices and a great many judges to the lower federal >courts. If even further destruction to our society is to be >averted, the Senate must exercise its responsibility to screen out >judicial activists. It must inquire into the judicial philosophy of >appointees with a view to obtaining judges who will derive >"legitimate meaning," as Madison said, "from the text itself," >rather than from trendy sociological dogma and imperial whim. > >2) Impeachment. The Constitution provides Congress with the power >of impeachment over the judiciary, whose members "shall hold their >offices during good behavior." It is true, as Jefferson lamented >long ago, that the impeachment power is so infrequently exercised >as to be "not even a scarecrow." But a Congress galvanized by an >insistent public could enliven that scarecrow. > >3) Abolition. Article III furnishes Congress with the authority to >actually abolish those lower federal courts (but not the Supreme >Court) involved in judicial usurpation. There is precedent for this >in Congress' abolition of the federal circuit courts after >President Adams' "midnight appointments" of circuit judges. And the >Supreme Court (Stuart v. Laird, 1803) upheld Congress' action. > >4) Limitation. This avenue offers the most positive prospect of >redress against judicial absolutism. The first part of Article III, >Section 2 sets out the types of cases over which the federal >judicial powers shall extend. It then goes on to specify: "In all >cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, >and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall >have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before >mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, >both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such >regulations as the Congress shall make." (Emphasis added.) > >Congress has the plenary power to dictate which, if any, classes of >cases may be heard by the lower federal courts and, other than >those types of cases specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it >can also limit the types of cases the Supreme Court may review. >Which means that Congress may pass a law depriving the federal >courts of jurisdiction in cases involving flag burning, school >prayer, abortion, homosexual "rights," prison "reform," etc. > >In its 1868 landmark decision, Ex Parte McCardle, the Supreme Court >fully affirmed Congress' exception power. In this case, a private >citizen, William McCardle, was arrested by the military under the >authority of the Reconstruction Acts. When denied habeas corpus, >McCardle made use of an 1867 law allowing appeal to the Supreme >Court. Fearing the Court might declare the Reconstruction Acts >unconstitutional, Congress repealed the provision in the 1867 law >concerning habeas corpus appeal. Although it had already heard >arguments in the case, the Supreme Court recognized Congress' >constitutional authority and dismissed McCardle's appeal. Chief >Justice Samuel Chase, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, >explained the decision: "We are not at liberty to inquire into the >motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power >under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the >appellate jurisdiction of the court is given by express words." >Moreover, wrote Chase, "without jurisdiction the court cannot >proceed at all in any case. Jurisdiction is power to declare the >law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to >the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the case." >Chief Justice John Marshall, the father of judicial review, >affirmed congressional exception power and wrote that for the Court >to usurp jurisdiction "would be treason to the Constitution." > >Why, then, has such intolerable judicial usurpation been tolerated >for so long? Certainly a great many legal authorities, as well as >The New American and other publications, have repeatedly apprised >Congress of its power and obligation to rein in judicial >absolutism. It is obvious that many members of Congress are >comfortable with the status quo. They can score points with >conservatives by declaiming against court decisions and proposing >constitutional amendments which they know are fraudulent hopes. >That is much safer than getting roughed up by the "liberal" media >for endangering judicial "independence" and the "progressive" >social revolution the imperial courts have wrought. Other members >of Congress, of course, are unaware of their constitutional >prerogatives. Unless and until a sufficient portion of the American >people face up to their civic responsibility to command Congress to >act, judicial excesses and oppressions will multiply, leading >surely to tyranny. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996 >American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated >P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 >Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna >Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE >WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for >informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, >and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright >privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or >the above address. >------------------------------------------------------------------- > > =================================================================== > 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. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: How Congress Can Save America [4 of 7] Date: 21 Dec 1996 19:07:59 -0800 Dear Friends, The Final Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. 1291, should be closely analyzed in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. 1292, to see if their interaction(s) result in working prejudice, and/or barratry, upon litigants. We had one federal judge refuse to rule on 25 motions, but when we went up to the Ninth Circuit on an Emergency Motion, the Ninth Circuit dismissed for failing to satisfy 1291, the Final Judgments Act. The conduct of the federal judge has now been documented in a Judicial Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 372(c); this may provide the foundation for a Petition for Rehearing to the Ninth Circuit, because of all the criminal conduct which has never been denied (28 counts of mail fraud, 28 counts of jury tampering, 28 counts of obstruction of justice, and 28 counts of conspiracy to commit all of the above). In effect, we started deep in our own end zone; we moved the ball 99.8 yards, only to be told we had not crossed the goal line (i.e. 28 U.S.C. 1291). Once the dust settles out a little bit, We plan to file a Petition for Rehearing, for Leaves to Appeal Interlocutory Orders and to Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Nevertheless, the rules for Ninth Circuit jurisdiction could be better written to handle gross judicial misconduct, because it is a deprivation of due process of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242. The saving grace is that there is no statute of limitations on fraud (e.g. mail fraud, perjury, etc.) Those are my thoughts right now, off the top of my head. I plan to spend more time researching Interlocutory Decisions, and the procedures for appealing them, particularly when newly found evidence proves fraud upon the district court (e.g. perjury, mail fraud, jury tampering). For authority, see 28 U.S.C. 1292, and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 5. There are other rules which would come in to play in our particular situation. One legislative change I would propose is this: "If a litigant files a proper complaint under Section 372(c) of this title, the Circuit panel assigned to the complaint shall waive the restrictions found in Section 1291 and 1292, and grant leave to appeal interlocutory decisions, upon a positive finding of judicial misconduct. Nothing in this section shall be construed to deny or abridge a litigant's fundamental Rights to trial by jury, to due process of law, or to petition the judicial branch for redress of grievances as described in said complaint." I am standing by. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 02:29 PM 12/21/96 -0500, you wrote: >>Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 10:09:54 -0600 (CST) >>From: James Fish >>X-Sender: jfish@earth >>To: fwiw@execpc.com >>Subject: [FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [4 of 7] >>Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >>Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >> >>FWIW >> >>The New American * January 6, 1997 >> >>Special Report: >>How Congress Can Save America >> >> >> Judicial Usurpation >> by >> William F. Jasper >> >>The congressional power to determine the appellate jurisdiction of >>the federal courts provides the key for ending judicial tyranny. >> >>A federal judge's order overturns the U.S. military's ban on >>homosexuals, including the Clinton Administration's liberal "don't >>ask, don't tell" policy, and orders the reinstatement of homosexual >>service members. >> >>The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court strikes down as unconstitutional the >>official English Language Amendment to Arizona's state >>constitution. >> >>A U.S. district judge orders the Kansas City School District to >>spend $740 million to meet educational standards set by his >>dictates. >> >>Since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, over 30 >>million babies have been "legally" murdered through abortion in >>"the land of the free and the home of the brave." >> >>A federal judge overturns a law passed by California voters through >>the initiative process barring certain welfare benefits to illegal >>aliens. >> >>The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down an amendment to Colorado's >>state constitution which had been passed by that state's voters to >>prohibit special legal privileges for homosexuals. >> >>The list goes on and on - interminably. The omniscient potentates >>of the federal judiciary find no difficulty in conjuring up absurd >>pretexts from nonexistent "penumbras formed by emanations" from the >>Constitution to free murderers, overturn the death penalty, condone >>flag burning, order jails and prisons to release thousands of >>dangerous felons, ban school prayer and voluntary school Bible >>studies, banish Christian symbols from the public square, rewrite >>congressional district boundaries according to racial formulas, >>order millions of school children to be bused to distant districts >>to meet racial quotas, strike down laws aimed at dangerous >>subversives, order tens of thousands of patients in mental >>institutions released onto the streets, etc., etc., ad nauseam. >>Clearly, if the 105th Congress does not deal with the issue of >>judicial tyranny as a top priority, any conservative victories or >>accomplishments which may be claimed will have little, if any, >>lasting value. >> >>Despotic Potential >> >>Surveying the social carnage that has been wrought over the past >>five decades by tyrannical activists on the bench, the views of >>some of our most illustrious Founding Fathers concerning the >>judicial magistracy may seem hopelessly short sighted and naive. In >>The Federalist, No. 78, Alexander Hamilton opined that of the three >>branches of the national government established by the >>Constitution, "the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, >>will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the >>Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or >>injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors but holds >>the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the >>purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of >>every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, >>has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction >>either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can >>take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have >>neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment; and must ultimately >>depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of >>its judgments." >> >>However, reading on in the same essay, it becomes apparent that >>Hamilton was very much aware of the potential for judicial >>despotism if constitutional vigilance were not maintained. He >>wrote: >> >>... though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the >>courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be >>endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary >>remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the executive. >>For I agree [with Montesquieu] that "there is no liberty if the >>power of judging be not separated from the legislative and >>executive powers." And it proves, in the last place, that as >>liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, [it] >>would have everything to fear from its union with either of the >>other departments.... >> >>Quite obviously, Hamilton recognized that maintaining the >>separation of powers is one of the most important checks and >>balances against judicial oppression. It is just as obvious, >>though, that the separation has already been breached and that >>widespread usurpation and oppression are longstanding faits >>accomplis. This has come about, says constitutional scholar and >>Oklahoma state legislator William Graves, "by the Court's own fiat >>and by the cowardly acquiescence of Congress and the People. As a >>result, the Supreme Court operates de facto as virtually a sitting >>constitutional convention and a superlegislature. It sees itself as >>a 'steward' or 'overseer' as to the other branches of government - >>and particularly the states." >> >>How can we remedy this desperate predicament? Unfortunately, most >>of the leaders of the "conservative" movement in Congress and the >>Beltway seem to favor amending the Constitution to deal with each >>and every judicial excess. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary >>Committee in 1981, Professor Jules B. Gerard of Washington >>University cogently explained why this is an unacceptable course: >> >>The claim that amending the Constitution is the proper remedy for >>bad decisions is not a legitimate response. That requires super- >>majorities at every stage of the process. But why should society >>have to shoulder the burden of mustering super-majorities to >>overturn decisions like the abortion and death penalty cases, >>decisions without even a semblance of an anchor in the language, >>structure, or history of the Constitution? Amending the >>Constitution was designed to provide for unanticipated changes in >>our society, not to be a corrective for abuses of judicial power. >>Furthermore, resorting to the amendment process lends an aura of >>respectability to such decisions that they on no account deserve. >>It implies that the problems are created by the Constitution >>instead of by the judicial usurpations of legislative power, and >>regular resort to the amending process is bound to encourage rather >>than discourage misbehavior by the courts. >> >>Judicial Checks >> >>But the designers of our Constitution did not leave us bereft of >>means to deal with the crisis. They provided four important powers >>with which to keep the courts in check: >> >>1) Appointment. The Constitution provides for the President to >>appoint federal judges "by and with the advice and consent of the >>Senate." President Clinton will likely be appointing at least three >>Supreme Court justices and a great many judges to the lower federal >>courts. If even further destruction to our society is to be >>averted, the Senate must exercise its responsibility to screen out >>judicial activists. It must inquire into the judicial philosophy of >>appointees with a view to obtaining judges who will derive >>"legitimate meaning," as Madison said, "from the text itself," >>rather than from trendy sociological dogma and imperial whim. >> >>2) Impeachment. The Constitution provides Congress with the power >>of impeachment over the judiciary, whose members "shall hold their >>offices during good behavior." It is true, as Jefferson lamented >>long ago, that the impeachment power is so infrequently exercised >>as to be "not even a scarecrow." But a Congress galvanized by an >>insistent public could enliven that scarecrow. >> >>3) Abolition. Article III furnishes Congress with the authority to >>actually abolish those lower federal courts (but not the Supreme >>Court) involved in judicial usurpation. There is precedent for this >>in Congress' abolition of the federal circuit courts after >>President Adams' "midnight appointments" of circuit judges. And the >>Supreme Court (Stuart v. Laird, 1803) upheld Congress' action. >> >>4) Limitation. This avenue offers the most positive prospect of >>redress against judicial absolutism. The first part of Article III, >>Section 2 sets out the types of cases over which the federal >>judicial powers shall extend. It then goes on to specify: "In all >>cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, >>and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall >>have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before >>mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, >>both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such >>regulations as the Congress shall make." (Emphasis added.) >> >>Congress has the plenary power to dictate which, if any, classes of >>cases may be heard by the lower federal courts and, other than >>those types of cases specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it >>can also limit the types of cases the Supreme Court may review. >>Which means that Congress may pass a law depriving the federal >>courts of jurisdiction in cases involving flag burning, school >>prayer, abortion, homosexual "rights," prison "reform," etc. >> >>In its 1868 landmark decision, Ex Parte McCardle, the Supreme Court >>fully affirmed Congress' exception power. In this case, a private >>citizen, William McCardle, was arrested by the military under the >>authority of the Reconstruction Acts. When denied habeas corpus, >>McCardle made use of an 1867 law allowing appeal to the Supreme >>Court. Fearing the Court might declare the Reconstruction Acts >>unconstitutional, Congress repealed the provision in the 1867 law >>concerning habeas corpus appeal. Although it had already heard >>arguments in the case, the Supreme Court recognized Congress' >>constitutional authority and dismissed McCardle's appeal. Chief >>Justice Samuel Chase, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, >>explained the decision: "We are not at liberty to inquire into the >>motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power >>under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the >>appellate jurisdiction of the court is given by express words." >>Moreover, wrote Chase, "without jurisdiction the court cannot >>proceed at all in any case. Jurisdiction is power to declare the >>law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to >>the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the case." >>Chief Justice John Marshall, the father of judicial review, >>affirmed congressional exception power and wrote that for the Court >>to usurp jurisdiction "would be treason to the Constitution." >> >>Why, then, has such intolerable judicial usurpation been tolerated >>for so long? Certainly a great many legal authorities, as well as >>The New American and other publications, have repeatedly apprised >>Congress of its power and obligation to rein in judicial >>absolutism. It is obvious that many members of Congress are >>comfortable with the status quo. They can score points with >>conservatives by declaiming against court decisions and proposing >>constitutional amendments which they know are fraudulent hopes. >>That is much safer than getting roughed up by the "liberal" media >>for endangering judicial "independence" and the "progressive" >>social revolution the imperial courts have wrought. Other members >>of Congress, of course, are unaware of their constitutional >>prerogatives. Unless and until a sufficient portion of the American >>people face up to their civic responsibility to command Congress to >>act, judicial excesses and oppressions will multiply, leading >>surely to tyranny. >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------- >>THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996 >>American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated >>P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 >>Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna >>Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE >>WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for >>informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, >>and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright >>privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or >>the above address. >>------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> =================================================================== >> 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. > >"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our >liberties than standing armies." > --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) > > ==================================================================== [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: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)Thank You from Laura Kriho! Date: 22 Dec 1996 09:29:53 -0500 >Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:20:38 -0700 (MST) >From: Jury Rights Project >Subject: Thank You from Laura Kriho! >To: jrights@darkstar.cygnus.com > >December 20, 1996 > >Greetings from Colorado! > >Dear Friends, > I feel bad that I have not been able to write to you sooner. >I intended to tell everyone the verdict as soon as my trial was >over. I was tried on October 1 and 2, and I thought the verdict >would come immediately after my trial. Amazingly, the judge has >still not rendered a verdict. My attorney has prudently advised >me not to speak about my case too much publicly until the verdict >is in. > But I can't wait anymore to thank all of you for all the >support you have given me on my case. To all of you have >contributed to my defense fund, or have written letters to the >editor about my case, or have helped me in other ways, I want to >give a heart-felt "Thank you so much!" > The support I have gotten from so many wonderful people has >made this ordeal much easier. It has been inspiring to know that >there are so many people in the country who believe it is >important to preserve our jury system. > Through my friends at the Jury Rights Project, the Internet >has become a wonderful tool for distributing information about my >case and asking for help. > It is anyone's guess when the judge will render verdict in >my case. My attorney, Paul Grant, says that Colorado has no statutory >requirement for the judge to issue a speedy verdict >in a contempt of court case. He says, "There is always a constitutional >right (6th Amendment) to a speedy trial in criminal matters, and we >presume the trial includes the verdict. In that case, there are some >limits as to how long this can go on, but a court would have to determine >what 'speedy trial' requires in this case, since the statutes don't spell >it out." > > My friends at the Jury Rights Project will inform you all of >as soon as the verdict is scheduled. > > I appreciate your support more than I can ever put in words! >As former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders said, "I'm happy to be >the lightning rod if I know there is thunder behind me. Thank >you for being part of that thunder." > I hope you all have a wonderful holiday season. Thanks >again! > > Peace, > > > Laura Kriho > > > >***************************************************************************** >Jury Rights on Trial >State of Colorado v. Laura Kriho >Gilpin District Court Case # 96-CR-91 >UPDATE: DECEMBER 20, 1996 > >Distributed by the: >Colorado Legal Eagles/Jury Rights Project >Email: jrights@welcomehome.org >Background Info. on the World Wide Web: >http://www.execpc.com/~doreen/kriho.html > > In a case that threatens to destroy trial by jury, a Gilpin >County juror was tried for contempt of court for deliberating >"improperly" in a jury room. This case is the first of its kind >in over 300 years. It threatens the very foundations of American >justice by inquiring into confidential jury deliberations and >forcing jurors to testify against each other. > >The Case > Kriho was the lone hold-out for acquittal on the jury in a >drug possession case in Gilpin County, Colorado, on May 13, 1996. > The defendant was a nineteen-year-old female charged with >felony possession of methamphetamine. Kriho and the other jurors >listened to two days of testimony. > Before deliberations began, presiding Judge Kenneth Barnhill >gave the jury some instructions on how to reach a verdict. He >said the jury was to determine if the prosecution had proved, >beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant had knowingly >possessed methamphetamine. He also instructed the jury to use >their prior knowledge and experiences, but not to consider >possible sentences the defendant would face. These instructions >were given in the spirit of guidelines and were not identified as >court orders. > The jury then began their deliberations, which most thought >were secret and confidential. None of the jurors ever imagined >they would be called back into court to testify as to how they >deliberated. > >In the Jury Room > > Most jurors wanted to convict on the possession charge, but >Kriho argued that the prosecution had not proved that the >defendant knew she possessed the methamphetamine. Kriho had >reasonable doubts. > The deliberations became very heated. Kriho was the focus >of verbal attacks and ridicule. She tried to defend her vote, >but became frustrated and upset. > In the heat of the deliberations, Kriho blurted out that the >defendant could receive several years in jail if the jury >convicted her. Kriho also made remarks about jury nullification >and the historic right of jurors to vote according to their >conscience. Kriho also stated that it was a shame drug >possession cases couldn't be handled by the family and community, >and not the courts. > These statements, and Kriho's refusal to change her vote, >angered another juror so much that, without the knowledge of >other jurors, he sent a note to Judge Barnhill. The note asked >if a juror could be disqualified for discussing the sentence the >defendant would face. Based on this anonymous note, and with no >other investigation, Judge Barnhill became furious and declared a >mistrial. > Several jurors were upset that the judge had interrupted >their deliberation process. They felt they could have reached a >verdict soon. > >The Investigation of Laura Kriho > > Prosecutor James Stanley was so enraged at losing an easy >conviction that his investigator inquired of other jurors, off >the record, who the hold-out juror was. He found out Kriho's >name and investigated her background. He discovered that Kriho >had received a deferred sentence on the charge of possession of >LSD in 1984. After Kriho completed two years of probation, the >charge was supposed to be wiped from her record. Kriho believed >that it had been. > Stanley also discovered that Kriho was an organizer for the >Colorado Hemp Initiative Project, a group trying to reform >cannabis and hemp laws in Colorado. > Based on this information and interviews with other jurors, >Kriho was charged with contempt of court on August 16, 1996. > >The Contempt Charge > Stanley tried to prove that Kriho should be convicted of >contempt of court for: >1) Disobedience to an order of the court. > Even though Kriho did mention possible sentences, her >attorney argued that a judge's instructions to the jury are not >court orders. The judge cannot tell a juror how to think. > >2) Obstructing the administration of justice. > Neither the prosecutor nor the judge was ever able to define >what action or statement of Kriho's constituted this aspect of >the contempt charge. > >3) Committing perjury by lying under oath. > Kriho never lied during voir dire, the jury selection >process. She was seated late in the process and basically the >only question she was asked was "Would you have answered >differently any of the questions the other jurors were asked?" >Like all the other jurors before her, Kriho replied no to this >meaningless question. (At that point there were over 350 >different questions asked of other jurors.) > However, Stanley believed Kriho should have been smart >enough to volunteer answers to questions that he did not ask her. >The Trial of Laura Kriho > Kriho's trial (Oct. 1 & 2) was a mockery of justice. >Although her attorney, Paul Grant, did an outstanding job, the >cards were stacked against them. Kriho was tried by former >prosecutor and First Judicial District Chief Judge Henry Nieto >who assigned himself to the case after Judge Barnhill honored a >defense request to recuse himself. > In pre-trial rulings, Judge Nieto made it clear Kriho would >not get a fair trial. Judge Nieto denied Grant's request for >more time to prepare Kriho's defense and forced them to go to >trial only six weeks after her arraignment. Judge Nieto said it >was a "simple" case and the defense should be ready. Judge Nieto >also denied a motion to disqualify Stanley as the prosecutor, >saying he saw no reason for Stanley to be a witness and had no >problem in having Stanley prosecute Kriho. > Judge Nieto also denied Kriho a jury trial. A Colorado >defendant is only entitled to a jury trial in a contempt case if >the sentence might include more than six months in jail. Since >Stanley agreed not to seek more than six months, Judge Nieto >denied a jury trial. > Kriho's trial was a not a quiet event. Over a hundred of >her supporters packed the court room. The national and local >media covered it. However, a request by Court TV to film the >trial was denied by Judge Nieto. > The most distasteful aspect of the trial was that nine other >jurors were called into court to testify under oath about how >they deliberated in the jury room. Their recollections varied >greatly. Some even admitted to their own "improper" >deliberations. And the message was sent that the jury room is >not a sacred place and can be violated by a judge on a whim. > >The Verdict? > Judge Nieto listened to two days of testimony. After both >sides had rested their case, in a surprise decision, Judge Nieto >said he needed legal briefs from both attorneys explaining the >applicable law. Judge Nieto said he would review the briefs and >set a date for Kriho to appear in court to hear the verdict. It >appears Judge Nieto finally realized this was not a "simple" >case. > The briefs were filed on October 9. As of the date on this >announcement, the judge has not issued a verdict and has given no >indication of when one can be expected. He appears to be a "hung >judge". > If convicted, Kriho could receive up to six months in jail >and a fine of an undetermined amount. > >What you can do: >1) Donate to Laura's legal defense fund to help her pay her legal >expenses. >- Contributions are not tax deductible. >- All unused contributions will be returned. >Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund >c/o Paul Grant (defense attorney) >P.O. Box 1272 >Parker, CO 80134 >Phone: (303) 841-9649 >Email: pkgrant@ix.netcom.com > >2) Copy and distribute this update. > > > > "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. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Interesting rant and rant-response from another list Date: 22 Dec 1996 16:11:54 -0600 At 08:47 AM 12/21/96 -0500, Brad Dolan wrote or forwarded: >(I'm sure that had my ticket had the indication "GUN" somewhere in the >validation string, I'd've gotten even rougher attention. Citizen-units who >express independent opinions and who carry guns are dangerous to the Order.) Yeah, we are aren't we! The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Judicial Legitimacy Date: 22 Dec 1996 14:33:43 PST The current American Spectator has the revelations of David Watkins. However, the best part of the issue is probably the article by Tom Bethell which references the November issue of First Things. This issue has published several very potent papers on how the courts in the US are losing their legitimacy by their *wacky* decisions. The WWW address is www.firstthings.com Look for current issues and go to November of 95 I do not agree with all of the decisions that are quoted and in several places my views are orthogonal to the writers. I do emphatically think that something has to be done about these dictatorial judges and the 100,000 bytes more or less in these articles are certainly a splendid starting point for discussion The name of Tom's article in the American Specator is FIRST THINGS FIRST Is it right to enteratin subversive thoughts? Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)[FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [5 of 7] Date: 22 Dec 1996 19:32:31 -0500 >Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 17:52:48 -0600 (CST) >From: James Fish >X-Sender: jfish@earth >To: fwiw@execpc.com >Subject: [FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [5 of 7] >Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > >FWIW > >The New American * January 6, 1997 > >Special Report: >How Congress Can Save America > > > Power of the Purse > by > Thomas R. Eddlem > >The budget will never be balanced as long as the serious cuts that >must be made are postponed to a future Congress. > >Two years ago, the first Republican Congress in nearly four decades >began with an ambitious budget plan. GOP congressmen pledged to >abolish three Cabinet departments - Energy, Commerce, and >Education. They promised to zero out more than a dozen agencies and >kill several hundred federal programs, boards, commissions, and >authorities, including AmeriCorps, National Endowment for the Arts, >and Goals 2000. > >Two years later, the three Cabinet agencies continue to function, >enjoying budgets on a par with what earlier Democratic Congresses >funded. AmeriCorps continues to pay "volunteers" with federal funds >approved by Congress. The National Endowment for the Arts and the >National Endowment for the Humanities each have nearly $100 million >in federal largesse to dispense this year. And in fiscal 1997, >funds for Goals 2000 increased by 40 percent to $491 million. All >in all, the vast majority of the major programs slated for oblivion >two years ago continue unmolested. > >Clinton-Gingrich Tag Team > >What happened to the "Republican Revolution"? The answer: Newt >Gingrich and Bill Clinton. The whole budget battle between Congress >and the White House was a cleverly choreographed charade. The show >began with a presidential veto of a number of annual appropriations >bills. Newt Gingrich played along, declaring in November 1995, "We >are prepared to fight until December." When the federal government >did shut down briefly, the major media intimated that the >Republican Congress was not doing its duty to negotiate a budget >deal, but was stubbornly insisting on shutting down the federal >government. In reality, it was the President's actions that shut >down the government. > >Congress, of course, is charged by the Constitution with initiating >all spending bills. If it doesn't want money to be spent on a >program or agency, inaction ends funding. President Clinton used >his veto power to shut down the government in order to spur the >appropriation of new revenue. But the President is in no position >to tell Congress to begin spending programs, if Congress follows >the Constitution. House leaders could simply have stated: > >The Constitution requires all spending bills to be initiated in >Congress and we have sent a bill containing all the spending we can >justify. The President will therefore not get the spending he >wants. If the President chooses to shut down the entire government >in order to blackmail Congress, he may create a lot of unnecessary >pain and suffering for the American people, but he will not bully >Congress into shirking its constitutional duty. If the President >wants more money, he should do the responsible thing and sign our >bill to keep the government open. > >But instead of taking a winning public relations tactic by >characterizing the Clinton Administration's vetoes as mere temper >tantrums and bullying that are hurting the nation, the House >Republican leadership seemed to be implying that they had shut down >the government and would do so until President Clinton cried >"uncle." As a result, the American people blamed the GOP for the >government shutdowns and the Republicans hit rock bottom in opinion >polls. > >The February 2, 1996 Kiplinger Washington Letter observed that >Republicans in Congress didn't need to make a deal with President >Clinton to cut federal spending: "Republicans won't need a budget >deal to squeeze federal spending. That's apparent in the austere >stop-gap bills passed to keep government open. The longer the >impasse, the more agencies will be cut to the bone...." Moreover, >after a second government shutdown, the GOP congressmen began to >explain the real reason for the crisis to their constituents, and >Republican poll numbers improved. Faced with the American people >becoming aware of the appalling duplicity of the Clinton blackmail >scheme, a losing hand in the budget battle, and presidential >primaries just around the corner, the President would have been >forced to capitulate sooner or later. > >The only way the Republicans could have lost at that point was for >the GOP leadership to cave in to Clinton demands on spending issues >- and that is exactly what Newt Gingrich engineered. Twenty-one >days into the second shutdown, Gingrich announced to his Republican >colleagues his plan to reopen the government, warning in the stormy >meeting that he planned to "keep a list" of those who did not >follow his plan to come to terms with the Clinton Administration on >the budget. After several consecutive stopgap bills which continued >federal funding of key Clinton Administration priorities, Gingrich >inked a budget deal with Clinton. The final budget agreement, >signed in April 1996, was a complete Republican capitulation. The >glee expressed by President Clinton in his victory speech on April >26th helps to demonstrate the sellout of fiscal conservatism: > >We have a bill we can all be proud of.... The Congress ... sought >to kill AmeriCorps, the National Service program. This bill retains >it, as I had insisted, funding the Corporation for National and >Community Service at $402 million.... The House sought to terminate >Goals 2000.... This bill restores funding for Goals 2000. In >another bill I vetoed, the Congress sought to end the Community >Oriented Policing Services (COPS).... That program is continued.... >[T]he Congress proposed to end the Department of Commerce's >Advanced Technology Program (ATP).... Adequate funding is provided >for that program.... Other programs or agencies that one or both >houses sought to end, but which this bill restores, include the >Community Development Financial Institutions program, the Summer >Youth jobs program, and the Council on Environmental Quality. Very >importantly, the bill provides $22.8 billion for the Education >Department.... The bill also restores other programs close to, or >above, last year's levels that at least one house of Congress had >sought to cut deeply. These include Head Start, Department of Labor >worker protection programs, and payments to international >organizations for peacekeeping and other programs. > >Gingrich's deal with Clinton was nothing short of a disaster for >the Republican Party re-election effort as well. As Rich Lowery of >National Review observed, "The final irony was that the poll >numbers (all the Administration seems to care about) were beginning >to turn against Clinton in both shutdowns just as the Republicans >called it quits; the GOP got all of the pain and none of the gain." > >While the Republican cave-in represents a crucial failure for the >104th Congress, a budget battle can be picked up by the 105th if >the Republicans can agree in advance not to capitulate. The battle >must be waged this fall, in fiscal 1998 (which begins October 1, >1997), and not postponed until the election year when President >Clinton can successfully pull off another short-term budget >blackmail bluff. The list of government agencies the Republican >leadership of the last Congress pledged to abolish should be the >starting point for the axe. Added to that should be the $11 billion >annual foreign aid giveaway. But even if the current complexion of >Congress makes it impractical to completely eliminate foreign aid, >Congress can continue to chip away at the diminishing annual >giveaway. A good place to start cutting is aid to Israel and Egypt, >where levels have not been cut one cent while overall foreign aid >has been cut by nearly 30 percent over the last four years. Because >nearly half of all foreign aid can be traced to Jimmy Carter's Camp >David accords, in the form of assistance to Israel ($3.0 billion >per year) and Egypt ($2.1 billion per year), additional cuts in >foreign aid programs cannot proceed in any meaningful manner >without including cuts in aid to Israel and Egypt. > >A Balanced Budget > >Congress must also work aggressively toward a genuine balanced >budget - one which is balanced within the two-year term to which >the representatives are elected. Congress always has a plan to >balance the budget in the future, if only the taxpayers will keep >re-electing the incumbent. In the 1980s, Congress had Gramm-Rudman. >Then it was Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Now it is the seven-year plans, >which postpone most of the serious cuts until after the year 2000 >(the end of the 106th Congress). The Republican plan postpones >four-fifths of the projected budget cuts until after the year 2000. >During the last election cycle, many candidates pledged to vote for >a balanced budget by 2002 (the 107th Congress). The candidates >should have been told by voters: "Fine, we'll be sure to vote for >you then." The Republicans of 1996 should insist upon securing a >balanced budget by the time they face re-election; it is their >duty. > >Most importantly, the House needs to reassert its primacy over >funding measures. The Mexican peso bailout of 1995 constituted the >first brazen act by a President to spend billions of taxpayer >dollars without congressional approval. President Clinton took that >bold step because he knew he couldn't get congressional approval. >Congress should have stepped in at once. Absent the power of the >federal purse, Congress is nothing more than an impotent debating >society. Gingrich's complicity in the Clinton Mexican bailout only >served as a precedent to justify future incidents of >misappropriation of taxpayer funds. > >One such incident was the maneuver to prevent a default on federal >debt obligations. The federal government shutdown resulting from >the budget impasse later on in 1995 created concern that the >federal government would default on securities that came due in >November of that year. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin repeatedly >warned that unless Congress raised the federal debt limit, the >federal government would go into default. But while he was publicly >shrieking about the coming financial apocalypse, he plotted in >private to circumvent Congress by tapping government pension funds. >The maneuver was eventually implemented by the Clinton >Administration in order to avoid a default. > >If the President may appropriate taxpayer funds without >congressional approval as long as Congress does not object, the >President becomes a super-legislator, able to spend as much money >as he wants on anything he wants unless a veto-proof two-thirds >majority of both houses of Congress acts affirmatively to counter >the spending. And if Congress concedes this much of its power of >the purse, what principle is left to prevent the President from >subsequently reversing a congressional act? The path of >surrendering the power of the purse to the Executive is the path to >dictatorship. Future usurpations of the funding mechanism of >Congress must be thwarted by a serious consideration of >impeachment. And future budget measures should in general be more >tightly written, with less room for presidential "slush funds" >which give the President an excuse (however illegitimate) to use >the funds for purposes other than those approved by Congress. > >Following the poor leadership on budget matters in the 104th >Congress, the 105th now faces the choice of learning from these >mistakes and making the needed adjustments, or taking a gun-shy >attitude and throwing in the towel to the Clinton Administration. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996 >American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated >P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 >Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna >Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE >WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for >informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, >and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright >privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or >the above address. >------------------------------------------------------------------- > > =================================================================== > 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. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: A&E's "New Face of Terrorism" (a synopsis) Date: 22 Dec 1996 19:56:20 -0800 from Helen & JJ Johnson... -------------------------- >Saturday, Dec. 21, 1996, A&E presented their latest in a long string of >propoganda pieces, entitled, "Investigative Reports: The New Face of >Terrorism". > >Hosted by Bill Curtis, who appears to have made a smooth transition from >former news anchor, to tabloid journalist. > >It opened with the expected saga of Ruby Ridge, and an obviously edited >interview of Randy Weaver, the individual that A&E claims is ultimately >responsible for this "new face of terrorism". >It was clear that Weaver was not being queried about Patriots, rather the >Aryan Nations and other similar organizations. To the less astute viewer, >A&E's editing gave the impression that Wearver's comments were in >reference to Patriots. > >Investigative Reports *did* admit that Weaver's son was shot in the back >by a U.S. Agent, but that is where truth took a hiatus. The seige was >discussed >in detail, and according to A&E, it was the singular event which gave rise >to the Patriot/Militia movement. They refered to the now famous, >invitation-only meeting in Colorado, as the official birthplace of this >new brand of Patriotism. > >No media smear job would be complete without the inclusion of Morris Dees, >who boasted about the covert intellenge the SPLC had gleaned from that >*private* meeting. > >Among the more heinous distortions of fact was A&E's claim that "Jubilee" >is >the "official" newsletter of the Patriot Movement and the "Turner Diaries" >is the "official Bible". > >Although the only "Patriots" interviewed were from Montana, A&E claimed >that the entire Patriot/Militia movement is stockpiling "weapons of mass >destruction", including chemical and biological weapons, preparing for a >war against "ZOG", the "Zion Occupied Government". > >A&E gave a new meaning to the word predictable. Just as they began their >rant on the threat of Patriots using biological and chemical weaponry >against "ZOG", James said "Here we go...come on...let's see Larry Harris." >Not three minutes later....enter Larry Harris, with commentary by the >female who sold him the mail-order vials of bubonic plague. Sheesh! > >Film clips were shown, that A&E claimed were men traning to "kill blacks & >Jews". > >Amongst those interviewed were Calvin Greenup, and J.T. Thomas (I belive >that was his name). Neither of them said anything that could be construed >as rascist or anti-Semetic. Although Thomas compared this government to >Hitler's regime, and Greenup said a One-World Government is a threat to >ALL >people, they were refered to as racists and anti-Semites by some scholarly >idiot employed by "The Motana Human Right's Task Force". He went on to say >that Greenup and Thomas were definately racists and anti-Semites, they >just wouldn't admit it on camera... > >By the way, there was absoultley NO mention of WACO or any other >government >atrocity. In fact, A&E seemed to go out of their way to convince their >viewers that Randy Weaver was the *sole* impetus for "this new face of >terrorism". > >As Carl Klang's, "We Stand With You, Randy Weaver" played in the >background, >A&E claimed that Weaver had achieved the status of living martyrdom. >(Sonny Klang told us last evening that A&E was not given permission to >use Carl's rmusic...) > >Other films clips included a KKK cross burning, a meeting of the Aryan >Nations, the Order, and the White Aryan Resistance. They were all >referred to (along with Timothy Mcveigh, of course) as "Patriots" and >"Militia". > >They went on to claim that Patriots had infiltrated local school boards, >and have been indoctrinating young children with Aryanism and Christian >Identity teachings. > >The Bottom Line, according to A&E: > >The White Supremicist, Christian Identity, Patriots and Militia are hiding >their true agenda of racial purity by rallying around the flag of anti-gun >control. > >Again, A&E has flaunted lie upon lie with no fear of legal reprisal....go >figure! > >In Liberty, > > > > >=========================================================== >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 > > - 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: BATF & DV Law Date: 23 Dec 1996 00:41:00 -0500 Below is the text of a letter sent to a friend of mine who holds a Federal Firearms License (FFL), and lives in North Dakota. It concerns the new DV Law and it's applicability to purchases and transfers of firearms and ammunition. The letter was received from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Nothing has been added or edited out except his personal data such as name, address, FFL# etc. It would appear that the issue of law enforcement has already been considered by the BATF and their position is fairly clear. Regards, Dennis ----------------- The Act also amended the 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 made it unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any recipient knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the person has been convicted of such a misdemeanor. 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 occurred 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, 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 not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition. The Act also amended the GCA so that employees of government agencies convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor would 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. We are in the process of revising all applicable forms to reflect this new provision. These will be provided to you as soon as possible. In the meantime, you should inquire of your customers whether they have been convicted of a disqualifying domestic violence misdemeanor and avoid any firearm or ammunition transfers to such persons. END ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: A&E's Hit Piece Date: 23 Dec 1996 03:00:36 -0500 Liberty or Death writes: >>from Helen & JJ Johnson... ====================================================================== >Saturday, Dec. 21, 1996, A&E presented their latest in a long string of >propoganda pieces, entitled, "Investigative Reports: The New Face of >Terrorism". > >Hosted by Bill Curtis, who appears to have made a smooth transition from >former news anchor, to tabloid journalist.>> --to leftist flunky Monte, You can forward this to the original poster if appropriate. I noticed all the same things and probably caught one many others missed. Did you watch the quick jump cut photo of the supposed "militia members" holding what appeared to be a Stinger missle. (voice over "they have heavy weapons and stinger missles") Notice the dark skinned soldier with the uniform and red beret of the mercenary group Executive Outcomes. The other members of the "team" were also very dark skinned (not black), and there was what appeared to be an RPG-7 in the dirt in the background. The mountainous rocky terrain also suspiciously looked like Afghanistan. Ain't it wonderful to have an unbiased "Investigative Report" not tell us all the things we SHOULD know. Like for instance the huge sums in donations that Morris Dees and his SPLC raked in, due to the recent "rash" of black church fires, the verbal flames of which were fanned to blazing by HIS organization and of which donations only about 15% went to black church groups. Wonder where the rest went? Down a similar rabbit hole as the Lippo/Riady "donations" to Herr Willie I suppose. I should think Mr. Dees would be an ideal candidate for an future "Investigative Report" by A&E. Fat chance, though we might petition 20/20 since old Morris scammed their associate, Ted Koppel, once to often. Word is, Morris is persona non grata around ABC nowadays. Regards, Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Re: BATF & DV Law Date: 23 Dec 1996 00:03:08 -0800 (PST) Has anyone checked this new law in terms of an ex post facto law? "An "ex post facto law" is defined as a law which provides for the infliction of punishment upon a person for an act done which, when it was committed, was innocent; a law which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed; a law that changes the punishment or inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; a law that changes the rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than was required at the time of the commision of the offense in order to convict the offender; a law which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or the deprivation of a right, which, when done, was lawful; a law which deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection to which they have become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of the proclamation af amnesty; every law which, in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage." Black's Law, 5th Edition Even though Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution forbids _states_ from pasing "ex post facto" laws, I believe a quick search will reveal that the courts have imposed this same prohibition on the federal government also. This is a law which will in all probability undergo several constitutional challenges by previously convicted individuals. I would imagine many gun owners will consider fighting in court where they previously would try to keep domestic problems out of the news. And I would imagine some prosecutors will allow plea bargains to a lesser non-violent, non-domestic charge. Just some thoughts on the subject which require further investigation. Greg > > Below is the text of a letter sent to a friend of mine who >holds a Federal Firearms License (FFL), and lives in North Dakota. >It concerns the new DV Law and it's applicability to purchases and >transfers of firearms and ammunition. > > The letter was received from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and >Firearms (BATF). > > Nothing has been added or edited out except his personal >data such as name, address, FFL# etc. > > It would appear that the issue of law enforcement has already been >considered by the BATF and their position is fairly clear. > >Regards, >Dennis >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >----------------- >The Act also amended the 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 made it unlawful for any person >to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any recipient >knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the person has been >convicted of such a misdemeanor. > >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 occurred 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, 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 not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms or >ammunition. > >The Act also amended the GCA so that employees of government agencies >convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor would 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. > >We are in the process of revising all applicable forms to reflect this >new provision. These will be provided to you as soon as possible. In >the meantime, you should inquire of your customers whether they have been >convicted of a disqualifying domestic violence misdemeanor and avoid any >firearm or ammunition transfers to such persons. >END > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: A&E's Hit Piece Date: 23 Dec 1996 01:17:50 PST On Dec 23, BludyRed@aol.com wrote: >Liberty or Death writes: [snip] >all the things we SHOULD know. Like for instance the huge sums in donations >that Morris Dees and his SPLC raked in, due to the recent "rash" of >black church fires, the verbal flames of which were fanned to blazing by HIS >organization and of which donations only about 15% went to black >church groups. Wonder where the rest went? Down a similar rabbit >hole as the Lippo/Riady "donations" to Herr Willie I suppose. > > I should think Mr. Dees would be an ideal candidate for an future >"Investigative Report" by A&E. > > Fat chance, though we might petition 20/20 since old Morris scammed >their associate, Ted Koppel, once to often. Word is, Morris is persona non >grata around ABC nowadays. Perhaps someone who lives in his neighborhood could be prevailed upon to make an "anonymous" report about him getting drunk and bragging about his "creative bookkeeping", to the IRS. Hey, it's a _start_. :-) -- 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: John Curtis Subject: Morton Kondrake Date: 23 Dec 1996 10:42:40 -0500 This is just a small note, but on last Friday's (12-20) McClaughlin Report, Morton Kondrake made a reference to this "regime". He then corrected himself and said, "Clinton administration". Kondrake is a fairly conservative Democrat who writes for "Roll Call", used to write for "The New Republic". I thought it was pretty damn interesting that centrist Democrats think of the Executive branch as the "regime". This is quite a shift - just a few years ago, only foreign countries had regimes, the U.S. had administrations. This notion is very popular now with some Conservative think tanks, as in "when is it going to be neccessary for moral people to resist the regieme." ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: snow ball fight Date: 23 Dec 1996 09:21:54 -0800 > Forwarded incoming missile: > > > SSSSSSS NNN NNN OOOOOOO WWW WWW > SSS SSS NNNN NNN OOOOOOOOO WWW WWW > SSS SSS NNNNN NNN OOO OOO WWW WWW > SSS NNNNNN NNN OOO OOO WWW WWW > SSS NNN NNN NNN OOO OOO WWW WW WWW > SSS NNN NNN NNN OOO OOO WWW WW WWW > SSS NNN NNNNNN OOO OOO WWWWWWWWWW > SSS SSS NNN NNNNN OOO OOO WWWW WWWW > SSS SSS NNN NNNN OOOOOOOOO WWW WWW > SSSSSSS NNN NNN OOOOOOO WWW WWW > > > BBBBBBB AAAAA LLL LLL !!! > BBB BBB AAA AAA LLL LLL !!! > BBB BBB AAA AAA LLL LLL !!! > BBB BBB AAA AAA LLL LLL !!! > BBB BBB AAA AAA LLL LLL !!! > BBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAA LLL LLL !!! > BBB BBB AAAAAAAAAAA LLL LLL !!! > BBB BBB AAA AAA LLL LLL > BBB BBB AAA AAA LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL !!! > BBBBBBB AAA AAA LLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLL !!! > > > Consider yourself hit by a snowball! > > > > *********************************************************************** > > > > send this message to as many people as possible, in the world's first > > *E-MAIL SNOWBALL FIGHT!* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Judicial Legitimacy Date: 23 Dec 1996 10:49:07 -0800 (PST) On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 Jack@minerva.com wrote: > which references the November issue of First Things. This issue has > published several very potent papers on how the courts in the US are > losing their legitimacy by their *wacky* decisions. Data point on "wacky" decisions: The Supreme Court of Washington just held 6-3 that the "Stadium Act" was exempt from a referendum to the people, although the State Constitution provides "all acts of the legislature are subject to a referendum to the people, except for emergency measures to safeguard the peace, health, and safety of the public." Background: In September of 1995, voters of King County, Washington, defeated at the polls a measure to tax the public to build a new baseball stadium to house the commercial sports team, the Seattle Mariners. Lobbyists immediately prevailed upon the state legislature to enact an "emergency" measure overruling the voters of King County, and distributing the tax statewide. State legislators did this in a big rush, enacting the "Stadium Act", without due process, notice to the public, or opportunity to be heard. The Act makes no provision to return the tax to the people in the event the stadium is never built (somewhat likely at this point), or, if built, is not used for its intended purpose (the subsidizing of a private commercial venture). An attempt to take the matter to a Statewide Referendum as provided by the Constitution was denied. The denial of the Referendum was challenged. The Supreme Court of Washington upheld the denial. supposedly merely because the legislature declared that the Stadium Act was enacted under the provisions of the "emergency" provisions of the Referendum Clause of the State Constitution, without any further justification than the declaration itself. The wackiness of such a holding is made evident in one of the dissenting opinions: it is pointed out that absolutely no justification for this measure as an "emergency" is provided by the majority opinion! Furthermore, even us dumb clucks in the sticks can figure out that there can be absolutely nothing "emergency" affecting "public, peace, health, and safety" about stealing from the public to subsidize a commercial sports venture. Furthermore, there is a completely serviceable arena, the "Kingdome", on which an unpaid, publically guaranteed debt of $130MM remains to be paid. This stuff goes beyond merely wacky. Such holdings by the judiciary are criminal, in that they encourage acts contrary to the public peace and dignity. The purpose of the judicial branch is to be a check on just such outrages as this. Acting as co-conspirators in a scheme to steal from the public, in spite of a public vote which expressly denied them the authority to do this, does not further that purpose. Such actions are the stuff that tar and feathers was invented for, and I have even heard it said that hemp and lampposts would be more suitable than tar and feathers. No way does what the court did promote the Public Peace. What it does is encourage citizens to say, "Piss on the Law!" You would have to be wacky to think it does otherwise. ----- Harry Barnett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Re: Judicial Legitimacy Date: 23 Dec 1996 17:06:55 -0800 We submitted a FOIA request to a federal judge in Montana for a certified copy of his oath of office, required by Article VI, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution. Upon receipt of the administrative appeal for this document, the judge opened a case file and ordered the clerk to bill me $105 for the right to litigate this FOIA request. Then the judge ordered the case file transmitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit clerk waived the fee! Effectively, the judge is now suing himself, and sending me a fraudulent bill, via United States Mail. In doing so, the judge is practicing law, in violation of the statutory prohibition at 28 U.S.C. 454, and the clerk has committed mail fraud, in violation of the federal mail fraud statutes. "Mountains of costly nonsense," wrote Charles Dickens in the book Bleak House. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 10:49 AM 12/23/96 -0800, you wrote: >On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 Jack@minerva.com wrote: > >> which references the November issue of First Things. This issue has >> published several very potent papers on how the courts in the US are >> losing their legitimacy by their *wacky* decisions. > >Data point on "wacky" decisions: The Supreme Court of Washington just >held 6-3 that the "Stadium Act" was exempt from a referendum to the >people, although the State Constitution provides "all acts of the >legislature are subject to a referendum to the people, except for >emergency measures to safeguard the peace, health, and safety of the >public." > >Background: In September of 1995, voters of King County, Washington, >defeated at the polls a measure to tax the public to build a new >baseball stadium to house the commercial sports team, the Seattle >Mariners. Lobbyists immediately prevailed upon the state legislature >to enact an "emergency" measure overruling the voters of King County, >and distributing the tax statewide. State legislators did this in a >big rush, enacting the "Stadium Act", without due process, notice to >the public, or opportunity to be heard. The Act makes no provision to >return the tax to the people in the event the stadium is never built >(somewhat likely at this point), or, if built, is not used for its >intended purpose (the subsidizing of a private commercial venture). > >An attempt to take the matter to a Statewide Referendum as provided by >the Constitution was denied. The denial of the Referendum was >challenged. The Supreme Court of Washington upheld the denial. >supposedly merely because the legislature declared that the Stadium Act >was enacted under the provisions of the "emergency" provisions of the >Referendum Clause of the State Constitution, without any further >justification than the declaration itself. > >The wackiness of such a holding is made evident in one of the >dissenting opinions: it is pointed out that absolutely no justification >for this measure as an "emergency" is provided by the majority >opinion! Furthermore, even us dumb clucks in the sticks can figure out >that there can be absolutely nothing "emergency" affecting "public, >peace, health, and safety" about stealing from the public to subsidize >a commercial sports venture. Furthermore, there is a completely >serviceable arena, the "Kingdome", on which an unpaid, publically >guaranteed debt of $130MM remains to be paid. > >This stuff goes beyond merely wacky. Such holdings by the judiciary >are criminal, in that they encourage acts contrary to the public peace >and dignity. The purpose of the judicial branch is to be a check on >just such outrages as this. Acting as co-conspirators in a scheme to >steal from the public, in spite of a public vote which expressly denied >them the authority to do this, does not further that purpose. Such >actions are the stuff that tar and feathers was invented for, and I >have even heard it said that hemp and lampposts would be more suitable >than tar and feathers. No way does what the court did promote the >Public Peace. What it does is encourage citizens to say, "Piss on the >Law!" You would have to be wacky to think it does otherwise. > >----- >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Judicial Legitimacy Date: 23 Dec 1996 12:37:54 PST The King County Exec., soon to be Governor Gary Locke, Seattle's Mayor, Norm Rice, and U.S. Sen. Gorton all had their hand in this too. Perhaps it's time to check wa.leg.gov to see who else voted for it, and arrainge for some Class Action Recall Elections/Impeachments etc. On Dec 23, Harry Barnett wrote: >On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 Jack@minerva.com wrote: > >> which references the November issue of First Things. This issue has >> published several very potent papers on how the courts in the US are >> losing their legitimacy by their *wacky* decisions. > >Data point on "wacky" decisions: The Supreme Court of Washington just >held 6-3 that the "Stadium Act" was exempt from a referendum to the >people, although the State Constitution provides "all acts of the >legislature are subject to a referendum to the people, except for >emergency measures to safeguard the peace, health, and safety of the >public." > >Background: In September of 1995, voters of King County, Washington, >defeated at the polls a measure to tax the public to build a new >baseball stadium to house the commercial sports team, the Seattle >Mariners. Lobbyists immediately prevailed upon the state legislature >to enact an "emergency" measure overruling the voters of King County, >and distributing the tax statewide. State legislators did this in a >big rush, enacting the "Stadium Act", without due process, notice to >the public, or opportunity to be heard. The Act makes no provision to >return the tax to the people in the event the stadium is never built >(somewhat likely at this point), or, if built, is not used for its >intended purpose (the subsidizing of a private commercial venture). > >An attempt to take the matter to a Statewide Referendum as provided by >the Constitution was denied. The denial of the Referendum was >challenged. The Supreme Court of Washington upheld the denial. >supposedly merely because the legislature declared that the Stadium Act >was enacted under the provisions of the "emergency" provisions of the >Referendum Clause of the State Constitution, without any further >justification than the declaration itself. > >The wackiness of such a holding is made evident in one of the >dissenting opinions: it is pointed out that absolutely no justification >for this measure as an "emergency" is provided by the majority >opinion! Furthermore, even us dumb clucks in the sticks can figure out >that there can be absolutely nothing "emergency" affecting "public, >peace, health, and safety" about stealing from the public to subsidize >a commercial sports venture. Furthermore, there is a completely >serviceable arena, the "Kingdome", on which an unpaid, publically >guaranteed debt of $130MM remains to be paid. > >This stuff goes beyond merely wacky. Such holdings by the judiciary >are criminal, in that they encourage acts contrary to the public peace >and dignity. The purpose of the judicial branch is to be a check on >just such outrages as this. Acting as co-conspirators in a scheme to >steal from the public, in spite of a public vote which expressly denied >them the authority to do this, does not further that purpose. Such >actions are the stuff that tar and feathers was invented for, and I >have even heard it said that hemp and lampposts would be more suitable >than tar and feathers. No way does what the court did promote the >Public Peace. What it does is encourage citizens to say, "Piss on the >Law!" You would have to be wacky to think it does otherwise. > >----- >Harry Barnett >----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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: Jack@minerva.com Subject: judge throws out prior convictions to void DV fiasco Date: 23 Dec 1996 14:22:52 PST FYI Nick Ivanovich, * * * * * * * * * * ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: jwholl1@monsanto.com > --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- > From: tdreste@juno.com (Tim Dreste) > To: 71232.1740@compuserve.com, liberty@mcn.net, > BHaleinc@aol.com,bulwark@aol.com, nolso@sunny.ncmc.cc.mi.us, > libertytree@juno.com,jonyreb@aloha.net, eagleflight@juno.com, > tslape@msn.com,mark.s@juno.com, wzf68w@wae.gmpt.gmeds.com, > rsout@sunny.ncmc.cc.mi.us,lindat@iquest.net, hwysong@mindspring.com, > ebliever@e-mail.com > Subject: Judge Throws Out Cop's 1993 Battery Conviction > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 18:06:57 CST > Message-ID: <19961219.182549.9630.3.tdreste@juno.com> > > Will this work for others? Sooner or later, someone needs to challenge > this on the grounds that it is an "Ex Post Facto" law forbidden by the > Constitution. > > Subject: Judge Throws Out Cop's 1993 Battery Conviction > Date: Sat, 14 Dec 96 13:18:08 GMT > From: feustel@netcom.com (Dave Feustel) > > Judge drops battery conviction, allowing officer to keep gun > By Jim Chapman > The Journal Gazette > Saturday, Dec 14,1996 > > An Allen County police officier's 1993 misdemeanor convictions were > thrown out this week after he argued he didn't know the convictions > later would prohibit him from carrying a gun. > > Allen Superior Magistrate Robert Schmoll granted Officer David Royse' > request for post-conviction relief by throwing out Royse's misdemeanor > battery and invasion of pprivacy convictions. > > Royse pleaded guilty Jan 20, 1993, in connection with a confrontation > with his estranged wife at her St. Joseph Township home in September > 1992. > > Documents filed in Allen Superior Court said Royse violated a court > order by entering her home. > > He had returned their children after visitation but then put > the children back in his car, court documents said. > > His wife reach inside the car and grabbed the steering wheel in > an attempt to grab the keys, but Royse started the car and > drove around the cul-de-sac, dragging his wife along the > street, court documents said. > > His 360-day sentence was suspended on the condition he attend > nonviolence classes and undergo counseling. He also was ordered > to pay $50 and court costs. > > The Allen County Sheriff's Merit Board placed Royse on > probation for a year and required him to undergo counseling. > The board also allowed Royse to work in the department's > Communications Division. Royse currently is on road patrol for the > sheriff's department. > > On Thursday, Royse's attorney, Charles Leonard, asked the > convictions be thrown out. Leonard said in court documents that > when Royse pleaded guilty, he was not fully advised of his > constitutional rights. > > Specifically, Royse was not told that a battery conviction > later could be used to prohibit him from carrying a gun, > Leonard said. > > President Clinton signed a law3 in September prohibiting people > convicted of domestic battery from carrying guns. > > Allen County Prosecutor Robert W. Gevers II recommended Royse > be placed in a pretrial diversion program that requires Royse > to pay a $60 fee and meet other conditions. > -- > Dave Feustel http://feustel.mixi.net > 219-483-1857 mailto:feustel@netcom.com > > --------- End forwarded message ---------- > --------- End forwarded message ---------- Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) FEDs Target MD's Date: 23 Dec 1996 17:46:40 -0800 From JJ & Helen Johnson... ---------------------------- >So, you think the ballot box works, America ? > > >New York Times > >U.S. Government to Prosecute Doctors Who Prescribe Marijuana > >December 23, 1996 > >By TIM GOLDEN > > > > WASHINGTON -- Struggling to limit the effect of recent ballot initiatives >in California and Arizona that relax restrictions on the medical use of >marijuana and other illegal drugs, federal officials say they plan to >prosecute and strip prescription licenses from doctors who help supply such >drugs to even seriously ill people. > > The officials said that after an intense and sometimes unwieldy debate over >the past six weeks about how the federal government should respond to the >new state laws, the Justice Department has decided against filing suit to >try to block either of the measures in court. > > Instead, officials said, the Clinton administration will undertake a >public-relations offensive to reiterate the health dangers of illegal drugs, >leave it to state and local police to arrest people for marijuana >possession, and focus federal law-enforcement efforts on the doctors who >help to provide otherwise illegal drugs and the dealers who distribute them. > > "I think we are going to end up with a smaller group of these physicians >than we ourselves once expected," the head of the Drug Enforcement >Administration, Thomas Constantine, said in an interview. "And we are going >to take very, very serious action against them." > > The plan to move against the doctors -- both by revoking the DEA >registration they need to prescribe controlled drugs and, in more serious >cases, by prosecuting them -- is the centerpiece of a package of measures >that were recommended to President Clinton on Friday by his drug-policy >chief, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, officials said. The plan was based on the >recommendations of a half-dozen Cabinet departments. > > >=========================== ENOUGH SAID ========================= > >The remainder of this article follows my comments. > >First, a word from our forefathers: > > ...He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary > for the public good... > >This was the first of 27 grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence. > >Are you furious yet ???? > >Okay. It normally isn't popular for patriots to dive into the "legalization >of drugs" debate. But when it is plainly IN YOUR FACE that the federal >goverment chooses to IGNORE the will of the electorate, even when they >operate within the law, something has to be done. > >Here's a suggestion for Doctors in CA and AZ: > >Make a public statement vowing NOT to treat any DEA employee if a doctor is >prosecuted under this executive order. This boycott could even be expanded >to include other federal workers. > >It's time for some good'ol CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE !!!! > >Any doctor who complies with this federal THREAT helps throw the 10 >amendment out the window, and deserves whatever they get from the FED's. > >Make your stand now, and take the sting out of the Feds' next move. > >And for those who voted for Doctors to LEGALLY prescribe certain drugs for >their patients... > >... Welcome to the Revolution. > >============================================================== > >A formal announcement of the administration's approach is not expected until >early January. But while Clinton has yet to approve the package, several >officials involved in its creation said some basic elements of the federal >response to the state measures were almost certain to go ahead as proposed. > > McCaffrey and other administration officials contend that the two >initiatives represent a significant threat to the nation's drug-control >strategy. They complain that at a time when drug use among teen-agers is >rising sharply, the state laws send a resonant message that marijuana is not >only less than harmful, it may be medically valuable. > > "I would have preferred to see a straight-up vote on legalization, because >it would not have won in either state," McCaffrey said. "When it came up >under the guise of the 'compassionate use' of marijuana, we got the worst of >both worlds." > > The Arizona law, which opponents are vowing to amend or repeal in the >Legislature next year, allows sick people to receive illegal drugs for pain >relief or the treatment of certain illnesses if two licensed physicians >concur on its use and offer scientific research to show that it is >appropriate. The California measure, which is at once less precise and more >difficult to overturn, decriminalizes the possession of marijuana by >patients and care givers if its use is "recommended" by a physician. > > "It sounds like they are retreating," Sam Vagenas, coordinator of the >campaign for the Arizona measure, said of the federal plan. "Barry McCaffrey >has been saying that the Arizona initiative was in conflict with federal >law. Now they're saying they're not going to file suit against it, and >they're not going to go after people for possession. We consider that a >major victory." > > Law-enforcement officials said the government also will not challenge other >key parts of the Arizona initiative, Proposition 200, which, if fully >implemented, would limit the prison sentences that can be applied to certain >drug offenders. > > Officials familiar with the memorandum sent to Clinton on Friday by the >general's Office of National Drug Control Policy said it did call for the >Department of Health and Human Services to wage a campaign to discredit the >notion that smoking marijuana has medicinal benefits -- a campaign for which >they said there is ample scientific evidence. > > Also, the officials said, McCaffrey's office recommended that government >agencies remind Americans that the medical use of marijuana and other drugs >will not be accepted as an excuse in the application of drug-testing laws to >airline pilots, truck drivers, members of the armed forces and others. >Transportation Secretary Federico Pena issued the first such warning last >week. But some law-enforcement officials say that the planned message is >unlikely to be forceful enough. > > "No one in the government is drawing a conclusion from all of this, a sound >bite to argue, and that's where they beat us," said one senior >law-enforcement official. Referring to McCaffrey, he added "This is a debate >that he's going to have to take to the American people." > > Officials now acknowledge that the two initiatives, which the voters >approved in November by comfortable margins, took the Clinton administration >largely by surprise. > > While wealthy supporters of the measures poured money into television >advertisements that emphasized compassion in California and policy reform in >Arizona, state and federal officials opposed to the propositions admit that >they campaigned only intermittently and, for the most part, ineffectively. > > "I'm not sure anyone really recognized how these laws developed and what >their impact would be," Constantine said. > > For weeks after the initiatives passed, the confusion continued, several >officials said. While some in the administration vowed to impose federal >drug laws whatever the states did, U.S. attorneys in California and Arizona >cautioned that unless the prosecutions were chosen carefully, they could >swamp courts and jails with minor possession cases and make martyrs of >seriously ill people who would insist that marijuana helped to relieve their >pain. > > Federal agents and prosecutors in fact pursue only a small fraction of the >country's drug cases. In most districts, officials said, U.S. attorneys only >bring federal charges if a marijuana case involves the cultivation of at >least 500 plants grown indoors, 1,000 plants grown outdoors, or the >possession of more than 1,000 pounds. > > Federal law-enforcement officials said they will prosecute large-scale >marijuana distributors, including buyers' clubs like one in San Francisco >that was raided by state agents last summer. They say they will also seek >out doctors who become the source of drug recommendations for many patients, >using surveillance and informants if they cannot identify suspects by >word-of-mouth, news articles and the Internet. > > Federal law-enforcement officials said doctors could be prosecuted under >laws against conspiring to distribute drugs, drug possession and improper >record-keeping. > > Administration officials acknowledged that their proposed strategy relies >on state and local officials, some of whom support the new laws, continuing >to arrest people for drug possession. Those arrested with small amounts of >marijuana will be able to argue in court that they had a medical >authorization for the drugs, they will then have to identify their doctor. > > The Federal Controlled Substances Act allows the attorney general to deny, >suspend or revoke a license to prescribe controlled substances from any >physician who acts in a manner "inconsistent with the public interest." The >sanction would not necessarily affect a doctor's license to practice medicine. > > Although some doctors advocate the use of marijuana for patients suffering >from nausea caused by chemotherapy, eye pressure related to glaucoma and the >wasting that often afflicts people with AIDS, national medical and health >associations generally reject its use. > > Federal law requires that doctors only prescribe a drug if it has a proven >medical purpose. In a 1992 brief, the drug agency ruled there was none for >marijuana -- as opposed to its medically available derivative, THC. > > The California attorney general, Daniel Lungren, a strong opponent of >Proposition 215, welcomed the federal plan to focus on doctors and >distributors. But he said he still harbored some doubts about whether it >made sense for state and local officials to target drug users who seek the >protections of the new law. > > "The fact of the matter is that small-scale use of marijuana is a very >difficult thing to ferret out and a very difficult thing to prosecute," >Lungren said in an interview. "That's not going to change." > > > > > Today's Political News from the New York Times on the Web. >=========================================================== >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 > > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: A&E's Hit Piece Date: 24 Dec 1996 02:37:10 -0600 At 03:00 AM 12/23/96 -0500, you wrote: >Liberty or Death writes: > >>>from Helen & JJ Johnson... > > I noticed all the same things and probably caught one many others >missed. Did you watch the quick jump cut photo of the supposed >"militia members" holding what appeared to be a Stinger missle. >(voice over "they have heavy weapons and stinger missles") > > Notice the dark skinned soldier with the uniform and red beret of the >mercenary group Executive Outcomes. The other members of the "team" >were also very dark skinned (not black), and there was what appeared to be >an RPG-7 in the dirt in the background. The mountainous rocky terrain also >suspiciously looked like Afghanistan. Maybe they bought the tape from that German "investigative reporter" who just got five (5) years for fraud. Most of the tapes of neo-nazi rallies, Kurdish bomb makers, etc, were complete and utter fabrications. German TV bought them though. (Heard this story on Rush's show today, with Micahel Medved(sic) sitting in. Listen if you can this week, he's a great speaker, although (mercifully) less *entertaining* than Rush) The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)[FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [6 of 7] Date: 24 Dec 1996 07:14:27 -0500 >Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 21:10:12 -0600 (CST) >From: James Fish >X-Sender: jfish@earth >To: fwiw@execpc.com >Subject: [FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [6 of 7] >Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > >FWIW > >The New American * January 6, 1997 > >Special Report: >How Congress Can Save America > > > The Fruits of Federalism > >Conservative congressmen must not fall into the trap of supporting >"conservative" reforms that fall outside the authority of the >federal government. > >"Can the states require the federal government to do something?" >The question came recently from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony >M. Kennedy and was directed at acting U.S. Solicitor General Walter >Dellinger, who was arguing in defense of the 1993 Brady gun-control >law. "No," Mr. Dellinger responded to the judge's question. "Why >does it work in reverse?" Kennedy then rejoined. "Isn't the point >not to have one government interfere with another?" > >Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voiced suspicion of "the notion >that the federal government can just commandeer" state officials to >enforce the federal gun law. It seems a couple of yahoo lawmen out >West had started this whole thing off by impudently challenging the >infinite wisdom and beneficence of the U.S. Congress. Attorney >Stephen P. Halbrook, representing Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona >and Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana, argued before the High Court >that the law's requirement that local police check the backgrounds >of prospective gun buyers is unconstitutional because there is a >"prohibition on requiring states to administer a federal regulatory >policy." > >Look to the Law > >A "prohibition on requiring states to administer a federal >regulatory policy"? And where, pray tell, might we find such a >novel and welcome prohibition? Try the Constitution. Article I, >Section 1 of our "supreme law of the land" states: "All legislative >powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United >States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of >Representatives." It requires no preternatural juridical prowess to >grasp that Congress' proper powers are only those "herein granted." >And those are listed, principally in Article I, Section 8, to wit: >the power to coin money, borrow money, raise and support armies, >declare war, etc. > >Answering objections from those who feared that the proposed >national government would overpower the individual states, James >Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," averred in The >Federalist, No. 46, that "the State governments could have little >to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the >federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously >administered." Moreover, said Madison, "It has been already proved >that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the >members of the State governments than the latter will be on the >former." > >Such assurances were not sufficiently convincing to many of the >Founding Fathers. Although the proposed Constitution delegated to >the federal government only very limited and clearly defined >enumerated powers, many demanded a Bill of Rights which would even >more specifically constrain federal powers and provide explicit >protection against gradual encroachments and usurpations by the >central government. And so we were given a Bill of Rights. > >Pleading the Tenth > >The Tenth Amendment in that famous decalogue 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." > >It is only one sentence, a mere 28 words. Yet lingering in those 28 >words is the key to extricating ourselves from much of the >socialist morass of the New Deal leviathan state. It states >unmistakably that the national government has only those powers >expressly given by the Constitution. If there is a governmental >function desired by the people but not provided for in the >Constitution, it must be performed by the state or local >governments, or the Constitution must be amended to explicitly >delegate the requisite power to the federal government. There is no >other way for the federal government legally, constitutionally, to >involve itself. > >"The Constitution clearly specifies and limits the powers of the >national government," Edward B. McLean writes in Derailing the >Constitution: The Undermining of American Federalism (1995, >Intercollegiate Studies Institute), a timely collection of essays >by noted jurists. "Further, it clearly and specifically states what >limitations on the state governments are embodied in the >Constitution; finally, with clarity it states that whatever is not >specified as a power of the national government, and is not >prohibited to the states, is reserved to the states or the people >through the amendatory process. No one in honesty can deny this >fundamental truth about the language of the Constitution and the >principles that support it. American constitutional history, >however, is characterized by a long and purposeful attack on this >very fundamental core of the constitutional order. The record >clearly reveals the seizure and expansion of power by the imperial >national government, and the diminution of the states' powers to >serve and protect their citizens." > >This unconstitutional "concentration, centralization, and >mobilization of power," writes McLean, has been carried out >simultaneously by the executive, legislative and judicial branches. >"Indeed," he notes, "they all are 'co-conspirators' in the process >of furthering the nearly completed destruction of the federal >scheme." > >In his 1987 essay "The Demise of Federalism: With Consent of the >Governed?" Justice Robert T. Donnelly writes, "The prevailing view >in 1791 was that the national government had only delegated powers, >that the states had an undefined range of powers and that reserved >to the people was an undefined sphere of non-government within >which people may not be interfered with by government." How far we >have fallen! "Fifty years ago, the Tenth Amendment was considered >impregnable," recalls Donnelly. "Today the Tenth Amendment may be >obsolete." In fact, he writes, after surveying the takeover of vast >areas of public and private life by the national government, "the >notion of federalism is no more than a legal fiction today." > >If we are to rescue from further fictionalization what scraps of >constitutional federalism remain, it had better be with all due >haste and energy. And it had better be with better leadership than >that given by the 104th Dole/Gingrich Republican Congress, which >saw immense new nationalization programs instituted under the >"conservative" banner. Yes, alleged conservative Republicans joined >with President Clinton and Jacobin Democrats in the last Congress >to pass legislation nationalizing much of the criminal code and co- >opting local police departments with federal funding it has no >constitutional authority to give. Under the guise of fighting >terrorism, vast new powers were conferred on the federal executive >branch. Wanting to appear "tough on crime," Congress and the >President gave us huge new categories of crimes to which the >federal death penalty now applies - without the slightest concern >that they were usurping wholesale the police powers of the states. > >The much vaunted welfare "reform" bill passed last year is another >example of what could prove to be a hollow "victory." GOP governors >and members of Congress exulted that the "block grant" features of >the program would greatly limit Washington's interference. >Actually, the result could be quite different. Columnist Samuel >Francis was closer to the mark in observing, "In a sense, the block >grant concept changes the recipients from the individuals (the >ultimate recipients) to the states themselves, and because the >states, through their governors, congressmen and senators, possess >an immense amount of political influence in Washington, the bill >will create a far more powerful lobby for welfare than the present >one." Incredibly, this new form of welfare has been portrayed as a >federalist concept, when in fact the federal government (as both >the collector and dispenser of the "aid") would remain firmly in >the driver's seat. True federalism would necessitate an end to the >federal role, with the money now dispensed by the federal >government left in the states and each state free to determine and >fund its own programs. > >A Prophetic Warning > >The "block grant" welfare does not obviate the very dangers James >Madison outlined in his speech to the First U.S. Congress: > >If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, >and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they >may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may >establish teachers in every State, county and parish, and pay them >out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the >education of children, establishing in like manner schools >throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all >roads, other than post roads. In short, everything, from the >highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object >of policy, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every >object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and >might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general >welfare. > >Which is exactly where we are today. Federal "welfare" encompasses >every form of wealth redistribution imaginable, and has established >powerful constituencies addicted to the federal trough. And too >many conservatives are offering the equivalent of "needle >exchanges," "methadone," and other failed, immoral programs to deal >with the addiction. What is the solution? Stop the dependency, the >addiction, the unconstitutional behavior. Stop the acquiescence in >the transfer of power to Washington. > >"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great >things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power," >said Thomas Jefferson, "it will render powerless the checks >provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and >oppressive as the government from which we separated." > >As Jefferson sagely observed, "In questions of power, then, let no >more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief >by the chains of the Constitution." > >Clinton and company will plead that federal programs are needed so >that poor children will have food, unwed mothers will not be on the >streets, our schools will not crumble, street crime will not >escalate, educational standards will not tumble, etc. > >Daniel Webster and the men of his day would not have been fooled. >"Good intentions," he said "will always be pleaded for every >assumption of power.... It is hardly too strong to say that the >Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of >good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, >but they mean to govern." > >It is up to us to make sure that they govern within the confines of >the Constitution. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996 >American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated >P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 >Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna >Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE >WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for >informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, >and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright >privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or >the above address. >------------------------------------------------------------------- > > =================================================================== > 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. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 23 Dec 1996 07:12:14 -0800 Carl, you were more than human. You lifted our minds up from the mud, and helped us to touch the stars. For this, we are forever grateful, for we will never be the same, having known you as we did, a privilege, indeed; a star is made new, for all to see. Amen. /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: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 24 Dec 1996 12:13:03 -0600 (CST) Paul, Perhaps I do not undertand your poem. But rest assured that Carl Sagan will be part of an eternal flame suffering discomfort for ever and ever. The Star of two millenia ago was significant in that it announced the coming to earth of God as Man. His purpose was to suffer and die unjustily and to rise again. His death was an atonement for the sin of man, His purpose was to be the righteousness of God and validate the salvation that God Sovereignly provides for His believers. Carl Sagan derided this and will suffer in the lake of fire for ever and ever. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > Carl, you were more than human. > You lifted our minds up from the mud, > and helped us to touch the stars. > For this, we are forever grateful, > for we will never be the same, > having known you as we did, > a privilege, indeed; a star > is made new, for all to see. > Amen. > > /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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 23 Dec 1996 15:19:08 -0800 At 12:13 PM 12/24/96 -0600, you wrote: >Paul, > >Perhaps I do not undertand your poem. But rest assured that Carl >Sagan will be part of an eternal flame suffering discomfort for ever >and ever. The Star of two millenia ago was significant in that it >announced the coming to earth of God as Man. His purpose was to >suffer and die unjustily and to rise again. His death was an >atonement for the sin of man, His purpose was to be the righteousness >of God and validate the salvation that God Sovereignly provides for >His believers. > >Carl Sagan derided this and will suffer in the lake of fire for ever >and ever. Larry, I did not know this, honestly. I have admired his work in the book "Cosmos", but I never had time to read it completely. Do you have proof of his derision? If this is true, it saddens me greatly. How do you know his present fate? /s/ Paul Mitchell > >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu >> >> >> Carl, you were more than human. >> You lifted our minds up from the mud, >> and helped us to touch the stars. >> For this, we are forever grateful, >> for we will never be the same, >> having known you as we did, >> a privilege, indeed; a star >> is made new, for all to see. >> Amen. >> >> /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 >> ==================================================================== >> >> > > ==================================================================== [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: boydk Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 24 Dec 1996 12:41:30 -0800 (PST) That's funny Larry, I've got Sagan's internationally acclaimed cosmos series on tape, and I sure can't find the part where he derided Jesus Christ. What are you trying to say? ... I must not understand. Boyd On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, larry ball wrote: > Paul, > > Perhaps I do not undertand your poem. But rest assured that Carl > Sagan will be part of an eternal flame suffering discomfort for ever > and ever. The Star of two millenia ago was significant in that it > announced the coming to earth of God as Man. His purpose was to > suffer and die unjustily and to rise again. His death was an > atonement for the sin of man, His purpose was to be the righteousness > of God and validate the salvation that God Sovereignly provides for > His believers. > > Carl Sagan derided this and will suffer in the lake of fire for ever > and ever. > > Larry Ball > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > > > Carl, you were more than human. > > You lifted our minds up from the mud, > > and helped us to touch the stars. > > For this, we are forever grateful, > > for we will never be the same, > > having known you as we did, > > a privilege, indeed; a star > > is made new, for all to see. > > Amen. > > > > /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: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 24 Dec 1996 16:05:14 -0600 (CST) Boyd, In a tape made last year he made the statement that the Word of God (the Bible) was a compilation of men rather than the revealed will of God. Further, while he reverenced the gradeur of the universe he did not accept the idea of a God who interacted with man. both of these ideas deride Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is both man and God. Jesus Christ's words are the words of the Bible. Jesus Christ made the heavens and the earth (see Hebrews 1:2). Jesus then is every thing that Sagan rejects. He is God, He is the Creator of the grandeur reverenced by Sagan, He is the revealer of His will through His servants who recorded this revelation as the Bible. Since Sagan derides all of this, Sagan derides Christ. Since he rejects the divinity, or "Godness" of Christ and therefore has no faith or belief in Christ, Sagan's destiny was is and ever shall be the Lake of Fire. Thanks for asking. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > That's funny Larry, I've got Sagan's internationally acclaimed cosmos > series on tape, and I sure can't find the part where he derided Jesus > Christ. What are you trying to say? ... I must not understand. > Boyd > > On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, larry ball wrote: > > > Paul, > > > > Perhaps I do not undertand your poem. But rest assured that Carl > > Sagan will be part of an eternal flame suffering discomfort for ever > > and ever. The Star of two millenia ago was significant in that it > > announced the coming to earth of God as Man. His purpose was to > > suffer and die unjustily and to rise again. His death was an > > atonement for the sin of man, His purpose was to be the righteousness > > of God and validate the salvation that God Sovereignly provides for > > His believers. > > > > Carl Sagan derided this and will suffer in the lake of fire for ever > > and ever. > > > > Larry Ball > > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > > > > > > Carl, you were more than human. > > > You lifted our minds up from the mud, > > > and helped us to touch the stars. > > > For this, we are forever grateful, > > > for we will never be the same, > > > having known you as we did, > > > a privilege, indeed; a star > > > is made new, for all to see. > > > Amen. > > > > > > /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: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 24 Dec 1996 16:09:54 -0600 (CST) Paul, Do not interpret my response as a flame. Mostly I enjoy what you write. Merry Christmas Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)[FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [7 of 7] Date: 24 Dec 1996 19:21:00 -0500 >Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 16:22:22 -0600 (CST) >From: James Fish >X-Sender: jfish@earth >To: fwiw@execpc.com >Subject: [FWIW] How Congress Can Save America [7 of 7] >Sender: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com >Reply-To: owner-fwiw@earth.execpc.com > >FWIW > >The New American * January 6, 1997 > >Special Report: >How Congress Can Save America > > > TRIM Tells the Truth About Congressional Spending Habits > -------------------------------------------------------- > >Jim Toft is the national director of Tax Reform IMmediately (TRIM), >a nationwide network of educational committees and individuals >designed to inform voters on key congressional spending issues. Mr. >Toft was interviewed by Thomas R. Eddlem, director of research for >The New American. > >Q. Mr. Toft, what is TRIM and what does it do? > >A. TRIM is a nationwide program whose goal is to educate the >electorate about the proper role of the federal government. It is >particularly crucial today with the young people in government >schools who are being taught to look to government for solutions >when, in fact, government is the source of most of the major >problems we face today. > >Our main educational tool is our TRIM Bulletin, which is published >and distributed three times per year. We evaluate every vote by the >House of Representatives and select the major spending votes having >the highest percentage of unconstitutional spending. We then report >on how every congressman voted on those bills. > >Q. So you publish 435 individualized versions of the TRIM Bulletin >three times every year? > >A. Yes. And we rate all congressmen on the same exact votes without >regard for partisanship. When representatives vote for a bill >containing large sums of unconstitutional spending, we count that >as a vote for high taxes and big government. When they vote against >unconstitutional spending or for spending cuts, we count that as a >vote for lower taxes and less government. We constantly remind our >readers that their congressman swears an oath to uphold the >Constitution and that voters should bring pressure to bear upon >their congressman to uphold that oath. > >Q. What is your appraisal of the work of the past 104th Congress? > >A. The 104th Congress deserves credit for some moves in reducing >the rate of increase of government spending, but it is only a small >start toward what needs to be done. Congress is like the engineer >aboard a locomotive speeding toward a cliff at a rate of 80 miles >per hour, who slows it down to 75 miles per hour. There is some >progress, but nowhere near the appropriate level of response. The >104th Congress gave us budgets that increased government spending >less than those of its predecessors - but still increased - and >still included large deficits. > >Q. But wasn't the major accomplishment of the 104th Congress >passage of a seven-year balanced budget? > >A. Any "balanced budget" plan which proposes to balance the budget >at some point past the next election is not a balanced budget plan >- it's a "balanced budget wish." And even good intentions are >susceptible to being postponed faster than you can say "Gramm- >Rudman." One Congress has no authority to bind the budget actions >of the next Congress. The contract that congressmen have with their >constituents is two years of service, with the next review being >November 1998. Voters must learn to expect more than rhetoric. > >Q. What impact did TRIM have on the recent congressional elections? > >A. In those districts where there was a significant distribution of >TRIM Bulletins over the last year or two =97 such as the Third >District of Kentucky and the Ninth District of Missouri - big- >spending incumbents were booted out by the voters. In other >districts, such as Idaho's First District and Arizona's Sixth >District, more frugal, constitutional incumbents survived well- >funded opposition. In still other districts, such as Washington's >Third District and Iowa's Fourth District, freshmen congressmen - >whose big-spending predecessors had discovered the impact of major >TRIM distribution on 1993 and 1994 - were themselves barely able to >survive after compiling mediocre TRIM spending records. > >Q. Did any incumbent congressmen complain about TRIM's vote >reporting? > >A. Constituents send us lots of letters from congressmen who >complain about TRIM "report cards." They frequently say that we >picked the "wrong" votes - as if how they voted on other >legislation somehow changed how they voted on the legislation in >question. Most complaining congressmen trot out their awards from >the National Taxpayers' Union or some other supposed watchdog group >to "prove" they are friends of the taxpayer. But TRIM has set a >standard - the Constitution. We reject the excuse congressmen give >of the partisan pressures they are under to compromise principles. >The Constitution gives politicians very little room to wheel and >deal. We hope they'll look in the mirror, realize what's at stake, >recommit to their oath, and put principle before party. > >Q. What are your thoughts on Newt Gingrich's statements about >Congress' "moral obligation" to work with President Clinton in this >Congress? > >A. His alliance with Clinton is just a little more open now. If you >look at some of the key votes and issues of the last two years, >whether it was troops to Bosnia, the Mexico bailout, or GATT, they >have already been working together on policies undermining our >sovereignty. > >Q. Newt Gingrich's recent conciliatory statements toward Bill >Clinton and the fiasco that was the budget battle in fiscal 1996 is >likely to influence most congressmen to be gun-shy about going >after federal spending. How does TRIM counsel freshmen congressmen >to resist the pressures from lobbyists, the major media, and party >leaders? > >A. The first obligation of congressmen is to uphold their oath. It >is an awesome responsibility to be the guardian of America's purse >strings, but they must face up to that responsibility. If they are >going to compromise on those principles and play politics with >perhaps the most corrupt President the United States has ever had, >then they are abandoning America in a time of great crisis. > >Plans are now underway to escalate the level of TRIM activity >nationally. The members of the 105th Congress should be aware that >their votes for unconstitutional spending will be publicized widely >- as will their votes for limited government. Our responsibility at >TRIM is to awaken and inform the electorate. We intend to reach out >to additional millions over the next two years. > >Q. How can our readers get in touch with TRIM or order TRIM >Bulletins reporting the record of their representative? > >A. Drop us a note at TRIM National Headquarters, Post Office Box >8040, Appleton, WI 54913. We would be happy to refer them to their >local TRIM committee - and that committee will be delighted to >learn of their interest. They can also e-mail us at TRIM@jbs.org. >TRIM Bulletins are available for any congressman at $10.00 per >hundred (price includes shipping), with major discounts for high- >volume orders. > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1996 >American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated >P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913 >Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna >Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE >WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for >informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, >and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright >privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or >the above address. >------------------------------------------------------------------- > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > The above text comes from The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070 > (long distance callers require manual upgrade, usually within hours) > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > 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! > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > To unsubscribe, simply send the above instructed message, > substituting "unsubscribe" where appropriate. > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=09 > 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. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) TOSN: Welcome to Goals 2000 Newsflash Date: 24 Dec 1996 16:37:22 -0800 >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Welcome to GOALS 2000 - the Confidential files on our children > >This story ran on page A23 of the Boston Globe >on Tuesday, 10 Dec 96. > >Why is the state so secretive about MEAP tests? > >By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist > >It was a simple request. > >In the spring of 1994, Maureen O'Connell of Falmouth asked to see the >standardized test her son's fourth-grade class had just taken. Like >most states, Massachusetts "assesses" its public school students in >the fourth, eighth, and 10th grades every two years, testing them in >reading, math, science and social studies. As a parent, a taxpayer and >a member of the Falmouth School Committee, O'Connell felt she ought to >know something about these tests, known as the Massachusetts >Educational Assessment Program, or MEAP. She assumed that school >officials would be glad to provide copies for her to look at. > >She assumed wrong. > >The MEAP tests are "confidential," Peter Clark, Falmouth's >deputy superintendent, told her. "They belong to the state." >O'Connell pointed out that as an elected official, she had earned a >certain measure of state authority. But Clark was adamant: The tests >were off-limits. > >That fall the MEAP scores were released. They were dreadful, even >worse than the 1992 results, despite the much-ballyhooed Education >Reform Act that had taken effect in 1993. O'Connell's curiosity about >the "assessments" mounted. > >She studied the new education law - one of many copycat statutes >passed nationwide, all aligned with the federal "Goals 2000" >program. She learned that if a district scored poorly enough on >the MEAP, the state could take over its schools. She puzzled over the >law's mandate that every student be assigned "a unique and >confidential identification number," with information on each student >gathered in permanent files. When she saw the US government's 300-page >"handbook" of data to be compiled on every child in America, she grew >uneasy. > >It struck O'Connell as odd that while the Department of Education >claimed that MEAP scores would not be calculated individually, every >answer sheet was bar-coded. It also struck her as odd that there was >not one version of the test for each grade but more than a dozen. And >another thing: Why did the MEAP include personal questions? According >to a summary of the test published by the Education Department, >fourth-graders were quizzed on how frequently they talked about school >at home and how well their parents spoke English. O'Connell wanted to >know what else these kids were being asked - and why the state didn't >want her to find out. > >When the 1996 MEAP season arrived, she approached Clark (now >superintendent) and again asked to see the 1994 series. He >refused but did allow her and another School Committee member to >view specimens of the 1996 test. She was shown one sample each of the >multiple-choice portion of the fourth-, eighth-, and 10th-grade tests. >But she was not shown the essay questions; she could view the tests >only in Clark's office; and she was forbidden to take notes. > >Dissatisfied, O'Connell wrote to the Department of Education on >March 20 requesting complete copies of the 1994 tests. She was >sent the official summary, a kind of public relations brochure >containing a few sample questions. On March 29, she wrote again, >asking for the tests themselves - and specifically invoking the >Massachusetts freedom-of-information statute. > >A month and a half elapsed. No answer. On May 15, O'Connell wrote to >Secretary of State William Galvin, overseer of the state's records. >She asked for a ruling on whether or not the 1994 MEAPs were public >documents subject to a freedom-of-information request. > >Not that there was much doubt about it. State law defines >"public records" very broadly: "all materials or data ... made or >received by any officer or employee of any agency" of the state. Test >questions were exempted only if they were part of "a licensing >examination" - e.g., medical boards or the bar exam. It should have >taken Galvin all of five minutes to rule in O'Connell's favor. > >It took more than three months. > >To keep O'Connell from seeing the MEAPs, the Education Department went >to astounding lengths. With no notice or public debate, Education >Commissioner Robert Antonucci quietly arranged to have the >freedom-of-information law altered. He got the Senate Ways and Means >Committee to slip a rider deep inside a major budget bill. When the >Legislature passed the bill in July, it unknowingly enacted a new >freedom-of-information loophole - one barring the public from access >to any state "test, examination or assessment instrument." Brazenly, >the department then argued that O'Connell's request to see the tests >should be retroactively disqualified. > >But the secretary of state did the right thing. On Aug. 20, he >ruled that the 1994 MEAPs were indeed public. The Education >Department was ordered to turn them over to O'Connell within 10 >days or face enforcement by the attorney general. > >Ten days passed. Twenty. On Sept. 13 O'Connell notified Galvin >that she had not received the documents. On Oct. 3 she wrote >again, asking that the attorney general enforce the law. The >reply came a few days later: "Please be advised that this >request is under consideration." > >Two months later it's still "under consideration." So Maureen >O'Connell waits. And wonders. Why the stone wall? Why the >secrecy? What is it about this battery of two-year-old tests that the >commonweath is so desperate to keep from parents' eyes? > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 > >iQCVAwUBMsA0CNfnezEF7VxBAQG3WgQAixGlKvfFAe0AHkeZQUmV5lZLmeIMM9XQ >ZwnHAe+kC6ELz0AKE++O5M+p5jTQWhK9UOV+gFxl1ZuuP0b8qw8e3LEgcvbUhuto >UzMeAK8yt6bKHZ6RhTHh8HVft0ZdP5656dDBPxeAuL1gULCV6u1zsa8kwMpmpkUZ >KZusDSWEAAg= >=3xHt >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- >You may be removed from The Other Side of the News mailing list at >any time by sending email to dhathaw@cris.com with the subject >Unsubscribe Other Side. Please direct comments to Mark E. Howerter >at otherside@misslink.net. Old articles can be found at: > > http://www.cris.com/~dhathaw/otherside/ > >finger dhathaw@finger.cris.com for the PGP public key > >To subscribe to The Other Side of the News, send an email with the >subject Subscribe Other Side to dhathaw@cris.com. >+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- > - Monte >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< * Psalm 33 * "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams O- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 24 Dec 1996 00:08:48 -0800 Larry, Thanks for this comment. When I studied to be a Catholic priest for 5 1/2 years, I learned of cases in which people had conversions on their death beds. Do you know, for a fact, that Sagan did not have such a conversion? /s/ Paul Mitchell At 04:09 PM 12/24/96 -0600, you wrote: >Paul, > >Do not interpret my response as a flame. Mostly I enjoy what you >write. > >Merry Christmas > >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > ==================================================================== [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: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 24 Dec 1996 19:52:15 -0600 (CST) Paul, I do not, for a fact, know that no "death bed" coversion transpired. Since man's salvation is, in last analysis, subject to God's sovereignty it may have happened. However, the man in all of his scientific philosophy was an obvious athiest. I have known athiest in the throws of death. In my experience their attitude towards God only hardened. You will recall that Jesus says that unbelievers will be cast into outer darkness where their will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The gnashing of teeth is a Jewish metaphor for extreme anger. I suspect that is now Mr. Sagan's position. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 24 Dec 1996 18:22:29 -0800 I don't claim to know much about Carl Sagan, (pause for the gasps of disbelief) but was triggered to tell you all of the following by Larry Ball's post. Yesterday, I looked in a Hallmark store in Spokane for a special Christmas card for my wife. Well, Hallmark no longer recognizes Christmas to be Jesus Christ's Birthday. It was not possible to get a Christmas card with the message I wanted. Yet, they do carry "Kwanza" cards. Well now, anyone with any ear for news knows full well that kwanza is a recent invention in this country. It is totally false that kwanza is celebrated in Africa. Africans that I have heard of being querried on the subject have no idea what kwanza is, but they are very familiar with Christmas. I don't propose that those who do not want to, must buy religious Christmas cards, but it is a sad turn of events when those who wish to, cannot! The same people who have made this decision for us, have decided to perpetuate a devisive lie. Merry Christmas! Jerry Wootan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Filipak Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 24 Dec 1996 20:19:20 -0800 wootan@dmi.net wrote: > > I don't claim to know much about Carl Sagan, (pause for the gasps of > disbelief) but was triggered to tell you all of the following by Larry Ball's > post. > > Yesterday, I looked in a Hallmark store in Spokane for a special Christmas > card for my wife. Well, Hallmark no longer recognizes Christmas to be Jesus > Christ's Birthday. It was not possible to get a Christmas card with the > message I wanted. Yet, they do carry "Kwanza" cards. Well now, anyone with > any ear for news knows full well that kwanza is a recent invention in this > country. It is totally false that kwanza is celebrated in Africa. Africans > that I have heard of being querried on the subject have no idea what kwanza > is, but they are very familiar with Christmas. I don't propose that those who > do not want to, must buy religious Christmas cards, but it is a sad turn of > events when those who wish to, cannot! The same people who have made this > decision for us, have decided to perpetuate a devisive lie. > > Merry Christmas! > > Jerry Wootan Perhaps you let it go too long and the store was merely sold out of traditional religious Christmas cards. Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 24 Dec 1996 22:20:18 -0600 (CST) Thanks for your post, Jerry Wooten. :-) Merry Christmas Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 25 Dec 1996 05:05:50 -0800 Jerry, >>>>>>> [...] Yet, they do carry "Kwanza" cards. Well now, anyone with any ear for news knows full well that kwanza is a recent invention in this country. It is totally false that kwanza is celebrated in Africa. Africans that I have heard of being querried on the subject have no idea what kwanza is, but they are very familiar with Christmas. I don't propose that those who do not want to, must buy religious Christmas cards, but it is a sad turn of events when those who wish to, cannot! [...] <<<<<<< The G. Gordon Liddy Radio Show had an excellent discusion concerning "Kwanza", as being the invention (although I would have used 'machination') of a UC Berkeley professor. Its sole purpose is to polarize, and nothing more. The stated intent was that since so-called 'Black Americans' have been denied a true 'African' definition of Christmas, one was invented for them. No one asked, it was just 'thrust' upon them, as is everything else that insults the intellect. There is nothing wrong with being different, but there is everything wrong with being different to segregate and insult, essentially returning us to the pre sixties attitudes of the antipathies of American style apartheid, and racial and ethenic biases. One has to wonder if _some_ so-called minorities, really look for a reason to bellyache, if there isn't another _good_ reason to do so - otherwise. As far as the Christmas Cards, it sounds to me as though there is a new business opportunity available. Whenever anyone cuts off their nose to spite their face, somebody else will use that nose to make hay! Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: iwilsker@ih2000.net Subject: Young conservatives FREE Newsletter Date: 25 Dec 1996 09:17:28 -0700 (MST) There is a free "Young Conservatives" newsletter available on the net. http://members.aol.com/khgwin/ycletter.html Ira Wilsker iwilsker@ih2000.net http://www.ih2000.net/ira/ira.htm OR http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1814/ira.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Technology that will rock the world! Date: 25 Dec 1996 09:33:38 -0800 >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > ANNOUNCING: > > ASTONISHING TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL ROCK THE WORLD! > >- --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Better World Technologies, Newfoundland, New Jersey, USA >Voice: 201-208-2185 or 201-208-1100 >Fax: 201-208-0033 > >e-mail: > >Web: http://www.ivic.net/~jotto/bwt.html > >- --------------------------------------------------------------------- >This technology was demonstrated at the CoreStates Spectrum, >Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 23, 1996. I was there! > >The demonstration was hosted by inventor and investor Dennis Lee. > >I like his motto: "We don't want a *NEW* world, we want a *BETTER* >world." > >A document was circulated called the "Declaration of Energy >Independence." It closely parallels the original American "Declaration >of Independence." I signed it, along with many of the approximately >8,000 people in attendance. It details a "long train of abuses" by the >government to eradicate alternative technologies that threaten the >status quo. Laboratories have been bombed, inventors have been >threatened, imprisoned, and even killed. > >This is a whole *FAMILY* of technologies spanning many fields >including agriculture, construction, energy, mechanics, >transportation, and welding. Dennis Lee announced that a small army of >technicians is to begin installing an advanced version of the heat >pump. This apparatus will heat, cool, and supply more electrical power >than any typical home can use. The excess power will be sold back to >the electric utility who by law will *HAVE* to pay for it. > >Eventually the electric utilities, oil companies and centralized >governments will go bankrupt and families around the globe will be >able to enjoy a comfortable living free of bureaucratic entanglements >and staggering energy bills. > >Won't that be a switch? > >We won't need *ANY* "help" from government agencies any more. > >Good-bye I.R.S. >Good-bye Federal Reserve >Good-bye World Bank >Good-bye United Nations >Good-bye International Monetary Fund > >AND good riddance! > >It's only a matter of time. Dennis said he approached the American >Congress and Department of Energy to devise an orderly way to convert >the country to the new technology without creating economic chaos. His >plea fell on deaf ears. Now he is taking it directly to the people. > >Let the banks and transnational corporations collapse. I have nothing >so I have nothing to loose. > >>From what I saw with my own eyes and touched with my own hands, these >machines really work. I have a copy of Dennis Lee's book, The >Alternative, describing this technology. This man has been harassed by >government agents. They *FEAR* him. They tried to prove that this is >all a fraud, but guess what. He *WON* in court. Some great inventors >came to court to testify on his behalf. > >He had his day in court, and he WON! > >When people hear about this they think "free energy" is the same as >"perpetual motion." This is false. Free energy is no different than >using the wind or a river to turn an electric generator. You didn't >have to burn anything to get useful amounts of energy. This machine >simply taps into "rivers" of thermal energy. Nikola Tesla said it >could be done, but when he tried, his financial backers turned on him. >Now it's our turn. We can't let that happen again. > >Dennis Lee claims that some of these advanced technologies are in use. > >Welding torches which use "Brown's Gas" are already on the market. > >Also something called "Sonic Bloom," a major advance in agriculture. >Liquid nutrients are sprayed onto plant leaves coinciding with *SOUND* >waves. The result is a tremendous increase in the plant's production. >This is already in use to grow corn, in orchards, and even in backyard >gardens. A sample of the sound was played at the show. It's a >combination of classical *MUSIC* and high pitched, bird-like chirping. >The resulting increase in food production is astonishing. > >The housing technology was videotaped. An advanced form of plastic is >used to prefabricate walls and roofing material. It can be made to >look like just about any conventional suburban type home. The material >has an insulation rating of R-50, rendering cave-like thermal >properties. The material will not burn. In the video a raw egg was >coated with a thin layer which was painted onto the shell. Then a blow >torch was directed at the egg for a period of time. A short time after >the torch was removed a witness was able to pick up the egg with his >bare hands and did not get burned. The egg was then cracked open and >it was very obviously still raw on the inside. The prefabricated walls >and roof made from this plastic can be assembled by two individuals in >less than two weeks. Estimated cost for a two bedroom unit was around >$30,000. > >Other technologies included a "battery brick." This is an ordinary >brick with electrodes implanted in it. Each brick generates about one >volt. When used to construct a wall, these bricks can be connected >together to produce a large array to store electrical energy. Another >technology is a conductive coating. When electrical current passes >through it radiates heat. Likewise, when the coating is heated it >produces electrical current. When applied to a roof, this can totally >eliminate snow and ice build-up, as well as supply power to the >"battery brick" array. At night, the energy from the bricks can then >be switched to the same conductive coating applied to inside walls to >heat the home. > >Dennis Lee demonstrated this technology at shows in over a dozen >cities across America last summer. The show I saw was the last of the >tour. All of them were free admission, so this is no circus. Dennis >Lee is backing his claims with his own money. > >He also stated that all of the initial installations will be at his >own expense. He's not asking anyone to take his word for it. He >claimed that anyone who filled out a form he distributed would get >this equipment installed in their home free of charge. > >I haven't heard anything yet but my fingers are crossed. My fear is >that the corporate-government elite will do *ANYTHING* to stop him. > >He mentioned the movie 'Chain Reaction' and said it was meant to >terrify people about alternative energy technology. I haven't seen the >movie, but the previews depict an invention that extracts huge amounts >of energy from water. Something goes wrong and a huge explosion levels >part of a city. > >There is nothing dangerous about these technologies, except that it >will destroy the hoarded wealth of the greedy corporate and government >elite. > >Their world is about to come to an end! > >Better World Technologies offers a series of books and videos. I'd >recommend to everyone to acquire this documentation quickly. The >faster this information gets out, the better the chance that Dennis >Lee's and Nikola Tesla's dream of free energy for all will finally >come to pass. > >Don't let them rob us of our future *AGAIN*! > >I have been overwhelmed by the dark events that have occurred in >recent years. The collapse of industry and manufacturing, the loss of >good paying jobs, an ever-expanding government bureaucracy, lethal >government assaults occurring with increasing frequency, the march >towards global tyranny, I could go on and on. > >This is the first ray of hope I have seen in a long time. > >The only silver lining in an otherwise darkening sky. > >Members of the corporate-government elite, claiming to be >"environmentalists," call for massive "depopulation" through their >wicked United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. These idiots >think the way to save their precious "mother earth" is by slaughtering >billions of people. > >None of this is necessary. > >Everyone now living on the earth can have enough to eat and a place to >live, and there's still room for billions more. They tell us we have >to give up our automobiles, our air-conditioners and our "high" >standard or living. > >Nonsense! Let's tell those dangerous whackos and subversives where >they can go. > >Contact Better World Technologies and see the future! > >Regards, > >David Kuehne >Electronic Technician >Pennsylvania, USA > > >- ----------------------------------------------------------------- > >Thus says the Lord of Hosts: > >Listen up, you RICH MEN, now it's time for you to WEEP and GROAN >because of all the TERRIBLE MISERIES that WILL COME UPON YOU. >Your hoarded WEALTH is even now ROTTING away, and your fine >clothes are becoming moth-eaten rags. The VALUE of your gold >and silver is DROPPING fast, yet it will stand as EVIDENCE >against you, and eat your flesh like FIRE. That is what you >have stored up for yourselves, to receive on the coming day >of JUDGEMENT. Listen! I hear the cries of the workers who >toil on your plantation. By FRAUD you withhold their wages. >Their cries have reached MY ears. But I have no pleasure in >your DEATH. Turn from your wicked ways and seek ME while I >may still be found. Call upon ME while I am still near. >Confess with your mouth that JESUS IS LORD, and BELIEVE in your >heart that I RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD, then you shall be SAVED. > >- ----------------------------------------------------------------- > >James chapter 5 verses 1 through 4. >Ezekiel chapter 33 verse 11 >Isaiah chapter 55 verse 6 >Romans chapter 10 verse 9 > >Compiled from several translations with help from the Spirit. > >- ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 > >iQCVAwUBMsDigvw1+epaGIchAQGj3wP9G3sAR5LO/tcNbs++mfkXcrGxmtKIuHUV >pO25iiVlm9IlRmqxEMJy5qr4QrkYVDOZFf6a70y7rh+gZIBJz/DN2vz8QEJQGlvo >0SdMIFZ7wE+NMk35FFjD3qEmu5PNOMT6i0gK7AwvKhcq6miv9hls9gj7HWjMEaFb >l/YTH7K+fqk= >=f96s >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > - 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: Technology that will rock the world (?) Date: 25 Dec 1996 16:50:27 -0800 I went to two of Dennis Lee's seminars; he seems to be very adept at selling commercial paper, i.e., dealer contracts, but not so adept at delivering the goods, i.e., production-line equipment. But, that was many months ago. The situation may have changed. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 09:33 AM 12/25/96 -0800, you wrote: > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> ANNOUNCING: >> >> ASTONISHING TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL ROCK THE WORLD! >> >>- --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Better World Technologies, Newfoundland, New Jersey, USA >>Voice: 201-208-2185 or 201-208-1100 >>Fax: 201-208-0033 >> >>e-mail: >> >>Web: http://www.ivic.net/~jotto/bwt.html >> >>- --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>This technology was demonstrated at the CoreStates Spectrum, >>Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 23, 1996. I was there! >> >>The demonstration was hosted by inventor and investor Dennis Lee. >> >>I like his motto: "We don't want a *NEW* world, we want a *BETTER* >>world." >> >>A document was circulated called the "Declaration of Energy >>Independence." It closely parallels the original American "Declaration >>of Independence." I signed it, along with many of the approximately >>8,000 people in attendance. It details a "long train of abuses" by the >>government to eradicate alternative technologies that threaten the >>status quo. Laboratories have been bombed, inventors have been >>threatened, imprisoned, and even killed. >> >>This is a whole *FAMILY* of technologies spanning many fields >>including agriculture, construction, energy, mechanics, >>transportation, and welding. Dennis Lee announced that a small army of >>technicians is to begin installing an advanced version of the heat >>pump. This apparatus will heat, cool, and supply more electrical power >>than any typical home can use. The excess power will be sold back to >>the electric utility who by law will *HAVE* to pay for it. >> >>Eventually the electric utilities, oil companies and centralized >>governments will go bankrupt and families around the globe will be >>able to enjoy a comfortable living free of bureaucratic entanglements >>and staggering energy bills. >> >>Won't that be a switch? >> >>We won't need *ANY* "help" from government agencies any more. >> >>Good-bye I.R.S. >>Good-bye Federal Reserve >>Good-bye World Bank >>Good-bye United Nations >>Good-bye International Monetary Fund >> >>AND good riddance! >> >>It's only a matter of time. Dennis said he approached the American >>Congress and Department of Energy to devise an orderly way to convert >>the country to the new technology without creating economic chaos. His >>plea fell on deaf ears. Now he is taking it directly to the people. >> >>Let the banks and transnational corporations collapse. I have nothing >>so I have nothing to loose. >> >>>From what I saw with my own eyes and touched with my own hands, these >>machines really work. I have a copy of Dennis Lee's book, The >>Alternative, describing this technology. This man has been harassed by >>government agents. They *FEAR* him. They tried to prove that this is >>all a fraud, but guess what. He *WON* in court. Some great inventors >>came to court to testify on his behalf. >> >>He had his day in court, and he WON! >> >>When people hear about this they think "free energy" is the same as >>"perpetual motion." This is false. Free energy is no different than >>using the wind or a river to turn an electric generator. You didn't >>have to burn anything to get useful amounts of energy. This machine >>simply taps into "rivers" of thermal energy. Nikola Tesla said it >>could be done, but when he tried, his financial backers turned on him. >>Now it's our turn. We can't let that happen again. >> >>Dennis Lee claims that some of these advanced technologies are in use. >> >>Welding torches which use "Brown's Gas" are already on the market. >> >>Also something called "Sonic Bloom," a major advance in agriculture. >>Liquid nutrients are sprayed onto plant leaves coinciding with *SOUND* >>waves. The result is a tremendous increase in the plant's production. >>This is already in use to grow corn, in orchards, and even in backyard >>gardens. A sample of the sound was played at the show. It's a >>combination of classical *MUSIC* and high pitched, bird-like chirping. >>The resulting increase in food production is astonishing. >> >>The housing technology was videotaped. An advanced form of plastic is >>used to prefabricate walls and roofing material. It can be made to >>look like just about any conventional suburban type home. The material >>has an insulation rating of R-50, rendering cave-like thermal >>properties. The material will not burn. In the video a raw egg was >>coated with a thin layer which was painted onto the shell. Then a blow >>torch was directed at the egg for a period of time. A short time after >>the torch was removed a witness was able to pick up the egg with his >>bare hands and did not get burned. The egg was then cracked open and >>it was very obviously still raw on the inside. The prefabricated walls >>and roof made from this plastic can be assembled by two individuals in >>less than two weeks. Estimated cost for a two bedroom unit was around >>$30,000. >> >>Other technologies included a "battery brick." This is an ordinary >>brick with electrodes implanted in it. Each brick generates about one >>volt. When used to construct a wall, these bricks can be connected >>together to produce a large array to store electrical energy. Another >>technology is a conductive coating. When electrical current passes >>through it radiates heat. Likewise, when the coating is heated it >>produces electrical current. When applied to a roof, this can totally >>eliminate snow and ice build-up, as well as supply power to the >>"battery brick" array. At night, the energy from the bricks can then >>be switched to the same conductive coating applied to inside walls to >>heat the home. >> >>Dennis Lee demonstrated this technology at shows in over a dozen >>cities across America last summer. The show I saw was the last of the >>tour. All of them were free admission, so this is no circus. Dennis >>Lee is backing his claims with his own money. >> >>He also stated that all of the initial installations will be at his >>own expense. He's not asking anyone to take his word for it. He >>claimed that anyone who filled out a form he distributed would get >>this equipment installed in their home free of charge. >> >>I haven't heard anything yet but my fingers are crossed. My fear is >>that the corporate-government elite will do *ANYTHING* to stop him. >> >>He mentioned the movie 'Chain Reaction' and said it was meant to >>terrify people about alternative energy technology. I haven't seen the >>movie, but the previews depict an invention that extracts huge amounts >>of energy from water. Something goes wrong and a huge explosion levels >>part of a city. >> >>There is nothing dangerous about these technologies, except that it >>will destroy the hoarded wealth of the greedy corporate and government >>elite. >> >>Their world is about to come to an end! >> >>Better World Technologies offers a series of books and videos. I'd >>recommend to everyone to acquire this documentation quickly. The >>faster this information gets out, the better the chance that Dennis >>Lee's and Nikola Tesla's dream of free energy for all will finally >>come to pass. >> >>Don't let them rob us of our future *AGAIN*! >> >>I have been overwhelmed by the dark events that have occurred in >>recent years. The collapse of industry and manufacturing, the loss of >>good paying jobs, an ever-expanding government bureaucracy, lethal >>government assaults occurring with increasing frequency, the march >>towards global tyranny, I could go on and on. >> >>This is the first ray of hope I have seen in a long time. >> >>The only silver lining in an otherwise darkening sky. >> >>Members of the corporate-government elite, claiming to be >>"environmentalists," call for massive "depopulation" through their >>wicked United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. These idiots >>think the way to save their precious "mother earth" is by slaughtering >>billions of people. >> >>None of this is necessary. >> >>Everyone now living on the earth can have enough to eat and a place to >>live, and there's still room for billions more. They tell us we have >>to give up our automobiles, our air-conditioners and our "high" >>standard or living. >> >>Nonsense! Let's tell those dangerous whackos and subversives where >>they can go. >> >>Contact Better World Technologies and see the future! >> >>Regards, >> >>David Kuehne >>Electronic Technician >>Pennsylvania, USA >> >> >>- ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Thus says the Lord of Hosts: >> >>Listen up, you RICH MEN, now it's time for you to WEEP and GROAN >>because of all the TERRIBLE MISERIES that WILL COME UPON YOU. >>Your hoarded WEALTH is even now ROTTING away, and your fine >>clothes are becoming moth-eaten rags. The VALUE of your gold >>and silver is DROPPING fast, yet it will stand as EVIDENCE >>against you, and eat your flesh like FIRE. That is what you >>have stored up for yourselves, to receive on the coming day >>of JUDGEMENT. Listen! I hear the cries of the workers who >>toil on your plantation. By FRAUD you withhold their wages. >>Their cries have reached MY ears. But I have no pleasure in >>your DEATH. Turn from your wicked ways and seek ME while I >>may still be found. Call upon ME while I am still near. >>Confess with your mouth that JESUS IS LORD, and BELIEVE in your >>heart that I RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD, then you shall be SAVED. >> >>- ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>James chapter 5 verses 1 through 4. >>Ezekiel chapter 33 verse 11 >>Isaiah chapter 55 verse 6 >>Romans chapter 10 verse 9 >> >>Compiled from several translations with help from the Spirit. >> >>- ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>Version: 2.6.2 >> >>iQCVAwUBMsDigvw1+epaGIchAQGj3wP9G3sAR5LO/tcNbs++mfkXcrGxmtKIuHUV >>pO25iiVlm9IlRmqxEMJy5qr4QrkYVDOZFf6a70y7rh+gZIBJz/DN2vz8QEJQGlvo >>0SdMIFZ7wE+NMk35FFjD3qEmu5PNOMT6i0gK7AwvKhcq6miv9hls9gj7HWjMEaFb >>l/YTH7K+fqk= >>=f96s >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> >> > > >- 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- > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: ZIP codes are voluntary! Date: 25 Dec 1996 21:35:18 -0800 Dear America, I made a new adhesive label for all my outgoing mail, to wit: ZIP codes are voluntary: See Domestic Mail Services Manual Sec. A010.1.2d (no ZIP+4 discount) & P.L. 91-375, Sec. 403: USPS can NOT discriminate against non-use of ZIPs. I crank out 30 at a time, using my Avery label generator program, and a HP LaserJet printer. It's fun, and I know the judges will enjoy the citations as well! /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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: obstruction of mail Date: 25 Dec 1996 22:06:40 -0800 18 U.S.C. 1701. Obstruction of mail generally: "Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs or retards the passage of the mail, or any carrier or conveyance carrying the mail, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both." ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: obstruction of correspondence Date: 25 Dec 1996 22:11:27 -0800 18 U.S.C. 1702. Obstruction of correspondence "Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized deposi- tory, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspon- dence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secrets, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." As cited by Dana Dudley, prisoner now in custody of Yellowstone County Detention Center, Billings, Montana. /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: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: ZIP codes are voluntary! Date: 25 Dec 1996 15:08:53 PST roc@xmission.com wrote : >Dear America, > >I made a new adhesive label for >all my outgoing mail, to wit: > > > ZIP codes are voluntary: > See Domestic Mail Services Manual > Sec. A010.1.2d (no ZIP+4 discount) & > P.L. 91-375, Sec. 403: USPS can NOT > discriminate against non-use of ZIPs. How quaint! You read in a book that the USPS can not discriminate against non use of ZIPs. Did you find a book that explained how hard it was to find a person smart enough to read even zip codes and hit the right keys on a sorting device without being bored to death and you expect that they can find employees who know where streets are......and more impressive which zip code they are in. One assumes that NOT discriminate means they will not arbitrarily return it or just trash it .....but no one mailing a letter that way has any idea how many weeks it will before a sorter feels driven to decode the handwriting and look up the zip code associated with the address. While one assumes there are programs to convert addresses into zip codes there are problems there. I used to live at 201 Calle Miramar which was physically in the city of Redondo Beach. One voted in the elections for officials in Redondo Beach but the mail was delivered only by the Torrance Post Office. However, one never addressed the mail to Torrance that would be too simple. One addressed it to Hollywood Riviera and it was delivered when the zip code was attached. However, there is no actual political entity in the LA Basin known as Hollywood Riviera. You leave the zip code off and really expect the mail to be delivered. So, you mail something in New York or Dallas and just address the mail to Jack Perrine / 201 Calle Miramar / Hollywood Riviera CA and leave off the zip code is the sorter on the other end of the country going to send it Northern California / Central California / Southern California? There are several other quaint addressing problems like this in the San Fernado Valley that I know of where developments have been incorporated into cities and for historical reasons mail is delivered by post offices other than the one that is physically in the same political entity as the address Good Luck Jack > > >I crank out 30 at a time, using my >Avery label generator program, and >a HP LaserJet printer. It's fun, and >I know the judges will enjoy the >citations as well! > >/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 >==================================================================== > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Filipak Subject: Kwanza Date: 25 Dec 1996 16:07:09 -0800 Note: Subject was: Carl Sagan Tribute E. J. Totty wrote: > > Jerry, > > >>>>>>> > [...] > Yet, they do carry "Kwanza" cards. Well now, anyone with > any ear for news knows full well that kwanza is a recent invention in this > country. It is totally false that kwanza is celebrated in Africa. Africans > that I have heard of being querried on the subject have no idea what kwanza > is, but they are very familiar with Christmas. I don't propose that those who > do not want to, must buy religious Christmas cards, but it is a sad turn of > events when those who wish to, cannot! > [...] > <<<<<<< > > The G. Gordon Liddy Radio Show had an excellent discusion > concerning "Kwanza", as being the invention (although I would have used > 'machination') of a UC Berkeley professor. > Its sole purpose is to polarize, and nothing more. The stated > intent was that since so-called 'Black Americans' have been denied a true > 'African' definition of Christmas, one was invented for them. No one asked, > it was just 'thrust' upon them, as is everything else that insults the > intellect. > There is nothing wrong with being different, but there is > everything wrong with being different to segregate and insult, essentially > returning us to the pre sixties attitudes of the antipathies of American > style apartheid, and racial and ethenic biases. > One has to wonder if _some_ so-called minorities, really look for a > reason to bellyache, if there isn't another _good_ reason to do so - > otherwise. > > As far as the Christmas Cards, it sounds to me as though there is a > new business opportunity available. Whenever anyone cuts off their nose to > spite their face, somebody else will use that nose to make hay! > > Ed Goodness, Can't these people have a holiday of their own without someone judging the appropriateness (read: rightness, wrongness) of their motives? Jerry, Larry, Ed, what are your motives? Why should you care whether some people choose to celebrate Kwanza? Why do you get so worked up about it? Who cares whether it was invented? Christmas was invented. It didn't always exist. You don't ridicule people who wish one another "Happy New Year" do you? -- though it is a pure invention stemming from our choise of calendar. (disgusted) Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Technology that will rock the world! Date: 25 Dec 1996 19:02:11 -0600 (CST) You know, I bit into this "stuff" (renewable energy) in a big way in the late '70's and early 80's. I started a company called Nabal (named after the drunken husband of Abigail the eventual wife of King David) At Nabal we promoted and built gasohol plants. Our flag ship was at Fairfield Ne. We plugged it inta a feed yard and fed the sour mash to about 6000 critters. We produced about 600,000 gallons of 190 proof alcohol per year but could never dry it down to 199+ proof required for blending with gasoline. One thing that I learned from thsi was that grain derived ethonal will never be economical. The University and governments prduction estimates and costs estimates did not account for various inefficiencies such as energy wastage, incomplete starch/sugarto alcohol conversion, inability to recover solublized nutrients from the various processing waters. All of these bore upon the economics of the process. The estimates were at least 25 to 30% off. Bankruptcyville! I know of about 350 plants such as our throughout the US and had toured many of them. They went the same way as ours. Then there were the various hucksters and the most unbelievable but believed tall tales (rank lies). No, don't look for energy independence from any renewable perpetual energy machines. One thing that does appear to have promise is the hydrogen fuel cell. I am intrested in seeing this work before I check out. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 25 Dec 1996 17:25:41 -0800 Mark, >>>>>>> Goodness, Can't these people have a holiday of their own without someone judging the appropriateness (read: rightness, wrongness) of their motives? [...] <<<<<<< Goodness, indeed. No they cannot, especially when the 'inventor', who was a guest on the G.Gordon Liddy Radio Show, specifically identified his movement as SOCIALIST in nature. Pardon me for some dander here, but the nature of our 'collective' problem is rampant socialism being foisted upon our country on a grand scale. The idiot (professor) in question, had the audacity to compare it to a religious holiday, and then turn right around and put down all other (religious) beliefs as irrelevant. According to the 'good professor' (sheeit!) whites are totalitarians by nature because our Constitution allowed 'only black slaves' and caused a great holocaust to happen to black people. When Liddy tried to identify that African's also quite frequently practiced slavery - long before it was institutionalized by whites, he was attacked as a biggot - despite the fact of the truth. Mr. Liddy was quite right in pointing out that we have way too many hyphen Americans who profess to be something else other than American. I quite agree, if you're here and a citizen, then you are an American. If you want to be something else - go there and be it, just don't get in everybody else's face about it and pretend that the rest of us are lesser. Pretending that your are somehow better by being different only causes division. Having a religious belief is a fundamental Right. Having a political belief, and pretending that it is somehow of religious significants to the detraction of all else is not a valid belief - especially when the program is to force it upon all others. The professor's stated goal was for all "African-Amercans" (ie., blacks) to espouse his new 'holiday' while keeping whites - and all others away. A fine example of eauality. We be free, eh? I suppose you might also support "Ebonics" too? The socialist among us are using division to keep us from uniting. See the light. At any rate, the American Heritage Dictionary (V4.0) finds 'Kwanza' to mean: . An African-American cultural festival, celebrated from December 26 to January 1. [ Possibly from Swahili kwanzaa first fruit of the harvest] Also: A basic unit of currency in Angola. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: Technology that will rock the world! Date: 25 Dec 1996 17:54:47 PST roc@xmission.com wrote : > >Then there were the various hucksters and the most unbelievable but >believed tall tales (rank lies). No, don't look for energy >independence from any renewable perpetual energy machines. It is not so much tall tales / (rank lies) so much as not telling all the truth. Certainly any number of entities: individuals / extended families / clans / small vilages could achieve energy independence from renewable resources ......the only problem is that if one takes the total radiation density on the earth and tries to equate it to the present population there is a horrible mismatch. Now, when / if the population falls to about one tenth or so of its present size then all of this works .....but then of course there would be little need for the IRS or NWO either From another view a household of a few people on a quarter acre lot can probably derive enough energy for close to its present standard of living from wind / sun. But when you have 50 families in apartments in the same area the arithmetic does not work at all well. But what the arithmetic is of course depends on how often one needs hot showers / how warm it should be in the winter and how cool in the summer / how much of available radiation should be used for charging a tractor and how much for growing plants / how many TVs or computers are running / etc. Way back when John Cambell had editorials about filling tropical seas with collectors converting sunshine to hydrogen for transport back to land .....but one suspects that this is only trading one form of large international energy company for another Jack > >One thing that does appear to have promise is the hydrogen fuel cell. >I am intrested in seeing this work before I check out. > >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 25 Dec 1996 21:28:44 -0600 > At any rate, the American Heritage Dictionary (V4.0) finds 'Kwanza' > to mean: > > . An African-American cultural festival, celebrated from December > 26 to January 1. > [ Possibly from Swahili kwanzaa first fruit of the harvest] > > Also: > > A basic unit of currency in Angola. So what? Ring a ding-ding. Thanksgiving is a day someone picked off a calander to throw a communal feast for no other reason than someone felt like having one. Everybody at the original thanks giving contributed as much as they could to the feast and everyone ate as much as their skin could hold. Sounds like communism to me. They all were New World Orderites, only went to church to hide their socialist designs from the masses to come. Bunch of damn socialists, the lot of them. Type of folk who would later on stop for an entire day to observe the actions of a burrowing animal. Grown men would later swear that God gave a shit if that animal saw his shadow or not. Call it Groundhog Day, as if a hog could live in the ground. Of course, the seriously evil among them celebrate the Devil's Evening. The night before All Saints Day. Have your women ride their brooms to the dances and parties on Halloween. Send your children out to beg candy. For those of you in Rio Linda who haven't got the point by now; who gives a damn what day "they" pick or why "they" choose to celebrate it. It's "their" business and can't be any stupider than the rationale behind some of "our" days. Maybe if all of us would cut out the carping and quit thinking of the situation in terms of "they" and "we" we'd solve some of "our" problems. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 25 Dec 1996 19:39:05 -0800 >Paul, I do not, for a fact, know that no "death bed" coversion >transpired. Since man's salvation is, in last analysis, subject to >God's sovereignty it may have happened. > >However, the man in all of his scientific philosophy was an obvious >athiest. I have known athiest in the throws of death. In my >experience their attitude towards God only hardened. You will recall >that Jesus says that unbelievers will be cast into outer darkness >where their will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The gnashing of >teeth is a Jewish metaphor for extreme anger. I suspect that is now >Mr. Sagan's position. > >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu Actually, "gnashing of teeth" is more of a Jewish metaphor for rebellion, not anger, as in "they gnashed their teeth at the authority of God." But the result is the same. - 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: wbg@hevanet.com (wbg) Subject: Kwanzaa Date: 25 Dec 1996 19:53:19 -0800 (PST) > > Note: Subject was: Carl Sagan Tribute > > E. J. Totty wrote: > > > > concerning "Kwanza", as being the invention (although I would have used > > 'machination') of a UC Berkeley professor. Actually it was a Cal State Long Beach professor, with some made-up-sounding pseudo-African name, in about 1966. > > Its sole purpose is to polarize, and nothing more. Fairly accurate based on the evidence so far. > > There is nothing wrong with being different, but there is > > everything wrong with being different to segregate and insult, essentially > > returning us to the pre sixties attitudes of the antipathies of American > > style apartheid, and racial and ethenic biases. Well said. Mark responded to Totty: > Goodness, > > Can't these people have a holiday of their own without someone judging > the appropriateness (read: rightness, wrongness) of their motives? > (disgusted) > Mark For cryin' out loud, Mark, _all_ cultural artifacts, but especially those created full-blown rather than accreting over centuries, are fair game for having the appropriateness of their creators' motives judged. Why should Kwanzaa be any different? Those of us who have heard the pronouncements of its originator and its supporters, and have read up on it, have some legitimate cause for reasoned criticism. For many of us, Principles Three and Four are sufficient reason to fail to take Kwanzaa seriously, as a classic example of warmed-over Marxism: 3. Ujima Collective work and responsibility 4. Ujamaa Cooperative economics The fact that the mainstream media fawn over it every year and take it seriously is perhaps sufficient reason for many to call it into question. Messy Xmas & a Sloppy New Year, Brewster -- *********************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Lowry Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 25 Dec 1996 20:34:28 -0800 (PST) >>However, the man in all of his scientific philosophy was an obvious >>athiest. I have known athiest in the throws of death. In my >>experience their attitude towards God only hardened. You will recall >>that Jesus says that unbelievers will be cast into outer darkness >>where their will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The gnashing of >>teeth is a Jewish metaphor for extreme anger. I suspect that is now >>Mr. Sagan's position. I find it incredibly shallow that on this day, regardless of what name and religious foundation you give it, (Xmas, Kwanza, etc) that some folks have nothing better to do than to belittle a man who brought the understanding of the universe to so man.. Carl Sagan, regardless of his religious beliefs or disbeliefs, was still a human, and died an untimely and unfortunated death. Yet the arguement continues on even today, the day that is celebrated as the birthdate of another great teacher.. Wishing the dead misfortune is a more heinious crime in my eyes than anything Mr.Sagan could have done.. and for any who profess to be Christians, it is the most unchristian-like thing that you could do. Now, I realize not all of us have the same levels of religious commitment.. Some are die-hards to look to the bible as the word to live by, while other, myself included, look to the bible with the same significance as the Koran, Teachings of Bhuddah and the Smith & Wesson catalog.. all neat and useful, but not the sole source of inspiration in ya know what I mean.. Yet today, of all days, across the world, most of the population takes at least a few moments to reflect on goodwill, peace and the hope that someday, we can live with ourselves. If anyone else wants to forget about what today means, and continue the needless discussion on the theology of two great teachers, both dead before their times, please do it after the New Year.. I would like a week of simulated peace and goodwill, if not for all men, then at least for the men and women I know have the same goals and desires to be free, responsible and happy on thier own. God Bless, Merry Xmas, Happy Kwanza, Happy Han. Mark, > > >>>>>>> > Goodness, > >Can't these people have a holiday of their own without someone judging >the appropriateness (read: rightness, wrongness) of their motives? > [...] > <<<<<<< > > Goodness, indeed. > > No they cannot, especially when the 'inventor', who was a guest on >the G.Gordon Liddy Radio Show, specifically identified his movement as >SOCIALIST in nature. [snip] He should also have identified himself as a failed criminal, if what I've heard is true, (don't recall the charge). _ I move that we change it's name from "Kwanza" to "Kwazy" or maybe even "Kweezy". Hey, geuss what, they changed it's name to better reflect it's true meaning.....:-) If it deserves ridicule and scorn, then lets do it! Celebating "Kweezy"? Hey it happens after every New Years.....:-) -- 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: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 25 Dec 1996 21:33:56 -0800 >(disgusted) > > >Mark When this once great nation tumbles around our feet, we can look back to those who did not care about the devisive actions that brought about our distruction. If you are Jewish, and celebrate Hanuka, I am a supporter of yours. If you are into celebrating the winter soltice, as an American, you have my support. If you are a child, (even at heart) and wish to celebrate Santa, more power to you. If you are a follower of devisive causes, and wish to celebrate an invention intended to devide in order to conquer, I will support you only if your goal is to conquer my enemies, certainly NOT when the target is a once proud nation that I loved. I am truly sorry, particularly this time of year, if my religion "disgusts" you Mark, but I think after all of these centuries, we Christians are getting used to that. (Not to mention my experience with these lists.) Even if we do disgust you, it would still be appropriate, at Christmas, to take a few minutes to thank the Christians who founded this nation (make no misteak, they WERE Christian.), if only silently in your mind. Also, not that I owe an explanation, please note that my displeasure with the inventors, not the celebrators necessarily, of kwanza, is motivated by my political stance, whereas my disappointment with the move away from Christ at Christmas is based on my religious side. I'm not too certain whether it is my politics or my religion that disgusts you, but either way, I support your right to disagree, and I pray for you. (as is my right) If you don't support those rights, I just wonder what it is about ROC that is of interest to you. (rhetorical statement, no response required.) Merry Christmas to all, Jerry Wootan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Technology that will rock etc. Date: 26 Dec 1996 03:03:39 -0500 Paul Andrew Mitchell writes: >>I went to two of Dennis Lee's seminars; he seems to be very adept at selling commercial paper, << >snip< Paul, Your response to Monte's post including subject header was 432 bytes. Was it REALLY necessary to copy and repost the entire 11,882 byte original, especially since you answered on the SAME day. I know hitting reply is easy, but so is deleting all the excess baggage so the rest of us don't have to scroll through all this redundancy, then delete it ourselves so as to "declutter" the digest or saved mail. I do not mean to single you out Paul, there are others who do the same thing. It does take a little more time to cut, copy and paste the sections of a post we are referring to, or to just post a few lines, for reference, then snip, when replying generally to an entire message. It also makes it far clearer, to the reader, what you trying to say. Perhaps a little consideration concerning this would be an ideal New Years resolution for all of us. I will do my best to comply. Best Regards, Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 26 Dec 1996 07:29:59 -0800 (PST) On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, larry ball wrote: > Boyd, > > In a tape made last year he made the statement that the Word of God > (the Bible) was a compilation of men rather than the revealed will of > God. Further, while he reverenced the gradeur of the universe he did > not accept the idea of a God who interacted with man. Larry, thanks for your reply and I hope what I say here won't offend you. There are more people on earth who do not understand God as you and I do then who do. I don't see those people as mocking or deriding my God, I see them as potential converts for my brothers in God who are moved to proselytize. Neither would I assume that all that those people do is worthless or evil. So, when you tell me Sagan rejected the Christian message I still really don't understand why that would move Christians to angrily reject him or the lifetime of work he did. The fact that he may be judged ill by God does not bring any joy to my heart, or any judgement from me on his scientific advances. > both of these ideas deride Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is both man and > God. Jesus Christ's words are the words of the Bible. Jesus Christ > made the heavens and the earth (see Hebrews 1:2). Jesus then is every > thing that Sagan rejects. He is God, He is the Creator of the > grandeur reverenced by Sagan, He is the revealer of His will through > His servants who recorded this revelation as the Bible. Doesn't that just make the whole thing more sad? Why should we take any pleasure, or make any judgement of Sagan's life because he may be judged to damnation? > > Since Sagan derides all of this, Sagan derides Christ. Since he > rejects the divinity, or "Godness" of Christ and therefore has no > faith or belief in Christ, Sagan's destiny was is and ever shall be > the Lake of Fire. > > Thanks for asking. I guess that perhaps we just come from different backgrounds or have different beliefs on Judgement. Anyway hope you are having a great Christmas season and thanks for the reply > Larry Ball > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > Boyd Kneeland > > > > That's funny Larry, I've got Sagan's internationally acclaimed cosmos > > series on tape, and I sure can't find the part where he derided Jesus > > Christ. What are you trying to say? ... I must not understand. > > Boyd > > > > On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, larry ball wrote: > > > > > Paul, > > > > > > Perhaps I do not undertand your poem. But rest assured that Carl > > > Sagan will be part of an eternal flame suffering discomfort for ever > > > and ever. The Star of two millenia ago was significant in that it > > > announced the coming to earth of God as Man. His purpose was to > > > suffer and die unjustily and to rise again. His death was an > > > atonement for the sin of man, His purpose was to be the righteousness > > > of God and validate the salvation that God Sovereignly provides for > > > His believers. > > > > > > Carl Sagan derided this and will suffer in the lake of fire for ever > > > and ever. > > > > > > Larry Ball > > > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > Carl, you were more than human. > > > > You lifted our minds up from the mud, > > > > and helped us to touch the stars. > > > > For this, we are forever grateful, > > > > for we will never be the same, > > > > having known you as we did, > > > > a privilege, indeed; a star > > > > is made new, for all to see. > > > > Amen. > > > > > > > > /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: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: A Letter from the Future Date: 26 Dec 1996 13:04:43 -0800 [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] A Letter from the Future: United Socialist States of North America by Brad Peterson, Chaplain E Pluribus Unum November, 1999 Dear friend: It is late November, 1999. Things are very different now in the United Socialist States of North America, formerly the USA. It's freezing outside, and not much better inside, since the EPA ordered most of the power plants shut down a few years ago. We have lots of trees around here, so we'll make it through the winter all right, I guess. Good thing I saved up lots of canned food; the grocery stores stay empty most of the time these days; what with the government-run farms that can't produce enough, and the constant truckers' strikes. Some food shipments are even being hijacked. Lots of folk have died of starvation and disease recently; and remember that health care plan they passed in '96? What a joke -- you could die of old age standing in line. Most hospitals had to close, and few folks can afford to drive to Memphis with gas at $3.85 a gallon, thanks to the big Eco Summit in '96 that tripled the price of fuel to raise money for the new Environmental Police Force. Those are the guys in the green helmets; they carry guns too. I remember how controversial that NAFTA treaty was before they passed it, and now I understand why so many fought it so hard. You see, we don't produce much here anymore, and with a primarily service-oriented economy, we lost our standard of living and are now just like one big underclass. Of course, the government bureaucrats still live on easy street, but nobody says too much about that kind of thing anymore; I mean, after they took over the radio stations and most of the newspaper companies were bought out by the government, the news is mostly world events, and we really can't tell what is happening in the USSNA. All of the last conservative columnists and talk show hosts were imprisoned in late '96; rumor has it some were executed in detention camps out west, but we can't be sure. I remember a small handful of preachers that always tried to warn us about the possibility of all of this happening, but they were gradually railroaded out of the mainline churches for upsetting the people too much. Now, it seems they were right, but they, too, are all gone. We don't go out much anymore; the constant roadblocks and the vehicle searches make just going to the store a frightening experience, for the children especially. The U.N. soldiers are everywhere; you see, after they suspended the Constitution back in '97, the old U.S. Army was merged with the U.N. units, and now we can't tell who the Americans are anymore. I guess it really doesn't matter, they court-martialed most of our troops who resisted the merger, so everyone in blue these days is part of the North American Occupation Force, one way or the other. Many people formed small militia groups in the summer of '98, but it was already too late. They put up one heck of a fight, especially down South, but there just weren't enough of them. You see, when the Brady Bill passed, nobody took it seriously. Then came the Crime Bill of '94. The Patriots tried to sound the alarm back then, but not enough people called their Congressmen ... it passed also. Next was the assault weapons ban. This one had significant opposition, but at last, even the pro-Second Amendment politicians caved in and allowed the bill to pass, helped greatly by the socialist media's lengthy propaganda blitz. By the time enough people understood what was really going on, they had already passed Brady II, which made every house with a gun subject to random government searches. Thousands of homes were assaulted in late '97, and the government forces killed so many private citizens, the population had to make a choice ... disarm or die. Most people then gave up their guns to keep from being killed or imprisoned. I remember that deal back in '93 in Waco, Texas. I didn't want to believe our government was really capable of mass-murder; but, looking back on it, Waco was just a test, to see how much the people would put up with. I guess we failed the test; soon after Waco, they started raiding churches, patriotic meetings, and religious groups all over the country. If only we had listened to those who tried so hard to warn us back then. And you know, all of that New World Order stuff has come true, and I fear it's not over yet. I don't know what we can do, though; all private meetings are outlawed, we have no guns, and folk are too scared to even discuss the new government. I would now give anything to be able to go back ten years, back when we could speak, write, preach, and assemble together for the good of the nation; if only we had gotten involved while we were still free. Well, I better close for now; the night security forces will be making their rounds, and you know I could be beaten and imprisoned for writing an unauthorized letter. I'll get it to the underground postal service when it's safe again. A complacent citizen, if only I had done ... something ... for freedom .... "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion." Psalm 137:1 ... it doesn't have to end this way ... the choice is ours. We stand for Liberty now. Or we serve under Tyranny! # # # ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: A Letter from the Future Date: 26 Dec 1996 13:07:56 -0800 [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] A Letter from the Future: United Socialist States of North America by Brad Peterson, Chaplain E Pluribus Unum November, 1999 Dear friend: It is late November, 1999. Things are very different now in the United Socialist States of North America, formerly the USA. It's freezing outside, and not much better inside, since the EPA ordered most of the power plants shut down a few years ago. We have lots of trees around here, so we'll make it through the winter all right, I guess. Good thing I saved up lots of canned food; the grocery stores stay empty most of the time these days; what with the government-run farms that can't produce enough, and the constant truckers' strikes. Some food shipments are even being hijacked. Lots of folk have died of starvation and disease recently; and remember that health care plan they passed in '96? What a joke -- you could die of old age standing in line. Most hospitals had to close, and few folks can afford to drive to Memphis with gas at $3.85 a gallon, thanks to the big Eco Summit in '96 that tripled the price of fuel to raise money for the new Environmental Police Force. Those are the guys in the green helmets; they carry guns too. I remember how controversial that NAFTA treaty was before they passed it, and now I understand why so many fought it so hard. You see, we don't produce much here anymore, and with a primarily service-oriented economy, we lost our standard of living and are now just like one big underclass. Of course, the government bureaucrats still live on easy street, but nobody says too much about that kind of thing anymore; I mean, after they took over the radio stations and most of the newspaper companies were bought out by the government, the news is mostly world events, and we really can't tell what is happening in the USSNA. All of the last conservative columnists and talk show hosts were imprisoned in late '96; rumor has it some were executed in detention camps out west, but we can't be sure. I remember a small handful of preachers that always tried to warn us about the possibility of all of this happening, but they were gradually railroaded out of the mainline churches for upsetting the people too much. Now, it seems they were right, but they, too, are all gone. We don't go out much anymore; the constant roadblocks and the vehicle searches make just going to the store a frightening experience, for the children especially. The U.N. soldiers are everywhere; you see, after they suspended the Constitution back in '97, the old U.S. Army was merged with the U.N. units, and now we can't tell who the Americans are anymore. I guess it really doesn't matter, they court-martialed most of our troops who resisted the merger, so everyone in blue these days is part of the North American Occupation Force, one way or the other. Many people formed small militia groups in the summer of '98, but it was already too late. They put up one heck of a fight, especially down South, but there just weren't enough of them. You see, when the Brady Bill passed, nobody took it seriously. Then came the Crime Bill of '94. The Patriots tried to sound the alarm back then, but not enough people called their Congressmen ... it passed also. Next was the assault weapons ban. This one had significant opposition, but at last, even the pro-Second Amendment politicians caved in and allowed the bill to pass, helped greatly by the socialist media's lengthy propaganda blitz. By the time enough people understood what was really going on, they had already passed Brady II, which made every house with a gun subject to random government searches. Thousands of homes were assaulted in late '97, and the government forces killed so many private citizens, the population had to make a choice ... disarm or die. Most people then gave up their guns to keep from being killed or imprisoned. I remember that deal back in '93 in Waco, Texas. I didn't want to believe our government was really capable of mass-murder; but, looking back on it, Waco was just a test, to see how much the people would put up with. I guess we failed the test; soon after Waco, they started raiding churches, patriotic meetings, and religious groups all over the country. If only we had listened to those who tried so hard to warn us back then. And you know, all of that New World Order stuff has come true, and I fear it's not over yet. I don't know what we can do, though; all private meetings are outlawed, we have no guns, and folk are too scared to even discuss the new government. I would now give anything to be able to go back ten years, back when we could speak, write, preach, and assemble together for the good of the nation; if only we had gotten involved while we were still free. Well, I better close for now; the night security forces will be making their rounds, and you know I could be beaten and imprisoned for writing an unauthorized letter. I'll get it to the underground postal service when it's safe again. A complacent citizen, if only I had done ... something ... for freedom .... "By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion." Psalm 137:1 ... it doesn't have to end this way ... the choice is ours. We stand for Liberty now. Or we serve under Tyranny! # # # ==================================================================== [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: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 26 Dec 1996 09:57:52 -0800 Pardon me, for expresing my opinion here, Mr. Bohan. >>>>>>> >So what? Ring a ding-ding. > >Thanksgiving is a day someone picked off a calander to throw a communal >feast for no other reason than someone felt like having one. Everybody >at the original thanks giving contributed as much as they could to the >feast and everyone ate as much as their skin could hold. > >Sounds like communism to me. [...] Call it Groundhog Day, as if a hog could live in the ground. [...] Send your children out to beg candy. > >For those of you in Rio Linda . . . . [...] >Maybe if all of us would cut out the carping and quit thinking of the >situation in terms of "they" and "we" we'd solve some of "our" problems. <<<<<<< Pardon me Jim, but the fact of the matter is that, these "kwanza" people are the very same one's who have endevored to reidentify our individual Rights as 'collective rights'. Holidays being what they may, are not instituted to descriminate against those of another persuation - they are meant for all others to celebrate. Kwanza, or kwanzaa - or whatever in its current iteration, is an attempt at isolating others. It has nothing to do with unity, and everything to do with segragation and hatred. I, nor any other who has posted here so far, _have not_ suggested that those who wish to partake in any so-called 'kwanza' celebration - not be allowed to do so. We _have_ though, attempted to identify the elements and politcal persuasions of its supporters. Unlike any of the venerated holidays that are scattered throughout our calendar in the western world, we do not attempt to use them to incite polemics of rage against anyone. Since you seem so averse to criticizing your foes, you might do yourself a favor and read the professors book. Having heard him on the radio, and having heard quotes from the book by Liddy, and having understood just where this so-called holiday is going to lead to, I know what to expect in the future, none of which has anything to do with harmony, ground hogs, candy, 'Rio Linda' (whatever that is), or Thanksgiving. In reference to the other holidays you mentioned, please qualify for the rest of us just where they 'ostracize', segragate, and institutionalize hatred. And one last thing. Africa is a land as varied, and as different unto itself perhaps more so than any other land with the possible exception of Asia. The professsor makes the rank assumption that _all_ peoples of African decent, are willing to celebrate the same 'generic' holiday - how very crass. How very demeaning to lump all the varied peoples of that continent into one identity to the exclusion of all else, such as totally ignoring fundamental characteristics as race, ethos, ethnicity, culture, and belief, and then presume to think that people who are not black are nonpersons. His position is as biased and as biggotted as any I've seen from his quarter. The presumption that all Africans are black, is as about as correct (either politically or realistically), as assuming all American Indians are of one particular tribe. Tunnel vision seems to be the order of the day - for the professor. You may wipe your butt with this rant, but consider that your butt will only become wiser. Better to feed you brain than to have a wise ass. Now, go back to work. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Carl Sagan Tribute Date: 26 Dec 1996 12:24:42 -0600 (CST) I think that several have read more into my statement than I said. Here is a summation of my position vis Carl Sagan - A. He derided the idea that God revealed His will in the Bible B. He rejected the idea of a personal God who interacted with His createion. C. By his own statments he was an atheist d. All of those who reject the God of the Bible/Jesus Christ are destined for the Lake of Fire and eternal torment (Dan 7 and Rev 19-21) E. Carl Sagan is bound for the lake of fire and probably now undergoing his eternal torment. These position does not reveal a condemning attitude or and expression of hatred upon my part, though, Sagan's programs did offend my sensibilities about the truth of the origin of the universe. My position is merely a reflection of my understanding of both Sagan and Scripture. What triggered my response was the statement made by Paul vis Sagan was a STAR that enlightened us. The reference to a Star on Christmans eve in conjunction with one who was an athiest got my juices flowing. By the way, wasn't it Jefferson who thought that you should never trust a man who was an athiest? His thought was that since the athiest only lived for the here and now, there was no supernatural concern abut the hereafter to keep the person honest. Relate that to Sagan and also consider that many fellow scientists were concerned about his imprecise conclusions and observatons, one is entitled to question, "JUST WHAT DID SAGAN TEACH US ANYWAY?" Perhaps we could learn as much from Merlin McDuck, uncle of Donald. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: A Letter from the Future Date: 26 Dec 1996 12:28:28 -0600 (CST) By the way, speaking of the future, I listened with interest to the next president of the USA this morning on Public Radio. Facinating. Hillery Rodham Clinton is being positioned for a run for the Gold (yours and mine) in the next election and she will win. Happy New Year to all of us cornballs Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 26 Dec 1996 13:28:32 -0600 E. J. Totty wrote: > > Pardon me, for expresing my opinion here, Mr. Bohan. When you express intolerent opinions you shouldn't expect all who read them to tolerate them. That is illogic, Mr. Totty. As for as the professor's book goes, for some reason no one seems to want to mention his name. It's Karenga and I've been aware of him since at least the early seventies (if not before) as I lived in LA during the time. Personally, I don't agree with a damn thing he says. That having been said, he has the right to do/say/promote whatever point of view he cares to, my disagreement notwithstanding. Lo and behold, he has the right to do so, your disagreement not withstanding. There is a certain type of personality that proclaims himself to be a "Christian" that I have never understood, inspite of the fact I have more than a few in my own family. Frankly, Ed, I've never put you in this category, maybe I should have. That type of personality has exactly two topics of conversation. Topic Number 1 is a whine because of all people/orgs who seek (whether in reality or only in their mind) to suppress Christianity. Topic Number 2 is all the horrible things that are going to happen to anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with everything they think or say. I do not understand a mindset that demands the world be tolerent of them but believes because of the correctness of their personal philosophy they are required to tolerate no one. Especially when one of the cornerstones of their philosophy is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." > You may wipe your butt with this rant, but consider that your butt > will only become wiser. > Better to feed you brain than to have a wise ass. Depends on what you feed it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ken L. Holder" Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 26 Dec 1996 13:50:55 -0800 At 09:28 PM 12/25/96 -0600, our own Blue-colored Wolf Person wrote: >For those of you in Rio Linda who haven't got the point by now; who >gives a damn what day "they" pick or why "they" choose to celebrate it. >It's "their" business and can't be any stupider than the rationale >behind some of "our" days. > >Maybe if all of us would cut out the carping and quit thinking of the >situation in terms of "they" and "we" we'd solve some of "our" problems. Well jezzzz, Jim! You sayin' we got Busy Bodies here on ROC? "Busy Bodies should be shot," as my ol' pappy used to say. -- Ken Holder kholder@liberty.com Webmaster for L. Neil Smith's Webley Page on the World Wide Web http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/lneil.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: We're doomed Date: 26 Dec 1996 17:36:05 -0500 (EST) A small exercise for the reader: try to figure out who are the communists in the story below. TENNESSEE TRAVELER: 4-H GOES TO SLOVAKIA _The Tennessee Alumnus_, Winter 1997 "Bigger than life." That's how Fay Hochnedel (Knoxville '67) describes her seven-week teaching assignment in Eastern Europe's tiny country of Slovakia. Hochnedel, for 26 years a home economics extension agent in UT's Sevier County Extension Office, and Moe Greenwood, retired planning department director at UT Medical Center in Knoxville, helped youth leaders organize a 4-H program in Tulcik, Slovakia. They were sponsored by VOCA (Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance), a program that matches volunteers with people in emerging countries who need help with agricultural business, agricultural production, or youth development. Hochnedel says one of the biggest challenges was teaching the Slovakians the importance of community involvement. "Slovakia became a democracy in 1989, and has only been a country since 1993. The people have a 50-year heritage of Communism, meaning that jobs and services were provided and there was no incentive to do any better. "Taking a community service program into that country was difficult. We might say, `It would be great if the kids planted flowers in front of the public buldings,' and they would ask, `But who's going to pay them to do that?' The challenge was teaching the concept of doing good for the community without an exchange of money. [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 26 Dec 1996 13:04:29 -0800 Jim, >>>>>>> When you express intolerent opinions you shouldn't expect all who read them to tolerate them. That is illogic, Mr. Totty. <<<<<<< Intolerance? Perhaps, especially when my Rights are under assault, but I nevertheless allow those who would say there piece do so without reservation. Freedom of the press has exposed far more liars than truth tellers. I invite open discourse. The professor is deceitful, and without honor. That in itself invites attack. How's that, you ask? When one promotes a program that purports to be a unifying influence in the community, but in essence is nothing more than an covert attempt at disunion and disruption, and a return to less than honorable relations between diverse peoples, then every exposure possible must, nay - _demands the broadest possible exposure_ of such deceit. The difference between me and the professor (Karenga), is that I will not criticize the truth and attack others simply for telling it. My philosophy is without distinction concerning the belief set of others. I am an indifferentist - for me all religious beliefs are _equally_ valid. I hold none above or below any other. The only things I damand are truth and honesty when dealing with others, and anything less is insincerity - the worst form of corrosion of the intellect. Call me what you may, but I call the shots as I see them. Professor Karenga is deceitful - in the worst way. >>>>>>> I do not understand a mindset that demands the world be tolerent of them but believes because of the correctness of their personal philosophy they are required to tolerate no one. <<<<<<< Tolerance is just fine when those who practice what they believe does _not_ cause others to _conform_ to those beliefs. Quite frankly, Jim, I could care less if whole community of socialist moved in next to me, just so long as they didn'y force to _have to_ live under their beliefs. But that isn't the intent of the professor - Karenga, who's intent is mandatory compliance. Now, who's mindset is intolerant? Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: International Covenant (1 of 2) Date: 27 Dec 1996 00:08:58 -0800 This is the first half of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty to which the United States is a party. [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights The States Parties to the present Covenant, Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person, Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights, Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for and observance of, human rights and freedoms, Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant, Agree upon the following articles: PART I Article 1 1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. 2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence. 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self- Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 1 of 20 PART II Article 2 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant. 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. Article 3 The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant. Article 4 1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin. 2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 2 of 20 3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation. Article 5 1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant. 2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent. PART III Article 6 1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court. 3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases. 5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 3 of 20 6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant. Article 7 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. Article 8 1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited. 2. No one shall be held in servitude. 3. (a) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour (b) Paragraph 3 (a) shall not be held to preclude, in countries where imprisonment with hard labour may be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment by a competent court. (c) For the purpose of this paragraph the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include: (i) Any work or service, not referred to in sub- paragraph (b), normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detention; (ii) Any service of a military character and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognized, any national service required by law of conscientious objectors; (iii) Any service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community; (iv) Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations. Article 9 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 4 of 20 2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. 3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement. 4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful. 5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation. Article 10 1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. 2. (a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons; (b) Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and brought as speedily as possible for adjudication. 3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status. Article 11 No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation. Article 12 1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 5 of 20 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. 3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. 4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. Article 13 An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority. Article 14 1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children. 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him; International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 6 of 20 (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing; (c) To be tried without undue delay; (d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it; (e) To examine, or have examined the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court; (g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. 4. In the case of juvenile persons, the procedure shall be such as will take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation. 5. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. 6. When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him. 7. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country. Article 15 1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 7 of 20 of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby. 2. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed. was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations. Article 16 Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 17 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 18 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. Article 19 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 8 of 20 either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. Article 20 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. Article 21 The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Article 22 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right. 3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International Labour Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or to apply the law in such a manner as to prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that Convention. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 9 of 20 Article 23 1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. 2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized. 3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children. Article 24 1. Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State. 2. Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name. 3. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality. Article 25 Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country. Article 26 All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 10 of 20 ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Universal Declaration of Human Rights Date: 27 Dec 1996 00:21:23 -0800 This is the full text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not including any special reservations made by Our Congress). [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Adopted by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of December 10, 1948) Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, therefore, The General Assembly Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Page 1 of 6 Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of the Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Page 2 of 6 Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11 1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. 2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 13 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 14 1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. 2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 15 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Page 3 of 6 Article 16 1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Article 17 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 21 1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. 2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Page 4 of 6 genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 22 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Article 23 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. 2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. 3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. 4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Article 25 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. 2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Article 26 1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Page 5 of 6 Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. 3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Article 27 1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Article 28 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29 1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of mortality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Page 6 of 6 ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: International Covenant (2 of 2) Date: 27 Dec 1996 00:11:53 -0800 This is the second half of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty to which the United States is a party. [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Article 27 In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language. PART IV Article 28 1. There shall be established a Human Rights Committee (hereafter referred to in the present Covenant as the Committee). It shall consist of eighteen members and shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. 2. The Committee shall be composed of nationals of the States Parties to the present Covenant who shall be persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights, consideration being given to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience. 3. The members of the Committee shall be elected and shall serve in their personal capacity. Article 29 1. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons possessing the qualifications prescribed in article 28 and nominated for the purpose by the States Parties to the present Covenant. 2. Each State Party to the present Covenant may nominate not more than two persons. These persons shall be nationals of the nominating State. 3. A person shall be eligible for renomination. Article 30 1. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of the present Covenant. 2. At least four months before the date of each election to the Committee other than an election to fill a vacancy declared in accordance with article 34, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a written invitation to the States Parties to the present Covenant to submit their nominations for membership of the Committee within three months. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 11 of 20 3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all the persons thus nominated, with an indication of the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties to the present Covenant no later than one month before the date of each election. 4. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at a meeting of the States Parties to the present Covenant convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the Headquarters of the United Nations. At that meeting, for which two thirds of the States Parties to the present Covenant shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those nominees who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting. Article 31 1. The Committee may not include more than one national of the same State. 2. In the election of the Committee, consideration shall be given to equitable geographical distribution of membership and to the representation of the different forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems. Article 32 1. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. However, the terms of nine of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election, the names of these nine members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election, the names of these nine members shall be chosen by lot by the Chairman of the meeting referred to in article 30, paragraph 4. 2. Elections at the expiry of office shall be held in accordance with the preceding articles of this part of the present Covenant. Article 33 1. If, in the unanimous opinion of the other members, a member of the Committee has ceased to carry out his functions for any cause other than absence of a temporary character, the Chairman of the Committee shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall then declare the seat of that member to be vacant. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 12 of 20 2. In the event of the death or the resignation of a member of the Committee, the Chairman shall immediately notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall declare the seat vacant from the date of death or the date on which the resignation takes effect. Article 34 1. When a vacancy is declared in accordance with article 33 and if the term of office of the member to be replaced does not expire within six months of the declaration of the vacancy, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall notify each of the States Parties to the present Covenant, which may within two months submit nominations in accordance with article 29 for the purpose of filling the vacancy. 2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of the persons thus nominated and shall submit it to the States Parties to the present Covenant. The election to fill the vacancy shall then take place in accordance with the relevant provisions of this part of the present Covenant. 3. A member of the Committee elected to fill a vacancy declared in accordance with Article 33 shall hold office for the remainder of the term of the member who vacated the seat on the Committee under the provisions of that article. Article 35 The members of the Committee shall, with the approval of the General Assembly of the United Nations, receive emoluments from United Nations resources on such terms and conditions as the General Assembly may decide, having regard to the importance of the Committee's responsibilities. Article 36 The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under the present Covenant. Article 37 1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee at the Headquarters of the United Nations. 2. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure. 3. The Committee shall normally meet at the Headquarters of the United Nations or at the United Nations Office at Geneva. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 13 of 20 Article 38 Every member of the Committee shall, before taking up his duties, make a solemn declaration in open committee that he will perform his functions impartially and conscientiously. Article 39 1. The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re-elected. 2. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that: (a) Twelve members shall constitute a quorum; (b) Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present. Article 40 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to submit reports on the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognized herein and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights: (a) Within one year of the entry into force of the present Covenant for the States Parties concerned; (b) Thereafter whenever the Committee so requests. 2. All reports shall be submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit them to the Committee for consideration. Reports shall indicate the factors and difficulties, if any, affecting the implementation of the present Covenant. 3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations may, after consultation with the Committee, transmit to the specialized agencies concerned copies of such parts of the reports as may fall within their field of competence. 4. The Committee shall study the reports submitted by the States Parties to the present Covenant. It shall transmit its reports, and such general comments as it may consider appropriate, to the States Parties. The Committee may also transmit to the Economic and Social Council these comments along with the copies of the reports it has received from States Parties to the present Covenant. 5. The States Parties to the present Covenant may submit to the Committee observations on any comments that may be made in accordance with paragraph 4 of this article. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 14 of 20 Article 41 1. A State Party to the present Covenant may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant. Communications under this article may be received and considered only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure: (a) If a State Party to the present Covenant considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions of the present Covenant, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months after the receipt of the communication, the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter, which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, reference to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending, or available in the matter. (b) If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee, by notice given to the Committee and to the other State. (c) The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it only after it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged. (d) The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article. (e) Subject to the provisions of sub-paragraph (c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the present Covenant. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 15 of 20 (f) In any matter referred to it, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in sub- paragraph (b), to supply any relevant information. (g) The States Parties concerned, referred to in sub- paragraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered in the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing. (h) The Committee shall, within twelve months after the date of receipt of notice under sub-paragraph (b), submit a report: (i) If a solution within the terms of sub-paragraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached; (ii) If a solution within the terms of sub-paragraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report. In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned. 2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when ten States Parties to the present Covenant have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned had made a new declaration. Article 42 1. (a) If a matter referred to the Committee in accordance with article 41 is not resolved to the satisfaction of the States Parties concerned, the Committee may, with the prior consent of the States Parties concerned, appoint an ad hoc Conciliation Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). The good offices of the Commission shall be made available to the States Parties concerned with a view to an amicable solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the present Covenant; International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 16 of 20 (b) The Commission shall consist of five persons acceptable to the States Parties concerned. If the States Parties concerned fail to reach agreement within three months on all or part of the composition of the Commission the members of the Commission concerning whom no agreement has been reached shall be elected by secret ballot by a two-thirds majority vote of the Committee from among its members. 2. The members of the Commission shall serve in their personal capacity. They shall not be nationals of the States Parties concerned, or of a State not party to the present Covenant, or of a State Party which has not made a declaration under article 41. 3. The Commission shall elect its own Chairman and adopt its own rules of procedure. 4. The meetings of the Commission shall normally be held at the Headquarters of the United Nations or at the United Nations Office at Geneva. However, they may be held at such other convenient places as the Commission may determine in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the States Parties concerned. 5. The secretariat provided in accordance with article 36 shall also service the commissions appointed under this article. 6. The information received and collated by the Committee shall be made available to the Commission and the Commission may call upon the States Parties concerned to supply any other relevant information. 7. When the Commission has fully considered the matter, but in any event not later than twelve months after having been seized of the matter, it shall submit to the Chairman of the Committee a report for communication to the States Parties concerned: (a) If the Commission is unable to complete its consideration of the matter within twelve months, it shall confine its report to a brief statement of the status of its consideration of the matter; (b) If an amicable solution to the matter on the basis of respect for human rights as recognized in the present Covenant is reached, the Commission shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached; (c) If a solution within the terms of sub-paragraph (b) is not reached, the Commission's report shall embody its findings on all questions of fact relevant to the issues between the States Parties concerned, and its views on the possibilities of an amicable solution of the matter. This report shall also contain the written submissions and a record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned; International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 17 of 20 (d) If the Commission's report is submitted under sub- paragraph (c), the States Parties concerned shall, within three months of the receipt of the report, notify the Chairman of the Committee whether or not they accept the contents of the report of the Commission. 8. The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the responsibilities of the Committee under article 41. 9. The States Parties concerned shall share equally all the expenses of the members of the Commission in accordance with estimates to be provided by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 10. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall be empowered to pay the expenses of the members of the Commission, if necessary, before reimbursement by the States Parties concerned, in accordance with paragraph 9 of this article. Article 43 The members of the Committee, and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 42, shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on mission for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Article 44 The provisions for the implementation of the present Covenant shall apply without prejudice to the procedures prescribed in the field of human rights by or under the constituent instruments and the conventions of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies and shall not prevent the States Parties to the present Covenant from having recourse to other procedures for settling a dispute in accordance with general or special international agreements in force between them. Article 45 The Committee shall submit to the General Assembly of the United Nations, through the Economic and Social Council, an annual report on its activities. PART V Article 46 Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and of the constitutions of the specialized agencies which define the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 18 of 20 respective responsibilities of the various organs of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies in regard to the matters dealt with in the present Covenant. Article 47 Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources. PART VI Article 48 1. The present Covenant is open for signature by any State Member of the United Nations or member of any of its specialized agencies, by any State Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State which has been invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a party to the present Covenant. 2. The present Covenant is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 3. The present Covenant shall be open to accession by any State referred to in paragraph 1 of this article. 4. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 5. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States which have signed this Covenant or acceded to it of the deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession. Article 49 1. The present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession. 2. For each State ratifying the present Covenant or acceding to it after the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession, the present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or instrument of accession. Article 50 The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 19 of 20 Article 51 1. Any State Party to the present Covenant may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall thereupon communicate any proposed amendments to the States Parties to the present Covenant with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposals. In the event that at least one third of the States Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations for approval. 2. Amendments shall come into force when they have been approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and accepted by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties to the present Covenant in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. 3. When amendments come into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of the present Covenant and any earlier amendment which they have accepted. Article 52 Irrespective of the notifications made under article 48, paragraph 5, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States referred to in paragraph 1 of the same article of the following particulars: (a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under article 48; (b) The date of the entry into force of the present Covenant under article 49 and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 51. Article 53 1. The present Covenant, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations. 2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of the present Covenant to all States referred to in article 48. IN FAITH WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present Covenant, opened for signature at New York, on the nineteenth day of December, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-six. International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights: Page 20 of 20 ==================================================================== [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: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 26 Dec 1996 20:48:12 -0600 E. J. Totty wrote: > > I am an indifferentist - for me all religious beliefs are _equally_ > valid. I hold none above or below any other. On this point we agree. The tribal religions of an African tribe make exactly as much sense to me as does RCism, etc., though I'm surprised to find you feel that way. One just costs it's adherents a little more. However I disagree that a karanga or a sharpton or a farrakan are deceitful. Seems to me they are very up front about what they want. I have much more respect for any of them than I do for a Sarah Brady, a Bill Clinton, a Charles Schumer, et ux, who continuously lie to conceal their real agenda. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 26 Dec 1996 20:00:39 PST On Dec 26, Howlin' Blue wrote: >E. J. Totty wrote: >> >> I am an indifferentist - for me all religious beliefs are _equally_ >> valid. I hold none above or below any other. > >On this point we agree. The tribal religions of an African tribe make >exactly as much sense to me as does RCism, etc., though I'm surprised to >find you feel that way. One just costs it's adherents a little more. That's part of the point though, there is no African or other religion that "Kwanza" came from. Ask someone from Africa what "Kwanza" is and they won't know what you're talking about. The name does bear some similarity to some Angolan currency, but that's it, it's a total, (American Socialist), invention. >However I disagree that a karanga or a sharpton or a farrakan are >deceitful. Seems to me they are very up front about what they want. I >have much more respect for any of them than I do for a Sarah Brady, a >Bill Clinton, a Charles Schumer, et ux, who continuously lie to conceal >their real agenda. I rate them as equally repulsive. If an (unbeknownst) pedophile says he's going to screw your three year old granddaughter, you might not believe it, thinking he's crazy or something, but when he does, are you going to respect him in the morning? Honesty about evil intent is no vurtue. -- 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: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd) (:-{)>) Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 90 Date: 26 Dec 1996 23:42:58 -0500 >Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 13:59:42 -0600 (CST) >Reply-To: bigred@SHOUT.NET >Sender: owner-CN-L@cornell.edu >From: Brian Redman >To: Conspiracy Nation >Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 90 >X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) >X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN > >Thanks to all paid subscribers, without whose >support this effort would not be possible. > > > Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 9 Num. 90 > ====================================== > ("Quid coniuratio est?") > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > >TEN PREDICTIONS >=============== > >1.) The stock market will continue to go up, up, up. Driving >this will be the simple fact that the rich are getting richer. >As the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, this will be >reflected in the rich man's haven for funds, Wall Street. >Corporate yes-man Bill Clinton, totally at the mercy of the >corporados (due to a Fibber McGee closet full of skeletons) will >dance to their tune. Look for the yet relatively untapped >privatization bonanza (a la Mexico) to pump New York's financial >machine chock full of money to play with. How about privatizing >social security, huh? Think how much mad money that will give >Wall Street. > Of course, Wall Street is filled with shady characters. This >is one factor working against a rise in the stock market. Stock >market associates are among the shiftiest looking persons >imaginable... such as Alan Greenspan, for example. What's that >you say? Alan Greenspan is not associated with the stock market? >*Oh* *yeah*?? > >2.) Hillary Clinton will *not* be indicted in 1997. Kenneth >Starr has a nice job; do you think he'll want to take on the >extra burden of real work by indicting someone big like Hillary? >If he did, he'd have to take all kinds of heat and he'd have to >do the real work of prosecution. Why not just shuffle papers, >form committees to "look into the matter," and periodically send >out mysterious "insiders" to whisper in the ears of too-trusting >guerrilla journalists? Even this editor has been contacted by >one of these mysterious fellows, who urged a prompt secret >meeting at the Indiana border. "Why not just tell me over the >phone?" I asked. "Because you have the most tapped phone in >Champaign, Illinois," was the breathless reply. If I had gone to >the Indiana border meeting and received the so-called "sensitive >data," no doubt it would have *sotto* *voce* informed me that >lazybones Starr was about to get off his ass and *do* something. >Perhaps this "sensitive data" would have been handed to me by a >*mysterious* *stranger*, wearing a patch over one eye and a >trenchcoat! Hoo boy, Conspiracy Nation, have I got a hot story >for you! > Would the DEA actually risk winning the "War on Drugs" by >doing something like going after the big bankers? Hey, DEA is >not stupid. If they ever won the "War on Drugs" they'd be out of >a job. Will Kenneth Starr actually risk losing his present >peaceful past-time by really doing anything? Look for Starr to >finally release his "Special Report" (a la Iran-Contra's Walsh) >right about the year 2000. In it he will use phrases such as >"serious questions" and "grave concerns." > >3.) Hillary Clinton will lose weight and resemble the >good-looking chick she was in 1992. Until now she has been >burdened with grief and sorrow over the death of her beloved >Vince Foster. Her grief had expressed itself by overeating, but >now the season of mourning has ended. And who can blame Hillary >for an affair with Vince Foster? Look at the guy she's married >to! Go ahead, Hillary, lose some weight and even find true love >once more! Go get 'em, Hillary! > >4.) The American public will, by and large, continue to out-do >the ancient Romans in their gladiator worship. They will mostly >sit on the couch, eat, and watch endless football, baseball and >basketball on television. As long as their bellys are full, hey, >what do they care!? "Give them bread and circuses," nod the >Caesars of Washington, knowingly. > >5.) There will be a major "terrorist" event, such as the >Oklahoma bombing. The corpse of the American body politic will >jump off its couch, galvanized, and twitch about, exclaiming that >it is "angry" and "concerned" and "something must be done." A >week later, the galvanized corpse will have settled back on the >sofa for more rah-rah endless sports entertainments. > >6.) The major "news" media will continue to prop up Bill >Clinton, unless they are signalled to do otherwise by their >corporate owners. If Bill Clinton should attempt to do something >honest and decent, such as in any way favoring the interest of >working stiffs, look for the maajor "news" networks to suddenly >"discover" that there is something strange about the death of >Vince Foster. Get the message, Bill? Do like we tell you, or >else we'll actually report on you. > >7.) Taxes will go up, but in hidden ways. Look for "safety >taxes," such as implemented by Illinois Governor Jim Edgar. >"Little Jim" raised fines for speeding from $75 to $150 >overnight. It's not that he's raised your taxes, you see. It's >just that he is mightily concerned about your safety. > >8.) The Pope, a.k.a. The Potato, will die in 1997. This Pope >is no longer young and sexy and must go. The Catholic Church >needs revenue enhancers, a.k.a. converts, and the current Potato >is no longer fulfilling super-salesman quotas for the Church. He >will not necessarily be assassinated exactly, but subtle >maneuvers will hasten his demise -- such as, not top-notch care >from his physicians or not the best food from his cooks. With >his dying breath, he will piously forgive Conspiracy Nation for >its "sins." The new Pope will get rid of that awful, tacky >"Pope-mobile," the auto used by the present Potato, and will >replace it with something a little more hep. > >9.) Chicago will boom economically. With Bill Daley of the >infamous Chicago Daley political dynasty as Commerce Secretary, >Chicago politics has landed in that "Rome on the Potomac," >Washington, D.C. You remember all of Sherman Skolnick's reports >on Chicago politics? Well if you thought corruption under Ron >Brown was bad, wait until you see what Ron Brown II can do. >First Arkansas machine politics came to that little town that >rules the world; now, look out: the Chicago machine has arrived >in Washington, D.C. > >10.) Sherman Skolnick will continue to pursue stories on Jay >Rockefeller, a harmless Senator from West Virginia who has become >Skolnick's Professor Moriarty. > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > > "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. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 26 Dec 1996 23:15:40 -0600 Bill Vance wrote: > > Ask someone from Africa what "Kwanza" is and they won't > know what you're talking about. Most American blacks don't give a damn about it, either, which is why there were all those Hallmark cards on the shelves in the first place. > If an (unbeknownst) pedophile says he's > going to screw your three year old granddaughter, you might not believe it, > thinking he's crazy or something, but when he does, are you going to > respect him in the morning? Honesty about evil intent is no vurtue. Yes there is. If a person tells me they're going to screw my three year old granddaughter (if I had one), and I believe them, my granddaughter will be completely and totally safe from that individual. Trust me on this one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: just wondering Date: 27 Dec 1996 00:44:51 -0500 (EST) ...why convicted felon Jim Guy Tucker could get himself a new liver for a Christmas present whilst convicted felon James Earl Ray will have to tough it out with his defective old one. bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gdoty@earthlink.net (Greg Doty) Subject: Re: Technology that will rock the world (?) Date: 26 Dec 1996 22:07:20 -0800 (PST) > >I went to two of Dennis Lee's seminars; >he seems to be very adept at selling >commercial paper, i.e., dealer contracts, >but not so adept at delivering the goods, >i.e., production-line equipment. But, >that was many months ago. The situation >may have changed. > >/s/ Paul Mitchell > The situation hasn't changed much yet. I have a dealer friend who has had several items on order (pre-paid) for almost a year, and no promises of deliveries yet. One of the items, the jewler size welder is being manufactured in China. Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net) Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 26 Dec 1996 23:21:51 -0700 Folks Enough on this Kwanza stuff. Let people celebrate whatever they want. National Socialist Radio (NPR) had a bit on this and it seems to be a non-religious cultural "African-American Holiday" made for modern day blacks to celebrate. Fine by me. My family celebrates Santa Lucia day (somewhat). So what? Let each celebrate what he wants. Kwanza is not some NWO plot. Let's put this one to rest. thanks Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: International Covenant (1 of 2) Date: 26 Dec 1996 21:46:24 PST On Dec 27, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >This is the first half of the International Covenant on Civil and >Political Rights, a treaty to which the United States is a party. [snip] Paul, what Force Of Law does this have at the Local level? For instance, Washington State has a Law forbidding Para-Military Organizations. This has been interpreted to mean no Militia's. Could they then look to UN protection without UN Registration by means of forming a Trade Union like, "The Brotherhood of Militiamen and HomeGuardsmen", as a means of Legally forming up a Militia? There are some parts I'm not so enamoured of, but there are also some interesting possibilities, assuming they could be stuffed down some Court or others throat. -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Supreme Law School Debuts Date: 27 Dec 1996 05:59:54 -0800 [This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] For Immediate Release December 27, 1996 Supreme Law Firm Announces Internet-based Supreme Law School by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved (December 1996) Payson, Arizona. The founder of a new legal cooperative -- the Supreme Law Firm -- today announced the start of their Supreme Law School, an electronic curriculum of recent developments in American constitutional law, and its applications to current state and federal court cases. Paul Mitchell, a systems development consultant for 25 years and Counselor at Law, will soon enter his eighth year of intensive research and developments in renewed systems of law, based upon the Constitution for the United States of America and its lawful amendments ("U.S. Constitution"). The curriculum of the Supreme Law School will pivot upon the Supremacy Clause, a provision in the U.S. Constitution which renders all federal laws, treaties, and the constitution itself, the supreme Law of the Land. This supreme law is so important, that the various constitutions of the several states of the Union all recognize the U.S. Constitution as the superior guiding principle to guarantee freedom to Americans, forever. Membership in the Supreme Law School requires an Internet computer and pre-paid subscriptions on a discounted schedule. A pre-paid subscription for 1 month is $10; 3 months is $25; 6 months is $45; 12 months is $85. Current subscribers earn a one dollar credit for each subscriber-month they sponsor in the Supreme Law School. If a current subscriber joins, and then sponsors 25 other subscribers who pre-pay for one month, the sponsor can either apply the $25 credit to future subscriptions, or receive a cash rebate, paid in blank U.S. Postal Money Orders, to any mailing location on the planet. The Supreme Law School has chosen to do all of its business with the U.S. Postal Service, since the USPS is rooted in supreme law authority. Subscribers are required to have an Internet computer with electronic mail ("email") software compatible with the Eudora email package, published by the Eudora Division of QUALCOMM Incorporated, 6455 Lusk Blvd., San Diego, California state. Information Week magazine wrote that "Eudora Pro 3.0 ... sets a new standard for e-mail client flexibility and ease of use." Network Computing magazine wrote that "Eudora Pro 3.0 will continue to dominate the mail client niche of network computing." Email software is compatible with Eudora if it can detect file transmit codes automatically (BinHex, MIME, Uuencode). Users can visit the Eudora Web site at www.eudora.com/pcw612 to download Eudora Pro 3.0 and use it FREE for 30 days. Email inquiries should be directed to , or just call telephone 1-800-2-EUDORA, extension 86090, and ask for sales or tech support. --------------------------cut here------------------------------- Registration Form Supreme Law School: Internet Group Name: ___________________________________________________________ USPS address c/o ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Email address: ________________________________________________ Comments etc. ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Subscription Period (check one with "X"): 1 month [ ] @ $10.00 (sponsor credit: $1) 3 months [ ] @ $25.00 (sponsor credit: $3) 6 months [ ] @ $45.00 (sponsor credit: $6) 12 months [ ] @ $85.00 (sponsor credit: $12) Sponsor's name: _________________________________________________ (leave blank if NONE) Sponsor's email address: ________________________________________ Subscriber Agreement The Undersigned ("Subscriber") honors all copy rights and hereby agrees to refrain at all times from making, or forwarding, electronic copies of Supreme Law School email to any other computer users, unless those users are already current subscribers to the Supreme Law School: Internet Group. The sole exception applies to this press release and subscription form. Subscriber agrees to pay renewal fees without notice, and consents to automatic expiration, if renewal fees are not paid in advance of the current expiration date. Subscriber agrees to pay all subscription fees in blank U.S. Postal Money Orders, and a 50% handling penalty for submitting all other forms of payment. Subscriber agrees to direct all payments, insured as needed, to: Supreme Law School: Internet Group Attention: Subscriber Services c/o 2509 North Campbell Ave., #1776 Tucson, Arizona state Postal Zone 85719/tdc until further notice. We will see you on the Internet! mm dd yy Signature: _______________________________ Date:_____/_____/_____ # # # ==================================================================== [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: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 27 Dec 1996 06:21:43 -0600 (CST) Chad says this one is harmless. Well, he is wrong. He can believe what NPR says if he wants to, but they have an agenda to sell. When it comes to NPR a huge grain of salt is always useful. An example of the "wrongness" of Kwanzaa appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star just before Christmas. It pictured a black lady dressed in an African dress speaking to a public school class of first graders. The class was primarily white. It appears to me they are trying to sell some social gobbledygook. Just imagine someone trying to explain Jesus Christ and the Cross to the same class. No, I stand with those who oppose Kwanzaa. I believe such nonsense is a social threat. By the Way, why oll of this attempt at censorship? I thought that ROC was established for the free exchange of ideas. It seems at least as objectionable to me to stifle discussion as it ever could be to attack a phony holiday. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 27 Dec 1996 09:20:29 -0500 (EST) On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net wrote: > Folks > > Enough on this Kwanza stuff. Let people celebrate whatever they want. > National Socialist Radio (NPR) had a bit on this ... Speaking of National Pravda Radio, did anybody hear the piece yesterday about the Mexican Attorney General's recent comments? Seems that we want to assign armed drug cops to work in Mexico. The Mexicans said that's fine, as long as they can station their cops - armed - up here. Given the globalistas we have in D.C., I figure it will probably happen eventually. bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 27 Dec 1996 08:54:54 -0600 Brad Dolan wrote: > > Speaking of National Pravda Radio, did anybody hear the piece yesterday > about the Mexican Attorney General's recent comments? Seems that we want > to assign armed drug cops to work in Mexico. The Mexicans said that's > fine, as long as they can station their cops - armed - up here. Given the > globalistas we have in D.C., I figure it will probably happen eventually. This is funny. We could use the Mexican cops as immigration agents. Rent them from mexico. No surprise, though, other than that it's mexico doing the demanding. As long as we've been sending ours all over the globe we had to run into that attitude sooner or later. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: International Covenant (1 of 2) Date: 27 Dec 1996 11:23:07 -0600 At 12:08 AM 12/27/96 -0800, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >This is the first half of the International Covenant on Civil and >Political Rights, a treaty to which the United States is a party. . . . > Article 15 >1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on >account of any act or omission which did not constitute a >criminal offence, under national or international law, at the >time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be >imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the >criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission >of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a >lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby. > >2. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and >punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the >time when it was committed. was criminal according to the >general principles of law recognized by the community of nations. Hmm, another avenue of attack on the misdomeaner gun violence law? This *is* a treaty, and this provision at least, does not conflict with the Constitution, so therefore it *is* the supreme law of the land. Of course it will also invalidate "felon in possesion" crimes for which the felony in question was commited before that law was adopted (1968?). The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: International Covenant (1 of 2) Date: 27 Dec 1996 11:35:43 -0600 At 09:46 PM 12/26/96 PST, roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) wrote: >On Dec 27, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: > >>This is the first half of the International Covenant on Civil and >>Political Rights, a treaty to which the United States is a party. > >[snip] > >Paul, what Force Of Law does this have at the Local level? > >For instance, Washington State has a Law forbidding Para-Military >Organizations. This has been interpreted to mean no Militia's. Could they >then look to UN protection without UN Registration by means of forming a >Trade Union like, "The Brotherhood of Militiamen and HomeGuardsmen", as a >means of Legally forming up a Militia? > >There are some parts I'm not so enamoured of, but there are also some >interesting possibilities, assuming they could be stuffed down some Court or >others throat. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. --- IOW, as long as a treaty is made "under the authority of the United States", and does not Conflict with the Constitution, it overides state and local laws as well as the Constitutions of the several states. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Just following the Leader? Date: 27 Dec 1996 11:47:53 -0600 via Mercury News 10:39 AM ET 12/26/96 U.S. AWACS commander retires under cloud WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The former commander of AWACS planes will be allowed to retire at a lower rank after being disciplined for ``inappropriate personal conduct'' involving a female subordinate, the Air Force said Thursday. The Air Force said Brig. Gen. Robert T. Newell requested retirement and will leave the service at the lower rank of colonel, ending an investigation into his conduct by the Air Force Inspector General's office. Officials at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia said Newell was under investigation for twice embracing a female subordinate while unsuccessfully seeking a relationship. He also was alleged to have been professionally derelict in maintaining his flight records. The officials declined to elaborate for legal reasons. In October, Gen. Richard E. Hawley, the Air Combat Command commander at Langley, relieved Newell of command of the 52nd Air Control Wing at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma, citing ''inappropriate personal conduct.'' Newell had taken command of the wing, which consists of the nation's Airborne Warning and Control System, only a month earlier. Other branches of the military have been hit with scandals involving sexual harassment of lower-ranking members of the service, including the Army, which has been investigating a series of incidents at a base in Aberdeen, Md.. ---- Just following the example set by his Commander in Chief? Should we not "feel his pain"? The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wootan@dmi.net Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 27 Dec 1996 10:09:12 -0800 Well now, what is ROC coming too folks? NPR is now the measure by which we will deem a subject final? An agenda is an agenda! And that is final to me! I started this vein, and I did so mearly to point out that an American institution, Hallmark, is promoting a socialist agenda while trying to help squash Christianity. I never said they didn't have a right to do so. I simply pointed out the facts. It is up to us to support their efforts or distance ourselves from that sort of thinking. Those of you who wish to accept the statements of NPR and stand with those who whould support splitting the US into factions, or to stand with the founders of this nation in trying to hold a unity. That is MY agenda. If Queezy Perfumy or our mathmatical genious Farakan want to celebrate Stalin's birthday quietly in their own homes, it is none of my business. If they want to take it to public schools in the USA, it IS my business. How soon we all seem to forget. "IF it saves just one life, it is worth it." This IS another camels nose under the tent. Make no misteak. Those on the list who are so openly opposed to the celebration of Christ were the first to jump in opposed to any criticism of kwanza. Yet, we are all benificiaries of a once great nation that WAS based on the unity of Judeo/Christian teachings, NOT the devisivness of socialist game playing. Chad is right in one respect. This is such an easy point to see that it merits no further discussion. I'm out of it. Jerry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: outrageious / incredible / judicial illigitimacy Date: 27 Dec 1996 12:20:06 PST The Los Angeles Times has one of the most amazing / outrageous stories that I have seen in a long time ......and it certainly relates to the present illigitimacy / incompetency of most judges...... The WWW address of the LA TIMES is WWW.LATIMES.COM ***Saga of Tennessee Judge Fuels Legal Loophole Fight Law: Appellate ruling frees jurist imprisoned for sexual assaults. High-stakes case has advanced to Supreme Court. By DAVID G. SAVAGE, Times Staff Writer This is a very very long newspaper article and I am only going to include enough to whet your curiousity enough to get the whole story. This is incredible DYERSBURG, TENN.--The saga of Tennessee Judge David Lanier is almost too bad to be true. The son of the county Democratic political boss, Lanier had a penchant both for accumulating power and for sexually assaulting women who came to his chambers. With his brother as county prosecutor, the judge apparently believed the law could not touch him. He had not counted on the federal Ku Klux Klan Act, which was enacted 122 years ago to give federal officials authority to prosecute Southern sheriffs after the Civil War and has been widely used since then to prosecute local officials for all variety of misdeeds when local authorities would not do so. [ clip a lot ] Last January, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati threw out the case against him and ordered him freed. Why? Because, the court held, there is no "general constitutional right to be free of sexual assault" by public officials. [ clip several thousand words ] Supporting the government, lawyers for the Southern Poverty Law Center and the California Women's Law Center maintain that, unless the justices reverse the appeals court opinion, those who are raped or sexually assaulted by powerful local officials could be left with no legal protection. "What's shocking about this opinion is that they <<<<<<<<<<<< say beating up someone violates a constitutional <<<<<<<<<<<< right but raping someone doesn't," said Newport <<<<<<<<<<<< Beach, Calif., attorney Mary-Christine Sungaila, who filed the brief for the poverty law center. Archie plans to attend the Supreme Court hearing but Wallace and Sanders said that they will stay home in Dyersburg. They have already been through too many court hearings in the Lanier case over the last five years, they said. "It's sad to say, but I don't have much faith in the judicial system," said Wallace, reflecting on the case last week. She paused and amended her thought. "But I do have confidence in the Supreme Court." ===== Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fritz Sands Subject: RE: Kwanza Date: 27 Dec 1996 16:07:12 -0800 >---------- >From: wootan@dmi.net[SMTP:wootan@dmi.net] >Sent: Friday, December 27, 1996 10:09 AM >To: roc@xmission.com >Subject: Re: Kwanza > >I started this vein, and I did so mearly to point out that an American >institution, Hallmark, is promoting a socialist agenda while trying to help >squash Christianity. I never said they didn't have a right to do so. I simply pointed out the facts. Um, when were you trying to get Christmas cards with the message you wanted? If on December 15th or so, have you considered the possibility that they were, well, sold out? And perhaps they had Kwanza cards because no-one bought the things? >How soon we all seem to forget. "IF it saves just one life, it is worth it." > This IS another camels nose under the tent. Make no misteak. Those on the >list who are so openly opposed to the celebration of Christ were the first to >jump in opposed to any criticism of kwanza. Yet, we are all benificiaries of >a once great nation that WAS based on the unity of Judeo/Christian teachings, NOT the devisivness of socialist game playing. The true irony, of course, is that the holiday of Christmas is as political and artificial as Kwanza. There is absolutely NO evidence that Yeshua ben Yosef was born near the Winter Solstice, and some evidence that he wasn't. Early Christians piggybacked the celebration onto Solstice celebrations just as the Kwanza creators piggybacked it onto Christmas. Happy Yule, everyone. May the growth of the new year's Sun warm all of our lives. > Fritz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: just wondering Date: 27 Dec 1996 11:41:37 -0800 At 00:44 -0500 12/27/96, Brad Dolan wrote: >...why convicted felon Jim Guy Tucker could get himself a new liver for a >Christmas present whilst convicted felon James Earl Ray will have to tough >it out with his defective old one. > >bd Brad, Money talks, bullshit walks. Any further questions? Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 27 Dec 1996 12:05:29 -0800 Jim, >>>>>>> This is funny. We could use the Mexican cops as immigration agents. Rent them from mexico. [...] . . . we had to run into that attitude sooner or later. <<<<<<< Agreed. Actually, a cooperative agreement could work out, as long as the 'exchange cops' got a health _mandatory_ course in U.S. Constitutional Law, and an understanding of our Bill of Rights. Lacking that, we will probably see a bit of abuse, with the department concerned making all kinds of excuses for the probable abuses. I wonder what their response would be to the question: "Do you have a warrant?". Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net) Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 27 Dec 1996 17:57:07 -0700 Jerry W. said: >Well now, what is ROC coming too folks? > >NPR is now the measure by which we will deem a subject final? The subject was deemed final because it is off topic. Discussing people's personal interpretations/paranoias about Kwanza has nothing to do with ACTION to Restore our Constitution. ROC is not supposed to be alt.conspiracy, Conspiracy Nation, alt.religion.christian, or any other discussion place. It is supposed to be about ACTION -- ideas, planning, coordination, follow through. The NPR comment was secondary to the post. BTW: NPR does a good job at reporting information. They do a bad job at reporting the information in an objective way. The facts they give are usually OK (not always) but they definitely provide a SPIN to it -- usually an offbase spin. Regarding Kwanza, the story provided a lot of basic information about Kwanza that would be hard to refute. No one who has posted has yet to provide one solid piece of evidence (through reason, logic, and facts) that Kwanza is some sort of political agenda being pushed on us all that is anti Constitution. Mucho speculation and paranoia is all that has been presented. > >An agenda is an agenda! And that is final to me! > >I started this vein, and I did so mearly to point out that an American >institution, Hallmark, is promoting a socialist agenda while trying to help >squash Christianity. The problem is, you gave no evidence. You merely observed that your local Hallmark store had no Christmas cards (of a Christian nature) left and that they did have Kwanza cards. That is not evidence. > I never said they didn't have a right to do so. I >simply pointed out the facts. It is up to us to support their efforts or >distance ourselves from that sort of thinking. Those of you who wish to >accept the statements of NPR and stand with those who whould support splitting >the US into factions, or to stand with the founders of this nation in trying >to hold a unity. Bashing Kwanza is trying to hold our nation in unity? > >That is MY agenda. > >If Queezy Perfumy or our mathmatical genious Farakan want to celebrate >Stalin's birthday quietly in their own homes, it is none of my business. If >they want to take it to public schools in the USA, it IS my business. When I was in public school, we talked about Hanakuh when the time came around and we talked about Christmas when that time came around (this was in the mid 70s). If the stuff talked about in the public schools on the subject of Kwanza was like the NPR story, then we have nothing to fear. If they start to try and push a national holiday then maybe we should get worried. (The question on whether there should even be public schools is another topic.) > >How soon we all seem to forget. "IF it saves just one life, it is worth it." > This IS another camels nose under the tent. Make no misteak. Those on the >list who are so openly opposed to the celebration of Christ were the first to >jump in opposed to any criticism of kwanza. I am in no way opposed to the celebration of Christmas as Christs "Birthday" and as a Christian celebration. That is the very way I celebrate Christmas. But if American blacks want to celebrate Kwanza that is fine by me. > Yet, we are all benificiaries of >a once great nation that WAS based on the unity of Judeo/Christian teachings, >NOT the devisivness of socialist game playing. I'd like to see concrete proof (through reason, logic, factual evidence, etc -- not paranoid conjecture) that Kwanza is Socialist game playing. best Chad > >Chad is right in one respect. This is such an easy point to see that it >merits no further discussion. I'm out of it. > >Jerry ------------------------- 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: Liberty or Death Subject: More SS Tactics... Date: 27 Dec 1996 17:02:17 -0800 >Exegesis Update A Forum Encouraging Moral Excellence >Friday, December 27, 1996 Published Worldwide from Washington >********************************************************************* > > A Happy New Year To All Our Readers >********************************************************************* > > > "God Will Hold You To Account, Mr. President." > > Just last week, Matthew Schenck, the teenage son of our good >friend, Reverend Robert Schenck, General Secretary to the National Clergy >Council, was lamenting that nothing exciting ever seemed to happen. That >was then. This is now. On Christmas Eve, your editor invited a small >group of friends, including the Schenck family, to a service at >Washington's National Cathedral, which was also attended by the President >and his family. The service provided a rare opportunity to share a few >words with the Churchgoer-in-Chief, and as we made our way up to communion, >several people offered him Christmas greetings. Concerned for the >President's spiritual well-being, Reverend Schenck's Christmas gift was in >the form of eight well-chosen words. In a scriptural admonition referring >to the President's veto of the partial-birth abortion ban, he said quietly >and respectfully: "God will hold you to account, Mr. President." > > The President appeared shocked at hearing this truth and activated >his eager Secret Service. As the choir made their way down the center >aisle singing "What Child Is This", the Reverend was accosted and prevented >from leaving the Cathedral. One Secret Service agent reached inside the >minister's jacket, pulled out his wallet and started rifling through it in >a 15-minute spectacle which left eyewitnesses, including your editor, >wondering whether they had been suddenly transported not to Bethlehem but >to Beijing. The Secret Service apparently observe no boundaries once they >decide, in their own unique interpretation of reality, that the President's >life is threatened. By the time we left the Cathedral, the Reverend's >Drivers License had not been returned, and out on Wisconsin Avenue, eight >members of the Secret Service, having taken a shortcut, blocked the >sidewalk in a tactic your editor had not seen since a 1981 visit to Moscow. > > This was neither Beijing nor Moscow but Washington, Capital of the >Free World, yet these actions were those of a paranoid regime in an >advanced stage of terminal decay, reminiscent of the final days of the >Soviet Union. If the President feels threatened by God's word, it is not >because his life is under threat, but because his Eternal Life is under >threat, and that is beyond the jurisdiction even of the Secret Service. > > The White House refused to acknowledge that these events had taken >place. Would they say that planting three rows of black people immediately >behind the President was a coincidence? It is an insult to anyone to be >used as a stage prop. It has often been reported that President Clinton is >a showman who lacks substance. These events witnessed with our own eyes >support that theory and also illustrate his ruthlessness. If this was his >reaction to a scripture, can one imagine what he does to someone who really >threatens his political or physical life? The Reverend was right: in His >own perfect time, God will hold Bill Clinton, and all of us, to account for >what we do and for what we fail to do. Steve Myers - Editor > >************************************************************************* The National Clergy Council ________________________________________________________ 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 900, Washington DC 20004 Telephone (202) 434 8221 Statement By The Reverend Robert Schenck, General Secretary to the National Clergy Council Friday, December 27, 1996 The Secret Service have today described their actions in accosting and detaining me during a Christmas Eve service at Washington National Cathedral as "appropriate". I beg to differ. President Clinton describes himself as a Christian and certainly enjoys being seen frequently with a Bible in his hand. The Scriptures tell us that: "If someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently" (Galatians 6: 1). That is precisely what I was doing. Reminding the President that he is accountable to God is nothing more nor less than the truth. Indeed, as has been pointed out in the media, the Pope, Mother Teresa and Billy Graham have rebuked the Presisdent for his actions. Would the Secret Service treat them in the same way as they treated me? The Secret Service have no business interfering in matters between two brothers in Christ, especially inside a church and during a service, assuming that President Clinton is sincere about his Christian faith. As Exegesis pointed out in their Update of today's date: " If the President feels threatened by God's word, it is not because his life is under threat, but because his Eternal Life is under threat, and that is beyond the jurisdiction even of the Secret Service." -- 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: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net) Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 27 Dec 1996 18:09:35 -0700 Jerry W. said: >I started this vein, and I did so mearly to point out that an American >institution, Hallmark, is promoting a socialist agenda while trying to help >squash Christianity. Just FYI: This weeks US News and World Report has a little sidebar on Kwanzaa. P. 17 Two interesting things: Kwanzaa originally meant "first fruits" in Swahili. Hallmark produces 11 Kwanzaa designs, 3000 Christmas designs 100 Hanuka designs for cards. Chad ------------------------- Live Free or Die ! --------------------------- Chad Leigh | When Guns are Outlawed, Criminals Win! Pengar Enterprises, Inc -- Home of The Electronic GunShop (sm) http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop mailto:gunshop@pengar.com http://www.xmission.com/~pengar/gunshop/egs_text.html for text interface Ask me about it! Classifeds and Commercial Ads & free Firearms and Activism Info --------------------$4/month commercial WWW space!!!-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 27 Dec 1996 19:38:42 -0600 E. J. Totty wrote: > > I wonder what their response would be to the question: "Do you have > a warrant?". > > Ed Only thing I can tell you is if one ever pops me before I submit to the cuffs I'm going to ask to see his green card. He better have one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk Subject: Re: More SS Tactics... Date: 27 Dec 1996 18:35:52 -0800 (PST) The one thing that amazes me more then the abuses of power in the national government, is the surprise that people show when they trigger it. Saying anything other then a pleasant how do you do to the commander in chief is asking for imediate free federal housing. Does anyone on these lists really believe that President Clinton -wants- our spiritual advice?? I'm sorry if my reaction seems harsh, and more so that this man was detained. But I'm very glad he wasnt physically abused and glad that those around him were probably unaware of the heightened alertness of the (undoubtedly) scores of agents in the area. Real assasins, who are a threat to the C in C, unfortunately often cloak their pscyhoses in pseudo spiritual foo for all. It's not unpredictable that real scripture would be mistaken for something like that IMHO. Boyd (the opinions I express are mine alone) boydk@wrq.com PGP key at BAL's. Fingerprint; D0 6E 1E DC 4E 15 AC 4B Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? email me AC 26 40 19 4B 5E 27 44 --> Your Bill of Rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 27 Dec 1996 20:51:45 -0600 (CST) Chad not one person has mentioned a conspiricy. All that has been talked about is an ATTITUDE. It is an attitude that does not promote unity but diversity. One place where you and I diverge greatly is the issue of unity. You being a libertarian play up the Bill of rights to the exclusion of the preamble to the Constitution or the purpose of the Dec. Of Independence. That is why this discussion about Kwanzaa is so good and so pertinent to this list. I have a book about the Black Sea and the cultural diversity that surrounds it. It discusses the barbarous wars that have deprecated civilization in that area since the dawn of time. The author has a section about an obscure people in the area that a West German social scientist has devoted his life to. He is helping these people discover their roots and build an independent identity that they have forgotten for many years. He sights this identifying with a unique cultureal heritage as NATION building. Diversity never produced harmony. It produces strife. That is the problem with KWANZAA. Should we outlaw it NO! But we should understand it. Is Christmas Christ's birthday? NO, absolutely not. Am I defending Christmas? No, absolutely not. In fact we have not had a tree for 20 years. We believe that the tree is both pagan and Babylonian origin. It is not Christian. The Pilgrims outlawed Christmas. I would be inclined to stand with them. But I do lament the limitations placed upon evangelical Christians would desire to spread the truth of Christ. What I see in my community and on NPR and generally arround the land that the system will embrace and promote a lie and outlaw the truth. And I am sure, Chad that you and I will not agree upon what is truth. Anyway, I do not mean to pick on you. I am not a supporter of the conspiracy freaks who fear the new world order, I scoff at the idea that our government is preparing concentration camps for all of us, I think that the black helicopters are a part of an intestinal gas deposit. But Kwanzaa a part of a sick mindset in this country. It is not a conspiracy but a mindset, just as much as the idea that outlawing guns will help us live forever. happy santa lucia day, I support it in the same way that I support Kwanzaa. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: More SS Tactics... Date: 27 Dec 1996 20:57:43 -0600 (CST) Happy Kwanzaa to the Right Reverend Mr. Schenck Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)WV Update (Deadbeat FED) Date: 27 Dec 1996 22:16:36 -0500 >X-Sender: eplurib@megalinx.net (Unverified) >Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 19:48:27 -0500 >To: eplurib@megalinx.net >From: eplurib@megalinx.net (J.J. & Helen Johnson) >Subject: WV Update (Deadbeat FED) > > >FBI INFORMANT OWES CHILD SUPPORT > >CLARKSBURG; W.Va. (AP) - The federal government's informant in an >alleged plot to blow up the FBI complex owes thousands of dollars in >child support. His former wife fears she may never collect. >Rence Richards, of Clarksburg, said O. Marshall Richards Jr. will >disappear into federal Witness Protection Program and the $33,173 she is >owed will vanish with him. > >My biggest concern is that, with the help of the federal government, >he's going to get out of his obligations," she said. >Her former husband is the Mountaineer Militia "security chief" who made >hundreds of tape,recordings that led to charges against militia >commander Floyd Ray Looker and six others. > >Defense lawyers say the child support issue strikes further at >Richards'credibility as a prosecution witness. >U.S. Attorney William Wilmoth declined comment. >"The fact that he doesn't support his children shows just how >reprehensible the man is."said Vince Murovich of Pittsburg,attorney for >defendant Terrell Coon of Waynesburg,Pa. > =20 > "He doesn't have a sense of obligation to do the right thig. He's >motivated obviously by money," Murovich said. After their divorce in=20 >1990, Richards was ordered to pay $600 a month for the support of=20 >their two children,but he paid nothing for four years , Ms. Richards said. > >Richards began making payments after they were reduced to $100.54 a >month about three years ago, she said. But his ability to pay=20 >grew while he was on the FBI payroll as an informant during=20 > the l6-month investigation The FBI paid Richards $2,000 a=20 >month for a total of about $30,000, according to the government.=20 >He also received $l 8,000 from June 1 to Oct.11 for contract work=20 >in an alternative fuels program at West Virginia University, officials= said. > =20 >"I'm interested in, getting for my children what's due them, Ms. >Richards said. =20 > =20 >Richards is currently under FBI protection at a secret location. He >has declined requests for an interview. The state Department of >Health and Human Resources has never dealt with the prospect of a=20 >deadbeat dad relocated by the government, said spokeswoman Ann Garicelon. > > If Richards is accepted into the federal Witness Protection then his >Social Security number would be changed and state agency would have no=20 >hope of tracking him down, she said. > > As of Nov. l, =B7 Ri=E7hards owed $24,536.10 in back child support= and >$8,637.46 in interest, for a total of $33,173, she said. > > But David Turner, spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service in >Washington, which oversees the Witness Protection Program, said it works >to ensure participants meet their child support obligations. >"We handle this sort of thing routinely,Turner said. > > As a last resort, the Marshals Service can petition the of Department >of Justice to notify the recipient of the child , support checks of the >person's new address and identity, he said. > > The Marshals Service cannot confirm or deny whether Richards is in the >program, said David Branham. > >"That would be a violation of one of main tenets of the program,which >is secrecy," Branham said. > >=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 > >Guess he shouldn't own a gun, either... > > > >=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 >J.J. & Helen Johnson - Fridays - 8:00 pm EST - WWCR 5.070 Mhz >E Pluribus Unum=20 >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 >Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 >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. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson (Thanks to Pat Fosness) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chad@pengar.com (Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net) Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 27 Dec 1996 20:18:35 -0700 >Chad not one person has mentioned a conspiricy. All that has been >talked about is an ATTITUDE. It is an attitude that does not promote >unity but diversity. Please show me evidence that Kwanzaa promotes a bad attitude and is a threat. > >One place where you and I diverge greatly is the issue of unity. You >being a libertarian play up the Bill of rights to the exclusion of the >preamble to the Constitution or the purpose of the Dec. Of >Independence. I exclude neither the Premble to the Constitution nor the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence. In fact, I believe that these documents support freedom of the kind envisioned by libertarians. I am all for unity. But not unity forced at the end of a gun. Rather, I want people united in a spirit of freedom and opportunity, unity freely chosen. (I wish people had a unity in their respect and acceptance of the Lord but that is another topic). People can be diverse and unified at the same time. The history of our country shows us this. Only in recent times, with governmental intrusions, has this unity failed us. > >happy santa lucia day, I support it in the same way that I support >Kwanzaa. > Do you even know what Santa Lucia day is? While not a major holiday in the US (and not in my family either) we like to do things that relate back to the old world where our ancestors came from. This includes Sweden, where Santa Lucia is an important part of the December Holidays. This year we included it as part of our Christmas celebrations for December. (December 13 is Santa Lucia day). best Chad >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------- 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: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Junk Mail Date: 27 Dec 1996 22:32:55 -0500 Paul Andrew Mitchell writes: >>Subject: Supreme Law School Debuts For Immediate Release December 27, 1996 Supreme Law Firm Announces Internet-based Supreme Law School by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved (December 1996) >big snip<<< I received the above piece of UNSOLICITED junk mail, personally, in my AOL mailbox. Now I find I am subjected to the same sales pitch while browsing ROC Digest #172. I was under the impression that self-promotion of businesses and blatant attempts to solicit funds for personal reasons was verboten on this list. Some time ago, I seem to remember the list owner posting a warning, to this effect. I rather resent my e-mail address being extracted from the ROC list and used in connection with a bulk mailing, the purpose of which is an attempt to entice unwary readers from $85.00/ year in hard earned cash. Cash to be used, no doubt, for that readers continued edification in the ways of legal flummery. I read quite a number of Mr. Mitchell's diatribes here on the ROC list. Being asked to PAY for more of the same is a bit much. Twice, no less, in one day. Mr. Mitchell could have posted a short note asking anyone who might be interested in the "Supreme Law School, Internet Group" to contact him, via private e-mail, for more information, which seems to me the proper way to accomplish his goal, thereby sparing the rest of us this spammage. Might I suggest, Mr. Mitchell, you invest in some US Postage Stamps and Snail Mail your solicitations to INTERESTED parties, (minus the ZIP Codes, of course). E-mail if you must, but kindly remove me from your list of potential applicants. The little ad's below the posts, advertising web sites and such, seem appropriate and admissible, however, I believe, this outrageous self promotion goes beyond the boundaries of propriety for this list. Not to put to fine a point on it, Mr. Mitchell, put a cork in it. Regards, Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: SSN Help Wanted Date: 27 Dec 1996 20:06:01 -0800 This is from another list; I hope he doesn't mind my forwarding it. If you can help him, please respond *DIRECTLY* to saijonnie@ellijay.com Thanks, - Monte >I know this is a bit off topic...My 15 year old son was arrested the other >night and a police officer called me and wanted to know his social security >number. I told them that they had no right to the number. He replied that >the judge was not going to like it. Now, I have always heard that your >social sec. no. was yours and could only be used for tax purposes. Does >anyone on this list know differently? Perhaps I should get an attorney for >the hearing to defend my action. I apologize for being off topic but I >really enjoy this list and I hope that someone has some info. > >Thank you, >Jonnie Brown > > - 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: More SS Tactics Date: 27 Dec 1996 20:12:43 -0800 > The one thing that amazes me more then the abuses of power in the >national government, is the surprise that people show when they trigger >it. Saying anything other then a pleasant how do you do to the >commander in chief is asking for imediate free federal housing. Does >anyone on these lists really believe that President Clinton -wants- our >spiritual advice?? > I'm sorry if my reaction seems harsh, and more so that this man was >detained. But I'm very glad he wasnt physically abused and glad that >those around him were probably unaware of the heightened alertness of the >(undoubtedly) scores of agents in the area. Real assasins, who are a >threat to the C in C, unfortunately often cloak their pscyhoses in >pseudo spiritual foo for all. It's not unpredictable that real scripture >would be mistaken for something like that IMHO. >Boyd (the opinions I express are mine alone) The unfortunate thing is that many (most?) Americans still believe that we live in a free country. Nope. Not nearly. I remember reading the account of a president back in the 1800s who had been told that somebody in the audience he was going to speak to had threatened to kill him. His response was to take a pistol with him and place it in plain sight on the podium. *That's* the America I used to think I lived in. But no more. - 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: International Covenant (1 of 2) Date: 28 Dec 1996 04:50:21 -0800 Paul Mitchell responds infra: At 11:35 AM 12/27/96 -0600, you wrote: >At 09:46 PM 12/26/96 PST, roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) wrote: >>On Dec 27, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >>>This is the first half of the International Covenant on Civil and >>>Political Rights, a treaty to which the United States is a party. >> >>[snip] >> >>Paul, what Force Of Law does this have at the Local level? The state constitutions all recognize the U.S. Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land, and treaties are recognized as supreme Law in the Supremacy Clause. I also have court authorities which held that the U.S. Constitution is as much the law for the state and local governments, as it is for the federal government! /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >>For instance, Washington State has a Law forbidding Para-Military >>Organizations. This has been interpreted to mean no Militia's. Could they >>then look to UN protection without UN Registration by means of forming a >>Trade Union like, "The Brotherhood of Militiamen and HomeGuardsmen", as a >>means of Legally forming up a Militia? >> >>There are some parts I'm not so enamoured of, but there are also some >>interesting possibilities, assuming they could be stuffed down some Court or >>others throat. > >From: Article VI of the Constitution of the United States. > > >This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in >pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the >authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and >the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the >Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. > > >--- > >IOW, as long as a treaty is made "under the authority of the United >States", and does not Conflict with the Constitution, it overides state and >local laws as well as the Constitutions of the several states. Yes, that is correct. Under the supremacy doctrine, all subordinate laws must yield to the supreme Law. /s/ Paul Mitchell > > > > > The Second Amendment is the RESET button > of the United States Constitution. > ---Doug McKay" > > >Joe Sylvester >Don't Tread On Me ! ==================================================================== [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: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 28 Dec 1996 08:13:34 -0600 (CST) Chad, you ask for evidence but disregard it when proferred. I pointed out in one post that KWANZAA was being taught in our public schools. The thrust of the message is the superiority of blacks and their history of oppression. Kind of a feel sorry for me and be guilty of whiteness campaign. I donot deny that America has treated blacks despicably. That is why I was a civil rights advocate in the 50's and 60's. But much of it has gone too far. Kwanzaa is an example. An example of what happens from such mythology is the Sioux Indians attempts to take the Black Hills from America. "It is our historic land of worship" they state. They have sued for it and may still be. The ground of their suite and claim that they possessed that land for eons prior to the white man. It is a false claim. They took the land by force from the KIOWA indians in about 1790. The Sioux had drifted down from the Great Lakes where they tilled the soil. They had given up the life of a farmer for the life of the chase (buffalo hunting) and became killers in the process. Their migration points out another interesting myth that affects us legally today. The indians lived one with nature. They only killed what they needed to survive. They were natural ecologists. The foregoing is a rank lie. But many believe it therefore they are now looking to indian mysticism for ecological ideas. They actively promote (in our area) indians coming to public schools and teaching there mysticism to our young people who believe it and grow up and act according to what they have been taught. How do I know that the indians were not one with the environment? How do I know that they did not practice good ecological hunting habits? Because they were killing off the buffalo and had to follow it westward. It is historically documented that the buffalo were becoming extinct in the east early in our history. George Washington (I seem to recall) shot one in Ohio territory and it was remarked that they once were on the eastern seaboard but had vanished prior to the first settlers. When Washington shot his, it was prior to the great influx of whites to the area. I believe it was during the French and Indian wars. The comment was made that they were scarce in the area then. That is why the Sioux came to the high plains; to chase the buffalo and to drive them over the cliffs and pick out from the carcasses what they could use and leave to the vultures the rest. I think this bull floppy that is KWANZAA leads to the same type of nonsence. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 28 Dec 1996 08:34:57 -0600 (CST) Chad, You point out that you are for unity, but not at the point of a gun. Unfortunately without the gun, or sward, there will never be unity. That is the historic and biblical purpose of government, to wield the sword against both enemies from without and within. Law breakers should feel the edge of the sward or the corkscerwing action of a Blaak Talon. Where the argument between an libertarian and a "NATION alist" (not nationalist) takes up is at what point this sword or Black Talon should be applied. The struggle is for a MORE PERFECT UNION (Const) and a GOVERNMENT OWNED BY THE PEOPLE (thrust of the Dec of Ind) but limited by the Bill Of Rights. You libertarians are helping to lose this battle because you have focused upon how your rights are being trampled on. I think my path would be best and lead to victory in that the thrust of it is how to put the people back in charge of their goverment. To do this requires unity of thought, involvment, and belief. Things like KWANZAA, Boxing Day, and Santa Lucia day do not contribute to this unity. Boxing Day and Santa Lucia Day are harmless in that they are not promoted with an agenda. Kwanzaa and some of the dope smoking religions of the American Indian are. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Kwanzaa, Agin! Date: 28 Dec 1996 09:03:55 -0600 (CST) AND while we are on the subject about the social threat from Kwanzaa and other such mystical/mythological horse apples consider the Indian Nations in this country and their current impact upon our society. Interior Secretary James Watt (under Reagon or Nixon?) was right when he stated that if you want to see the failure of Socialism look to the Indian Reservation. The Reservation system and the Nationess of the various indian tribes was a product of the attitude 'WELL, IF THEY WANT TO BE THAT WAY LET 'EM!" This is precisely what some of you are saying about Blacks and Kwanzaa. Look where it has gotten us. We perpetually supply them with "government beef." They have never become self supporting. There is a high degree of drunkeness, lawlessness and illegitimate birth and homelessness. Why? Because we allowed them to be and in fact kept them different from the rest of us. Well they are getting even with all of there gambling casinos. Oh don't tell me there is nothing wrong with gambling. I won't go further into that argument other than to say horse feathers. What would have been the correct way to handle the Amercian Indian? It would have been to recognize him as a member of mankind the same as the rest of us. He should have been assimilated amongst our society just as the Italians, Germans, Santa Lucians (Swedes), and English have been. It would have been to require him to be a producer like the vast majority of the rest of society. It would have been to give him the freedom, authority, and responsibility to be a productive citizen. This last solution was precisely what the western settler and the army wanted. In Nebraska we had a school established at Genoa for this very purpose. Such plans, though, were waylaid by eastern liberals (mainly from MAss-predicessors of Teddy?). Time marches on but attitudes remain entrenched. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Kwanzaa, Agin! Date: 28 Dec 1996 09:42:40 -0600 larry ball wrote: > > What would have been the correct way to handle the Amercian Indian? > It would have been to recognize him as a member of mankind the same as > the rest of us. He should have been assimilated amongst our society > just as the Italians, Germans, Santa Lucians (Swedes), and English > have been. It would have been to require him to be a producer like > the vast majority of the rest of society. It would have been to give > him the freedom, authority, and responsibility to be a productive > citizen. Maybe he didn't want to be assimilated. Maybe he heard about something called a Constitution that gave him the right to seek his own destiny. And maybe he got pissed off when the sons of those folks who wrote the constitution herded him like sheep and put him in specific areas and said "Stay there or we'll kill you." Maybe instead of you railing at him you ought to talk to him because he has the same gripes you do against this government, just more of them and generational reasons for having them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Dolan Subject: Re: Kwanzaa, Agin! Date: 28 Dec 1996 12:21:49 -0500 (EST) On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, Howlin' Blue wrote: > larry ball wrote: > > > > What would have been the correct way to handle the Amercian Indian? [...] > > Maybe he didn't want to be assimilated. > > Maybe he heard about something called a Constitution that gave him the > right to seek his own destiny. > > And maybe he got pissed off when the sons of those folks who wrote the > constitution herded him like sheep and put him in specific areas and > said "Stay there or we'll kill you." > > Maybe instead of you railing at him you ought to talk to him because he > has the same gripes you do against this government, just more of them > and generational reasons for having them. > As you say, there are parallels between what happened to the indians and what is happening to gunowners/patriots/constitutionalists/religious "cultists" and other groups not liked by the government. The recipients of the U.S. Cavalry's attention in the 1800s could have told the Davidians what to expect, for instance. bd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Kwanzaa, Agin! Date: 28 Dec 1996 11:54:18 -0600 Brad Dolan wrote: > > As you say, there are parallels between what happened to the indians > and what is happening to gunowners/patriots/constitutionalists/religious > "cultists" and other groups not liked by the government. > > The recipients of the U.S. Cavalry's attention in the 1800s could have > told the Davidians what to expect, for instance. I don't usually do "ditto" posts but the above sentence requires one. Ditto. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lew Glendenning Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 28 Dec 1996 10:46:11 -0900 larry ball wrote: > > Chad not one person has mentioned a conspiricy. All that has been > talked about is an ATTITUDE. It is an attitude that does not promote > unity but diversity. > > One place where you and I diverge greatly is the issue of unity. You > being a libertarian play up the Bill of rights to the exclusion of the > preamble to the Constitution or the purpose of the Dec. Of > Independence. That is why this discussion about Kwanzaa is so good > and so pertinent to this list. > > I have a book about the Black Sea and the cultural diversity that > surrounds it. It discusses the barbarous wars that have deprecated > civilization in that area since the dawn of time. > > The author has a section about an obscure people in the area that a > West German social scientist has devoted his life to. He is helping > these people discover their roots and build an independent identity > that they have forgotten for many years. He sights this identifying > with a unique cultureal heritage as NATION building. > > Diversity never produced harmony. It produces strife. That is the > problem with KWANZAA. Should we outlaw it NO! But we should > understand it. > > Is Christmas Christ's birthday? NO, absolutely not. Am I defending > Christmas? No, absolutely not. In fact we have not had a tree for 20 > years. We believe that the tree is both pagan and Babylonian origin. > It is not Christian. The Pilgrims outlawed Christmas. I would be > inclined to stand with them. > > But I do lament the limitations placed upon evangelical Christians > would desire to spread the truth of Christ. What I see in my > community and on NPR and generally arround the land that the system > will embrace and promote a lie and outlaw the truth. And I am sure, > Chad that you and I will not agree upon what is truth. > > Anyway, I do not mean to pick on you. I am not a supporter of the > conspiracy freaks who fear the new world order, I scoff at the idea > that our government is preparing concentration camps for all of us, I > think that the black helicopters are a part of an intestinal gas > deposit. But Kwanzaa a part of a sick mindset in this country. It is > not a conspiracy but a mindset, just as much as the idea that > outlawing guns will help us live forever. > > happy santa lucia day, I support it in the same way that I support > Kwanzaa. > > Larry Ball > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu I very much disagree that diversity produces strife. I live in Silicon Valley. A few years back, I headed a project which employeed people from 22 different countries. Our differences were generally a source of interest. We made a pretty good team by the end of the project. Here, 50% of the average engineering group is foreign born. It is hard to find a "home-cooked, mid-western" restaurant. My wife and relatives are Russian Jews, my friends come from around the world. Thanksgiving combined our families and friends; everybody had a great time, learned a lot. Political discussions were heated, but nobody was shot. Diversity is grand in this area. Great restaurants, great people, great customs being celebrated everywhere, and anybody can be included in anything. Or, stay home and be a strict whatever. No pressure to conform to much of anything. So, I know Indians (India-type, the real thing) who shoot handguns, love Texan BBQ, have dogs, and brought brides back here via arranged marriages. Ditto mainland Chinese. Wonderful people, wonderful kids. Tomorrow, we will have an afternoon get-together including an Iranian, an African, a couple of Vietnamese, an Indian, an American farmer (likes mutton), an American cowboy (despises the concept of mutton), a couple of country-style folks from the Sierras, some ordinary Americans, and a couple of Estonians. Some straight, some gay, some married, some single. No problems. In various combinations, they engineer, hang-glide, sky-dive, shoot, and baby-sit each other's kids. TOGETHER!!! These people are, every one, contributing to the wealth and greatness of this country. Each of you is richer because of them. Perhaps it is the religious differences which worry you. God knows, they are a frequent source of wars in this sad world of ours. But, the US Constitution protects us from these problems. We all agree that it is the Supreme Law governing our secular behavior. We all agree that the gov doesn't favor ANYBODY, especially not ANY GROUP. If so, the major source of disuinity arising from diversity is gone. As for Kwanza, who cares? In the world I live in, a minor addition to diversity, one which may or may not last. Unless they have real good food, it probably won't 8) The world I live in is the one you will all be living in, next century. I went back to Columbus, OH this last summer. A significant set of minority communities around OSU. Ditto Lowell, MA 10 years ago, etc. And, probably every University in the US. We can't stop the movement of people around the world, nor into the US. We shouldn't stop it, because frozen systems fail catastrophically rather than evolving more-or-less smoothly. Also, selfishly, because the world is a more interesting place. We are in the middle of a Renaissance: science, technology, art, music, ... are all changing and improving at a hell of a rate. The only significant failure in our country is the political system, and even here foreigners may help. Most of them are much more cynical about gov than any of us here, hard as that is to imagine. Lew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Sensitivity and Division Date: 28 Dec 1996 13:53:13 -0500 I have been reading with interest the ongoing discussion, both on NOBAN and ROC, concerning Kwanzaa. Some thoughts occur to me. The Socialist Liberal Left, with the assistance of the mainstream media, has succeeded in dividing us far beyond their initial expectations. By us, I mean, AMERICANS. I believe we are quickly reaching the point of no return, in the "Balkanization" of America. We are now separated and compartmented by race, language, sex, income, politics religion, and heaven knows what else, and the chasm is getting wider by the day. We have become so sensitized to cries of racism, defamation, and possible slander, that the slightest "perceived" insult, no matter how innocent, well intentioned, or mistaken is a call to arms. Attempt to correct a black student's bad grammar; you are a racist Attempt to teach a Hispanic child English; you are multi- culturally insensitive. Give a young girl a low score on a math test; you are a sexist. Resist having the government allocate more of your income to the "poor"; you are the greedy rich. Call yourself a Conservative; you are mean-spirited and uncaring. Try to erect a crèche at Christmas, and you are pushing your religion on others. You must also allow a menorah, crescent and star, and soon, many others. No one must be excluded. Some may feel offended if they are left out. The goal is, I believe, to so weary us of this, that unitarian symbols and behavior will be welcomed. Possibly a plain block of concrete, painted unassuming gray and unadorned, will become the universal symbol of the last week in December. George Orwell will have been proven a prophet. I have been following an ongoing thread on the 'Gun Talk" message board of AOL. A poster innocently related how he had a childhood memory of Santa Claus, as having "twinkling blue eyes" and that now, all pictures he sees, show Santa with "brown" eyes. That is ALL he said. This remark prompted a post, from a Jewish respondent inquiring as to what was meant by that anti-Semitic comment. The resultant cacophony of accusations, explanations and apologies went on for over 40 posts. One poster even piped in a few times because HE was offended that Santa was referred to as the "Jolly FAT Man" This sensitization has affected me also, usually in subtle ways I am not aware of, until it is too late. I recall being in grammar school in the early 50's. I had very light blonde hair and blue eyes. I am of German decent, and have an obvious German last name This was not long after WW II. Some kids asked me if my daddy was a Nazi. Some kids called ME one. I don't remember being too terribly offended and my parents did not call for protests, or file lawsuits. Some time ago, on the NOBAN list, a poster made a reference to me and Hitler, and I hit the roof. I was insulted, indignant and pissed off. WHY? I know now. Because of this aversion to being offended we have all become so accustomed to, and also because of the emphasis placed on these things by our present society, that causes these labels to stick. As gun rights advocates, we have been vilified, admonished, and condemned for years. We should be used to it by now. It is a standard technique of liberals who then claim that "Big Momma Government" will step in and fix everything. Everyone will be safe, secure, unoffended and live happily ever after. Most of you read my parody, "The Ghost of Christmas Future?" Can you imagine the reaction, had I posted it on a liberal list or sent it to the "Lefties on the Web" website. What with my references to Robert Reiche's height, Jocelyn Elder's reaction to the word "HO", and my comments concerning Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno and the Congressional Black Caucus. It was a PARODY as, I believe, "The Night Befo' Kwanzaa" was. Aldous Huxley wrote: "Parodies and caricatures are the most penetrating of criticisms" A short while ago I posted a message entitled the "Bill of No Rights". One of the passages was: "You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be." Words, I believe, well worth contemplating as we approach a new year and the next millenium. Best Regards and Happy New Year, Dennis Baron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: [Fwd: Off topic Date: 28 Dec 1996 16:44:55 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------59557E5747F6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Linda rides again --------------59557E5747F6 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from iquest.net (iquest4z.iquest.net) by ICSI.Net (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01421; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 16:33:00 -0600 Received: from ind-0004-7.iquest.net by iquest.net with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0ve7ED-003ihAC; Sat, 28 Dec 96 17:27 EST Message-Id: X-Sender: lindat@iquest.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Well, the A&E Program "Faces of Terrorism" had the now standard "racist/nazi" militia crap, along with a new twist (they showed some Afghani with a stinger and made THAT sound like it had something to do with the militia here in this country -- these people have NO shame whatsoever. They aren't even TRYING to make a plausible lie out of what they do anymore.) THE FUNNIEST, I mean, roll in the AISLES part of this program was them calling "Larry Pratt the father of the militia movement." Now, if THAT isn't about a joke, I don't know what is. Larry Pratt as the "father" of the American Militia movement? HAHAHAHAHAHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GAWD, that's funny. This is the STUPIDIST propaganda campaign I've seen YET. Did anybody see this program? Anybody need any MORE proof who LARRY PRATT WORKS FOR? Check out his "donation" history, BTW. Check out his "former" CIA history. Now this. Larry Pratt DENOUNCED the militia movement AND me two years ago. Larry Pratt also has participated in EVERY counter-militia "let'a have a rally instead" b.s. thing run by "CDR" to date. NOW, he's being "pushed" in official propaganda as the "father" of the militia movement. I've seen this tripe somewhere before. Hmmm. I said THREE YEARS AGO that Pratt's job was to pick up people dissillusioned with the NRA and keep them pointed where the government wants them. Now you have lots of proof. The MEDIA is being used to create the GOVERNMENT'S OFFICIALLY SPONSORED "MILITIA LEADERS." Pay attention. >Return-Path: >Received: from lepton.startext.net by iquest2.iquest.net with smtp > (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0vdqGf-005Of1C; Fri, 27 Dec 96 23:21 EST >Received: from LOCALNAME (startext.net [205.172.60.10]) by lepton.startext.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA12853; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 22:05:50 -0600 (CST) >Message-ID: <32C4B723.51AB@mail.startext.net> >Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:58:59 -0800 >From: Jan Farmer >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: Jan Farmer >Subject: Navy Seals vs Militia ???? >Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------CCA30201103" >X-UIDL: c2c11ab8fbb24fcdacab98bd6d581284 >Status: U > >http://www.aetv.com/cgi-bin/listings.pl?fromurl=/cgi-bin/listings.pl%3Ftabl esearch=militia%26restrict=1%26startdate=12/27%26enddate=1/27&episode=1&date =1996122800:00:00&time=3pm > >- >[A&E] > -------------------------------------------------- > > Series: Investigative Reports. > > The New Face of Terrorism. > > Host Bill Kurtis looks at the new kinds of terrorism threatening > America. Includes interviews with Randy Weaver, who stood down the > FBI at Ruby Ridge, and Larry Pratt, father of the modern militia > movement. > Duration: 1 hours > Date Time > > Saturday 12/21 9pm > > Sunday 12/22 1am > > Saturday 12/28 3pm > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > -----------------------------------------------------------[Image] > ----------------------------------------------------------- > [Image] > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >© 1996 A&E Television Networks. Please use this form to submit your >comments. >Site designed and maintained by InterActive8 > --------------59557E5747F6-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Kwanzaa, Agin! Date: 28 Dec 1996 15:43:17 -0800 Larry, >>>>>>> [...] Look where it has gotten us. We perpetually supply them with "government beef." They have never become self supporting. There is a high degree of drunkeness, lawlessness and illegitimate birth and homelessness. Why? Because we allowed them to be and in fact kept them different from the rest of us. Well they are getting even with all of there gambling casinos. Oh don't tell me there is nothing wrong with gambling. I won't go further into that argument other than to say horse feathers. [...] <<<<<<< I think you should back off and reevaluate your statements. Our past goverment took their lands, forced them onto reservations, did their _damnedest_ to take away their languages and cultures. I _personally_ believe the "indians" have a damned good beef. Since you claim to be pissed about their particular situation, maybe you should walk a mile in _their_ shoes. And, by the way, Larry, just what is so wrong with gambling? For someone who espouses freedom, you certainly have an aversion to some of its aspects. In a previous post, you stated: >>>>>>> An example of what happens from such mythology is the Sioux Indians attempts to take the Black Hills from America. "It is our historic land of worship" they state. They have sued for it and may still be. The ground of their suite and claim that they possessed that land for eons prior to the white man. It is a false claim. They took the land by force from the KIOWA indians in about 1790. <<<<<<< What historical record are you quoting/referencing for the above? Most specifically, "They took the land by force from the KIOWA indians in about 1790. " I'd be very interested in obtaining a copy of it or, at the very least reading it. >>>>>>> He should have been assimilated amongst our society just as the Italians, Germans, Santa Lucians (Swedes), and English have been. It would have been to require him to be a producer like the vast majority of the rest of society. It would have been to give him the freedom, authority, and responsibility to be a productive citizen. <<<<<<< And, what if they did not want to be "assimilated"? What gives anyone the god almighty right to demand someone else do as they want them to? >>>>>>> It would have been to require him to be a producer like the vast majority of the rest of society. <<<<<<< Ah, another brick in the wall, eh? Conform, or be convicted? >>>>>>> This last solution . . . <<<<<<< Is that anything like the "final solution"? Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Kwanzaa, Agin! Date: 28 Dec 1996 19:07:18 -0600 (CST) Ed, There was a French Canadien from Montreal about 1650 or so calle La Drey who visit as far west as the Mandan Indians around what is now Huron South Dakota. He chronicled the Sioux as being tillers of the land in what is now Northern Wisconsin along the shorse of lake Superiour and Lake Michigan. The particular site about the Black Hills being taken from the Kiowa by the Sioux can be bound in Major Long (Long's Peak Fame) written during his expedition down the Platte to the Rockys and back on the Arkansas river. This was in 1819. He found the KIOWA along the banks of the Arkansas eating skunk and picking fleas from each other. If they do not what to be assimilated and do not want to work, so be it let em starve. Then we will see about "assiminaltion." We did not take their land. To say this would be to say that the indians had title deed to the land. They did not. Many (such as the Sioux) became nomadic and savage. They practiced pillage and rapine of all who they confronted. Look at the history of the Pawnee for this reference. While speaking of the Pawnee, I do think that we screwwed them. We forced them to Oklahoma and gave some of thier land to the Sioux and the Cheyenne in or der to make peace. The Pawnee were tillers oft he land and allies of us. But the Pawnee also had some strange quirks. Human sacrifice and honoring of queers were two of them. Indications of savagry? Some of us would think so. Lover of freedom yes, a lover of moral license and licentiousness, NO! Gambling fits in this latter chategory. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: >>> Excellent Novel <<< Date: 28 Dec 1996 17:30:09 -0800 Hi folks - I don't remember which list I got this from, so forgive me if I've duplicated the original post to the same group. Yesterday I got a post that mentioned the URL for an online novel about what might happen in what's left of America in the next few years. I moseyed over and downloaded it. I've read about a quarter of it, and it's *excellent*. Not only is it reasonably good fiction, the author has managed to incorporate a *ton* of valid survival points into the script. Things that might be way handy in the years to come. I strongly suggest you all get over to his website and download a copy of "Triple Ought." You'll be glad you did. By the way, the author is asking that, as a "shareware novel," you send him $5.00. I intend to do just that; it's worth it. I printed my copy out on 8 1/2 x 11; be advised it's a coupla hundred pages. http://www.teleport.com/~ammon/gn/cover.htm - 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: wbg@hevanet.com (wbg) Subject: Re: >>> Excellent Novel <<< Date: 29 Dec 1996 07:21:39 -0800 (PST) For those few who may not have discovered it yet, another great novel about where we may be headed is: _Dark Rivers of the Heart_ by Dean Koontz 1994 It's becoming a cult classic among believers in limited government and the dangers of govt. power. It is _not_ anything like any other typical Dean Koontz work, in that it has _no_ scaly fangy monsters or supernatural manifestations. That doesn't mean it isn't just as scary as his monster books; human beans can be some of the most scary critters there are! Highly recommended. Brewster -- *********************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: >>> Excellent Novel <<< Date: 29 Dec 1996 08:27:15 -0800 >For those few who may not have discovered it yet, another great novel >about where we may be headed is: > >_Dark Rivers of the Heart_ by Dean Koontz 1994 > >It's becoming a cult classic among believers in limited government and >the dangers of govt. power. It is _not_ anything like any other typical >Dean Koontz work, in that it has _no_ scaly fangy monsters or >supernatural manifestations. That doesn't mean it isn't just as scary as >his monster books; human beans can be some of the most scary critters >there are! > >Highly recommended. > >Brewster Agreed; I didn't stop smiling for days when I first read it and realized that thousands, possibly millions, of people were going to read this novel about a federal agency totally out of control. The agency is kind of a combination BATF/FBI/CIA that likes to kick in doors and kill Patriots. My hope was that by thousands reading it maybe thousands of eyes would be opened. Hopefully they were. And will be. - 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: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: >>> Excellent Novel <<< Date: 29 Dec 1996 12:55:29 -0600 Liberty or Death wrote: > > >_Dark Rivers of the Heart_ by Dean Koontz 1994 > > > >Highly recommended. > > > >Brewster Agreed. It contains the only explanation for Waco the come remotely close to making sense. However, don't blink when you read it. It's a throwaway line, not the theme and I suspect he wrote the whole damn book (and no doubt went to war with his publisher to get it printed) to get that single perspective before the public. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: recipe for freedom Date: 29 Dec 1996 20:36:01 -0800 Paul Mitchell summarizes his "Recipe for Freedom": 1. file FOIA requests for credentials of all federal government actors, and for any other documents you think pertinent 2. file FOIA appeal after 10 working days, then wait 20 more working days; now your administrative remedies are exhausted 3. petition District Court of the United States ("DCUS") for ORDER to enjoin improper withholding of requested records and to compel production of records properly requested 4. challenge blanket FOIA exemption for judiciary, for violating Petition Clause and Oath of Office provision 5. convene 3-judge panel to effect injunctive relief; see 28 U.S.C. 2284 for authority. 6. demand Article III judges whose compensation is not being diminished by federal income taxes, per Article III, Section 1, and Evans v. Gore, S.Ct. (1920) 7. remove any related cases into that court, on any number of federal questions (e.g. all corporate States are political subdivisions of the District of Columbia, as of the secret bankruptcy of 1933); federal questions are easy to identify, because feds are involved in almost everything today! 8. if you are the defendant, make yourself the plaintiff in the DCUS, and all government actors who failed to produce credentials become respondents, in action for Order to Show Cause why they should not be charged (here you must be a little creative, to define the allegations precisely; without oaths of office, they can be charged with fraud, for starters; others crimes will become obvious, if you get some professional legal help here); this puts electric fence around all government actors, who now have a conflict of interest, i.e., they are prosecutors and defendants in the same case! Nobody in; nobody out. 8. now sit and wait, while the Supreme Court wades through this constitutional crisis; with enough of these demands bearing down on the Supremes, C.J. Rehnquist will see the political tidal wave that is forming, and pick the most ripe case to issue a landmark ruling on the lack of jurisdiction in the USDC; key here is to bring this challenge in as many different federal Circuits as possible, so the Circuit Courts of Appeal all issue disparate rulings; this will maximize probability of hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will parallel U.S. v. Lopez in importance. 9. if you want to add spice to the recipe, first research voter registration in your Union state; if the form requires an affidavit that affiant is a federal citizen, then you have another federal question affecting jury selection in the state case, which is THE one ground you need for removal; you can stay the entire action, pending final resolution of state jury selection and service practices, just as we have already done at the federal level! The U.S. rebuttal to our stay motion was based on facts not in evidence; we have already won that one!! 10. break out the icing, because you are going to have your cake, and eat it too. Recipe for freedom: piece of cake. :) /s/ Paul Mitchell p.s. for more details, visit URL: http://www.supremelaw.com and read "Karma and the Federal Courts" and "Juries in Check Around the Nation." Note the interaction between the two (no federal policy for jury selection in the USDC!) ==================================================================== [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: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Not So Humorous:Kwanza Date: 30 Dec 1996 12:14:48 -0600 (CST) Sharon, Could you copy the story to the Internet so that we all could have it for reference? There has been a lot of KWANZAA discussion on ROC and I would like to share this with them. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu> > > >Bill Vance wrote: > > > >>Recently they set fire to the home of a black educator trying to > >>lobby against "ebonics" (black street slang), being taught as a second > >>language, and the phoney lies being promulgated as "Afro-Centric > Education". > > > >Hadn't heard this. If true, it's amazing that it wasn't covered more > >thoroughly given the coverage that this Ebonics thing is otherwise enjoying. > > The story appeared in my local newspaper (Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel) about > a week ago. The attack was thought to be the result of this educator's > opposition to Afro-Centric Education. > > Sharon Zane > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: The Year of Jefferson Date: 30 Dec 1996 11:39:33 -0800 Dear Friends, Jefferson is one of my absolute heroes. The Declaration of Independence is so magnificent, it doesn't really matter to me what he did with the rest of his life. But, as we know so well, he spent the rest of his life in distinguished public service. What a role model! Let's have a Year of Jefferson in 1997, shall we? If I were ever so honored as to serve in the House of Representatives, I would make a special pilgrimmage to the Jefferson Memorial, in Spring, when the Capitol cherry trees are all a bloom, and say a special prayer for the inspiration of his unique spirit to the deepest roots of my being. You can do this exercise yourself: change to first person (instead of third) when reciting the Declaration of Independence, e.g., "... all of Us are created equal ... Governments are instituted among Us, deriving their just powers from Our consent and ... it is Our Right to alter or abolish it ... as to Us shall seem most likely to effect Our safety and Our happiness." Recite it out loud, until you have it memorized, and you can say it eloquently, and reverently, each and every time, and you can teach the children to do the same. They will honor, and remember you fondly, for the lesson. You will feel that power surge through you like a 440-volt electric current, pulsing at 240 cycles per second, and empowering you as you have never been before. I guarantee it, as long as you are sincere. Try it! You'll like it!! Very little else can compare with that experience. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 11:19 AM 12/30/96 -0500, you wrote: >Forwarded FYI, a reply from the DPFT list >Some "rather arcane observations if yall don't mind." >========================= >Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 06:30:35 -0600 >Sender: Drug Policy Forum of Texas >From: Curt Scooter >Subject: Re: ROLES of gov't > >Bob Ramsey wrote: >>These days the idea of "States Rights" has a pejorative connotation left >>over from Jim Crow days. I'd like to suggest using the term "States >>Roles," which I think more people can relate to. >> >>In the discussion of federal law taking precedence over state law, it would >>be healthy to think about the proper ROLE in our lives of each form of >>government: self, local, state, and federal. >> >>Comments, anyone? > >Curt Scooter writes: >I think about this all the time, it's great cerebral political excercise >with real implications. > >I would like to make some rather arcane observations if yall don't mind. > >Before the Civil War and Jim Crow etc. > >The primary spokesman for States Rights and limited Federal Powers was T. >Jefferson... > >-TJ's frequent calls to gov't service made his farming business a neglected >disaster... >-He never really owned much of anything.... >-The bank owned his property >-He couldn't have sold or freed any slaves because he did not have clear >title to any of his property... >-TJ did his damnest to include the abolition of slavery in the Dec of Ind >which he penned, as we all know... >-Political pressure from both the South and Northern slaving interests >simply made it impossible... >-TJ was conveniently appointed to serve abroad in France when the >Constitution was debated and ratified.... some suspect this was due to his >abolitionist bent >-TJ finally prophesized that if the States didn't eliminate slavery, the >whole damn thing was going to blow up in our faces, and the major >philosophical and political losses would be to State's Rights >-On this and many other points, the Federalists would not listen to him >then, and we don't listen to him now. >-I really don't know what TJ would do if he were alive today.... I'll bet >a good deal of it would be illegal. > >If Jesus Christ were to pay us a visit in these times in these lands... I >suspect that the evengelical Christian Right would be screaming >'Blasphemer' while any attemtpts to publicize speech about Camels, Rich Men >and Needle Exchange Programs would fall into silent air. If they could get >away with it, I'm sure they would find something to hang him from, or nail >him to. > >If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, I'm certain the jingo Federalist >occupation forces, who use his name in Vain, while corrupting the vestiges >of democracy, having subverted American politics from within, and >overthrown Constitutional gov't would find a place for Jefferson and his >politics. It would probably measure about four by eight, perhaps with one >steel barred window, it would be a hard and cold place..... and above >all... it would be very silent. > >onward >-scooter > >Thomas Jefferson died on July 4th, 1826, exactly 50 years after the >Declaration of Independence ==================================================================== [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: Fritz Sands Subject: RE: Kwanza Date: 30 Dec 1996 11:00:51 -0800 Wow. A requirement for "unity of thought and belief". How gloriously Orwellian. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition. Fritz >---------- >From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu[SMTP:lball@unlinfo.unl.edu] >Sent: Saturday, December 28, 1996 6:34 AM >To: roc@xmission.com >Subject: Re: Kwanza > >You libertarians are helping to lose this battle because you have >focused upon how your rights are being trampled on. I think my path >would be best and lead to victory in that the thrust of it is how to >put the people back in charge of their goverment. To do this requires >unity of thought, involvment, and belief. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Universal Declaration of Human Rights Date: 30 Dec 1996 12:45:17 -0800 > Pmitch, > > It would seem you're quoting what we already have here in our country now. > I fail to see any reason whatsoever to give our soverienty away to the UN > for something we already have. Emmilene, Excellent point! And thanks so much for your valuable insights here. See my comments infra. /s/ Paul Mitchell >emmilene > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >-> Posted by: Emmilene@aol.com These treaties are at once problematic and immense opportunities. In my opinion, the key to understanding the treaties lies in the Tenth Amendment. When Congress enacted them, Reservations were attached granting explicit legal standing to the "localities" to compel U.S. obedience to these treaties, in the event of U.S. violations of those treaties. This means that federal government violations can be enjoined, restrained, and punished by "local" courts. That means, at the very least, state courts, but it may also mean city courts, and possibly also township courts. Obviously, we need clarification of this immensely important question, i.e., the legislative meaning of "locality" as that term is used in the Reservations which Congress attached to these treaties. In People v. United States, we plan to petition the DCUS for declaratory relief as to the legislative meaning of this term. If "locality" reaches all the way down to lawful townships, then our sovereignty is, indeed, preserved by these two human rights treaties, notwithstanding the U.N., the Hague, or any other international law(s) which Congress may have enacted. Notice that the treaties guarantee effective judicial remedies, notwithstanding that the violations were committed by government personnel acting in their official capacity, and the United States is bound thereby to develop the possibilities of effective judicial remedies. We are applying this observation to our finding that there is a dual-district court system at the federal level; effective judicial remedy means, in my book, the availability of competent and qualified federal judges, whose compensations are not being diminished by federal income taxes, pursuant to Article III, Section 1, and Evans v. Gore, S.Ct. (1920). You cannot get relief from a court without a judge. This is axiomatic. The treaties guarantee my fundamental Right to exploit these insights right in litigation, and I have other SC authorities which support my position 110%, to wit: "The Petition Clause is the Right conservative of all other rights." Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. You can't get any more powerful than that, can you? What do you think? /s/ Paul Mitchell p.s. To summarize, Congress did something right for a change!! :) ==================================================================== [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: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 30 Dec 1996 13:36:56 -0600 (CST) Two problems with my statement and your response. A. My statement might have been more precise B. Your response might be less smart assed. I now attempt to clarify mine and you might attempt to correct your evolutionary attainment. A nation is the product of people with similar desires, thoughts and beliefs banding together for protection and a synergistic process that will help them acheive their common goals. This is what I mean by unity of thought and purpose. This is called a social covenant. Jefferson (not Orwell) gave expression our social covenant in the Declaration of Independence. let me recomend that you read it before you read 1984. Our unity of purpose should be that we all work together looking our for the just rights of others MORE than self. If you are only concerned about YOU then buy yourself a sixgun and go off and pursue your own interests. Come to think of it we have many such people inhabiting our prisons today. No, Fritz, I do not reflect the thoughts of Orwell, but you appear to have been taking rhetoric lessons from Mr. Ed. Is this true? Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > Wow. A requirement for "unity of thought and belief". How gloriously > Orwellian. > > No one expects the Spanish Inquisition. > > Fritz > > >---------- > >From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu[SMTP:lball@unlinfo.unl.edu] > >Sent: Saturday, December 28, 1996 6:34 AM > >To: roc@xmission.com > >Subject: Re: Kwanza > > > >You libertarians are helping to lose this battle because you have > >focused upon how your rights are being trampled on. I think my path > >would be best and lead to victory in that the thrust of it is how to > >put the people back in charge of their goverment. To do this requires > >unity of thought, involvment, and belief. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fritz Sands Subject: RE: Kwanza Date: 30 Dec 1996 11:56:42 -0800 I've read the Declaration of Independence. Have you read Jefferson's Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty? It's quite a bit different from your ideas of "unity of belief". I'm all in favor of looking out for the "just rights of others". And those "just rights" include freedom of belief. Fritz >---------- >From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu[SMTP:lball@unlinfo.unl.edu] >Sent: Monday, December 30, 1996 11:36 AM >To: roc@xmission.com >Subject: Re: Kwanza > >Two problems with my statement and your response. > >A. My statement might have been more precise >B. Your response might be less smart assed. > >I now attempt to clarify mine and you might attempt to correct your >evolutionary attainment. > >A nation is the product of people with similar desires, thoughts and >beliefs banding together for protection and a synergistic process that >will help them acheive their common goals. This is what I mean by >unity of thought and purpose. This is called a social covenant. >Jefferson (not Orwell) gave expression our social covenant in the >Declaration of Independence. let me recomend that you read it before >you read 1984. > >Our unity of purpose should be that we all work together looking our >for the just rights of others MORE than self. If you are only >concerned about YOU then buy yourself a sixgun and go off and pursue >your own interests. Come to think of it we have many such people >inhabiting our prisons today. > >No, Fritz, I do not reflect the thoughts of Orwell, but you appear to >have been taking rhetoric lessons from Mr. Ed. Is this true? > >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu >> >> Wow. A requirement for "unity of thought and belief". How gloriously >> Orwellian. >> >> No one expects the Spanish Inquisition. >> >> Fritz >> >> >---------- >> >From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu[SMTP:lball@unlinfo.unl.edu] >> >Sent: Saturday, December 28, 1996 6:34 AM >> >To: roc@xmission.com >> >Subject: Re: Kwanza >> > >> >You libertarians are helping to lose this battle because you have >> >focused upon how your rights are being trampled on. I think my path >> >would be best and lead to victory in that the thrust of it is how to >> >put the people back in charge of their goverment. To do this requires >> >unity of thought, involvment, and belief. >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Universal Declaration of Human Rights Date: 30 Dec 1996 13:57:54 -0600 (CST) Part of the UN Declaraton of Human Rights is the idea that our "rights" are regulated by law. Under the US Dec of Independence, Rights are Rights and they were never meant to be regulatedy by law. iF WE Adopted the UN system we would be givng up the absolute for the temporary. Now does that sound like a deal? Perhaps the International Screw Company could take lessons from our politicians and the UN. This points out another difference. The two main foundations for American government was English and Biblical law. English law always assumed that right was right and had been that way forever. Biblical law states that right was established by God and that God expected man to maintain it. What we are now seeing take over our country is derivitive of Imperial Rome. Imperial Roman law was an evolving thing and there was no concept of absolute right. Imperial Roman law has been handed down to us through the governance of the Catholic Church. For you fear mongers of the One World Government the it would seem fair to me if you would consider the thrust of the Roman Church towards a one world government. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > Pmitch, > > > > It would seem you're quoting what we already have here in our country now. > > I fail to see any reason whatsoever to give our soverienty away to the UN > > for something we already have. > > Emmilene, > > Excellent point! > > And thanks so much for > your valuable insights here. > > See my comments infra. > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > > >emmilene > > > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com > >-> Posted by: Emmilene@aol.com > > > These treaties are at once problematic > and immense opportunities. In my opinion, > the key to understanding the treaties > lies in the Tenth Amendment. When Congress > enacted them, Reservations were attached > granting explicit legal standing to the > "localities" to compel U.S. obedience to > these treaties, in the event of U.S. > violations of those treaties. This means that > federal government violations can be > enjoined, restrained, and punished by "local" > courts. That means, at the very least, > state courts, but it may also mean city > courts, and possibly also township courts. > Obviously, we need clarification of this > immensely important question, i.e., the > legislative meaning of "locality" as that > term is used in the Reservations which > Congress attached to these treaties. > In People v. United States, we plan to > petition the DCUS for declaratory relief > as to the legislative meaning of this term. > If "locality" reaches all the way down > to lawful townships, then our sovereignty > is, indeed, preserved by these two human > rights treaties, notwithstanding the U.N., > the Hague, or any other international law(s) > which Congress may have enacted. > > Notice that the treaties guarantee effective > judicial remedies, notwithstanding that the > violations were committed by government > personnel acting in their official capacity, > and the United States is bound thereby to > develop the possibilities of effective judicial > remedies. We are applying this observation > to our finding that there is a dual-district > court system at the federal level; effective > judicial remedy means, in my book, the > availability of competent and qualified federal > judges, whose compensations are not being diminished > by federal income taxes, pursuant to Article III, > Section 1, and Evans v. Gore, S.Ct. (1920). You > cannot get relief from a court without a judge. > This is axiomatic. The treaties guarantee my > fundamental Right to exploit these insights > right in litigation, and I have other SC authorities > which support my position 110%, to wit: "The > Petition Clause is the Right conservative of all > other rights." Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. > You can't get any more powerful than that, can you? > > What do you think? > > /s/ Paul Mitchell > > p.s. To summarize, Congress did > something right for a change!! :) > > ==================================================================== > [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: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Power of the State / portents of things to come Date: 30 Dec 1996 14:41:48 PST 121] ANTHONY LEWIS: The power of the state Copyright © 1996 Nando.net Copyright © 1996 N.Y. Times News Service LONDON (Dec 30, 1996 06:54 a.m. EST) -- For all their democratic similarities, the political societies of Britain and the United States differ in a profound respect. It is a difference that goes back to the American Revolution. Americans fear the power of the state. The Framers of the Constitution wrote in devices to check power, divide it, defend individuals against it. And the instinctive fear of a centralized state remains as strong today. No such instinct is detectable in Britain. There is, rather, what must seem to Americans an extraordinary public indifference to encroachments of state power on individual rights. A current example, a startling one, is a Police Bill proposed by the Conservative government and now making its way through Parliament. It would give the police broad power to enter anyone's home or office without a warrant, rummage through papers and plant bugs. They could do so with no restraint except the good will of the chief constable in each police district, who would be the authorizing power. The bill would allow such warrantless searches and electronic surveillance to deal with any "serious" crime. Any crime punishable by a sentence of three years or more would qualify as "serious." Not only a suspected criminal's home or office would be vulnerable to those new powers. The police could search and bug anywhere -- including the offices of the target's lawyer. The privacy of legal consultations, hitherto regarded as sacrosanct in Britain and other European countries as it is under American constitutional law, could be breached at will. All this is a sharp break with what the British call their unwritten constitution: concepts of freedom that have tradition behind them though they are not enforceable as law. The maxim that "a man's home is his castle" arose in the English courts. In 1763 William Pitt the Elder said: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the rain may enter, but the king of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." When the bill was debated last month in the House of Lords, an amendment was offered to require a judicial warrant for searches and surveillance. The government defeated the amendment, opposing it on the puzzling ground that it would threaten "the traditional impartiality of judges, placing them too firmly in the law-enforcement camp." Judges have been issuing warrants here and in other countries for centuries without any such result. A highly regarded judge, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, supported the unsuccessful amendment in the Lords debate. He noted that individuals would have no remedy if the police abused their new powers -- no way to sue for damages, for example. "The common law will be able to do nothing," he said, "if the right to invade our property is conferred on the state, in the form of the police, with no prior approval from an independent party." The bill was proposed by the home secretary, Michael Howard, who has been much criticized for disregarding civil liberties. Surprisingly, the Labor opposition supported him on this bill. Jack Straw, Labor's shadow home secretary, said there would be "greater accountability" if a chief constable, rather than a judge, had the duty "to insure compliance with the law." Hugo Young, a columnist in The Guardian, scorned the notion that a police official was "the rightful custodian" of individuals' privacy. He said Straw had "plumbed the depths of intellectual chicanery." It seems especially odd that the leader of the Labor Party, Tony Blair, would let it take such an illiberal stance. He is a lawyer, and he has worked with great success to give Labor a more modern image. But the explanation is obvious. There will be an election here in 1997, and Blair does not want to look soft on crime. He is reminiscent of the Bill Clinton who allowed much illiberal legislation to become law despite civil liberties objections before the U.S. election. Fifty years ago Justice Hugo L. Black replied to an argument that the U.S. Supreme Court should follow English practice in a particular matter. Those who wrote our constitution, he said, wanted Americans to have far greater protection against official abuse than the English had ever had. The example of the Police Bill makes his point. Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu (larry ball) Subject: Re: Kwanza Date: 30 Dec 1996 17:30:18 -0600 (CST) Fritz, You have adulterated the meaning of my words. Belief has more connotations than those that pertain to religion. I never mentioned religion, not once, not a little bit. Are you doing this deliberatly or do we have a real misunderstanding here? I feel like you are torqueing me arround a little bit. For what purpose I know not. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > I've read the Declaration of Independence. Have you read Jefferson's > Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty? It's quite a bit different from > your ideas of "unity of belief". > > I'm all in favor of looking out for the "just rights of others". And > those "just rights" include freedom of belief. > > Fritz > > >---------- > >From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu[SMTP:lball@unlinfo.unl.edu] > >Sent: Monday, December 30, 1996 11:36 AM > >To: roc@xmission.com > >Subject: Re: Kwanza > > > >Two problems with my statement and your response. > > > >A. My statement might have been more precise > >B. Your response might be less smart assed. > > > >I now attempt to clarify mine and you might attempt to correct your > >evolutionary attainment. > > > >A nation is the product of people with similar desires, thoughts and > >beliefs banding together for protection and a synergistic process that > >will help them acheive their common goals. This is what I mean by > >unity of thought and purpose. This is called a social covenant. > >Jefferson (not Orwell) gave expression our social covenant in the > >Declaration of Independence. let me recomend that you read it before > >you read 1984. > > > >Our unity of purpose should be that we all work together looking our > >for the just rights of others MORE than self. If you are only > >concerned about YOU then buy yourself a sixgun and go off and pursue > >your own interests. Come to think of it we have many such people > >inhabiting our prisons today. > > > >No, Fritz, I do not reflect the thoughts of Orwell, but you appear to > >have been taking rhetoric lessons from Mr. Ed. Is this true? > > > >Larry Ball > >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > >> > >> Wow. A requirement for "unity of thought and belief". How gloriously > >> Orwellian. > >> > >> No one expects the Spanish Inquisition. > >> > >> Fritz > >> > >> >---------- > >> >From: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu[SMTP:lball@unlinfo.unl.edu] > >> >Sent: Saturday, December 28, 1996 6:34 AM > >> >To: roc@xmission.com > >> >Subject: Re: Kwanza > >> > > >> >You libertarians are helping to lose this battle because you have > >> >focused upon how your rights are being trampled on. I think my path > >> >would be best and lead to victory in that the thrust of it is how to > >> >put the people back in charge of their goverment. To do this requires > >> >unity of thought, involvment, and belief. > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Holder Subject: Re: The Year of Jefferson Date: 30 Dec 1996 16:19:55 -0800 At 11:39 AM 12/30/96 -0800, Paul Mitchell wrote: >Dear Friends, > >Jefferson is one of my absolute heroes. >The Declaration of Independence is so >magnificent, it doesn't really matter >to me what he did with the rest of his >life. But, as we know so well, he spent >the rest of his life in distinguished >public service. Give a look at his "First Inaugural Address" too: http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/jeff-i1.html -- Ken Holder kholder@liberty.com Webmaster for L. Neil Smith's Webley Pages http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/lneil.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) What 10th Amendment? Date: 30 Dec 1996 17:16:48 -0800 From Helen Johnson... >C-SPAN aired a Press Briefing from the Office of Drug Control Policy today >(12/30/96). Present were: Janet Reno, Barry McCaffery, and Donna Shalala. >The topic of the briefing was the Federal Government's position in regards >to the recently passed ballot initiatives in the states of Arizona and >California, which made the medically prescribed useage of Marajuana legal. > >My comments neither endorse nor decry drug usage, as my opinion is not at >issue, our Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, however, is. > >The Tenth Amendment reads thusly: > >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. > >With that in mind, consider the impetus of the following dialog at today's >Press Briefing: > >========================================================= >Press Question: Isn't this really a State's Rights issue? > >Janet Reno's response: We do expect that there will be litigation and we >will do everything within >our power to ensure that Federal Laws are upheld and enforced. > >Barry McCaffery's response: These two propositions simply don't affect >Federal Law. > >Donna Shalala's response: National Laws prevail here. >========================================================= > >Would someone please remind me why I should continue to vote. > >In Liberty(?), > >Helen Johnson > >=========================================================== >J.J. & Helen Johnson - Fridays - 8:00 pm EST - WWCR 5.070 Mhz >E Pluribus Unum >P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 >Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 >Web Site - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html >"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 > > - 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: The Year of Jefferson Date: 30 Dec 1996 22:06:19 -0800 Ken, Thanks very much! /s/ Paul Mitchell At 04:19 PM 12/30/96 -0800, you wrote: >At 11:39 AM 12/30/96 -0800, Paul Mitchell wrote: >>Dear Friends, >> >>Jefferson is one of my absolute heroes. >>The Declaration of Independence is so >>magnificent, it doesn't really matter >>to me what he did with the rest of his >>life. But, as we know so well, he spent >>the rest of his life in distinguished >>public service. > >Give a look at his "First Inaugural Address" >too: > >http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/jeff-i1.html > >-- >Ken Holder >kholder@liberty.com >Webmaster for L. Neil Smith's Webley Pages >http://www.liberty.com/home/kholder/lneil.html > > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Universal Declaration of Human Rights Date: 30 Dec 1996 22:57:22 -0800 Larry, I strongly encourage you to read and study the Reservations which Congress attached to its passage of these treaties. Those reservations pivot on the Tenth Amendment, NOT on world government. "We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own." U.S. v. Cruikshank. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 01:57 PM 12/30/96 -0600, you wrote: >Part of the UN Declaraton of Human Rights is the idea that our >"rights" are regulated by law. Under the US Dec of Independence, >Rights are Rights and they were never meant to be regulated by law. Ponder these four simple words: "Due process of law," as that term is used in the Fifth Amendment, is indeed regulated by law; that law is Title 28, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence. These Rules are all laws which were designed to guarantee "due process of law," which is a fundamental Right. Violations of fundamental Rights are felonies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 242, and possibly also 241. The respective state constitutions also honor due process of law as well, because they all recognize the U.S. Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land. /s/ Paul Mitchell >iF WE Adopted the UN system we would be givng up the absolute for the >temporary. Now does that sound like a deal? Perhaps the International >Screw Company could take lessons from our politicians and the UN. > >This points out another difference. The two main foundations for >American government was English and Biblical law. English law always >assumed that right was right and had been that way forever. Biblical >law states that right was established by God and that God expected man >to maintain it. > >What we are now seeing take over our country is derivitive of Imperial >Rome. Imperial Roman law was an evolving thing and there was no >concept of absolute right. Imperial Roman law has been handed down to >us through the governance of the Catholic Church. For you fear >mongers of the One World Government the it would seem fair to me if >you would consider the thrust of the Roman Church towards a one world >government. > >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > >> >> >> > Pmitch, >> > >> > It would seem you're quoting what we already have here in our country now. >> > I fail to see any reason whatsoever to give our soverienty away to the UN >> > for something we already have. >> >> Emmilene, >> >> Excellent point! >> >> And thanks so much for >> your valuable insights here. >> >> See my comments infra. >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> >> >emmilene >> > >> >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >> >-> Posted by: Emmilene@aol.com >> >> >> These treaties are at once problematic >> and immense opportunities. In my opinion, >> the key to understanding the treaties >> lies in the Tenth Amendment. When Congress >> enacted them, Reservations were attached >> granting explicit legal standing to the >> "localities" to compel U.S. obedience to >> these treaties, in the event of U.S. >> violations of those treaties. This means that >> federal government violations can be >> enjoined, restrained, and punished by "local" >> courts. That means, at the very least, >> state courts, but it may also mean city >> courts, and possibly also township courts. >> Obviously, we need clarification of this >> immensely important question, i.e., the >> legislative meaning of "locality" as that >> term is used in the Reservations which >> Congress attached to these treaties. >> In People v. United States, we plan to >> petition the DCUS for declaratory relief >> as to the legislative meaning of this term. >> If "locality" reaches all the way down >> to lawful townships, then our sovereignty >> is, indeed, preserved by these two human >> rights treaties, notwithstanding the U.N., >> the Hague, or any other international law(s) >> which Congress may have enacted. >> >> Notice that the treaties guarantee effective >> judicial remedies, notwithstanding that the >> violations were committed by government >> personnel acting in their official capacity, >> and the United States is bound thereby to >> develop the possibilities of effective judicial >> remedies. We are applying this observation >> to our finding that there is a dual-district >> court system at the federal level; effective >> judicial remedy means, in my book, the >> availability of competent and qualified federal >> judges, whose compensations are not being diminished >> by federal income taxes, pursuant to Article III, >> Section 1, and Evans v. Gore, S.Ct. (1920). You >> cannot get relief from a court without a judge. >> This is axiomatic. The treaties guarantee my >> fundamental Right to exploit these insights >> right in litigation, and I have other SC authorities >> which support my position 110%, to wit: "The >> Petition Clause is the Right conservative of all >> other rights." Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. >> You can't get any more powerful than that, can you? >> >> What do you think? >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> >> p.s. To summarize, Congress did >> something right for a change!! :) >> >> ==================================================================== >> [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 >> ==================================================================== >> >> > > ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: What 10th Amendment? Date: 30 Dec 1996 23:46:22 -0800 If Congress cannot prohibit the possession of a loaded gun within 1000 feet of a public school inside one of the several states, it cannot prohibit the possession of a substance like marijuana inside one of the several states. The Commerce Clause does not permit it. Congress can, however, prohibit possession of such a substance within the federal zone; within that zone, their prohibition is indeed supreme, but nowhere else. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 05:16 PM 12/30/96 -0800, you wrote: >>From Helen Johnson... > >>C-SPAN aired a Press Briefing from the Office of Drug Control Policy today >>(12/30/96). Present were: Janet Reno, Barry McCaffery, and Donna Shalala. >>The topic of the briefing was the Federal Government's position in regards >>to the recently passed ballot initiatives in the states of Arizona and >>California, which made the medically prescribed useage of Marajuana legal. >> >>My comments neither endorse nor decry drug usage, as my opinion is not at >>issue, our Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, however, is. >> >>The Tenth Amendment reads thusly: >> >>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. >> >>With that in mind, consider the impetus of the following dialog at today's >>Press Briefing: >> >>========================================================= >>Press Question: Isn't this really a State's Rights issue? >> >>Janet Reno's response: We do expect that there will be litigation and we >>will do everything within >>our power to ensure that Federal Laws are upheld and enforced. >> >>Barry McCaffery's response: These two propositions simply don't affect >>Federal Law. >> >>Donna Shalala's response: National Laws prevail here. >>========================================================= >> >>Would someone please remind me why I should continue to vote. >> >>In Liberty(?), >> >>Helen Johnson >> >>=========================================================== >>J.J. & Helen Johnson - Fridays - 8:00 pm EST - WWCR 5.070 Mhz >>E Pluribus Unum >>P.O. Box 477; Stockport, OH 43787 >>Voice (614) 836-7650 Fax (614) 836-7651 >>Web Site - http://home.megalinx.net/~eplurib/home.html >>"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 >> >> > > >- 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- > > ==================================================================== [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: From Nancy Lord MD JD: No More Indictments (fwd) Date: 30 Dec 1996 22:30:33 PST On Dec 31, EdgarSuter@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] --------------------- Forwarded message: INTRODUCTION The freedom movement was dealt a harsh blow this year. Since April, five indictments, all of three or more militia members, all charged with what Justice Learned Hand once called, "Conspiracy, the darling of the prosecutor's nursery." There were convictions in Macon and more are coming. Every case was made by a government agent who instigated conduct that supported federal conspiracy charges. Since the Macon case, I have spoken with lawyers or accuseds in all four other cases. It is painfully clear that the militia movement needs to understand federal conspiracy law. This post may not be well received. What I say here does not comport with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or even published case law. But it is what happens in a federal courtroom, where it will defeat those who do not comprehend. First, a group must agree never to condone or participate in illegal activity and to exclude anyone who tries to instigate it. These guidelines should help decide what is legal, illegal, or could be made to look illegal by an overzealous prosecutor and his confidential informant. CONSPIRACY A conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act. It is not a signed contract, or even a handshake, but can be "tacit" - - a wink and a nod, an unspoken understanding. It can mean nothing more than holding military training one day and discussing the Russian tanks at an airbase the next. Evidence can be direct or circumstantial, and a jury can infer whatever the government wants them to believe. One person can think about and plan any illegal act. He can have diagrams of buildings, maps to the prospective victims' houses, but without a substantive step (attempt) or request for help (solicitation), there is no crime. (Though if someone else does it, the diagrams and maps mean trouble.) For two people together, a wishful dream is a conspiracy. Two people in the library reading about explosives could be charged with conspiracy to manufacture explosives. This violates the first amendment, but Hizzoner will not agree. DEFENSE AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICIALS It is illegal to defend yourself against a federal official who is acting within the scope of his job. He can violate regulations and the constitution, but if he is on duty, you do not have the right to strike back. Citizens are expected to be arrested and fight it out later in court. This is horrible, but it is the law. That is not to say that I would go quietly to the gas chambers. There may come a time to break this law, but it is still the law. One can only defend against a fed if he is acting outside the scope of his job, "on a frolic", like attempting date rape. A frolicking fed is like anyone else and can be met with force neccessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. CONSPIRACY TO DEFEND The combination of these laws means that getting together to prepare to defend against federal officials is as conspiracy, particularly if there is any talk of explosives. If a group of people vocally criticize the federal government and engage in so-called para-military training, this conspiracy can be "inferred." An Assistant U.S. Attorney will not have to be a rocket-scientist to make an inference that the government is who they plan to fight. The public is so poorly educated that jurors are easily terrified. It is legal to resist a fed only when he is not acting as a fed, but as anyone else. Studying self defense against any and all attackers, not the feds or even the U.N., is legal and was the purpose for the constitutional militias. DO AND DON'T Patriots who speak out about the unconstitutional expansion of the federal government, U.N. control, illegal raids, etc., should not engage in training exercises. Instead learn self defense by joining the reserves or the Sheriff's auxiliary, or taking a firearms, martial arts, or ROTC course. Work on physical fitness and practice roughing it by camping with a nature appreciation club. Nobody needs to put a bulls-eye on his head to shoot straight, run fast, and build endurance. If you feel that military style preparedness is tantamount, then leave the first amendment activities to others. I'm trampling on the constitution, but it is, again, reality. Col. Bo Gritz has not been indicted for S.P.I.K.E. training because training alone is not illegal (in most states), as long as the government is not the enemy. Any group doing both public education and training with the same people and the same leaders is asking for indictment. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Intent to start "a war with the federal government" can been "proven" by the video tapes, books, speeches, radio shows, that the movement produces. The Vipers were indicted based on a video that one of them produced. The movement custom of videotaping every speech should be curtailed, and nothing taped with even a hint of impending violence. If you have a tape like this around, you are not required to keep it secure. Once an investigation starts, or a subpoena issues, it will be obstruction of justice to destroy it. A spy thriller taped over it will have more information on the satellite tracking systems, electronic interception, and other high-tech spy methods than a speech about targets, and six guys with rifles will be picked off real quick if the government ever makes all out war against its citizens. They are not going to round up all dissidents at once but are picking off one group at a time, by using informants. CATCHING THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS Think of the momentum for freedom if in 1997 five government paid confidential informants (CI's) were publicly exposed trying to provoke crimes before anyone else got in trouble. Have a notary at your meeting, and ask all participants to swear to and sign an affidavit that they are not affiliated in any way with law enforcement or are in law enforcement and there for personal interest; and that they will not provoke illegal conduct. If this is a lie, it will show in court that this person committed perjury. Assign a few responsible people as security, and identify them with badges or hats. Tell participants that anyone who suggests illegal acts should be reported to security, who will then investigate the troublemaker and decide how to proceed. Some troublemakers just needs attention and a talking to, others will need to be excluded, and a call to the Sheriff may be in order if you suspect a CI. A group with resources can thoroughly investigate a troublemaker -- criminal background (informants almost always have records), whom he or she meets with, where his or her money comes from, etc. If you find unexplained cash and meetings with a guy in a Taurus as soon as your meeting is over, you've probably caught a CI. DO NOT threaten or in any way disclose what you know, but get as much good press out of this as you can. The CI might be taped trying to provoke illegal conduct, but only a trained interviewer should try this and the plan must be documented. Do not incriminate yourself trying to catch the CI on tape. Once you've got the evidence, send a letter to the Sheriff, the local U.S. Attorney's office, B.A.T.F., and F.B.I. This will force them to disclose it to defense attorneys, under Brady v. Maryland, if the CI ever tries to make a case against your group. Then, get it out on the radio. Invite the CI onto a local talk show, and confront him on the air. Send a letter to the public defender's office, informing them of this transaction, without details. They will know about Brady material on the CI, but the U.S. Attorney will still have to disclose it. Do not disclose it for him. LOVE THY NEIGHBOR A CI is a highly manipulative person who preys on the weak. One CI working for minimum wage and driving 100 miles twice a week for meetings, took an entire family out for dinners to win them over. It worked, and nobody even questioned where the money came from. If someone in your group is in trouble, a responsible and caring person should help through the crisis, before a clever CI can ingratiate himself and gain control of his psyche. CONCLUSION The public needs to know what happened during the past year. The convictions in Macon prove that the average person does not understand the lengths to which the government goes to create a case against those who speak out against it. The only way they will understand is if future entrapments are prevented and CI's are exposed attempting to manufacture crime. Only then will infiltrating law abiding groups become an unacceptable risk for the government. In Liberty, ======================================================= Nancy Lord, M.D. Attorney at Law defense@macon.mindspring.com Pager: 800-975-8520 Temporary office location: 191 East Broad Street Suite 210 Athens, Georgia 30601 706-548-9630 "The purpose of the jury is to prevent the oppression by the government." Duncan v. Louisiana, Supreme Court, 1968. ======================================================= [------------------------- 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: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Critical thinking Date: 31 Dec 1996 00:03:27 -0800 Jim, So, let's start the New Year out 'Right', with a bit of critical thinking about our Rights. If we think about it, maybe a good logical argument can save the day. -- For those of the numerolgy bent, 1997 = 8. The number 8 is an omen of supremely good luck. -- Now for the serious stuff The United States of North America, are first and foremost a collection of boundaried entities called States, that represent the _indidvidual_ citizens residing therein. The citizens of this nation, have come together to form a government that serves the common need and to preserve the Rights, the liberties and the freedoms of its _individual_ citizens, that were so hard won from the grasp of tyranny and oppression. That the people have sought to unite, and gather under one banner to reflect their unity, does not even in the slightest imply a collectivist mood. The highest objective of government in these here United States, is first and formost to preserve the Rights and Liberties of the _individual_, and not of the group. Had the great object of our humble beginnings been that of the collectivist bent, then our freedoms and liberties would have been spoken of much differently, in all passages of the Declaration of independence, and the U.S. Constitution with its "Bill of Rights". It is corrupt in the worst way, to presume that any Rights spoken of in the U.S. Constitution, is uttered in the collectivist sense. The Constitution is a bill of particulars that outlines the limits of government authority, and a sure limit upon any undue government intrusion into the lives of the _individual_. Individual citizens have Rights and the powers that go with the Rights, groups have _power_ only. Groups - and thus States and the United States government, derive their _powers_ from the individual citizens that form the group. Power is merely the delegated authority to act; it is the execution of the contract between the citizen and the elected/appointed - within the frameworks of the respective Constitutions. Therefore, citizens have Rights and _power_, representitive entities have _powers_ only. Rights are held highest and superior over _any_ power. Since power is merely _delegated authority_, and as such cannot _simply_ be used to overcome the source that issued it forth, authority then, must use due process. Powers do not overcome Rights - except _only_ by due process, or under the most extenuating of circumstances, and then only for the duration of the circumstance - and always to recover. If that were not so, then a Right once removed would be excised permanently. Since such a thing cannot happen without amending whatever Constitution, then Rights always recover. Consonant with the foregoing, it would be supreme anathema and extreme irony, for a people to have struggled and fought long and hard with the ultimate sacifice of many, only to allow its government to strike from its premier document - the Constitution, the Rights and Liberties so enshrined within. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Constitution, was and is as a limit on government power - not as some would think, to facilitate it. To wit: The Bill of Rights is a mandate to the government having amended it and _supra_ to the superiority clause (Art. VI), that speaks above all the law that is enacted or will be enacted, and is the bulwark beyond which none may breach, and for which all are to be held accountable. No clause within the Constitution can be used to subordinate a Right. By legal definition, a Right cannot be defined dually, ie., a Right here, vs a privilage there. Neither can a legal term be defined in more than one way, ie., 'People' as individuals, vs 'People' as groups. By the definition of Rights vs Power then,simple legislation is the _definition_ of the power to act, but not the power to overcome or even nullify. The Right of the _one_ is equal to the powers of the _many_, and thus are Rights protected. Hence, legislation enacted to become law does not automatically overcome any Right - it merely creates an impasse, through which no law may act except for extenuating circumstance; otherwise, the law is null. This basis in law is well known on the American scene, since no law enacted is lawful simply on its face. A mere prohibition without just cause and a reasoanble historic basis for enactment, is without substance. And even with a historical basis, individual Rights are still above all. The fact of exercise of whatever Right cannot be limited simply on it face, but must be specifically for place _and_ time _and_ for cause. A law simply cannot be enacted to remove a Right. It can be enacted to limit the exercise of a Right to prevent injury, or death. As an example, consider fireams. No law of Constitutional authority can limit the possession or carriage of any arm used in self-defense in any normal situation. However, laws can be enacted to specify that discharge of an arm may not take place in a manner that will or may cause harm, either by the noise or by the projectile, in settings where such acts may happen - except in self-defense. Carriage may also be reasonably restricted, in such instances where the possession by unlawfull persons may happen, such as Law Courts, assylums, police station houses in the areas of cells, and the like. Laws are made to punish irresponsible acts, not to prohibit otherwise lawfull behavior. Outlawing drinking because people get drunk, is the same as outlawing driving because people drive fast, is the same as outlawing speaking because people may lie. In the face of laws that presume to remove an object that faciltitates criminal acts, the law that is made which restricts access to items previously obtainable, on the premise that unlawfull activity will be diminished, is null in its reasoning. The supposition being, that if _all lawfull_ activity is removed, all _unlawfull activity_ will be removed. It presumes to think that all individuals are untrustworthy, and therefore without Rights. It equates the law abiding with the the law breaking. It reduces the individual Rights to collective rights. It is the ultimate example of intellectual bastardy. Such reasoning flies directly into the face of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The only lawful recourse is due process, or Constitutional amendment. Lacking action by government in either regard, the law is void, and no individual is can be held to account or be made to obey its edict. This simple proposition is vindicated by the fact that the individual is the first in the chain of power, and each subsequent delegation of power (authority) to act derives less power that what was originally given. Thus the need for supermajorities by the Federal legislature and the legislatures of the several States when amending the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution then, is an instrument that delineates the use of power or delegated authority, and is the conduit through which citizens control their government. The various State and local governments that operate at the pleasure of the individual citizen's behest, must always look first and foremost to the document of the U.S. Constitution, and then to the repective State Constitution for guidance in the pursuance of their duties. Neglecting to consider either, and/or pursuing acts that fly into the face of both, is at best a recursion into the prior form of government - tyranny. When individual citizens neglect to demand stiff and mandatory penalties for violations of individual Rights by government representitives, they invite every sort of insult to be visited upon themselves and their fellows. Ed Have a have a have a have a New year! (ya'll) And remember, use plenty o' tee killer in the tea. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: What 10th Amendment? Date: 30 Dec 1996 20:53:48 -0800 >If Congress cannot prohibit the >possession of a loaded gun within >1000 feet of a public school >inside one of the several states, >it cannot prohibit the possession >of a substance like marijuana >inside one of the several states. >The Commerce Clause does not permit it. >Congress can, however, prohibit possession >of such a substance within the federal >zone; within that zone, their prohibition >is indeed supreme, but nowhere else. > >/s/ Paul Mitchell Uh, Paul, Congress *has* prohibited the possession of a loaded gun within 1000 feet of a public school. The supremes declared it unconstitutional, but Congress re-instituted it anyway. It's the current law. Sure, it's unconstitutional and therefore null and void, but that won't keep you out of jail or keep them from yanking your medical license permanently for prescribing medicinal marijuana. - 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: Power of the State / portents of things to come Date: 31 Dec 1996 00:27:57 -0800 Jack, >>>>>>> [...] LONDON (Dec 30, 1996 06:54 a.m. EST) -- For all their democratic similarities, the political societies of Britain and the United States differ in a profound respect. It is a difference that goes back to the American Revolution. [...] <<<<<<< What's that old saying about "you get the government you deserve"? Damn! Maybe we'll have a front seat to a new revolution in 2030. I figure it'll take that long for the tyranny to set in real good. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo Subject: Re: From Nancy Lord MD JD: No More Indictments (fwd) Date: 31 Dec 1996 13:08:38 -0800 (PST) At 10:30 PM 12/30/96 PST, you wrote: >On Dec 31, EdgarSuter@aol.com wrote: > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: defense@macon.mindspring.com (Nancy Lord) >To: defense@macon.mindspring.com (Nancy Lord) >Date: 96-12-30 21:55:42 EST > >INTRODUCTION > >The freedom movement was dealt a harsh blow this year. >Since April, five indictments, all of three or more militia >members, all charged with what Justice Learned Hand once >called, "Conspiracy, the darling of the prosecutor's > >nursery." There were convictions in Macon and more are >coming. Every case was made by a government agent who >instigated conduct that supported federal conspiracy charges. > >Since the Macon case, I have spoken with lawyers or accuseds >in all four other cases. It is painfully clear that the militia >movement needs to understand federal conspiracy law. This >post may not be well received. What I say here does not >comport with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or even >published case law. But it is what happens in a federal >courtroom, where it will defeat those who do not comprehend. > >First, a group must agree never to condone or participate in >illegal activity and to exclude anyone who tries to instigate >it. These guidelines should help decide what is legal, >illegal, or could be made to look illegal by an overzealous >prosecutor and his confidential informant. > >CONSPIRACY > >A conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act. It is not >a signed contract, or even a handshake, but can be "tacit" - >- a wink and a nod, an unspoken understanding. It can mean >nothing more than holding military training one day and >discussing the Russian tanks at an airbase the next. >Evidence can be direct or circumstantial, and a jury can >infer whatever the government wants them to believe. > >One person can think about and plan any illegal act. He can >have diagrams of buildings, maps to the prospective victims' >houses, but without a substantive step (attempt) or request >for help (solicitation), there is no crime. (Though if >someone else does it, the diagrams and maps mean trouble.) > >For two people together, a wishful dream is a conspiracy. >Two people in the library reading about explosives could be >charged with conspiracy to manufacture explosives. This >violates the first amendment, but Hizzoner will not agree. As I understand conspiracy it requires two elements: 1. Agreement to do an illegal act, and 2. An act in furtherance of that agreement. If two people talk about blowing up a building and one person calls the hardware store to get the price on the wire needed, it is a conspiracy. Number 2 is very vague and, as this writer points out, nearly anything can be construed as "furtherance" including buying a book or making a diagram. > S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: Reparations, Prisoners, and the Jubilee Year Date: 31 Dec 1996 23:31:06 -0800 Dear Friends, In People v. United States et al., we have convened an Article III court of competent jurisdiction, with a 3-judge panel. This court has immense power, enough to hear a bankruptcy case. The People have the authority, under the Tenth Amendment, to compel the defendant(s) into involuntary bankruptcy, and invoke bankruptcy rules in that forum. That will set the stage to offset the $5 trillion, with all accumulated damages sustained by all Americans who are willing to come forward and intervene, pursuant to FRCP Rule 24(a) (Intervention of Right); e.g., we can quantify the cumulative damages from thousands of unlawful prison terms; each day carries a tort penalty, against the United States. I would not be surprised if we are looking at a real Jubilee Year here; the 3-judge panel can wash the slate clean, and we can begin 1998 with no debt, and no income tax. Now, won't that be swell? I believe we can do it, if we have the will and the determination. Won't you join us? The legal procedures are already in place, waiting for us to exercise them. So, this is my open invitation to all Americans who are presently incarcerated as political prisoners, particularly for "tax crimes." Please send me a 500-word abstract of your case, and a donation (if possible) and we will assist you with your Intervention of Right in People v. United States et al., pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. That is the major theme of People v. United States et al. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 10:59 PM 12/31/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 08:40 PM 12/31/96 -0500, M. Simon wrote: > >>Perhaps when this war is over we will be able to demand >>reparations from America. > > You and millions of others, and they're running > a deficit in the trillions. > I'm not sure you can get blood from a grape. > >Sincerely, >carl Olsen ==================================================================== [Text is usually formatted in Courier 11 non-proportional spacing @] [65-characters per line; .DOCs by MS-WORD for MS-DOS, Version 5.0B.] Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., email address: pmitch@primenet.com ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776, Tucson, Arizona state [We win] We can decode all your byte streams, spaghetti code notwithstanding. Coming soon: "Manifesto for a Republic" by John E. Trumane ie JetMan ==================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paul Andrew Mitchell Subject: "learned in the law" (?) Date: 31 Dec 1996 23:39:44 -0800 This is a direct quote from Title 28 Notes: "Words 'learned in the law' were omitted as unnecessary. Such requirement is not made of United States judges and no reason appears to make a distinction respecting United States attorneys." 28 U.S.C. 541. United States attorneys, Historical and Statutory Notes, Federal Civil Judicial Procedure and Rules, West Publishing Company, 1996 Edition ==================================================================== [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 ====================================================================