From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Cell Phone Cancer Study (fwd) Date: 01 May 1997 08:09:51 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cell phones/cancer connection. by Stewart Fist The Australian newspaper, Tues 29 April 1997 A team of scientists funded by Telstra to investigate claimed links between cellular phones and cancer has turned up probably the most significant finding of an adverse health effects yet. When presented to 'Science' magazine for publication the study was rejected on the grounds that publication "would cause a panic". Three other prominent magazines including 'Nature' also later rejected the report, suggesting that they would not handle such important conclusions without the research being further confirmed. The study looked at 200 mice, half exposed and half not, to pulsed digital phone radiation. The work was conducted at the Royal Adelaide Hospital by Dr Michael Repacholi, Professor Tony Basten, Dr Alan Harris and statistician Val Gebski, and it revealed a highly-significant doubling of cancer rates in the exposed group. The mice were subject to GSM-type pulsed microwaves at a power-density roughly equal to a cell-phone transmitting for two half-hour periods each day; this was pulsed transmission as from a handset, not the steady transmission of a cell-phone tower. A significant increase in B-cell lymphomas was evident early in the experiment, but the incidence continued to rise over the 18 months. The implications of the B-cell (rather than the normal T-cell) lymphomas here, is that B-cell effects are implicated in roughly 85 percent of all cancers. The experiment was conducted as a blind trial, using absolutely identical equipment and conditions for two groups of 100 mice. The only difference between handling the two groups was that the power to one antenna was never switched on. Over the 18 months, the exposed mice had 2.4-times the tumour rate of the unexposed - but this was later corrected downwards to a more confident 2-times claim to remove other possible influences. According to Dr Alan Harris from the Walter and Eliza Institute in Melbourne: "This is important because at present, there was no convincing evidence that radio fields (in contrast to X- and Gamma-rays, ultraviolet and atomic radiation) can directly cause the changes in genes responsible for cancer development." In fact, until late 1996, most governments and all cell-phone companies have been claiming that the safety of their product has been proved - and that the only possible biological effect of radio frequency transmission is localised body heating. The conduct of this experiment actually raises questions more about the potential for cell-phone hanset radiation to effect people nearby (passive exposures) than just the user him/herself. The experiment was conducted in the 'far field', at distances greater from the mice than the cell-phone is normally held from the head. Near-field biological effects in EMF effects are thought to be sustantially different from far-field, although the biomedical implications are not clear. Also, in close proximity, most of the energy transfers from the handset to the head by induction rather than just radiation, and this can raise the energy transfer by a factor of four. The study therefore under-rates the potential power effects on the handset user, while over-rating those for people nearby. The Adelaide study has been held back from publication for over two years while the B-cell implications were checked at a laboratory in Maryland, USA. Under their contract with Telstra, those involved in the study were prohibited from discussing their findings until after publication. Increased tumours began to be recorded after about 9 months. It is important to note that these were transgenic mice, specially bred to be susceptible to cancers of the immune system. However susceptible mice are commonly used in these studies as 'proxies', since cancer-causing effects are believed to be cumulative at the cell level. The total exposure period is very much less than can be expected from human use over a lifetime, so while one of the scientists downplayed the importance, saying, "humans are not rodents" another pointed out that "DNA is DNA". Every attempt appears to have been made to hose down the significance of this report, however the importance of the finding will not be lost on the international scientific community. This research now places Australia at the fore-front of EMF-health research, and it demands a series of follow-up studies to investigate dose-related responses and near-field effects. An expensive video-conference is being mounted on Wednesday by Telstra in Adelaide to officially release the report, with Dr Michael Repacholi speaking from Geneva. He has been prominent crusader on the side of "cell-phones are safe" lobby for many years. However, none of the technical or medical press involved in this debate have been invited to Adelaide conference. The official press release issued by the chairman of the scientific committee, Professor Tony Basten of Sydney University, also leads with gentle fire-extinguisher statement that "In our opinion the findings are valid for this genetically-engineered mouse model, but they must be put in context. Mice and humans absorb energy from these fields differently so we cannot conclude from this single study that humans have an increased risk of cancer from the use of digital mobile phones. More focussed research needs to be done to resolve that issue" I couldn't agree more on the last point, but nothing done in the last few years with the exception of the Drs. Lai-Singh work in Seattle has more obviously established that cell-phone safety has not yet been proved. There has been evidence accumulating over many years that the long-term effects of radio-frequency exposures may have serious consequences for a small percent of the population, but this has been ignored by the industry and by governments. The fact that Prof. Tony Basten concluded his release with the statement "For the time being, at least, I see no scientific reason to stop using my own mobile phone," is largely irrelevant. At his age and in his occupation, the potential dangers from increased phone use are probably minimal. The question is, would he buy his teenage child one? SIDEBAR This report follows two other fierce brush-fire in the cell-phone industry. The first was generated last year when Dr Henry Lai and Dr Singh at Washington State University reported enormous increases in double-strand DNA breaks in rat-brain tissue following microwave exposures of only two hours. The industry largely ignored these findings claiming that the frequencies used were not identical to cell-phones. In addition, the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) group in the USA, which is funded by the cell-phone industry has become embroiled in a number of scandals. The WTR was promoted to the public and to the US Government as being an 'independent' and 'arms-length' body controlling $25 million in research funding. Recent leaked documents show that it has been under the direct control of the industry association, and it has long operated as a PR front. In the last four years it has spent $17 million "without wetting a test-tube, " according to Microwave News editor, Louis Slessin. Following the tobacco industry's problems, the WTR scientists recently went on strike for nearly a year, refusing to perform their contracted research until adequately covered for indemnity against law suits by the cellular phone industry association. Last week, the WTR was finally paid US$938,000 to fund indeminity insurance coverage. The US scientists' sensitivity to this issue follows the filing of thirty-eight cases which are now before the courts over past tobacco-safety studies. Both the tobacco company lawyers and the scientists they funded have been charged as co-conspirators with the Tobacco Institute and the cigarette companies in suppressing evidence and manipulating research results. END ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The sleight of hand comes while you are reading their lips! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stewart Fist Technical writer and journalist. Homepage:< http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/stewart_fist > Archives of my columns:< http://www.abc.net.au/http/pipe.htm > Development site: Phone:+612 9416 7458 Fax: +612 9416 4582 PGP mail preferred Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 Key available on BAL server, http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear | tel: (702) 658-2654 CEO | fax: (702) 658-2673 First ECache Exchange | 7075 West Gowan Road | Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | Internet: azur@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End of forwarded message from Stewart Fist ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Sloganeering Date: 01 May 1997 11:03:30 -0400 (EDT) THE SECRET SERVICE PROTECTS THE FIRST FAMILY MY "FIRST FAMILY" PROTECTS ITSELF I AM MY FAMILY'S FAVORITE "SECRET SERVICE AGENT" RAISE THE RISKS FOR CRIMINALS MAKE THEM WONDER: "WHO IS ARMED?" THIS VEHICLE CERTIFIED "VICTIM-FREE" BY CONCERNED CAR-JACKERS OF AMERICA DRIVE CRIMINALS OUT OF BUSINESS BE ARMED WHENEVER YOU DRIVE I LOVE MY FAMILY DEARLY THAT'S WHY I'M THE NRA PRO-FAMILY PRO-SAFETY PRO-GUN SELF-DEFENSE IS A MORAL RIGHT I LOVE AND PROTECT MY SPOUSE AND KIDS IT'S A NRA FAMILY TRADITION MY CHILD IS AN HONOR SHOOTER AT (This one will drive NEA types NUTS!) (NAME) FIREARMS & RANGE Feel free to edit these slogans and to share them with like-minded folks. We need to get some new, hard hitting slogans out on the street. "I'm The NRA And I Vote" is getting mighty old and tired. It's time for something new and fresh, something designed to attract "fence sitters" who might just topple over onto our side of the issue. Best regards, Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Sloganeering Date: 01 May 1997 08:28:30 -0700 Howz bouts: A CONCEALED WEAPON: NEVER LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT - Monte >THE SECRET SERVICE PROTECTS THE FIRST FAMILY > MY "FIRST FAMILY" PROTECTS ITSELF > >I AM MY FAMILY'S FAVORITE > "SECRET SERVICE AGENT" > > RAISE THE RISKS FOR CRIMINALS >MAKE THEM WONDER: "WHO IS ARMED?" > >THIS VEHICLE CERTIFIED "VICTIM-FREE" >BY CONCERNED CAR-JACKERS OF AMERICA > >DRIVE CRIMINALS OUT OF BUSINESS > BE ARMED WHENEVER YOU DRIVE > >I LOVE MY FAMILY DEARLY >THAT'S WHY I'M THE NRA > >PRO-FAMILY PRO-SAFETY PRO-GUN >SELF-DEFENSE IS A MORAL RIGHT > >I LOVE AND PROTECT MY SPOUSE AND KIDS > IT'S A NRA FAMILY TRADITION > >MY CHILD IS AN HONOR SHOOTER AT (This one will drive NEA types NUTS!) > (NAME) FIREARMS & RANGE > >Feel free to edit these slogans and to share them with like-minded folks. >We need to get some new, hard hitting slogans out on the street. "I'm The >NRA And I Vote" is getting mighty old and tired. It's time for something >new and fresh, something designed to attract "fence sitters" who might >just topple over onto our side of the issue. > >Best regards, > >Christopher C. Ferris >Litchfield NH >ferriscc@mainstream.net > > > - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg@hevanet.com (wbg) Subject: Re: Sloganeering Date: 01 May 1997 08:40:37 -0700 (PDT) > Feel free to edit these slogans and to share them with like-minded folks. > We need to get some new, hard hitting slogans out on the street. > Christopher C. Ferris I agree with you, Chris, that we need to get the word out as much as we possibly can, but I strongly recommend against the use of what are often referred to by crime experts as "Target Indicators". The classic case of the Target Indicator is that old favorite bumper sticker: THIS TRUCK PROTECTED BY SMITH & WESSON No matter how you slice, dice, and analyze it, Chris, you are (statistically) begging for a car clout if you emblazon your vehicle with firearms-related stickers. Let's drill down through the windows - - (1) it is not possible, even in a concealed-carry jurisdiction, for you to have your pistol out of the vehicle and in your possession at all times. What happens if you have to enter a post office or other government facility? (2) We can only speculate what folks do who do not have a carry permit, but have their piece with them while on the road - but *whenever* they may leave the firearm in their vehicle, if that vehicle carries a gun-related sticker, they statistically increase their chances of losing it to a car clout. (3) Forget whether your cherished 1911 is *ever* left in the vehicle; so, okay - you never go into a post office. You are still increasing, no doubt, no argument, statistically increasing, the chance that your vehicle's window will be smashed, if you have any sort of decoration on it suggesting to a passing scumbag that there *might* be a firearm within. *Might* be is plenty enough, statistically, for your average slimeball; the overwhelming majority of car clouts and burglaries are done on *spec*; without any concrete prior detailed knowledge of what particular booty awaits within. Food for thought, I hope. Your thoughts? Brewster -- *********************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Re: Sloganeering Date: 01 May 1997 12:04:53 -0400 (EDT) No can do, Monte. Clinton has a copyright on that slogan already. So sorry. :-) Chris On Thu, 1 May 1997, Liberty or Death wrote: > Howz bouts: > > A CONCEALED WEAPON: > NEVER LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT > > - Monte > > >THE SECRET SERVICE PROTECTS THE FIRST FAMILY > > MY "FIRST FAMILY" PROTECTS ITSELF > > > >I AM MY FAMILY'S FAVORITE > > "SECRET SERVICE AGENT" > > > > RAISE THE RISKS FOR CRIMINALS > >MAKE THEM WONDER: "WHO IS ARMED?" > > > >THIS VEHICLE CERTIFIED "VICTIM-FREE" > >BY CONCERNED CAR-JACKERS OF AMERICA > > > >DRIVE CRIMINALS OUT OF BUSINESS > > BE ARMED WHENEVER YOU DRIVE > > > >I LOVE MY FAMILY DEARLY > >THAT'S WHY I'M THE NRA > > > >PRO-FAMILY PRO-SAFETY PRO-GUN > >SELF-DEFENSE IS A MORAL RIGHT > > > >I LOVE AND PROTECT MY SPOUSE AND KIDS > > IT'S A NRA FAMILY TRADITION > > > >MY CHILD IS AN HONOR SHOOTER AT (This one will drive NEA types NUTS!) > > (NAME) FIREARMS & RANGE > > > >Feel free to edit these slogans and to share them with like-minded folks. > >We need to get some new, hard hitting slogans out on the street. "I'm The > >NRA And I Vote" is getting mighty old and tired. It's time for something > >new and fresh, something designed to attract "fence sitters" who might > >just topple over onto our side of the issue. > > > >Best regards, > > > >Christopher C. Ferris > >Litchfield NH > >ferriscc@mainstream.net > > > > > > > > > - Monte > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, > for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in > power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, > and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. > Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness > of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Sloganeering Date: 01 May 1997 16:10:57 -0600 how about: A bumper sticker that shows a circle slash through a gun followed by a slogan followed by a gun inside a valentine-style heart. slogan between the two symbols to read "Wanna bet?" or "You bet your life." or "Guess." or "Bet You Can't Eat Just One." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Bill of Attainder Project Date: 01 May 1997 12:26:45 -0700 Dennis, [...] The sheriff, Ralph Froehlich, had this to say: "I believe firmly in the constitution and the right to bear arms. This incident, however, demonstrates the absolute need for a more effective means of gun registration and control. One family had 65 firearms in their possession. [...] Amazing, isn't it? "I believe firmly in the constitution and the right to bear arms." And then with his next breath: "This incident, however, demonstrates the absolute need for a more effective means of gun registration and control." A fool shall be known by his choice of words. In the case above, duplicitous is a fine word with which to describe the 'sheriff'. I am given to wonder though, why every person who owns many a volume of books, is not subject to the very same scrutiny. Consider if you will, that the merest of words is sufficient to evoke the necessary acts to spark an uprising. Whereas, the mere posession of an arm is likely to do nothing at all. In consideration of the amount of obfuscation behind 'gun control', and in view of all the rhetoric used to assign ever more control over the enumerated Rights, consider this: The 1st Article of Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Notice specifically, that the word "Right" is not used to describe the usage of "speech" or "press", but merely "the freedom of" them. Whereas, in the 2nd Article of Amendment: "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." It would seem then, that wherever the word 'Right' is used, it is under attack. Notice that the people do not _specifically_ have a Right to keep books and the like. It is merely 'understood'. I await the day, when some infernal idiot to office, decides that there is no Right to keep books and the like, but merely possess them for a finite period. The "Gun Control Laws" are the "Fahrenheit 451" of the 2nd Article of Amendment community. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wbg@hevanet.com (wbg) Subject: Re: Sloganeering Date: 01 May 1997 18:01:00 -0700 (PDT) > > how about: > > A bumper sticker that shows a circle slash through a gun followed by a > slogan followed by a gun inside a valentine-style heart. > > slogan between the two symbols to read "Wanna bet?" or "You bet your > life." or "Guess." or "Bet You Can't Eat Just One." > I like it. -- *********************************************************************** W. Brewster Gillett wbg@hevanet.com Portland, Oregon USA *********************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FCC Public File Auto-FAQ Date: 01 May 1997 23:59:22 PST This "FAQ" is auto-posted once a month via cron triggered script, and may be triggered off by hand from time to time in between if the info is requested by someone, such as when the House recently voted down the AW Ban and the Media threw a hissy fit. The purpose of this FAQ is to inform people what they can do about Media generated lies and misinformation. While the FCC only handles Broadcast Media, (TV and Radio), some of these techniques will work for magazines and newspapers too. If I've missed something, or you find errors, let me know and I'll add/fix it. 1.a. Send letters of complaint to the Station Manager every time it happens with all the time, details, other info, and your complaint(s). 1.b. Send an additional copy for their FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Public file. 1.c. Send an additional copy to the FCC itself, in case they don't put it in their Public file. 2.a. Send a letter of complaint to their Station Owner as per above, with copies as per above (1.b and 1.c). 3. Send copies of their replies to you along with yours to them to their FCC Public file, so that it gets nice and fat, again, with copies to the FCC itself. 4. If you can afford it, send all corespondence by Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested. Send a copy of the Return Receipt with everything that goes to the FCC itself, so that they will have additional evidence if the Station is cheating on their Public File. 5.a. Go to the Public Library and look up "Standard Rate and Data Services" (SRDS) "Directory of National Advertisers." It is found in many major Libraries (in the business/reference stacks), and lists EVERY current advertiser, who the players are at both the company and advertising agency(s), and the appropriate telephone and fax (and probably E-Mail by now) addresses. If your Library doesn't have it, it can be requested. Otherwise you can watch their commercials for a few days to a week, listing all their advertisers. There are other references that have the addresses for the nation's business headquarters too. look them all up and pass the addresses and phone/FAX numbers etc., around so that everyone can bitch to the sponsors. IF enough people do that, it'll get back to the Station. Tell them if the Station continues their nastiness you'll _consider_ changing to brand(X), (otherwise they'll just write you off as a loss). 5.b. The above, (5.a.), can be a lot easier and less time consuming if you're dealing with a newspaper's or a magazine's ads, as they are right in front of you for the listing. 6. If they put on something good or even just more reasonable, call and compliment them on it, but do _not_ send any kudos to their FCC file, or write to them about it. That way they have to keep it up and hope, as there is nothing good in the file or in writing that they can show the FCC to justify their Station's License. 7. Federal Communications Commission, Complaints and Compliance Division Room 6218, 2025 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 FAX: 202-653-9659 FCC Attn: Edythe Wise ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: linzellr@datastar.net Subject: Cato Online Update Vol. 2 No. 7 Date: 02 May 1997 10:18:34 -0500 Cato On-Line Update Vol. 2 No. 7 April 30, 1997 http://www.cato.org --------------------------- Welcome to the latest issue of the Cato On-Line Update, your guide to what's happening on the Cato Web site. The Cato On-Line Update will be released approximately twice per month. For instructions on how to unsubscribe from the Update, see the end of this message. Under the description of each item you will find a URL address. To access that document, cut and paste the address into your web browser, or visit the main site at http://www.cato.org and browse around. CATO STUDY SHOWS HOW NATIONAL SALES TAX WOULD WORK Analysts recommend replacement of income and capital gains taxes, abolition of IRS Replacing the income tax with a 15 percent national sales tax would have a highly beneficial impact on the U.S. economy and raise the standard of living of the American public, according to David R. Burton and Dan R. Mastromarco, authors of a new Cato Institute analysis. In "Emancipating America from the Income Tax: How a National Sales Tax Would Work," Burton and Mastromarco, partners in the Argus Group, show that a national sales tax, while exempting low-income Americans, could replace the individual and corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, the estate and gift taxes and non-trust-fund excise taxes while raising the same amount of revenue. Burton and Mastromarco propose a national sales tax plan that includes a 15 percent sales tax on the final purchase of goods and services at the retail level; a universal rebate for every household, exempting all consumption up to the poverty level; reimbursement to states and retailers of the cost of collecting the tax; and abolition of the Internal Revenue Service. Burton and Mastromarco highlight the privacy and convenience of a national sales tax, writing that "under the national sales tax most Americans would be freed from the intrusive scrutiny of the IRS. More than 100 million Americans who are not business owners or self-employed would no longer have to file tax returns. The number of tax returns filed may fall as much as 80 percent." Noting that the national sales tax is now a formal policy proposal before Congress, Burton and Mastromarco write, "A national sales tax is more compatible with the principles of a free society than any other alternative tax system." Policy Analysis no. 272 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-272es.html) FOREIGN AID DOES NOT PREVENT SOCIAL BREAKDOWN Cash assistance should be eliminated; trade barriers should be dropped "Complex domestic factors cause states to fail, and foreign aid can do little or nothing to change the situation," says Cato Institute senior fellow Doug Bandow, author of a policy analysis released today. "Few programs have consumed as many resources with as few positive results as has foreign aid." In "Help or Hindrance: Can Foreign Aid Prevent International Crises?" Bandow examines economic and humanitarian crises in over a dozen countries and finds that all have received cash assistance from the United States. Despite claims that aid can be used to prevent social catastrophes, Bandow reports that some of the worst crises, such as that in Rwanda, have occurred in countries receiving large amounts of economic aid. Bandow notes that foreign aid has helped cause and aggravate crises in many countries by supporting regimes that have maintained disastrous policies, such as those of Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Zaire. Further, he argues that aid intended to promote free-market reforms takes the pressure off recipient governments and tends to delay reforms. If the United States and other developed countries truly wish to help, they "should allow poorer nations to participate more fully in the international marketplace." "Naturally, advocates of aid are attempting to come up with new arguments for preserving their programs," Bandow writes. "However, the understandable desire to do something should not become an excuse for maintaining the failed policies of the past. Foreign aid has not delivered self-sustaining economic growth or prevented the collapse of numerous poor societies into chaos over the past five decades. It will do no better in the future." Policy Analysis no. 273 (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-273es.html) FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT THREATENS AMERICAN PRINCIPLES, Cato scholar says "Men have fought and died not for the flag but for the principles it represents," said Roger Pilon today before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution. "How can this Congress so lightly abandon those principles?" Pilon, senior fellow and director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, told lawmakers that "there is all the difference in the world between defending the right to desecrate the flag and defending flag desecration itself. It is the difference between a free and an unfree society." "This amendment, as it tries to shield us from offensive behavior, gives rise to even greater offense," Pilon said. "By offending our very principles, it undermines its essential purpose, making us all less free." Congressional Testimony (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-rp043097.html) Around the Web: Representative Cox and Senator Wyden to Chat Online: Townhall.com Hosts Discussion on Internet Tax Freedom Act Wednesday, April 30, 1997 at 7:00 pm EDT http://at www.townhall.com Join this discussion on the Internet with Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) on the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The bipartisan and bicameral chat will take place on Town Hall at http://www.townhall.com on April 30, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. EDT. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ **To Unsubscribe: 1. To cancel a subscription to Cato On-Line Update, send us an e-mail message from the account under which you are subscribed to: majordomo@mnsinc.com In the BODY of the message, type: unsubscribe CATOLIST [email address] 2. If you need further assistance, please send e-mail to cato@cato.org describing the problem you're having. Please be sure to mention the Cato On-Line Update in your message. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The Cato Institute welcomes ideas and feedback. Please send us E-mail at cato@cato.org. _______________________________________________________________ | Robert S. Linzell linzellr@datastar.net | | Disclaimer: The content of the preceding message reflects | | my opinion only, unless otherwise indicated. | | "Live" from South Mississippi State Motto: Virtute et Armis | |_______________________________________________________________| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: (fwd)Legitimacy and the Militia Date: 02 May 1997 12:40:03 -0400 >Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 01:40:21 -0800 >From: Jon Roland >Subject: Legitimacy and the Militia >To: misc-activism-militia@uunet.uu.net > >Legitimacy and the Militia >by Jon Roland > >Recent events have highlighted again that many people who consider >themselves patriots fail to understand certain key ideas that they must >understand if they are to make the right decisions about current events >and our country's future. > >The fundamental idea upon which all else rests is the idea of >legitimacy. It was the genius of the Founders of this country to set >forth a new and definitive exposition of this idea: that legitimacy >consists of government by agents appointed by the people with limited >powers and specific restraints on how they may use those powers, and >that such agency is established by a contract among themselves called >the constitution, which is superior to all later official acts by those >agents, whether those acts be legislative statutes, executive orders, or >judicial rulings, and that all such acts must be consistent with and >derived from the delegations of authority in that constitution. > >The authority of the constitution does not rest on reverence for the >Founders who established it, but on commitment to the principles which >it embodies, and this points to a fundamental conflict and a flaw in >human nature in its current state of development, which is that, while >some persons are able to conduct their lives on the basis of abstract >principles, too many are only able to devote themselves to people. This >conflict is often expressed as the conflict between the rule of law and >the rule of men. > >The result of this conflict is two basic conflicting political >philosophies. The first is based on people. We sometimes call it >fascism. Devotion is to personas -- a leader, an office, a tribe, >organization, a religion, a nation, a race or ethnic group, the writings >of a prophet, the state, or a personified god, and one submits one's >will to that persona and treats its will and its demands as >authoritative. > >The second is based on fundamental, eternal principles of just and >effective human conduct and governance, which are in turn based on >impersonal natural law and human nature. This is the system that we call >constitutionalism. It is a system that puts severe demands on people who >would live according to its principles. Such persons must be prepared to >interpret and apply the constitution to every situation in their >everyday lives, especially when confronted with actions which may be in >conflict with the constitution and constitutional laws, whether such >actions are committed by private individuals or public employees. > >Under the principles of constitutional republican government, each and >every person subject to the jurisdiction of the constitution has the >nondelegatable duty to enforce it. That duty cannot be delegated to >supervisors, judges, or legal advisors. It is no excuse that one was >"just following orders". > >A key point of the idea of legitimacy is that legitimacy attaches to >actions, not to persons, writings, institutions, or offices. An action >is not legitimate because it is committed by an official who was >legitimately appointed, or illegitimate because it is performed by a >private individual who was not. > >The other side of legitimacy is the militia. That is the people >themselves, but only in a certain capacity, as defenders of the polity, >and enforcers of the agency contract which is the constitution. There >can be no constitution without the militia, and no militia without the >constitution. It is not arms that make a militia, but the role it plays. >Nor is there any minimum size. You can be a militia of one, especially >if you are the only one on a scene who has a clue. > >Confusion can arise in situations in which various persons in a >situation both enforce some constitutional laws and violate the same or >other laws at the same time. How do we act in a situation in which there >is a conflict among such persons? Do we take sides with one or the >other, or act against both? > >It is important to realize that in this system there are no permanent >enemies or violators. Each action by each person must be evaluated on >its own constitutional merits from one action to the next, supported >when it is in compliance, and resisted when it is not. Even those who >have a longstanding record of violation may be enforcers in some >situations, deserving our support when they are. > >Civilian A commits an offense, and civilian B uses force to enforce the >law and make a citizen's arrest. Official C joins in enforcing the law >against A, but also arrests B under a statute that is unconstitutional. >B resists, and attempts to make a citizen's arrest of C for violating >his civil rights. Then A joins B in effecting that citizen's arrest. A >crowd of persons joins in, some on the side of A, some on the side of B, >and some on the side of C. You arrive on the scene. What do you do? > >The logic of the constitution is clear. Your duty is to help B and C >arrest A, and help A and B arrest C, at the same time. Needless to say, >you are probably not going to get much cooperation from A and C. And you >are going to have to make your decisions and take your actions within >seconds and probably without complete or perfect information about what >is going on. Then all of you have to explain all this to a magistrate >who would rather be playing golf. > >It is no wonder that people who are charged with law enforcement >professionally retreat from such confusing situations and take refuge in >obedience to their leaders, or that such persons make mistakes and, >because they are perceived as doing good work most of the time, are >shielded by their organizations from being penalized for such mistakes, >or that, in such an environment of tolerance of violations, violations >become more rampant until the organization as a whole loses the respect >and confidence of the people it is supposed to serve. > >No one said compliance to constitutional principles was supposed to be >easy enough for human beings to cope with. That is one of the criticisms >made of the American constitutional system when it was founded. It was >said to be a good system for people of the intellectual caliber of the >Founders, but was beyond the capacity of ordinary people. This is still >an open question. Of course it is complicated by the fact that today it >seems to be more of those ordinary people who are more trying to enforce >the constitution than many of their more learned and accomplished >countrymen. They indicate that the problem is not so much intellectual >capacity as motivation and attitude. > >No, the universe was not designed for our comfort and convenience, and >natural principles like constitutional republican governance demand what >they do, whether we are adequate to those demands are not. The solution >is not to abandon the principles, but to prepare ourselves to meet the >demands, and put everything we've got into doing so, because that's what >it may take. It also means holding one another to those demands, with no >compromise. Enforce the law and if you violate it, no matter how well >you have enforced the law in the past, you pay the price. No compromise >with the logic of the constitution. And that means no yielding to one's >own emotions. Anger, fear, hatred, or weakness of any kind has no place >in a constitutional order. > >In the prophetic novel _1984_, Orwell's tyrant O'Brien confronts the >hapless Winston Smith with the ultimate choice: admit that 2 + 2 = 5, >and thereby reject the laws of logic itself, to save himself from pain. >And that is the ultimate choice. Stand by the constitution and the laws >of logic, or surrender to the slavery of submission to personas and >their whims and illogical systems of jurisprudence, on the hope that you >will thereby avoid pain. There is no third alternative. In the end, of >course, Winston Smith surrenders, and avoids pain for the moment, but >does not avoid death, of his body or his soul. > >We can do better than that, and to do better than that begins with the >realization that no one can be truly free who has not first said goodbye >to life and comfort. In the end all that life is or can ever be is what >it stands for. Let's let it stand for something we can respect. > >=================================================================== >Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825 >916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 05/02/97 Time: 01:40:24 >http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.roland@the-spa.com >=================================================================== > > > "You exceed your rights when you urge that laws be made in the shape of your conscience to block the pleasures permitted by mine. When you people prevail, you commit a crime against freedom, and that is the greatest immorality I know." -Vance Bourjaily, Country Matters (no date avail). Thanks to:Mark Johnson (onethumb@why.net) "A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "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: Stoner Graveside - They Did It!!! Date: 02 May 1997 14:23:31 -0700 Eugene Stoner, designer of the M-16 and many other weapons, requested some time ago that he be given a full-auto salute at his funeral, something never done before. Looks like he got his wish!!! - Monte >>Greetings Listers, >> >> Just arrived back in the office after attending >>the "Graveside" memorial service of Mr. Eugene Stoner. >> >> For a service at Quantico National Cemetary, there >>was a large turn out of family and friends. A few of the >>people in attendance which I recognized were; Reed Knight >>as part of the "family", Ex-Marine Commandants and a few >>retired Navy 4-Star Admirals. Also there were a large >>amount of Army "Ordanance" officers as well as a few >>general officers. >> >> After the brief service and summary of this great >>mans life a statement written by Mrs Stoner and verbalized >>by the Navy chaplin laid out his greatest achievements >>which included the design of the M-16 rifle. >> >> At this point a Marine in BDU's and armed with an >>M-16 (BFA attached) marched to the right of center and >>fired approximately 10 rounds in full-auto mode. After >>he marched off the honor guard, armed with M-14's fired >>there 3 volley's, taps were played and that was the >>conclusion. >> >> Everyone in attendance was invited to the Enlisted >>club for refreshments afterward. - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Gonads or Brains RE: Republic of (south) Texas ROT Date: 02 May 1997 17:19:37 -0500 (CDT) 5-2-1997 The recent standoff is very uncomforting to us in the Jural. (cut) We as Christians, knowledgable about the military government that we are currently living in, 1. The state, local, and federal government are Lawless in thier response to the situation with the ROT, in that they have no proper authority under the martial law rule in which they have engaged the people. We do not support (cut) 2. However, upon reading reports at the Montana militia web page, if the information is correct, Richard Mclaren was lawfully unseated as President of the Republic of Texas, and his actions of kidnapping and hostage taking were utterly wrong! Albeit we are indeed in a state of war with the federal government, his actions seem to be that of a radical, and not of a diplomat. (cut) 4. We feel, that the best end to this mess is that the military "authorities" back off and let the Lawfull Constitutional militia go in and arrest McLaren as a suspect of assault. And hold him in thier custody until a Lawfull hearing can be held. Alan Russell: Neuman, Suae potestate esse Chairman/Ambassador Ojai Valley Jural Society > > THE TIME HAS COME TO SPEAK THE TRUTH.... > by Thom Slape (mzs@xroadstx.com) > > LAST MINUTE ALERT: At 10:27:24 a message has just been received > that Capt. Scheidt, who was arrested on Sunday by U.S. Marshals > and the cause of the confrontation at the ROTE, has walked out of > the compound and given himself up to authorities as of the past few > minutes. CNN Reports by the Texas DPS PIO Officer in Charge, > stated that Scheidt gave himself up peacably and they expect the > others to do the same in the next few hours. What a sad day in > American History, when Tyrants win and rule over the People by > oppression and the People give in like sheep going to slaugher!!! > ===================================================== > To All Patriots and UnOrganized Militia: > The time has come to be frank and speak the TRUTH so that all > may understand what is at stake with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit > of Happiness. > Richard McClaren has shown us he had the guts, balls and > intestinal fortitude to do something about illegal actions by the (cut) > Thom Slape, Texas Patriot > (mzs@xroadstx.com) This is the just of what a lot of the "Militia" and "Patriot" folks have been saying these last few days., Why are you folks defending these criminals? I have heard these guys speak at the Citizens for legal reform meeting here in Dallas. They are not good neighbors and have acted in willful and reckless manor towards their neighbors property, life and liberty. They shot through a mans door and broke into his house with out proper authority or due process based on false information. They then took them hostage for 24 hours. These guys are jerks, criminals and fools. They are not the kind of people any "patriotic" American should be supporting and they have done grievous public damage to our movement and our reputation. They held an unlawful election that we Texans were not made aware of and with their own handful of local people elected themselves as the leaders of a new country. This is Sedition and Treason not to mention self centered, rude and dumb on their part. Just because you do not like the way a country is working does not give every faction the duty to go vote themselves el-president of a new country with out the populations approval. I for one would love for Texas to legally remove it's self from the Federal government and become a haven for freedom, liberty and free enterprise. However, we joined the Southern states in the war between the states and got our tail kicked. We lost folks, they won, they made the reconstruction rules and it has just turned into more Socialism and Statism from there. Fact of the matter is a majority of people like it this way, they are happy slaves. They voted for Clinton the most crooked crook in the history of the nation. Many people, thanks to "Waco", "Internet" and "Short Wave Radio", are now waking up to the many abuses of the Federal, State and Local governments against the common citizen. However this mess has been going on and getting progressively worse starting with the destruction of the Civil War and the end of the States rights. There are many excellent theories and research into such things as missing amendments and unlawful approvals of other amendments to the United States Constitution. There are also many schemes such as "State Citizens", The IRS is a foreign corporation, Jural societies, Common Law Courts, so on and so fourth. Many of you who have been in this for years and many of you who are just plain tired of loosing your rights are becoming so frustrated you are ready for war. Frustration is not the recipe for war and war is the last possible result after all other alternatives have been exhausted. You might be ready for it but I am not and most Americans are not either. We are not a Democracy with Mob rule we are a Constitutional Republic. Some of you guys are sounding more like school yard bullies who like to fight than someone with the fortitude to turn the other cheek. It is cerebral power not gonad power that will restore our liberty. This is not the time, the place, or the right cause. The ROT has no more public support than the KKK and most people think they along with the militias are the same thing. Like it or not. We are a long way from exhausting the existing political system. Sure a lot of people have lost the legal battle playing paper games with the kings controlled courts. But just how many people have we put up and supported on a local county or state level to run for office? How many of our people were prevented from running for office like happens in Mexico? Have we really attempted to form an alternative political party? Why have we not taken over the Libertarian party as an alternate way to win power? Are they not already on the ballets in a majority of states? Sure I have lots of problems with them but if all of us put our effort into supporting one party and used the grass roots power we could change anything we want to. The Socialist who control America today have done so by incremental change over 100 years. It is time we faced the fact that we might take just as long to win it back. It is time we practiced long term incremental Liberty. The ROT in South Texas has acted self centered and out side the common law. Is this the government we want? As the song goes, new boss, same as the old boss. Exchanging one despot for another does not a Republic make! Paul Watson, Dallas Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Fw: NRA-ILA betrays Vermont Carry (fwd) Date: 02 May 1997 18:08:25 -0500 Here is more evidence that the NRA is not supporting our rights, but is supporting the imposition of greater regulation on gun rights. How so? Concealed carry permits, by their nature, allow government more regulatory power over guns. Rights, such as the Vermont law and such as are stated in our constitution, are not subject to regulation by any government. The only way that a government can impose itself in the area of rights is when a citizen has had his rights removed by due process of law. In the case of a privilege such as that which is granted by concealed carry laws, regulation can be changed, and increased to the point of strangulation; or taxed to that point. The bill proposed for Nebraska was touted by our senators as a "bill that would allow the state greater powers of regulation in this important area." "IT IS TIME TO ASK TANYA AND WAYNE WHY IT IS THAT THEY ARE PUSHING FOR THIS TYPE OF GUN REGULATION. WE NEED TO ASK WHY IT IS THAT THEY REFUSE TO SUPPORT A "RIGHTS MOVEMENT" AND INSTEAD ARE PUSHING A "PRIVILEGE MOVEMENT." What gives anyway? Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: Patricia Fosness > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: NRA-ILA betrays Vermont Carry (fwd) > Date: Friday, May 02, 1997 15:07 PM > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>Gun rights activist, Tim Casey, has scanned in two letters from Colorado > >>and Oklahoma state legislators regarding the ILA's threats to give F > >>ratings to anyone who voted for Vermont style carry in Colorado. > >>Please, read it for yourself at: > >>http://www.wizard.net/~kc/co.jpg > [snip] > >> > >> > >Does ANYONE know what's going on here? Is this true? And if it is, could > >any of the NRA people receiving this explain WHY? > > >From a list I run in Colorado - this was posted last month: > > Institutional Gun Organizations lobby against amendment that is too pro-gun??? > ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ > > Friday, April 11, 1997 -- In fighting for a good concealed carry law in > Colorado, RMGO and GOA have run into some roadblocks. > > These roadblocks are making it difficult to advance the debate of your > freedoms, and should be of some concern to you. > > I've submitted a copy of the letter we received from NRA "A" rated State > Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-Fort Morgan) about her support for a > Vermont-style concealed carry bill (The text is reprinted below). > > I hope it helps you understand the battle in progress. > > "If we don't ask for what we want, we end up with less than we can get." > Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of > America> > > --------- > > COLORADO > HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES > STATE CAPITOL > DENVER > 80203 > > Rocky Mountain Gun Owners > P.O. Box 3114 > Denver, Colorado 80201 > > April 2, 1997 > > Dear Rocky Mountain Gun Owners: > > Last week I had a conversation with NRA lobbyist Mary Anne Bradfield, the > state liaison for Colorado. > > Ms. Bradfield echoed the comments of Steve Schreiner of the Firearms > Coalition of Colorado, who rudely told me that any attempt to amend Senate > Bill 96 with a "Vermont Law" would be viewed as anti-gun. Ms. Bradfield was > even brash enough to threaten me with lowering my NRA rating, telling her > members that I am anti-gun. > > In 1996, I carried a "Vermont Law" amendment to the concealed carry bill. I > am proud that we got 18 votes for this measure and forced legislators to > stand and be counted. > > Also in 1996, I signed a pledge in a candidate survey by the Firearms > Coalition of Colorado and Gun Owners of America to support the "Vermont Law." > > I pledged to support the "Vermont Law" (i.e. carrying concealed without > government permit) because I believe wholeheartedly in our right to personal > protection. > > It is outrageous that an NRA lobbyist would suggest that voting to make it > easier for citizens to carry a firearm is "anti-gun." > > Am I to believe that the NRA rates lawmakers based on their willingness to > comply with a lobbyist's wishes, no matter how inane? That would come as a > shock to NRA members, who expect ratings to reflect a candidate's views and > record on supporting the Second Amendment. > > I may represent the most pro-gun district in the state of Colorado, and I > can assure you that I support the Second Amendment, regardless of the > rantings of lobbyists wishing to set public policy behind closed doors and > away from public scrutiny. > > I know that Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is not afraid of public scrutiny of > their legislative agenda. I hope this information is useful. > > Sincerely, > > /s/ > > State Representative Marilyn Musgrave > House District 65 > > Not paid at taxpayer's expense > > For an actual copy of this letter, please fax or e-mail your request to RMGO > (information below). > > .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. > . Dudley Brown . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Re: NRA-ILA THUGETTES RIDE AGAIN? Date: 02 May 1997 18:27:00 -0500 I copied both of the letters referred in the posts by Pat Fossness at ROC and 6mysmesa at Texas Gun Owners. One letter is from an Oklahoma State Senator (Carol Martin) and the other from a Colorado State Rep (Marilyn Musgrave.) Both allege rude and threatening treatment at the hands of the NRA lobbyist; Mary Ann Bradfield. Some of you will recall the series of postings on NOBAN referring to NRA Thugettes. This was the result of Tara Reilly's treatment of me when I opposed the concealed carry bill here in Nebraska. "What in the HELL do you think you are doing?" she screamed at me publicly in the all of the Nebraska Capital Building. Why is the NRA resorting to strong arm techniques against those of us who believe that defending rights is more important than obtaining privileges? Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Gonads or Brains RE: Republic of (south) Texas ROT Date: 02 May 1997 19:58:12 -0600 > Alan Russell: Neuman, Suae potestate esse Is someone kidding me? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Wootan" Subject: NRA in a liberal bastion. Date: 03 May 1997 07:26:07 -0700 I happened to blow through Seattle yesterday on a one day business trip. That is currently the site of the NRA convention at the Seattle Convention Center. The news on KVI, the local conservative talk station, was filled with information about the NRA, and interviews with La Pierre and Heston. The one point that struck me loud and clear, and that very much needs to be taken up with Tanya, et. al. had to do with a Washington State rule in effect in the convention center. NO GUNS. It was permitted to transport guns in for display, but it is NOT permitted to carry a concealed weapon in the center. Well now, if we are going to boycott book stores and icecream companies because of their stance on concealed carry, what about states and state controlled convention centers. This struck me as the hight of hypocracy. I am sure that NRA money to the tune of several million dollars was just pumped into the liberal, anti-gun Seattle economy. This is what a liberal would call "rewarding inapropriate behavior"! What say you, Tanya? Jerry Wootan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Mice? or Men? Date: 03 May 1997 09:58:44 -0700 >Mice? or Men? >Gary Hunt >Outpost of Freedom >May 2, 1997 >The Boston Committee of Correspondence met at Faneuil Hall on the >evening of June 27, 1774. Samuel Adams was elected moderator, but stood >down from his position after a Tory announced that Boston should censure >the committee. The British had begun raising their complement in Boston, >and the Committee, just a few weeks earlier, had approved sending a >delegation to what would become known as the First Continental Congress. >"A Grecian philosopher," Adams said, "who was lying asleep upon the >grass, was aroused by the bite of some animal upon the palm of his hand. >He closed his hand suddenly as he woke and found that he had caught a >field mouse. As he was examining the little animal who dared to attack >him, it unexpectedly bit him a second time, and made its escape." >"Now, fellow citizens," he continued, "what think you was the reflection >he made upon this trifling circumstance? It was this: that there is no >animal, however weak and contemptible, which cannot defend its own >liberty, if it will only fight for it." >Adams' story has stuck with me since I first read it, a few years ago. >As simple as it may seem, and as quickly most will chime that they, like >the field mouse, would fight to retain their freedom, the words mean so >little, as proven by the continuation of abuses by the federal >authority, and our denial or refusal to act on that which has been >taking place for so long. >On September 1, of that same year, General Gage seized three hundred >pounds of gunpowder at Cambridge. The reaction was a swarm of protests >by the local colonists. The story was exaggerated as it spread, so that >when it reached Philadelphia, the deaths of six colonists had become a >part of it. Three thousand marched to Cambridge in protest, until they >arrived and found the story of the deaths not to be true. >The British refusal to respond to the demands set forth by the >colonists, the first government independent of the British Crown was >meeting in Salem. Hancock, as president, oversaw the meeting which >resulted in redirecting the Crown's tax revenue into the pockets of the >colonists; the establishment of elite militia units which would be >overseen by the Committees of Safety; and the creation of the Minutemen. >Just a few months later, Seventy-seven men, under the command of Captain >John Parker, refused to allow the continuation of the British practice >of seizure of arms. These seventy-seven "mice" bit so hard that the >liberty of an entire nation was assured. >Ron Cole, Wally Kennett and Kevin Terry were arrested Friday, May 2, >1997. Their crime? Possession of firearms. Whether these firearms >warrant a BATF $200 tax, or not is yet to be seen. You see, the >government is being very quiet about what information they will release. >It might jeopardize their case. >I've known Ron since May, 1993. We've run into each other a number of >times as we travelled the country, these past few years. I remember one >gun show in Waco where Ron gave me a bit of an education in firearms. >There were situations that have stuck in my mind, since then. >First was the Barrett .50 caliber rifle that was on display, and for >sale. Many of the 'visitors' at the show where the same faces I had seen >just a few months before, but, then, they were wearing their black >uniforms. And there, on display, was the same gun that they had made >appear so evil in the hands of the Davidians. >The other was some small plastic packets of adapters. These adapters can >be sold, legally, anywhere in the country (except in gun free school >zones), and, standing alone, are merely finely machined pieces of metal. >Amazingly, these legal pieces of metal, once brought into proximity of >Constitutionally protected firearms, become illegal, and make the >Constitutionally protected firearm equally so. >Samuel Adams was fifty-one years old when he told that story to the >hundreds gathered that evening. Coincidentally, I am of that age as I >repeat to you, "that there is no animal, however weak and contemptible, >which cannot defend its own liberty, if it will only fight for it." >We have lost more than three hundred pounds of gun powder. Daily, >weekly, monthly  the arsenal of the Minute Man is diminished, yet we >stand idly by, "hugging the illusive phantom of Hope." >Those who have announced their status as a fighter for freedom, and who >have stored materials with which to wage the battle must begin to >recognize what dozens have already learned, the hard way. If you have >items that might be construed as 'illegal', and subject you to arrest, >as has happened to so many other outspoken patriots, you must now >consider the consequences of your collection. My advise to you would be >to dispose of that property as soon as practicable. Remember, however, >that it is illegal to dispose of 'hazardous' waste through normal >channels. Take the lead from the military-industrial complex. A bullet >used in battle is no longer hazardous waste. >For those that believe that there is a peaceful solution, I'm sure that >Ron, Wally and Kevin, and Mike Kemp, the Viper Militia and others who >have been charged with crimes contrary to the Constitution, are enjoying >peace and solitude where they are. >But, if you truly believe that your place is laid out to restore the >Constitutional government of the United States of America, remember the >little field mouse. > >-- >Gary Hunt, Outpost of Freedom >opf@azi.com >"when the government is pointing its guns in the wrong direction!" >http://www.azi.com/opf > > > >-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com >-> Posted by: Gary Hunt > > - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Off Topic, but short Date: 03 May 1997 12:57:07 PST Does anyone have an email address for one of those mail servers that will accept an email and propagate it out to newsgroup(X)? Thanks in advance. -- 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: Re: (fwd)Legitimacy and the Militia Date: 03 May 1997 13:57:52 -0700 Tom, I know it wasn't your post, but . . . [...] >The logic of the constitution is clear. Your duty is to help B and C >arrest A, and help A and B arrest C, at the same time. Needless to say, >you are probably not going to get much cooperation from A and C. And you >are going to have to make your decisions and take your actions within >seconds and probably without complete or perfect information about what >is going on. Then all of you have to explain all this to a magistrate >who would rather be playing golf. [...] The logic of the Constitution _and_ the Declaration of Independence is indeed clear - arrest A and B. If the statute had said that all black men crossing a street after noon, shall be beaten untill dead, and the cop above was accomplishing just that, what would you _really_ do? I know what I would do . . . A and C would be dealing seriously with B. When two laws conflict, the superior of the two presides. And since the Constitution would preside, the officer is an outlaw. While I can't just now reproduce the quote of a famous judge, his quote was nevertheless appropriate to the issue above. Any law that on its face is a violation of the principles of the Constitution, is unlawful and no one is obligated to obey it. Further, any officer of the law attempting to carry out its intent is practicing the deadly art shooting gallery duck. It will be by the good graces of the citizens he/she attempts to foist this law upon, that he/she is allowed to conduct the business of the state. All too often the latter is what happens, saving the cops buns from the toaster. Yes, we humor the idiots in high places to avoid bloodshed, but one of these days humor is going to be out of style. And nobody is going to be laughing about anything. For those who may favor me by reading this far, I ask only one thing: Try to remember the last time so many people and groups on the American scene were arrested, or being sought, or getting serious about being serious with the government? When you answer than, you'll _know_ right where we are headed. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Jerry Wootan" Subject: Ben & Jerry & the Second Date: 04 May 1997 08:44:21 -0700 My friend and neighbor Lenny Colman, a strong supporter of the Constitution, heard one too many stories of Ben and Jerry fighting against the RKBA and the Second Ammendment. He decided to go direct for an answer. Below is the result of his direct inquiry. Jerry Wootan (NOT the Jerry mentioned above and below!!!) ---------- > From: Info Mation > To: scwk@povn.com > Subject: Icecream -Reply > Date: Thursday, April 24, 1997 8:09 AM > > Len, sorry we've been so slow with a reply. We're just terribly backed > up on email at the moment. We appreciate the chance to respond to your > question as to whether we believe in gun control. > > The answer to your question is, Ben & Jerry's is in favor of handgun > control. We support the Brady Bill. > > Virginia Broadus > > > > >>> Lenny Colman 03/31/97 03:22pm >>> > We eat lots of your icecream, gallons of it. continue eating it depends on > your answer to this question. "Do you believe in gun control? > > 50/50 chance > > Len Colman scwk@povn.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Idaho Observer Article Date: 04 May 1997 21:00:57 -0700 Per request, an article from Page 1 of the April Idaho Observer... Truth Surfaces in Hansen Ordeal Dept. of Finance/Judge Lodge Linked to Hansen Nightmare by Don Harkins and Edward Snook Diesel Therapy: A prison term which describes the most inhumane, degrading and painful of punishment; normally reserved for the most violent and uncontrollable of prisoners. A prisoner is shackled at the feet and handcuffed at the wrists, reinforced with a box-like structure which stiffens the chains and locks the wrists at a 90-degree angle. The handcuffs are connected to a waist chain that is connected to another chain which connects the shackles. Once this shackling is complete, a prisoner can barely move. The tightened manacles pinch the nerves and restrict the flow of blood causing severe pain and swelling. Legs swelling with blood are particularly damaging to the feet, as toenails under pressure from blood-blisters press up against shoes for long periods of time and soon become infected and deformed, causing such excruciating pain that they require surgery or the pulling of the nails out by the roots. Diesel therapy gets its name, not from the "cruel and unusual" bondage, but from being forced into bus after bus and onto plane after plane, shackled as described, and being shuttled from one prison to another, for weeks on end, 20 hours per day in chains, for no other reason than to cause pain and suffering and give the prisoner a "message." Welcome to diesel therapy and the world of seven-term Congressman George Hansen who was found guilty in the court-room of the infamous Federal Judge Edward Lodge on bogus charges of bank fraud which were manipulated into an issue by the Idaho Department of Finance which illegally used the same agents previously employed by the IRS in their failed attempt to "get Hansen?" People who have been reading past editions of The Idaho Observer and The Oregon Observer will recall that the Judge Lodge/Idaho Department of Finance connection has already been uncovered in the bogus securities laws violations charges levied against Boise businessman and winemaker Petro (Pete) Eliopulos. "After Ed Snook of The Oregon Observer and I met with Hansen and he told me in a six-hour meeting what had happened to him, I was more shaken than I have ever been in my life. If (West One) bank officers Knox and Neaville had not subsequently been convicted of crimes which came to light in the bogus investigations of me and my businesses, they could have done to me what they did to Hansen," said Eliopulos, who was shocked that a U.S. Representative, or anybody for that matter, could be treated this way in America. What could an esteemed member of the U.S. Congress have done to deserve such treatment? Judge Lodge Prescribed Torture for Hansen Congressman Hansen found innocent of crimes manufactured to thwart congressional accountability After four years of imprisonment, after ten years of persecution, after being ruined professionally and financially and after being permanently damaged physically, in December, 1995, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Hansen's sentence for bank fraud because the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled on May 15, 1995, that Hansen's previous conviction as a member of Congress had been overturned. A series of events were triggered to allow crimes to be manufactured which led to the imprisonment and torture of Congressman George Hansen. Idaho District Federal Judge Edward Lodge, who has been used by bankers and government officials for a decade to "legalize" their unethical and criminal activities, was given the job of putting Hansen away and seeing to it that he learned a lesson. Judge Lodge saw to it that Hansen received "diesel therapy" coming and going to prison from the judge's court at great cost to the government, even though Hansen should have been allowed to make such trips at his own expense. On the way from his hometown of Pocatello to federal prison in Petersberg, VA , Hansen was bussed and flown, nearly immovably shackled, at taxpayer expense, to jails all over the country. Not Hansen's lawyer, his wife, nor his allies in Congress were able to locate him. Hansen had simply disappeared for a month into the custody of the Federal Marshal's Service. Hansen's wife didn't know whether he was dead or alive. And even when the Supreme Court overturned Hansen's original case and the Appeals Court vacated his current sentence, Hansen still got the Judge Lodge treatment of another dose of diesel therapy from Virginia back to Idaho. What had Hansen, who was a model prisoner, done to deserve the most brutal, torturous and barbaric type of treatment this country's penal system is capable of inflicting on a prisoner? Congressional Accountability Project Retired Congressman Tom Kindness (R-Ohio) stated , "I believe that George's recent trial and conviction on charges of "bank fraud" was the direct result of a campaign by various members of the bureaucracy to stop the CAP." CAP, the Congressional Accountability Project, was being launched by Hansen and a group of investors interested in good government. CAP was going to utilize nation-wide television and a national 900 number to make congresspersons instantaneously accountable to the American people for their votes on the House and Senate floors. "This was a project which would, in my opinion, have had a major impact on the votes of congressmen since it would have made them instantaneously responsible to the people by making their votes known immediately after being cast," commented journalist John Voss. Hansen and his associates were on the verge of making CAP fully operational and accessible to the American public when the government, through the Idaho Department of Finance with the illegal help of former IRS agents, a revenge-minded Justice Department and the corrupt Judge Lodge, manufactured bank fraud charges against him. Judge Lodge's provably compromised court ultimately found Hansen guilty and prescribed diesel therapy to teach him a lesson. Why did the "Honorable" Judge Lodge treat Hansen like Public Enemy #1? George Hansen was the only member of Congress able to pull the strings necessary to visit the hostages in Iran in 1979 and expose the big-bank scam behind the crises. George Hansen was the author of the book To Harass Our People, an indictment of the IRS, where he demanded its dismantling. George Hansen was the congressman who was so outraged by what he discovered about the IRS while researching his book that he wrote and helped to pass the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. George Hansen was the first man to propose the flat tax as a damage control alternative to protect the people from IRS abuses. George Hansen was the man who took on OSHA, WPPSS, and the INS, and George Hansen was the man who fearlessly and repeatedly made public his findings when investigations turned up government corruption and citizen abuse. The "system" decided it had to teach Congressman Hansen a lesson because, had he been allowed to continue serving on Capitol Hill, he would soon likely be the chairman of the powerful House Banking Committee. So, why did Judge Lodge, whose personal reasons for needing to keep the well-documented criminal nature of the banking industry below public scrutiny, with the help of the Idaho Department of Finance, trump up a bank fraud conviction by denying the admission of exonerating evidence in court in order to throw Hansen in prison and make sure that he was punished severely with diesel therapy? Was it because Congressman Hansen was getting close to the truth and accumulating the political power it would take to finally and totally expose the banking industry and government for its criminal abuses of the American people? Judge Lodge's Court of Kangaroos CAP was apparently the final straw and abusive criminal government had to shut Hansen down. On the eve of CAP becoming fully operational, powerful special interests and political enemies derailed the project and forced a domino effect of financial repercussions upon Hansen and his associates. The government then took the situation it had created and indicted, prosecuted and convicted Hansen of bank fraud. Though the treachery of Judge Lodge and the government disdained the patriotic financial sacrifices made by Hansen's supporters for good government and callously prevented his efforts to re-pay them, it did not prevent Hansen from publicly pledging that these law breaking government bullies could never seal his lips, nor stop him from somehow paying back the people he owed and thereby keeping his word. "Every attorney who has read the court transcripts is concerned and confounded as to how George could have been convicted on bank fraud charges when the supervising bank officers were not only acutely aware of his financial operation and transactions, but were actively assisting him in his efforts for over ten years! "George defrauded no one and we can prove it," stated Congressman Kindness. Hansen was not really imprisoned and tortured by "our" government for bank fraud, though that was the government's excuse to lock him up and shut him down. Hansen was actually a political prisoner who was guilty of attempting to provide the American people with the ammunition of knowledge so they could successfully fight back against the senseless encroachment of government oppression which more and more is ruining the lives of all of us. Hansen dedicated his civil service to facilitating a return to a Constitutional form of government which is of, by and for the people and "our" government felt threatened enough by his noble activities to see to it that he was imprisoned and tortured for daring to tell citizen/taxpayers the truth. Hansen was the only U.S. statesman who cared enough to risk his own safety and political career to visit the hostages in Iran in 1979. While in Iran, Hansen saw first hand what happens to political prisoners, who were beaten mercilessly, who had finger and toe nails ripped out by the roots and who had been shackled until they were permanently disabled physically. Hansen has also experienced first hand the same inhumane torture and it happened to him in the most "civilized" nation on earth, the only difference being that Hansen was denied treatment and pain-killers and had to rip his own deformed and infected toenails out. - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Web Page Success (fwd) Date: 05 May 1997 07:35:11 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Fellow OPS Members, As you know, OPS now has a website that contains files on the world government movement. It has been busy - around 120 hits so far. I would like to thank you all for spreading the word! If you have a website that you would like me to create a link to, feel free to email me! Sua Sponte, Richard R. Biondi http://weber.u.washington.edu/~rbiondi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: (fwd)Legitimacy and the Militia Date: 05 May 1997 09:57:41 -0400 E. J. Totty writes: > > For those who may favor me by reading this far, I ask only one >thing: Try to remember the last time so many people and groups on the >American scene were arrested, or being sought, or getting serious about >being serious with the government? > When you answer than, you'll _know_ right where we are headed. > > Well, I'm not sure this is what you had in mind, but I believe that the late 60's early 70's were actually *more* contentious with a higher level of anti-government sentiment. This sentiment was driven from the left and was focused on Vietnam protest. The rift was wide between supporters of the war and war protesters. This was the birth of large scale protest rallies in Washington. The whole thing culminated in Nixon's resignation and the fall of Saigon. I think the scale of discontent was actually greater than today. TLA infiltration and investigation of protest groups was widespread. big city riots were a recent memory and an everpresent threat. Three political assasinations and one attempt happened in the period (or just prior). I don't see the current period as nearly so volatile. The whole more/less Fed thing is being worked out in the mainstream politics. The TLA's have learned a PR lesson and handle confrontations with fringe groups in a much less violent manner. Clinton may yet force a Constitutional crisis, but the political drive doesn't seem to be there. So what do you think? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: (fwd)Legitimacy and the Militia Date: 05 May 1997 09:57:41 -0400 E. J. Totty writes: > > For those who may favor me by reading this far, I ask only one >thing: Try to remember the last time so many people and groups on the >American scene were arrested, or being sought, or getting serious about >being serious with the government? > When you answer than, you'll _know_ right where we are headed. > > Well, I'm not sure this is what you had in mind, but I believe that the late 60's early 70's were actually *more* contentious with a higher level of anti-government sentiment. This sentiment was driven from the left and was focused on Vietnam protest. The rift was wide between supporters of the war and war protesters. This was the birth of large scale protest rallies in Washington. The whole thing culminated in Nixon's resignation and the fall of Saigon. I think the scale of discontent was actually greater than today. TLA infiltration and investigation of protest groups was widespread. big city riots were a recent memory and an everpresent threat. Three political assasinations and one attempt happened in the period (or just prior). I don't see the current period as nearly so volatile. The whole more/less Fed thing is being worked out in the mainstream politics. The TLA's have learned a PR lesson and handle confrontations with fringe groups in a much less violent manner. Clinton may yet force a Constitutional crisis, but the political drive doesn't seem to be there. So what do you think? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: (fwd)Legitimacy and the Militia Date: 05 May 1997 09:58:52 -0400 Darn, I just sent multiple copies of my last message by failing to edit the CC field. My apologies - don't know how to recall the message. jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Talk the No-Gun Talk? Then, Walk the No-Gun Walk! Date: 05 May 1997 12:06:40 -0400 (EDT) THIS IS (PARTIALLY) A SATIRE ... Starting with you, Mr. President. And all of your Cabinet Secretaries. And you, too, Mr. Vice President. And all you anti-gun governors and mayors nationwide. And all you anti-gun Senators and Congressmen and judges who feel the need to be protected by phalanxes of gun-toting police or perhaps just armed drivers. And all you leaders of anti-gun and anti-freedom advocacy groups who also feel the need to surround yourselves with armed law enforcement officers or armed private security agents whenever you move in public or when you are snuggled up in your cozy beds at the guarded, gated, walled and alarmed quasi-fortresses you call your homes. Not to be confused with "homies", the deadly gang bangers who just *** love *** your absurd anti-gun legislation which disarms their intended victims in U.S. cities nationwide. You weep and wring your hands about what you call "gun violence" and you preach about the importance of establishing "gun-free zones" every day. I will now call your bluff. If, in your opinions, we, free Americans, do not need guns, then, you, control-freak Americans who do not value freedom, do not need guns, either. If you are going to talk the no-gun talk, amigos and amigas, then you are going to have to walk the no-gun walk, as well! Accordingly, lose your armed bodyguards. All of them. Federal agents, state troopers, local police. Yes, all of them. Every last one of them. Reassign them to assist the Border Patrol south of San Diego or northwest of Jackman, Maine. But just make your own daily lives "gun free" and "safer" by removing all of the aforementioned armed praetorian guards from your presence. Now! "Just say no" to guns anywhere near your holier-than-thou bodies. If you won't do it for me, then do it "for the children", one of your favorite touchy-feely Clintonista themes. Create "gun-free zones" for three hundred yards around all of your bodies. Think of the great press you will receive. And think of the taxpayer dollars which could be saved if the legions of law enforcement officers now assigned to guard all of you as you dismantle freedom could refocus their collective attention on apprehending dangerous violent criminals. Or perhaps such bodyguards could be instantly "downsized" and returned to the dreaded private sector to earn a living? And might such "downsizing" be reflected in all Americans seeing their federal, state and local governments take less money from their wallets each April 15th? Oh, this idea has real potential. Yes, real potential. (Why, "I never did it but I'm proud I did it and I'll never do it again Al Gore" might even call this "reinventing government", yes, indeed, because no "controlling legal authority" ever told him that he could not call wholesale dismissal and/or reassignment of protective details nationwide "reinventing government", so help him Lanny Davis.) I would suggest replacing your respective protective details with a horde of laptop computer-equipped yuppie aides armed with copies of "It Takes a Village", the nauseating content of which should repel all but the most determined assailants. Hillary's guide to child-razing is indeed a written version of pepper spray which puts all who come into contact with it to flight. And you could always augment these new Not So Secret Service agent yuppies with "volunteers" who attended the recent, heralded summit meeting in Philadelphia. Just remember to attire each volunteer in a bright red T-shirt marked (front and back): "I'm Stuck Guarding This Freedom-Hating Clintonista And All I'm Getting Is This Lousy T-Shirt!" Yes, all you politicians and freedom-hating citizens who talk the no-gun talk must start walking the no-gun walk, muy pronto. And if you should ever fear that you are about to be threatened or assaulted by a criminal of any variant, you should feel free to call upon the nearest armed, free American citizen (a NRA member, perhaps?) for assistance. Unlike you, we armed American citizens believe strongly in personal responsibility and accountability. We also obey our internal moral compasses and respond without hesitation to help fellow unarmed Americans who are endangered by predatory criminals who, being pro-choice when it comes to their own lives, choose to target helpless, cringing victims instead of confident, armed ones. So, before you continue to talk the no-gun talk, walk the no-gun walk. Just do it. We free Americans are watching and waiting to see if you mean what you say ... or if you are, indeed, the cowardly hypocrites we believe you to be. History may yet prove that our assessment of you was correct in every respect. THIS IS (PARTIALLY) A SATIRE ... Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: rkba-list:Firearm Restriction at the NRA Convention Date: 05 May 1997 10:53:33 -0700 (PDT) I think I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Curleys previous message. I too found the restriction irksome, I would point out though that the signs replaced an earlier plan to have people checking firearms to be sure they were unloaded (at least, that's what I was told). Now, I'm not suggesting that anyone might have, oh, not noticed those irritating signs. But it's not like they put up metal detectors. I think John was wrong in his advice. More importantly, taking our argument to Seattle is -precisely- what the NRA should be doing and should have done years ago! We need to impart our message to the good people of Cheyenne about like the Pope needs to swing converts amongst the bishops who surround him. Anti gun voters -are- our audience. They are exactly who we must be converting. -Boyd (it's not like I have any opinions) Kneeland MKLinux: Linux at Mach 3. boydk@wrq.com Remove "no.spam" from address when replying. PGP key at BAL's. Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? E-mail me. Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harassment, requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: hehehe... Date: 05 May 1997 17:23:23 -0700 I thought you'd all get a kick out of what a new Idaho Observer subscriber has rubber-stamped, in red, on his check: "Funds to cover this check are available because of activity in what's left of a free market, despite socialistic government practices that plunder and create interference, coercion, taxes, controls and shortages." I love it! - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: ACLU Date: 06 May 1997 02:41:51 -0600 I realize many of you are not thrilled by the ACLU. But once in awhile, they inadvertently stumble on something worthwhile. ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Stopped by the Cops and Don't Know Your Rights? Whip Out the ACLU's Wallet-Size "Bust Cards," Now Available to Everyone Via the Internet FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, April 25, 1997 NEW YORK -- When can the police enter your home without a search warrant? Can the police stop your car and peek into the glove compartment? What are your rights when you are arrested and taken to a police station? How should you handle the police when stopped? As part of its continuing mission to educate the public on their rights, the American Civil Liberties Union has created a "bust card" to inform citizens about what to do (or say) when confronted by the police. The wallet-sized card, which anyone can download free of charge from the ACLU's website (www.aclu.org), is an abbreviated manual of what every citizen should know in case they are stopped by the police for questioning, pulled over by the road, searched, or arrested. The recommendations range from useful reminders ("Write down everything you remember") to lesser-known, but important rules ("You can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a police officer"). The card will be accompanied by a special online collection on police practices that will highlight ACLU cases on police brutality, government statistics, and links to other resources. A similar card was widely distributed by the ACLU in California, especially after the Rodney King riots which marks a fifth anniversary later this month. (One card-holder there reported that he pulled out his card when confronted by a police officer, only to have the officer reach into his wallet and pull out a copy of his own!) "Everyone benefits from learning their rights," said Ira Glasser, the ACLU's executive director. "Problems with the police often arise when there is confusion on either side. If we don't understand our own rights and responsibilities, then our relationship with the police becomes a one-way street." To download a copy of the "bust card," simply point your web browser to the ACLU's website (www.aclu.org) and click on the virtual card. After the image file is downloaded, just print the file on paper, cut and fold, and stick in your wallet, purse or glove compartment. Excerpted ACLU News 04-28-97 For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: What do the IRS, the Congress, the President and the War Powers Act , have in common? (fwd) Date: 06 May 1997 08:02:47 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Sandra L. Cote wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > I just received the following letter from my Congressman: > > > > Dear Ms. Cote: > > Thank you for contacting my office once again regarding the > > Internal Revenue Service. I appreciate the opportunity to reply. > > I have enclosed two Supreme Court decisions which affirm a > > principle I understand you spoke to one of my aides about. In them you > > will see highlighted sections which outline the authority by which the > > IRS exists. In effect, the Court says that the Congress affirms a > > Presidential delegation of power to an agency through the annual > > appropriations process. Though the IRS is not specifically mentioned, > > this is one principle by which the Executive and Legislative Branches > > have cooperated over the past 50 years. I hope this puts your concerns > > about the establishment of this agency to rest. > > Finally, let me say that if legislation were introduced > > abolishing the IRS of Federal Reserve, I would not support it. > > Thank you for contacting me. > > > > Sincerely, > > SAM GEJDENSON > > Membgr of Congress > > > > The two cases he included were: > > ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER CO.,INC. v. United States, 300 US 139 > > FLEMING v. MOHAWK, 331 US 111 > > > > These are War Powers cases. > > > > Sandi Cote > > sandra.l.cote@snet.net > > http://members.tripod.com/~sandranik/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Column, May 5 (fwd) Date: 06 May 1997 09:18:19 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 5, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz We had too many choices New York state has a long tradition of allowing candidates to be endorsed by more than one party. In that state's 1980 presidential election, Jimmy Carter got more votes as a Democrat than Ronald Reagan did as a Republican. But Mr. Reagan was also endorsed by New York's decades-old Conservative Party, so that his name appeared a second time on New York state ballots. The extra count of "Conservative" votes for Reagan -- mostly from rural, upstate regions that otherwise might have had little impact on the race -- proved enough for the Gipper to carry the vital state. In recent years, New Hampshire has been the only state to elect multiple Libertarians to its state legislature. In most cases, those candidates appeared twice on the same ballot, as the nominees of both the Republican and Libertarian parties. The extra margin provided by even the small number of Libertarian voters in the Granite State proved enough to get that party's ideas at least some representation in the capital. Now, the United States Supreme Court has decided to help put an end to even this tiny window of opportunity for America's minor parties to have some impact on close elections, and some hearing for their fresh ideas in America's halls of power. In a 6-3 ruling April 28, the court decided states can bar political candidates from appearing on an election ballot on more than one party line. The ruling allows Minnesota to rejoin about 40 other states that limit candidates to one listing on a ballot. Although such laws specifically forbid any party from endorsing and throwing its support to the candidate of another party, they do not violate political parties' right to freedom of association, the justices said. Of course, the power of governments to decide who shall be "on the ballot," at all, would have dismayed the Founders. The old phrase "splitting one's ticket" came from the fact that -- up until the late 19th century -- the ballots which voters dropped into ballot boxes were actually printed up by the parties. Voters who wished to vote for the presidential and gubernatorial candidates from the "top" of one party's ballot (for instance), but the local candidates of a second party, literally had to tear or cut the two pre-printed ballots apart, and then paste the appropriate pieces back together. Thus, government agents for more than a century had no right or opportunity to require any party or candidate to cough up "filing fees," or any arbitrary number of petition signatures, to "get on the ballot," ... since there (start ital)was(end ital) no official government ballot. This allowed dozens of political parties to flourish. The system seems to have worked perfectly well in electing Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and even that upstart third-party candidate, Abraham Lincoln (only the second nominee of the fledgling abolitionist "Republican" coalition,) without engendering any chaos at the polls. Yet Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist now writes for the court: "States may, and inevitably must, enact reasonable regulations of parties, elections and ballots to reduce election- and campaign-related disorder. ... The states' interest permits them to enact reasonable election regulations that may, in practice, favor the traditional two-party system." Disorder? Allowing a mere four or five parties on the ballot, with perhaps a few candidates appearing on more than one line, constitutes "disorder"? Writing in dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "It demeans the strength of the two-party system to assume that the major parties need to rely on laws that discriminate against independent voters and minor parties in order to preserve their positions of power." And Joel Rogers, national chairman of the New Party, which brought the original Minnesota suit, said Monday: "The Supreme Court made a political decision, not a constitutional decision. It showed it was more devoted to maintaining the two-party stranglehold than opening up the political system." That is correct. The Supreme Court this week ruled that hidebound state officials may prepare lists of citizens, otherwise eligible for office, who the several parties may not endorse and place on their ballot lines, even (start ital)after(end ital) those parties have jumped through the myriad hoops that already limit them from getting on the ballot, at all. This sets a precedent which is dangerous, cynical, and absurd. Those who fear the growing power of a callous, oppressive government are routinely told, "What are you worried about? If you want a change, you're free to vote for it." Less free today, it would seem, than we were yesterday. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Charlton Heston elected, Country Club Set now runs NRA (fwd) Date: 06 May 1997 10:42:09 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com Warning: This essay contains a racial epithet in paragraph 2. If I may respectfully suggest it, not only is the NRA clearly now dysfunctional, it has been so since the 1930's when it failed to argue in defense of short barreled shotguns as military weapons before the Supreme Court in Miller v. US. The NRA has in recent history helped the congress bugger shooters while the NRA held shooter's heads, telling them that one compromise bill after another was the "best legislation we could get". The NRA has in fact worked to keep firearms from the hands of the poor (best example is recognizing the term "Saturday Night Special" which is derived from the term "Niggertown Saturday Night". Historically, the poor in crime impacted areas need firearms more than anyone, as they have the greatest need and receive immediate police assistance the least when they call. The Country Club republicans in the NRA will never lose their trap and skeet guns or their hunting rifles, secured in their guarded estates. They see no reason for state of the art semi autos, large capacity magazines because they and their democratic political and bureaucratic counterparts are in agreement as beltway entities. The NRA is dabbling in victim rights advocacy, which we already pay taxes for, and a myriad of other issues that are not as critical as the BOR and 2nd A. issues particularly. The NRA has complete disdain for the Constitutional concept of the Militia as does the government. Why is this? Every possible crime has been addressed by legislation, so to what end is the ceaseless barrage of anti-firearm (as opposed to anti criminal)legislation? Why does the government clearly want a disarmed population and why does the NRA not see this clear and present threat to our rights? To what end does this blindness point? I have been a member of the NRA since 1957 and a life member since 1959. I am a retired career LEO, and am a forensic firearms evidence and identification expert, with my own consulting firm. As a sworn LEO, I have always viewed armed citizens as a resource and back up, particularly after having my life and that of my partner saved twice by citizens who came to our aid with illegally possessed concealed weapons. Since 1968, (two Kennedys and MLK assassinated Between 63-68) when the NRA., Sen. Thomas Dodd, the Congress and the US Firearms industry, citing as the reason the above listed assassinations, cut off all surplus imports in the 1968 GCA, providing a captive market for US manufacturers, further screwing US shooters by eliminating choice to buy a cheaper surplus product. Disregard the fact that two out of the three assassinations were carried out with American made weapons. I have watched with growing trepidation as the defeats and gradualist erosion of the BOR have taken place under the aegis of the NRA. In 1986, 6 months after vice-President Bush cut the "trade" deal with China,(12/85) the 1986 so called firearms owners protection act (McClure-Volkmer) was passed thru the Congress with Bush's, Casey's and Dole's blessings. Scarce months later the US was awash in cheap AK's SKS's, ammo and parts. The repeals of the elements of the 1968 GCA that made this surplus dumping here were not opposed by the manufacturers, the NRA or the Democrats, who passed it. Whether the imports were good or bad, they helped destabilize an entire market, allowed propaganda from the left that is still unrivalled and unassailable in the media continuum. I watched in 1989, when Dennis DiConcini, former Senator from AZ introduced his infamous SB 747 to outlaw semi autos with the NRA's and Bill Ruger's support. Remember, Ruger, a large,(if not the largest) NRA advertiser, was ready to produce 7 shot pistols and mini 14s with FIXED 5 round magazines as soon as the domestic market was "safe" from all the surplus product that shooter enjoyed with relative low cost and high quality. Ruger said as much in the now well-known letter he wrote to the committee studying the legislation. What a patriot......what an opportunist. And in the nineties I have watched the recent successful assaults on the Constitution and the betrayal of the rights guaranteed, not granted, by that document. Betrayed by the leaders and members of Congress, the Senate, and our beloved and now feminized NRA. The NRA is not going to improve, the country club crowd now runs it, as Chuck Heston's election and selection timing so aptly proved. Neal Knox;s name and reputation was quickly and effectively discredited by the same mantra that the Clinton Administration and the Left in general uses so effectively to destroy dissent and opposition via semantics and namecalling in lieu of substantive reply or argument, i.e., "meanspirited", "extremist", "thuggish", and "cater to the militia". Wayne LaPierre is a beltway bureaucrat, pure and simple, highly paid and poorly effective, unless you are a firearms prohibitionist. Then, he is your friend, for under his and Tanya's and Marion's feminized leadership, Dole and Gingrich betrayed gun owners after making promises that need not being repeated here. We all know how the NRA-ILA has helped defeat progun legislators and has threatened others that don't tow the NRA "compromise" Line, while at the same time supporting anti-firearm legislators. David Stockman, a pro gun and pro Constitutionalist from Texas imediately comes to mind, as a man who the NRA would not endorse because he thought Militia were Constitutional. He lost. It's as bad as Carrol's Alice. I guess Schumer is the mad hatter and Wayne is the Toad (or was it the Rabbit?) In case you wonder where this will all end, a prediction based on past performance: In the very near future, I expect an NFA act to be passed on all semi-autos, not unlike the one on Class III guns, the manufacture of registerable private guns being terminated in May 1986. This means that if you declare what you have, what you have will be grandfathered into your possession via form 3 or 4. When it is sold, a tax will be collected. Essentially the rich will be able to buy semis, as they now do autos, as the tax will always be affordable for the rich, just as the $200.00 tax for machine guns was until inflation caught up. This means of revenue collection will be heartily endorsed by the NRA, who will say, "It's the best legislation we can get." And it will be, for them and their insiders, just as it was in 1934, 1938, 1968, 1986, 1989, 1992, 1994, and next? As of today, I have sent a certified letter to the NRA, requesting that all traces of my name be removed from their rolls, as I am ashamed to be and refuse to be associated with them any longer. I am also joining GOA and retaining my membership in JPFO. Joe Horn "It is an infallible rule that a prince who is not wise himself cannot be well advised" - Machiavelli - The Prince. -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Chris, take a (short) time off, you all deserve it. Date: 06 May 1997 09:22:00 -0700 (PDT) It simply kills me that I cannot immediately send a check to FCO, but it appears the IRS had the unmitigated gall to recently -cash- the check I sent them : ). Despite that (and as much as I despise cliches) please consider the check "in the mail". While I can't side with my internet friends who will immediately pull out of NRA that doesn't mean I condone the notion that we should go along with our detractors who falsely paint us as "extreme". We can see clearly enough where that got Canada's NFA. I -can- enjoy continuing to support a REAL kick butt, pro Bill of Rights, pro individual rights organization and FCO will get the first fifty bucks out of my next pay check. boydk@wrq.com Remove "no.spam" from address when replying. PGP key at BAL's. Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? E-mail me. Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harassment, requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- PS For those on the "cc" list, the address for FCO is: Neal Knox, The Firearms Coalition PO Box 6537 Silver Spring MD 20916 http:www.crl.com/~cknox/fco.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: [Fwd: IP: HR1146-FORWARD EVERYWHERE] (fwd) Date: 06 May 1997 17:11:53 PST Along with what's mentioned, this would also dump a bunch of UN Anti-Gunners out on their ears. On May 06, Eugene W. Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Never Forget: Wounded Knee (1890) 370; Kent State 4; > Ruby Ridge 2 plus dog; WACO 82, including 2 unborn. > "If Voting Could Change Anything, It Would be Illegal" > > >HR1146-FORWARD EVERYWHERE > Date:=20 > Mon, 5 May 1997 14:46:48 -0400 (EDT) > From:=20 > JUDY709366@aol.com > =20 >THIS IS OUR CHANCE FOLKS - Rep. Ron Paul (TX) needs OUR support push >this >through. He only has two co-sponsors right now: Stump & Barr. HE NEEDS= =20 >MORE-Make copies of this -forward, fax, hand them out asap as if our >lives >depend on this bill - BECAUSE... IT DOES! Everything Congress is >voting on >is from the UN CHARTER! >****** (Don=92t just call Congress because it=92s toll free (800-972-35= 24)- >ALSO >WRITE THEM FOR RESPONSES!) > >H.R.1146 >105th Congress - 1st Session >To provide for complete withdrawal of the United States from the United >Nations. In the House of Representatives - March 20, 1997 >Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the >Committee >on International Relations. >A BILL >Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United >States >of America in Congress assembled, > >SECTION 1. Short Title: >This Act may be cited as the =91American Sovereignty Restoration Act of >1997=92. > >SEC.2. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS PARTICIPATION ACT. >(a) REPEAL- The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law >79-264 >is repealed. >(b) CLOSURE OF UNITED STATES MISSION TO UNITED NATIONS- Effective within >120 >days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States >Mission >to the United Nations shall be closed. Any remaining functions of such >office shall not be carried out. >(c) NOTICE- The Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations of >the >withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations as of the date >of the >enactment of this Act. > >SEC.3. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT ACT. >(a) REPEAL- The United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act (Public Law >80-357 >is repealed. >(b) WITHDRAWAL- Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the >United States withdraws from the agreement between the United States and >the >United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations (signed >at >Lake Success, New York, on June 26, 1947, which was brought into effect >by >the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act). >(c) NOTICE- The secretary of state shall notify the United Nations that >the >United States has unilaterally withdrawn from the agreement between the >United States of America and the United Nations regarding the >headquarters of >the United Nations as of the date of the enactment of this Act. > >SEC.4. UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED >NATIONS. >(a) TERMINATION- No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise >made >available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States >to the >United Nations. >(b) APPLICATION- The provisions of this section shall apply to all >agencies >of the United Nations, including independent or voluntary agencies. > >SEC.5. UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS. >(a) TERMINATION- No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise >made >available for any United States contribution to any United Nations >military >operation. >(b) TERMINATION OF UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN UNITED NATIONS >PEACEKEEPING >OPERATIONS- No funds may be obligated or expended to support the >participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as >part >of any United Nations military or peacekeeping operation or force. No >member >of the Armed Forces of the United States may serve under the command of >the >United Nations. > >SEC. 6. WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED NATIONS PRESENCE IN FACILITIES OF THE >GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND REPEAL OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY. >(a) WITHDRAWAL FROM UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PROPERTY- The United >Nations >(including any affiliated agency of the United Nations) shall not occupy >or >use any property or facility of the United States Government. >(b) DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY- No officer or employee of the United Nations or >any >representative, officer, or employee of any mission to the United >Nations of >any foreign government shall be entitled to enjoy the privileges and >immunities of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, >1961, nor may any such privileges and immunities be extended to any such >individual. > >SEC. 7. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL >ORGANIZATION ACT. >(a) REPEAL- The Act entitled =91An Act providing for membership and >participation by the United States in the United Nations Educational, >Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and authorizing an appropriation >therefor=92 approved July 30, 1946 (Public Law 79-565) is repealed. >(b) NOTICE- The Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations that >the >United States has withdrawn from membership in the United Nations >Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization as of the date of the >enactment of this Act. > >SEC. 8. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION ACT >OF >1973. >(a) REPEAL- The United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of >1973 >is repealed. >(b) NOTICE- The Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations that >the >United States has withdrawn from membership in the United Nations >Environment >Program Participation as of the date of the enactment of this Act. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe, email >majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message >"subscribe ignition-point" or >"unsubscribe ignition-point". >http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: flushing freedom Date: 06 May 1997 22:29:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from reach.com by ICSI.Net (8.8.5/SMI-SVR4) id VAA06701; Tue, 6 May 1997 21:59:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ad0.reach.com ([192.9.208.9]) by reach.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09722; Tue, 6 May 97 23:00:13 EDT Received: by ad0.reach.com (4.1/3.2.083191-Reach Networks) id AA16962; Tue, 6 May 97 22:57:40 EDT Message-Id: <9705070257.AA16962@ad0.reach.com> Just when you thought you'd heard it all... Deroy --- Forwarded Mail Message --- Originally From: T Mike Griffin Internet Date: Tue, 6 May 97 22:34:27 EDT Subject: toilet bowls >From: Clifford Thies, INTERNET:cthies@su.edu BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING by Clifford F. Thies It seems that another black market is developing: in large-size toilet bowl reservoirs. In the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1994, the federal government banned the 3.5 gallon toilet bowl reservoir and mandated 1.6 gallon toilet bowl reservoirs in all new construction. But, many people don't want the smaller toilet bowl reservoirs, because they don't work so well, and have been illegally installing the old, larger toilet bowl reservoirs in their place. Concern has been growing for enforcement of the law. In other words, for federal inspection of our bathrooms. Is nothing sacred? First of all, where, in the Constitution, does the federal government get the power to regulate toilet bowl reservoirs? Mind you, they didn't even have indoor plumbing back in 1787. Do you think they passed an amendment covering toilet bowl reservoirs when we weren't looking? Or, do you think the inter-state commerce clause is so elastic, nowadays, that it can be stretched to cover anything? At the time of the founding, things like building codes were considered to be among the small "p" police powers of the state, which powers resided in local government. This understanding continued into this century. Thus, when the prohibitionists conducted their "noble experiment" to outlaw alcohol nationwide, they needed to pass a Constitutional amendment. (And, thanks to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, we got rid of that amendment.) But, with the New Deal, and the packing of the Supreme Court, the federal government got the power to do almost anything it wanted, simply by saying it effected inter-state commerce. Therefore, when the feds made marijuana illegal, in 1934, they didn't bother with a Constitutional amendment. Same thing with gold bullion, which was made illegal in 1934, and which was made legal again in 1977. Nowadays, the prohibitionists want to make tobacco illegal. Maybe I'm a bit unusual, but I figure as long as I can decide if I want to use things like alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco, or how big my toilet bowl reservoir is, or even if it's made out of gold, then it really must be a free country. And I notice that the same people who want to take away our big toilet bowl reservoirs also want to amend our 1st Amendment in order to regulate political speech, and want to amend our 2nd Amendment in order to take away our guns, and want to amend all the other amendments of the Bill of Rights so social services can take away our children without due process. This is why, for me, a big toilet bowl reservoir is a symbol of freedom. It's not that I want to go overboard on this issue. Since my water supply is metered, I know that every time I flush, my water bill goes up. Not that I know why it costs what it does. That's for the City of Winchester to figure out, since it supplies water to me and accepts responsibility for my waste water. All I know is that it costs me a certain amount of money to have my symbol of freedom in the bathroom. Based just on the economics, I suppose I would be inclined to have an efficient-sized toilet bowl reservoir. How small or big that would be would depend. I'd want it to be big enough to work, but not any bigger. We're Americans after all, we can afford it. But now that my toilet bowl reservoir has become a symbol of freedom, I want a really big one. It's almost like owning a 1967 Chevy Impala. (But, just so I don't run up the water bill, I'll some plastic soda bottles filled with water into it.) If a man's home is his castle, keep your hands off my throne. # # # CLIFFORD F. THIES is the Durell Professor of Money, Banking and Finance at Shenandoah University, in Winchester, VA. 540-665-5450. cthies@su.edu. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: NCPA Policy Digest 5-6-97 (fwd) Date: 07 May 1997 07:16:51 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- **************************************************************** * ### ### # ### ### # # ### ### #### ##### #### ##### * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # * * ### # # # # # # # # # # ## ### #### # * * # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # * * # ### ### ### ### # ### ### #### ##### #### # * **************************************************************** National Center for Policy Analysis POLICY DIGEST Tuesday, May 6, 1997 In Today's News REPUBLICAN SELLOUT ON BUDGET Some budget analysts are wondering why Republican leaders are so proud of the budget compromise reached with the White House. They are pointing to what they see as serious flaws in the agreement. Among the defects: * Billions of dollars in new federal spending programs over the next five years are included -- a signal that big government has been salvaged -- and any "savings" would only come long after Clinton leaves office. * Wasteful programs which could have been eliminated are slated to grow by about 5 percent a year -- with an extra $60 billion to $70 billion in domestic discretionary spending included over five years. * The $115 billion in Medicare "savings" -- which are actually reductions in baseline estimates -- will probably come mainly from higher premiums and price controls on doctors and hospitals. * When various factors are taken into account, tax cuts will probably amount to no more than $70 billion over five years, out of an $8 trillion revenue base -- less than one-third the amount of Clinton's 1993 tax hike. A number of analysts contend that Republicans have abandoned their promise to hold the line on spending and deliver a meaningful tax cut. Source: Stephen Moore (Cato Institute), "The Budget Deal: All Clintonites Now," Investor's Business Daily, May 6, 1997. For more on the Federal Budget go to http://www.ncpa.org/pi/congress/cong8.html CLINTON ADMINISTRATION BULLIES BUSINESS Through the use of executive orders, President Clinton is enacting big policy changes affecting the 300,000 or so firms which do business with the federal government. Owners and managers of these businesses are complaining that the orders are making them change policies on everything from environmental practices to union activities. One recent order, which under pressure from Congress was later downgraded to a presidential memo, would have required the use of union labor on federal construction contracts. The federal government purchases about $180 billion in goods and services each year. * One Clinton order mandated that federal agencies buy office paper which contained at least 20 percent recycled content. * Another directed that government agencies increase purchases of alternative-fueled vehicles that exceeded congressionally-set requirements by 50 percent. * Yet another set goals for reducing purchases of goods containing toxic substances. * A fourth would accord favorable treatment to contractors who do business in troubled inner-city communities. One order, which was later overturned in court, told agencies not to do business with companies that permanently replace workers who strike for economic reasons, like wages. Observers say these changes often have several effects: * When required to make a change in their products to satisfy the government, companies often adopt the new formula company-wide -- thus also affecting commercial markets. * Since production changes seldom are made without incurring additional costs, prices on the products government buys are bound to increase. Source: Laura M. Litvan, "Legislating by Executive Order?" Investor's Business Daily, May 6, 1997. QUADRUPLE TAX REFORMS Former GOP vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp is urging Congressional tax-writing committees to quadruple proposed tax cuts in the budget agreement, so as to spur economic growth and wipe out the budget deficit. He wants Congress to follow up on the Contract With America promise of $350 billion in tax cuts, and finds it curious that only modest tax cuts were contained in the agreement, even after the Congressional Budget Office announced that it had underestimated revenues by some $225 billion. Here are some of the features of his proposal: * First, Congress should set a dollar figure for the expected level of tax receipts in 1997 and 1998 and -- to the extent that revenues exceed those levels -- it should embark on a new round of tax rate reductions. * Congress must insist that the CBO set up a process to provide new economic assumptions in light on proposed improvements to the tax system. * Tax-writing committees should consider eliminating -- or at least halving -- capital gains and estate taxes, and indexing them for inflation. * Consider repealing the 1993 ten percent income tax rate surcharge and give low- and middle-income workers relief by allowing deductibility of payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Despite record tax receipts, the budget process still keeps most windfall tax revenues inside the Beltway. Spending continues to grow faster than the economy, runs well above the Democrats' super-spender 1993 budget and because of the 1996 spending spree means government is growing rapidly even while claiming "cuts." Kemp points out that the $225 billion windfall demonstrates that economic growth can easily produce massive new revenues. A better tax code would do the same, permitting not only a tax cut but an earlier balanced budget. Source: Jack Kemp, "How to Break Out of the Budget Trap," Wall Street Journal, May 6, 1997. For more on Taxes go to http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/taxes2.html FRAUD AND ABUSE IN MEDICARE When the government is charged with spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on massive programs, it would be naive not to expect frauds to attend the party. So it is with Medicare. * In 1992, the General Accounting Office estimated that 10 percent of all health-care spending might be lost to fraud and abuse. * Some 350 FBI agents are now investigating a record 2,300 potentially fraudulent cases in the medical industry. * Various government antifraud units are being allowed to tap into the Medicare trust fund for the first time to fund their budgets -- to the tune of $104 million this year and more than $200 million by 2002. * Officials say they are shifting emphasis in the investigations from small-time chiselers to large medical organizations and institutions, some of which have been known to bill Medicare for patient treatments which were never performed or equipment which was never ordered or used. The tone was set by investigations in the early 1990s when several companies paid more than $100 million apiece in fines and penalties. Large institutions are crying foul in some cases, contending that the federal government's health-care rules and procedures are so complex that they invite misunderstandings in billing. Investigators are zeroing in on the fastest growing health programs. * Some parts of the Medicare program are growing at rates exceeding 20 percent a year. * Medicare's home health-care program -- where bills have tripled in five years -- is a priority target. * Proliferating community mental-health centers -- which need not be state certified and are without quality standards -- are another area of potential abuse, investigators say. Other targets include academic health care centers, hospices and Medicare billing for outpatient tests. The biggest club the feds have is expulsion from the Medicare program, which can be devastating for business. Source: George Anders and Laurie McGinley, "A New Brand of Crime Now Stirs the Feds: Health-Care Fraud," Wall Street Journal, May 6, 1997. For more on Medicare go to http://www.ncpa.org/pi/health/hedex1.html IN OTHER NEWS NEA's DRAG ON PUBLIC EDUCATION The National Education Association's (NEA) argument that higher teacher salaries, reduced class sizes and better teaching environment are necessary to improve the quality of public education in America is not supported by national figures. * According to national statistics, from 1965 to 1990 average per pupil spending increased form $2,402 to $5,582 in inflation-adjusted dollars, while student-teacher ratios declined from 24.1 to 17.3. * Over the same time period, national SAT scores declined by 10 percent, dropout rates in inner-city schools have soared, and American students have fallen behind other industrialized countries on standardized tests. According to education watchdogs, what the NEA has done well is protect its members' jobs at all costs. Analysts observe this ironclad teacher tenure policy acts as a stranglehold over the quality of public education. One New York principal reported it has cost him more than 100 hours over two years in legal proceedings to bring action against one blatantly incompetent teacher and it looks to take at least one more year for any disciplinary action to occur. The NEA opposes education vouchers because it believes they could further fragment education in America. It is ironic to policy analysts, however, that at the same time the NEA is supporting the self-determination movement by the American Indians/Alaska Natives, infusing Afro-centric curricula into public education and opposes making English the official language. Source: Mona Charen (nationally syndicated columnist), "Grading the NEA's Report Card," Washington Times, May 5, 1997. For more on Education go to http://www.ncpa.org/pi/edu/edu1.html EXPANDED CAFE STANDARDS LESS EFFICIENT Advocates of extending the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirement for passenger cars of 27.5 mpg to vehicles classified as "light trucks" -- e.g., sports utility vehicles (SUV) and minivans -- say it will increase fuel savings. Yet energy analysts note that smaller cars are not as efficient as larger cars for the average American family because they carry less cargo. * Passenger cars carry at most four adults (two uncomfortably), whereas SUVs and minivans can handle six adults and more. * It is more efficient for a family with luggage to take a trip in one minivan getting 20 mpg than to take two CAFE-approved subcompact cars getting 35 mpg. According to market surveys by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, the expanded CAFE requirements would be inneficient and burdensome for many families: * The "light truck" class of cars are typically found in households of three or more people. * Subcompact cars are typically owned by singles or households of less than two people. * According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and auto industry data, approximately 40 percent of the nation's vehicle fleet are in the "light truck" category. Advocates of CAFE standards say they improve air quality. Yet energy analysts observe 98 percent of new care tailpipe emissions consist of nontoxic water vapor and carbon dioxide -- emissions of which are not a consideration in increasing CAFE standards. Moreover, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates 2,000 to 4,000 additional motor vehicle deaths are caused each year by smaller, less safe cars. Source: Eric Peters (North American Auto Writers Syndicate), "Safety Sorely Tested by CAFE Computations," Washington Times, May 6, 1997. For more on CAFE standards go to http://www.public-policy.org/~ncpa/pd/regulat/reg.html VOLUNTARY EFFORTS INCREASE WETLANDS Efforts to reverse the loss of wetlands in the United States through regulations that deny private landowners the productive use of their land without compensation have been costly and ineffective, says environmental policy analyst Jonathan Tolman. But voluntary programs that pay landowners to conserve or restore wetlands are working. Tolman says that the United States is now gaining wetland acreage each year due to restoration efforts. For instance, in 1995 an estimated 210,000 acres of wetlands were restored and 141,000 acres were lost -- for a net gain of 69,000 acres. Some federal programs encourage voluntary wetlands conservation on private property by purchasing easements or making grants for restoration. However, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires landowners to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before filling in wetlands. The Corps may require them to mitigate the loss of wetlands by setting aside or restoring other acreage at their own expense. Surprisingly, it is less expensive to pay landowners to conserve wetlands than to force them to bear the cost. For instance: * The North American Waterfowl Management Plan restored 42,000 acres in 1995 at a cost of $773 per acre. * The Wetland Reserve Program, which purchases permanent conservation easements from farmers, enrolled 118,000 acres in 1995 at a cost of $790 per acre. In 1995 the Corps granted permits for the conversion of 26,300 acres to other uses and required landowners to set aside or restore 45,900 acres, for a maximum 19,600 net acres protected or restored. * Since the Corps spent $78 million administering the Section 404 regulations, it cost the federal government about $3,980 to protect an acre of wetland. * Add to that the cost to the landowner -- estimated by one analysis of 90 different mitigation projects at $30,000 per acre -- and mitigation cost $33,980 per acre. * And since most studies of wetland mitigation have found that about half the projects fail to result in restored wetlands, there may have been no net wetlands gained at all. The Corps only reviews a small fraction of the wetlands lost every year and rejects only 0.5 percent of permits requested; therefore Tolman concludes that Section 404 has done little to reverse the loss of wetlands. Source: Jonathan Tolman, "Swamped: How America Achieved 'No Net Loss,'" April 1997, Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 331-1010. For more on the Environment go to http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envdex1.html **************************************************************************** NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS DALLAS, TEXAS "Making Ideas Change the World" Internet Address: http://www.ncpa.org **************************************************************************** =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: piml] Death Taxes... And Tax Freedom Day ::: FWU 6 May 1997 (fwd) Date: 07 May 1997 08:23:40 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -------Freedom Watch Update------ ------Wednesday, May 7, 1997----- In this edition: --(1)-- Death taxes to be addressed in budget deal --(2)-- Average Texan finishes working to pay taxes on May 7 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ HEAR RON PAUL'S WEEKLY LEGISLATIVE UPDATE BY CALLING (888) 322-1414, TOLL-FREE, 24-HOURS A DAY ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --(1)-- _Death taxes to be addressed in budget deal_ _Clinton-Republican budget lacking, but reducing death/capital gains taxes hopeful, Paul says_ While many details are still waiting to be explored, US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas) says he is pleased to see the president and the Republican majority siding with him on the need to cut and eliminate two of the most regressive taxes: the "death" tax and the capital gains tax. "I am pleased to see so many people coming on board to the notion that it is inherently wrong to tax someone's property just because they die; this tax hurts the family farmer and the middle-class more than any other group," said Paul. "The inheritance tax amounts to double taxation and must be eliminated. A person works hard all their life, pays taxes and builds up a savings and a business, then, when they die, family members have to hand over as much as fifty percent of the inheritance to the government. That is ridiculous." In the recent budget deal announced by the White House and Republican leaders, it was said that the inheritance tax and taxes on gains made in investments would be reduced. "I would much rather see these taxes eliminated, but the fact the White House and the congressional leadership is finally taking this step in the right direction towards meaningful tax cuts is very encouraging. I am pleased that the friends of taxpayers are finally being heard in the halls of Congress, and not just the special interests." Paul is a cosponsor of H.R. 902, which would repeal the inheritance tax. There are more than 100 other congressman who have signed on as cosponsors of the legislation. Paul is also a cosponsor of H.R. 14, the "Capital Gains Tax Reduction Act," which will cut the capital gains tax in half. Paul said big-government advocates have tried to paint capital gains tax cuts as benefits for the wealthy. "In reality, the people to benefit most from cutting or abolishing the capital gains tax are the lower-middle class, the middle class and retirees. Taxing their gains from investments often means major reductions in their lifestyle and their ability to provide for themselves and their families. The only people hurt by capital gains taxes are the elderly and the working." On the budget in general, Paul said he is still waiting for all the details, but is not optimistic that it is an improvement over what has been seen for the past several decades. "The budget itself will likely be a disaster; it continues the deficits and continues the political shell-game of talking about a balanced budget long after this administration ends and most Members of Congress are gone. The tough choices need to be made now." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NOTE: If you got this as a "forward" from someone else, you can subscribe today by sending an email note to: "freedom.watch@mail.house.gov" with the word "subscribe" in the message field. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --(2)-- _Average Texan finishes working to pay taxes on May 7_ _Will still work through early July to pay for cost of regulations_ May 7 is a special day for Texans, says US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas), because that is the day they have finally paid off their taxes. The Tax Foundation, a non-partisan organization each year calculates the average "tax freedom day" nationally and for each state. Nationwide, the average American will work through May 9 to pay their taxes. "The average Texan worked all day, every day from January 1 through May 7, just to pay their federal, state and local taxes," said Paul. "This means not a penny was saved, no house payments or rent made, no food bought, no clothes purchased, no investments made and no improvements performed. Every effort performed by the average Texan these months has gone to pay their tax bill." But this does not mean Texans are now working for themselves and their families beginning today. "Now Texans are working to pay an even more insidious tax - the hidden cost of government regulation and tampering. For the next two months, through early July, Texans will be working to pay for those costs." Paul said it is poetic that it is not until approximately the July 4th holiday that Texans finally start to keep all the money they earn so that they can provide for their families and their future. "It reflects the sad shape of our nation that Texans literally work half of the year to pay for the government. Our Founding Fathers never envisioned that government would be so out-of-control, and doing so many unconstitutional things, that the citizens of our great nation would work six months a year to shoulder government costs," Paul said. "Even worse, Texans are not getting a very good deal. We pay outrageous sums of money for government, and then that same government always seems to be making matters worse for all of us, and especially for the poor. It is time to reign in government, to get the spending under control by following the Constitution, and cutting taxes across-the-board." Paul said he is committed to cutting the unconstitutional programs from the federal budget, including such "boondoggle" agencies as the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor. "Unless we begin to follow the Constitution, right now, the cost of government will only increase. Unless we act now, our children will be working into August and September to pay for government. It takes more than budget tinkering and clever sound-bites to fix the system, it takes a solid commitment to following the Constitution and not selling out to the special interests." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Each week the office of US Representative Ron Paul presents the Legislative Update, toll-free nationwide at (888) 322-1414. Hear Dr. Paul discuss the previous week's legislative activities, as well as a preview of the coming week in Congress. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --NOTE: PLEASE SEND _ALL_ CORROSPONDANCE TO rep.paul@mail.house.gov. BECAUSE OF HEAVY VOLUME, LETTERS SENT TO THE "FREEDOM WATCH" ADDRESS CANNOT BE PROPERLY PROCESSED AND READ. THE "FREEDOM WATCH" ADDRESS ONLY ACCEPTS SUBSCRIPTION/UNSUBSCRIPTION QUERIES. THANK YOU!-- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Freedom Watch Update (fax and eMail versions) is a free service of the Washington Office of US REP Ron Paul. For reprint or other questions, call Communications Director Michael Sullivan at (202) 225-2831. To unsubscribe from the eMail FWU, send a note to: freedom.watch@mail.house.gov and place the word "remove" in the SUBJECT line. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ vE-6MAY97 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: fwd: L&J: The Devil and FDR (fwd) Date: 07 May 1997 13:37:47 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To all; With the current discussions here about Roosevelt, I thought that you might find the following interesting. (or amusing) When my mother-in-law passed away last year, we were cleaning out an old trunk that she had, and discovered a very fragile paper with the following anonymous poem. It had been folded and unfolded so many times, that we had to handle it very carefully, to keep it from disintergrating. It must be at least 50 years old. REJECTED A stranger stopped at the gates of hell and the Devil himself had answered the bell. He looked him over from head to toe, and said, "My friend, I'd like to know What you have done in the line of sin to entitle you to come within?" Then Franklin D. with his usual quile Stepped forth and flashed his toothy smile. "When I took charge in thirty-three A nation's faith was mine," said he. "I promised this and I promised that, and I calmed them down with a fireside chat. I spent their money on fishing trips, and fished from the decks of their battleships. I gave them jobs on the W.P.A. Then raised their taxes and took it away. I raised their wages and closed their shops I killed their pigs and burned their crops. I double-crossed both old and young, and still the fools my praises sung. I brought back beer and what do you think? I taxed it so high that they couldn't drink. I furnished money with government loans When they missed a payment, I took their homes. When I wanted to punish the folks, you know, I'd put my wife on the radio. I paid them to let their farms lie still, and imported food-stuffs from Brazil. I curtailed crops when I felt real mean, and shipped in corn from the Argentine. When they'd start to worry, stew and fret I'd get them to chanting the alphabet. With the A.A.A. and the N.L.B., The W.P.A. and the C.C.C. With these many units I got their goats and still I crammed it down their throats. My workers worked with the speed of snails While the taxpayers chewed their fingernails. When the organizers needed dough, I closed up the plants for the C.I.O. I ruined jobs and I ruined health, and I put the screws on the rich man's wealth. And some, who couldn't stand the gaff, Would call on me and how I'd laugh. When they got too strong on certain things I'd pack and head for old Warm Springs. I ruined their country, their homes and then, I placed the blame on 'Nine old Men'." Now Franklin talked both long and loud And the Devil stood and his head he bowed. At last he said, "Let's make it clear, You'll have to move, you can't stay here. For once you mingle with this mob. I'll have to hunt myself a job." artsto@aa.net | Arthur D. "Don" Stone | Edmonds, Wa.| __________________________ / \_______________________\ \ \ \ ROSS \ ___| WAS | / | RIGHT | \___/______________________ _/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: speech in U.S. House in militias (fwd) Date: 07 May 1997 13:46:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This is recent e-mail in and wanted to pass it along. This appears to be a recent speech given on the House floor in Washington,D.C. =================================================================== The following is from the U.S. Congress. Note the last paragraph, and ask yourself -- "*What* database?..." HOUSE MUST ACT NOW (House of Representatives - April 29, 1997) [Page: H1917] (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas . Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and Subcommittee on Crime, I rise today to say to America, hatreds, no, terrorists, yes. The Republic of Texas this past weekend and the last couple of days held hostage two innocent Americans, two individuals who were guilty of nothing other than rejecting their terrorist activities. Over 800 militia exist across the Nation. It does us no good to not respond to these unchecked fringe groups, violating the civil rights and constitutional rights of Americans. This House must act now. Among the legislative inertia, we must respond to militia that are organized across this Nation to unseat this Government in a violent way. We must now have immediate hearings dealing with these types of groups. We must pass my House Resolution that indicates and asks for vigorous enforcement of U.S. laws against such militia and we must update the database. We cannot stand for these kinds of attacks on the constitutional and civil rights of Americans. ********************************************************** ROBERT'S E-MAIL IN SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI. Use BCC: addressing on e-mail to me & Thanks. Remove headers & footers on repost & Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Clinton praises Communist Painter in Mexico (fwd) Date: 07 May 1997 17:26:15 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media _________________________________________________________________ Wednesday May 7 7:12 AM EDT Zedillo Stresses Sovereignty at Clinton Dinner MEXICO CITY (Reuter) - Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo picked the perfect place for a state dinner with U.S. President Bill Clinton -- a spot sure to convey a message Mexico is serious about defending its sovereignty. Amid an imposing setting at the National Palace in Mexico City, Zedillo hammered away late on Tuesday at what has become his theme during Clinton's three-day visit: that friendship and cooperation between both nations is based on respect. Zedillo, while praising Clinton for his friendship, invoked former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln as an example of a U.S. leader who knew how to defend his country's national interests without stepping on its neighbour's toes. "We Mexicans hold a great respect for Lincoln because he knew how to reconcile protecting the legitimate interests of his country while also protecting the dignity of our country and the sovereignty of Mexicans," Zedillo said. Earlier in the day both leaders signed an agreement to curb the drugs trade from Mexico to the United States -- an issue U.S. officials have been pressing since a string of recent drug corruption scandals in Mexico. Everything about the dinner later in the day seemed planned to drive the point home. The National Palace itself, a baroque 17th Century building, sits on one side of the giant Zocalo square -- the world's second-largest of its kind after Moscow's Red Square. At the centre of the square flew a giant Mexican flag ringed by hundreds of elite presidential troops. Before sitting down at candlelit tables under an open palace patio, Zedillo took Clinton and the First lady Hillary Clinton on a brief tour of the palace's murals by Diego Rivera -- an ardent communist who reviled what he saw as the United States' imperialism earlier this century. In the murals, painted in the 1930s, Rivera tells the history of Mexico as one of rape and domination by foreign powers and offers the hope of communism and the power of workers as the promise of a better future. Clinton praised the works during his speech at the dinner and said they were a testament not only to artistic acheivement but to the power of Mexico's struggle for a better society. "They are very moving....Anyone who has seen it knows that the power of Rivera's epic of the Mexican people and their struggle of freedom comes from more than technical skill. In this proud work, we see the spirit of the revolution and Mexico's heart," Clinton said. During the dinner, Zedillo stressed that Mexico's history gave it a deep sense of tradition -- pointing out that before Colombus arrived in the New World, the Aztecs had already built huge temples on the palace grounds. "Down the street, we had the first printing press, the first mint and the first university in the Americas," Zedillo said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: CRIMESTRIKE: Read what the NRA supports this time. (fwd) Date: 08 May 1997 09:53:36 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com Read the paragraph at the end of this edited NRA Crimestrike Alert. FEDERAL TRAVEL ACT? Is this the old "Interstate flight to avoid arrest/prosecution? Not even..What kind of law is this? I guarantee that it will be used less against gangs than it will be against non-licensed gun show collectors/ hobbyists/attendees. Has the NRA ever heard of the oft used and designed-for-gang-prosecution RICO statutes? Why always does the NRA AGREE that MORE laws are the answer? Don't they have a legal research department? I have used RICO statutes, and they are more than what we need against gangs...they just need to be used. The NRA really needs to stay out of Federal Law except to oppose infringements of the BOR and the 2nd Amendment. Or the "experts" in the NRA need to consult some real criminal law experts for a change. Or there is a different agenda at the NRA than one in our interests. Just more retreat, betrayal and loss of precious liberties. One more time, this question: Since they've not used existing law against the gangs, just WHO do you think these laws will really be used against? The crips? Any of you frogs feel the heat yet? WAKE UP! Joe Horn, GOA LIFE, JPFO, CNOA, CPPOA NRA CrimeStrike's CrimeWatch Weekly Breaking news on critical crime-fighting issues, policies and legislation Vol. 3, No. 18 May 6, 1997 Federal Legislation Targets Growing Threat From Gangs Los Angeles County's street gangs are responsible for nearly 7,000 homicides there in the past 10 years, the head of the LA County Sheriff's Dept.'s anti-gang unit, Capt. James Mulvihill, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 23. The committee heard testimony as it considers the Federal Gang Violence Act of 1997 (S.54), bipartisan legislation targeting criminal gang activities. Capt. Mulvihill estimates there are 1,250 increasingly violent gangs with about 150,000 members in Los Angeles County alone. Nationally, gang membership is estimated at 652,000. The head of the FBI's violent crimes section, Steven Wiley, testified that criminal groups claiming affiliation with the Bloods or Crips, Los Angeles-based gangs, have been reported in 180 communities in 42 states. Massachusetts authorities are also expressing alarm at the increasing gang presence along the state's coast, with an estimated 300 to 500 "mostly self-styled members" of the Crips and Bloods in gangs around Boston, reports Juvenile Justice Digest. The federal anti-gang legislation would authorize $20 million over five years to hire additional federal prosecutors to crack down on gangs. The law also provides a variety of enhanced prison sentences for criminal gang activity and would amend the Federal Travel Act banning interstate or foreign travel to promote unlawful activity to also target violent gang crime. -- 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: And Bill Klinton trusts these people. (fwd) Date: 08 May 1997 14:49:57 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Spy satellite photos reveal U.S. airplane machinery went to China's military April 23, 1997 BY JEFF GERTH New York Times WASHINGTON -- A federal criminal inquiry has uncovered new evidence, including U.S. satellite photos, suggesting that a government-owned Chinese company had all along intended to divert U.S. machine equipment to a military plant that builds missiles and fighter aircraft, intelligence officials said Tuesday. The equipment, bought in 1994 by one of China's most powerful corporations, Catic, was supposed to be used solely for civilian purposes. Now, as a year-old inquiry accumulates evidence of a diversion, the Clinton administration is faced with the question of how to proceed if it is proved that Catic knowingly misled U.S. officials. Administration officials say charges against the company could be the next step. The new evidence also raises questions about the administration's approval of the sale in the first place, officials said. The administration preliminarily approved Catic's purchase of machine equipment from McDonnell Douglas Corp. in late August 1994; the equipment was supposed to be used in Beijing to make civilian jetliners. The approval came about the time Commerce Secretary Ron Brown left for China, where he helped persuade Chinese officials to keep their commitment to spend $1 billion on jetliners from McDonnell Douglas. But Pentagon critics of the sale had earlier said they believed that the Chinese wanted the equipment, which included giant machine tools to shape and bend large aircraft parts, to improve military capability, administration officials said. At the time, the Chinese press had reported a Chinese government plan to cut jetliner production in half, which would have reduced the civilian need for the U.S. equipment. However, some U.S. equipment wound up 800 miles from Beijing, at a military complex of Nanchang Aircraft Co. The recently uncovered satellite photos show that a plant was being built in Nanchang for a giant stretch press, a major piece of U.S. equipment, while Catic was telling U.S. officials the equipment would go to a civilian machining center in Beijing, intelligence officials said. U.S. officials said other documents in the case suggested that Nanchang had been the intended destination from the start. "We ought to send the Chinese the message that they can't divert our technology with impunity, and an indictment of Catic might even get the Chinese to talk to us seriously about proliferation," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, which has tracked Catic's procurement activities in the United States. Catic and its lawyers declined to answer questions. A spokesman for McDonnell Douglas, Larry McCracken, also refused comment. McDonnell Douglas, St. Louis-based aerospace company discovered the diversion in Nanchang in early 1995 and reported it to the Commerce Department. Commerce Department officials say conditions they attached at the last minute to the approval for the license allowed them to place the diverted equipment under tighter supervision at a civilian location in China. But that took almost a year. By then, the criminal inquiry by the U.S. Attorney's office and the U.S. Customs Service had begun. In late spring of 1996, several weeks after a grand jury had subpoenaed records from McDonnell Douglas, a company official tried to obtain the sensitive satellite photos of the Nanchang military site, officials said. The request was denied, but the question of why the official sought the photos is under investigation, intelligence officials said. All content copyright 1997 Detroit Free Press ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [Fwd: An introduction to Len Horowitz] (fwd) Date: 08 May 1997 12:51:09 PST On May 08, markange@mindspring.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Here's some info on AIDS and Ebola. Sorry for the length, but it is very good. Mark Return-Path: Received: from teaminfinity.com ([204.107.208.2]) by camel10.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA24103; Thu, 8 May 1997 12:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from ralph@localhost) by teaminfinity.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id MAA23758; Thu, 8 May 1997 12:20:57 -0400 Message-Id: <199705081620.MAA23758@teaminfinity.com> http://TeamInfinity.com/bible http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html (updated) TORAH CODES http://TeamInfinity.com/~ralph/irs.audit.html <-SCATHING GAO Audit of IRS http://TeamInfinity.com/~ralph/STW.ALL.html http://www.epa.gov/region09/cross_pr/usmex/index.htm <-- BORDER XXI (21) http://www.stw.ed.gov <---- GOVERNMENT's School to WORK Site http://www.dtic.mil/defenselink/photos/ <- Foreign Troop Photos etc If you do not yet know of this man and his works it is about time you meet Len Horowitz... Without further aduei, ralph@TeamInfinity.com "Kissinger and Rockefeller Connections to American Central Intelligence and the Origins of AIDS and Ebola" A Speech Before the Citizens Against Legal Loopholes Rally The Capitol Mall, Washington, D.C. Labor Day Weekend, 1996 By Leonard G. Horowitz President, Tetrahedron Incorporated, a nonprofit educational corporation P. O. Box 402, Rockport, Massachusetts 01966 Copyright 1996, Leonard G. Horowitz. All rights reserved. Dear Friends and Patriots, My name is Dr. Len Horowitz, and some time ago, probably like many of you, I considered myself a lifelong liberal democrat. Fortunately, or unfortunately, that part of me died. When I realized the forces behind so-called liberal democracy were the flip side of the same corrupt coin as the republican political establishment, that is, I opened my eyes to witness a shadow government of military-medical-industrial dictators, the naive person I was had a stroke, keeled over, and praise the lord, died. And I didn't need to call Dr. Jack Kevorkian in to let it rest in peace. What brought me to this realization and this meeting today is a unique story. Six years ago, most of you can recall, the highly publicized case of the Florida dentist who infected his patients with AIDS-- the case of, the beautiful teenager, Kimberly Bergalis, who died shortly after testifying before Congress in a wheel-chair. At the time I was serving as the chief professional advisor to the largest dental and medical catalog supply company in the world. The day the story broke I was assigned to develop [brought to you by:ralph@TeamInfinity.com http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html] patient and professional educational materials to help allay the public's growing fear of visiting dental and medical offices in the age of AIDS. You may recall how terrified most people became about a routine trip to the dentist at that time. So I began by investigating the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDCs) official investigation reports on the case. And to make a long story short, I found the reports to be scientifically bogus. I later learned that the government had covered-up key evidence in the tragedy in an effort the maintain the case a "unsolvable mystery." In essence they had committed scientific fraud and misconduct and, in the process, concealed the most incriminating evidence against the dentist--a very bright, scientifically trained, ex-military dentist, who believed he was dying of a virus that the government had created. Yes, you heard me correctly, a virus that the government had created. Now, the problem I had was reconciling the fact that the dentist, though a psychopath, was no fool. And he held in his possession one of the most incriminating documents I had ever seen. A 1970 Department of Defense Appropriations request for $10 million for the development of immune system ravaging viruses for germ warfare. In fact, the document, which I lay before you today, reads like this: "Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease. . . A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million. . . . It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations." In fact it was the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (NAS-NRC) that had informed the Defense Department that this research was possible. Now, according to legal testimony given to government officals, this knowledge enraged the Florida dentist so much it moved him to intentionally inject his patients with HIV-tainted anesthetics. In essence, he did what all organized serial killers love to do, express a vendetta, like the mail-bomber, play games with the authorities, trap them in a catch-22, whereby they'd be damned if they told the truth, and called him a serial killer, because the whole world would want to know motive, and every reporter would ultimately find out as I did, what drove him crazy and who he really hated and ultimately attacked. And if they told a lie, or maintained the case, as they did, a mystery, it would hold America and all of health care hostage to irrational fear of routine health care in the age of AIDS. Now all of this I documented in three published scientific reports and my last book "Deadly Innocence: The Kimberly Bergalis Case-- Solving the Greatest Murder Mystery in the History of American Medicine." I present these publications and documents here for your critical examination. So Dr. Acer created a crime, a mystery, that couldn't be solved, without implicating the government and causing a larger mystery to be investigated. That is, the origin of AIDS and Ebola--the subject of my last three years of research, and why I have come before you today. In fact, I [brought to you by:ralph@TeamInfinity.com http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html] investigated the Department of Defense's germ warfare appropriations request and learned that the option to develop synthetic biological agents--bioweapons as alternatives to nuclear weapons--came from Dr. Henry Kissinger, who was gradually placed in his position of authority as National Security Advisor under Richard Nixon, the most powerful man in government, by Nelson Rockefeller and his affiliates at the Council on Foreign Relations. Moreover, I traced where the money went. It went, in fact, to a firm called Litton Bionetics, a subsidiary of the mega-military contractor Litton Industries, whose President, Roy Ash, was being considered as an alternate to Henry Kissinger for the National Security Advisor post. Instead, Roy Ash became Richard Nixon's chairman of the Presidents Advisory Council on Executive Organizations, and "Assistant to the President of the United States." And Litton Industries was given over $5 billion in military contracts during the first term of the Nixon administration, $10 million of which went towards the development of AIDS-like viruses. A mere drop in the bucket. But before I tell you exactly what was done with your $10 million of taxpayer money, some background on Kissinger and Rockefeller's influence is in order. Among Henry Kissinger's most influential patrons as he worked his way up the ladder of success to become Nixon's "Deputy to the President for National Security," was Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, the son of Standard Oil, that is Exxon, heir John D. Rockefeller, Jr. The Rockefeller family's involvement in the medical-industrial complex, health science research, and American politics is clearly important. Before World War II, major administration of medical research, or financing by federal agencies, had been generally opposed by America's scientific community. In fact, it was only during times of war that organizations like the NAS or the NRC received major funding. Both the NAS, established during the Civil War, and the NRC, set up during the First World War, were largely ignored in times of peace. Between 1900 and 1940, private foundations and universities financed most medical research. According to Paul Starr, author of The Social Transformation of American Medicine: The rise of a sovereign profession and the making of a vast industry, "the most richly endowed research center, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was established in New York in 1902 and by 1928 had received from John D. Rockefeller $65 million in endowment funds." In contrast, as late as 1938, as little as $2.8 million in federal funding was budgeted for the entire U.S. Public Health Service. Therefore, it is easy to see that Rockefeller family investment in health science research predated, and far surpassed, even the federal government's. More than the New Deal, the Second World War created the greatest boom in federal government and private industry support for medical research. Prior to the war, American science and medicine was heavily influenced by German models. This precedent was bolstered during the 1930s when the Nazis purged Jewish scientists from German universities and biological laboratories. These changes, according to Starr, significantly altered the course of American health science and medicine. Many of Germany's most brilliant Jewish researchers emigrated to the United States just as the movement burgeoned to privatize war related biological and medical research. At this time, the Rockefeller led medical-industrial complex was fully poised to influence, and take advantage of, Congress's "first series of measures to promote cancer research and cancer control." In 1937, the new federal legislation authorized the establishment of the National Cancer Institute under the National Institutes of Health, and, for the first time, "the Public Health Service to make grants to outside researchers." The [brought to you by:ralph@TeamInfinity.com http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html] Rockefellers exercised significant control over the outcomes of these grants and research efforts through the foundations they established. Following the war, Henry Kissinger, who had become General Alexander Bolling's German translator and principle assistant (Bolling, of course, was the "Godfather" to the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency that ran "Project Paperclip," the secret exfiltration of approximately 2,000 high level Nazi's, about 900 of whom were military scientists and medical researchers, including Erich Traub, Hitler's top biological weapons developer and virus expert. Bolling also served as a high ranking member of the Inter-American Defense Board, a Washington based group that delivered Walter Emil Schreiber, Hitler's chief medical scientist, the "Angel of Death" Joseph Mengele, and his assistant, "the butcher of Lyon," Klaus Barbie, among others, to safe havens in South America where they worked on CIA projects.) In fact it was Henry Kissinger's job to seek and find such Nazi's that might be of service to America, and Kissinger became the chief of Army Counter-Intelligence in this regard. He trained other agents to hunt down Nazi's at the European Command Intelligence School in Oberammergau, not to be tried for war crimes necessarily, but rather to serve U.S. military rather than Russian interests. It was this operation that principally spirited the creation of the CIA as a cover agency for the powerful Gehlen Org, the German intelligence agency run by Reinhard Gehlen--an organization whose power superseded even the Nazi SS because of its prewar connections with German military intelligence. After Hitler, Gehlen served Allen Welsh Dulles, whose "Operation Sunshine" brought Nazis into the U.S. spy service. You may be interested to know who paid for the importation of Nazis into American central intelligence, the military, and industry? Three groups: The first was "The Sovereign Military Order of Malta" (SMOM), perhaps the most powerful reactionary segment of European aristocracy, that for almost a thousand years, starting with the crusades in the Twelfth Century, funded military operations against countries and ideas considered a threat to its power; Second was the Nazi war chest that was largely funneled through the Vatican and the Rockefeller owned Chase Manhattan Bank, whose Paris branch conducted business as usual throughout the Nazi occupation of France, and thirdly, some of us and our parents--American taxpayers. Moreover, during this period, the Council on Foreign Relations, along with the CIA, grew in power under the leadership of Nelson Rockefeller, and in 1955, while serving as President Eisenhower's assistant for international affairs, Rockefeller invited Kissinger to discuss national security issues at the Quantico (Virginia) Marine Base. Following their meeting, according to Walter Isaacson's biography of Kissinger, the diplomat became Rockefeller's "closest intellectual associate," and soon after, Kissinger authored several military proposals for Eisenhower to consider. Unimpressed, Eisenhower turned them down. As a result, Rockefeller sent Eisenhower his resignation and then launched a Special Studies Project that explored the "critical choices" America faced militarily in the coming years. Kissinger agreed to direct this new project and published a 468-page book on his findings. The treatise proposed that tactical nuclear weapons be developed and "a bomb shelter [be built] in every house" in preparation for limited thermonuclear war. "The willingness to engage in nuclear war when necessary is part of the price of our freedom," Kissinger argued. So those of you my age can recall the anxiety grade school students felt while drilling for possible nuclear attacks. You can thank Kissinger and the Rockefeller-led military- industrialists for this "price for freedom." Eisenhower, you may remember, warned America that the gravest threat to world security, democracy, and even spirituality, was the growing military-industrial complex. And the Rockefellers and Kissinger played leading roles in its evil expansion. Bent on creating what President Bush openly heralded as a "New World Order," few people realize the current international alignment of economic powers is a direct result of actualizing Henry Kissinger's contemporary manifesto--a tribute to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta--entitled "The Meaning of History." In this Kissinger 1955 Harvard doctoral thesis he argues that the concept of peace on earth is naive. Peace must be secured by the creation of small wars around the planet on a continuing basis so as to maintain an international order of economic powers, and of course, keep the military industrialists happy. In my latest book, "Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola--Nature, Accident, or Intentional?", I traced Dr. Erich Traub's movements to the U.S. Naval Medical Research Institute, where he conducted experiments on animals to determine the lethal doses of more than forty strains of highly infectious [brought to you by:ralph@TeamInfinity.com http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html] viruses. Within ten years, the Navy's Biomedical Research Laboratory, in association with the University of California, along with Litton Bionetics, became a chief supplier of viruses and cell cultures for NCI researchers throughout the world. Funding for this work was largely controlled by the NCI, Rockefeller and Sloan Foundations. A search through Sloan Foundation's annual reports, on file in Manhattan's New York Public Library, revealed nine ghastly and incriminating reasons that, most incredibly, tied all the elements of my "Emerging Viruses" investigation together. The Sloan Foundation: (1) supported black educational initiatives consistent with the COINTELPRO Black Nationalist Hate Group campaign (you may recall reports last year that in surveys of 1,000 Southern Christian African Americans, two-thirds reported their belief that the AIDS epidemic may be genocide, while one-third was convinced it was; (2) the Sloan Foundation administered mass-media- public-persuasion experiments completely consistent with the CIA's Project MKULTRA-efforts to develop brainwashing technologies and drugs to affect large populations; (3) funded much of the earliest cancer research involving the genetic engineering of mutant viruses; (4) began major funding of the National Academy of Sciences, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (for "neuroscience" and molecular genetics research), the Salk Institute (for viral research), and the Scientists' Institute for Public Information between 1968 and 1970; (5) funded population control studies by Planned Parenthood-World Population, New York, N.Y.; (6) funded the Community Blood Council of Greater New York, Inc., the "council of doctors" who established the infamous New York City Blood Bank which allowed more than 10,000 hemophiliacs and countless others to become infected with HIV because they allegedly didn't want to spend $150 million to screen the blood; (7) maintained Laurence S. Rockefeller, the director of the Community Blood Council of Greater New York-the international blood bankers-and the president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as chairman of the board of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and a trustee for the Sloan Foundation; (8) gave in excess of $20,000 annually to the Council on Foreign Relations; and (9) maintained among its "marketable securities," 16,505 shares of Chase Manhattan Bank stock (in 1967, which it apparently sold by 1970 probably to avoid conflict of interest charges) along with 24,400-53,000 shares issued by Merck & Co., Inc. (the company whose President, George W. Merck, was director of America's biological weapons industry, and whose hepatitis B and polio vaccines most plausibly transmitted AIDS throughout the world). Also in "Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola," you will learn exactly what was done with the $10 million Congress gave the DOD for the development of AIDS-like viruses, because I published the relevant contracts. You will [brought to you by:ralph@TeamInfinity.com http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html] learn that Dr. Robert Gallo, the famous NCI molecular biologist, pardoned by President Clinton last year for scientific fraud and misconduct, and credited with the discovery of the AIDS virus, set about to develop immune system ravaging, AIDS-like viruses, along with other Litton Bionetics researchers. You will learn that they took monkey viruses that were humanly benign, recombined them with DNA, RNA, and enzymes from other animal viruses that caused leukemias, lymphomas, and sarcomas, and then to get them to jump species, they cultured these new mutant viruses in human white blood cells in some studies, and human fetal tissue cells in other studies, to produce immune-system-destroying, cancer-causing viruses that could enter humans and produce virtually identical effects to what the AIDS virus is currently doing in people around the world. Indeed, it was contaminated live viral vaccines that spread this disease and likely others, including chronic fatigue, certain leukemias, and possibly Gulf War Syndrome as well, to vast populations. In fact, today's live viral vaccines, including the oral polio vaccine required by law be given to our children, are still litered with simian (monkey) virus contaminants since they are developed in monkey kidney cells, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration turns a blind eye to as many as 100 live monkey virus contaminants per vaccine dose, and is barred from telling health professionals and even health scientists this truth because of pharmaceutical industry dictated proprietary laws and non-disclosure agreements. In the end, the research question I asked, "Did these viruses, AIDS and Ebola, evolve naturally, were they accidentally produced, or were they intentionally created and deployed?" I conclude, unquestionably, they are not natural. I leave you the reader, and concerned citizens of America and the world, to decide whether it was a horrible accident or treacherous covert population control experiment. I ask all of you to consider the pain and cost of the current and coming plagues,including the escalating rates of virus-linked cancers like prostate and breast cancer, certain leukemias and lymphomas, and other vaccine contaminant related illnesses including hyperactivity disorders in children and escalating sudden infant death rates. I believe you will realize that [brought to you by:ralph@TeamInfinity.com http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html] the pain and cost of denial and indifference to this horrible reality is far greater than the toll your political action might cost. I therefore urge you to join our growing grassroots network of health consumers, professionals, scientists, patriots, and concerned citizens in our search for answers and solutions. I urge you to help us pressure Congress for a full investigation of these published facts, and to allocate the funding needed to effect appropriate solutions to these urgent health care problems. Let me end by giving you, and our home viewers, two resources to contact in this effort. The first is Tetrahedron's toll free citizen action and document order hotline 800-336-9266. And the other is our Internet web site address where you can link to various supporting organizations and individuals. That address is http://www.tetrahedron.org. Thank you very much, and God bless. El Jeffe, El Capiton, Generalissimo Klintonista speaks out about the US Constitution: "When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ..." "And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." President Bill Clinton, 3-22-94, MTV's "Enough is Enough" "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A) Why cant any of these be considered a violation of the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and qualify as TREASON !! "Gun registration is not enough." Attorney General Janet Reno, December 10, 1993 (Associated Press) "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno "What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned." Sen. Howard Metzanbaum "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard Metzanbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3. ralph@TeamInfinity.com (I can get you SAPF films/tapes/materials, "Harry's War" the suppressed film, Tragedy & Hope the book, US, UN, DontTreadonMe FLAGS, bumperstickers YardSigns & T-Shirts, inquire) http://TeamInfinity.com/~ralph/code/t26.html http://TeamInfinity.com/urls.html This correspondence in NO WAY represents Save A Patriot Fellowship (SAPF), but feel free to contact them thru RALPH CALL 703-904-7770 ask for document 777 ######################################################################### TO RECEIVE email from ralph: send email to ralph@TeamInfinity.com and in the Subject make sure your email address and the word GO-RALPH (no spaces) is in the subject. TO STOP RECEIVING email from ralph: send email to ralph@TeamInfinity.com and in the Subject make sure your email address and the word WHOA-RALPH (no spaces) is in the subject. [------------------------- 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: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Clinton praises Communist Painter in Mexico (fwd) Date: 09 May 1997 00:26:49 -0400 (EDT) >> "Down the street, we had the first printing press, the first mint and the first university in the Americas," Zedillo said.<< Yeah. The printing press was right alongside the altar where Aztec High Priests ripped out the hearts of still living victims, in order to eat them. The university and mint were fine structures, built by the slave labor of conquered opponents. Precious metals for the mint, obtained from "donations" supplied by the riff-raff which kept the corrupt brutal theocracy in power. That, and undoubtedly, sword control. Politics in Mexico ain't changed much since then, only Clinton's and Zedillo's version of it has. Regards, Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Cap Schwartz" Subject: Re: Gonads or Brains RE: Republic of (south) Texas ROT Date: 09 May 1997 10:27:59 -0700 All of us are. cap: sum ergo hic (i am, therefore i hic) At 07:58 PM 5/2/97 -0600, you wrote: >> Alan Russell: Neuman, Suae potestate esse > >Is someone kidding me? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Clinton Shuts Down Schumer's Planned "Anti-Bun-Running" Legislation Date: 09 May 1997 14:45:44 -0400 (EDT) THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Congressman Charles Schumer (D-PRNY) recently raised the flaming ire of President Clinton by introducing legislation designed to eliminate the running of buns on Pennsylvania Avenue and on all federal property within a distance of 100 miles of Washington, D.C. Schumer, concerned that bun runners comprised a threat to the President's ability to concentrate on his duty (as opposed to "booty"), intoned at a recent press conference, "The Capitol is awash in bun-running hooterites wearing walkmen. This flow of buns on our streets has to be stopped. If just one wife can be saved by eliminating this flow of buns from the President's view, then this legislation will have been a step in the right direction. If Congress does not act on this, and soon, the President might be compelled to engage in an act of 'bun violence', a situation to be avoided at all costs." Hearing of Schumer's hastily drafted anti-bun-running initiative upon his return from his trip to kiss the posterior of Mexico's President, President Clinton angrily replied, "Buns don't thrill people. People thrill people. And 'bun violence' is just a trendy term cooked up by radical feminists and self-serving statisticians at the CDC to save their own jobs. Why, I can tell you from my own experience that my early exposure to and intensive training in the correct handling of buns (through Penthouse magazine's 'Edie: What A Gal!' Program) has made me a safe bun handler. And, as long as I am President, there will be unrestricted bun-running outside my office window and along every highway and pathway in Washington, D.C. And furthermore, there will be no insta-checks of any bun-runners. I intend to give each and every bun runner a long, long Clintonite leer, just as long as you know who is out helping villages raise children while I am leering at local bun runners." Schumer, when notified of the President's ardent support of continued bun-running, stammered that he, himself, had glanced occasionally at running buns and had perhaps overstated the danger to public safety if bun running was allowed to continue, unchecked. When last seen, Schumer was contacting Sarah Brady by telephone to discuss whether attempts to regulate bun-running should perhaps be buried until President Clinton, a pro-bun, pro-need 'em Commander-in-Chief, leaves The White House in the Year 2000 to re-enter what he, Clinton, likes to call the 'private sector.' THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE THIS IS A SATIRE Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Gonads or Brains RE: Republic of (south) Texas ROT Date: 09 May 1997 15:10:25 -0600 Cap Schwartz wrote: > > All of us are. I'm glad to hear it. > cap: sum ergo hic > (i am, therefore i hic) I yam therefore I'm eaten at thanksgiving. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: UN & Gun Control - Propaganda Starts (fwd) Date: 09 May 1997 18:35:00 PST On May 09, DAVE RYDEL wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Return-Path: >X-Sender: righter@aros.net >Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 15:16:15 -0600 >From: Sarah Thompson >Subject: UN & Gun Control - Propaganda Starts > >>Return-Path: >>From: 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com >>X-Sender: 6mesa@mithoff.1eagle1.com. >>Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 14:21:23 -0700 >>Subject: UN & Gun Control - Propaganda Starts >> >> >>U.N. presses for action on worldwide gun control >>08:53 a.m. May 05, 1997 Eastern >> >>By Elizabeth Fullerton >> >>VIENNA, May 5 (Reuter) - Momentum is gathering for worldwide action on gun >>control to stem the increasing number of deaths from firearms among >>civilians, a U.N. crime body said on Monday. >> >>The United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice is >>expected to approve a resolution this week to urge countries to impose >>tighter restrictions on gun ownership and export. >> >>``We strongly believe that effective national regulation is important to >>international controls, particularly on the illicit movement of small >> arms,'' Australian commission delegate Daryl Smeaton told Reuters. >> >>The controversial issue of gun control came under the spotlight in >>Australia and Britain last year following the massacre of 35 people at the >>Tasmanian tourist resort of Port Arthur and the murder of 17 people, >>mostly children, at a school in the Scottish town of Dunblane. >> >>In the first comparative study of its kind from 50 countries around the >>world, a U.N. report showed that 41 percent of U.S. households owned at >>least one gun, compared with 16 percent in Australia and four percent in >>Britain. >> >>Smeaton said there was no plan for a legally binding convention on gun >>control but that the resolution looked likely to have broad support from >>member states, including the United States, despite pressure from the >>powerful gun lobby. >> >>The commission is holding its sixth session in Vienna which is due to end >>on Friday. >> >>``At this stage we understand that the U.S. will be able to support the >>resolution as it is drafted and that is a very, very encouraging sign,'' >>Smeaton said. >> >>The study showed that around 14 people per 100,000 die annually in the >>United States from firearms-related deaths, including homicides, suicides >>and accidents. That amounts to 37,000 people in a population of 265 >>million. >> >>Burkina Faso had the highest figure at 26 people per 100,000, followed by >>Jamaica with 18 per 100,000. >> >>Smeaton said the key measures proposed in the resolution to improve gun >>control were: appropriate penalties for misuse, effective record keeping >>of firearms, a licensing system of manufacturers and firearm owners, >>effective identification procedures and safe storage measures. >> >>``We have certainly got good statistical evidence that shows where you do >>introduce regulation to control the use of firearms you can cause dramatic >>reductions in homicide and suicide rates,'' he noted. >> >> >> >>Copyright 1997 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. >> >>Reposted for non-profit educational and research purposes. >> >> >Sarah Thompson, M.D. >PO Box 1185 >Sandy, UT 84091-1185 >(801) 566-1625 (voice mail & fax) >http://www.therighter.com - ALL NEW!! >http://www.womensfire.org - NEW ADDRESS! >GO JAZZ!! [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: The Clinton Memorial Date: 10 May 1997 04:05:45 -0600 MAUREEN DOWD: The Clinton memorial --- Copyright =A9 1997 Nando.net Copyright =A9 1997 N.Y. Times News Service WASHINGTON (May 10, 1997 01:07 a.m. EDT) -- Bill Clinton is not adrift. He has been working behind the scenes on a daring, innovative plan. The consummate pol is engaged in his last campaign -- to persuade history he is not Grover Cleveland. He has surrounded himself with architects, Microsoft futurists and Disney Imagineers, drawing up a design for the Clinton Memorial. Scheduled to open in 2001, this will be the first living memorial with 21st-century technology. He wants it to be far from the Vietnam Memorial and close to the FDR Memorial. He said last week that he and FDR had both led the country out of "drift and division and deadlock," and presided over "a period of profound change." Of course, Roosevelt's change involved beating the Depression and the Nazis and Clinton's involves getting Dick and Jane on line. I got a leak (meet(AT)www.com) of the plan for the Clinton Memorial from White House aides eager to prove that the president is doing something. And I must say, I found it moving. Literally. Only the four greats -- Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR -- were granted land here for major memorials. LBJ got a grove near National Airport. Eisenhower got a theater in the Kennedy Center. So you can imagine what downsizing Clinton will face: the Clinton Memorial will be an Airstream mobile home, summering on the Federal Triangle, in honor of triangulation, and wintering in Hollywood. The architects want to capture the essence of the Clinton years by having a memorial in flux. Nothing set in stone, nothing stable or consistent. The monument will start with great promise, but most visitors will lose interest halfway through. In the part devoted to the second term, visitors will be let loose in open fields to wander aimlessly by themselves. There will be an interactive display, with a virtual Bill Clinton. You will get 15 minutes to sit down with the president and change his mind on a core issue. For a $100,000 donation to the Clinton defense fund, you can virtually spend a night in the Lincoln Bedroom or sit in the Book Room watching billing documents appear and disappear. In the Hall of Morphing, you can become Bill Clinton and feel him feeling your pain. You can conjure up whichever president pleases you: Liberal Clinton. Conservative Clinton. Elvis Clinton. New Age Clinton. Boxers Clinton. Briefs Clinton. Instead of statues of people standing in a bread line, as the FDR Memorial has, there will be statues of Clinton friends waiting to testify. No two days at the memorial -- no two hours -- will ever be the same. The bronze statues of Bill and Hillary will not stay put. They will be constantly in motion, to the left and the right, on little wheels affixed to their feet so as not to give offense. They will vary in size and weight and tendency. The first lady's bronze will have a pink patina. His will be a Weeping Clinton, with miraculous sightings of him shedding a tear and biting a lip. The memorial will be well tended. The statues will be polished every day by Sidney Blumenthal. Joe Klein will lecture on audiotape about generation betrayal and Clinton's squandered promise. Ira Magaziner will run the gift shop (into the ground). And Web Hubbell will be the groundskeeper, at an annual salary of $575,000. The eternal wisdom of this president will not be etched in stone, but flashed in holograms. Where the FDR Memorial has "This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny," the Clinton will have "We established in 1994 a women's pre-qualification pilot program for loan applications of under $250,000 in 16 sites." Where the FDR has "We must be the great arsenal of democracy," the Clinton will have "The 911 emergency number system today is completely overburdened." Leaving the Alley of Alibis ("To the best of my recollection," his voice will boom, "I didn't know anything") you enter the Pavilion of Self-Pity, with these words circumscribing the ceiling: "Remembering Richard Jewell of Atlanta and remembering what has happened to so many of the accusations that have been made against me that turned out to be totally baseless, I think that we ought to just get the facts out." The most spectacular effect of the Clinton Memorial is saved for last. You will emerge from all that flux into a place that looks and feels identical with where you began. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: "...From My Lukewarm Fingers" Date: 10 May 1997 08:49:50 -0700 The subject line of this message is the new slogan for the NRA, courtesy of Jay Leno; I'd say he's got it about right. Moses (Charlton Heston, new VP) was overheard saying something like "citizens have no need for AK-47s." Why am I not surprised? I resigned my NRA life membership over a year ago. But we *may* have a small opportunity. I've been asked to pass on the fact that a friend of mine has the ear of someone highly placed in the NRA who actually understands how I and many of you feel about the NRA's behavior of late, and apparently he's asking for email describing how we feel and why, to use as ammunition in trying to change the NRA from within into what it *should* be: an organization that supports the 2nd Amendment, with no compromise. Please send email to akmoob@nidlink.com if you're as disenchanted with the NRA as I am, and tell him why; he'll forward it to the NRA guy who's on our side. Will it make any difference? I'm not holding my breath. But for the price of one email, I spoze it's worth a try... - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacques Tucker Subject: Re: "...From My Lukewarm Fingers" Date: 10 May 1997 16:23:57 -0500 At 08:49 AM 5/10/97 -0700, you wrote: >I resigned my NRA life membership over a year ago. > ... in trying to change the NRA from >within into what it *should* be: an organization that supports >the 2nd Amendment, with no compromise. > Monte, Monte, Monte! You negated your ability to change the NRA from within by resigning your life membership, eh? How do you expect to have a "no compromise" BOD when you forfeit your vote against the self-serving, greedy and corrupt "winning team?" Oh Lord, save us from our ignorance and impetuousness. Cap'n Jacq' Jacques Tucker, NRA Life ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: U.S. Vs. GRANDMA (fwd) Date: 10 May 1997 14:44:55 PST On May 10, Eugene W. Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi Folks, This case is not an isolated case. Recall the woman whose husband was caught visiting prostitutes and the cops seized the car he was in? The wife owned the car and she knew nothing about her husband's activities, but the Supreme Court said that it was Constitutionally okay for the cops to seize her car anyway. You don't have to be guilty of a crime for John Law to take all that you own and you will not get it back!! Such is the state of liberty today -- and Clinton and the Congress have agreed with this by their inaction to end such violations of our rights and the tyranny that it represents. En Agape, Gene ====================================== U.S. v. GRANDMA, by Charles Miller Book Review, by Kathy Bergman Fear Chronicles, March 1996, Forfeiture Endangers American Rights In October of 1989, Mary Miller's youngest son was indicted by a midwestern grand jury for trafficking in marijuana. Over the next four years, Mary was forced to pay, literally, for her son's crimes. Never charged with a crime herself, 75 year old Mary Miller had $70,000 in cash, her home and several pieces of rental property seized by the federal government, because they believed she knew of her son's crimes. Her money, the government said, was not her life's savings as she claimed, but rather, the ill-gotten gains of Toby Miller's life of crime. In fact, she couldn't use the old dates on the cash for her own evidence because the FBI had destroyed it by depositing it into a bank. Her real estate, the government went on to reason, was used to "facilitate" Toby's crimes when he lived as a tenant in Mary's duplex, and therefore should be forfeited also. From October 1989 through August 1995, 122 newspaper headlines in a small midwestern city focused on Mary Miller's troubles. Her oldest son, Charles, and his family were subjected to local scrutiny and discussion also. In an attempt to regain his mother's property by producing an accurate chronologic record, Charles Miller set about detailing the facts surrounding Mary Miller's forfeitures, which eventually resulted in a book he titled "U.S. v. Grandma". Because we were so impressed with Mr. Miller's first-hand account of his battle with the forfeiture squads on behalf of his innocent mother, F.E.A.R. has agreed to publish a soft-back version of "U.S. v Grandma". Purchase this book and use it to educate yourself to the realities of how our country's forfeiture laws are being used. Then, call or write your Congressman and Senators and demand they change the law. In fact, why not purchase a second book for your legislators, and request they read it! "U.S. vs. Grandma" is available for $15 from the F.E.A.R. Foundation, 20 Sunnyside, Suite A-204, Mill Valley, CA 94941. 1-415-388-8128 http://www.fear.org Call 1-202-224-3121 for the names and addresses for Congress in Washington DC. "The law is not being used entirely for what it was intended, primarilly because there is no provision in it for proof or absent/innocent owner protection". ........ Charles Miller. \\\\|//// ( o o ) --oO0o------U------oO0o--- "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SAFAN %Dot Bibee (SafanNews@aol.com) Ph/FAX (423) 577-7011 SAFAN Internet Newsletters are archived on http://feustel.mixi.net +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [------------------------- 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: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: "...From My Lukewarm Fingers" Date: 10 May 1997 16:34:32 -0700 > >>I resigned my NRA life membership over a year ago. >> > ... in trying to change the NRA from >>within into what it *should* be: an organization that supports >>the 2nd Amendment, with no compromise. >Monte, Monte, Monte! You negated your ability to change >the NRA from within by resigning your life membership, eh? I gave up on the NRA; frankly, I no longer believe it *can* be changed, and what little financial and other support I have available now goes to organizations that I believe in. Do you have a problem with the logic of that? Or are you simply another mindlessly-devoted emotional NRA-clone? >How do you expect to have a "no compromise" BOD when you >forfeit your vote against the self-serving, greedy and >corrupt "winning team?" The NRA will never have a "no compromise" anything; I posted what I did as a favor to a friend who still believes the NRA can be changed. >Oh Lord, save us from our ignorance and impetuousness. Oh Lord, save us from fools and idiots. >Cap'n Jacq' >Jacques Tucker, NRA Life Monte, Freedom for Life ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #34 (fwd) Date: 10 May 1997 17:27:40 PST On May 10, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly edition of News from around our country May 9, 1997 #34 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html FCC SOCIALISM The stated intent of the Founding Fathers was that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . ." In fact, the writers of our Constitution were so adamant about this that those words are the very first to appear in the body of the Constitution. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution further designates: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives . . ." These two very simple Constitutional rules are quite easy to understand: Only Congress may legislate (make law), and only the House of Representatives may initiate a bill to raise revenue (taxes). There are no exceptions authorized by our Constitution. Everyone elected to a position within the federal government, all appointed officials, and every bureaucrat hired into government service, takes an oath to support and defend our Constitution. One would think that, in turn, they are also promising to "obey" our Constitution. But, here's where the rub comes in: they do not. For instance, another socialist style tax and redistribution of wealth scheme is afoot. This one comes, not from Congress, but from four unelected bureaucrats making up the politburo of one of the federal government's regulatory agencies. The Regulators at the Federal Communications Commission announced Wednesday that they are adopting what they call a landmark overhaul of the nation's telephone charges to better spread the financial pain of ensuring affordable phone service for Americans. As part of the scheme, FCC plans to boost the charge for residential customers with more than one line to $5 a month from $3.50, and to roughly $7 from $6 for multi-line businesses. "Second phone lines for home-based business or Internet use and small businesses will be saddled with the brunt of these increases," complained the Small Business Survival Committee, a small business advocacy group. Of course we will suffer the brunt of the increase. Because, small business and homeowners are not organized to stop it. On the other hand, heavy telephone users, and those who make large campaign contributions, received a major decrease in their communications costs from this action. That's Washington politics folks. He who pays the fiddler calls the tune. This time, even a few members of Congress registered a minor complaint: "Any local telephone rate increases resulting from the (FCC's) actions to modify access charges would be sharply contrary to congressional intent in passing (last year's law)," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ.) and Reps. W.J. Tauzin (R-La.) and John Dingell (D-MI) wrote FCC Chairman Reed Hundt. Note, however, that no member of Congress has yet to mention that the FCC has no Constitutional authority to pass any law or levy any tax. Acting like a Chinese-Communist dictator, FCC Politburo Chairman Hundt made his position very clear. In a news conference, Hundt stated that an extra telephone line in a private home is a "luxury" that "should" be taxed for the benefit of others in society. But wait, this gets better yet. . . . Where the money is slated to go is rather interesting too. An independent third party, the National Exchange Carriers Association, -- not the Treasury of the federal government -- will collect and dole out funds beginning Jan. 1, 1998. Got it? An independent regulatory agency of the federal government is usurping the Constitutional authority to make law and levy taxes designated only to Congress. Then, the agency is going to give your money to a private group to redistribute as it sees fit. Whatever happened to the Representative Republic form of government? Anybody miss it? They "say" that this scheme is to pay to provide virtually all elementary and secondary schools -- both public and private -- with access to the Internet at a cut rate. That's what they say publicly, anyway. But, they lie! Because, in the fine print they also say that state regulators would first have to certify schools' technology plans, the school districts would have to demonstrate need, the computers would have to be available, and blah, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, using Slick Willie's' own words, sixth grade kids can not read or write properly! Nor do they know math, history or science. This stupid scheme will change none of that. It is little more than another socialist redistribution of wealth plan. This is more "feel good" liberalism by a failed administration searching for a place in history. And, if anyone cares anymore, the plan is also totally and completely un-Constitutional. Tell them so. WORLD SOCIALISM A few weeks back (Feb. 7 issue) we mentioned a little about the connection between Bill Clinton, Oxford and the socialists at the Fabian Society. That subject is pertinent again because, last week, we got smacked in the face with the election of yet another Oxford trained Fabian Society world leader, Tony Blair. Blair's election is an excellent marker on exactly where we are on the road to world socialism. Because, over in England, that type of politics is a little better defined than it is here. Here we have the Democratic Party, which should really be renamed the Social-Democrat Party. In England, Tony Blair's party is the Labour Party. They know they are socialists, and they readily admit to it. But first, a little on how the Fabian Society fits in with all this. To know and understand them, let's go to their main document. The "Rules and Bye Laws of the Fabian Society" clearly states: "The name of the Society shall be the Fabian Society. "The Society consists of socialists. It therefore aims at the establishment of a society in which equality of opportunity will be assured and the economic power and privileges of individuals and classes abolished through the collective ownership and democratic control of the economic resources of the community. It seeks to secure these ends by the methods of political democracy. "It also aims at the implementation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "It seeks the creation of effective international institutions to uphold and enforce world peace. The Society, believing in equal citizenship in the fullest sense, is open to persons, irrespective of sex, race or creed, who commit themselves to its aims and purposes and undertake to promote its work. "The Society shall be affiliated to the Labour Party. . . ." And now along comes Tony Blair, a member of the Labour Party, Oxford trained and a modern Third Way socialist. Not only is Blair the Bill Clinton of England, Clinton even sent part of his propaganda machine over to England to help Blair get elected. Effectively, these guys are interchangeable. Except for the fact that Blair has no corruption in his administration yet and his wife has no plans to interfere in government, we could probably switch the two without noticing much difference in the way either government was operated. So, it's also very interesting to check into their political training. The Rhodes Scholar program at Oxford is a two year indoctrination program for future politicians and would take a great deal of time to describe. The Fabian Society, however, gives us a very good thumbnail sketch of the material covered at Oxford. Just for fun, let's see if we can find a little of Bill Clinton's ideals in the Concepts of the Fabian Society. Here are the key tenets as set forth in the Fabian Essays, with just a little editorial comment following each: 1. "Elimination of private ownership of land." We do not have that yet, nor has it been publicly proposed. However, the federal government already owns over a quarter of all land in the United States. 2. "Government ownership or control of all land." Through hundreds of laws, rules and regulations, today's federal government "controls" any and all land it wishes to control. 3. "Government ownership or control of major industries." Through laws, rules and regulations, the federal government already controls all business, industry and agriculture with a heavy hand. 4. "Government control over labor." Again, this was accomplished years ago through a whole series of labor laws, rules and regulations. 5. "Government control or ownership of communications and transportation." The federal government owns some means of transportation and closely regulates what it does not own. Ditto for communications. 6. "Government control of all credit." Credit is strictly controlled in the United States through the quasi-government Federal Reserve Bank and a whole host of banking laws, rules and regulations. 7. "Government control of all insurance." Today's federal government runs a whole host of insurance programs -- from farm and flood insurance to unemployment and medical insurance. Laws, rules and regulations heavily regulate that part of the industry not specifically owned and operated by government. 8. "Government control of the education system." Government schools are a fixture in the United States. Recently, the federal government has actively instituted programs to control all education from Washington. 9. "Elimination of the significance of the family." Federal welfare programs have done an excellent job of relieving citizens of what we once called parental responsibility. Soon we will also even have a state sponsored baby-sitter system. 10. "Elimination of the significance of religion." This is only just beginning, but is already pervasive throughout the United States. Even now, there is strong public criticism of the Christian ideals which made this country great. 11. "Justified use of force if necessary to attain socialistic goals." From military enforcement of civil rights laws to tax collectors supported by SWAT teams, the use of force to attain social goals is well established in this country. 12. "Establishment of a minimum wage and a maximum working class." The United States has had minimum wage laws for many years. We do not, however, maximize the labor force because the employment to unemployment ratio is a tool used by the federal government to fight inflation. Therefore, our federal government strives to insure that a certain level of the population is always unemployed. 13. "A universal system of pensions." The federal government operates a whole system of pension plans which cover most of the country's population, the best known being Social Security. Well folks, that about sums it up. A few of the above points need a little work yet. But Slick Willie is moving right along with the program. That there is zero Constitutional authority for the federal government to do any of these things is, well . . . inconsequential. The cold hard fact is that the federal government is already doing them! Our only hope of beating socialism, if there is any hope left, is to start now supporting good Constitutional candidates for next years Congressional election. BUREAUCRATS TAKE PRIVATE LAND Is your private property private? Nope! Not anymore. Not from an ever oppressive federal government, anyway. The federal government owns one-quarter to one- third of all land in the United States. One would think that would be more than enough to handle any little breeding or protection project they might want to pursue. But, it is not. They want to preempt the use of private property, too. In fact, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has it's eye on a whopping 28,125 square miles (18 million acres) of private land it wants severely regulated under habitat conservation plans. To the Fish and Wildlife bureaucrats, rodents, bugs and weeds are more important than people, so they are going to take over people's property to propagate the pests. For instance, they want a total of 1.6 million acres in Washington for the spotted owl, marbled murrelet, salmon, and steelhead trout. In North Carolina, they want 300,000 acres for something called the red-cockaded woodpecker. In Riverside County, Calif. they want 540,000 acres for the Stephens' kangaroo rat. In Arkansas they want another 233,000 acres for even more red-cockaded woodpeckers. In Oregon it's another 210,000 acres for that stupid northern spotted owl again. And in Washington again, yet another 55,000 acres for even more northern spotted owls. Here's a quick thought: If there are enough northern spotted owls around that they require over 1,865,000 acres (2,914 square miles) in which to breed, exactly how many of the damn things do we have to have in the United States before they are no longer considered endangered? Funny thing is that any of these things can easily be bred in captivity. Put a price on them and we'll suddenly have more than anyone wants. But instead, the bureaucrats steal the use of people's land. Maybe that's all they wanted in the first place. Control. CHINA WANTS OUR MONEY It seems that China suddenly feels free to publicly tell our politicians how things are going to be. Apparently they must have bought quite a lot of influence in Washington -- enough to make our politicians shut up, anyway. If you remember, they made a fool of Gore while he was there. Of course, Gore made that easy for them, as he habitually does everywhere he goes. But that's not the point. Usually, in diplomatic circles, they cover up anything that makes anyone look foolish. With Gore, they met with him, used him for a few photo opportunities, then sent him on his way to play tourist. Then Newt showed up in China. And, Newt being Newt, told them exactly what he thought about Hong Kong, Taiwan, the fund raising scandal, and whatever. That raised a few concerns with the Chinese big-wigs. So much so, in fact, that they actually called in their ambassador to ask about how much political clout this legislator really wields. Meanwhile, no one thanked the Chinese for all the campaign money, so Slick Willie had to call. Slick also had to explain to the Chinese leadership how the deniability program works in politics, because they were getting the sequence of things all screwed up. You see, when blamed for making illegal campaign contributions, the Chinese leadership started out with the excuse the "everyone does it." They pointed out, and rightly so, that countries like Taiwan and Israel have a long history of laundering money to funnel to American politicians. However, after their little talk with Slick, they reverted to step one of the Clinton program: Deny everything. Now comes Tung Chee-hwa, the shipping tycoon chosen by China to be Hong Kong's chief executive beginning July 1. This guy is not very well known in the United States yet, but he will be. When questioned about the decrease in rights the people of Hong Kong will experience after China takes over he made a very surprising point: The citizens of Hong Kong will still have more rights and liberties that the citizens of the United States. Oops . . . that was not exactly what out American politicians wanted to hear! And, that point was well taken. Because, if you notice, we do not hear much mouth noise about that coming from our elected ones lately. . . . Yes, Tung told the press this week, some types of public protests will be prohibited under his administration. Specifically, rallies advocating independence for Tibet, Taiwan or Hong Kong will be prohibited. Other types of protests, however, are acceptable. He explained that the "national sovereignty issue is very sensitive with a whole lot of Chinese people." So, under proposals introduced last month, people wishing to stage public rallies will be required to seek police permission first. And the police will be able to ban rallies if "national security" is threatened. Gee, does that system sound familiar to anyone here? "I lived in America during the '60s," Tung said. "I saw what happened with the slow erosion of authority, and the society became less orderly than is desirable. I certainly don't want to see this happen" in Hong Kong. He also said that his responsibility is to keep the territory free from instability or meddling by outsiders. Tung also told the press that the American fund-raising scandal involving the Clinton White House showed how sensitive the issue of foreign involvement in politics has become, not only in Hong Kong but worldwide. "What's happening now in Washington, the question of which money is coming from where, this is a very sensitive issue in America. It's a sensitive issue in many countries. Why should it not be a sensitive issue in Hong Kong? Hong Kong is a small place. It's vulnerable." So, in diplomatic speak, Tung said that Americans may still do business with and in Hong Kong, but we had better shut up when the subject turns to government. China, after all, wants all those American dollars to keep flowing their way. They need the money to buy arms. Arms to defend against us. Our annual trade deficit with communist China alone is so huge that if that much money were available to Americans, it would be enough to keep every person in any one of our smaller states living comfortably. China still exports goods to us produced by slave labor. Most of the Chinese Christian population is in prison camps. And China publicly stated that they are teaming up with Russia to remove all American influence from that half of the world. Meanwhile, the Clinton administration did shut up, and is letting China get away with pretty much anything it pleases. Go figure. THIRD WAY VAMPIRISM Or: What is money? by: Bill Kasper Even before the written word, men engaged in trade. In fact, the oldest example of human writing is an accounting record from Sumeria detailing cattle transactions between merchants. This gives us some idea of the ancient and probably genetic nature of man's desire to engage in mercantile endeavors. Trade and commerce are as inherently human as love and bi-pedal ambulation (walking on two legs). Mankind as he exists today could not have come into being without the exchange of goods and services between individuals and groups. As the collapse of various communist countries taught us, attempts to extinguish or greatly curtail the free market have been defeated in the short term by spontaneous creation of "black markets" (commerce in spite of governmental edicts to the contrary), and in the long term by replacement of the offending governments. During these lapses into anti-human experimentation (communism), the free market found itself in need of medium of exchange to replace the controlled and artificially-valued "state" currency. Gold, foreign dollars, and even cigarettes were often-encountered substitutes for the goods they were used to represent in transactions. So what exactly is currency? Well, its a particular representation (usually national) of money. And what is money? Money is "short hand" for the effort which goes into producing goods and services. Think of it this way: You get paid $10 per hour for making shoehorns for Shoehorns Inc. In one hour, you can produce 2 shoehorns, which Shoehorns Inc. can sell for $10 each. This means several things: First, Shoehorn Inc. will probably employ you forever, because you represent an excellent return on investment (100% per unit sold). This will go on until somebody like Cheaper Shoehorns Inc. starts selling shoehorns for $2 (because your counterpart in their company is based in Mexico making $3.50 per day) and runs Shoehorns Inc. out of business. Secondly (and most importantly), it means you have agreed to value one hour of your life at the amount of goods $10 can buy. If you didn't accept this value, you'd find a higher-paying job. It is also important to remember that this is not an exchange which can be undone. You can't give Shoehorns Inc. $100 and have them credit your lifetime with 10 more hours. It's a final, one-way exchange of their money for your life. With that money, you can buy bread, a car, maybe even a mortgage on a house. Basically, it means the time you don't work is more enjoyable due to the goods and services you can acquire in exchange for the hours (represented by money) which you spend working. But make no mistake, that money represents hours from your life. Now imagine a thief approaches you, and demands all your money, which is $400, because you just got paid for a 40 hours worth of shoehorn making. Being a passive (and unarmed) soul, you comply. That thief takes the result of one week of your life, and disappears. He has added one week's worth of life to his experience (because he won't have to work), and taken one week's worth of life from yours. This represents 25% of your monthly income which is now gone. To get back to the standard of living you were enjoying before being robbed, you will now have to use up extra hours of your life-time making shoehorns (if Shoehorns Inc. allows overtime, that is). In fact, you may never have the option to make up the stolen value. The thief has acted like a vampire, and stolen your life essence in order to enjoy it himself. This is fundamentally why theft is wrong. It really represents graduated murder. This analogy currently applies to you. "I've not been robbed!" you say. "You have, but you don't know it" I respond. For most Americans, the thief doesn't point the gun at you. He doesn't even have the patience to wait until you receive your pay. He actually robs you by taking part of your week's pay at the Shoehorns Inc. pay window before you even show up to collect it. Who is this hoodlum who doesn't even trust you with your own money enough to steal it from you directly? His name is Uncle Sam FICA (AKA the IRS, AKA Income Redistribution for Slaves). This is exactly the sort of taxation the Constitution prevented the Federal government from indulging in until the 16th Amendment was (dubiously) passed. Direct taxes on sales, imports, property, etc. were the only allowable forms of direct taxation. They were a face-to-face demand for a portion of the proceeds of endeavors which could not exist (or be guaranteed) without effort from the Federal government. They were, in effect, exchanges of merchant money (life effort) for governmental services (legal, military, etc.) which made the making of that money dependable and secure. In the original Constitutional system, tax money was collected and used only to support those areas of government which benefited those from whom the taxes were collected. Taxation as a form of wealth redistribution (in the form of subsidies, welfare, etc.) was strictly illegal and acknowledged as immoral. This Constitutional, up-front and honest form of taxation was "augmented" by something new and hideously deceitful which not only attached itself to the individual act of working for a living (hardly something which the Federal government was designed to be involved with), but did so in a stealthy and parasitic fashion: The income tax. As if draining your life in preemptive secrecy wasn't bad enough, the percentage of other people's lives to which the Federal government deemed itself entitled has grown from its initial 5% on less than 1% of the population ("The rich" at whom it was supposedly aimed) in 1916, to at least 25% on close to 90% of the population today. Taking hours of your life (represented by dollars) before you even see them is a master stroke of inspiration (if your goal is to steal with subtlety and experience minimal resistance). Think how many Americans would pay the income tax if they first received 100% of their wages, and then received an invoice stating "Please fill in your yearly income here: ______ Now please send at least 30% of your yearly income to the address below." The entire state of Oregon would have to be cleared of trees just to supply enough paper for the mountains of "We have not received your payment" letters from the IRS.... -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Your Goose is Cooked Date: 11 May 1997 00:10:57 -0400 (EDT) Forwarded from the NJ-RKBA list. This puts a whole new spin on the term "eco-terrorism" Regards, Dennis ------ +++ TORONTO (Reuter, 04-25) - A man walked into a donut shop with a goose and threatened to kill the bird if employees don't hand over some cash. "Give me some money or I'll kill the goose," the man said. The bandit released the goose after a customer handed him some cash withdrawn from a nearby bank machine. BAN LOADED GEESE, if geese are banned only criminals will have geese.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Ak-47s are "inappropriate" Date: 10 May 1997 22:03:30 -0700 I have an *extremely* hard time squaring Mr. Heston's comments with the original (and current) intent of the 2nd Amendment, which was (and is) to ensure that citizens possess(ed) the same firepower as foreign (or domestic) enemy governments might possess... DATE May 6, 1997 TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT) STATION KGO-AM (ABC) LOCATION San Francisco PROGRAM Morning Drive Time Ted Wygant, anchor: Well this is very appropriate to talk with Moses as we talk about it, at least. Now let's say good morning to the man who played it so well, Charleton Heston. Good morning, sir! Charleton Heston (Actor/NRA Board Member): And good morning to you, Mister Wygant. Wygant: Well, we're delighted to have you with us, and we appreciate your time because you have taken on a task that I think a lot of folks might have backed away with because a lot of concern about the National Rifle Association. Heston: Our country belongs to Hercules, doesn't it? Wygant: Yeah, right. What made you do it? How come you want to get in the middle of this? Heston: Well, I've, of course, been- found myself in the arena, if you will, on a number of public sector causes. I suppose starting back when I started demonstrating for civil rights back in 1961. Long before it got fashionable in Hollywood. And then the Screen Actors Guild, and the National Endowment For The Arts, and the Separate Theater Group, and so on- and then the Presidential Task force, and the Arts and Humanities. And I've been a member of- of the National Rifle Association for, oh, twenty years or more. When I was a kid in Michigan, in the Depression, I lived in a little hamlet in Northern Michigan with about, oh, a hundred houses which contained easily two hundred and fifty, three hundred fire arms of various kinds. Mostly being used for hunting, of course- food for the table. But I was asked, as is true with all of the jobs I've done. Somebody asked me. Wygant: Well, you've got quite a task. And- and you've been named first vice president. You- you're a member of the board at-at one point, and gee, you just zipped right up. Heston: I just was elected to the board on Saturday. Wygant: Yeah. Heston: It's the primary defender of the second amendment of the Bill Of Rights, which is, of course, a core document. The Bill Of Rights is right at the basis of the American idea, those wise old dead white guys that made up the country knew what they were about. And you- it is a mainstream issue. Most Americans, in fact, support the second amendment's right to bear and carry arms, and there are, as you suggest, a few extremists, and some of them are- are on the board. And we have, however, we- they elected- or re-elected in the case of Wayne LaPierre, and elected in my case and Cain Robinson's case- police chief Cain Robinson is now second vice president. We re-elected Marion Hammer as president. Wygant: Mister Heston, could I ask you to stand by here for just a moment? We have to get to traffic, but I- I do want to continue talking with you. Could you hang in for a minute? Heston: Yeah. Wygant: Okay, good. Thanks. **************** Wygant: Okay, right now let's get back to Charleton Heston talking to us from his home in Southern California. Let me ask you, you mentioned that there are some right wing folks- far right wing, still around the NRA. Are you going to try to get them off the board and out of the picture? Heston: That- that's certainly the intention, and I think it's highly doable. Wayne LaPierre is- is a superb leader, Marion Hammer's a strong president. And I think Cain Robinson and I can provide some useful support there. Wygant: Now the image of- of the NRA has been an organization that supports the right of people to buy any legal firearms, and, of course, you go to any- any gun store- gun shop and you see things there that are big, and brutal, and deadly, and far more than you need for- for hunting or home protection. Do you stand by- I mean, the image is... Heston: AK-47's are inappropriate for private ownership, of course. Wygant: Yeah, but the image is that they're- the fire power of these weapons is far more than a hunter or a homeowner would need. Why is it necessary to have those guns available anyway? Heston: I just got through telling you. The possession- private possession of AK-47's is entirely inappropriate. Wygant: Right, but AK-47's one thing, but I've been in a gun shop- I've been in gun shops, and there's fire power there that doest's seem necessary and that people worry about being out there in- in the hands of, you know, potential criminals. Heston: I'm not certain what you're point is- that there are guns available in gun stores? Wygant: No, guns that go beyond what a hunter would need. In other words, why does the NRA support guns that have overkill? Let's put it that way. Shouldn't there be some sort of limit? Heston: Well, for any certain time, AK-47"s are entirely inappropriate for private ownership, and the- the problem, of course, is not guns held by private citizens, but guns held by criminals. And where we have failed, where the government has failed is with entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is meaningless. I'm not even- don't even think it should be repealed because it doesn't do anything. and it's been in- on the books for more than two years. In the course of that time, I think it is, nineteen people have been arrested, and two have been imprisoned felons with felony records for trying to purchase a firearm. Wygant: Well, we've- we gotta- I really appreciate talking with us. It'll be interesting to see- interesting to see how you handle the public image of the National Rifle Association and those in the far right in the group. And if you don't mind, we'd like to talk to you again. Heston: I hope we can do that. Wygant: Alright, thanks very much. Heston: Mister Wygant. Wygant: Thank you. Charleton Heston from his home in Southern California, and the KGO Radio News time is 8:23. - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: R2A! Charleton Heston on KGO-AM (fwd) Date: 10 May 1997 21:51:21 PST On May 10, Neal Atkins wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] If this is the NRA's new position, then we are all in DEEP SHIT! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: "recipient.list.not.shown": ; DATE May 6, 1997 TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT) STATION KGO-AM (ABC) LOCATION San Francisco PROGRAM Morning Drive Time Ted Wygant, anchor: Well this is very appropriate to talk with Moses as we talk about it, at least. Now let's say good morning to the man who played it so well, Charleton Heston. Good morning, sir! Charleton Heston (Actor/NRA Board Member): And good morning to you, Mister Wygant. Wygant: Well, we're delighted to have you with us, and we appreciate your time because you have taken on a task that I think a lot of folks might have backed away with because a lot of concern about the National Rifle Association. Heston: Our country belongs to Hercules, doesn't it? Wygant: Yeah, right. What made you do it? How come you want to get in the middle of this? Heston: Well, I've, of course, been- found myself in the arena, if you will, on a number of public sector causes. I suppose starting back when I started demonstrating for civil rights back in 1961. Long before it got fashionable in Hollywood. And then the Screen Actors Guild, and the National Endowment For The Arts, and the Separate Theater Group, and so on- and then the Presidential Task force, and the Arts and Humanities. And I've been a member of- of the National Rifle Association for, oh, twenty years or more. When I was a kid in Michigan, in the Depression, I lived in a little hamlet in Northern Michigan with about, oh, a hundred houses which contained easily two hundred and fifty, three hundred fire arms of various kinds. Mostly being used for hunting, of course- food for the table. But I was asked, as is true with all of the jobs I've done. Somebody asked me. Wygant: Well, you've got quite a task. And- and you've been named first vice president. You- you're a member of the board at-at one point, and gee, you just zipped right up. Heston: I just was elected to the board on Saturday. Wygant: Yeah. Heston: It's the primary defender of the second amendment of the Bill Of Rights, which is, of course, a core document. The Bill Of Rights is right at the basis of the American idea, those wise old dead white guys that made up the country knew what they were about. And you- it is a mainstream issue. Most Americans, in fact, support the second amendment's right to bear and carry arms, and there are, as you suggest, a few extremists, and some of them are- are on the board. And we have, however, we- they elected- or re-elected in the case of Wayne LaPierre, and elected in my case and Cain Robinson's case- police chief Cain Robinson is now second vice president. We re-elected Marion Hammer as president. Wygant: Mister Heston, could I ask you to stand by here for just a moment? We have to get to traffic, but I- I do want to continue talking with you. Could you hang in for a minute? Heston: Yeah. Wygant: Okay, good. Thanks. **************** Wygant: Okay, right now let's get back to Charleton Heston talking to us from his home in Southern California. Let me ask you, you mentioned that there are some right wing folks- far right wing, still around the NRA. Are you going to try to get them off the board and out of the picture? Heston: That- that's certainly the intention, and I think it's highly doable. Wayne LaPierre is- is a superb leader, Marion Hammer's a strong president. And I think Cain Robinson and I can provide some useful support there. Wygant: Now the image of- of the NRA has been an organization that supports the right of people to buy any legal firearms, and, of course, you go to any- any gun store- gun shop and you see things there that are big, and brutal, and deadly, and far more than you need for- for hunting or home protection. Do you stand by- I mean, the image is... Heston: AK-47's are inappropriate for private ownership, of course. Wygant: Yeah, but the image is that they're- the fire power of these weapons is far more than a hunter or a homeowner would need. Why is it necessary to have those guns available anyway? Heston: I just got through telling you. The possession- private possession of AK-47's is entirely inappropriate. Wygant: Right, but AK-47's one thing, but I've been in a gun shop- I've been in gun shops, and there's fire power there that doest's seem necessary and that people worry about being out there in- in the hands of, you know, potential criminals. Heston: I'm not certain what you're point is- that there are guns available in gun stores? Wygant: No, guns that go beyond what a hunter would need. In other words, why does the NRA support guns that have overkill? Let's put it that way. Shouldn't there be some sort of limit? Heston: Well, for any certain time, AK-47"s are entirely inappropriate for private ownership, and the- the problem, of course, is not guns held by private citizens, but guns held by criminals. And where we have failed, where the government has failed is with entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is meaningless. I'm not even- don't even think it should be repealed because it doesn't do anything. and it's been in- on the books for more than two years. In the course of that time, I think it is, nineteen people have been arrested, and two have been imprisoned felons with felony records for trying to purchase a firearm. Wygant: Well, we've- we gotta- I really appreciate talking with us. It'll be interesting to see- interesting to see how you handle the public image of the National Rifle Association and those in the far right in the group. And if you don't mind, we'd like to talk to you again. Heston: I hope we can do that. Wygant: Alright, thanks very much. Heston: Mister Wygant. Wygant: Thank you. Charleton Heston from his home in Southern California, and the KGO Radio News time is 8:23. # # # To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@pobox.com with the following line in the body: unsubscribe right2arms ***Visit http://www.wizard.net/~kc/firearms.html to learn more about guns in America*** RIGHT2ARMS IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. THE OWNER TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. [------------------------- 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: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Re: "...From My Lukewarm Fingers" Date: 10 May 1997 22:13:04 -0700 (PDT) At 04:23 PM 5/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >At 08:49 AM 5/10/97 -0700, you wrote: > >>I resigned my NRA life membership over a year ago. >> > ... in trying to change the NRA from >>within into what it *should* be: an organization that supports >>the 2nd Amendment, with no compromise. >> >Monte, Monte, Monte! You negated your ability to change >the NRA from within by resigning your life membership, eh? >How do you expect to have a "no compromise" BOD when you >forfeit your vote against the self-serving, greedy and >corrupt "winning team?" > >Oh Lord, save us from our ignorance and impetuousness. > >Cap'n Jacq' >Jacques Tucker, NRA Life > > Monte, thanks for having the courage to recognize that NRA is so bloated and compromised that it will never be changed "from within" except for the worse. It is high time to bail out and find someone with the guts to stand up for the Second. Don't let these hopeless gulls shame you into going back. S. "Life is always hopelessly complex to those who have no priniciples." -- Joseph Sobran "The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated." -- Thomas Sowell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: Re: Ak-47s are "inappropriate" Date: 11 May 1997 02:27:18 -0600 Liberty or Death wrote: > > I have an *extremely* hard time squaring Mr. Heston's comments with > the original (and current) intent of the 2nd Amendment, which was > (and is) to ensure that citizens possess(ed) the same firepower as > foreign (or domestic) enemy governments might possess... if i had to guess, i'd imagine he knows what he knows of 47's from watching movies and probably thinks they're all fully and covered by the mga of '34. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacques Tucker Subject: Re: "...From My Lukewarm Fingers" Date: 11 May 1997 12:01:08 -0500 At 10:13 PM 5/10/97 -0700, you wrote: >At 04:23 PM 5/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >>At 08:49 AM 5/10/97 -0700, you wrote: >> >>>I resigned my NRA life membership over a year ago. >>> >> ... in trying to change the NRA from >>>within into what it *should* be: an organization that supports >>>the 2nd Amendment, with no compromise. Here I am pointing out the hypocrisy of stating we should be "changing the NRA from within" while having "resigned my NRA life membership." >>> >>Monte, Monte, Monte! You negated your ability to change >>the NRA from within by resigning your life membership, eh? >>How do you expect to have a "no compromise" BOD when you >>forfeit your vote against the self-serving, greedy and >>corrupt "winning team?" >> >>Oh Lord, save us from our ignorance and impetuousness. >> >>Cap'n Jacq' >>Jacques Tucker, NRA Life >> >> >Monte, thanks for having the courage to recognize that NRA is so bloated and >compromised that it will never be changed "from within" except for the >worse. It is high time to bail out and find someone with the guts to stand >up for the Second. Don't let these hopeless gulls shame you into going back. >S. > Courage? Never? Shame? Compare your reading with the federal government being so bloated and compromised. What we need are the Ron Pauls of the country saving our society from within. What we need are the Neal Knoxs and Leroy Pyles and others of their ilk changing our organization from within. We were close to having the NRA having the guts to stand up for the Second. Unfortunately, some of the true believers were, as you say, compromised by greed and avarice. I find it shameful. I find it distressing. Nevertheless, do we just "bail out" and let it get worse or do we stand up for our principles by working our tails off to get right thinking (pun intended ) folks running the show. I opt for "doing the right thing." Cap'n Jacq' NRA Life GOA Life Western Missouri Shooters Alliance BOD CCRKBA/SAF LSAS KSRA &c., &c. >"Life is always hopelessly complex to those who have no priniciples." >-- Joseph Sobran (I'll bet Joe spelled it "principles.") > >"The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated." >-- Thomas Sowell > "It's too bad ignorance isn't painful." -- J. Bradford "Brad" Alpert "The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: Ak-47s are "inappropriate" Date: 11 May 1997 10:21:51 -0700 At 02:27 AM 5/11/97 -0600, you wrote: >Liberty or Death wrote: >> >> I have an *extremely* hard time squaring Mr. Heston's comments with >> the original (and current) intent of the 2nd Amendment, which was >> (and is) to ensure that citizens possess(ed) the same firepower as >> foreign (or domestic) enemy governments might possess... > >if i had to guess, i'd imagine he knows what he knows of 47's from >watching movies and probably thinks they're all fully and covered by the >mga of '34. > My real concern is that Heston lost a valuable opportunity to educate the host about firearms in general. The tone of the questions indicated that the host thought AK-47's to be some sort of super-weapon, an ultra-high-power rifle that was _TOO POWERFUL_ for hunting or home defense. Now, it's certainly true that AK-47's are "inappropriate" for hunting or home defense against average burglars. But they're "inappropriate" for hunting because the 7.62x39 cartridge _isn't powerful enough_ to reliably kill a deer, and it is "inappropriate" for home defense because the round might overpenetrate the walls if you miss, and not especially accurate at any rate. Or perhaps he feels that they're also "inappropriate" because Americans ought to own American-made firearms like M-1A's and Colt .45's, not cheap commie scrap. But it really bothers me that Heston lost a valuable opportunity to educate. Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-449-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/----------------------- "Still one thing more, fellow citizens," advised Mr. Jefferson. "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and which shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." !yaw gnorw eht su gnikat si noitartsinimdA notnilC ehT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Borderline Slogans on Mothers' Day Date: 11 May 1997 14:02:49 -0400 (EDT) Folks, if just one wife can be saved, then these borderline slogans might constitute "a step in the right direction" ... SAVE A WIFE CONTROL CLINTON'S GUN or SAVE A WIFE LOCK CLINTON'S GUN'S TRIGGER or TIE CLINTON'S HANDS TO SAVE A WIFE or IMPEACH PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON THE WIFE YOU SAVE COULD BE YOUR OWN or FIGHT JUVENILE CRIME SUPPORT A CURFEW FOR BILL CLINTON (Happy Mothers' Day to one and all.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: Borderline Slogans on Mothers' Day Date: 11 May 1997 16:01:51 -0500 At 02:02 PM 5/11/97 -0400, Chris Ferris wrote: > >Folks, if just one wife can be saved, then these borderline slogans might >constitute "a step in the right direction" ... How about, Is your Daughter ready to be a Mother? Mandate a Trigger Lock on Bill Clinton's "Gun". or "Order the Executive Gun be Locked at all Times" The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Borderline Slogans on Mothers' Day Date: 11 May 1997 14:14:40 -0700 At 16:01 -0500 5/11/1997, Joe Sylvester wrote: >At 02:02 PM 5/11/97 -0400, Chris Ferris wrote: -snip- > >or "Order the Executive Gun be Locked at all Times" No, no, Joe! Not "gun", cuz from all the things said 'bout it, it ain't much to speak of. Let us refer to it as a 'plinker', an Excutive Plinker. Remember, a plinker is neither big enough, or powerful enough to be a 'real' gun. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Borderline Slogans on Mothers' Day Date: 11 May 1997 14:14:40 -0700 At 16:01 -0500 5/11/1997, Joe Sylvester wrote: >At 02:02 PM 5/11/97 -0400, Chris Ferris wrote: -snip- > >or "Order the Executive Gun be Locked at all Times" No, no, Joe! Not "gun", cuz from all the things said 'bout it, it ain't much to speak of. Let us refer to it as a 'plinker', an Excutive Plinker. Remember, a plinker is neither big enough, or powerful enough to be a 'real' gun. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Bye, bye Brit .22s, (or We have seen the future?) Date: 11 May 1997 16:11:54 -0500 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000143370135591&rtmo=335ee232&atmo=335ee232 &P4_FOLLOW_ON=/97/5/11/nblah11.html&pg=/et/97/5/11/nblah11.html Blair: I'll ban all handguns by end of this year By James Hardy and David Wastell TONY Blair has overruled Cabinet colleagues and insisted that the Government makes time for legislation to ban all handguns by the end of the year. The move, to be announced in the Queen's Speech on Wednesday, will mean granting MPs a free vote on extending the existing ban on large-calibre handguns to those of .22 and below. It will infuriate gun clubs, which already face extinction from restrictions following the Dunblane massacre. 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: Your Goose is Cooked Date: 11 May 1997 16:30:46 -0500 At 12:47 AM 5/11/97 -0400, BludyRed@aol.com wrote: > >From: njsp@juno.com (J. R LYNCH) >Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 14:03:08 EDT >Subject: Ban Geese > >+++ TORONTO (Reuter, 04-25) - A man walked into a donut shop >with a goose and threatened to kill the bird if employees don't hand >over some cash. "Give me some money or I'll kill the goose," the >man said. The bandit released the goose after a customer handed >him some cash withdrawn from a nearby bank machine. > >BAN LOADED GEESE, if geese are banned only criminals will have geese.. Oh, Geese are probably OK for civilians to own, as long as they're not loaded with that dangerous hi-power grass. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: Re: Ak-47s are "inappropriate" Date: 11 May 1997 18:09:40 -0400 (EDT) Liberty or Death posts: >>I have an *extremely* hard time squaring Mr. Heston's comments with the original (and current) intent of the 2nd Amendment, which was (and is) to ensure that citizens possess(ed) the same firepower as foreign (or domestic) enemy governments might possess... DATE May 6, 1997 TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT) STATION KGO-AM (ABC) LOCATION San Francisco PROGRAM Morning Drive Time Ted Wygant, anchor:<< Monte, Is what you posted a verbatim transcript obtained from the station or a transcript of someone who heard the show? Funny how they spelled KAYNE Robinson's name wrong twice. What else did they get wrong? Regards, Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: Ak-47s are "inappropriate" Date: 11 May 1997 21:03:22 -0700 >Liberty or Death posts: > >>>I have an *extremely* hard time squaring Mr. Heston's comments with >the original (and current) intent of the 2nd Amendment, which was >(and is) to ensure that citizens possess(ed) the same firepower as >foreign (or domestic) enemy governments might possess... > > DATE May 6, 1997 > TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT) > STATION KGO-AM (ABC) >LOCATION San Francisco > PROGRAM Morning Drive Time > > Ted Wygant, anchor:<< > >Monte, > > Is what you posted a verbatim transcript obtained from the station >or a transcript of someone who heard the show? > > Funny how they spelled KAYNE Robinson's name wrong twice. > > What else did they get wrong? > >Regards, >Dennis Atsa good question, and I don't know; I assumed it was probably taped and transcribed by someone who heard the show. - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: BludyRed@aol.com Subject: S-707 Date: 12 May 1997 01:24:05 -0400 (EDT) New Jersey gun owners should be proud to have the Honorable Frank Lautenberg as their Senator. No doubt Mr. Toricelli will soon sign on as a co-sponsor. This is a disgrace. As a New Jersey resident, I am ashamed. This should make getting CCW passed in New Jersey a real snap. Consider State Senator Cardinale's CCW bill DOA The fact that this bill is in direct violation of the Constitution, IRT states rights will not stop the Liberal Democrats from pushing it. We should have expected it after the CCW success sweeping the country. In disgust, Dennis Baron ----------- S 707 IS 105th CONGRESS 1st Session To prohibit the public carrying of a handgun, with appropriate exceptions for law enforcement officials and others. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES May 6, 1997 Mr. LAUTENBERG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To prohibit the public carrying of a handgun, with appropriate exceptions for law enforcement officials and others. [Italic->] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [<-Italic] SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Concealed Weapons Prohibition Act of 1997'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds and declares that-- (1) crimes committed with handguns threaten the peace and domestic tranquility of the United States and reduce the security and general welfare of the Nation and its people; (2) crimes committed with handguns impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce and lead to a reduction in productivity and profitability for businesses around the Nation whose workers, suppliers, and customers are adversely affected by gun violence; (3) the public carrying of handguns increases the level of gun violence by enabling the rapid escalation of otherwise minor conflicts into deadly shootings; (4) the public carrying of handguns increases the likelihood that incompetent or careless handgun users will accidently injure or kill innocent bystanders; (5) the public carrying of handguns poses a danger to citizens of the United States who travel across State lines for business or other purposes; and (6) all Americans have a right to be protected from the dangers posed by the carrying of concealed handguns, regardless of their State of residence. SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL ACT. Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `(y)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to carry a handgun on his or her person in public. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the following: (A) A person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to State law who is-- `(i) a law enforcement official; `(ii) a retired law enforcement official; `(iii) a duly authorized private security officer; `(iv) a person whose employment involves the transport of substantial amounts of cash or other valuable items; or `(v) any other person that the Attorney General determines should be allowed to carry a handgun because of compelling circumstances warranting an exception, pursuant to regulations that the Attorney General may promulgate. `(B) A person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to a State law that grants a person an exemption to carry a handgun based on an individualized determination and a review of credible evidence that the person should be allowed to carry a handgun because of compelling circumstances warranting an exemption. A claim of concern about generalized or unspecified risks shall not be sufficient to justify an exemption. `(C) A person authorized to carry a handgun on his or her person under Federal law.'. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: New "Careers Act" Headed for Floor Vote NEXT WEEK (fwd) Date: 12 May 1997 08:08:34 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- New "Careers Act" Headed for Floor Vote NEXT WEEK Republican leadership is rushing HR 1385 to the house floor for a vote sometime next week. Obviously they are hoping to force floor vote before our troops can organize opposition. If passed, HR 1385 will: Tie block grants to the states with federal strings - it further strengthens the federal stronghold on local classrooms Create workforce development boards that are unelected and not answerable to voters Bypass state legislatures Create a new child development bureaucracy that infringes on parental authority Strengthens school to work and restricts individual student career choices Expands the power of the Departments of Education and Labor Gives taxpayer dollars to labor bosses HR 1385 strengthens federal control over schools and strengthens the Dept. is Education while weakening parental authority and individual student choices. We Must Stop HR 1385 It is Urgent that you: Call Majority Leader Dick Armey at (202)-225-4000 and tell him you oppose HR 1385, "The Employment, Training and Literacy Enhancement Act." Tell him not to bring this bill to a vote on the House floor. Call Your Congressman at the Capitol Hill switchboard (800)-962-3524. Tell them to vote "no" on HR 1385. Call your congressman's local district office - it will have a powerful effect by showing strong opposition in his district. Pass this alert to at least 5 more people There is No Time to Lose, Please Call Today. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Fw: A Tragedy? (fwd) Date: 12 May 1997 08:26:46 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Bill Clinton is visiting a school during a trip to Texas. In one class, he asks the students if anyone can give him an example of a "tragedy". One little boy stands up and offers that "If my best friend who lives next door was playing in the street when a car came along and killed him, that would be a tragedy." "No," Clinton says, "That would be an ACCIDENT." A girl raises her hand. "If a school bus carrying fifty children drove off a cliff, killing everyone involved... that would be a tragedy." "I'm afraid not," explains Clinton. "That is what we would call a GREAT LOSS." The room is silent; none of the other children volunteer. "What?" asks Clinton, "Surely someone here can give me an example of a tragedy!" Finally, a boy in the back raises his hand. In a timid voice, he speaks: "If an airplane carrying you, Mrs. Clinton and Vice President Gore was blown up by a bomb, *THAT* would be a tragedy." "Wonderful!" Clinton beams. "Marvelous! And can you tell me WHY that would be a tragedy?" "Well," says the boy, "because it wouldn't be an accident, and it certainly wouldn't be a great loss!" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Re: Ak-47s are "inappropriate" Date: 12 May 1997 08:39:32 -0500 Dennis raises a good question. Is the transcript that we have been supplied real or some kind of foul bait to cause division amongst us? We all, ME ESPECIALLY, should have checked this out before running off half cocked. I called information for the telephone number of KGO. It is 415 478 3810. I tried calling it, but it is still to early for them to answer their general number out there. I have to go to work, so someone else may wish to call before I get another chance. If not I will call later today. We need to know if Charleton Heston said what it is purported to have said. If he did, then he and the NRA managment (if they agree with him) certainly do not speak for RKBA. For saying essentially the same thing I labeled our Senator Bob Kerrey, publically, as a traitor. Kerrey, as some of you know, is a Congressional Medal of Honor holder. He said that we do not need AK-47's and voted for the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. WE N EED TO KNOW HESTON SAID THESE THINGS!! Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: Liberty or Death > To: roc@mail.xmission.com > Subject: Re: Ak-47s are "inappropriate" > Date: Sunday, May 11, 1997 23:03 PM > > > >Liberty or Death posts: > > > >>>I have an *extremely* hard time squaring Mr. Heston's comments with > >the original (and current) intent of the 2nd Amendment, which was > >(and is) to ensure that citizens possess(ed) the same firepower as > >foreign (or domestic) enemy governments might possess... > > > > DATE May 6, 1997 > > TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT) > > STATION KGO-AM (ABC) > >LOCATION San Francisco > > PROGRAM Morning Drive Time > > > > Ted Wygant, anchor:<< > > > >Monte, > > > > Is what you posted a verbatim transcript obtained from the station > >or a transcript of someone who heard the show? > > > > Funny how they spelled KAYNE Robinson's name wrong twice. > > > > What else did they get wrong? > > > >Regards, > >Dennis > > Atsa good question, and I don't know; I assumed it was probably > taped and transcribed by someone who heard the show. > > > - Monte > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, > for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in > power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, > and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. > Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness > of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > http://www.proliberty.com/observer > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Re: R2A! Charleton Heston on KGO-AM (fwd) Date: 12 May 1997 10:56:34 -0400 > California. Let me ask you, you mentioned that there > are some right wing folks- far right wing, still around > the NRA. Are you going to try to get them off the > board and out of the picture? > > Heston: That- that's certainly the intention, and I > think it's highly doable. Wayne LaPierre is- is a > superb leader, Marion Hammer's a strong president. > And I think Cain Robinson and I can provide some useful > support there. Nice, just nice. Let's get rid of everyone that's *too* "right wing" for our tastes. And folks, we're letting them get away with it - who was it that resigned his life membership? We should remian in the NRA and be a !#$%& pain in their asses! > Heston: I'm not certain what you're point is- that > there are guns available in gun stores? Is is me, or did it sound like Heston was getting a little defensive? > Wygant: No, guns that go beyond what a hunter would > need. In other words, why does the NRA support guns > that have overkill? Let's put it that way. Shouldn't > there be some sort of limit? I have a question. Once you've killed a deer, who determines whether you've used "too much firepower" in killing a deer? Isn't dead just that - dead? .223, scope/no scope, what's the deal here? Use what you need to get dinner on the spit! > Heston: Well, for any certain time, AK-47"s are > entirely inappropriate for private ownership, and the- > the problem, of course, is not guns held by private > citizens, but guns held by criminals. And where we > have failed, where the government has failed is with > entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is > meaningless. I'm not even- don't even think it should > be repealed because it doesn't do anything. and it's > been in- on the books for more than two years. In the > course of that time, I think it is, nineteen people > have been arrested, and two have been imprisoned felons > with felony records for trying to purchase a firearm. At least he knows the Brady bill is worthless, and he got some good information over the radio before he got cut off. Interesting that when he started talking about how worthless gun control was, suddenly they're out of time. But the had plenty of time trying to box him into a corner and get him to say how we should support gun control. He also didn't say AK-47s should be banned/restricted. He said they were inappropriate. Semantics semantics. Only time will tell if Moses is ready for the big fight. :P Rachel ============================================================= = "The female of the species is more deadly than the male." = = -- Space mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu = ============================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Probe finds China spent $1 million on USA politics Date: 12 May 1997 11:53:48 -0500 (CDT) Reuters New Media _________________________________________________________________ Monday May 12 6:56 AM EDT Report: Probe Finds China Tried to Buy Clout NEW YORK (Reuter) - Federal law-enforcement officials have found that China secretly funneled nearly $1 million into the United States to influence policy and politicians, Newsweek reported Sunday. The magazine quotes officials as saying the State Council, China's highest governmental body, approved the fund transfers. Investigators have "strong evidence" that $500,000 went to the Chinese Embassy in Washington and $150,000 reached consulates in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Houston, Newsweek said. The "covert 1995 transactions" were part of an "urgent new offensive" designed to counter "Taiwan's successful U.S. lobbying," it said. China's Communist leaders have considered Taiwan a breakaway province since the Nationalists took refuge on the island after losing the country's civil war in 1949. Chinese President Jiang Zemin said last week that his government had "never been involved in or supported any contributions" to U.S. politicians or political organizations, Newsweek noted. It is illegal for such people and groups to accept funds from foreign sources. Newsweek said the investigators saw Beijing as following a three-pronged strategy to increase its clout in the United States. One goal was to fund Chinese-language newspapers and other media to foster pro-Beijing public opinion. Another was to use sympathetic intermediaries to funnel money to state and local politicans, both Democrats and Republicans, who were headed for national prominence. Beijing's last aim, Newsweek said, was to offer targeted politicians' relatives lucrative business deals in China, but "it is still unknown if Beijing succeeded in carrying (this part of the plan) out." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Justice Dept probing role in Mexican Drugs (fwd) Date: 12 May 1997 12:01:51 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Sunday May 11 7:07 AM EDT Justice Dept Probing Role in Mexican Drugs WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The Justice Department is investigating allegations that the older brother of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari used a Mexican government agency to launder drug profits through U.S. banks, the Washington Post reported in Sunday editions. Sources close to the investigation told the Post the probe was focused on whether Raul Salinas de Gortari used a Mexican food program known as Conasupo to shield cocaine shipments into the United States and to launder drug money for the Gulf cartel through U.S. bank accounts and purchasing contracts. A Justice Department spokesman had no comment on the newspaper report. Another administration official said the department was "actively looking into money laundering in U.S. banks by Salinas and it is too early to make any assessment." The official said investigators had looked at banks in Houston and New York and some Swiss authorities had been in the United States to talk with people involved in the investigation. Raul Salinas was a high-ranking official at the Mexican food agency for part of his brother's six-year administration and is now in prison pending trial on charges of murder and illegal enrichment. One source told the newspaper Conasupo had become "the Salinas administration's slush fund" where money from all sorts of corrupt political, governmental, business and narcotics dealings was amassed and parceled out. "There was an infrastructure within Mexico that includes Colombian and Mexican narcotics traffickers and high-level government officials acting in concert, and that's what we're going after," one source told the newspaper. The Post said the investigation began 18 months ago but has expanded rapidly in the past three months. It quoted sources as saying that evidence was being collected that could implicate some of the most powerful people in Mexico and the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, known by its Spanish initials as PRI. Under investigation were Carlos Hank Gonzalez and Jorge Hank Rhon, a rich and politically powerful father-son team. DEA investigators were also looking into allegations that former president Salinas' chief of staff, Jose Cordoba Montoya, and private secretary, Justo Ceja Martinez, attended a key meeting with Raul Salinas, Mexico's secretary of the navy, and drug kingpin Garcia Abrego, according to the report. The sources told the paper the Drug Enforcement Agency has been told the men discussed various schemes to use Mexican state enterprises to launder drug profits and ship drugs to the United States. The Post quoted Raul Salinas' lawyer Stanley Arkin denying the allegations that his client used a government agency to launder money as "self-interested, lying baloney." _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Re: Re:R2A! Charleton Heston on KGO-AM Date: 12 May 1997 13:52:00 -0500 I finally got through to KGO. I talked to Ted Wygant. Without going through the whole conversation, I get the sense that the conversation was reported to us CORRECTLY! I talked to Ted Wygant personally, at least the voice on the other end of the line stated such. He stated that Mr. Heston was very supportive of gun rights. But that he and also Mr. Heston were concerned about what "size" of gun was needed for deer hunting and personally protection. He related a story about going into a gun shop and someone was looking at a new "LARGE" bore handgun. "Gee," stated the customer, "would l like to shoot that thing." I suppose he might be talking about something on the order of a .454 Cassul of .50 AE or something like that. He thought that such people ought not to be able to have a gun in the first place. Anyway, from these types of thoughts came Mr. Heston's comment of AK 47's being inappropriate for civilian ownership. You can probably get a copy of the tape of the show from a vender called V.M.S. in San Francisco. Their number is 413 543 3361. But, without being able to pinpoint the time of the conversation, the tape will be four hours long and cost several hundred dollars. I am satisfied that Heston said what it is alleged he said. He is a mistake as First Vice President of the NRA. I would have to say that those in power at the NRA who promoted him are also a mistake! First we see Tanya's Thugettes beating up on those who wish to support their respective state's constitutional guarantees or promote a Vermont style carry bill and now we see the leadership selling out to gun control. The smell of Hydrogen Sulfide adheres to all of this Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: BludyRed@aol.com > From: 6mysmesa@1eagle1.com > Cc: "recipient.list.not.shown": ; > Subject: R2A! Charleton Heston on KGO-AM > > DATE May 6, 1997 > TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT) > STATION KGO-AM (ABC) > LOCATION San Francisco > PROGRAM Morning Drive Time > > Ted Wygant, anchor:<< snip<< > show? > > Funny how they spelled KAYNE Robinson's name wrong twice. > > What else did they get wrong? Or leave out? > > Regards, > Dennis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Re:R2A! Charleton Heston on KGO-AM Date: 12 May 1997 16:09:31 -0400 Larry, thanks for chasing down the veracity of the interview. As far as I'm concerned, Charlton Heston is just some old Hollywood guy. If he were at all serious, he would either get coached as to what the NRA's position is on these issues, or he would have let us know that he intended to change the NRA's position. Just merrily shoveling the words out in a radio interview doesn't serve anybody. I suspect that Mr. Heston just wants to be liked, and has just won an election based upon popularity, but has no idea how his views and words will be twisted. In one interview, he has: 1. defined himself as a defender of the 2nd Amendment, but then validated arguments that firearms rights are *only* about hunting and self-defense from criminals, 2. validated the AW ban, by badmouthing civilian possesion of AK-47's without any intelligent discussion or qualification and 3. played right into critics of the NRA by characterizing some of the NRA as "extremists" that need to be eliminated (he agrees with the interviewer who adds the term "right wing folks - far right wing".) And this is from an NRA Vice President? With friends like him, who needs enemies? ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: SAVE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PATENT RIGHTS (fwd) Date: 12 May 1997 17:03:57 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- SAVE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PATENT RIGHTS Tell your Senators to vote NO on S. 507 May 12, 1997 Congress is poised to pass a bill that would take away the traditional rights of American inventors in order to accommodate foreigners and multinationals. This is the most dangerous bill to come before the Congress in a long time. It cannot be amended to make it acceptable. It must be defeated if we care about America's future. Mark-up on S. 507 in the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled for May 15. The Senate could vote on this bill any day after that. The rush is absolutely astounding! 1. S. 507 would require the government to publish the details of every invention 18 months after the inventor makes an application for a patent and before the patent is issued and without knowing whether it would ever be issued or how broad the patent would be! This would give away the inventor's creative work to all foreign and multinational copycats and thieves before the inventor has any rights at all! This would overturn the longstanding rule that the details of new inventions are not released to the public until a patent is issued, defining the scope of the inventor's rights. 2. S. 507 would allow third parties (foreign and domestic corporations) to force reexamination of all existing patents, thus making it much more difficult for inventors to get and keep their patents. This would throw many new obstacles in the path of the independent inventor. 3. S. 507 would transform the U.S. Patent Office into an independent government corporation that can accept bribes for the issuing of patents. Of course, the bill doesn't use the nasty word bribes; it just says that the new Patent Office "may accept monetary gifts or donations of services, or of real, personal, or mixed property, in order to carry out the functions of the Office." (Do you think IRS should be allowed to "accept gifts"? Well, it's just as bad for the Patent Office to accept gifts.) 4. S. 507 is designed to advantage big corporations over independent inventors. S. 507 even specifies that the Management Advisory Board of the new Patent corporation shall include persons "with substantial background and achievement in corporate finance and management." You can bet that those persons will ride roughshod over the interests of non-corporate inventors. 5. S. 507 will write into law the deal made by Ron Brown with the Japanese Ambassador to make our patent system more "satisfactory" to the Japanese. For full information on the Patent bill see: http://www.eagleforum.org ACTION: Call your two Senators and tell them to vote NO on S. 507. Especially, call today to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: Republicans: Hatch (UT) senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov Thurmond(SC) senator@thurmond.senate.gov Grassley (IA) chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov Specter (PA) senator_specter@specter.senate.gov Thompson (TN) senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov Kyl (AZ) info@kyl.senate.gov DeWine (OH) senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov Ashcroft (MO) john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov Abraham (MI) michigan@abraham.senate.gov Sessions (AL) senator@sessions.senate.gov Democrats: Leahy (VT) senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov Kennedy (MA) senator@kennedy.senate.gov Biden (DE) senator@biden.senate.gov Kohl (WI) senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov Feinstein (CA) senator@feinstein.senate.gov Durbin (IL) dick@durbin.senate.gov Torricelli (NJ) senator_torricelli@torricelli.senate.gov Senate Switchboard: 202-224-3121 When writing to your member, it is important that you include your name and address in your mail message. Most congressional offices respond only to their constituents and your inclusion of your full name and mailing address will insure that your Member can identify your residence within his or her Congressional District. MS Sans SerifMay 1997 Phyllis Schlafly Patent Report 0000,0000,8080http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/may97/psrmay97.html Patent Rights Column 0000,8080,0000http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1997/apr97/97-04-15.html Kaptur Amendment -- Roll-Call Vote 0000,8080,0000http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/may97/kaptur.html E-mail the Senate http://www.senate.gov/senator/membmail.html ===================================================== EAGLE FORUM PO Box 618 Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415 Fax: 618-462-8909 ================================ URL: http://www.eagleforum.org E-mail: eagle@eagleforum.org ________________________________ Get on our E-mail list today! Just send us an e-mail message with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line! ________________________________ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: ***ONE SIMPLE REQUEST*** Date: 12 May 1997 17:32:26 -0700 (PDT) From Mr. Joel Friedman (mochi1@ix.netcom.com) ===== *** Please Cross Post Freely *** Dear Fellow Firearms Activists: This post is about the NRA's bylaws and changes that we, the members, must make to bring the association back into the hands of the membership. Like many of you, I have been an activist busy trying to protect our firearms rights. I have not given a lot of attention to the how's and why's of the internal workings of our association. I have complained when things did not go the way I thought they should, but I have been too busy with the ongoing "fight" to let my disappointments fester. Now, all this has changed for me. Recent events have caused me take a long, hard look at our association, and I have tried to look at it as impartially as possible. However, no matter how I look at our association, there is one basic fact that is inescapable. We the members have almost no say in what goes on. A prime example is the election of the Executive Vice President of our association. This is the single most important job at the NRA. Over the years, we the members have given away our rights to have a say in this area. A wise person asked me, "Would you let your Congress elect your President?" I answered no. The person then said, "So why would you let your Board of Directors elect your Executive Vice President? This perspective really got me to thinking, and doing some research into our bylaws. We have the power to change the present setup, as well as other things we do not like. We have to want to change it because it requires a lot of us to do it. It takes 500 eligible-to-vote members to sign a petition and have it back at the NRA Secretary's desk by September 1st. I have written such a petition. I took it with me to Seattle to get signatures. I got some, but with all that was going on at the Convention, I was not able to devote much time to it. But now the Convention is over. The time has come to begin this project in earnest. The petition states that we the members--and ONLY we the members--can vote for the EVP, and that our choice can not be disputed. The petition also allows anyone who can get 500 signatures to run against the current EVP by having his or her name placed on the ballot. In this way, the selection of the EVP candidates will be taken out the hands of a few and put into the hands of the many. I am distributing this post because I am looking for 500 voting members who want to do something to help bring the power in our organization back to the members where it belongs--and away from the few who presently have it. If you are interested in helping, please e-mail your name and address to me so that I can snail mail you one hard copy of the petition. After you receive it, make copies of it, and take it to different gun clubs, shooting ranges, and the like. Let's show those who think we don't care enough about our association that they are mistaken. Lets make some changes that really matter. Now. Sincerely, Joel Friedman Benefactor Member e-mail: mochi1@ix.netcom.com *** Please Cross Post Freely *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Re: Charleton Heston and "inappropriate" arms Date: 12 May 1997 22:47:43 -0500 Heston really made two objectionable comments to my way of thinking; AK 47's are inappropriate for ordinary people and The Bill of Rights was written by a bunch of dead white guys. It is true that the BOR was written by white guys who are now dead. But Heston meant something by this remark; is it that he, like our worthless President, believes that the Bill of Rights is also dead? What about our Constitution? Or our Declaration Independence? Or the ownership of government by the people? Is Mr. Heston inferring that these also are DEAD? IT IS TIME TO DEMAND THAT HESTON RESIGN FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NRA!!! Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Charleton Heston, AK47's and such Date: 13 May 1997 07:01:39 -0500 Fred Stevens at Texas Gun Owners has taken me to task for my concern about Heston's expression about the "dead white guys" that wrote the bill of rights. He says that this is a quote from a movie and was used by Heston to insert a little levity into the converstation. Okay, I will give him that. But, the issue of the appropriatness of any gun is central to our whole cause. As stated earlier I publically labeled our US Senator, Bob Kerrey, as a traitor for his similar stand on AK47's. Kerrey was offended and called me personally at home one evening. I still stand by that statement. And it applies to Heston as well. I do not care if it is a class three weapon or self loader. I do not care if it was manufactured by Bill Ruger or Kalishnakov, the right to keep and bear arms was not to have been infringed! That is what we have gathered together in organizations to defend. Now the various lists and organzations are compromising by choosing leaders such as Heston. It is a pity! I still say that it is time to call for his resignation. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: UK GulfWeb Update (fwd) Date: 13 May 1997 08:15:02 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hi All, the latest news from the UK is now on the UK News pages of the UK GulfWeb http://www.ozbod.demon.co.uk/uk_news/index.html I have done as much as a lunchtime will allow, there will be more about 20:00 GMT cheers =================================== This message is from: Dave Austin The UK GulfVets "In Pursuit of the Truth" The UK GulfWeb: http://www.ozbod.demon.co.uk/ Also at: http://www.gulfweb.org as a member organisation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Re: Charleton Heston, AK47's and such Date: 13 May 1997 09:08:55 -0500 (CDT) On Tue, 13 May 1997, Larry BAll wrote: > Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Larry BAll" > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Fred Stevens at Texas Gun Owners has taken me to task for my concern about > Heston's expression about the "dead white guys" that wrote the bill of > rights. He says that this is a quote from a movie and was used by Heston (cut) > > I still say that it is time to call for his resignation. > Larry Ball > lball@unlinfo.unl.edu Look Larry, I used to scream just like you are about the NRA and all of America for that matter. But, I know and you know some of the history of the USA. And like I have said, one does not go into war with just one army, you have the airforce, navy, and marines. The NRA is our army, the GOA is our marines and the JPFO are our special forces. We need all 3 and more to win. There is no perfect solution or magic bullet. Heston is the kind of great political orator that the dumb public will listen to and hear a positive word or two on ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN Clinton news network. Let him do his thing, this is war, what he says in public to win over moderates, no matter how putrid, will have to be done. For all of us to publicly bash the NRA only makes fence sitters go away from us and not listen. Fighting as in your own family should not be done in public. I am in the NRA, GOA, JPFO. Tanya Mataska is the only public person I got my 76 year old parents to listen to because she is a white haired middle aged person. We have got to let the NRA go back and get the average cop and citizen shooting for fun and have their minds open and listening to our side. Those of us who really understand the Constitution and the 2nd amendment do not need the NRA for us. We need the NRA for the millions of sheeple out there being brainwashed every day about the evils of gun ownership by our mass socialist supporting media. I was a 1960's Radical leftist atheist long haired hippie anti-war supporter who voted for George McGoven and supported the Brady bill idea. Waco got me to wake up and now I am a conservative libertarian republican Christian. But a journey of this kind does not start with a run. Just as my daughter with Autism had to be taught first how to sit, then crawl, then walk and now run so does the average American about the evils of no gun ownership. Remember the Alamo, Goliad, and the Branch Davidians. Paul Watson, Dallas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Charleton Heston, AK47's and such Date: 13 May 1997 10:57:22 -0400 Paul, Larry, I've pared the cc line down as I don't know those people. Heston's comments angered me, but I agree with Paul that we need every tool we can lay our hands on. I think that Mr. Heston needs to be coached, as soon as possible. He needs some ready answers to common anti-gun propaganda techniques and he needs to be able to make some distinctions that the anti's will blur over everytime. (Like an AK-47 is already heavily regulated under the 1934 legislation, and a semi-auto clone is less powerful than common deer rifles). I hope that someone at the NRA has the wherewhithal to get the man some coaching on issues and traps and make him into a powerful advocate. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk@wrq.com Subject: Re: Charleton Heston, AK47's and such Date: 13 May 1997 08:33:30 -0700 Bravo! (and you're right about Pauls being right ; ) Mr. Heston stood behind me in the ballot verification line and I pestered him for an autograph. Took it down yesterday, but only for a few hours. It's the NRA's job to form a cohesive public face to it's arguments, I think once it does that Mr. Heston will be a fantastic figure for folks to rally around. Boyd Kneeland ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Author: jcurtis@cisco.com Paul, Larry, I've pared the cc line down as I don't know those people. Heston's comments angered me, but I agree with Paul that we need every tool we can lay our hands on. I think that Mr. Heston needs to be coached, as soon as possible. He needs some ready answers to common anti-gun propaganda techniques and he needs to be able to make some distinctions that the anti's will blur over everytime. (Like an AK-47 is already heavily regulated under the 1934 legislation, and a semi-auto clone is less powerful than common deer rifles). I hope that someone at the NRA has the wherewhithal to get the man some coaching on issues and traps and make him into a powerful advocate. ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: MRC Alert: Bananas First; Chinese Agent Eats with Clinton (fwd) Date: 13 May 1997 10:57:58 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ***Media Research Center CyberAlert*** Tuesday, May 13, 1997 (Vol. Two; No. 68) Bananas First; Chinese Agent Eats with Clinton #### Distributed to over 2,300 recipients by the Media Research Center, bringing political balance to the media. Visit the MRC on the Web: http://www.mediaresearch.org. Past CyberAlerts can be read at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/mrc/cyberalert/ Subscribe/unsubscribe information at end of this message. #### 1) ABC puts it all into perspective: Don't let Whitewater come before bananas. 2) NBC finally reports the White House appeal to the Supreme Court; only ABC airs a full story on Monday's court filing. 3) The FBI is looking at whether a Clinton dinner-mate is an agent for communist China. But the networks spike the story. 4) "What is this, the Chinese Reds? What decade are you in Chris?!" Eleanor Clift demands of Chris Matthews in arguing that China is no enemy. > 1) For the second time during the presidential excursion to Mexico and the Caribbean, ABC's John Donvan emphasized how the locals were tired of Whitewater. Last Tuesday (May 6) Donvan, reporting from Mexico City, reassuringly noted that Whitewater "has not ruined this Mexico trip. Mexicans could care less about Whitewater. They are joining the administration in calling this summit a success." From Barbados, on ABC's World News Tonight/Saturday Donvan told anchor Rene Poissant about Bill Clinton's reaction to Kenneth Starr's speech that day complaining of White House stonewalling. Donvan made clear what's really important: "...When the President fended off a Whitewater question by saying, 'Look, I'm just down here doing my job,' the Caribbean journalists burst into applause, in part because they had heard enough about Whitewater and wanted to talk more about bananas." > 2) NBC News finally catches up, but only ABC devoted a full story to the White House's appeal to the Supreme Court. Eight days after ABC, CBS and CNN told their viewers about the White House going to the Supreme Court in order to hide notes of conversations Hillary Clinton had with lawyers, NBC finally got around to the story. On Saturday's (May 10) Nightly News, reporter David Bloom mentioned the maneuver in a story from Barbados on Clinton's reaction to Kenneth Starr's charges. Monday the White House filed its appeal to the Supreme Court over the Hillary notes. NBC did some more catch up Monday (May 12) night. Jim Miklaszewski began a short story by noting the filing. He observed that "The White House hasn't faced these kinds of legal challenges since the days of Richard Nixon." Miklaszewski then mentioned the impending House committee vs. White House "constitutional showdown" over the Clinton administration's refusal to turn over documents. Next, NBC caught up on the Republican foreign money story which they had not reported last Thursday. In a question that implied an ongoing problem, Tom Brokaw asked Miklaszewski: "Jim, what are the chances that that House committee will now begin looking into these charges that Republicans were also accepting money from foreign sources which of course turned out to be illegal?" Of the broadcast networks, only ABC provided full stories on the Supreme Court appeal, though World News Tonight packaged the news to favor the White House spin. The 8am newscast on Monday's Good Morning America included a story from Tim O'Brien who noted: "Not since Richard Nixon and his infamous Watergate tapes has a President gone to the Supreme Court in an effort to withhold potential evidence in a criminal case..." By nightfall ABC had edited out that point. Peter Jennings painted it as an easy to understand case of attorney-client privilege: "In Washington today White House lawyers went to the Supreme Court to file an appeal on behalf of the First Lady. At issue is a right most Americans take for granted, attorney-client privilege...." Instead of O'Brien, viewers saw a piece from Jackie Judd that failed to raise the Watergate comparison. The CBS Evening News devoted one minute and 37 seconds to a tornado in Miami, that didn't kill anyone, before Dan Rather squeezed in this brief item: "The President also stepped back into the Whitewater fray today, with an appeal to the United States Supreme Court to throw out a subpoena from special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Starr is demanding notes of Hillary Clinton's Whitewater related conversations with her government lawyers." "Her government lawyers"? Since when did she buy them? And note that Starr is "demanding" not that Clinton is "denying" or "hiding" or "withholding" or "obstructing" or "stonewalling." > 3) China funneled $1 million into the U.S. in "a secret plan to influence American politicians and policy," the May 19 Newsweek disclosed. Monday's Los Angles Times drew the scandal closer to the Clinton Administration, revealing that President Clinton shared bread with a Chinese agent. Reporter James Risen's front page story on May 12 began: "U.S. officials are investigating whether an executive of a Chinese-language newspaper in Southern California who sat next to President Clinton at a Democratic fundraiser in Century City in July is an agent of the Chinese government, according to sources familiar with an ongoing federal inquiry." The man in question, Ted Sioeng, and his family, own the International Daily News. Risen reported that after acquiring the paper in 1995, they "changed its independent editorial stance to one that is pro-Beijing." And in what you would think would be enough to put him in Clinton's dog house, Risen noted that Sioeng "imports Chinese cigarettes into the United States." John Huang organized the Century City fundraiser and Sioeng also attended the Buddhist Temple event with Al Gore in Hacienda Heights. Coverage: Nothing, not one syllable about Sioeng on any of the broadcast network shows on Monday morning or evening. Nothing on Today and Nightly News. Zilch on This Morning and Evening News. Not a word on Good Morning America or World News Tonight. MRC intern Jessica Anderson, returning for another summer of news watching, did observe that GMA mentioned the Newsweek story. At 8am news reader Elizabeth Vargas noted that China denied the Newsweek story, calling it "shear fabrication." And the networks can't say they didn't have a visual. CNN's Inside Politics ran video of Sioeng sitting beside Clinton at the fundraiser. > 4) Maybe a Chinese agent sharing a meal with the President of the United States isn't considered important by the media because reporters don't really buy that anachronistic view of the PRC as an evil communist regime. Take a look at how Newsweek's Eleanor Clift and Steve Roberts, recently of U.S. News, reacted to the term "Red China." MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens caught and transcribed the April 30 exchange on CNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews. Chris Matthews: "I will now take a shot at Janet Reno. She calls the White House to say the Chinese government, the Chinese government, the communist Reds are trying to infiltrate and interrupt and exploit our campaigns to their advantage. She makes one call to Tony Lake, the President's advisor and doesn't get through to him and she just drops it!" Eleanor Clift: "What is this the Chinese Reds? What decade are you in Chris?!" Matthews: "Well what do you want to call them? What do you want to call them? Oh you want to call them the good guys fine. Call them what you want, the Beijing communist government. Oh, are you with Clinton on this to say they are no longer communist? Are you saying they're not communist anymore? I call them the Reds." Eleanor Clift: "That's not the issue anymore. It's outdated language. It's Cold War language." Matthews: "Oh I think they would probably like it. They would prefer it." Clift: "The Chinese maintain an embassy in Washington as do other countries. They're not here just to show the tourists around. They're here to influence government policies. The Chinese may have done it very ineptly. But I don't think you're gonna find any evidence of espionage or so forth. And you are also going to find that they tried to influence Republicans more than Democrats because the Republicans are at odds with them." A bit later Steve Roberts pitched in: "This whole business of the Chinese Reds. Eleanor is absolutely right Chris. You are wallowing in it. You need the Reds to be an enemy. And you know you don't have the Russians to kick around anymore. The fact is they are more capitalist than we are in many ways." Matthews: "I think we make a big mistake when we think a communist country which has no human rights at all, we saw that in Tianemen Square, is somehow a benign post-communist government like Bill Clinton. I think Bill Clinton made a big mistake, said the former communist power China." Steve Roberts: "Why do you think this country is so weak that we have to quake under the threat that somehow the Chinese are influencing our elections. This thing is blown way out of proportions. It's people like you who say, 'We are so weak that the Chinese can manipulate us.' That's undervaluing the strength of our political system enormously. And the fact is there is no evidence that they succeeded." Clift: "Right." Two veterans of two of the major news magazines are grilled from the right by a former aide to House Speaker Tip O'Neill. When reporters are to the left of a Democratic operative for a liberal leaders can there be any doubt about liberal bias? -- Brent Baker >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: mrc-cyber-request@list.us.net. Put "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the BODY of the message, NOT in the subject line. Problems and comments can be addressed to: cyber@mediaresearch.org <<< =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Heston & Machine Gun News Site Date: 13 May 1997 17:22:34 -0500 If you want to see some unhappy muchachos visit the discussion group page at the Machine Gun News Web Site. People are joining GOA enmass. These machine gunners believe that the NRA has abandoned them. Come to think of it so do I. Consider- 1. NRA's apparent opposition to Vermont style carry laws 2. NRA's opposition to the Nebraska constitutional provision which in effect is the broadest carry law in the nation if we forced it, 3. NRA's apparent abandonment of the repeal effort of the '94 Assault weapons ban. a. Heston's belief that AK47's are "entirely" innappropriate for private use b. Hestion's belief that the Brady Bill should not be repealed c. Heston's belief that there is a "radical" right wing on the board of NRA (them must be my folks, guys, it always is) I think that defending Heston in saying that he just didn't know any better is a hollow defense. He has been active nationally in these issues since prior to '94. HE KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS THE ISSUES! Someone referred to the Gang of Three at the NRA. I, for one, believe it. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Re: Multiple recipients of list Date: 13 May 1997 17:48:56 -0500 Meester Totty; Great Post!! What does this say about concealed carry permits? In Nebraska the NRA is backing the conversion of a right into a privilege for which the state will not only charge a fee, but will gain regulatory control over an area they have no legitimate right to regulate! Thanks again for this post. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: E. J. Totty > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Multiple recipients of list > Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 16:51 PM > > From the R2A list: > > > Delivered-To: right2arms-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com > Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 17:53:17 -0700 > From: Dean Arthur > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: right2arms@pobox.com > Subject: R2A! Keep and arm bears?? > Sender: owner-right2arms@majordomo.pobox.com > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: right2arms@pobox.com > > Harvard legal scholar hired by HCI to disprove the right to bear arms. > Joyce Lee Malcom researched back beyond magna carta established right to > bear arms and was fired by HCI when she published book Right To Keep and > Bear Arms (25.00). > > Carl Miller uses Constitution and Amendments and Supreme Court holdings > such as: > > Murdock v. Pennsylvania, "No state may convert a constitutionally > secured right into a privilege, issue a license for its exercise, and > charge a fee for its use." > > and, > > Shuttleworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, "If a state does convert a > constitutionally secured right into a privilege, issues a license for > its exercise and charges a fee for its use, the citizen may ignore the > law with impunity." > > because, > > Boyd v. U.S., "If a citizen has relied upon prior decisions of the > Supreme Court in support of his actions, he has the perfect defense > against willfulness [criminal intent]." > > Excuse me, judge or prosecutor or law enforcer, what is it that you > don't understand about "shall not be infringed"? > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------- > To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@pobox.com > with the following line in the body: > > unsubscribe right2arms > > ***Visit http://www.wizard.net/~kc/firearms.html > to learn more about guns in America*** > > RIGHT2ARMS IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. THE OWNER > TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: The Heston Transcript Date: 13 May 1997 17:52:20 -0500 Here is the transcript- VMS TRANSCRIPT Video Monitoring Services of America, L.P. 720 Harrison Street, Suite 320 San Francisco, CA 94107 (415)543-3361 (415)543-6148 DATE May 6, 1997 TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT) STATION KGO-AM (ABC) LOCATION San Francisco PROGRAM Morning Drive Time Ted Wygant, anchor: Well this is very appropriate to talk with Moses as we talk about it, at least. Now let's say good morning to the man who played it so well, Charleton Heston. Good morning, sir! Charleton Heston (Actor/NRA Board Member): And good morning to you, Mister Wygant. Wygant: Well, we're delighted to have you with us, and we appreciate your time because you have taken on a task that I think a lot of folks might have backed away with because a lot of concern about the National Rifle Association. Heston: Our country belongs to Hercules, doesn't it? Wygant: Yeah, right. What made you do it? How come you want to get in the middle of this? Heston: Well, I've, of course, been- found myself in the arena, if you will, on a number of public sector causes. I suppose starting back when I started demonstrating for civil rights back in 1961. Long before it got fashionable in Hollywood. And then the Screen Actors Guild, and the National Endowment For The Arts, and the Separate Theater Group, and so on- and then the Presidential Task force, and the Arts and Humanities. And I've been a member of- of the National Rifle Association for, oh, twenty years or more. When I was a kid in Michigan, in the Depression, I lived in a little hamlet in Northern Michigan with about, oh, a hundred houses which contained easily two hundred and fifty, three hundred fire arms of various kinds. Mostly being used for hunting, of course- food for the table. But I was asked, as is true with all of the jobs I've done. Somebody asked me. Wygant: Well, you've got quite a task. And- and you've been named first vice president. You- you're a member of the board at-at one point, and gee, you just zipped right up. Heston: I just was elected to the board on Saturday. Wygant: Yeah. Heston: It's the primary defender of the second amendment of the Bill Of Rights, which is, of course, a core document. The Bill Of Rights is right at the basis of the American idea, those wise old dead white guys that made up the country knew what they were about. And you- it is a mainstream issue. Most Americans, in fact, support the second amendment's right to bear and carry arms, and there are, as you suggest, a few extremists, and some of them are- are on the board. And we have, however, we- they elected- or re-elected in the case of Wayne LaPierre, and elected in my case and Cain Robinson's case- police chief Cain Robinson is now second vice president. We re-elected Marion Hammer as president. Wygant: Mister Heston, could I ask you to stand by here for just a moment? We have to get to traffic, but I- I do want to continue talking with you. Could you hang in for a minute? Heston: Yeah. Wygant: Okay, good. Thanks. **************** Wygant: Okay, right now let's get back to Charleton Heston talking to us from his home in Southern California. Let me ask you, you mentioned that there are some right wing folks- far right wing, still around the NRA. Are you going to try to get them off the board and out of the picture? Heston: That- that's certainly the intention, and I think it's highly doable. Wayne LaPierre is- is a superb leader, Marion Hammer's a strong president. And I think Cain Robinson and I can provide some useful support there. Wygant: Now the image of- of the NRA has been an organization that supports the right of people to buy any legal firearms, and, of course, you go to any- any gun store- gun shop and you see things there that are big, and brutal, and deadly, and far more than you need for- for hunting or home protection. Do you stand by- I mean, the image is... Heston: AK-47's are inappropriate for private ownership, of course. Wygant: Yeah, but the image is that they're- the fire power of these weapons is far more than a hunter or a homeowner would need. Why is it necessary to have those guns available anyway? Heston: I just got through telling you. The possession- private possession of AK-47's is entirely inappropriate. Wygant: Right, but AK-47's one thing, but I've been in a gun shop- I've been in gun shops, and there's fire power there that doest's seem necessary and that people worry about being out there in- in the hands of, you know, potential criminals. Heston: I'm not certain what you're point is- that there are guns available in gun stores? Wygant: No, guns that go beyond what a hunter would need. In other words, why does the NRA support guns that have overkill? Let's put it that way. Shouldn't there be some sort of limit? Heston: Well, for any certain time, AK-47"s are entirely inappropriate for private ownership, and the- the problem, of course, is not guns held by private citizens, but guns held by criminals. And where we have failed, where the government has failed is with entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is meaningless. I'm not even- don't even think it should be repealed because it doesn't do anything. and it's been in- on the books for more than two years. In the course of that time, I think it is, nineteen people have been arrested, and two have been imprisoned felons with felony records for trying to purchase a firearm. Wygant: Well, we've- we gotta- I really appreciate talking with us. It'll be interesting to see- interesting to see how you handle the public image of the National Rifle Association and those in the far right in the group. And if you don't mind, we'd like to talk to you again. Heston: I hope we can do that. Wygant: Alright, thanks very much. Heston: Mister Wygant. Wygant: Thank you. Charleton Heston from his home in Southern California, and the KGO Radio News time is 8:23. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Re: Multiple recipients of list Date: 13 May 1997 19:14:51 -0700 (PDT) To whomever cited the quotes below, are these US Supreme Court decisions? If so, please e-mail me the cites for those cases. They may help me greatly in a challenge to Oregon's permit law. Thanks. At 05:48 PM 5/13/97 -0500, you wrote: >Meester Totty; > >Great Post!! What does this say about concealed carry permits? In >Nebraska the NRA is backing the conversion of a right into a privilege for >which the state will not only charge a fee, but will gain regulatory >control over an area they have no legitimate right to regulate! > >Thanks again for this post. > >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > >---------- >> From: E. J. Totty >> To: Multiple recipients of list >> Subject: Multiple recipients of list >> Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 16:51 PM >> >> From the R2A list: >> >> >> Delivered-To: right2arms-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com >> Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 17:53:17 -0700 >> From: Dean Arthur >> MIME-Version: 1.0 >> To: right2arms@pobox.com >> Subject: R2A! Keep and arm bears?? >> Sender: owner-right2arms@majordomo.pobox.com >> Precedence: bulk >> Reply-To: right2arms@pobox.com >> >> Harvard legal scholar hired by HCI to disprove the right to bear arms. >> Joyce Lee Malcom researched back beyond magna carta established right to >> bear arms and was fired by HCI when she published book Right To Keep and >> Bear Arms (25.00). >> >> Carl Miller uses Constitution and Amendments and Supreme Court holdings >> such as: >> >> Murdock v. Pennsylvania, "No state may convert a constitutionally >> secured right into a privilege, issue a license for its exercise, and >> charge a fee for its use." >> >> and, >> >> Shuttleworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, "If a state does convert a >> constitutionally secured right into a privilege, issues a license for >> its exercise and charges a fee for its use, the citizen may ignore the >> law with impunity." >> >> because, >> >> Boyd v. U.S., "If a citizen has relied upon prior decisions of the >> Supreme Court in support of his actions, he has the perfect defense >> against willfulness [criminal intent]." >> >> Excuse me, judge or prosecutor or law enforcer, what is it that you >> don't understand about "shall not be infringed"? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@pobox.com >> with the following line in the body: >> >> unsubscribe right2arms >> >> ***Visit http://www.wizard.net/~kc/firearms.html >> to learn more about guns in America*** >> >> RIGHT2ARMS IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. THE OWNER >> TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. >> >> > > S. "Life is always hopelessly complex to those who have no priniciples." -- Joseph Sobran "The most dangerous kind of ignorance is the ignorance of the educated." -- Thomas Sowell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Statement From Chuck Date: 13 May 1997 22:45:38 -0700 > This came from a source inside Soldier of Fortune magazine. > > ========================================================================= > > Dear Colonel Brown, > > Thank you for asking me for a clarification of my comments in an > interview on KGO radio. When I spoke of AK-47 firearms on May 6th, I was > talking about the Soviet military rifle -- a fully automatic, not a > semiautomatic, firearm -- and what I thought was common knowledge. > Namely, that federal law has strictly regulated the private ownership of > such fully automatic firearms for 63 years. > > I didn't favor a cap put on this procedure in 1986 by the United States > Congress because no legally owned fully-automatic firearm had ever been > used in a crime. > > Regrettably, the distinction between classes of firearms is still not > understood thanks to distortions spread by the media and those who'd > destroy the Second Amendment. > > That's why I lobbied against the Clinton gun ban as a private citizen in > 1994, and that is why I'll be honored to continue defending the Second > Amendment as First Vice President of the National Rifle Association. > > > Sincerely, > > ORIGINAL SIGNED > > Charlton Heston Sounds pretty weak to me; basically, it sounds like what it is: the guy got caught voicing his true feelings, and, after coaching by who knows who from NRA headquarters after the Schumer started hitting the fan by the truckload, he's issued a statement that they all hope will make us all go back to sleep. IF I WANT TO OWN A FULLY-AUTOMATIC AK-47 SHIPPED DIRECTLY FROM MOSCOW TO MY FRONT DOOR, THAT'S MY RIGHT! THAT'S WHAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS THERE FOR! And further, anything that says I need to fill out BATF paperwork first is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment and therefore an illegal law. And any background check is contrary to my 2nd Amendment right. And any tax stamp is an infringement on my right to keep and bear arms. No, I don't own any "illegal" weapons, nor do I intend to. But this guy *still* doesn't have a clue what the Bill of Rights is all about, and this public statement is nothing but pablum. PS - By golly, "Col." Brown sure did catch him on dis one, didden he? Sheeesh. Anybody know exactly how long RKB has been working for the other side? You never can tell with a spook... - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Fwd: Press Release - Abortion Bill (fwd) Date: 13 May 1997 23:34:27 PST On May 14, SMBLUEBIRD@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >> --------------------- Forwarded message: Reply-to: corrdept@frc.org This press release was sent out this morning. If you have any questions or comments about this press release or about the Family Research Council, please visit our web site at: http://www.frc.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 13, 1997 CONTACT: Kristi S. Hamrick (202)-393-2100, FOR RADIO: Kristin Hansen FOR SOUNDBITE: Call the FRC Direct Newsline (202)-393-NEWS THE DASCHLE ABORTION BILL: A WOLF, NOT GRANDMA Don't Be Fooled, Senators. Pass the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "As the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act reaches the floor of the Senate, it's important for the senators to keep in mind the overwhelming barbarity of the procedure -- so abhorrent that even pro-choice senators reject it and the medical community has found it completely, medically unnecessary. It is fantasy to suggest that the alternative bill being circulated in piecemeal form by Senator Tom Daschle is actually designed to protect innocent, unborn children. A wolf in grandma's nightgown and glasses is still a wolf. And dressing up the Daschle bill with pro-life rhetoric doesn't make it a true substitute for the PBA ban," said Marty Dannenfelser, head of Family Research Council's government relations shop, on Tuesday. Dannenfelser continued: "The trial balloons Sen. Daschle has floated should not distract from the real issue at hand ... the fact that thousands of unborn children, beginning at the 20th week, are killed in a way so horrid it could not be done to animals. The Daschle idea would not deal with 90 percent of the partial-birth abortions done in America. And his proposal gives abortionists unprecedented power. They would have the full authority to certify that an abortion was needed or that a woman might be 'impaired' by giving birth." Dannenfelser noted that other problems with Daschle's partial birth effort include: * The bill legislates a right to a dead, once-viable baby. Daschle has said that his bill is an attempt to save some children who are viable (could survive outside the womb), but the bill actually authorizes and certifies the deaths of such babies. It's not necessary to kill the viable baby to accomplish the stated goals of helping the woman. In every C-section, a doctor has determined that a woman could be injured by a vaginal birth. Under Daschle's bill, if a woman might be injured or "impaired" by vaginal birth, her child should be killed, not delivered surgically. There are ways to assist both mother and child. * Large parts of the bill are missing in action. Daschle has only floated part of his bill's language to the media. That's no way to legislate. The entire Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act has been discussed and debated for two years. Now, two days before the vote, Daschle wants senators to take what's behind his door number two, rather than dealing with a well understood matter before the Senate. If the senator is serious about his alternative, then it's time to put his cards on the table and show the entire bill. How can the Senate contemplate an alternative no one has seen? Dannenfelser commented, "If the senator really wants to stop some abortions, why not offer his proposal as an addition to the partial-birth ban, rather than an alternative? The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act begins at the 20th week when second-trimester babies are pulled from the womb. Daschle is free to offer his idea as a way to beef up that part of the bill which deals with viable children." Missing parts of Daschle's bill include: How and who decides whether a child is viable or whether the mother could experience "impairment"? Who has the authority to review an abortionist's assertion that a procedure was necessary? What are the penalties for what specific acts or findings? "Daschle's aim clearly seems to be to stop passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act by confusing the issue," Dannenfelser said. "How can the Senate contemplate an alternative that, so far, has been only partially delivered to most legislators? If the senator wants to pursue stricter language after passage of the PBA act, Family Research Council would be happy to endorse hearings to hammer out the best kind of language to meet that goal. However, vague statements about an unseen bill cannot displace the crucial issue before us today -- the passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT THE FRC MEDIA OFFICE. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Fwd: What's_Wrong_with_School_to_Work_? (fwd) Date: 13 May 1997 23:36:28 PST On May 14, SMBLUEBIRD@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] ****Special Alert!**** H.R. 1385 IS CAREERS-LITE=20 The House is expected to bring this bill to the floor sometime in next two weeks. Urgent calls are needed at once!! Call your Representatives and tell them to vote NO on H.R. 1385.=20 Capitol Switchboard 202-225-3121=20 Read about this bill at: http://www.eaglforum.org/alert/97-05-12_HR1385.= html _____________________________________________________________ EDUCATION REPORTER May 1997=20 FOCUS: What=92s Wrong with School-to-Work? The following speech was given at a conference entitled What Goals 2000 Means to the States on February 12 on Capitol Hill. by Robert Holland What=92s Wrong with School-to-Work? That is, succinctly, the question many of us will need to answer for our local, well-meaning chamber-of-commerce folks, educators, journalists, and parents, who believe this federal push is merely about helping young people make a smooth transition into careers=97a benign upgrading of vocational education to 21st Century, Information Age standards. Unfortunately, the School-to-Work system-for it is just that and not merely another program of federal aid-is not about expanding individual career choices or educating students broadly so they can change jobs many times in a lifetime. Let me answer the question "What is Wrong with School-to-Work?" as concisely as I can, and then go back and explain briefly. 1. School-to-Work, which is linked with Goals 2000, injects the federal government deeply and dangerously into shaping the curriculum of American schools. It puts the United States in the camp of regimes that decree what knowledge is "official," and, even more than that, how that knowledge should be taught and for what purpose. 2. School-to-Work locks students into career tracks much too early, chilling opportunity and killing youthful dreams. 3. School-to-Work drastically narrows the curriculum, making it less likely that schools will produce literate, well-rounded generalists who can cope with rapid change in civic life as well as the workforce. School-to-Work is about the servile arts, not the liberal arts. We should remember that the liberal arts derive from the Latin libera, which means freedom. Vocational training can be liberating, too, but not compulsory training to meet state workforce quotas. That is a form of slavery. 4. School-to-Work infringes on the sovereignty of the individual and the family. 5. School-to-Work, as part of a national human resource development system, cuts local school boards and state legislators almost completely out of the decision-making loop. 6. School-to-Work is part of a managed economy and data-collecting network that poses grave dangers to Americans' liberty and privacy. And finally, but not least . . . 7. Judging by the historical record, School-to-Work simply does not work. Throughout their history, Americans have rejected efforts to have the government track their children into jobs satisfying the designs of economic planners. This has been, and remains, the land of boundless opportunity, and everyday folks who are not drunk on the heady brew of government-subsidized think tanks like it that way. Furthermore, history is littered with the remains of regimes-such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany-that sought to create the New Economic Man and shape him to the specifications of the all-powerful state. How about some details to back up those points? Let's look at the illegal encroachment of the federal government, particularly the Labor and Education Departments, into the shaping of school curricula. The language of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, the companion of Goals 2000, both of which were enacted in the spring of 1994, is amazingly blunt; there is nothing subtle about it. Those who would understand School-to-Work would be well-advised to read it carefully. I would hope that would include current members of Congress-we could only hope that they would all become as well-informed on the intricacies of the "seamless web" as is our host today, Chairman Henry Hyde. The section on congressional intent repeatedly refers to "all students" and "all states," making evident its breathtaking sweep. The act stipulates that it is to be a "national framework" within which "all states" are to create School-to-Work systems as part of "comprehensive education reform." All School-to-Work plans are to be "integrated with the systems developed" under Goals 2000, among them the National Skills Standards Board (NSSB), which is hard at work preparing to identify and eventually certify the skills necessary for every type of job in the country, from manure spreader to airline pilot. Recently, the NSSB carved the economy into 16 sectors-communications, manufacturing, retail sales, construction, etc.-and will now prepare skill certificates for all the jobs in those sectors. The influential Education Week reported that these certificates, though initially voluntary, are expected to profoundly influence what is taught in America's schools. That's where School-to-Work comes in. It will teach those skills the government planners say that children-whom they consider to be "human capital"-need to have in the Brave New Millennium. Furthermore, according to official board minutes, NSSB members have said that they envision their skill certification plan eventually becoming compulsory. Despite statutory prohibitions against federal dictation of school curricula, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act declares as a federal purpose "integrating academic and occupational learning," and "integrating school-based and work-based learning." It also calls for "all students" to participate in "high-quality, work-based experiences" (including apprenticeships) during the school day. ALL students, mind you. Now, some students might prize the opportunity to serve as apprentices in local industries. But shouldn't that be optional, not a condition of universal education? And shouldn't such work be done after school, so that precious class time is spent on learning the basics of language, literature, science, mathematics, and our heritage as Americans? In Dresden, Ohio, high school students can use two class periods a day to learn basket weaving on the job at a local manufacturing company. The students receive academic credit. The company gets to sell the baskets for a profit. At Milwaukee's Hamilton High School, students must choose at Grade Eight the "career cluster" they will pursue. Thus, for example, a student in the Health and Human Services Cluster studies such profound subjects as food service, fashion and fabrics, parenthood education, and human diversity-while not being required to take any foreign language. Core subjects like English are integrated into the vocational training. Suppose by the 12th grade the youngster has decided he wishes to be a scientist or doctor. That's awfully late to get the credits needed for admission to a top-quality university. In some majority black and Hispanic districts in California, portions of high schools are being turned into hospitality or food service academies. There is a great potential for School-to-Work to have the most severe impact on minority youngsters, who will be taught that they should not aspire to loftier goals than cleaning tables or toting luggage for the elite. The buzzwords for this pervasive vocationalism are "curriculum integration" (meaning the total merger of academics with vocational training) and "applied learning," which owes much to John Dewey's progressive education doctrine that all instruction should be socially relevant. Influential as he was in the schools of education of the '20s, Dewey could not have dreamed of having the money and power behind him that his latter-day disciples possess. Under a Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act grant from the U.S. Department of Education, the California School Boards Association has prepared a manual intended to bring all local school boards on board with curriculum integration. The manual stresses the "critical role" of local school boards in bringing about this radical change, and it defines "leverage points" to use in bringing others along. So much for local autonomy and variety of approach among the nation's 15,000 school districts. Career counseling, under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, is to begin "at the earliest possible age, but not later than the 7th grade." All students must select a "career major" in secondary school (and in practice, many School-to-Work schools put students in a "career pathway" in middle or even elementary school). Intriguingly, the act specifies that curricula should "incorporate instruction . . . in all aspects of industry, appropriately tied to the career major of a participant." Ohio has one of the most elaborate School-to-Work implementation plans to date. It contemplates inculcating work skills in kindergarten, and requires that all student prepare a Career Plan by the 8th grade. All must finish their secondary education with a Career Passport (more commonly called a Certificate of Initial Mastery), without which they need not apply for a job. The system is geared to industry's "labor market needs" and will train students for jobs in accordance with "the state's workforce development and economic development strategies." Essentially, School-to-Work envisions tracking children not only into a general career field but, when possible, into a specific industry. The law calls for a sequence of study providing students "with strong experience in and understanding of all aspects of the industry the students are planning to enter." This is vocationalism with a vengeance. At a national School-to-Work conference in Orlando last November-a session sponsored by the National Education Association-national School-to-Work officials stated repeatedly that college-bound students should be required to follow this work-specific track as well. "All means all" was the conference mantra. School-to-Work's infringement on the sovereignty of the family will become increasingly apparent as more and more children receive career counseling in elementary and middle schools. As School-to-Work attempts to steer children into slots deemed in the interest of regional labor market and economic development needs, it will become obvious how children are being cheated and deprived of a chance to realize their dreams and achieve their highest potential. Computerized career inventories are being used in early grades to begin guiding children into career tracks. In Las Vegas, young Ashley Jensen, who has a 4.0-plus GPA, dreams of one day going to work for NASA, but her middle-school inventory says that her choices ought to be between sanitation worker and interior decorator. Another Nevada student aspires to be a veterinarian, but was told by her counselor she ought to become a bartender. Her Christian parents understandably felt that their rights had been trampled; they would not want their daughter to become a server of alcoholic drinks. Finally, a disturbing feature of the School-to-Work system is the use of sophisticated technology to sort out and track students. This is happening even without the Labor Market Information System, the national databank that would have been set up by the workforce development legislation that expired with the last Congress (but that may be revived with the current one). At last spring's National Education Summit, which was exclusively for corporate CEOs and governors, IBM showed off electronic portfolios bearing assessments of students' social/workforce skills. Most state School-to-Work implementation plans make heavy use of the SCANS reports, those infamous Labor Department documents that called on schools to keep electronic resumes of students' personal qualities and workforce skills. And at the Summit, governors and CEOs approvingly reviewed the first scannable workforce Smart Cards, which students in some places (like Nevada) already must present when applying for a job. These uses of technology are horrendous invasions of personal privacy. It is hard to believe that all this is happening in free America. In the aftermath of his re-election, our President lectured us in an appearance in Northbrook, Illinois, that we must "no longer hide behind our love of local control of schools." It would be healthier for the nation, however, if he and the First Lady got over their love of socialist prescriptions for such services as education and health care. School-to-Work is going to rob many dreams, not to mention many pocketbooks, before the people finally catch on, rise up, and demand that this hushed takeover of American education be rolled back. Let's hope for the sake of our children that repeal comes sooner, not later. * Mr. Holland is a columnist and Op-Ed Editor for the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Read Phyllis Schlafly's column --=20 WHY THE PUSH FOR FEDERAL CONTROL OF THE CLASSROOM? in your local newspaper -- this column will be posted on the EF web site May 21, 1997 --- Inside the May Education Reporter . . .=20 * Title I Fails to Deliver=20 * E.D. Ready to Begin National Tests=20 * Common Sense Urged over 'Zero Tolerance'=20 * NAEP Targeted for Change=20 * Education Briefs=20 * Hillary Promotes Early Childhood Intervention=20 * Children Will Love Discovering 'Lost Classics'=20 * FOCUS: What=92s Wrong with School-to-Work?=20 found at: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1997/may97/er_may97.html -------------------------- Eagle Forum http://www.eagleforum.org PO Box 618 eagle@eagleforum.org Alton, IL 62002 618-462-5415 --- -------------------------- To subscribe please e-mail us a message with=20 SUBSCRIBE in the subject line [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: There Can Be No Compromise part 2 of 2 (fwd) Date: 14 May 1997 02:15:48 PST On May 14, Emmilene@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] part 2 of 2 Just weeks ago, 39 people took their lives because they believed that their souls would travel on a spaceshop that was following behind a comet. We called them nuts. So what do you call an entire nation that voluntarily surrenders its property, liberty and national identity based on unproven theories and proven lies? The green agenda has invaded every aspect of our society. The implementation of the new driving force of the environmental agenda called "Sustainable Development" involves every agency of the Federal Government, and is seeping into state and local agencies. It affects how our housing is built, what crops to grow, the foods we eat, the medicines we can take and the industries that can and cannot survive. It's in our schools, in the workplace and at our social gatherings. Sustainable Development covers much more than environmentalism. To be truly sustainable, we are told, our society must also consider "social justice" and "equality". Sustainable Development is nothing more than the culmination of the entire agenda first devised in the streets by unwashed revolutionaries. And today we're granting them their agenda - almost voluntarily. You and I have stood in the way. We have argued, using reason and logic. But the task grows more difficult with each passing day. "PEACE IN OUR TIME" Some leaders in our movement have begun to question our own ideals. Some of our strongest leaders in the Republican-led Congress have begun to seek common ground with the other side. We're told that we can't mention environmentalism as a negative - that we need a "new Republican environmental vision" with which to lock arms with our enemies in hopes of finding "peace in our time." You know, there was another time in our history when the forces of freedom doubted its ability to survive. In 1939, Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were taking the world by strorm. A great deal of Europe had already fallen under its power. There were pro-Nazi rallies taking place in Madison Garden in New York City. There were pro-Nazi movements on the march in South America and South Africa. To many of the leaders in the free nations of the world it seemed that Hitler's nightmare was a done deal. That there was no way to stop it. These men were diplomats who made deals based on the fad of the day and on the meandering whims of the public. They knew nothing of the meaning of liberty or of the principal of property. These men thought they could deal with the devil, even though the devil knew that they stood for nothing but the "deal" - that there was no line that couldn't be crossed. And so, when Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of the once-powerful British Empire, derby and black umbrella in hand, flew onto Adolph Hitler's turf to negotiate for mercy, in hopes of getting some sort of deal that would allow the free nations to survive in a world controlled by cold-blooded brutes, Hitler smiled, invited him to sit at his table, and signed such an agreement. As Chamberlain told the cheering crowds that he had "achieved peace in our time" - Hitler was attacking Poland. And Chamberlain let him do it. Because to do otherwise would have cost him his "place at the table". THE SIRENS CALL OF COMPROMISE So today, you and I face a similar crossroads. We see our enemies on all sides. We have experienced few victories. And we also have some leaders among us, in the Congress, in our state houses and even in county and local offices, who say we have no choice but to compromise, find mutual ground, don't rock the boat, above all, appear "reasonable," to "get a place at the table" with the big boys. To continue to fight, they say, will only be divisive against reasonable negotiations. My friends, had Winston Churchill accepted Neville Chamberlain's view of the world, you and I would not be here today, discussing property rights. There would be none. Instead of wringing his hands and crying for mercy, Churchill told his countrymen there will be no more compromise. He said "we shall fight them on the land, on the sea and in the air". He said the enemy would only take his tiny island of England "when all of us lay on the shore, choking on our own blood." He vowed a fight to the finish. His enemy threatened to change his world forever. And so does ours. We are not engaged in a political debate. This is a war. We face a dedicated revolutionary foe who cares not one whit about your wants, needs or rights. Crime is rampant. The core of our cities, once vibrant and alive with men who understood that man's progress was his greatest achievement, are now slipping into silent decay. Vital services are beginning to break down. Crowded roads are breaking up into ruts and potholes. Is this the result of men intrusted with too much freedom? Or is it the result of the looter mentallity of those who loath industry and technology. Our great factories of the Northeast lie in rusting ruins. Is this the result of capitalism run amuck? Or is it the result of modern day Robin Hoods who seek to drain the wealth out of the producer and give it to the sniveling whiners who believe our duty on earth is to give them an unearned living? How can America protect the environment if it is turned into a poor and primitive third world society? Such is the phiolosophy of death. Is this the compromise they seek? Only man's forward motion with the constant emergence of technology, along with the guaranteed protection of property rights, will create the sound, safe, peaceful society we all seek. Turning backwards to the days before Christopher Columbus, as radical environmentalists advocate, is an insanity that should be laughed out of the hall whenever it's uttered. Yet that is the root of the philosophy that some of our most trusted Republican leaders seek to compromise with. NO COMPROMISE FOR TRUTH True science proves that their "chicken little" horror stories are unfounded. True science proves that man is the hero - not the cancer - of the earth. True science proves that man's technology and man's stewardship of privately owned land is the only real environmental protection. Why compromise truth? Why accept a lie? There is no compromise for property, liberty or truth. Not now. Not ever. It's time to face facts. It's time to understand your enemy. It's time to take a firm stand. It's time to go on the offensive - to speak the truth and expose the lies. The truth is the radical environmental movement has declared war on your property, war on your livelihood, war on your families and war on the truth and logic. How will you fight back? By seeking some "common ground"? By using the non-confrontational tactics employed by Republican leaders in Congress who say it's not politically feasible to take on the environmental issues? Voters might not understand, they say. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson trying to hide the fact that his real purpose was liberty? "I know," he could have said, "let's just tell them we don't like tea!" We can only win the hearts and minds of the American people by telling them the truth. The truth is, we started with ownership of the land - they said there is no such thing as private property. We started with the means of production - they have regulated our production almost out of existence. We started with sound stewardship of the range and the forest - they've kicked us off - and the land suffers for it. Competition, technology and private ownership are the foundations of sound environmental protection - and the basis of our very society. Which ones will you give up? Which ones will you compromise away in the name of some undefined "higher good"? As I said in the beginning, this is not a political debate - or a difference of opinion. This war is not something new. It began in the streets of America during a time when some very dedicated radicals, carrying the slogans of Mao and Lenin, sought to change our nation to all that those slogans represented. America rejected it then. You are the freedom fighters who must lead the charge to reject it now. No one else in this nation understands, as you do, the vicious, violent reality of the restructuring these revolutionaries are perpetrating on the nation we all love so much. But you cannot win unless you are willing to face the truth. What truth will you face? That of science, fact and reason. Or the vicious lies of green zealots? We are dangerously close to the day when David Crosby's vision of 1969 comes true - when businessess actually begin to contemplate putting themselves out of business for the "higher good" of saving the environment. Isn't that truly what Exxon, and Weyerhaeuser and McDonalds are doing when they compromise with the Greens - without requiring scientific proof. Aren't their actions actually limiting their markets, and isn't that the first act of voluntarily putting themselves out of business? And on the day when such attitudes become commonplace, it will be the day of the ultimate sanction of the victim. We will have taken the full journey to the "revolution". And when the lights go out in the greatest nation on earth, when the wilderness creeps back in - will you fell enlightned - or just cold, hungrary and betrayed? The time is now - the decision of whether there will be betrayal or truth is yours. Whom do you follow into battle - the Neville Chamberlains, who will sacrifice you to the Hitlers of the world - Or the warriors who fight for truth, reason and liberty? This is still the greatest nation on earth. We are still a long way from losing it. But the forces of freedom must hurry. We must organize and unite for our greatest battles. Together, if we stand vigilant, if we speak the truth, and don't try to hide it in some hidden or politically correct double speak, if we stand by our principles - because they are right - we can, and we will take America back. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: There Can Be No Compromise part 1 of 2 (fwd) Date: 14 May 1997 02:14:57 PST On May 14, Emmilene@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Folks, We are in the midst of a revolution and you don't even know it. At least some of you don't. Our country is on the verge of surrender to forces that have waited many years to realize their agenda. Read on. emmilene part 1 of 2 THERE IS NO COMPROMISE FOR PROPERTY, LIBERTY OR TRUTH The DeWeese Report May 1997 Forward: Americans who believed that the new Republican majority in the U.S. Congress was going to achieve revolutionary change have been disappointed. Those who thought there would at least be an end to the Democrat-style legislation that has been dictating a social revolution in America for the past four decades are shocked as Republicans continue to introduce bill after bill duplicating many of the Democrats' plans. Republicans in the 104th Congress abandoned all hope of rewriting key environmental legislation to ensure protection of private property rights. Speaker Gingrich lead the Republicans in a chaotic retreat at the first sign of Democratic opposition. Property rights be damned. On the matter of federal intrusion of America's classrooms, Republicans again led the charge for more and more massive restructuring, primarily the CAREERS Act. Only recently Republicans announced their intentions to work with President Clinton in his massive new education program as announced in the State of the Union Address. Republicans also have apparently abandoned all intention of abolishing the Department of Education or repealing Goals 2000. Americans are concerned and disappointed. They want to know why they've been left out in the cold by their champions. They want to know the reasons behind this betrayal, and they want to know the root of the massive restructuring that is devastating their nation. Why does it go on unchecked, and why can't we seem to stop it? During a recent speaking tour of Southern California, I spoke out on this issue. Below is the full text of my address before an audience in Burbank where I was the featured speaker at a dinner sponsored by Radio commentator Peter Ford. Address by Thomas A. DeWeese April 27, 1997 Burbank, California I believe that the American people, and their every action, are being ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, inspected, measured, numbered, counted, rated, stamped, censured, authorized, admonished, refused, prevented, drilled, indoctrinated, monopolized, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonored, fleeced, exploited, assessed, and taxed to the point of suffocation and desperation. America is today drowning in a sea of rules and regulation, particularly under the guise of saving the environment. Under the flag of this most popular of causes, our industry is being strangled. Our property rights are being obliterated and innocent victims of these harsh policies litter our courts. Almost anything goes in the name of environmentalism. Many of you have been either the victim of such harsh treatment or have been subjected to the propaganda that sells it to an uninformed public. Many of you have become activists in the cause of American freedom, facing a seemingly unending number of foes - threatening all aspects of our society. To many of us it seems there is no end in sight, perhaps no hope of saving the nation we love so much. And we watch our elected leaders with frustration as they give up one fight after another. My friends, do you know why you are here? Do you know why you've had to give up hours, days, months, even years of your lives, spending precious money you can't afford, enduring stress and heartache, just to defend what used to be understood and guaranteed as your right? Once, as Americans, you held the right to ownership of private property, the ability to engage in commerce, the knowledge that you could follow in your father's footsteps for an honorable lifetime career. Your life has been turned upside down. Why? Some of you have lost your farms and ranches. Some have seen your industries devastated. Some represent other industries hoping yet to avoid disaster. Some are victims of unwarranted regulations. Some are victims of the violence of zealots. Some see an even greater danger rising on the international horizon through the United Nations. You seek help. You seek answers. You seek truth. You seek a way home. So do I. Next year will mark my 30th year in the war against those who say there is no reason, no ability and no absolutes. 30 years in a war against those who say private property and profit are evil. 30 years in a war against those who have no problem ruling, regulating and taxing my efforts in order to fill their own pockets - all in the name of the "public good." What I've learned in that time is the true nature of the beast I oppose. I've learned his tactics and I've learned his purpose. And I know from where he came. I've also learned that there are those who profess to hold my values, who proclaim friendship, but who, when the chips are down, can be easiest found breaking bread at the table of my enemies. Winston Churchill once said, "If you don't look the facts in the face, they have a way of stabbing you in the back." THE ROOTS OF REVOLUTION In the 1960's I stood on college campuses, opposing those who sought to close down classrooms in the name of a "revolution." Those who marched professed themselves to be Marxists, Leninist, Trotskyites, and Maoists. Their revolution, they proclaimed, was to give power to the people over evil industry, to replace money and materialism with charity and benevolence for a "common good." In the name of brotherhood they used violence and deceit, threw bricks into windows, burned down campus buildings, incited riots and spit on soldiers returning from Vietnam. Most American considered these self-proclaimed revolutionaries to be little more than spoiled kids exercising youthful energy and natural rebellion. Their advocacy of communism in the most free of all nations, fell on deaf ears. By the early seventies, though a few had gone underground to form terrorist units like the Weathermen, most were forgotten as they went on with their lives. What does all of this have to do with enviromental policy in the 1990's? What do a bunch of forgotten campus rebels have to do with the livelihoods of ranchers in Nevada or loggers in Oregon, or fishermen in Californina, or international treaties coming out of the UN? My friends, the answers to your pain and suffering can be found from the moment these revolutionaries left their college campuses. I have in my possession a book published in the 1970's. It is a compilation, a scrapbook, if you will, of the writings of the New Left that appeared in the radical underground newspapers produced during the "revolution." It's title is "The Movement Toward a New America, The Beginnings of a Long Revolution." You see, those who drove the revolution of the 60's the true believers, were dedicated to a life long struggle. And what are some of the ravings we find in this document of revolution? You will find the beginnings of modern feminism. You will find attacks on the family structure and marriage. You will find the roots of education restructuring - the beginning of Outcome-based Education and the advocacy of the use of psychological behavior-modification teaching methods, now standard in public education. And you will find the roots of modern environmentalism. In 1969, host Dick Cavett aired his regular network talk show, featuring a number of rock stars, including Crosby, Stills and Nash and Jefferson Airplane. These stars of their day had just returned from performing at the historic Woodstock rock festival. That concert was to go down in history as the defining moment of the "revolution." Here the anti-war movement finally took hold, here the anti-poverty movement became social revolution. Here the drug culture took on an identity. But what was on the minds of these rockers, just after such a monumental event? Toward the end of the program, Cavett asked his guests if any of them would like to say something that they never had the opportunity to say on TV before. Immediately, David Crosby leaped at the chance, and said, "we all know the air around us is filthy. But the only way to change that is to convince Ford, GM, Chrylser and Shell to go out of business." Did you think that enviromentalism was something that cropped up only in the last decade or so? FROM REVOLUTION TO "PUBLIC SERVICE" The first to see the opportunities of using invironmentalism to promote otherwise descredited Marxist/Leninist philosophy, were some anti-nuke activists who changed their name to Greenpeace. The "Green" represented the new propaganda direction, the "Peace" kept the faith with the old. As for the rest of the street gangs, they went to work. But while you and I found jobs in the private sector, or followed in our parents footsteps or started our own businesses, the revolutionaries went into "public service." They joined the offices of public defenders, staffed government social service offices, and worked in congressional local political offices, using their position to create subtle changes in legislation and policy. Some went to work for charitable foundations like Ford, Rockefeller and Pew, thereby gaining access to the purse strings and how the money would be spent. They hired on to respected and trusted institutions like the Smithsonian Institute, National Geographic, even the Cancer Society and the Lung Association. Of course they went into the news media and entertainment fields, and some ran for public office. All of these positions filled a specific purpose, - to influence public policy and attitudes.. There were also those who went to work for multinational corporations, facing accusations, at the time, of "selling out." But now, its been over 25 years. The young -turk revolutionaires have turned gray, balding and plump. And by now, most of our government agencies, social services, news media, entertainment centers, institutions, charitable agencies, colleges, and multinational corporations are run by those who once marched in the street and pledged to lead a "long revolution toward a new America." Are you now surprised that our nation is going through a massive restructuring? Are you surprised that our schools no longer teach the ideals of what was once a capitalist society? Are you surprised that American history is being changed and patriotism is considered a relic of the past? The truth you must now face is that the rules and regulations that so unreasonably have forced Americans out of their homes and jobs - have absolutely nothing to do with saving the environment - and everything to do with those slogans that were chanted in the nations streets in the 1960's. You have become the victims of a revolution to turn American society upside down. THE SANCTION OF THE VICTIM First and foremost is the drive to destroy the concept of private property. You see, those who seek to rule and regulate your every action know that, without the right to own and control property, there can be no peace or security - no rule of law. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. How do you break down a society? You eliminate property rights. Why is crime rampant? Because, first, government sanctioned the right to take property from individuals, through rules and regulations, and through lawsuits and public opinion. Once the concept was established, it was easy for the third rate thugs on every street corner to follow suit. But one doesn't take the greatest industrial society on earth and turn it into a collectivist gulag overnight. For peaceful revolution to succeed, the perpetrators first need the "sanction of the victim." They need you to voluntarily give up your property, your wealth and your liberty. Open adherence to the ideals of Marxism-Leninism didn't do it. They needed something else. The threat of danger is a good tool. The greater the threat, the less the objection to giving up libertys. World-wide environmental Armageddon became the plan of choice. And so it began. Faced with the threat of Global Warming that would melt the polar ice caps and flood the world, we victims voluntarily gave up vital technological development that would have saved us labor and increased the quality of life. Industry accepted regulations that forced it to spend millions to create "unnecessary" technology. Face with the unfounded charge that uncounted and unknown species were supposedly vanishing, the alarmed public supported regulations that shut down timber and mining. Ozone holes, acid rain, dolphin-safe fishing became the mantra, driven by a hysteria plotted at the level of twelve-year-old girls in a pet shop pleading with th shop owner to "let the poor little animals out!" As the propaganda mill poured out one unsubstantiated horror story after another, science was bastardized to fit the political agenda. Reason and truth weren't necessary. So successful has the campaign been to replace reason and knowledge with blind emotion and Pavlovian adherence to envriomental propaganda the we victims voluntarily accept the premise that: It's OK for a beaver to build a dam - but not for man. It's OK for a bear to hunt, but not for a man. It's OK for a lion to eat meat, but nor for man. And now the hysteria over unsubstantiated environmental disaster has grown so strong that the stage has been set for international forces to step in via the UN. Sovereign nations, they say, can't be trusted to take care of these problems on their own. And so it goes. The hysteria created by bogus science, has been sold to a once proud nation - using all of the outlets manned by those old revolutionaries of the 60's. The media pounds out the message that man is a cancer on the earth. The schools fail to tell children that trees can actually be replanted like a corn crop. The Smithsonian Institute carries an exhibit on the ravages of global warming. The Cancer Society leads the fight to ban the right of smoking. (America will ban smoking in this country in the next few years, That is only a trial run which will eventually see the banning of cars and the banning of private property.) All of it is the propaganda necessary to gain the sanction of the victims. All is designed to get you to question your own selfishness and arrogance for thinking you could grow crops, or harvest trees for profit or that you had a right to put fences around property that you bought and paid for. continued: [------------------------- 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: "Larry BAll" Subject: Re: (fwd) This just in, Heston's clarification on AK-47 Date: 14 May 1997 07:00:19 -0500 Frankly, folks, I am sick to death of the Spin Doctor approach to politics. Have we become a nation of Non Vertebrate Gelatinous Globs? It seems none of us know how to hold each other accountable for the truth anymore, nor do any of us wish to stand for the truth. We have a lying President and Her husband, we have a lying Congress, and now we have a lying NRA Gang Of Three and a bunch of Bhudda Belly Kissers willing to accept their lie so that we can have an ignorant Celebrity get us some sound bites on TV! Where will it end? Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: Schuetzen > To: ADVISORY.LIST@insync.net; snetnews@world.std.com; .@insync.net; FIREARMS@LISTSERV.UTA.EDU > Subject: (fwd) This just in, Heston's clarification on AK-47 > Date: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 0:14 AM > > Posted to texas-gun-owners by chasm@insync.net (Schuetzen) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > X-No-Archive: Yes > > On 13 May 1997 23:11:51 -0400, in rec.guns Richard.Estevez@pss.boeing.com > wrote: > > FYI: Heston's clarification on his AK-47 statements. > > > > Posted by rambo on May 13, 1997 at 15:36:03: > > This came from a source inside Soldier of Fortune magazine. > > rambo > ========================================================================= > > #Dear Colonel Brown, > # > #Thank you for asking me for a clarification of my comments in an > #interview on KGO radio. When I spoke of AK-47 firearms on May 6th, I was > #talking about the Soviet military rifle -- a fully automatic, not a > #semiautomatic, firearm -- and what I thought was common knowledge. > #Namely, that federal law has striclty regulated the private ownership of > #such fully automatic firearms for 63 years. > # > #I didn't favor a cap put on this procedure in 1986 by the United States > #Congress because no legally owned fully-automatic firearm had ever been > #used in a crime. > # > #Regrettably, the distinction between classes of firearms is still not > #understood thanks to distortions spread by the media and those who'd > #destroy the Second Amendment. > # > #That's why I lobbied against the Clinton gun ban as a private citizen in > #1994, and that is why I'll be honored to continue defending the Second > #Amendment as First Vice President of the National Rifle Association. > # > # > #Sincerely, > # > #ORIGINAL SIGNED > # > #Charlton Heston > # > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Charles L Hamilton, (chasm@insync.net) Life - NRA, TSRA, NMLRA, TMLRA > http://www.tsra.com > Join Texas State Rifle Association. - $15/year > 1131 Rockingham, Suite 101, Richardson, TX 75080 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > 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: C-NEWS: House Republicans move to close Energy Dept. (fwd) Date: 14 May 1997 07:27:29 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Return-Path: >Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 00:37:56 -0400 (EDT) >From: Steven Ertelt >To: Steven Ertelt >Subject: C-NEWS: House Republicans move to close Energy Dept. >Sender: c-news-approval@world.std.com >Reply-To: Steven Ertelt >X-Archives: > > >House Republicans push bill to close Energy Dept > > WASHINGTON (Reuter) - House Republicans Thursday introduced >legislation to eliminate the Energy Department and farm out some of its >programs to other agencies. > Reps. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas and Ed Royce of California >proposed the bill which they said would save about $5 billion a year and >would abolish an unnecessary bureaucracy. > ``The Department of Energy has outlived its purpose. It was >founded in 1976 on a dubious idea -- that this country needed a national >energy policy coordinated by Washington bureaucrats -- and his since grown >into a multi-billion dollar bureaucracy with numerous missions and >questionable priorities,'' Royce said at a news conference. > The bill, which would transfer the Energy Department's nuclear >weapons program to the Defense Department, is a companion to one >introduced earlier in the Senate by Minnesota Republican Rod Grams. > The bill would transfer other Energy Department functions to >the Interior Department and the Army Corp of Engineers. > Similar legislation died last year because of stiff opposition >from the White House. > Critics contend the legislation would merely shuffle expenses >around instead of producing actual savings, and argue that nuclear weapons >programs should be under a civilian agency instead of the Defense >Department. > Tiahrt and Grams, who also spoke at the news conference, said >they thought the legislation had a better chance this year because the >balanced budget deal will force Congress and the White House to look for >spending cuts. > Grams said he hoped to move the bill through the Senate Energy >Committee this month, and to the Senate floor in June or July. > Tiarht said he hoped for House committee hearings on his bill >this summer. > > Please contact your member of Congress and urge support for this >effort. >------- >To subscribe to c-news, send the message SUBSCRIBE C-NEWS, or the message >UNSUBSCRIBE C-NEWS to unsubscribe, to majordomo@world.std.com. Contact >owner-c-news@world.std.com if you have questions. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Congressman asks Starr to give House impeachment evidence (fwd) Date: 14 May 1997 07:45:02 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Congressman asks Starr to give House impeachment evidence May 13, 1997 3.32 p.m. EDT (1932 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Republican congressman has asked Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to provide the House Judiciary Committee with any evidence he has that might be grounds for impeachment of President Clinton. Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, a member of the committee, made the request in a letter following Starr's disclosure in court papers that he is investigating what he termed widespread evidence of possible obstruction of his Whitewater probe. Barr told Starr the independent counsel law requires that he provide the committee with any "substantial and credible information'' he uncovers that may constitute grounds for impeachment. In March, Barr asked Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the committee, to consider opening an impeachment inquiry of Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Hyde said he thought it premature. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: GOA on S.10-S.3 Sen Hatch-Lott (fwd) Date: 14 May 1997 08:10:38 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- This information is provided by GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA and represents only a partial analysis for each bill. For more details contact: 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, Va 22151 703-321-8408 / fax: 703-321-8408 / http://www.gunowners.org Special Legislative Fact Sheet Analysis of S.10 Sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, et al. Suing the Second Amendment out of existence Section 206 of S. 10 -- clearly, the worst provision in the bill--would apply the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) to gun dealers. In fact, this provision would apply RICO to ALL Title 18 firearms offenses, including simple paperwork violations. This means that a gun dealer, manufacturer, or owner can be treated like a Mafia hit man, and thus be sent to prison for up to 20 years for two record-keeping mistakes. Moreover, the dealer's business can be forfeited--along with his home, car and any other possessions he used in connection with his gun business. (The exact same provision exists in Section 1146 of S. 3.) Further, this provision would allow organizations like Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI to bring cases in federal court for "injured parties" (such as Bill Cosby or any other family that has suffered from a firearms-related injury) and sue the manufacturer or the dealer that sold the gun. If successful, HCI--or its "prearranged plaintiff"-- would recover three times the actual, plus attorney's fees in each suit. HCI would only need to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the manufacturer, dealer, or importer had committed more than one record-keeping violation, and that it supposedly led to the victim's injury. BATF enhancement provision Section 203 would invoke RICO-like sanctions against "gang" members, using the mere illegal possession of a firearm as a predicated offense for being labeled an unlawful "gang" for purposes of federal law. If a group of teenagers form a gun club to participate in hunting, fishing, and target shooting--and their possession of a firearm violates federal or state law--they will be treated like Mafia figures under federal law. If the states have the primary authority for law enforcement, then the punishment of crimes (including suspected "gang" members) is a power that is best left to the states and not to the federal government. To federalize this issue will only give federal agencies more power and authority to conduct Waco-style operations. BATF entrapment provision Section 207 would impose a three-year mandatory minimum snetnece for transferring a firearm to a juvenile, "knowing" that the firearm will be used in a crime of violence. (The term "knowing" has been interpreted by the courts to include some forms of "recklessness.") To be charged for recklessness means that a gun dealer (or any seller of a gun) does not have to have objective knowledge that what he is doing is wrong. This, of course, allows the BATF to entrap gun dealers with informants and to prosecute those who had no criminal intent. Thus, this provision demonizes firearms by imposing a mandatory minimum on the seller of a gun who really may not have known that the gun would be used in a crime. Contrast this to the more violent crimes of robbery, burglary, rape and many forms of homicide, etc., which have no mandatory minimum at the federal level. In fact, the prison sentence for homicide in federal law can often net the offender only five-to-six years. Therefore, this provision mandates that someone who engages in a fairly minor offense be incarcerated for over half the time that a murderer is normally incarcerated. ====================================================== ====================================================== Analysis of S. 3 Sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, et al. "Green light" for gun sweeps Title II will allow goods seized from otherwise illegal searches to be included in trial if the officers can show an "objectively reasonable belief" that they were acting in good faith. Hence, if the police conducted an illegal search of your home in the mistaken but "good faith" belief that you were a drug dealer, they could charge you for an unregistered gun found in your home. Under current law, that gun would not be allowed as evidence in court. This provision, which is similar to H.R. 666 from the last Congress, could easily lead to the harassment of honest gun owners by removing the incentives for officers to get a warrant. As stated by former Rep. Harold Volkmer (D-MO), police will "not have to go to the magistrate and get a warrant for anything" if such a provision were to pass. "They [can] just go right in there and bust those doors down and go in and take the guns." Demonizing firearms possession Section 521 expands federal mandatory minimum sentences to persons who "possess" a gun during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. Currently, the person must actually be carrying the firearm. The problem is that the definition of "crime of violence" includes crimes as minor as a threat against property. Hence, if you are involved in a traffic screaming altercation--and you have a gun in the glove compartment--you could be sent away to prison for mandatory minimum prison sentence of five, ten or even twenty years. This provision would seem to impose special prison sentences for the fact that an offender is merely a gun owner. For example, no extra penalties would apply to a person in the above situation who merely "possessed" a knife or nun-chahka in the glove compartment while engaging in the screaming altercation. Section 522 creates a 10-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for possession of a firearm by a person who is prohibited from possessing it by virtue of conviction of a crime of violence. This is true no matter how long ago the crime of violence occurred. Hence, if you plea bargained a $25 fine 50 years ago with respect to a "damage of property" crime carrying a potential prison sentence of over one year in prison, and you come into possession of a firearm, you WILL be sent away to prison for a MINIMUM OF 10 YEARS. This should be contrasted with the fact that, in most cases, there is no mandatory minimum sentence for homicide and for the "crimes of violence" that serve as the predicate for this offense. Punishing thought crimes Section 804, one of the more dangerous in the bill, would create across-the-board criminal liabililty for conspiracy to commit any firearms offense, punishable at the same level as the crime you conspired to commit. Assume you are a gun dealer, and a customer who is a battered spouse being stalked by her husband asks you to sell her a handgun without complying with the Brady Bill waiting period. You initially agree, but, walking into the back room to obtain the paperwork you change your mind and refuse to sell the gun. You will be punished with same severity as if you had actually sold the gun. ********************************************************** ROBERT'S E-MAIL IN SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI. Use BCC: addressing on e-mail to me & Thanks. Remove headers & footers on repost & Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: There is no Compromise for property, liberty or truth (fwd) Date: 14 May 1997 10:00:32 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- THERE IS NO COMPROMISE FOR PROPERTY, LIBERTY OR TRUTH The DeWeese Report May 1997 Forward: Americans who believed that the new Republican majority in the U.S. Congress was going to achieve revolutionary change have been disappointed. Those who thought there would at least be an end to the Democrat-style legislation that has been dictating a social revolution in America for the past four decades are shocked as Republicans continue to introduce bill after bill duplicating many of the Democrats' plans. Republicans in the 104th Congress abandoned all hope of rewriting key environmental legislation to ensure protection of private property rights. Speaker Gingrich lead the Republicans in a chaotic retreat at the first sign of Democratic opposition. Property rights be damned. On the matter of federal intrusion of America's classrooms, Republicans again led the charge for more and more massive restructuring, primarily the CAREERS Act. Only recently Republicans announced their intentions to work with President Clinton in his massive new education program as announced in the State of the Union Address. Republicans also have apparently abandoned all intention of abolishing the Department of Education or repealing Goals 2000. Americans are concerned and disappointed. They want to know why they've been left out in the cold by their champions. They want to know the reasons behind this betrayal, and they want to know the root of the massive restructuring that is devastating their nation. Why does it go on unchecked, and why can't we seem to stop it? During a recent speaking tour of Southern California, I spoke out on this issue. Below is the full text of my address before an audience in Burbank where I was the featured speaker at a dinner sponsored by Radio commentator Peter Ford. Address by Thomas A. DeWeese April 27, 1997 Burbank, California I believe that the American people, and their every action, are being ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, inspected, measured, numbered, counted, rated, stamped, censured, authorized, admonished, refused, prevented, drilled, indoctrinated, monopolized, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonored, fleeced, exploited, assessed, and taxed to the point of suffocation and desperation. America is today drowning in a sea of rules and regulation, particularly under the guise of saving the environment. Under the flag of this most popular of causes, our industry is being strangled. Our property rights are being obliterated and innocent victims of these harsh policies litter our courts. Almost anything goes in the name of environmentalism. Many of you have been either the victim of such harsh treatment or have been subjected to the propaganda that sells it to an uninformed public. Many of you have become activists in the cause of American freedom, facing a seemingly unending number of foes - threatening all aspects of our society. To many of us it seems there is no end in sight, perhaps no hope of saving the nation we love so much. And we watch our elected leaders with frustration as they give up one fight after another. My friends, do you know why you are here? Do you know why you've had to give up hours, days, months, even years of your lives, spending precious money you can't afford, enduring stress and heartache, just to defend what used to be understood and guaranteed as your right? Once, as Americans, you held the right to ownership of private property, the ability to engage in commerce, the knowledge that you could follow in your father's footsteps for an honorable lifetime career. Your life has been turned upside down. Why? Some of you have lost your farms and ranches. Some have seen your industries devastated. Some represent other industries hoping yet to avoid disaster. Some are victims of unwarranted regulations. Some are victims of the violence of zealots. Some see an even greater danger rising on the international horizon through the United Nations. You seek help. You seek answers. You seek truth. You seek a way home. So do I. Next year will mark my 30th year in the war against those who say there is no reason, no ability and no absolutes. 30 years in a war against those who say private property and profit are evil. 30 years in a war against those who have no problem ruling, regulating and taxing my efforts in order to fill their own pockets - all in the name of the "public good." What I've learned in that time is the true nature of the beast I oppose. I've learned his tactics and I've learned his purpose. And I know from where he came. I've also learned that there are those who profess to hold my values, who proclaim friendship, but who, when the chips are down, can be easiest found breaking bread at the table of my enemies. Winston Churchill once said, "If you don't look the facts in the face, they have a way of stabbing you in the back." THE ROOTS OF REVOLUTION In the 1960's I stood on college campuses, opposing those who sought to close down classrooms in the name of a "revolution." Those who marched professed themselves to be Marxists, Leninist, Trotskyites, and Maoists. Their revolution, they proclaimed, was to give power to the people over evil industry, to replace money and materialism with charity and benevolence for a "common good." In the name of brotherhood they used violence and deceit, threw bricks into windows, burned down campus buildings, incited riots and spit on soldiers returning from Vietnam. Most American considered these self-proclaimed revolutionaries to be little more than spoiled kids exercising youthful energy and natural rebellion. Their advocacy of communism in the most free of all nations, fell on deaf ears. By the early seventies, though a few had gone underground to form terrorist units like the Weathermen, most were forgotten as they went on with their lives. What does all of this have to do with enviromental policy in the 1990's? What do a bunch of forgotten campus rebels have to do with the livelihoods of ranchers in Nevada or loggers in Oregon, or fishermen in Californina, or international treaties coming out of the UN? My friends, the answers to your pain and suffering can be found from the moment these revolutionaries left their college campuses. I have in my possession a book published in the 1970's. It is a compilation, a scrapbook, if you will, of the writings of the New Left that appeared in the radical underground newspapers produced during the "revolution." It's title is "The Movement Toward a New America, The Beginnings of a Long Revolution." You see, those who drove the revolution of the 60's the true believers, were dedicated to a life long struggle. And what are some of the ravings we find in this document of revolution? You will find the beginnings of modern feminism. You will find attacks on the family structure and marriage. You will find the roots of education restructuring - the beginning of Outcome-based Education and the advocacy of the use of psychological behavior-modification teaching methods, now standard in public education. And you will find the roots of modern environmentalism. In 1969, host Dick Cavett aired his regular network talk show, featuring a number of rock stars, including Crosby, Stills and Nash and Jefferson Airplane. These stars of their day had just returned from performing at the historic Woodstock rock festival. That concert was to go down in history as the defining moment of the "revolution." Here the anti-war movement finally took hold, here the anti-poverty movement became social revolution. Here the drug culture took on an identity. But what was on the minds of these rockers, just after such a monumental event? Toward the end of the program, Cavett asked his guests if any of them would like to say something that they never had the opportunity to say on TV before. Immediately, David Crosby leaped at the chance, and said, "we all know the air around us is filthy. But the only way to change that is to convince Ford, GM, Chrylser and Shell to go out of business." Did you think that enviromentalism was something that cropped up only in the last decade or so? FROM REVOLUTION TO "PUBLIC SERVICE" The first to see the opportunities of using invironmentalism to promote otherwise descredited Marxist/Leninist philosophy, were some anti-nuke activists who changed their name to Greenpeace. The "Green" represented the new propaganda direction, the "Peace" kept the faith with the old. As for the rest of the street gangs, they went to work. But while you and I found jobs in the private sector, or followed in our parents footsteps or started our own businesses, the revolutionaries went into "public service." They joined the offices of public defenders, staffed government social service offices, and worked in congressional local political offices, using their position to create subtle changes in legislation and policy. Some went to work for charitable foundations like Ford, Rockefeller and Pew, thereby gaining access to the purse strings and how the money would be spent. They hired on to respected and trusted institutions like the Smithsonian Institute, National Geographic, even the Cancer Society and the Lung Association. Of course they went into the news media and entertainment fields, and some ran for public office. All of these positions filled a specific purpose, - to influence public policy and attitudes.. There were also those who went to work for multinational corporations, facing accusations, at the time, of "selling out." But now, its been over 25 years. The young -turk revolutionaires have turned gray, balding and plump. And by now, most of our government agencies, social services, news media, entertainment centers, institutions, charitable agencies, colleges, and multinational corporations are run by those who once marched in the street and pledged to lead a "long revolution toward a new America." Are you now surprised that our nation is going through a massive restructuring? Are you surprised that our schools no longer teach the ideals of what was once a capitalist society? Are you surprised that American history is being changed and patriotism is considered a relic of the past? The truth you must now face is that the rules and regulations that so unreasonably have forced Americans out of their homes and jobs - have absolutely nothing to do with saving the environment - and everything to do with those slogans that were chanted in the nations streets in the 1960's. You have become the victims of a revolution to turn American society upside down. THE SANCTION OF THE VICTIM First and foremost is the drive to destroy the concept of private property. You see, those who seek to rule and regulate your every action know that, without the right to own and control property, there can be no peace or security - no rule of law. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. How do you break down a society? You eliminate property rights. Why is crime rampant? Because, first, government sanctioned the right to take property from individuals, through rules and regulations, and through lawsuits and public opinion. Once the concept was established, it was easy for the third rate thugs on every street corner to follow suit. But one doesn't take the greatest industrial society on earth and turn it into a collectivist gulag overnight. For peaceful revolution to succeed, the perpetrators first need the "sanction of the victim." They need you to voluntarily give up your property, your wealth and your liberty. Open adherence to the ideals of Marxism-Leninism didn't do it. They needed something else. The threat of danger is a good tool. The greater the threat, the less the objection to giving up libertys. World-wide environmental Armageddon became the plan of choice. And so it began. Faced with the threat of Global Warming that would melt the polar ice caps and flood the world, we victims voluntarily gave up vital technological development that would have saved us labor and increased the quality of life. Industry accepted regulations that forced it to spend millions to create "unnecessary" technology. Face with the unfounded charge that uncounted and unknown species were supposedly vanishing, the alarmed public supported regulations that shut down timber and mining. Ozone holes, acid rain, dolphin-safe fishing became the mantra, driven by a hysteria plotted at the level of twelve-year-old girls in a pet shop pleading with th shop owner to "let the poor little animals out!" As the propaganda mill poured out one unsubstantiated horror story after another, science was bastardized to fit the political agenda. Reason and truth weren't necessary. So successful has the campaign been to replace reason and knowledge with blind emotion and Pavlovian adherence to envriomental propaganda the we victims voluntarily accept the premise that: It's OK for a beaver to build a dam - but not for man. It's OK for a bear to hunt, but not for a man. It's OK for a lion to eat meat, but nor for man. And now the hysteria over unsubstantiated environmental disaster has grown so strong that the stage has been set for international forces to step in via the UN. Sovereign nations, they say, can't be trusted to take care of these problems on their own. And so it goes. The hysteria created by bogus science, has been sold to a once proud nation - using all of the outlets manned by those old revolutionaries of the 60's. The media pounds out the message that man is a cancer on the earth. The schools fail to tell children that trees can actually be replanted like a corn crop. The Smithsonian Institute carries an exhibit on the ravages of global warming. The Cancer Society leads the fight to ban the right of smoking. (America will ban smoking in this country in the next few years, That is only a trial run which will eventually see the banning of cars and the banning of private property.) All of it is the propaganda necessary to gain the sanction of the victims. All is designed to get you to question your own selfishness and arrogance for thinking you could grow crops, or harvest trees for profit or that you had a right to put fences around property that you bought and paid for. continued: We started with sound stewardship of the range and the forest - they've kicked us off - and the land suffers for it. Competition, technology and private ownership are the foundations of sound environmental protection - and the basis of our very society. Which ones will you give up? Which ones will you compromise away in the name of some undefined "higher good"? As I said in the beginning, this is not a political debate - or a difference of opinion. This war is not something new. It began in the streets of America during a time when some very dedicated radicals, carrying the slogans of Mao and Lenin, sought to change our nation to all that those slogans represented. America rejected it then. You are the freedom fighters who must lead the charge to reject it now. No one else in this nation understands, as you do, the vicious, violent reality of the restructuring these revolutionaries are perpetrating on the nation we all love so much. But you cannot win unless you are willing to face the truth. What truth will you face? That of science, fact and reason. Or the vicious lies of green zealots? We are dangerously close to the day when David Crosby's vision of 1969 comes true - when businessess actually begin to contemplate putting themselves out of business for the "higher good" of saving the environment. Isn't that truly what Exxon, and Weyerhaeuser and McDonalds are doing when they compromise with the Greens - without requiring scientific proof. Aren't their actions actually limiting their markets, and isn't that the first act of voluntarily putting themselves out of business? And on the day when such attitudes become commonplace, it will be the day of the ultimate sanction of the victim. We will have taken the full journey to the "revolution". And when the lights go out in the greatest nation on earth, when the wilderness creeps back in - will you fell enlightned - or just cold, hungrary and betrayed? The time is now - the decision of whether there will be betrayal or truth is yours. Whom do you follow into battle - the Neville Chamberlains, who will sacrifice you to the Hitlers of the world - Or the warriors who fight for truth, reason and liberty? This is still the greatest nation on earth. We are still a long way from losing it. But the forces of freedom must hurry. We must organize and unite for our greatest battles. Together, if we stand vigilant, if we speak the truth, and don't try to hide it in some hidden or politically correct double speak, if we stand by our principles - because they are right - we can, and we will take America back. Message-ID: <970514013614_-1399451790@emout12.mail.aol.com> part 2 of 2 Just weeks ago, 39 people took their lives because they believed that their souls would travel on a spaceshop that was following behind a comet. We called them nuts. So what do you call an entire nation that voluntarily surrenders its property, liberty and national identity based on unproven theories and proven lies? The green agenda has invaded every aspect of our society. The implementation of the new driving force of the environmental agenda called "Sustainable Development" involves every agency of the Federal Government, and is seeping into state and local agencies. It affects how our housing is built, what crops to grow, the foods we eat, the medicines we can take and the industries that can and cannot survive. It's in our schools, in the workplace and at our social gatherings. Sustainable Development covers much more than environmentalism. To be truly sustainable, we are told, our society must also consider "social justice" and "equality". Sustainable Development is nothing more than the culmination of the entire agenda first devised in the streets by unwashed revolutionaries. And today we're granting them their agenda - almost voluntarily. You and I have stood in the way. We have argued, using reason and logic. But the task grows more difficult with each passing day. "PEACE IN OUR TIME" Some leaders in our movement have begun to question our own ideals. Some of our strongest leaders in the Republican-led Congress have begun to seek common ground with the other side. We're told that we can't mention environmentalism as a negative - that we need a "new Republican environmental vision" with which to lock arms with our enemies in hopes of finding "peace in our time." You know, there was another time in our history when the forces of freedom doubted its ability to survive. In 1939, Adolph Hitler and his Nazis were taking the world by strorm. A great deal of Europe had already fallen under its power. There were pro-Nazi rallies taking place in Madison Garden in New York City. There were pro-Nazi movements on the march in South America and South Africa. To many of the leaders in the free nations of the world it seemed that Hitler's nightmare was a done deal. That there was no way to stop it. These men were diplomats who made deals based on the fad of the day and on the meandering whims of the public. They knew nothing of the meaning of liberty or of the principal of property. These men thought they could deal with the devil, even though the devil knew that they stood for nothing but the "deal" - that there was no line that couldn't be crossed. And so, when Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of the once-powerful British Empire, derby and black umbrella in hand, flew onto Adolph Hitler's turf to negotiate for mercy, in hopes of getting some sort of deal that would allow the free nations to survive in a world controlled by cold-blooded brutes, Hitler smiled, invited him to sit at his table, and signed such an agreement. As Chamberlain told the cheering crowds that he had "achieved peace in our time" - Hitler was attacking Poland. And Chamberlain let him do it. Because to do otherwise would have cost him his "place at the table". THE SIRENS CALL OF COMPROMISE So today, you and I face a similar crossroads. We see our enemies on all sides. We have experienced few victories. And we also have some leaders among us, in the Congress, in our state houses and even in county and local offices, who say we have no choice but to compromise, find mutual ground, don't rock the boat, above all, appear "reasonable," to "get a place at the table" with the big boys. To continue to fight, they say, will only be divisive against reasonable negotiations. My friends, had Winston Churchill accepted Neville Chamberlain's view of the world, you and I would not be here today, discussing property rights. There would be none. Instead of wringing his hands and crying for mercy, Churchill told his countrymen there will be no more compromise. He said "we shall fight them on the land, on the sea and in the air". He said the enemy would only take his tiny island of England "when all of us lay on the shore, choking on our own blood." He vowed a fight to the finish. His enemy threatened to change his world forever. And so does ours. We are not engaged in a political debate. This is a war. We face a dedicated revolutionary foe who cares not one whit about your wants, needs or rights. Crime is rampant. The core of our cities, once vibrant and alive with men who understood that man's progress was his greatest achievement, are now slipping into silent decay. Vital services are beginning to break down. Crowded roads are breaking up into ruts and potholes. Is this the result of men intrusted with too much freedom? Or is it the result of the looter mentallity of those who loath industry and technology. Our great factories of the Northeast lie in rusting ruins. Is this the result of capitalism run amuck? Or is it the result of modern day Robin Hoods who seek to drain the wealth out of the producer and give it to the sniveling whiners who believe our duty on earth is to give them an unearned living? How can America protect the environment if it is turned into a poor and primitive third world society? Such is the phiolosophy of death. Is this the compromise they seek? Only man's forward motion with the constant emergence of technology, along with the guaranteed protection of property rights, will create the sound, safe, peaceful society we all seek. Turning backwards to the days before Christopher Columbus, as radical environmentalists advocate, is an insanity that should be laughed out of the hall whenever it's uttered. Yet that is the root of the philosophy that some of our most trusted Republican leaders seek to compromise with. NO COMPROMISE FOR TRUTH True science proves that their "chicken little" horror stories are unfounded. True science proves that man is the hero - not the cancer - of the earth. True science proves that man's technology and man's stewardship of privately owned land is the only real environmental protection. Why compromise truth? Why accept a lie? There is no compromise for property, liberty or truth. Not now. Not ever. It's time to face facts. It's time to understand your enemy. It's time to take a firm stand. It's time to go on the offensive - to speak the truth and expose the lies. The truth is the radical environmental movement has declared war on your property, war on your livelihood, war on your families and war on the truth and logic. How will you fight back? By seeking some "common ground"? By using the non-confrontational tactics employed by Republican leaders in Congress who say it's not politically feasible to take on the environmental issues? Voters might not understand, they say. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson trying to hide the fact that his real purpose was liberty? "I know," he could have said, "let's just tell them we don't like tea!" We can only win the hearts and minds of the American people by telling them the truth. The truth is, we started with ownership of the land - they said there is no such thing as private property. We started with the means of production - they have regulated our production almost out of existence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Cloyes Subject: Re: There Can Be No Compromise part 2 of 2 (fwd) Date: 14 May 1997 12:34:04 -0400 At 02:15 AM 5/14/97 PST, you wrote: >On May 14, Emmilene@aol.com wrote: > snip > > And so, when Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of the once-powerful >British Empire, derby and black umbrella in hand, flew onto Adolph Hitler's >turf to negotiate for mercy, in hopes of getting some sort of deal that would >allow the free nations to survive in a world controlled by cold-blooded >brutes, Hitler smiled, invited him to sit at his table, and signed such an >agreement. > > As Chamberlain told the cheering crowds that he had "achieved peace in our >time" - Hitler was attacking Poland. And Chamberlain let him do it. > Because to do otherwise would have cost him his "place at the table". > > THE SIRENS CALL OF COMPROMISE > > So today, you and I face a similar crossroads. We see our enemies on all >sides. We have experienced few victories. > > And we also have some leaders among us, in the Congress, in our state >houses and even in county and local offices, who say we have no choice but to >compromise, find mutual ground, don't rock the boat, above all, appear >"reasonable," to "get a place at the table" with the big boys. To continue to >fight, they say, will only be divisive against reasonable negotiations. > Sound familiar? hint-NRA > My friends, had Winston Churchill accepted Neville Chamberlain's view of >the world, you and I would not be here today, discussing property rights. > There would be none. > > Instead of wringing his hands and crying for mercy, Churchill told his >countrymen there will be no more compromise. He said "we shall fight them on >the land, on the sea and in the air". He said the enemy would only take his >tiny island of England "when all of us lay on the shore, choking on our own >blood." He vowed a fight to the finish. > snip > > Why compromise truth? Why accept a lie? There is no compromise for >property, liberty or truth. Not now. Not ever. > > It's time to face facts. It's time to understand your enemy. It's time >to take a firm stand. It's time to go on the offensive - to speak the truth >and expose the lies. > > The truth is the radical environmental movement has declared war on your >property, war on your livelihood, war on your families and war on the truth >and logic. > > How will you fight back? By seeking some "common ground"? By using the >non-confrontational tactics employed by Republican leaders in Congress who >say it's not politically feasible to take on the environmental issues? > Voters might not understand, they say. > Same goes for the NRA, why do they continue to appease? > > > Whom do you follow into battle - the Neville Chamberlains, who will >sacrifice you to the Hitlers of the world - Or the warriors who fight for >truth, reason and liberty? > The NRA has become the former, where we need someone from the latter. I, for one, have all but given up on the NRA. They have shown in case after case that they will compromise, and appease, only to lose in the end, and we are the real losers. As others have said, we are in a WAR, so don't you think it's time we started acting like it, and refuse to submit to their tyrrany? 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 nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin "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) lessons learned Date: 14 May 1997 10:31:23 -0700 Timothy, my thanks for an excellent post. I'm hereby forwarding it around the net a bit; hope you don't mind :) - Monte >Posted to texas-gun-owners by twb@fame.com (Timothy Barney) >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Dear Joe, my fellow citizen, > >{this concerns the NRA leadership,future direction, and my response} > >I was just re-reading the transcript. I had read the "clarification". >It's clear to me that heston wants Knox off the board, and >to deliberately take the NRA in a wrong direction. Together with Wayne, >they will succeed. My dues aren't paying Wayne over a $100,000 per year for >nothing - he's good at something. Unfortunately that something is being >put to use against *my* agenda, which is the constitution. > >I'll be getting things in order tonight to mail out my letter of resignation. >I feel _good_ sending money to GOA or JPFO. *REAL* good. >I feel hollow and depressed sending money to the NRA, their >fine educational materials not withstanding. > >We moved to an old farm last year and we're fixing and restoring it. >It's slow and takes time, but the foundation and posts and beams are >strong - so there's hopeful utility in it. > >Next door is an farm that is run down. The posts and beams are rotted >and need to be replaced. The foundation is cracked and leaking. To >put any money into it would be hopeless futility. > >There comes a point when you have to start over. > >Many denominations have gone this route, and small house churches >and independent churches are spouting up like green leaves of grass after >a spring rain in the place of a scorched grass-fire. A remanant >are relunctantly fleeing those institutions that have become rotted >in the leadership and whose rottedness has spread to the organization. > >The Pilgrams and Puritans had this issue before them. To stay in the >Anglican church with its corruptness and influence it or to leave. >The Pilgrams left, the Puritans stayed to purify. Eventually the >Puritans left also. > >Remember, I once stated my lessons learned; that we cannot change the >organization in opposition to it's leaders. If the leadership is bad, and >won't change, there is no hope for that organization. Let it die and shrivel. > >John Hancock had a beautiful house, a mighty fine house, that he built >and enjoyed. When the Tories took it over as a HQ for their local >activities, Hancock blew up the house with cannon rather than see it used >against the American cause. > >I'd hate to see the NRA go away, with all its mighty fine programs >and materials. But I'd hate more to see the organization used against >the American cause. A subtle enemy in the ranks causes the most hurt. > >Extremist? Call me a constitutional fundamentalist, thank you. >I could be accused of idealism. From my perspective, I'm being >realistic in my expectations of the NRA, and realistic in my view >of their future. > >relunctantly, >timothy > >PS: Oh, and how did the leadership get bad? By failure of the "people". >This applies to the NRA, our mainline churches, and our government. >ALL authority is put in place under God's direction. We get the leadership >we deserve. If and when the "people" repent of our personal sins, then >godly leadership will be restored to us I believe. In the meantime, I'll >support that which is good and oppose that which is bad. >I'm doing my part to truly repent and live accordingly. >May each of us seek God's ways in our lives, and follow His will for each >of us. - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: THE REAL GOLD THEFT (fwd) Date: 14 May 1997 14:11:56 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >X-Persona: >Return-Path: >From: ALHORE@aol.com >Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 18:48:53 -0400 (EDT) >To: PATRIOT@netaxs.com >Subject: THE REAL GOLD THEFT > > Recently, the United States government has openly condemned Switzerland >for helping Nazi Germany bankroll its war machine. It also questioned >whether the United States has done enough to recover gold that was stolen >from the holocaust victims and European Banks by the Nazis, which has been >dubbed, "One of the greatest thefts aided by a government in history." > > Let*s go back to 1933 and take a look at old-fashioned gold robbery >when the President of the United States aided a private bank in the robbery >of the American Citizens* gold. > > When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office, he declared a >national emergency. In Proclamation 2039, Roosevelt spoke to the people >with words that were written for him by the Federal Reserve Board that there >were heavy and "unwarranted" withdrawals of gold and currency from our >banking institutions for the purposes of "hoarding." > > "Hoarding?" Doesn*t that mean "saving?" That gold belonged to the >people and not the bankers, and it was the peoples* absolute prerogative to >spend it or save it whichever way they wanted. And the President was >certainly not delegated the power to order the people not to "save" their >own gold. > > When the smoke screen had lifted, the real emergency was that the >private Federal Reserve had breached its contract with the American >Citizens. They were repudiating their contractual obligation to redeem the >peoples* gold certificates and were removing the peoples* gold from the >country. > > President Roosevelt*s first duty should have been to the people who >were the victims of banking fraud. Emergency legislation should have been >passed, demanding an immediate and complete audit of the Federal Reserve. > The 40% gold reserve should have been turned over to the people holding the >gold certificates and all of the bankers* remaining assets should have been >liquidated and converted to gold. > > What Roosevelt did do, however, was sell out the American Citizens and >actually consulted the Federal Reserve as to how they believed the crisis >should be solved! And what did the Federal Reserve conclude as to what >their punishment should be for embezzling the peoples* gold and dishonoring >their legitimate contractual obligations? The Fed instructed President >Roosevelt to pass a law demanding that the people return all of their gold >to the bankers or be subjected to a stiff fine and jail time. > > What a patriotic act by an American President, wouldn*t you say? Why >has gold robbery in foreign countries stuck out in the eyes of our >government officials, yet they turn a blind eye to the gold robbery that >occurred on American soil? > > When Congress delegated coining powers to a private bank with the >signing of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, it directly violated the >provisions of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The supreme Court >also ruled in Schechter Poultry v. U.S. that "Congress may not abdicate or >transfer to others its legitimate functions." By ignoring the Constitution >and the supreme Court, Congress has aided in the robbery of the peoples* >gold. > > When Congress accepted a currency that was not backed by gold or >silver, it directly violated the provisions of Article 1, Section 10 of the >Constitution and aided in the robbery of the peoples* gold. > > Before the United States can condemn another country for aiding another >in the looting or robbery of gold, the government should be addressing the >looting and robbery of the peoples* gold that occurred in the United States >of America with the help of the peoples* very own government. > > Now that*s what I call the greatest theft aided by a government in >history. > > > > > > >- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: nation ID now law - this just in (fwd) Date: 14 May 1997 14:47:41 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Sorry to all the folks that may have gotten this already. Paula --------------------- Forwarded message: The "National ID Card" is now Federal Law: Call 404-250-8105 for more information. Under the guise of the Immigration Reform Act of 1996 and the Welfare Reform Act and the national Defense Bill, also known as Public Law 104-208, Part B, Title IV, the American public was mandated into a national ID card. Section 656 of the new law states that "after October 01, 2000, Federal agencies may only accept as proof of identity driver's licenses that conform to standards developed by the Secretary of the Treasury", (Digitized Fingerprints, Holograms, Bar Codes, etc). The Federal government mandates a registry of new employees: The bill requires the state to set up a "new hires directory" that would require all employers to report to the state information about every newly hired employee. The directory would be made available to the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. The Associated Press reported, that ALL people would be listed, regardless of age and EVEN THOSE THAT HAVE NO CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION. Bottom line is why would they go to all this bother to register the entire United States population to catch a few "Dead-beat Dads" (please note the differentiation). This National registry may have very little to do with making sure parents remain responsible to their offspring, but more importantly has everything to do with getting dossiers on everyone. These laws (Sec. 325 (D)) require access to certain records: Records of other State and local government agencies, including: (I) vital statistics (including records of marriage, birth, and divorce); (II) State and local tax and revenue records (including information on residence address, employer, income and assets); (III) records concerning real and titled personal property; (IV) records of occupational and professional licenses, and records concerning the ownership and control of corporations, partnerships, and other business entities; (V) employment security records; (VI) records of agencies administering public assistance programs; (VII) corrections records. (ii) Certain records held by private entities with respect to individuals who owe or are owed support (or against or with respect to who a support obligation is sought), consisting of (I) the names and addresses of such individuals and the names and addresses of the employers of such individuals, as appearing in customer records of public utilities and cable television companies, pursuant to an administrative subpoena authorized by subparagraph (B); and (II) information (including information on assets and liabilities) on such individuals held by financial institutions. I apologize if I have run on here but the purpose is to let you all know how very serious this "big brother" operation is and how very little time we have to address our grievances. Again it is important to recall that although many "Deadbeat" PARENTS will be stopped in their tracks with this law, the government's intent is more pervasive. It will have a complete and total database containing every human in the US. This database will network between State, local and Federal governments. and the Feds. It will include all information on an individual, social security, credit cards, date of birth, eye and hair color, distinguishing characteristics, attitude, addresses, licenses, organizations, titled property, taxes, income etc. You name it, they will have it. The question one needs to ask is why has your Congressman, the press and the regulated media not exposed this to you? THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW! I trust all of you are as concerned as I am. If you are, please loop this information around the country. Call your representatives and get involved. For more information please contact our web site www.mcwebs.com/repeal/ All this information and more can be found on this web site. For more information if you will call 404-250-8105 and leave your name and number we will mail you a packet of information. Or simply pull it off the web. Cyndee Parker is available to discuss this on radio and television. It is most important we all pull together to get the message out. If anyone of you can help us publicize, WE NEED YOUR HELP. Thanks for taking the time to read this important message. May God Bless all of us and the Republic! John P.S. Be sure to ask your Congressman and Senators if they even bothered to read this Draconian Law. ********************************************************** ROBERT'S E-MAIL IN SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI. Use BCC: addressing on e-mail to me & Thanks. Remove headers & footers on repost & Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: School-to-Work Alert (fwd) Date: 14 May 1997 14:53:15 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Due to an typo in our message to you yesterday -- What's Wrong with School-To-Work?=20 (the URL to the School-to-Work Alert was wrong) -- we are sending=20 you this Alert. Our apologies for this error. __________________________________________________________________ H.R. 1385 IS CAREERS-LITE Urgent Action Needed -- Tell Congress to Vote NO May 12, 1997 H.R. 1385, the Employment, Training and Literacy Act of 1997, is a scaled down version of the former Careers bill. Introduced by Congressmen Buck McKeon (R-CA), Bill Goodling (R-PA), and Dale Kildee (D-MI), this bill is on the fast track for passage in the House of Representatives. While H.R. 1385 is an improvement over the CAREERS bill, it is still intrusive and misleading in a number of different ways. 1. Local Workforce Development Boards The bill changes current PICs (Private Industry Councils) into Local Workforce Development Boards. These are the same boards that we so strongly opposed in the CAREERS bill. The function and composition of the unelected boards are dictated by federal law. The boards will be dominated by representatives of the business community, and have the power to decide which training programs will qualify as "eligible service providers," as well as what jobs are in demand and what jobs will be needed in the future. There is nothing in the bill to prevent the boards from interfering with local school boards' jurisdiction into "training programs" for school age children. 2. Literacy Bureaucracy H.R. 1385 expands the power of the Departments of Education and Labor in the area of "family literacy." The already established and active National Institute for Literacy will be directly involved in family literacy by providing leadership (control) and coordinating literacy programs. This National Institute will be "administered under the terms of an interagency agreement entered into by the Secretary of Education with the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services." Although they talk about literacy, there is not one mention of phonics in the bill. It's just more money for Washington bureaucrats cloaked in terms of "literacy." 3. Job Training or Parent Training? H.R. 1385 provides grants for "Family Literacy Services." The definition, as described in Title 1, Section 103 of this bill, reads "training for parents on how to be the primary teacher for their children." Grant money will be given and contracts awarded for the study of "family literacy services." This program has nothing to do with the bill's intent of "job training" for adults, and it creates an tremendous intrusion of the state into American families. 4. Corporate Welfare H.R. 1385 creates a type of corporate welfare because it provides for "skills upgrading" for those already employed. Also, the Secretary of Labor can give taxpayer dollars to labor unions for "research and demonstration projects." We do not want our tax dollars going to labor union bosses for worker training, nor do we want to give handouts to employers to retrain their employees. This takes away the American free labor tradition, and turns it into a centrally planned and funded corporate welfare system. It is business's job to train workers, not the taxpayers'! 5. Whose Needs? In Title II, Section 204, youths deemed disadvantaged would have "employment opportunities that are directly linked to academic, occupational, and work based learning opportunities." The needs of youths are extremely different from those of untrained and unemployed adults. Schools should not be work development centers, where individuals will be trained to serve the needs of government and corporations instead of educated in the basics to achieve their potential. ACTION: The House is expected to bring this bill to the floor sometime in next two weeks. Urgent calls are needed at once!! Call your Representatives and tell them to vote NO on H.R. 1385. Capitol Switchboard 202-225-3121 Read Phyllis Schlafly's column --=20 WHY THE PUSH FOR FEDERAL CONTROL OF THE CLASSROOM? in your local newspaper -- this column will be posted on the EF web site May 21, 1997 - Inside the May Education Reporter . . .=20 =09* Title I Fails to Deliver=20 =09* E.D. Ready to Begin National Tests=20 =09* Common Sense Urged over 'Zero Tolerance'=20 =09* NAEP Targeted for Change=20 =09* Education Briefs=20 =09* Hillary Promotes Early Childhood Intervention=20 =09* Children Will Love Discovering 'Lost Classics'=20 =09* FOCUS: What=92s Wrong with School-to-Work?=20 found at: http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1997/may97/er_may97.html - -------------------------- Eagle Forum http://www.eagleforum.org PO Box 618 eagle@eagleforum.org Alton, IL 62002 618-462-5415 - -------------------------- To subscribe please e-mail us a message with=20 SUBSCRIBE in the subject line =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=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 from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: "Lessons learned" et al Date: 14 May 1997 13:14:26 -0700 (PDT) So, what I'm hearing on the list is: NRA hires a mouthpiece (that's what he is and that is -exactly- what we need), he screws up big time, and suddenly NRA is a barn with no foundation? Sorry, Eddie the Eagle alone makes NRA worth salvaging. This analogy is beyond the pale (no offense intended to monte or anyone). You all have gas cans and matches ready, don't you think we should have enough supplies for a new 33million member barn on hand before we start chearing the flames? boydk@wrq.com Remove "no.spam" from address when replying. PGP key at BAL's. Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? E-mail me. Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harassment, requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Re: (fwd) This just in, Heston's clarification on AK-47 Date: 14 May 1997 18:04:23 -0500 You will note that the letter signed by Charleton Heston is precise in expressing Mr. Heston's knowledge of AK 47's and private ownership of full auto weapons in general. He does not allude to any "inappropriateness" here. In fact, he states that "#I didn't favor a cap put on this procedure in 1986 by the United States > > #Congress because no legally owned fully-automatic firearm had ever been used in a crime" I do not see the echo of inappropriateness here at all. Wouldn't you expect to? Wouldn't he at least explain what he meant by the word? No he just says that full auto weapons have been regulated for 67 years. Why didn't he talk about the meaning of "inappropriateness? He mentioned it, I believe, three times during the interview and was rather insistant about it. "I have already told you (or something similar)" he said once. Was he, indeed, saying on KGO that full auto arms were inappropriate? or semi auto AK 47's? Was he then stating then what he really believes? I am in favor of adopting the last view. The words and thoughts on KGO were and are Charleton Heston's. The words in the letter to Col. Robert Brown were and are "Col" Browns. I believe that this letter was distated by Brown or one of his associates and signed by Heston. I read Soldier of Fortune regularly. It is an interesting rag. But I do not want anyone to think that "Col" Brown represents me in ANYTHING. He promotes a lot of trash in his rag. I have to believe that his magazine is one of the biggest promoters of Steroids in America. Paladin Press (associated both with Soldier of Fortune and "Col" Brown) publishes and promotes some books that are really without parallel in promoting criminal activity. How can you trust Brown when what he does to earn his living is to teach and promote things that manipulate, and intimidate others. These are signs of his character. I think that he and Heston collaberated on this letter. It is only meant to staunch the growing flow of criticism so richly deserved by Heston, La Pierre, and Metaska; aka The Gang of Three. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > > > > #Dear Colonel Brown, > > # > > #Thank you for asking me for a clarification of my comments in an > > #interview on KGO radio. When I spoke of AK-47 firearms on May 6th, I was > > #talking about the Soviet military rifle -- a fully automatic, not a > > #semiautomatic, firearm -- and what I thought was common knowledge. > > #Namely, that federal law has striclty regulated the private ownership of > > #such fully automatic firearms for 63 years. > > # > > #I didn't favor a cap put on this procedure in 1986 by the United States > > #Congress because no legally owned fully-automatic firearm had ever been > > #used in a crime. > > # > > #Regrettably, the distinction between classes of firearms is still not > > #understood thanks to distortions spread by the media and those who'd > > #destroy the Second Amendment. > > # > > #That's why I lobbied against the Clinton gun ban as a private citizen in > > #1994, and that is why I'll be honored to continue defending the Second > > #Amendment as First Vice President of the National Rifle Association. > > # > > # > > #Sincerely, > > # > > #ORIGINAL SIGNED > > # > > #Charlton Heston > > # > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Charles L Hamilton, (chasm@insync.net) Life - NRA, TSRA, NMLRA, TMLRA > > http://www.tsra.com > > Join Texas State Rifle Association. - $15/year > > 1131 Rockingham, Suite 101, Richardson, TX 75080 > > > > -- > > For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net > > with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack@minerva.com Subject: Re: (fwd) This just in, Heston's clarification on AK-47 Date: 14 May 1997 16:57:31 PDT roc@mail.xmission.com wrote : >I read Soldier of Fortune regularly. It is an interesting rag. But I do >not want anyone to think that "Col" Brown represents me in ANYTHING. He >promotes a lot of trash in his rag. I have to believe that his magazine is >one of the biggest promoters of Steroids in America. > >Paladin Press (associated both with Soldier of Fortune and "Col" Brown) >publishes and promotes some books that are really without parallel in >promoting criminal activity. > >How can you trust Brown when what he does to earn his living is to teach >and promote things that manipulate, and intimidate others. These are signs >of his character. I think that he and Heston collaberated on this letter. >It is only meant to staunch the growing flow of criticism so richly >deserved by Heston, La Pierre, and Metaska; aka The Gang of Three. > > > >Larry Ball >lball@unlinfo.unl.edu > Now Really! If I wanted to learn to ski I would find a person who came down difficult runs with great ease. If I wanted to learn mathematics I would find someone who was very adept at computation and problem solving. If I wanter to counter a highly corrupt organization I would find some one who understood the thought processes of corrupt / criminal people ......and could thus counter their plans and plots. When in Rome do as the Romans do....... I interpret your last paragraph as saying: We innocent lambs have been done in but we certainly would not want to hire a wolf to protect us from the other wolves .......because no wolf has the same innocent / naive / pure thoughts of us lambs........... I have not read anything by "Col" Brown and have no idea whether any wolf could be found that would protect lambs ........but I am quite sure that lambs can not. If no X will work, one can perish or experiment with a few Ys Jack Jack Perrine | ATHENA Programming, Inc | 818-798-6574 | ---------------- | 1175 No. Altadena Drive | fax 398-8620 | jack@minerva.com | Pasadena, CA 91107 US | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: U.S. protests suspected Russian laser firing at Canadian helicopter (fwd) Date: 15 May 1997 07:40:05 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- U.S. protests suspected Russian laser firing at Canadian helicopter May 14, 1997 5.13 p.m. EDT (2113 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Russian cargo ship apparently fired a laser beam at a Canadian military helicopter five weeks ago, causing temporary eye damage to the pilot and a U.S. Navy officer on board, U.S. officials said Wednesday. Defense Secretary William Cohen told reporters that there was "conflicting information'' about the incident, which occurred in U.S. waters off Washington state, and that an investigation was still under way. Nevertheless, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns said a protest was lodged with the Russians. "We think a laser was pointed at a helicopter,'' Burns said. "We don't know from whom.'' He said State Department officials "protested this incident forcefully to the Russian government. The Russian government in turn promised to cooperate with an investigation.'' Burns said a U.S. Navy officer the ship suffered eye damage, but he said the injury was temporary "and he is going to recover ... fully.'' The officer was identified as Lt. Jack Daly, who works as a liaison officer with the Canadian Maritime Pacific Command in Esquimalt, British Columbia. Asked why the incident not disclosed until The Washington Times reported on it Wednesday, Cohen said it would have been "premature'' to say anything before officials knew clearly what happened. The incident occurred at noon April 4 in U.S. territorial waters off Washington state. While not noticed at first, it was investigated after the Canadian pilot of the CH-124 "Sea King'' helicopter and the U.S. officer complained of eye pain, Bridges said. Their injuries were "consistent with damage caused by laser burn'' but the evidence was not conclusive, said Army Col. Dick Bridges. He said the Canadian, who was not immediately identified, also was expected to recover. The ship, the Kapitan Man, was detained and searched by U.S. Coast Guard officials on April 7 while in port at Tacoma, Wash. The helicopter had been conducting routine patrols and had photographed the ship. Pentagon and State Department officials declined comment on whether the Russian ship was a spy vessel. But they noted that it was in waters frequently used by U.S. nuclear submarines. The Russians also are known to have lasers and some are used as navigational aids, said a military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity. "There was no laser found on the vessel, and no evidence that any installed device had been removed,'' Bridges said. He said the Russian captain cooperated with the search and denied that the ship had a laser. However, a picture of the ship taken from the helicopter revealed "a bright red spot of light on the bridge,'' Bridges said. The Kapitan Man is well-known to U.S. officials and runs a route from Vladivostok to Tacoma and Los Angeles, he said. Lasers are used by U.S. and other military forces around the world, primarily for detection, targeting, range-finding and communications. In 1995, the Pentagon barred the use of lasers specifically designed to cause permanent blindness. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: UN "The Erroneous Debt Act" (fwd) Date: 15 May 1997 07:47:13 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: piml@mars.galstar.com Newgroups: alt.politics.org.un, alt.politics.youth, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.clinton, alt.conspiracy, alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.politics.usa.republican, misc.education, misc.education.home-school.christian, alt.politics.democrats.d The United States Government Accounting Office's report on the United Nations shows funds advanced to the UN by the United States of $4.7 billion has never been reimbursed nor credited for back dues claimed to be owed to the UN by the U.S. HR 934, styled "The Erroneous Debt Act" seeks to obtain an accounting of funds advanced to the UN by the United Nations by the United States. All are urged to write - write - write members of Congress to urge passage of this bill. After all, the money belongs to the American taxpayer. You can Email your Congressman, if he has an Email address, from the following URL: http://www.jbs.org/cgmail.htm -- It don't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep! Clark, in Round Rock http://xld.com/ -- XLData Net -- -- Web Server -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: [Fwd:Roundup of Books on Waco] (fwd) Date: 15 May 1997 07:54:00 -0500 (CDT) This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --1915762710-737805934-863700840=:3062 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII --1915762710-737805934-863700840=:3062 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-ID: Return-Path: Received: from listbox.com ([208.210.124.23]) by sirius.wnstar.com (post.office MTA v1.9.3b ID# 0-11476) with SMTP id AAA256 for ; Wed, 14 May 1997 20:39:27 -0700 Received: (qmail 26423 invoked by alias); 15 May 1997 03:39:19 -0000 Delivered-To: ignition-point-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 26415 invoked by uid 516); 15 May 1997 03:39:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 26261 invoked from network); 15 May 1997 03:39:06 -0000 Received: from lepton.startext.net (205.172.60.12) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 15 May 1997 03:39:05 -0000 Received: from jfarmer.startext.net (startext.net [205.172.60.10]) by lepton.startext.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA03197 for ; Wed, 14 May 1997 22:39:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <337A7D4A.4844@mail.startext.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2C565811530C" Sender: owner-ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------2C565811530C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit While searching for something for a friend, I ran across this at: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9602/roundup.html --------------2C565811530C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="roundup.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="roundup.html" [Image] Books In Review Roundup of Books on Waco ------------------- Copyright (c) 1996 First Things 60 (February 1996): 68-70. The Davidian Massacre: Disturbing Questions About Waco Which Must Be Answered. By Carol Moore. Gun Owners of America & Legacy Communications. 488 pp. $8. The Ashes of Waco: An Investigation. By Dick J. Reavis. Simon & Schuster. 304 pp. $24. Why Waco? Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America. By James D. Tabor and Eugene V. Gallagher. University of California Press. 242 pp. $24.95. Armageddon in Waco: Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict. Edited by Stuart A. Wright. University of Chicago Press. 387 pp. $49.95 cloth, $15.95 paper. Reviewed by Dean M. Kelley When you have a sore tooth, your tongue just won't leave it alone. For some of us, the tragedy at Waco in 1993 is like that-an unhealed wound in the body politic. Four books have appeared in the past several months that probe the Waco trauma and offer insights into what went wrong and what should be set right. Carol Moore's mass paperback is the most recent offering and the only one to include reflections on the recent inconclusive and turbulent House hearings last fall, which brought on some knowledgeable witnesses who had not hitherto been heard, but drowned their evidence in partisan bickering by committee members who did not know what questions to ask or what had already been answered in the criminal trial last year but wanted maximum TV exposure. Much was made of the CS gas that was injected into Mt. Carmel by some four hundred "ferret rounds," for example, but little note was taken of forty times as much of the same gas sprayed by tanks. The soluent of the ferret rounds was methylene chloride-a hazardous material as toxic as CS-but what was the soluent of the tanks' spray? Ethanol was found in the bodies at autopsy, suggesting a highly flammable soluent. That question was not explored. Carol Moore has written a polemic against the government worthy of the organization to which she has devoted more than two years of work-the Committee for Waco Justice, which has staged demonstrations in Washington to protest what they view as crimes by the federal agencies. Her book is copublished by Gun Owners of America and highlights issues of interest to opponents of gun control and of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, but it is not untrustworthy because of that. Of the four works reviewed here, it is the most thickly packed with details, complete with emotive characterizations and imputation of sinister motives to government agents. But the author is not just a polemicist. She rejects some allegations as unlikely, such as the claim (made in the civil suit brought by Ramsey Clark on behalf of Mt. Carmel's heirs and survivors) that the FBI planted an explosive on top of the concrete vault where the women and children had taken refuge, blowing a hole in the ceiling and killing all within. Moore inclines to the view that the tanks had already skewed the frame building on its foundations so that stairways were shattered: the Davidians could not escape from the second floor, and the FBI agents could not ascend to plant a thermite bomb. (But the large hole still is unexplained; how did it get there?) If one reads this volume with a critical eye, one can learn a lot from it that is not available elsewhere (such as information from the 1993 Congressional hearings, which Carol Moore attended). Journalist Dick Reavis left his job in Dallas to spend a couple of years researching the Waco incident because he was distressed to discover that no other journalist was probing beneath the FBI's handouts. As part of his research-perhaps the hardest part-he steeped himself for six months in the Bible and in the theological lore of the Adventist movement, which had been going on for a century and a half before David Koresh came along. He read tracts and listened to tapes of Koresh, and the result is that more than a sixth of the book's pages are devoted to explaining the conceptual world in which the Davidians lived-which the Feds and their "expert" advisers never did penetrate. Reavis also interviewed surviving Davidians, read the 7,500 pages of trial transcript (it turns out that the copy I got when in Waco was from his set) and the 18,000 classified pages of transcripts of negotiations from the fifty-one day siege. (Reavis won't reveal how he got them, except to insist he did nothing illegal.) His book is rich in detail, though perhaps not so rich as Moore's. He simply relates the narrative in a straightforward, factual way without much interpretive "spin." This is probably the best book of the four if one wants a single survey of the situation from a nongovernmental perspective. James Tabor and Eugene Gallagher are professors of religious studies at the University of North Carolina and Connecticut College, respectively. They have written a more scholarly treatment of the subject that focuses less on the details of the events at Waco and more on the dynamics of what brought them about. Their chief subject is the role and influence of the anticult movement, not so much on the ATF and FBI in their actions of early 1993, but in the formation of a pervasive anticult animus and stereotype that has become endemic over the past two decades in the American public's thinking-or rather nonthinking-about new or "oddball" religious groups, and that naturally affects federal agents, juries, judges, and reporters. Tabor and Gallagher trace the coverage of the Waco events by mass media, quickie books, TV talk shows, and "documentaries"-almost all of which purveyed a hostile misunderstanding of the situation. For more than a year the public was getting only one side of the story, since those who could have supplied "the other side" were incommunicado-under siege, in jail, disregarded, or dead. This volume understandably highlights the effort by Tabor and Philip Arnold of the Reunion Institute in Houston to reach David Ko-resh during the siege through his own sphere of discourse and to suggest a slightly different scenario for the Seven Seals that would not involve a violent confrontation. As a result of their efforts, Koresh began to write his exposition of the Seven Seals and sent out a letter on April 14 promising to surrender when he finished. (Tabor and Arnold estimate that at the rate he was working, he should have completed work in a week or two.) The FBI brushed off their efforts on the grounds that this was just another delaying tactic by Koresh. He completed an introduction and the First Seal on Sunday night, April 18, but the gas attack began the next morning. His secretary, Ruth Riddle, barely escaped the fire and brought out on a computer disk what he had done. It was later recovered and transcribed and is appended to the Tabor-Gallagher volume. The unfinished essay by Koresh proves the FBI was wrong about Koresh's promise, but they didn't know that at the time. They had only the experience of the preceding weeks, which looked like shifty stalling to them because they never understood what motivated the people they were confronting. The government has produced some forty plastic-wrapped charred firearms allegedly found in the ruins of Mt. Carmel (but won't let independent firearms experts examine them), and those are supposed to prove that the search and arrest warrants-and the raid to serve them- were justified. But ex post facto evidence does not prove anything about justification of decisions made before such evidence was known-in either case. The fourth book is a collection of essays by academic and other observers, each of which focuses on a particular aspect of the Waco tragedy. Stuart Wright, professor of sociology at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, has done a good job in recruiting and coordinating these analyses of the perplexing melange that is Waco. Anson Shupe and Jeffrey Hadden analyze the five narratives competing for the attention of the public, and James Richardson dissects the cross-pressures on the reporters trying to interpret the unfolding events with constant demands from their editors for copy and with a paucity of data available beyond the daily press briefings staged by the FBI. Robert Fogarty relates the little-known stories of the tragic ends of other religious innovators of recent centuries. Bill Pitts of Baylor explains the lineage of Seventh- day Adventist offshoots that became Davidians, and then Branch Davidians, and then "Students of the Seven Seals" under Koresh. David Bromley and Edward Silver describe the evolution of the Mt. Carmel community from "patronal clan" to "prophetic movement." John R. Hall suggests how the anticult-fostered image of Jones-town was persistently projected on Mt. Carmel through the atrocity-anticipation of "mass suicide." Ed Gaffney reviews the legal and constitutional considerations, concluding that the warrants were not stale or insufficient (which only shows how the concept of "probable cause" has deteriorated), but that the method used to serve them was excessive. These four works are labors of concern for which we should be grateful to their devoted authors, who will not grow rich on the proceeds. They provide needed balance to the two years of government stonewalling that reached new heights at the House hearings. The prevailing view in government circles has been that the law enforcement actions at Waco- aside from a few missteps in execution-were necessary, justified, and right. These four volumes and their various authors have one thing in common: they contend that what happened there was unnecessary, unjustified, and wrong. Which version will prevail only history will tell. ------------------- Dean M. Kelley, Counselor on Religious Liberty for the National Council of Churches, wrote "Waco: A Massacre and Its Aftermath" (First Things, May 1995). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [Image] [ FT Home | Browse FT | Search FT | About FT | Write the Editors | Order FT ] Updated: 6 December 1996 --------------2C565811530C-- To subscribe or unsubscribe, email majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point or unsubscribe ignition-point http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ --1915762710-737805934-863700840=:3062-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Re: The NRA and Heston suck, bla, bla, bla Date: 15 May 1997 11:01:33 -0500 Paul------ How can we become a "coalition" of gun RIGHTS when we cannot even agree what gun rights are? Heston knows what he was saying! He and the other two of the gang of three knew what he was saying. The phony spins that have been placed on his words are just that -- "phony!" Coalitions involve compromise! Rights cannot be compromised! Are we to be an army of Chamberlains? If so soon we will be a army of chambermaids emptying the chamber pots. No, no compromise or joining in any coalition that involve dilution or diminution of RIGHT. Know, know our enemies. Many times they are within! The Gang of Three and their outrider, Col. Brown, seem to be examples. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: pwatson@utdallas.edu > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: The NRA and Heston suck, bla, bla, bla > Date: Thursday, May 15, 1997 10:05 AM > > You know folks I learned a few years back the best way to get someone to > help you does not involve screaming in their face that they suck. People > have a defense mechanism that takes over with adrenalin and they become a > cave man defending their tribe. After all of us get over our anger, it is > time we face a few facts: > 1. Clinton won the election after spewing anti-gun propaganda at his > convention. > 2. Dole lost the election but won the endorsement of the Republicans > after passing Brady at midnight with 5 Senators and a few other rather > anti-gun skullduggery stunts over the last few years. > 3. The NRA elected Heston and he said some things we do not prefer. > 4. The Branch Davidians are in jail for justly defending themselves from > a rogue BATF and FBI and the government approved and covered it up. > 5. The English just passed sweeping anti-gun laws and threw out the > Conservatives and are going to outlaw all guns. > 6. Australia just passed some sweeping anti-gun laws and nothing is > stopping them. > 7. The Canadians just passed some sweeping anti-gun laws and nothing is > stopping them. > 8. Newt and the Republican freshmen have been eviscerated and are focused > on how to get along with Socialist and stay out of trouble with the media > for being to mean spirited. > 9. Japan along with the United Nations has made gun control a top priority. > 10.The mainstream press along with all the women's magazines have made gun > control a top priority. > 11.When you are surrounded by your enemy and they are scaling the city > walls, cussing out the palace guards (NRA) for loosing so many battles > will not help or motivate them to work better and smarter in order to > save your butt. > > Given, that we have had some success with a majority of states passing > concealed carry laws backed by the Lott study. And, we have not had a > blood bath in the streets we are making some progress at the state level. > But, in case you missed it, the states lost all power with the Civil War > and have been unable and or unwilling to challenge the power of the > Federal government. > Unless we can stop this self flagellation of gun organizations and > refocus on the Socialist at the gates our only legacy for NOBAN other > than its connection to DF8 might be a real neat looking thumbs up logo. > I suggest we get off our our collective heads and start refocusing on > what we can do to stop and then turn around this situation. > I for one would like to see NOBAN work on its goal of forming a cohesive > coalition of gun rights organizations in order to stop the gun grabbers. > Maybe it is time we had a national powwow of all the gun groups leaders > and have our own pro gun convention. It is time to refocus and it is time > to stop the socialist at the gates. We now have the status as the last > major industrial country left in the world with the most gun rights. I > for one intend to keep it that way! > Regards, > Paul Watson, Dallas Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Re: The NRA and Heston suck. bla,bla, bla Date: 15 May 1997 09:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Given that we live in a society who's leaders hate guns and despise gun owners I think we should stay aware of how we got here. It wasn't an overnight occurence, we all know that small incremental changes were made to bring us to a place where people view inanimate objects as causing crime. So, we have to change that, and there are two ways to go about it. One is political and the other isn't discussed in public forums. So, anybody here remember the last time a republican form of government (or any form of government) changed a basic public belief overnight? Me either. Maybe that's why our enemies chose incremental change to win their battle. The bummer with that plan is, you don't change someone incrementally by getting in there face and screaming how stupid they are and why aren't they just like you? Frustrating, I know, but if winning is important (AND IT IS GOOD AND ... FREAKING WELL IMPORTANT TO NOT ENOUGH OF US!!) then we may have to slowly persuade people to our point of view. One of the ways we do this is by organizing in as large a group as we can. The black panthers didn't set up soup kitchens to spread the joi de vivre et haute cuisine, they recruited new members. Members who later became movers and shakers at DNC and set up political parties with colorfully silly names. When we assemble large groups they will become slow and inertia bound, when that happens we can fix the tool or leave it to rust and disintegrate. When our groups are effective we can afford to add tools, like powerful public figures. Ever met a perfect public figure? Me either. So when our new tool screws up we can decide to leave it to rust and disintegrate or we fix it. So, to recap: 1) Political action is incremental and that usually involves some level of short term compromise on somebodies part. 2) Boyd gets unbelievably cranky when people prefer not to win. The one thing we can not afford is failure, sometimes taking a step back to plan the climb or fix the equipment is faster that jumping for the highest handhold in sight. ALL of the opinions expressed are mine. boydk@wrq.com Remove "no.spam" from address when replying. PGP key at BAL's. Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? E-mail me. Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harassment, requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Re: The NRA and Heston suck. bla,bla, bla Date: 15 May 1997 11:54:36 -0500 Boyd, I will remind you that the Black Panthers also chose to do things in ways not discussed on public forums :-( Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: Boyd Kneeland > To: Restore_our Constitution ; NOBAN@fs1.mainstream.com > Subject: Re: The NRA and Heston suck. bla,bla, bla > Date: Thursday, May 15, 1997 11:29 AM > > Given that we live in a society who's leaders hate guns and despise gun > owners I think we should stay aware of how we got here. It wasn't an > overnight occurence, we all know that small incremental changes were made > to bring us to a place where people view inanimate objects as causing > crime. So, we have to change that, and there are two ways to go about it. > One is political and the other isn't discussed in public forums. > > So, anybody here remember the last time a republican form of government > (or any form of government) changed a basic public belief overnight? Me > either. Maybe that's why our enemies chose incremental change to win > their battle. > > The bummer with that plan is, you don't change someone incrementally by > getting in there face and screaming how stupid they are and why aren't > they just like you? Frustrating, I know, but if winning is important (AND > IT IS GOOD AND ... FREAKING WELL IMPORTANT TO NOT ENOUGH OF US!!) then we > may have to slowly persuade people to our point of view. One of the ways we > do this is by organizing in as large a group as we can. The black > panthers didn't set up soup kitchens to spread the joi de vivre et haute > cuisine, they recruited new members. Members who later became movers and > shakers at DNC and set up political parties with colorfully silly names. > > When we assemble large groups they will become slow and inertia bound, > when that happens we can fix the tool or leave it to rust and > disintegrate. When our groups are effective we can afford to add tools, > like powerful public figures. Ever met a perfect public figure? Me > either. So when our new tool screws up we can decide to leave it to rust > and disintegrate or we fix it. > > So, to recap: > 1) Political action is incremental and that usually involves some level of > short term compromise on somebodies part. > > 2) Boyd gets unbelievably cranky when people prefer not to win. > The one thing we can not afford is failure, sometimes taking a step back > to plan the climb or fix the equipment is faster that jumping for the > highest handhold in sight. > > ALL of the opinions expressed are mine. > boydk@wrq.com Remove "no.spam" from address when replying. > PGP key at BAL's. Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? E-mail me. > Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harassment, > requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. > -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boydk@wrq.com Subject: Re: The NRA and Heston suck. bla,bla, bla Date: 15 May 1997 09:58:43 -0700 Sure, as did the Chicago 7, Thomas Jefferson, and a whole passle of other "dead white dudes" ; ) and I'm not saying those avenues shouldn't also be prepared for. I was after all a boy scout and have this "be prepared" thing stamped in my noggin. But I do think that political action is necessary (it's what I'm gonna do) and that as ugly and irritating a process as it is, it's got to be done to -win-. So's (hopefully) we don't have to do that other stuff. Discussing the other path ensures against "wins". (BTW I'm trusting the list goers with my real reply to address so I could include the text here. May anybody who sucks my email address into one of those EVIL (we're talking DOS 2.0 level evil here) Bulk marketing apps find a pox upon their system.) -Some guy spoofing Boyds address because Boyd doesn't talk about the non political approach on line. The opinions expressed are that guys alone. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Author: lball@unlinfo.unl.edu Boyd, I will remind you that the Black Panthers also chose to do things in ways not discussed on public forums :-( Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: Boyd Kneeland > To: Restore_our Constitution ; NOBAN@fs1.mainstream.com > Subject: Re: The NRA and Heston suck. bla,bla, bla > Date: Thursday, May 15, 1997 11:29 AM > > Given that we live in a society who's leaders hate guns and despise gun > owners I think we should stay aware of how we got here. It wasn't an > overnight occurence, we all know that small incremental changes were made > to bring us to a place where people view inanimate objects as causing > crime. So, we have to change that, and there are two ways to go about it. > One is political and the other isn't discussed in public forums. > > So, anybody here remember the last time a republican form of government > (or any form of government) changed a basic public belief overnight? Me > either. Maybe that's why our enemies chose incremental change to win > their battle. > > The bummer with that plan is, you don't change someone incrementally by > getting in there face and screaming how stupid they are and why aren't > they just like you? Frustrating, I know, but if winning is important (AND > IT IS GOOD AND ... FREAKING WELL IMPORTANT TO NOT ENOUGH OF US!!) then we > may have to slowly persuade people to our point of view. One of the ways we > do this is by organizing in as large a group as we can. The black > panthers didn't set up soup kitchens to spread the joi de vivre et haute > cuisine, they recruited new members. Members who later became movers and > shakers at DNC and set up political parties with colorfully silly names. > > When we assemble large groups they will become slow and inertia bound, > when that happens we can fix the tool or leave it to rust and > disintegrate. When our groups are effective we can afford to add tools, > like powerful public figures. Ever met a perfect public figure? Me > either. So when our new tool screws up we can decide to leave it to rust > and disintegrate or we fix it. > > So, to recap: > 1) Political action is incremental and that usually involves some level of > short term compromise on somebodies part. > > 2) Boyd gets unbelievably cranky when people prefer not to win. > The one thing we can not afford is failure, sometimes taking a step back > to plan the climb or fix the equipment is faster that jumping for the > highest handhold in sight. > > ALL of the opinions expressed are mine. > boydk@wrq.com Remove "no.spam" from address when replying. > PGP key at BAL's. Don't know about Pretty Good Privacy? E-mail me. > Unsolicited commercial messages will be considered harassment, > requiring positive action for me to avoid them is no remedy. > -->Your Bill of rights, insist on the genuine articles. <-- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Foster kids held for money from the Feds (fwd) Date: 15 May 1997 13:14:00 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- National Center for Policy Analysis POLICY DIGEST Wednesday, May 14, 1997 In Today's News CHILDREN STUCK IN FOSTER CARE More than 50,000 children who are legally free to be adopted are stuck in the foster-care system, according to a study by the Institute for Children being published today by the National Center for Policy Analysis. Prior to this study, comprehensive statistics on children in foster care were not readily available. Here are a few of the findings gleaned from the 50 states and the District of Columbia: * Some 650,000 children are in foster care each year. * But during 1996, states finalized the adoptions of only about 22,000 foster children. * In Ohio, for example, 1,201 foster-care children were adopted in fiscal 1996 -- even though 3,588 were legally free and awaiting adoption at the end of the year. Even political leaders concede that the nation's child-welfare system is a $12 billion a year failure. The problem is that states are paid by the federal government on the basis of how many children are in foster care for how many days -- creating an incentive to keep them there rather than allow them to be adopted, even after the rights of the biological parents have been terminated. The authors of the study say that it is a myth that children remain in foster care because would-be adoptive parents are interested only in healthy white babies. In fact, private groups have been able to place even children with AIDS and those who are HIV-positive. Experts say that bureaucratic bungling by the Department of Health and Human Services has been responsible for the paucity of data on foster care and adoption. As of April 1996 -- some 16 years after Congress passed the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, which required states to collect and transmit data on children in foster care -- only about half the states were doing so and six had already terminated their data collection projects. * The Institute for Children found that states with the highest proportion of children in foster care were those least willing to disclose aggregate data. * Few states were able to provide requested data expeditiously and four states did not even keep track of how many children were adopted. * Nevertheless, the non-profit Institute for Children was able to collect the available data over a two-year period at a cost of about $20,000. The report advises policy makers to follow Kansas, which has recently privatized child welfare, and to South Carolina, which is trying to cut in half the time allowed for adoption decisions. Source: Derek Herbert (Institute for Children), "Too Many Kids Waiting for a Home," Wall Street Journal, May 14, 1997. For full text of this new study http://www.public-policy.org/~ncpa/ba/ba228.html **************************************************************************** NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS DALLAS, TEXAS "Making Ideas Change the World" Internet Address: http://www.ncpa.org **************************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Computers in classrooms waste money (fwd) Date: 15 May 1997 13:16:57 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- COMPUTERS AND STUDENT PERFORMANCE The craze for putting computers in the classroom, led by President Clinton, may do little to raise student achievement. Experts warn little research has been done, even though U.S. educators are hungry for the tens of billions of dollars needed to install them. * The Rand Corp. estimates the cost at between $8 billion and $20 billion, depending on the number of students per computer, while McKinsey & Co. put the expense at $109 billion over ten years. * Linda Roberts, director of Clinton's Office for Educational Technologies, says that the research indicates that computers alone will not help children read and write better, but "that technology in combination with trained, competent teachers and highly challenging curriculum can make the difference." * Yet Rand says that research "has not yet identified a sufficient number of examples of technology-supported whole school reforms to allow us to fully gauge the contributions that educational technology can be reliably expected to make." Apple Computer founder Steve Jobs, once an advocate of wired classrooms, now says he's "come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve." He says the problems are "unions in the schools" and bureaucracy. Some critics say the federal government should be the last group pushing computers. In 1994, the Senate Government Affairs Committee found more than 40 instances in which government agencies didn't know what their computer projects would eventually cost or do. Given all these questions, a number of analysts now say that we should stop seeing technology as education's savior. Along with privatizing education, they say we should concentrate instead on the essentials: stronger curricula, tougher standards and teachers who focus on the basics. And the business world agrees. A new survey by the American Management Association found that two-thirds of managers said new employees had strong computer skills, but only 29 percent said the employees could write competently -- and only one-fourth gave students passing grades on spelling, punctuation and grammar. Source: Matthew Robinson, "Are Wired Kids Smarter Kids?" Investor's Business Daily, May 14, 1997. For more on Education go to http://www.ncpa.org/pi/edu/edu1.html **************************************************************************** NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS DALLAS, TEXAS "Making Ideas Change the World" Internet Address: http://www.ncpa.org **************************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Americans fund Red Chinese army (fwd) Date: 15 May 1997 13:25:05 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- AMERICANS BUILDING THE CHINESE ARMY Chinese government banks and state-owned enterprises with close ties to the People's Liberation Army and the Chinese military-industrial complex have been issuing bonds in the United States, specialists warn. Purchase of these bonds by pension funds and other investors here is helping a potential enemy to arm, experts say. Moreover, they are lousy investments in an unstable government which might not be able to honor its obligations. * More than $6 billion in bonds have been offered to investors in recent years. * Chinese banks issuing the bonds include the Bank of China, China Investment Bank and China International Trust and Investment Corp. (CITIC). * Financial institutions such as these are used by Chinese intelligence to fund operations and/or serve as a cover for operations, according to Defense Intelligence Agency analysts. * The banks could also provide financing for Chinese arms sales to developing countries. Some of the individuals involved with these banks are notorious. CITIC's chairman Wang Jun once tried to smuggle $4 million worth of AK-47s to sell to California street gangs. His father was a leader of the hard-line faction that ordered the massacre at Tiananmen Square. Even though such well-known firms as Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan have been more than willing to serve as managers for the bond deals, the banks are "unstable and mired in debt," according to The Economist. Half the loans these banks have made may have gone bad -- even though the Chinese government will admit to only 20 percent losses. Source: Peter Schweizer (Hoover Institution), "You, Too, Many be Funding China's Army," USA Today, May 14, 1997. **************************************************************************** NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS DALLAS, TEXAS "Making Ideas Change the World" Internet Address: http://www.ncpa.org **************************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Firearms-Related Portions of Party Platforms (fwd) Date: 15 May 1997 12:53:06 PST On May 15, John Posthill wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Originally posted to NoBan. I and other "gun guys" have been fortunate to be able to have some input into a party's platform in these parts and I thought it wise to share what was done. The platform is not yet finalized, but it shows some things that we thought were important. Perhaps if you are active in a politcal party (doesn't matter which one, they all need improvement!) and are able to have input, you may wish to consider some of the following. It is in the form of modifications to an existing document, but I think you will get the drift. Most will be "same old stuff" to most of you, but point no. 4 bears some additional scrutiny as it is a more subtle and insidious threat that must be countered. John Posthill (anyone know who is trying to fix this bug in the Constitution? Seems to me it needs to get fixed ASAP. FWIW.) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Four Changes with Reasons 1. On page 2 under the section INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY: a. Leave the 1st paragraph as written. It is outstanding! [[note to Noban: this was the four boxes of freedom to protect against state abuse! great stuff in a party platform!]] b. Replace the 5th paragraph with the following: (replacement paragraph) "People without the right to bear arms are subjects, not citizens. We strongly support the right of individuals to arm themselves for any law-abiding activity and are strongly opposed to governmental efforts to restrict the ownership, sale, purchase, and lawful carry of firearms by honest citizens." Reasoning: While support of the 2nd amendment is good, there is a "debate" on the meaning of it. Rather then leave the interpretation to the reader, we thought it best to spell out the individual right. Also, we added "lawful carry" to the last sentence to in effect support our relatively new concealed carry handgun law. 2. On page 4 under the section JUSTICE: a. Replace the 1st sentence with: (replacement sentence) "The first duty of the state is to secure the inalienable rights of its citizens." Reasoning: While not only firearms-related (all rights are involved, including the right to keep and bear arms), this sentence was worded in such a way as to possibly be misconstrued that the state's first duty was to provide for the security of its citizens. Unfortunately, this rationale (citizens' security) has been used extensively, and erroneously, by "gun control" advocates to push their disarmament agenda. We believe our wording is more clear. 3. On page 4 under the section JUSTICE: a. In the 2nd paragraph, insert the following sentence into this paragraph directly after the 2nd sentence: (the inserted sentence - to become the 3rd sentence in the 2nd paragraph) "We believe an alert and empowered public is the foremost deterrent against crime and strongly support the right of individuals to arm themselves for self-defense from the criminal element." Reasoning: This acknowledges the importance and crucial role of the public in deterring crime. It also further supports and emphasizes the citizens' right and appropriateness to arm themselves for self-defense as a deterrent to crime. 4. On page 5 under the section NATIONAL POLICY: a. Directly after the 1st paragraph, insert this new paragraph: (inserted paragraph - to become 2nd paragraph in section) "Under our form of government, sovereignty resides in the individual citizen. We are opposed to any treaty, agreement, foreign policy initiative, or other measure that intrudes on our sovereignty, or on our rights as Americans. We especially oppose any attempt to impose any measure on American citizens by treaty, that would otherwise be illegal or unconstitutional if enacted by the U.S. government as a domestic matter." Reasoning: At first glance this appears to have nothing to do with firearms, but that is definitely not the case. There is a major effort underway right now, pushed largely by the Japanese through the mechanism of the U.N., to initiate a treaty process to deal with the trade and ownership of small arms (firearms) world-wide. Make no mistake and do not be deluded - this is NOT some nutty "conspiracy theory"; this is a genuine global "gun control" effort. If you contact the NRA, they will tell you that they are monitoring it as best they can. Normally, one would expect that the mechanism of a treaty could not circumvent the U.S. Constitution and hence this should not concern reasonable U.S. citizens. But an examination of the U.S. Constitution reveals something very disturbing. Read below: ARTICLE VI, section 2 reads: "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, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." It puts treaties made by the U.S. government (signed by the President and concurred with 2/3 vote of the Senate) *on a par* with the U.S. Constitution and Federal laws as the supreme law of the land - OVERRIDING all state constitutions, all state laws, and all state judicial authority. This is horrifying and represents a serious "bug" in the Constitution that appears to have been unforeseen by the Founding Fathers. This is a bug that must be corrected, but in the meantime, we believe it is incumbent on all state governments to oppose further deterioration of their authority and any usurpation of the rights of individuals (including the right to keep and bear arms) via the mechanism of a treaty or some other international agreement that could be construed to be a treaty. [[Note to Noban: indeed it may be worse that treaties being on a par with the Constitution. Since the treaties came later, it might be interpretted that, being more recent, they trump the earlier document - the U.S. Constitution. Get worried!]] [------------------------- 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: Clinton passes more gun restrictions while gun owners attack NRA (fwd) Date: 15 May 1997 15:26:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Thursday May 15 3:34 PM EDT Clinton Unveils Limits on Gun Purchases WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The U.S. government is issuing a new application to keep guns away from "dangerous drifters" like the foreigner who opened fire at the Empire State Building in New York last February, President Bill Clinton said Thursday. Speaking at a memorial service for fallen police officers, Clinton said the application was a result of his order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to tighten the screening of customers of federally-licensed gun dealers. "Today, we are releasing a new application to make sure that certification of residency is an unavoidable step for gun purchases. Those who can't prove it can't purchase," he said. A Danish tourist was killed and six other people wounded when a Palestinian visitor randomly attacked sightseers on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in February. The man then killed himself. Clinton, the first president in recent times to take on the powerful gun lobby on gun control issues, said the new application was another step "to protect our communities from gun violence by dangerous drifters who threaten our safety." He also called for other gun control measures, including strengthening of the Brady Bill which prohibits gun purchases by convicted felons to keep young criminals from buying guns after they turn 21 and their juvenile records are erased. _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #35 (fwd) Date: 16 May 1997 19:44:48 PST On May 16, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly edition of News from around our country May 16, 1997 #35 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html THE $6-BILLION SCAM When you want to know what politicians are up to you follow the money trail. But as it turns out, all the reported hoopla over this administration's involvement in illegal campaign contributions and political treachery may be little more than the tip of the proverbial iceberg. It looks like the best part of the story is just now becoming exposed -- and it's starting to read like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel. A while back the Communist Chinese gun runner, Wang Jun, was caught trying to smuggle $4-million worth of fully automatic AK-47s into the United States to sell to California street gangs. He was not personally arrested, of course, because someone in the Clinton administration warned him and he fled back to China just in time. Along with running guns, Wang Jun is also Chairman of a bank named China International Trust and Investment Corp. (CITIC), which is actually run by the staff of China's Military Commission. According to our Defense Intelligence Agency, CITIC, the Bank of China and the China Investment Bank, are all used by the Chinese intelligence community to fund operations and serve as a cover for operatives. They also do business in the United States. Now we learn that the Chinese military industrial complex has been using these banks to issue and sell bonds in the United States. Sources say that over $6-Billion in bonds have been sold by these banks to American pension funds and other investors through the U.S. bond and securities markets. This gives the Chinese military institutions access to ready cash (in American dollars), which they can use for any purpose. The Chinese People's Liberation Army is, of course, now in the process of purchasing vast amounts of high-tech military equipment from Russia. They are also buying as much equipment as they can get from us. Goldman Sachs, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's former firm, made a bundle peddling these bonds, as did J.P. Morgan and other major Wall Street players. But there's a problem. The Economist reports that these banks are "unstable and mired in debt." Half the bank loans they have made may have gone bad. The Red Chinese government will only admit that 20% of the loans have gone bad. But even so, that amounts to many times the bank's capital. So, investing in these bonds could be a disaster waiting to happen. The banks are insolvent, and possibly never intended to pay back the bonds. The Economist also reported that at these institutions, "accounting principles are inconsistent and poorly understood, so bank's senior executives are rarely given reliable information by their loan officers." Yeah. Some of the executives are busy doing other things, anyway. Things like running an army, smuggling guns into the United States, having coffee with the U.S. President, and laundering influence payments (campaign funds) to pass around Washington. Usually there are a whole series of ethical and financial considerations to explore before brokers sell foreign bonds to American pension and investment funds. But for some reason all standards seem to have been dropped with these Chinese banks. Therefore, it looks like the Clinton Administration -- and especially Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- better get their stories straight before this information gets legs with the popular press. Because, as USA Today reported Wednesday: "These bond sales pose a very real national security problem and could severely undermine the health of any pension funds that invest in them." Rubin, of course, was head honcho over at Goldman Sachs. Therefore, it is likely that he is the one who approved this deal for the company. He probably pocketed a couple million dollars in commissions from it, too. This story is presently still rather complicated. That's because all of the details are not out yet. But it won't be long before a few powerful pension fund managers realize that they may well be holding six-billion dollars worth of worthless paper. And we doubt very much that the American people will be happy to learn that they have been funding the Communist Chinese Army. Yes folks, there's soon going to be some very probing questions asked, and these questions should start soon. So, when we look for the "quo" in the quid pro quo for the millions of dollars the Democrats received in laundered campaign contribution money from China, perhaps it is here: Over $6-Billion in uncollateralized junk bonds, and the amount is still growing. It seems that the Chinese got a rather nice return on their investment. ENVIRONMENTAL LIES Everyone wants clean air to breath, right? Yeah, sure we do. And we also want a clean environment in which to live, play and raise a family. So here comes an inconvenient question: When was the environment cleaner? If you said back in the 1950's or 1960's, you would be wrong. Let's look at some well published data the Investor's Business Daily compiled last week. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped 14.9 percent since the U.S. began measuring in 1974. Nitrogen dioxides -- which help form smog -- have dropped 33.8 percent since 1975. Sulfur dioxide in the air has been cut 50.3 percent since 1970, and lead emissions are down 97 percent since then. The air-quality index shows that air quality in the U.S. has improved 42 percent since 1980. And, since 1988, the annual release of toxic chemicals by industry has declined by 34 percent. While the trends for water quality are less clear, Investor's Business Daily reports, the data available show things are getting better: Water quality has improved 27 percent since 1980, according to estimates by the Pacific Research Institute -- with similar improvements in Canada, by estimates from the Fraser Institute. Each year, harvests of timber in the U.S. equal only 60 percent of new growth, and yearly soil lost through erosion due to farming has dropped by almost one-fourth since 1982. Now comes the Environmental Protection Agency exerting control over the American population with its new standards for ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. Air pollution control officials define particulate matter as "a broad class of substances that occur throughout the atmosphere, originate from a variety of sources, and have different effects on human health and the environment as well as different chemical and physical properties." One source of these particulates is said to be residential wood burning -- your fireplace. So, they would have us believe, our wood burning stoves and fireplaces are dangerous to asthmatics. That, of course, is preposterous! The two greatest man-made sources of harmful particulate matter in the atmosphere are very obvious, yet unregulated: Trucks and aircraft. When you see a big eighteen wheeler, or a big jet aircraft, pouring out that black smoke . . . well, there you go! Those are particulates that are harmful to all humans equally. The problem is, we need trucks and planes delivering products. That's money (commerce) on the move -- the very movement that keeps this country great. The major source of particulate matter in the atmosphere, however, is dirt. Yeah, ordinary old natural dirt -- dust from roads, crops, livestock and natural soil erosion -- accounts for 83 percent of all "particulates" to be regulated. Coincidentally, those wetlands -- swamps, bogs, and whatnot -- the EPA is so strict on protecting, are another major contributor to the problem. And God forbid a volcano erupts anywhere in the world that can affect the air in the United States. . . . EPA estimates that more than 500 counties would be in "nonattainment " of the new standards and more than 100 million people will be affected. Does EPA care that most of this "pollution" is natural, has been with us forever, and will probably be with us forever? Hell no! These new regulations extend current powers and give the bureaucrats a whole set of new powers over the citizens of the United States. And that, folks, is exactly what it is all about! That is exactly what they want: Power and control. Power and control over you. For example, a few years ago the EPA made a deal with state regulators. EPA was to "allow" states the power to regulate pollution. Suddenly that stopped. Why? States were starting to get good results. And EPA was afraid those closest to environmental problems might succeed in solving them -- and, at a real savings in costs. That type of program could lead to a wholesale devolution of power. The federal government can't have that! That would not only draw control away from the EPA, but also away from the national environmental groups whose power is rooted in that agency. So, they put an abrupt stop to the program. Now Washington controls everything with an iron fist again. Many Members of Congress are now willing to rein in the EPA, but they will need some poking and prodding before they will do it. You see, the only voices Congress hears are sponsored by the far-left groups that actually want strong government control of everything. Conversely, those of us who see the fallacy in these and other oppressive regulatory actions are strangely silent. That must change. And soon. If not, be prepared to give up the use of niceties like your fireplace and barbecue to the capricious flimflam fallacies of the social-engineering regulators. LEGAL KIDNAPPING Our dictionary defines kidnapping as: To seize and detain unlawfully. That may not be a legal definition, but it's close enough. Because, the simple definition of "To seize and detain unlawfully" opens up some very interesting scenarios. We all know that to steal someone's child is kidnapping. And so is capturing and holding an adult. That's simple. Most Americans will agree on that. Kidnapping can also be a capital crime in most civilized societies. But even where the death penalty is not imposed, the practice is still considered a serious offense. OK, so what if a government agent does it? When, exactly, does "to seize and detain unlawfully" become kidnapping when the action is performed under color of law, by a government agent? "Never," police agencies say. Citizens have a "duty" to submit to arrest by "any" officer, police agencies say. If the police officer was wrong, you will have your day in court to explain it, prosecutors say. Anyone see a little problem with this type of logic? Does a citizen have a "duty" to submit to arrest, and sit in jail for months awaiting trial, when they have done nothing wrong? Who decides if this is right or wrong? Keep reading and you will see why this question needs some intense public discussion, and soon. You may also agree that some specific changes in the above authoritarian attitude are woefully necessary. Recently, a Cincinnati police sergeant admitted that he "planted" drugs on a perpetrator to make an arrest. OK, let's stipulate that the perpetrator was probably a drug dealer. So? Does that make the officer's actions right? Because the officer "planted" drugs on the person, the man went to prison for a while. If this is not seizing and detaining unlawfully -- kidnapping -- what then shall we call it? The man was not convicted legally. There was no evidence for a legal conviction. The evidence came from an illegal "plant," by the arresting officer. Was the officer fired when his commander learned of this? No, of course not. Nor can the officer be prosecuted for his illegal action. Resulting from an unbelievable turn of events, the sergeant has immunity from prosecution. Worse yet, this situation is common throughout the country. Through a quirk in the law, many police officers have immunity from prosecution for illegal activities committed while on duty, as long as they admit the offense to their superiors. They may receive administrative punishment, but if they admit their actions, they may not be prosecuted criminally. The reason is that officers are required to respond completely and truthfully to any questions asked by superiors. Thus, they give up their right to Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. And, hence, have absolute immunity against prosecution. Below is a copy of commonly used language taken from The Cincinnati Manual of Rules and Regulations: "A member must, upon direction of the Police Chief or his designated representative, respond completely and truthfully to all questions that are specifically, directly and narrowly related to his performance as a police officer. Since the member is required by rule and case law to answer, and has no right against self- incrimination, the response to such questions may be used only in the application of administrative justice. The member is immune in any subsequent related criminal proceeding from the uses of his answers or fruits thereof." This is how it works, folks. If an officer answers truthfully during an inquiry, that officer is then immune from prosecution. Planting evidence, lying in court, even murder, can then not be prosecuted. So, can kidnapping be legal? Not exactly. But most police officers can get away with it without much problem. An interesting addendum comes from the Congressional testimony of James Maddock, FBI Deputy General Council, this week. Maddock was asked what action would be taken against FBI laboratory personnel who, in the past, fudged results and/or perjured themselves in court. Maddock indicated that the offending personnel were now retired, and that "The FBI is not in a position to take action against retired personnel." The reason the FBI will not arrest one of their own for lying, cheating, perjuring, and otherwise breaking the law is two-fold. First, these people know too much, and if they were ever prosecuted they could implicate half of the Bureau. And second, there would then have to be hundreds of cases re-tried, which could clog the courts for years. The Inspector General's report said that FBI laboratory evidence was "altered, omitted and improperly supplemented." Which is nothing more than legal-speak for "they fudged results and lied a lot." The words "altered and omitted" are very interesting, too. That means that they purposely covered up exculpatory evidence. It does not matter though. The perjuring liars are free, and they will stay that way. Those they lied about to send to prison are still in prison, and they will stay that way. Re-trying cases would place an imposition on the Justice Department. So, it shall not be allowed. In other words, lives of American citizens are to be sacrificed to the expediency and comfort of the bureaucrats at the Department of Justice. Like it or not, this is the state of our American justice system in 1997. Now . . . about those changes we mentioned as being necessary back in the seventh paragraph. . . . FEDERAL NEGLIGENCE If ever an administration seemed hell-bent on destroying our cities and corrupting our youth, this seems to be the one. This administration is totally and completely negligent in performing one of it's Constitutionally mandated duties. To wit: Protecting our borders. Using the administration's own numbers, two-million to two-million-four-hundred-thousand pounds of illegal cocaine and heroin are smuggled into the United States from Mexico annually. That folks, is enough to keep each and every adult American citizen high for almost a week. Customs Commissioner George Weise said on Nightline that we only have 2,000 customs inspectors, and therefore can inspect less than 4% of the trucks coming in from Mexico. Texas Attorney General Don Morales reports that only about 2% of the trucks entering Texas from Mexico are inspected. When 60 Minutes filmed a border crossing for an hour or two, they saw none being inspected -- that is, until the inspectors noticed the cameras were there. The Customs Department says that 3.5-million trucks enter this country from Mexico annually. That means that, even using the government's number of a 4% inspection rate, the 2,000 inspectors check 140,000 trucks per year, or a little better than one truck per inspector each week. That is not very much. Put another way, over 3,360,000 trucks enter the United States each year from Mexico with absolutely no customs inspection. Is there any question of how that 1,000 to 1,200 tons of illegal cocaine and heroin gets into this country every year from Mexico? These numbers are no surprise to anyone in Washington, folks. We got the numbers from Washington. What should be a surprise to us is that Washington knows this, yet chooses to do absolutely nothing about it! You never hear the so called Drug Czar mention these numbers. You never hear Slick Willie or any member of his cabinet mention this problem. Nor does any Member of Congress. But they all know of it. Exactly why no one in government seems to give a damn is the big question we need answered. Another problem was also brought up on 60 Minutes. That was the problem of vehicle safety. NAFTA rules let these Mexican trucks drive right into the United States and operate on our highways intermixed with our traffic. Mexican trucks do not, however, have to meet American safety standards. Neither do the Mexican truck drivers. Less than 1% of Mexican trucks are safety inspected at the border. Yet, according to some reports, over half of all Mexican trucks entering the United States are defective and/or sub-standard in some way. We understand that Mexico's biggest exports are cocaine and heroin. And we understand that the people of Mexico badly need the money received from the sale of these drugs. However, cocaine and heroin are still illegal substances in this country. Therefore, it is the legal responsibility of the federal government to interdict these substances at the border. If customs agents cannot handle that job, perhaps it is time we fire them and make other arrangements. We would not renew the contract of a private organization that performed in such a slip-shod and negligent manner. So, why do we have to keep this Customs Department crew after they demonstrated for years on end that they cannot perform? That badge and a gun they carry should give them no special right to be unproductive. Meanwhile, the drug trafficking across the U.S. - Mexican border just about doubled under the Clinton Administration. So, what was Slick Willie's response to cover up the problem? You got it; he demonized American- grown tobacco products! Negligence in office, it's called. VOLUNTEERISM Or: Clinton's Latest Hypocrisy by: Craig Brown A little over a week ago one of the most preposterous events in the history of feel-good politics took place. With an avalanche of scandals, subpoenas indictments and calls for impeachment descending on him in a manner unprecedented for a United States President, Bill Clinton was feeling a little edgy. Another fine mess other people had gotten him into. Now what to do? The obvious remedy was what had always worked in the past. He needed a diversion. Another crisis to focus upon. The trouble was, he had used up all the good crises. First there was the health care crisis, then the crime crisis, the school lunch crisis, the Black church burning crisis and they had all provided the needed sleight of hand to cover him while he dodged another bullet. But what was left? Was the Administration facing a "crisis" crisis? Eventually someone came up with the idea of a "volunteer crisis." After all, volunteering has always been as American as apple pie. Volunteering shows that you care and if people don't care enough, we'll have mandatory volunteering and paid volunteering. And what a great photo-op! We'll get a bunch of the usual movie stars together and Bill and Al will join them in painting over some school house walls on television. And start the whole thing off with bells and whistles at a "volunteer summit" held in Philadelphia at Liberty Hall where the whole thing about volunteering began. Here in Kentucky we don't need any reminding about volunteering. If anyone thinks there was a shortage of volunteers during the recent floods, go talk to the residents of Falmouth, Silver Grove, California or Mentor. That, friends, was the defining snapshot of volunteerism, Kentucky style. Nobody ordered them, nobody paid them. They just by God rolled up their sleeves and did what had to be done. Of course Bill Clinton is no stranger to playing the volunteer card. In one of the most amazing displays of chutzpah ever seen, he stood at his State of the Union speech before a house full of adoring members of the National Education Association and drew cheers as he slapped them in the face by telling them what a lousy job of teaching they had done. To atone for their failure, he was proposing spending millions of dollars to hire "volunteers" to teach third graders how to read. The Philadelphia "summit" not only reeked of hypocrisy, Clinton style, but it failed to accomplish the intended task. Volunteerism remains alive and well in America and so is that festering cesspool of scandal contaminating the hallways of the White House. -- End -- [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Heston Transcript on Meet The Press Date: 18 May 1997 21:48:37 -0500 Here is the transcript Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu _________________________________ PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS." This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with MEET THE PRESS - NBC NEWS (202)885-4598 Sundays: (202)885-4200 NBC News MEET THE PRESS Sunday, May 18, 1997 GUESTS: CHARLTON HESTON Vice President, NRA REP. BOB BARR (R-GA) House Judiciary Committe REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA) House Judiciary Committe MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert - NBC News ROUNDTABLE:William Safire - The New York Times Albert Hunt - The Wall Street Journal Elizabeth Drew - Author Whatever it Takes MR. RUSSERT: Welcome again to MEET THE PRESS. Our issue this Sunday morning: President Clinton proposes more restrictions for gun owners. (Videotape): PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: We protect aspirin bottles in this country better than we protect guns from accidents by children. (End videotape) MR. RUSSERT: Will the NRA say no? We'll talk to their new spokesman--from Moses to Ben Hur to the NRA, our guest, Charlton Heston. Then we'll turn to the debate over the Whitewater scandal and the Clinton White House. Is the first lady really in trouble? Is impeachment a real possibility? We'll hear from Republican Congressman Robert Barr, who's pressing the issue, and from Democrat Barney Frank, who sticks up for the Clintons. And in our political roundtable, New York Times columnist William Safire, author Elizabeth Drew and The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt. The very latest on Ken Starr; will the budget deal hold? And now Republicans taking foreign money; and abortion--are attitudes changing? Those topics and more on our political roundtable. But, first, joining us now in his first Sunday morning television interview, the newly elected vice president of the NRA, Charlton Heston. Welcome. MR. HESTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Russert. MR. RUSSERT: You have said that some of the other members on the NRA board are extremists and you're trying to moderate the image of the organization. Let me go back two years ago. George Bush, distinguished president of the United States, resigned from the NRA, and this is what he said--let me just show you a graphic on our screen there. He said, "I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne La Pierre, executive vice president of NRA," and a friend of yours and a man you supported, "defended his attack on federal agents as, `jack-booted thugs.' To attack Secret Service agents or ATF people or any government law enforcement people as, `wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms,' wanting to, `attack law-abiding citizens,' is a vicious slander on good people." Do you agree with President Bush? MR. HESTON: I do, indeed. I also am aware that Wayne's real mistake was one none of should never make: never sign something you didn't either write or read. And he did that--he apologized for it. MR. RUSSERT: But as long as you're associated with the NRA, you will never allow use of words like "jack-booted thugs" or "Nazi helmets" or "storm troopers"? MR. HESTON: Nor would Wayne had he had read it. MR. RUSSERT: And that language is extreme and should not be used? MR. HESTON: Oh, of course it is. Of course it is. We, unfortunately, have a few extremists in the organization. We're--that's one of the reasons I was asked to run for vice president. I did that, and we're going to deal with that, I promise you. Let me make, while I have--at the beginning sort of--a short opening blanket comment. There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. Any guns in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any guns in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody, except bad people. MR. RUSSERT: President Clinton, as you saw in our clip... MR. HESTON: Mm-hmm. MR. RUSSERT: ...is now going to suggest, recommend, initiate law, which said that there should be child safety locks put on guns. MR. HESTON: Trigger locks. MR. RUSSERT: Will the NRA support or oppose the president? MR. HESTON: The manufacturer of those trigger locks, which is the correct term, has said the instructions sold with them, "do not put this trigger lock on a loaded gun because it might accidentally discharge." That's in the instructions. That means that no child is in danger from a trigger lock on an empty gun. A homeowner might be, as he sees the bad guys coming through his window, trying to get the trigger lock off the gun and find where the key is and get the bullets and the gun before they get in. MR. RUSSERT: Fifteen kids a day are shot dead in the United States of America. Why shouldn't we put locks on those guns--those trigger locks on the guns? MR. HESTON: Well, all right, we can create another bureaucracy, the trigger-lock police, which will go from house to house, because you got to check whether people are using those trigger locks, correct? And we can probably--while we're at it, we might authorize them to make certain we don't drink too much or eat too much and that we exercise properly. George Orwell's "1984" is closing in on us. MR. RUSSERT: The Brady Bill, the law which said there had to be a waiting period and a background check on anyone who wanted to buy a handgun. Thus far, statistics from the government indicate 186,000 people have been denied access to a handgun because of the Brady Bill. The NRA has been trying to strike down the Brady Bill in court. Will you continue that? MR. HESTON: In the first place, they're not trying to strike it down. It's null and void in another year. In the second place, that 186,000 figure is the most exaggerated statistic I have seen. There have been seven people prosecuted under the Brady Bill; three have gone to jail. For heaven's sake, the president's entertain more felons than that at a coffee in the White House in the campaign funding. MR. RUSSERT: But hundreds of thousands of people, you do not believe, who wanted handguns couldn't get them because their checks came up felon and you can't have a gun? MR. HESTON: I'm telling you that that statistic is grossly exaggerated. All they did was issue the statistic. MR. RUSSERT: What's wrong with a background check and a waiting period to have a handgun? MR. HESTON: It doesn't accomplish anything. See, gun laws, of themselves, don't do anything to stop crime. Good case in point: just up the continent, in New York City, until very recently, when Mayor Giuliani took office, it shared with Washington the worst murder record in America. Both cities have absolutely draconian prohibition of any--oh, never mind waiting periods, never mind that--that you cannot own a firearm in New York or Washington. Mayor Giuliani saw the light, though. And he changed his tact and started prosecuting criminals and throwing them in prison for long periods. And since he started doing that, the crime rate in New York has gone down. MR. RUSSERT: The NRA also opposed a ban on assault weapons. In 1994, you went out on television and criticized Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, who came back with his own ad. Let me show our viewers that and ask you to respond, Mr. Heston. This was Bob Kerrey. (Videotape): Announcer: This is a message to Charlton Heston from Senator Bob Kerrey. SENATOR BOB KERREY: I'm a hunter. And I believe in the constitutional right to bear arms. When it's time to hunt birds, you need a good gun like this Ruger red label. Twenty-five years ago, in the war in Vietnam, people hunted me. They needed a good weapon, like this AK-47. But you don't need one of these to hunt birds. (End videotape) MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe private citizens should own... MR. HESTON: I'm not about to criticize a man like Senator Kerrey, but there's a great difference, widely misunderstood, between an AK-47, fully automatic, such as the Soviet military rifle, and semiautomatics. It's not very widely understood. The semiautomatic is a hunting rifle. Teddy Roosevelt hunted, in the last century, with a semiautomatic rifle. Most deer rifles are semiautomatic. Since--in the past--64 years ago, the federal government imposed very draconian restrictions on the private ownership of a fully automatic weapon of any kind. MR. RUSSERT: A machine gun? MR. HESTON: Yeah. Any fully automatic weapon. Since that time, there has been no legally owned fully automatic weapon that has been involved in any crime in America. MR. RUSSERT: The Supreme Court also upheld a ban on sawed-off shotguns. Why couldn't the Supreme Court uphold a ban on semiautomatic weapons? Why would you use them for any reason? MR. HESTON: A semiautomatic weapon--then no one could hunt deer. The semiautomatic weapons-- there are all kinds of semiautomatic pistols. It's become a demonized phrase, and it's much mixed in with fully automatic. MR. RUSSERT: So the ban on assault weapons, passed by Congress last year, you continue to oppose? MR. HESTON: Not on fully automatic. You see, the media distorts that and the general public ill understands it. The fact is, you could not and no one would attempt to ban semiautomatic weapons. Senator Kerrey was not talking about semiautomatic weapons. MR. RUSSERT: The point many people raise, however, is since that ban, enacted by Congress, assaults with those kinds of weapons is down 18 percent. It appears the law has worked to reduce murder by those kinds of weapons all across the country. MR. HESTON: Well, let me give you an example from a few weeks ago, speaking of fully automatic weapons. I was called by my grandson's school to go down and pick him up early because there were robbers trying to break into a bank less than a mile away and the police were having a shoot-out. They eliminated the police; my grandson remained very cool about the whole thing. They eliminated the criminals. There were no police killed, no bystanders killed. But a little more than a year before, these same two guys had been arrested at a traffic stop with a van load of fully automatic--not semiautomatic, fully automatic weapons, and Kevlar armor, homemade bombs, the whole shooting match. They were put in jail for less than 100 days. When they released them, they gave them the weapons back. The solution to gun crime, to violent crimes of all sorts, is what Mayor Giuliani realized. Put the bad guys away for a long time, then you will see a safer America, a violence-free America. MR. RUSSERT: There's also a proposal to say that anyone who's been convicted of domestic violence, beating up their wife, beating up their kid, whether it's a misdemeanor or felony, should not be allowed to have a gun. Would you support that? MR. HESTON: Well, already police forces in Los Angeles--they've reversed some of that. Certainly domestic violence, abuse against women or children, is one of the most heinous of crimes. You could cut their hand off, too, I suppose. I think the solution is to put them in jail. MR. RUSSERT: But also deny them a gun when they get out of jail? MR. HESTON: If they're convicted of a felony, they can't buy a firearm anyway. MR. RUSSERT: But many states, wife abuse and child abuse is only a misdemeanor. And the government's saying anyone who engages in that kind of activity doesn't have a right to have a handgun. MR. HESTON: Or any gun, you're saying? MR. RUSSERT: Well, the specific legislation is handgun. MR. HESTON: Yeah. MR. RUSSERT: Could you accept that? MR. HESTON: Mm-hmm. I think you have to talk to people in the military. And this would affect people in the military, one supposes. Huh? MR. RUSSERT: In the armed services of the country? MR. HESTON: Yeah. MR. RUSSERT: Statutes don't affect the military. It would affect the people on police forces. MR. HESTON: Well, that disturbs me, too. MR. RUSSERT: One other piece of legislation that's being introduced involving gun ownership is limiting to one handgun per month what people can buy. You have situations now where someone who can pass the Brady Bill background checks will go and buy a whole load of guns and then give them to a bad guy and have them distributed. So the government's saying, "Buy one a month. That's plenty of handguns per person." MR. HESTON: You know, the Bill of Rights guarantees every citizen the right to own and bear firearms. It doesn't say anything about how many, how much you can pay for them. That's in the Bill of Rights. That's a sacred document in our country. There's--no other country in the world has such a document. And you know what its purpose is? In every one of its amendments, to prevent the federal government from interfering with private citizens' rights. MR. RUSSERT: You know, there's a debate about this. Let me just show our audience the Second Amendment and read it to them, because there's an interesting debate going on. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed." Former Chief Justice Warren Burger said it's a, "fraud," to suggest that means everyone has a right to have a gun. They were talking about a militia. But that's a big debate. MR. HESTON: No, it isn't a big debate. Tim, for whatever--former Chief Justice Burger said, if you will read what the Founding Fathers wrote when they were writing it--Jefferson, Mason, Madison, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine--every one of them wrote at great length that they were talking about the individual rights of individual citizens. Thomas Jefferson said, "No citizen may be denied the right to bear and keep arms." MR. RUSSERT: Thirty thousand people die from guns in the United States every year--15 kids a day, as I mentioned. Do you believe there are too many guns in America? MR. HESTON: That is a misstatement. The National Safety Council said that, last year, the number of fatal child accidents with a gun fell to 185. That's the lowest it's been since 1903. Obviously, the proper goal is zero. But you don't do that by passing gun laws. MR. RUSSERT: But when 30,000 people die across the country. MR. HESTON: That's obviously not true in a year. That's in a year. MR. RUSSERT: You don't think there are too many guns in America? MR. HESTON: No, I don't. No, I don't. MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, the National... MR. HESTON: Before I go, I have one last statement that I'd... MR. RUSSERT: Well, the National Endowment for the Arts... MR. HESTON: Mm-hmm. MR. RUSSERT: ...an organization that is now under fire by conservative Republicans on the Hill... MR. HESTON: Yeah, I know. They were under fire when I was on their council, too. MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the federal government should support the NEA? MR. HESTON: I went and lobbied on that. I think the NEA budget will still be further reduced, but I personally, as I testified two years ago in Congress, believe the NEA can perform a useful function. Before I say goodbye, may I say one more thing? MR. RUSSERT: Quickly, please. MR. HESTON: Yes. We haven't agreed on very many things, but I think we can both agree on this, Tim, that we have to pass on to America in the 21st century the same Bill of Rights that those wise old dead white guys that invented this country passed on to us. MR. RUSSERT: My job is to take the other side, not to share my own viewpoint. MR. HESTON: OK. MR. RUSSERT: I appreciate you coming. MR. HESTON: Fair enough. OK. MR. RUSSERT: Charlton Heston, thanks for joining us. Coming next: How serious are the White House scandals? Should impeachment even be discussed? Republican Bob Barr, Democrat Barney Frank square right off, after this. (announcements) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Larry BAll" Subject: Re: Primary Considerations Date: 19 May 1997 07:30:17 -0500 This post got over shadowed by the Heston affair. I also suspect that some would consider it not appropriate fair for the Noban list to which it was posted. But, I disagree. The questions Mr. Brady asks can lead to some explosive reasoning and to some statements best not publicly rendered. I think, though, that what Mr. Brady asks it excellent. Essentially he is trying to point us to foundational considerations. Our country has strayed from its moorings. The values it's government was empowered by the people to protect are forgotten. It is time to consider again foundational issues and how to again effectively redirect government to its legitimate purposes. Rather than talk about values in this post, I thought I might advance an idea about structure. The American government is supposed to be owned by the people. In form this is still so. We get to trot out to elect our "leaders" periodically. The problem is that the declining number of voters indicates that this is a meaningless exercise. To them their vote is worthless because the feel that their "leaders" give them no real input into the state of affairs of our government. I feel that they are right. The candidate are bought and paid for by special interest groups. We are now seeing that the highest office holders in the land are for sale. Candidates really do not care about the will of the people because with enough money you can create a good enough spin that will bamboozle enough fools to gain the office. Further, the "people" have been forced out of any real responsibility or authority for their government. If you have a PHD, are a lawyer or "big name," a rebel, or are a big contributor, it is easier to become meaningfully involved. But the ordinary guy? What is he/she to do? Generally the private citizen is considered unqualified for government service. The private citizen is feared as being a vigilante. And vigilantes get out of control, right? Probably the finest and most efficient form of government in the United States is a citizen vigilance group. It is the volunteer fire and emergency medical service. The volunteers that staff these services put their lives on the line and are committed to their communities. These people have high civic morale, they get involved. What is the purpose of this line of reasoning? I believe that the politicians are right to be concerned about crime in this country. I, personally, have fought it in my neighborhood. There are many violent youths out there. Crime has been used to demonize the gun. But, the criminal justice system is the demon! The citizen has been taken out of the loop in the criminal justice system. Only the police, prosecutors, defenders, judges, educators, and social workers have "Standing" in this system. More and more you hear cries from the minorities of "police brutality." When investigated, the cries are generally unfounded. What you are hearing is that they (the minorities) really do not trust the system. They feel like some tyrannical system has been imposed upon them. Then there are those that are concerned about civil liberties generally and to the extreme. They, too, do not trust government. This is a historic distrust. It goes all the way back to our roots. The only kind of government that a person will trust is one in which he is involved in! Government is NECESSARY! It is why we formed our country. Government's purpose it to provide the FORCE necessary to protect the law abiding citizen's unalienable rights. But if the citizens are not involved WIDELY and DEEPLY, government will not be trusted. I propose that we go back to a criminal justice system that involve the citizen on a wider basis. I propose that we go back to a criminal justice system that involves local control and puts the citizen back into a position of responsibility, authority, and personal RISK! I think that the citizen should be involved in enforcing the laws, judging the accused, and inflicting punishment. I propose that the system would be changed to insure that punishment should be swift, sure, painful, brief, frequent, just, and forgiving. How do we enact this? We decentralize the system and in metropolitan ares create a system of mini municipality. Each "mini" would have their own elected but "volunteer" (read that unpaid) justices of the peace, and "posse" The members of this posse would also be elected. I could go on but I must stop and go to the office. Consider these things and see how you might enhance them. Remember, if you distrust the people the people become untrustworthy. What prompted me to get on this tangent this morning is the news from Venice, Italy. There is a growing segment of that population that feels cut off from the central government in Rome. They are getting restless. This story is becoming increasingly common throughout the world and in the United States. Consider how we might devolve authority, responsibility and risk of governing to the private citizen. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: Frank Brady > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Primary Considerations > Date: Sunday, May 11, 1997 23:02 PM > > I would like to seriously propose two questions for the list's > consideration. > > 1. At what point do the actions of government so subvert the > Constitution that government forfeits its claim to legitimacy? This is > more a legal question than a political one. We can begin to answer > this question by objectively comparing the actual characteristics and > conduct of the government-in-place against the model of government > authorized in the Constitution. > > 2. At what point do government's activities rise to such a level of > unacceptability as to require potential responses ranging from > non-violent civil disobedience to armed resistance? This is primarily > a moral question, colored by pragmatic considerations. We can begin to > answer this question by soberly evaluating the likely effect on the > population at large of acquiescence vs. the employment of various > modes of resistance, both short term and in the long run. > > For those whose sensibilities are offended by these questions, I > understand and apologize in advance, but it seems increasingly clear > that answers to these questions are vital. Thank you for your > consideration. > > Frank Brady > Executive Director > Coalition for an American Future > caf@sky.net > http://www.sky.net/~caf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Boston Globe spotlight Date: 19 May 1997 11:27:22 -0400 ROC'er's: The Boston Globe (typical left-liberal rag) has been running a really interesting and alarming series on involuntary incarceration in mental hospitals in Massachusetts. The essence of the story is that almost anyone, police officer, admitting nurse, psychiatrist, psychiatric nurse, etc. has the power to unilaterally declare someone a danger to themselves or others and lock them up in a locked mental health facility for 10 days. This technique is used approxiamately 20,000 times a year in Mass. The actual time in the facility may go as long as 24 days before the incarcerated person gets to go before a judge. Its pretty outrageous, sounds like something out of Soviet Russia to me. The article points out that even if falsely used only 10% of the time, thats still 2,000 cases of false imprisonment with lasting stigma. The mental health facilities have a money interest in filling beds, and as a lot of these people wind up being Medicare cases at several hundred to >$1000 per day. This aspect is explored in detail. They also discuss several individual cases of people who were locked up with little sensible cause and no recourse. (It didn't take a lot of searching to find them, either). See: http://www.boston.com/globe/search.htm search for keywork 'spotlight'. ciao, jcurtis P.S. Of course, totally unmentioned in the article is that this (involuntary lockup) may deprive one of many fundamental gun rights *for life*. Don't mouth off to an emergency room admitting nurse, it could cost you 10 days (without habeus corpus) plus loss of CCW. Does anyone know if this is on Form 4473? This could cost you the ability to purchase firearms. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: neil@jove.geol.niu.edu (Neil Dickey) Subject: Re: Boston Globe spotlight Date: 19 May 1997 12:03:10 -0500 John Curtis wrote: > ROC'er's: The Boston Globe (typical left-liberal rag) has been > running a really interesting and alarming series on involuntary > incarceration in mental hospitals in Massachusetts. > > [ ... Snip ... ] > > P.S. Of course, totally unmentioned in the article is that this > (involuntary lockup) may deprive one of many fundamental gun rights > *for life*. Don't mouth off to an emergency room admitting nurse, > it could cost you 10 days (without habeus corpus) plus loss of CCW. > Does anyone know if this is on Form 4473? This could cost you the > ability to purchase firearms. I don't have a reference to cite, which means that this could be a myth, but I have heard of an incident here in Illinois where something like that happened. We have what is called a "Firearm Owner's Identification Card" (FOI-card, pronounced "fooey-card"), which is required in order to possess or purchase firearms and ammunition. Some people were apparently involved as bystanders in a hold-up and shooting during which the badguy was killed by police. The civilians present were bundled off to counseling by the police, and not given a choice in the matter -- or so the story goes. A month or so later, one of the civilians, who is a gun-owner, gets notice that his FOI-card has been revoked. Eventually he finds out it's because of the involuntary counciling session following the botched robbery. It took a year or so to get his record "cleared," and the FOI-card reinstated. 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: "Larry BAll" Subject: Fw: Atrocity In Sonoma Date: 19 May 1997 12:27:25 -0500 One would wonder if these guys have any priors. If not, this is a nightmare. The department ought to be sued. It would seem like there ought to be at least one hungry and aggressive lawyer amongst the wolf pack who would take this case on a contingent fee basis. Larry Ball lball@unlinfo.unl.edu ---------- > From: consults@primenet.com > To: Recipient list suppressed > Subject: Atrocity In Sonoma > Date: Monday, May 19, 1997 11:48 AM > > Posted to texas-gun-owners by consults@primenet.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Careful who develops your photos. > > When this happens in other countries we criticize their governments for > running "police states". What is ours? > > -- Lee > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 08:29:03 -0700 (PDT) > From: Dale Seago > To: right2arms@pobox.com > Subject: R2A! Atrocity in Sonoma County > > > Sounds as though my students a couple of weeks ago were rather lucky > by comparison. . . > > Regards, > Dale Seago > Proprietor, Safe & Secure Lifestyles www.bricelaw.com/SponsPage.htm > Chief Instructor, Bujinkan San Francisco Dojo www.bricelaw.com/seago1.htm > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:54:16 -0700 (PDT) > From: Dale Seago > To: (distribution deleted) > Subject: On The Importance Of "Image" > > Some of you receiving this will already have heard about parts of it. > Some of you may be surprised that such things happen in America. If so, > get over it: It happens. Often. It also explains why I represent the > Bujinkan as a school of feudal-era Japanese martial arts, not as a > "ninja school" teaching "ninjutsu". > > A few weeks ago one of my dojo students, Rex Biteng, took some > photos to be used in an article for a on-line magazine for which Rex > writes. The photos featured Rex, another of my students named Robert > Candelaria, and a friend of theirs holding some firearms owned (quite > legally) by this third party. > > Rex took the photos to a chain called Costco, which offers a > photo developing service (okay, you can see it coming already, right?). > Next thing he knows, people at his bank are telling him that police of- > ficers have been showing these photos around and asking questions about > his financial affairs. According to Rex, before he picked up the devel- > oped photos, someone had seen the guns, called the police, and said they > had some photos of gang members with guns. > > Rex asked me whether I thought he should get a lawyer and go > after Costco, and my response was "definitely". Rex is in the middle > of the hiring process to become an officer with the San Francisco Po- > lice Department, and I warned him that this would almost certainly > arise and bite him when they got to the background investigation phase. > He ultimately decided to drop the matter: figured that he didn't have > the money for a lawyer, wasn't interested in creating further problems > or getting anyone in trouble, and the police hadn't bothered to con- > tact and talk with HIM so apparently the matter had been dropped. > Then I received his e-mail message, below: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 13:22:58 -0800 > From: (Rex Biteng) > To: dale seago > Subject: It happened!!!! > > Dale, > > Hows it going there??? Well, let me tell you of the recent drama. Feel > free to tell anyone you want. At 0700 this morning the santa rosa pd, > rohnert park pd, and the sonoma sherriffs (gang task force) raided > Robert and my house simultaneously. It was very depressing. A full swat > team with their mp-5's and riot shot-guns compleate with their kevlar > helmets, black bdu-s and riot shields put my brother, me, my uncle (who > is a retired Philippine Marine officer and saw combat duty during his > service), and my old grandfather, in hand-cuffs face down. Let me tell > you that it is a very scary feeling to have a mp-5 with the safty off > pointed at your back when you are truly innocent. They served me a > search warrant and confiscated my brothers telescopic baton, my black > ruck-sack which included my black bdu's and my tabi that I use for > Bujinkan and a photo album of mine with some of the gun pictures in it. > It's funny because in that same albulm I have my Guardian Angel pictures > in there plus some pictures of when I was at Airborne school in ft. > Benning. > I told them the whole story and I even had to explain my bdu's that I > use for Bujinkan. The investigator told me 'as if he was a expert in the > martial arts' that dosen't your dojo use gi's and have ranking systems. > I had to explain that Bujinkan is not a normal style that he was use > to. In fact, One of the investigatiors who I will not say, treated me > as if I was a dumb unintelligent nit. Trying to make me say things that > were not true. I even had to explain about a little ninja dash ornament > that Jason and I have in mine and his car. I told them about having an > attorney present but he just told me that if i had nothing to hide to > tell him the information that I knew. So I told them everything. > Apparently, I guess you now have to prove your innocence instead of > being innocent untill proven guilty. > I don't know how Robert faired because I haven't been able to talk to > him yet. But I'll keep you up to date on what happens. > > Your Bujinkan Warrior, > Rex > > (End of forwarded message) > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > The following night in the dojo I also was able to get Robert's > side of things. Pretty much the same story: They cuffed Robert and told > his father and stepmother to get out, at which point Robert's 62-year- > old stepmother sort of "lost it" and snapped back to her girlhood in > France, when the Nazi soldiers came to her village and behaved the same > way. She actually attacked one of these modern ones and knocked the > fine German-made HK MP5 submachine gun out of his hands. > > No firearms were found at either residence, and no one was taken > into custody. They tried to question Robert, but he informed them that > they were welcome to search for the items specified on the warrant, but > that if they found nothing and wished to question him about anything else, > they would have to arrest him and take him to the station, whereupon he > would answer questions only in the presence of an attorney. > > What, specifically, were they looking for? Following are ex- > tracts from the search warrant: > > STATE OF CALIFORNIA > COUNTY OF SONOMA > SEARCH WARRANT > > PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, to any sheriff, policeman, > or peace officer in the County of Sonoma: > PROOF, by affidavit, having been made before me by DEPUTY > (deleted), SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, that there is probable > cause to believe that the property described herein may be found at the > locations set forth herein and that it is seizable pursuant to Penal > Code 1524, as indicated below by "X"(s), in that it: > > (3 of 5 possible choices were "x'd") > > X was used as the means of committing a felony > > X is possessed by a person with the intent to use it as a means > of committing a public offense or is possessed by another to > whom he may have delivered it for the purpose of concealing it > or preventing its discovery > > X is evidence which tends to show that a felony has been committed > or a particular person has committed a felony > > you are therefore COMMANDED TO SEARCH the premises located at > and described as: (followed by addresses and descriptions of > Rex's & Robert'sresidences and vehicles) and the persons of > (followed by Rex's & Robert's names and physical descriptions; > and) > > 3. Subject #3, the person depicted in the attached photographs, > should he be present at either location; for the following property: > > 1. AK-47 variant, 7.62x39 with Choate handguards and thumb hole > stock with thirty round magazine. This weapon is defined as an assault > weapon by 12276(a)(1) PC, which covers the AK-47 and all of its variants; > 2. Chicom SKS, 7.62x39 with folding stock and thirty round de- > tachable magazine. This weapon is defined as an assault weapon by 12276 > (a)(11) PC, when it has a detachable magazine; > 3. Any miscellaneous gun pieces, ammunition, gun cleaning items > or kits, holsters, ammunition belts, original box packaging, targets, > expended pieces of lead, photographs of firearms or any paper work show- > ing the purchase, storage, disposition or dominion or control over any > guns, ammunition or any of the above items; > 4. Articles of personal property tending to establish the ident- > ity of persons in control of any premises, storage areas or containers > being searched, such as utility company receipts, rent receipts, charge > card receipts, tax receipts, airplane tickets and other receipts, checks, > deposit slips, savings account passbooks, passports, drivers licenses, > vehicle registrations/titles, land titles, escrow papers, legal docu- > ments, Social Security cards, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal cards, insurance > bills and/or policies, medical records, prescriptions and prescription > bottles, doctor bills, hospital bills, cancelled mail, addressed envel- > opes, photographs, weapons with serial numbers, keys and safes; > 5. To search and/or seize any and all computer equipment, in- > cluding any and all storage media, either hardware or software, located > within said residence for evidence relating to this crime; > 6. Any and all electronic day planners located within said res- > idence for any and all evidence pertaining to this crime; > You are authorized to defeat any and all security and/or pass- > words; and to SEIZE it if found and bring it forthwith before me, or > this court, at the courthouse of this court. > > (signed by the issuing magistrate) > (end of warrant excerpts) > > The firearms in question, as I mentioned earlier, are actually > owned by a friend of Rex's & Robert's in the Sacramento area. Robert > told the Naz. . I mean, the Nice Officers who the individual is and > where he lives. How did the folks in the Sacramento jurisdiction handle > it with this third guy? Couple o' folks came to his house, talked with > him, looked at the weapons and determined that they either are not the > statutorily defined assault weapons mentioned in the warrant (it IS > hard to distinguish a lot of these carbines from each other from a pho- > tograph alone); or, if they are the weapons described, they are none- > theless legally possessed by the owner. And they left, with no arrest > of confiscations. > > Rex, Robert, and their respective families should at this point > (in my humble lay opinion) have excellent cases against both Costco > (for slander and defamation; also for loss of future income in Rex's > case if the San Francisco Police Department now refuses to hire him) > and (at least) the Sonoma County Sheriff's department. An important as- > pect of self-defense (and of ninpo, for that matter) is to have the > right sorts of connections to get things done, and I've contacted an > attorney who is interested in looking into the matter. For the record: > Yes, I most certainly WILL "go to war", metaphorically speaking, for > my people. > > Regards, > Dale Seago > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------- > To unsubscribe send a message to majordomo@pobox.com > with the following line in the body: > > unsubscribe right2arms > > ***Visit http://www.wizard.net/~kc/firearms.html > to learn more about guns in America*** > > RIGHT2ARMS IS A PRIVATE UNMODERATED LIST. THE OWNER > TAKES NO RESPONSIBILTY FOR CONTENT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net > with the word help in the message body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Curtis Subject: Tim Russert interview with Charlton Heston Date: 19 May 1997 13:25:53 -0400 >MR. HESTON: Well, let me give you an example from a few weeks ago, speaking >of fully automatic weapons. I was called by my grandson's school to go down >and pick him up early because there were robbers trying to break into a >bank less than a mile away and the police were having a shoot-out. They >eliminated the police; my grandson remained very cool about the whole >thing. They eliminated the criminals. There were no police killed, no >bystanders killed. But a little more than a year before, these same two >guys had been arrested at a traffic stop with a van load of fully >automatic--not semiautomatic, fully automatic weapons, and Kevlar armor, >homemade bombs, the whole shooting match. They were put in jail for less >than 100 days. When they released them, they gave them the weapons back. >The solution to gun crime, to violent crimes of all sorts, is what Mayor >Giuliani realized. Put the bad guys away for a long time, then you will see >a safer America, a violence-free America. > This is the second time I've heard this snippet. Is it true that the LA bank robbers had been arrested with full auto weapons and homemade bombs and only served 100 days in jail? How did they skip NFA 1934 conviction and long stay in Club Fed? Where they liscenced? Who were these guys? Something smells very fishy here. (<-thanks, Wm. Shakespeare). ciao, jcurtis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Kids who Kill Date: 19 May 1997 13:14:50 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.dallasnews.com A loss like no other KIDS WHO KILL: VICTIMS AND VIOLATORS Families try to channel grief into efforts to stop violence The security video shows a well-dressed young man in a leather jacket walking toward the men's room of the Doubletree Hotel in North Dallas. A teenager follows him inside. What the 1995 video doesn't show are the two young people lying in wait inside the restroom. Soon, the three leave the hotel with the jacket. But the owner of the jacket, Julien Truttling, never emerges. "When I see that tape, I want to warn him. 'Don't go in there Julien, you won't come out,' " said his mother, Elizabeth Truttling. "It's so hard knowing that once he gets in that bathroom he's going to have guns held to his head and his back. He's walking to his death." The Truttlings, who live in Duncanville, said they worked to make sure their son grew up with values and a desire to make something of his life. And they were successful. At 20, Julien was in college, planning to be an elementary school teacher or a pediatrician. He had no record of involvement with drugs or gangs or guns. But his parents couldn't protect him from meeting someone who did. "We never thought in a million years that we would lose a son like this," Mrs. Truttling said. "If those boys had taken time to know him, they couldn't have killed him. But they didn't care enough to know how important life was to him or how important his life was to us." With a tripling of the U.S. juvenile homicide rate over the past decade, teenage violence is an increasing concern for those kids at risk of falling into violence - and for their potential victims. For those in the justice system, juvenile murder is doubly tragic: Not only are the lives of the victims wasted, but the lives of the killers, who once had potential, are also wasted. Rodney and Elizabeth Truttling, like others who've lost loved ones to the callousness of teenagers, have channeled their grief and their energy into fighting teen violence. "We have to try to do things to make the streets safe," Mr. Truttling said. "We have to do something about guns and kids' access to guns. If you have a gun, you're going to use it. We, as a society, are adjusting to gun violence, and we should not adjust to it." At 17, Brandon Truttling, the Truttlings' middle son, is the same age as one of the three accused of killing his older brother. The others were 19 and 20. One has pleaded guilty to murder and has agreed to testify against the other two, who are awaiting trial on capital murder charges. Brandon has what he describes as a "burning hatred" for his brother's killers, a feeling compounded by their youth. He wonders about other young people he sees wasting their lives with gangs, guns and violence. "I can't see how anyone could be born destined to be a murderer," he said. "I see kids at school who are followers, headed down that route. It's sad. They've got bright futures ahead of them, but they've turned the wrong way." The Truttlings are active with Mothers Against Teen Violence, have lobbied politicians as high up as the president and made anti-violence bumper stickers in memory of their son. They hope to rent billboards soon. "We've got to reach young people at impressionable ages," Mr. Truttling said. "We have a group of people coming up with a value system that's unacceptable - people who think that, 'What you have is only yours until I take it from you.' " At support groups where they deal with the murder of their 20-year-old son, they have befriended others who also want to stop the violence. One of those is Diana Broadus, whose son Reginald was a 21-year-old Texas A&M student who was kidnapped and murdered in 1994 by two brothers, one 15 and one 20. "I couldn't even fathom a 15-year-old possessing a gun," Ms. Broadus said. "Where was his mother? Where was his family? When you raise a child, you have a responsibility to society. I sympathize with the families of those young people, but not to the point where I'm willing to make excuses for them." On the night Reginald Broadus was killed, he was with his friend and fellow A&M student Crystal Miller, 21. They were talking in a Redbird area parking lot when his car was carjacked by Jimmy Ray Hardy and his older brother Broderick Hardy. After driving the students around, the brothers shot them both - first Mr. Broadus, then Ms. Miller. The killings garnered attention not only because of the brutality of the crime but also because the victims were bright, ambitious college students who volunteered their time to help others. "They didn't have to kill them," said Crystal's father, Larry Miller. "What was the point? They could see how scared she was. Why didn't they let her live? There was no thought to it. There was no remorse." Mr. Miller has thought about his daughter's death and the Hardy brothers every day since the murder. He's internalized it, intellectualized it and, finally, from time to time, let it out in a torrent of anger. The conclusion he's come to, he said, is that some criminals, young or old, are not fit to ever walk the streets again. And that perhaps in some cases, the death penalty should apply to juveniles as well. His daughter's killers, Jimmy Ray and Broderick Hardy, are each serving two life sentences. "How do you deal with the Jimmy Rays of the world?" he asked. "My family has a right for him to stay in there forever. The question becomes how do we deal with those who act less than human? Some are willing to forgive and forget. That's fine for them." George and Phyllis Bedford know the feeling. Their daughter, Leslie, a 25-year-old 911 operator, was shot by three youths as she waited in her car one afternoon while picking up a co-worker in 1992. Three young people were on their way to rob a convenience store when they happened upon her. When she tried to drive away, one of them shot her. Two of the killers were only 13 and 14. They are now serving time in a Texas Youth Commission program, too young to be sent to prison. The third, the 21-year-old gunman, was sentenced to life in the penitentiary. But it's the teenagers the Bedfords worry about most. Because they were sentenced before toughening of juvenile laws, they will stay at TYC only until they are deemed rehabilitated or until they turn 21, whichever comes first. The 14-year-old had been in custody six times in the eight months before the murder. And the 13-year-old had been arrested 22 times since he was 8 years old, on charges from theft to robbery. (The 21-year-old had been in trouble with the law since he was 14.) In each case, the Bedfords say, the system failed the boys - and ultimately failed their daughter. "When I found out how long they had been in the system without getting the help they needed, one of them since he was 8, I was frustrated," Mrs. Bedford said. "And here again, they were getting what amounted a slap on the wrist. It's been a constant battle to keep them [incarcerated]. "If something more had been done earlier, maybe Leslie would still be alive." To cope with their grief and try for a measure of justice, the Bedfords have actively sought to make sure both youths stay in custody until they're 21. "If they're released too soon, I believe they'll kill again," said Mr. Bedford, a Dallas police detective who has been on the force for 24 years. "We've told . . . [TYC] if they let them out too soon, they'll have the blood of another victim on their hands." The Bedfords have also worked to change juvenile laws and to make the youth commission more open to hearing from victims and to ensure their rights. Though punishment is one goal in keeping the teens in TYC for as long as possible, it is only part of it, Mrs. Bedford said. "With these two, I see them still having a chance," she said. "I'm trying to make sure they don't get out before they're ready to re-enter society. They should pay for what they did and maybe they'll think twice next time." One way Mrs. Bedford deals with losing her daughter is to stay as involved with the case as possible. She has arranged with TYC to have a face-to-face discussion with her daughter's youngest killer some time this summer. "So little value was placed on Leslie's life," she said. "I need to know why. I want to share with him how this crime has impacted our lives. He needs to know the effects of what he did. If there's some way that he could feel what we feel . . . "I hope he never forgets it. I want him to know that he changed our family forever," Mrs. Bedford said. "When Leslie was murdered, a part of me was murdered, too. I will forever feel that way." Mr. Bedford won't be at the meeting. He's not interested in what the young man has to say. He's working through his grief by coaching soccer, working with young people and telling his story to criminals in prisons and youth programs. "Sometimes you wonder if you're getting through," he said. "You're there bleeding your heart out and wondering, 'Am I making a difference when I tell them how I'm hurting?' You'd like to save everybody, to change things. But who knows?" With her new work, Joyce Strickland is also trying to save people - both juveniles and survivors of violent crime. After years of personal success, Ms. Strickland wanted to give something back to the community. But she had no idea how much it would cost her. Three months after moving her family from Trophy Club to a historic area of South Dallas, Ms. Strickland's 19-year-old son, Chris Lewis, and his friend Kendrick Lott, 18, were killed by two gun-wielding teenagers high on drugs, looking for someone to rob. Her grief led the former IBM Corp. executive to start a nonprofit group, Mothers Against Teen Violence. She helps families deal with the loss of their children, navigates survivors through the criminal courts and works to help prevent teen violence. "I moved back here for a reason, and those reasons became valid after my son was killed," she said. "We owe it to others to help them. When God takes you through a situation, God does that for a reason." Mr. Lewis, who played cello and varsity football at St. Mark's School of Texas, had just finished his freshman year at Morehouse College in Atlanta when he was killed in June 1993. Mr. Lott was an Eagle Scout and senior class president of the Dallas Business and Management Center Magnet School. "Chris was at a point in his life where I'd seen him into young adulthood," Ms. Strickland recalled. "We were friends. . . . When he was murdered there was so much taken away, so many hopes, dreams and aspirations." Her son's teenage killers were tried as adults - each pinning the murders on the other. One of them, Courtney Hooper, received two life sentences for capital murder. He won't be eligible for parole for 70 years. The other, Kendrick Hall, pleaded guilty and is serving three life sentences for murder and aggravated assault. Ms. Strickland said violence occurs when children have no guidance or faith. "This environment that produces violent children explains the behavior but does not excuse it," she said. "We have to hold children accountable for what they do - because every child that grows up poor in this neighborhood does not become a murderer." People touched by such violence - experiencing the loss of a child or a spouse or a parent - are changed forever. For Ms. Strickland, it's been a time of personal growth. "I've become a more compassionate person. I have reached out beyond my friends, and my so-called class, to help others," she said. "My eyes have been opened up to social issues that before weren't really my concern." For others the changes are more specific and, sometimes, more troubling. Some find themselves in need of vengeance. Others are distrustful and angry. Some find they favor the death penalty where they once did not. "I used to see a group of kids hanging out on the street corner, listening to music and whatnot, and not think anything of it," said Mr. Miller. "Now I wonder what they're up to. I stereotype them like the police do. Are they good kids or gangster kids? I assume they're up to no good. I didn't think like that before." For the Truttlings, there's a fear of giving their other children independence, to let them out of their sight. "It's not fair to them, and I try not to be so overprotective," said Mrs. Truttling. "But I'm so afraid it could happen again, that we could lose another one." Brandon, their middle son, understands that fear but is not willing to change his life. "If I were to stay at home every weekend and live the rest of my life hiding from criminals and bad apples, I'd just be kidding myself and denying myself privileges for no reason," he said. "Julien did nothing wrong. He was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. It makes you cautious and aware of your surroundings, but you can't live in constant fear." Kids who kill The Dallas Morning News began preparing for this project by identifying more than 50 people from the greater Dallas area who killed while in their teens. Reporters divided this group and wrote letters requesting interviews with prisoners in state prison, where access would be greater than in the juvenile system. Not many agreed to interviews. Those interviewed are not intended as a scientific sample. For example, no young women were interviewed despite repeated requests. Sunday: Voices of Violence Monday: Victims and Violators Other stories on this topic may appear Staff writer Tracy Everbach contributed to this report. By Laura Griffin / The Dallas Morning News 05/19/97 [IMAGE] Back to Top [IMAGE] Back to Metro indexes [IMAGE] © 1997 The Dallas Morning News About us ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Re: Fw: Atrocity In Sonoma Date: 19 May 1997 14:46:38 -0400 >One would wonder if these guys have any priors. If not, this is a >nightmare. The department ought to be sued. It would seem like there Hey, why not? We can make the courts liable for their gross misconduct. Here's a suggestion for the charges: 1. Prosecutorial indifference. Ever heard of the baseball term "defensive indifference"? Well, this is the same thing. Who cares if they're convicted, they'll just get probation or a suspended sentence anyway.... And then wind up six months later blowing away a couple of cops with homemade bombs and such.... Rachel ============================================================= = "The female of the species is more deadly than the male." = = -- Space mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu = ============================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Boston Globe spotlight Date: 19 May 1997 13:54:35 PST There's worse yet allready implemented in the Wash. State Concealed Carry application. It says that any liscencee can be called in to have their heads examined by any, "zookeeper", who wants to have it happen. No time limit on exams, no mention of abrogation of Rights, notification of family or lawyers, no nothing. They can disapear you permenantly if they wish, and there's not a thing you can legally do about it. It's kinda hard to call your lawyer while wearing a straight jacket. The bastards don't even have to site a real world reason. On May 19, John Curtis wrote: > ROC'er's: The Boston Globe (typical left-liberal rag) has been > running a really interesting and alarming series on involuntary > incarceration in mental hospitals in Massachusetts. > > The essence of the story is that almost anyone, police officer, > admitting nurse, psychiatrist, psychiatric nurse, etc. has the > power to unilaterally declare someone a danger to themselves or > others and lock them up in a locked mental health facility for > 10 days. This technique is used approxiamately 20,000 times a > year in Mass. The actual time in the facility may go as long as > 24 days before the incarcerated person gets to go before a judge. > > Its pretty outrageous, sounds like something out of Soviet Russia > to me. The article points out that even if falsely used only 10% > of the time, thats still 2,000 cases of false imprisonment with > lasting stigma. > > The mental health facilities have a money interest in filling beds, > and as a lot of these people wind up being Medicare cases at several > hundred to >$1000 per day. This aspect is explored in detail. > > They also discuss several individual cases of people who were locked up > with little sensible cause and no recourse. (It didn't take a lot of > searching to find them, either). > > See: > http://www.boston.com/globe/search.htm > > search for keywork 'spotlight'. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > > > P.S. Of course, totally unmentioned in the article is that this > (involuntary lockup) may deprive one of many fundamental gun rights > *for life*. Don't mouth off to an emergency room admitting nurse, > it could cost you 10 days (without habeus corpus) plus loss of CCW. > Does anyone know if this is on Form 4473? This could cost you the > ability to purchase firearms. -- 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: Joe Sylvester Subject: Date: 20 May 1997 00:11:29 -0500 Big Brother strikes again, by excutive fiat, this time. Will history say that the second amendment was preceeded in death by the fourth? (probably not, they won't even mention the Constitution or BOR.) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% May 19, 1997 Clinton Announcing Rules to Bar Money Transfers by Drug Cartels By DAVID E. SANGER WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration will announce new rules on Monday in an effort to make it far more difficult for drug cartels to move their profits from the United States to Colombia and other drug centers in Latin America, building on a successful experiment in New York City, officials familiar with the plan say. Under the new rules, street-corner check-cashing services as well as large money-transmitters like Western Union and American Express would be required to report wire transfers of more than $750 outside of the United States to the Treasury. Until now, only transfers of more than $10,000 required the filing of a government form that includes basic information about the sender. The regulations, which would go into effect after a 90-day comment period, will be announced by Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Raymond Kelly, the former New York City police commissioner now heading up the Treasury's enforcement division. Ordinary banks, which operate under separate rules requiring reports of suspicious activities, will be exempted, though they must still file reports of international transactions of more than $10,000. Nonbanks, which largely do $200 billion a year in legitimate business, say they fear that the new reporting requirements could create a paperwork nightmare. The new rules grew out of a federal and state crackdown on money laundering that began in New York City in August. Using the Treasury's emergency powers under the Bank Secrecy Act, Kelly, who had just taken the federal job, required cash transmitters in New York City -- chiefly storefront shops in Queens and northern Manhattan that immigrants often use to wire money home -- to report transactions of more than $750 or face large penalties. Intelligence reports suggested that the New York transmitters moved more than $1 billion in drug money a year to Latin America, chiefly to Colombia, in increments just under $10,000, to avoid the government reporting requirements. Law-enforcement officials, presumably after eavesdropping on the drug operations, said the $750 limit virtually dried up the cartel's money-wiring business in the city, because the burden of dividing up a remittance of, say, a $500,000 payment to Colombia in such increments was significant. "It was more successful than we could have imagined," one senior administration official deeply involved in the crackdown said this weekend. "It didn't cut the money off, but it required the cartels to move a lot more in cash. And that is dangerous for them." During the six-month experiment, cash seizures at Kennedy and Newark International Airports and Logan International Airport in Boston rose to $50 million, a four-fold increase over the previous year, Treasury officials say. Despite the crackdown, there is little doubt that most drug profits make their way out of the country, $9 billion a year from the New York City area alone. At a congressional hearing last week, Justice Department officials admitted that most trucks, even many armored cars, carrying large amounts of cash over the Mexican border are never challenged by the Customs Service, which is overwhelmed examining vehicles heading north. Nonetheless, Treasury officials insist that they often receive intelligence reports of large cash movements, helping them disrupt the cartels' operations. The new nationwide strategy grew out of a meeting last summer at the New York Customs House between Rubin and officials from federal and state law-enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. At that session, he approved the experimental crackdown against the 3,500 money-transmitting agents in New York, and there was discussion of extending the effort around the country. At the meeting, Rubin and Kelly asked the intelligence services to listen in on the cartels, presumably through the National Security Agency's eavesdropping satellites, to determine if the New York operation was disrupting their business. Months later, officials said they had collected evidence that it "was causing them a lot of problems." But critics of the Treasury plan say it will require a deluge of paperwork that will overwhelm the government, which already has a hard time processing reports of currency movements of more than $10,000. "My clients believe this will increase the number of filings by a million pieces of paper a year," said Ezra Levine, a lawyer in Washington who represents the Non-Bank Funds Transmitters Group. The group represents Western Union, Travellers' Express Co., Thomas Cook Inc., American Express, Moneygram Payment Systems, Citicorp Services Inc. and Comdata Inc. "There may be easier ways to accomplish this result," Levine said. "Do you really think we have a problem in Iowa, or in North Dakota?" Nonetheless, Levine's group has gone along, albeit reluctantly, with the Treasury plan because the large money transmitters are eager to show that they are not laundering drug money. In fact, officials say, most of the drug money runs through small operations in large cities. While the estimates are rough at best, the store front operations may wire $11 billion out of the country each year, but it is not clear how much goes to the drug cartels. One estimate put the amount transmitted this way yearly to the Cali cartel in Colombia alone at $60 million. The Treasury action does not cover everything. It does not, for example, include money orders sent through the mails -- including the Postal System -- or travelers' checks, which can be purchased in the United States and cashed outside its borders. Officials say that there is only sporadic evidence that much money laundering is conducted by those means, although that could change if drug dealers are seeking a way around the new rules. Nor does it cover cash that is carried by travelers, though they are still required to report carrying over $10,000. Technically, any money launderer seeking to avoid the new regulations could divide up the cash in lots of $749 and transmit it without a report that would include information from a driver's license or a passport. But the new regulations also require the nonbanks to report suspicious activity -- even in sales of traveler's checks and money orders -- including the movement of multiple transactions just under the $750 limit. That figure was established, Treasury officials said, after studies showed that most immigrants working in the United States and wiring money home to their families sent it in amounts of less than $500. The crackdown in New York was accomplished through an emergency action that imposes strict reporting and record-keeping requirements for a limited time in a defined geographic area. The same technique was used successfully in Phoenix in 1989 and Houston in 1991 on a smaller scale. Such orders do not require industry comment or a waiting period. The new, nationwide rules, which are subject to public comment before they can go into effect, are likely to require upwards of 25,000 businesses to register with the Treasury. Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company [19 May 97] ---- 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: May 16 HOT QUOTES from NET (fwd) Date: 20 May 1997 09:01:27 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- These HOT QUOTES are from NET-Political NewsTalk Network : CALL TO ACTION OVER A BAD BUDGET DEAL! by: Paul M. Weyrich Last week at this time I told you I didn't know what to think of the budget deal. Well, I now know what to think of it and I want to share my views on the subject for what they are worth. In plain English, this is a bad deal. It is now clear that the money is going to be there to continue the worst programs which we have fought for years. The National Endowment for the Arts, the Legal Services Corporation, money for Planned Parenthood, AmeriCorps, Goals 2000. You name it. The White House claims that the Republicans have even agreed that these programs are to be fully funded. Some in the GOP leadership deny this, but the handwriting is on the wall. With the possible exception of the NEA, on the House side only, there will be no concerted effort to kill any of these programs. In fact not a single program of any kind is killed in this budget agreement. But several new programs, including a KiddieCare entitlement, are started. Imagine, starting new entitlements at a time when even many liberals agree that entitlements are bankrupting the nation. All of that is bad enough. But for you deficit hawks, how do you like the fact that the deficit goes up in each of the next three years? All of the so-called savings in this legislation are back-loaded to the fourth and fifth years of the agreement. Does anyone want to take any bets on whether we will ever see any of these savings? We have proof that we won't, in this very bill. When Bill Clinton enacted his tax increase in 1993, he also had Congress pass spending caps. These are now the law. They were agreed to by then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and House Speaker Tom Foley. These spending caps are blown asunder in this budget deal. They will be waived by the Congress in order to push this deal. If spending caps agreed to by liberals can be pushed aside for the sake of this agreement, does anyone really believe that spending caps agreed to by Republicans will be adhered to five years from now? The whole budget deal is based on "found money." That money, which was "found" by the Congressional Budget Office, is based on the assumption that the U.S. economy will continue to grow at the present rate over the length of the agreement. Amazing. The Congress has now found a way to avoid the periodic economic downturns which have been part of this nation's economic picture since we were established as an independent country. They have managed to legislate away any possible recession. As to the tax cuts, they will end up being modest indeed. It is clear that we will be funding, one way or the other, Bill Clinton's tax credits for higher education. The end result will be to make all of Clinton's leftist university pals happy, but it will not put the money where it is most needed. Why, with this newly "found" money, didn't the Congress make the tax cuts meaningful? Or why isn't that money being used to balance the budget sooner? Why is it that whether Democrats or Republicans are in control, when Congress gets any money, they want to spend it on programs? The very first result of this new budget has already been seen. The House International Relations Committee is now proposing to spend $400 million dollars more on FOREIGN AID! Imagine, more money for foreign aid, out of a Republican Congress. That is just the beginning. Yesterday we at N-E-T got a look at the document which the budget negotiators themselves have used in making this agreement. Even though that document is now being revised to some degree by further negotiations, it is clear that the budget deal represents a capitulation to the administration by the Republicans in the Congress to a far greater extent than even Senator Phil Gramm and other critics had imagined. No wonder former Reagan Budget Director Jim Miller has gone ballistic. No wonder even those conservative organizations which enjoy a close relationship with the GOP leadership, such as the Heritage Foundation and Citizens for a Sound Economy, have come out against this deal. This budget ushers in a greater spending spree on domestic programs--all of those we fight constantly--than at any time since the Great Society. In fact, this budget gives Bill Clinton $3.5 billion more in domestic spending than even he asked for in his budget, which when it was submitted, no one took seriously because it was considered bloated. Despite the reality that this budget only expands government, despite the fact that this budget represents, as columnist George Will has pointed out, a complete abandonment of every conservative principle the Republicans have claimed to stand for, despite the fact that it fails any reasonable test in any area of discussion, there are only a handful of Senators and almost no House Members opposing this deal. And why not? There is no pain associated with this scenario. Congress gets to spend more and more on everything in the near term and everyone can claim victory. Senator Gramm is so disgusted with what has happened here he is actually talking about quitting the Senate. That would be most unfortunate. He is one of the few Senators who actually understands these numbers. This deal is, of course, being rushed through both houses of Congress. The leadership doesn't want you to know what is in it. As I say, I withheld judgment, hoping that the House leadership was correct in the claims it made for the bill. It is clear that they are not correct. Senate Budget Chairman Pete Domenici has made that abundantly clear. The hour is late, but this budget deal is being held together because the assumption is that you won't understand it before it is too late. As Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell told me privately last night, if there is a little more pressure, the whole deal could unwind. That would be great, because doing absolutely nothing gets us far further toward our goals than adopting this turkey. Here is what you can do. First, call , write or e-mail Senator Phil Gramm and tell him not to quit. Tell him we need him to fight on despite the odds. Second, call your Senators and tell them that you would prefer no budget deal to this deal. Thirdly, call your House Member. Tell that House Member to get briefed on this budget deal by the CATO institute, the Heritage Foundation, or Citizens for a Sound Economy. Ask them to have Senator Gramm and his budget people brief the House Members since they lack experts of their own. The odds are very much against us, but this is a very tentative, politically expedient deal. And I have seen deals like that come apart over fewer objections than I have raised here. I know we go to the well often. I know you get discouraged when you call and write and they ignore your wishes. But we must fight on. Better that we fight the good fight and lose than that we sit back and let this atrocity take place with our acquiescence. Who knows, maybe we can stir up enough trouble that we will get something out of this arrangement if we can't derail it altogether. Maybe we can give future Congresses options on ways to shrink government that haven't been tried yet. In any case, let's give it our best. Contact: Brad Keena 202.546.3000 PANEL APPROVES BUDGET TO GO TO FULL HOUSE "I think it's an atrocious deal! I think it really was a mistake. =85What they agreed to last night was worse than what we thought they agreed to two weeks ago," Terry Jeffrey, editor of Human Events weekly newspaper, said on NET's "Capitol Watch." "We know now that they had 135 billion dollars in gross tax cuts that they agreed to with Clinton, and 50 billion in tax increases. So, that gave us a net of 85 billion in tax cuts. And we knew before yesterday that Clinton had maybe got a promise for 35 billion in tax cuts that would go to his particular college tuition tax credit leaving a 50 billion dollar net tax cut over five years for Republicans. We now know that Republicans also agreed to several other tax cuts that Clinton demanded. =85So we really don't know what the next net tax cut that the Republicans can actually direct to all of their various tax cuts. If you do that mathematics, there is no way they can do what they claimed they were going to do!" Jeffrey explained his theory of the economy: "What's going on in the economy is amazing now. I have my own theory for it, which is: just like it was sort of the thing for the baby boomers to do to go to Woodstock and smoke marijuana, or whatever, in 1967, now they are sort of at the peak of their working life and their earning life, and they are saving more than they ever had, they are working harder! And I think that's really sort of the demographic that is driving the extraordinary economic trend right now. But I don't think the baby boom generation is going to repeal the business cycle. It's going to kick in. We might see a long term impact from the sort of interest rates that Greenspan has in mind. =85There's no question that a= n increase in the interest rate can put a brake on the economy. That's what Greenspan wants to do! Greenspan is actually worried that too many Americans are working and making too much money and saving too much in the stock market." Contact: Human Events 202.546.0856 SENATE VOTES TUESDAY ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION "My guess is, unfortunately, we're going to miss a veto proof majority in the Senate by a vote or two. And then, there will be a moral crisis with some of these people. Daschle is a Roman Catholic. And there's a lot of pressure actually by the church itself and the church hierarchy for Catholics to move over. It's very extraordinary! The Catholic bishops don't usually get involved in issues. They're involved in this one!" commented Terry Jeffrey, editor of Human Events weekly newspaper, on NET's "Capitol Watch." "The people who are voting for partial birth abortion are voting to legalize murder by the most brutal means possible on the most innocent and defenseless individual in our country - an unborn child. =85You have to be = so committed to an evil act to fight for that!" Contact: Human Events 202.546.0856 PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS' VALIDITY CHALLENGED "This procedure, partial birth abortion, is a maverick procedure. It's a procedure not found in any medical textbook. It's a procedure for which there is no peer reviews," stated Dr. William Hogan, MD on NET's "Morning View" talk show. Dr. Hogan, of the Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, added, "It's all a sham, because how can we base the value and the dignity of this child on a concept as elastic as 'viability?' There is no more unnatural act in the whole human drama than for a mother who has been given the eternal gift of a child to enter into a conspiracy with a physician, who's lofty privilege it is to nurture and sustain life, and in that conspiracy to kill the child," exclaimed Hogan. In response to a caller's comparison of this procedure to experiments in Nazi Germany, Hogan said, "We defeat the Third Reich on the battlefield, and then we adopt their philosophy of life. So who was it that won World War II?" Contact: Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition For Truth 703.684.8352 THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT Human Events weekly newspaper has compiled the facts which surround the Clinton scandals in a special report titled "The Case for Impeachment." "We've taken nine different questions=85asked what the question was, laid o= ut the facts that are known, and then raised the legal and constitutional and political questions that are relevant to that particular question," explained Terry Jeffrey, editor of Human Events weekly newspaper, on NET's "Capitol Watch." "For example: In terms of whether or not there is an impeachable question in Whitewater for the President, I think it all boils down to whether or not he perjured himself in Federal Court. Or, in the question of his relationship with John Huang and James Riady and the funneling of Asian money into his campaign, the question is whether the President willfully compromised the security of the United States -- probably the most incredible question you could ask of a President. If you objectively look at the evidence that's simply been reported in the press and is available from public documents, there's a tremendous case there, particularly in that the President is not submitting to the subpoenas that have been sent to him by the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee that specifically target his communications and his relationships with James Riady and John Huang." As for the matter of an obstruction of justice charge in the Webster Hubbell case, Jeffrey said, "If you look at the sequence of events and the sequence of statements out of the White House, first of all, it's impossible to believe that the President and his chief advisors are not lying! It's just impossible to believe that they are telling the truth!" Copies of "The Case for Impeachment" can be purchased by calling 800.787.7557. Contact: Human Events 202.546.0856 HEARINGS WILL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE "Dan Burton really has become the line between America and a total whitewash on the whole Clinton scandal, because he is the only person in the United States of America who is capable of tearing the lid off this entire Clinton scandal. If he goes down [due to pressure from the media] or if he decides not to move forward, it's not going to happen! The rest of the cowards in the Republican Congress are going to move away from it, and go ahead with their budget deal with Clinton. We're never going to find out what John Huang and James Riady were doing with the President," warned Terry Jeffrey, editor of Human Events weekly newspaper. A guest on NET's "Capitol Watch," he told host Michael Schwartz, "The absolute incontrovertible proof that [Senator Fred] Thompson's investigation is a fraud is this: He has not issued one subpoena to the White House. Not one! But he has subpoenaed the Republican National Committee for its communications with the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee. He wants to find out whether or not someone was protesting in front of an abortion clinic or saying a rosary somewhere instead of finding out what Bill Clinton's communications were with James Riady." Jeffrey said, "Congressman Burton, on the other hand, has put these subpoenas in that specifically target the President's communications with two people - James Riady and John Huang - who were partners through the Lippo Group with a company called China Resources Holding Company, which our intelligence agencies know provides cover for Chinese intelligence gathering operations. "This is a fact: The President of the United States repeatedly had into his office two foreign agents of influence who are business partners with the Chinese espionage front. If the President knew what he was doing, potentially that is the greatest scandal in the history of the presidency. If the President did not know what he was doing, it raises questions about the competency of the entire Clinton administration. How did these people get that close to the President? How did they repeatedly meet with the President?" Jeffrey made an appeal. "It takes a long time to develop this sort of investigation. It takes a lot of moral courage. I think Dan Burton is showing that, considering the pressure that he is under. I think everybody out there listening should support Dan Burton=85and tell the Republican leadership to get behind this. And if President Clinton deserves to be impeached, he should be impeached even if it means that the Republicans are going to have to go right after the jugular and have the biggest political fight we've had in the last 25 years in Washington. Contact: Human Events 202.546.0856 WHY CHINA WILL GET MFN "In about two weeks, the President is going to ask for renewal of Most Favored Nation status for communist China. Newt Gingrich has said he's going to vote with President Clinton on that," Terry Jeffery, editor of Human Events weekly newspaper reported on NET's "Capitol Watch." "What we are literally doing is giving the Chinese the cash dollars they need to build the navy and the air force and the nuclear missiles to deter us with a nuclear threat while they take back Taiwan, or intimidate Taiwan into surrendering, as they go on with all their human rights abuses. And, the Republican Party leadership - not counting Paxon who has now moved away - is siding with President Clinton because basically they are influenced by the same groups, namely the multinational corporations that finance both parties, as Bill Clinton is." Contact: Human Events 202.546.0856 REPUBLICANS LOSE BY WINNING "For a long time, Republicans have wanted a zero annual deficit, and lower taxes, and restraint in spending. And they've won all those things now! And, therefore, they've lost them as a political issue. And so, the victor in a perverse way in this political struggle are the Democrats and Bill Clinton," explained Jeff Birnbaum, Washington Bureau Chief of Fortune magazine on NET's weekly live talk show about the media "Headlines & Deadlines." "I quote a Republican pollster calling it 'victory disease.' And the Republicans haven't really been so bereft in victory since the end of the Cold War." Contact: Fortune Magazine 202.861.4032 RACE, CRIME, AND THE LAW "African-Americans, in particular, have good reason to be skeptical and distrustful of the criminal justice system. And so, people who are in favor of law and order need to take this into account and try to do things which will drain this sense of resentment that so many African-Americans feel," said Randall Kennedy, author of "Race, Crime, and the Law" on NET's daily talk show "Morning View." Time magazine said that Kennedy is one of the top fifty Americans under forty who is destined to shape the future of the United States. Kennedy said the focus of his book is "the good-doing, hard-working black person who is the potential victim of a criminal." In a discussion with host Major Garrett on the allegations of the CIA bringing drugs into Los Angeles, Kennedy replied, "There is a sort of conspiracy-mindedness in our society, and we need to be careful about that. Racial discrimination does exist, but we shouldn't willy-nilly be seeing it under every rock. We should be very careful. Investigate the facts before making allegations of that sort." Contact: Pantheon Books 212.751.2600 Copyright =D3 Free Congress Foundation 1997 All Rights Reserved =3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=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 from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Police Ruin Businessman's American Dream (fwd) Date: 20 May 1997 12:12:17 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by consults@primenet.com How much longer do we tolerate these Police State excesses in the name of the War on Drugs? The excess at Waco was based on a lie to the Justice Deparrtment that the Waco compound was a methamphetamine lab. A lie. You may think that they will only target those on the fringes and lower classes of our society. They will, until they get to you. How long is this going to be tolerated? It doesn't just happen in Utah. It's happening everywhere. Coming to your neighborhood soon. Salt Lake Tribune, Section B 5/18/97 On April 25, about 3:30 PM, 75 heavily armed police officers and federal agents burst through the metal door of Rafael Gomez tortilla factory and Mexican food store in Salt Lake City, Utah. Dressed in black with bullet proof vests and scarves over their faces, brandishing automatic rifles and pistols, the jackbooted thugs ordered everyone---some 80 employees and customers down on the floor and handcuffed them. Senor Gomez, who was standing near the door when it was blown down, was struck in the face with a rifle butt and kicked when he went down. A rifle was pointed at the face of his 6-year old son. Graciela Zamora, a secretary at the business, was dragged by her hair on the floor. Police believed that drugs and weapons were on the premises. No street drugs or weapons were found in the business. Police make no apologies for the raid. "I do not believe our action inappropriate," said SLC police Capt. Marty Vuyk. "We took necessary precautions and feel what we did was the best way to deal with the situation." Salt Lake Tribune, Section B 5/18/97 Just more proof that only the authorities should be trusted with firearms. Kelly -- 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: Freedom (fwd) Date: 21 May 1997 16:41:39 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Who Will Defend Our Freedom in the 21st Century? In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, Justice Sutherland, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, articulated that the Declaration of Independence earmarked the birth of American sovereignty: During the Colonial period, those powers [international powers] were possessed exclusively by and were entirely under the control of the Crown. By the Declaration of Independence, "the Representatives of the United States of America" declared the United (not several) Colonies to be free and independent states, and as such to have "full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do...As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the colonies, acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the colonies severally, but to the colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America. In mind, spirit and body, the Declaration of Independence served as the sword that severed the sovereign right of King George III to oppress, and gave birth to the sovereign right of individual Americans to pursue life, liberty and happiness within a union of the free. The Articles of Confederation did not secure Americans their freedom! The Constitution of the United States did not secure Americans their freedom! According to Justice Sutherland: The Union existed before the Constitution, which was ordained and established among other things to form "a more perfect Union." Prior to that event, it is clear that the Union, declared by the Articles of Confederation to be "perpetual," was the sole possessor of external sovereignty, and in the Union it remained without change save in so far as the Constitution in express terms qualified its exercise. It was an act inspired by God, and carried out by the Continental Congress in 1776, that secured Americans their sovereignty! It was the revolutionary American who demonstrated the intestinal fortitude required to kill British agents of tyranny and fight on to the American objective to secure those self-evident truths that secured Americans their freedom! Americans must be prepared to display the same intestinal fortitude if they expect to be free in the 21st century. And "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." Sua Sponte, Richard R. Biondi Operation Patriot Spectre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: A birthday solute to my dad (fwd) Date: 21 May 1997 16:53:06 -0500 (CDT) 5-21-1997 My father is 79 years old today. Normally I would not send out a e-mail for such a private event. But, Joe Horn sent out one about his dad who never came back from WWII. It reminded me of how much we owe to our parents, family and Americans for all their sacrifice that allows us to still enjoy our country and the freedom we have left today. So to my dad; Who taught me how to shoot and hunt responsibly and ethically. Who taught me to work hard and respect my elders. Who taught me to love America and our history both good and bad. Who taught me to love God and to respect other religions. Who taught me to respect other cultures, races and women as equals. Who taught me there are two sides to all arguments and not all things are black and white. And most important, to my dad who flew 50 B17 missions from England to defeat Hitler and the NAZI's and all the men who never came back. I would not be the man I am today if it was not for you and men like you. You are one of a dieing breed of Americans raised during the Depression years who sacrificed everything in a world war. A 4th generation Texan from a typical small town of Bowie Texas. Despite all odds with German fighters and crash landing in Belgium and later cancer you survived. You are a uncommon man from a frontier stock who tamed the West and built the greatest nation on earth. I pray that some of us have the ability and the wisdom to preserve and protect that heritage for future generations. Thank you and happy birthday to Ewing Stuart Watson. Your loving son, Paul Watson, Dallas Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "E. J. Totty" Subject: Re: Clinton passes more gun restrictions while gun owners attack Date: 21 May 1997 15:23:25 -0700 Paul, [...] Clinton, the first president in recent times to take on the powerful gun lobby on gun control issues, said the new application was another step "to protect our communities from gun violence by dangerous drifters who threaten our safety." [...] "Dangerous drifter", . . . Ya know, Mr. Clinton could very well fit just that description. He hasn't held a job in his life, and has . . . drifted. We know he's dangerous. ET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Some Personal Thoughts About Memorial Day 1996 (fwd) Date: 22 May 1997 09:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Roc and noban readers: these serious thoughts that I penned with regard to Memorial Day in 1996 are just as relevant today, as Memorial Day in 1997 is now upon us. These themes, while not directly linked to either the Constitution or the Second Amendment, are powerful enough indictments of President Clinton's persona and modus operandi that I sensed that they merited being resent to other proud Americans who value sacrifice, who believe in honor and who love this Country. Best regards, Chris Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- May 28, 1996 The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton The White House Washington, D.C. 20050 Dear Mr. President: Yesterday, while you were "heaping praise" on the military you once so openly loathed, I, as an Army veteran and current administrator at the private high school from which I graduated a generation ago, was standing in the shadow of three separate campus memorials dedicated to preserve the memory of my alma mater's many alumni who have given up their lives over the years in defense of the precious freedom you seem to fear so much. (Important note: my alma mater is not a military school and has no affiliation with any branch of the military services.) Hold your breath, G.I. Bill. The Memorial Bell Tower, dedicated after World War I, displays 89 names etched in granite. The Memorial Gymnasium, dedicated after World War II, shows 142 names etched in stone. The Memorial Place, located in a quiet courtyard nearby and dedicated just a few years ago, is marked with 16 names of alumni who lost their lives in Korea and Viet Nam. Add up the numbers, Super Soldier. From a school founded in 1778 and having a steady total enrollment of about 1,200 young men since the beginning of this century, 247 men have answered their nation's call and have then died to protect liberty (in this century alone.) Two hundred and forty seven! I hope you are stunned by that total number. You should be. Young men from my alma mater have been taught well over the years to be prepared to sacrifice. And sacrifice they have. Yes, indeed. In a way you and your power-breakfast, walk-for-hunger crowd at The White House will never be able to fathom, no matter how many nicely polished speeches are cranked out for you by yuppie MBAs who do not know the difference between a rifle and a raffle and, more importantly, do not care or want to know. I will end this concise communication by quoting powerful words from a poem "Limited Service Only", written by Private Ken Rand, Class of 1910. Rand was considered medically unfit for combat arms duty in WW I, but he badgered an Army recruiter to allow him entry into the Quartermaster Corps where, ironically, he died in service a short time later, before the war ended: "I am not one of those the gods' decision Has chosen for the highest gift of all - The sacrifice, the splendor, and the vision - To fight and nobly fall." "And yet I know - what though it be but dreaming! Should the day hang on one last desperate hope, I - I - could lead one reckless column streaming Down some shell tortured slope." "To face the shadow-hell of Death's own valley With eyes unclouded and unlowered head - Know, for an instant, one ecstatic rally And then be cleanly dead." For whatever reason, God did indeed choose to take U.S. Army Private Ken Rand into His arms. And freedom lives on because of men such as Ken Rand and the way they thought and still think, and the reverent way in which they regarded and still regard the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, every last amendment included. Ask yourself, Mr. President, if you ever could have been a Ken Rand. Your answer will likely be that you would have been unfit to shine Private Rand's boots. How lucky for Rand and his boots. For even the Army's highest quality footwear can be easily ruined when stained through close contact with dishonor. In honor of Private Rand and the other 246 alumni of my alma mater who have died in their nation's service, I am asking you, Mr. President, to respect their heroic sacrifice by restoring to all Americans the freedom you have taken from us, piece by piece, since you assumed office in January of 1993. Do not do it for me, Mr. President. Reread Private Rand's eloquent words, Mr. President. Then do it for him, after you finish hanging your head in shame. Respectfully, Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Saturday Night Specials (fwd) Date: 22 May 1997 09:13:26 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Message-ID: Dealing with the inexpensive firearms bans sweeping, well, California at least. Comments welcome. You may find the links at the bottom useful as well. (To be posted at http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/.) Mimsy Were the Borogoves The Self-Defense Tuskegee [1]Jerry Stratton, San Diego, California, May 21, 1997 The Tuskegee experiment: Men died. Spouses died. Children died. It was a racist experiment, a horrible chapter in United States history. President Clinton says that the Tuskegee syphilis experiment should "never happen again". Yet we and he do not really want to learn from history. We like the music of "never again" but we're not prepared to dance. We're repeating the Tuskegee experiment all over with our gun control laws. All of these laws seek to prevent the poor from defending themselves while exempting the wealthy: through exemption of police, military, and security forces. All tools that the wealthy can rely on but that the poor and middle class cannot. Nowhere is this goal more clear than in so-called "Saturday Night Special" laws that seek to outlaw affordable self-defense arms. Since the first gun control laws in the aftermath of the civil war, gun control has been designed to keep the right of self-defense from the poor and minorities. Today's push for "Saturday Night Special" laws are nothing but a poorly disguised continuation. Strip away the hyperbole and all you've got are "we need to remove inexpensive firearms from the hands of the poor". Never mind that every major scientific study has shown that firearms ownership in a community reduces violent crime. Never mind that every increase in firearms ownership in the United States since 1900 has resulted in a decrease in firearms accidents. Never mind that every community that has instituted major gun control becomes an example of excess crime: Washington DC, Los Angeles, New York City. Over thirty states now recognize the right of the average person to carry firearms in self-defense. All have seen reduced violence. So-called "Saturday Night Special" laws seek to deny to the poor this re-emergening right of self-defense. There is no other explanation. The cry is that Saturday Night Specials are "dangerous", that they can "explode" with no warning. And yet: * These laws do not focus on quality control. They focus on price, or on size, or on price-based factors such as the metal used to manufacture the arm or the manufacturing process itself. Nowhere in these laws do they measure the danger they claim they are trying to fight. Instead, they focus on price. Inexpensive arms that the less-wealthy can afford are banned. Some of these laws attempt to pretend to focus on quality control: they use a "melting point" test. That is, they measure whether or not the firearm will melt under extreme heat. This is a valid argument only if owners plan to defend themselves within a blast furnace. All this really is, is a way of pretending not to be focusing on inexpensive metals. No study has ever found that handguns with low "melting points" to be more likely to "blow up". * Most such laws encourage police officers and the military to carry the so-called "Saturday Night Special". Police and the military are invariable exempted from such laws. Do we care so little for our police? Are their children worth less than other people's children? Or is it that the drafters of these laws recognize that there is no safety danger in the affected self-defense weapons. If the true aim is to disarm the poor, it makes sense that the police and the military should be exempted from the law. By their very nature, laws to stop inexpensive firearms cannot stop such firearms from reaching criminals. Inexpensive arms are inexpensive because they are easy and cheap to manufacture. They can be manufactured in a criminal's basement. How many violent criminals are there in your city? A hundred? A thousand? And most of them are repeat offenders: the same criminals over and over again. How many firearms does a basement manufacturer have to create to supply all the criminals in your city with firearms? Very few. It isn't difficult. Firearms are just pieces of metal, stamped or molded. Pakistani and Afghan peasants made firearms which use the Russian AK-47 cartridge; they used wood fires and simple hand tools. Even in prisons, police cannot enforce firearms bans: prisoners continually manufacture illicit arms. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. But if it takes a criminal, then only criminals will have these arms. The law-abiding, as usual, will abide by the law. Even if no criminal went into illegal arms manufacturing, smuggling will easily fill the gap: during a study period from 1986 to 1989, 500,000 AK-47s were smuggled from China. If that many rifles can be smuggled, how will we stop a few thousand small handguns from coming in? And these arms will be all the more useful because the law-abiding have been disarmed. Criminals will have free play in the streets and homes of the poor. What about crime control? Consider: * Why in the world do we want to encourage criminals to use better quality firearms? * Cheaper handguns are easier to trace: the fired bullet and the handgun share more distinguishing features. * Cheaper handguns provide more microscopic residue on the shooter. Hardly a major concern for self-defense, but it makes it much easier to prove that the firearm in question was fired by a criminal who says otherwise. * Criminals steal handguns. They don't buy them legally. What does price matter to a criminal? * The Department of Justice has already concluded that criminals prefer larger caliber, more expensive firearms. In other words, criminals don't use the very weapons these laws affect. And we wouldn't want to discourage them from using them over other weapons even if they did. Any criminal who uses an inexpensive firearm is easier to catch and easier to convict. So if it isn't crime control, what is it? Gun control advocate Philip Cook wrote pretty clearly in 1981, "The major argument against a high tax is that it is economic discrimination and thus unethical, or at least politically unpalatable....[However] a high tax is not the only method of increasing the minimum price for handguns and subtle approaches may be more acceptable politically." ("The Saturday Night Special: An Assessment of Alternative Definitions from a Policy Perspective", 72 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1735, 1740) In other words, "Saturday Night Special" laws are a "subtle" way around unethical economic discrimination. It is an experiment for which we already know the answer: And men will die, women will die, spouses and children will die: all because of an "experiment" which we already know is doomed to fail. We already know that reducing firearms ownership among the law-abiding increases violence. We already know that reducing access to firearms and firearms training increases firearms accidents. We already know that firearms are so incredibly easy to smuggle and to manufacture that criminals will never have to be affected by our laws. And we stand by once again while the poor die, as Nero stands in his castle playing "Never again" on an old but familiar instrument. Related Links: * [2]U.S. Department of Justice: Criminals prefer large caliber, well-made hanguns, not cheap, small-caliber handguns normally characterized as "Saturday Night Specials". * [3]Gun Control and Economic Discrimination, from The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology * [4]Crime, Deterrence, and Right to Carry, from The Journal of Legal Studies the largest scientific study of concealed carry, shows a drop in violent crime among states and counties that recognize the right of citizens to carry weapons in self-defense. * [5]The Value of Civilian Arms, from the American Journal of Criminal Law * [6]The Racist Roots of Gun Control * [7]Racism and Gun Control text archive * [8]Concealed Carry Debate * [9]Liberal Second Thoughts About Gun Control * [10]Saturday Night Special on Yahoo [11]Jerry Stratton * More [12]Mimsy * Back to [13]FireBlade Editorial * Back to [14]FireBlade Coffeehouse * Back to [15]Negative Space References 1. mailto:jerry@hoboes.com 2. http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Criminal%20Gun%20Sources/Criminals %20Prefer%20Junk%20Guns%3F 3. http://nemo.as.arizona.edu/~swest/economic.html 4. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Publications/Working/41.html 5. http://pocari-sweat.jprc.com/~karl/firearms/crime-deterrent.html 6. http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Historical%20Debate/Racist%20Roots%20of% 20Gun%20Control 7. http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Essays/Racism%20and%20Gun%20Control/ 8. http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Concealed%20Carry/ 9. http://www.arcrafts.com/2think.html 10. http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=%22Saturday+Night+Specials%22 11. mailto:jerry@hoboes.com 12. http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Mimsy/ 13. http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/ 14. http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/ 15. http://www.hoboes.com/ Jerry jerry@hoboes.com Politics! http://www.hoboes.com/Politics/ http://www.hoboes.com/ e-mail help@hoboes.com "Saying that Deep Blue doesn't really think is like saying an airplane doesn't really fly because it doesn't flap its wings."--Drew McDermott -- 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: jewell_1.html (fwd) Date: 22 May 1997 09:14:19 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Reuters New Media Wednesday May 21 3:40 PM EDT Agent Suspended, Two Censured in Jewell Case ATLANTA (Reuter) - A Federal Bureau of Investigation agent has been suspended and two other agents reprimanded for their roles in the questioning of security guard Richard Jewell after last year's bombing of Centennial Olympic Park, local media reported Wednesday. FBI agent Don Johnson was given five days' suspension without pay and special agents-in-charge Woody Johnson and David Tubbs received a "letter of censure," the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and WSB-TV said. FBI spokesman Jay Spadafore declined to comment on the report Wednesday. Jewell was initially identified as a suspect in the Olympic Park bombing, but was later cleared by federal prosecutors. His lawyers claim Jewell was questioned days after the bombing under the pretext of assisting in making a training video. Johnson told WSB-TV "we operated within the framework of the Constitution. We're seeking the truth. We have all along." The newspaper quoted a statement from the FBI's Washington office saying the "disciplinary process has not been concluded, so it would be inappropriate to make any public comment at this time." _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: Reflections on Memorial Day 1996 (fwd) Date: 22 May 1997 12:18:28 -0400 (EDT) Roc'ers and nobanners: I may have written these words just over one year ago, but they still apply today. They certainly do. And I believe that rereading them before celebrating Memorial Day in 1997 may enable each of us to remember just how low the job performance standards for the President of the United States have sunk. How sad. How very sad. Let these words be a reminder that we must never give up the political fight to restore lost freedom. Best regards, Chris Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- May 16, 1996 The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton The White House Washington, D.C. 20050 Dear Mr. President: Memorial Day approaches. How can I tell? You have been practicing making your lower lip quiver. You have made an appointment with my L.A. cousin "Christophe" to have your hair recolored. Steffie has been leafing through U.S. Cav Store and Brigade Quartermasters mail order catalogs to select medals to commemorate your valorous service not "under hostile fire", but under Flowers and Jones. You have been striving to appear noble, honorable and Presidential, spelled with an upper case "p". Cancel the act, Sir. Do not waste your time pretending that you value freedom. We have your number, Mr. President. As do the guardians of freedom in uniform who are compelled, as part of their sworn duty, to salute you as their Commander in Chief. Thank God I left military service in 1983. Yes, I would have saluted and respected your position as President, but you, Mr. Clinton? For you, I would have had, and still have, nothing but sheer disdain. Disdain for a man without honor who visits hallowed gardens of stone and dares to talk of the relevance of sacrifice. Disdain for a man who has contempt for those portions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that do not conform to his personal agenda of dismantling freedom. Disdain for a man who cannot be faithful to either his spouse or his nation. I do not hate you, Mr. President. But I deeply regret what you have done to destroy freedom since you have assumed office. Your actions to chip away with hammer and chisel at the very foundation of liberty have made a mockery of the ultimate sacrifice of the millions of Americans who have given their lives to defend the Constitution in its entirety, including every single one of the Bill of Rights. Every single one, Mr. President. Yes, the Second Amendment, too, Gun Hater. For your information, freedom has not been defended over the years with tossed tomatoes. Firearms have freed enslaved people. Firearms have defended honorable men and women under attack by merciless two-legged predators. Freedom and firearms are inseparable. No matter how badly you want to deny that rock solid connection. I presume that you will make some slick, word-smithed speech on Memorial Day to praise the military you once openly loathed. During that speech, pause every now and then to listen carefully. As the wind blows across the podium in front of you, listen carefully to the whispers of departed American veterans as they counsel you, "Leave freedom alone!" The voices will include those of two family members of mine who also wore this nation's uniform with pride and distinction. One was KIA in the Philippines during the fall of Bataan, another was KIA during the North African campaign in WW II. They, Sir, know all too well the high cost of preserving freedom. Listen to their voices, Mr. President. Let their sacrifices not have been in vain. In fact, instead of faking an "I Love The Military" speech on Memorial Day, why don't you take a walk over to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? By yourself. Leave Steffie behind to play with his G.I. Bill doll. Take the walk alone, accompanied only by your personal security detail. When you arrive, spend an hour or more watching the professionals of the 3rd Infantry's Old Guard as they act as sentinels at that sacred place. Note the rifles they carry. Symbols of honor! Of courage! Of duty! Of loyalty to fellow service members and, above all, of a sworn oath to protect the Constitution! We Americans value our right to possess and use similar variants of the rifles carried by the Old Guard, Mr. President. And, make no mistake about it, it is our right to possess such arms, despite the fact that you and your cronies in Congress who fear us, your fellow citizens, have temporarily stripped us of that right. And, make no mistake about it, our loss of that right is only temporary. We will regain that precious right, Mr. President! (At the ballot box.) November 1994, deja vu, coming right at you, El Supremo! Hold on tight. Should you decide to visit the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and to focus on the rifles carried by the honor guard as "symbols of honor", would you also pause to consider the irony that I, an average American citizen, have to caution you, The President of The United States, that you are endangering freedom? Mark this as a new "low" in the history of this great nation, when a citizen has to remind the President to believe in the importance of defending freedom! Past Presidents are surely turning in their graves, watching your and your White House yuppie frat brother freedom-haters at work. In summary, take the "closed mouth" approach during the upcoming Memorial Day. Instead of mouthing platitudes which will not be sincere, just remain silent and think! Think hard about why so many Americans are so saddened by your ongoing assaults on freedom. Listen to the voices of the beloved departed who gave their lives to preserve what you are determined to destroy. Consider the dishonor of what you have done and of what you plan to do. And then back off, pronto. Apologize. Restore our rights which you stole through passage of the so-called Crime Bill of 1994. Say to us, "I am truly sorry. I was wrong." And mean it! Most Americans would forgive you, and most of us would then wish you well in your retirement years when you return to Arkansas in January of 1997. Be silent on Memorial Day 1996, Mr. President. Let the heroic, deceased veterans' whispers do the talking. Reflect quietly on what liberty has meant since 1775, and take action promptly to make sure that real freedom endures forever. Just do it. History and your countrymen will, one day, thank you for admitting your grievous errors and restoring the many freedoms you have so recklessly taken away from us, your fellow Americans (your employers!), between January 1993 and May 1996. Respectfully, Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Can You Help? Date: 22 May 1997 09:29:47 -0700 Hi folks - I just received the following forwarded letter, and I'm forwarding it on to just about everybody I can think of. Mike Kemp is a good man who was imprisoned a couple of months ago; he's a severe diabetic with a number of other serious physical disabilities as well, and the "people" at the jail he's in have been doing everything they can to make life hell for him. Mike has used marijuana for decades to control his seizures, rather than using drugs like phenobarbitol which have a number of nasty and long-term side effects. While I'm not in favor of smoking pot, I can see why Mike would do so. He was arrested, allegedly, for growing a few plants for personal use; the warrant was bad, they confiscated his computer and guns, etc. etc. The *real* reason he was arrested was because he's a thorn in the side of the local corrupt law enforcement and legal system. Please do what you can to help Mike - as I said, he's a very good man, and he's done a lot for the cause of freedom in America. My paper has published some of his writings, and I support him 100%. Thanks. > Folks: > > So far the monetary donations on Mike Kemp's behalf consist of > $50 from myslef, $80 from Tom Whittaker, $50 from Ken Bliss and $25 > from E. L. North. That is a total of $205.00. > > Those donations came immediatly. There hasn't been another thing > in the box in over a week. Opening that box and seeing it empty > every day, a pattern is starting to emerge. I am hoping that many of > you are just waiting for payday. > > Most of you know very well Mike and his contributions to the > cause. For those who are new and don't know Mike Kemp, he is the founder > of the Gadsden Minutemen. It was his organization that got the goods > on the Good 'O Boys Roundup. They knew going in they were sticking > their necks way out for our cause, and the powers that be would seek > revenge. > > Unlike another of their members, Jeff (Iscarriot) Randall, who > upon seeing his FBI file, lost control of his bowels and started > brown nosing with every ounce of his energy to get the feds to love > him, Mike has consistantly stood by his princlples, regardless of the > cost, predicting that it would be his life if they got him into jail. > > Most of you know Mike from the insightful articles he published, > and know he is about as honorable a patriot as can be found, and is > definately worthy of our support. > > But every day the mailbox is empty. Do we forget so quickly? > Does a fallen friend mean so little that we can simply forget him? > If we can forget Mike, who can we expect to believe that we will > stand by anyone or anything ? > > At present, Mike is losing his eyesight and his kidneys are > starting to fail. His grandparents, who depended on him for their > sole support, are now by and large his, with little means. Now is > the time, folks. Now is the time. > > A man learns who his real friends are when he gets into trouble. > Mike has every right to expect a long list of friends. Won't you add > your name to the list? The price of a pizza, or a Coke a day, would > be great. > > Send your generous donations to the Mike Kemp Defense Fund at: > P.O. Box 2732 > Terre Haute, Indiana 47803 > > Write him in jail and let him know he is not forgotten. His > address again is: > William Michael Kemp > c/o Etowah Co. Det. Center > 827 Forrest Avenue > Gadsden, Alabama 35901 > > He told me on the phone that when he went in he expected to do the > time alone with no support, and was greatly cheered to learn of all > the support I was describing to him. Lets not tell him we were just > kidding. Payday is coming up soon. Share a little with a great and > deserving patriot, Mike Kemp. > > > > > > > In threatened liberty, > > Oral Deckard > deckard@thnet.com - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Why foreign aid doesn't work Date: 22 May 1997 12:32:23 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- WHY FOREIGN AID DOESN'T WORK On May 7, 1997, the House International Relations Committee voted to spend $16.4 billion on foreign aid in 1998, an $800 million increase over 1997. Ironically, says Bruce Bartlett, economists have reached a virtual consensus that foreign aid is a failure. Indeed, even the liberal Brookings Institution now concedes that it simply does not work. Brookings scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Carol Graham took a careful look at the effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid. Paradoxically, they say, "countries getting more aid do worse macroeconomically, on average, than those getting less." The reason why, according to a study of 96 countries by Peter Boone of the London School of Economics, is because virtually none of it goes into investment. All it does is increase consumption and expand the size of government, without conferring any benefits on the poor. A major reason why foreign aid is consumed rather than invested is because much of it is stolen by elites in developing countries. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Zaire, where rebels ended the 32-year dictatorial regime of its leader, Mobutu Sese Seko. London's Financial Times estimated that Mobutu stole some $4 billion from foreign aid, much of it from the International Monetary Fund. This amounts to almost half of all the foreign aid received by Zaire between 1970 and 1994. Amazingly, the IMF was well aware of the expropriation of its funds, yet continued to lend Zaire money. Mobutu used most of this money to buy lavish estates in France and establish huge secret bank accounts in Switzerland, Luxembourg and elsewhere. He also kept himself in power through bribes and by otherwise buying support. Meanwhile, Zaire slid downward economically. Its real per capita income is 40 percent lower today than when Mobutu took power. Thus an internal World Bank report concluded that "it would be hard to argue much was achieved in Zaire, either in economic or social terms, as a result of the aid." The dismal experience of Zaire may be one reason why the World Bank now seems to be rethinking the whole concept of foreign aid. World Bank economists Craig Burnside and David Dollar looked at the relationship between foreign aid, economic policies and growth in 56 countries. They found that when combined with good economic policies, such as low taxes and deregulation, aid had a positive impact on growth. But there is no correlation between aid and the adoption of good policies, and no relationship at all between aid and growth in the absence of good policies. In the 1950s, critics like Peter Bauer and Milton Friedman argued that by itself foreign aid would never stimulate economic growth. All it would do is strengthen government at the expense of the private sector, which is the true source of prosperity. Now, after 40 years of experience, it appears that they were right all along. Source: Bruce Bartlett, senior fellow, National Center for Policy Analysis, May 21, 1997. **************************************************************************** NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS DALLAS, TEXAS "Making Ideas Change the World" Internet Address: http://www.ncpa.org **************************************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: 1997-05-21 Berger and Talbott Briefing on President Europe Trip (fwd) Date: 22 May 1997 12:39:49 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- How do you create a NWO, anyway? Well, first you get a couple of countries next to each other to "merge", then you go across the ocean and merge with another group, and so on and so forth. Someone has noted that Klintoon has never stopped campaigning, and suspect that he's going to try for a third term, someway, somehow. He's still campainging, for sure, but I think he wants more than to be potus - I think he'd like to be the czar of the NWO. This reeks of it: > > THE WHITE HOUSE > > Office of the Press Secretary >________________________________________________________________________ >For Immediate Release May 21, 1997 > > > PRESS BRIEFING BY > NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SAMUEL BERGER > AND DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE STROBE TALBOTT > > > > The Briefing Room > > > >2:00 P.M. EDT > > > MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and >welcome to the White House Briefing Room. The briefing today will be >about the President's forthcoming trip to Europe. Your briefers will be >Samuel Berger, the President's National Security Advisor; and Strobe >Talbott, the Deputy Secretary of State. > > MR. BERGER: Thank you, David. Let us go on a brief >preview of the journey of next week. With the signing of the >partnership between NATO and Russia coming exactly 50 years to the week >the Marshall Plan was announced, the President's trip next week comes at >a unique moment in history. The trip enables the President to pursue >his vision for the future of the transatlantic alliance against the >backdrop of the legacy of a previous generation of Americans. > > There are three distinct and complementary parts of the >trip: the historic signing of the NATO-Russia act in Paris, the >commemoration of the Marshall Plan in The Hague, and the first meeting >the President and the -- the first official meeting the President will >have with Tony Blair in London. Together they highlight the importance >of America's leadership and give the President the opportunity both to >advance and to address the goal that he set back in Brussels in 1994 of >a peaceful, undivided, democratic Europe for the first time in history. > > The week really begins on Monday here in Washington, or at >least in Arlington, with the Memorial Day traditional wreath-laying >ceremony at Arlington. The site of the wreath-laying ceremony is steps >away from the grave of George Marshall, and this will enable the >President to both honor the Americans whose past sacrifice has led to >our freedom, but also to build the bridge from the vision that George >Marshall laid out 50 years ago to the vision that we seek to pursue over >the decades ahead. > > We will leave Monday evening, about 5:00 p.m., and arrive >bright and fresh at 6:00 a.m. in Paris on Tuesday morning. The >President will have a bilateral with President Chirac at the Elysees, >and then will be participating in the signing ceremony of the >NATO-Russia Founding Act, which I believe is a truly historic event, >clearly demonstrating that it is possible to proceed with enlargement of >NATO, strengthen our alliance, and build a partnership between NATO and >Russia. > > Following that event, the President will attend a lunch >hosted by President Chirac at the palace, and then will have a bilateral >meeting with President Yeltsin. > > That evening, he will fly to The Hague, where he will have >the evening -- he will meet with the Queen. And then on Wednesday >morning, we begin in the Netherlands the semiannual U.S.- EU Summit, >with Dutch Prime Minister Kok, EU President Santer and others. > > The cooperation that the United States has built with the >EU on political, economic and law enforcement issues is an integral part >of the transatlantic fabric that the President is seeking to build for >the period ahead, and there will be a number of issues that will be >discussed at the summit, at the EU-U.S. Summit. We hope and expect that >the leaders will sign an agreement that will provide for greater >cooperation in stemming the flow of precursor chemicals that can be used >in chemical weapons and really -- and used also as part of drug >trafficking. > > You heard the President this morning talking about, with >the mayors, the overall effort on the drug front, and this is a very >important part -- that is, the international dimension of that effort. > > The President then will attend a lunch that will be hosted >by Queen Beatrix that will be attended by approximately 40 heads of >state, leaders from nations of Europe, OSCE, nations of Europe, where he >will deliver an address commemorating the 50th anniversary of the >Marshall Plan. This will be a major opportunity for the President to >celebrate the vision of a remarkable generation of Americans who laid >the foundation for 50 years of peace, from 1947 until now; and then to >lay out his vision of the future of U.S.-European relations and the >future of a peaceful, free, prosperous Europe whose stability is very >much tied to our own. > > Later that day, I believe that evening, the President will >travel to Rotterdam, which has designated Wednesday, May 28th, as a day >to thank Americans and the American people for the contribution that we >made to the recovery of the Netherlands with the Marshall Plan. They >call their celebration "Thank You, America." As many of you know, >Rotterdam was destroyed almost completely during World War II and was >rebuilt almost entirely with Marshall Plan funds. And the President >will participate in those events on Wednesday evening. > > The triumvirate events that day -- the U.S.-EU Summit, the >Marshall Plan commemoration and the Rotterdam speech -- provide the >President the opportunity, as I said, to set out a vision for the future >of the transatlantic alliance and the future partnership between the >United States and Europe for the next 50 years. > > On Thursday, the President will travel to London, and he >will meet with the new Prime Minister Tony Blair . They have met a few >times in the past, but this will be -- and they will presumably be >together in Paris, but this will be the first official one-on-one >meeting between the two and will provide an opportunity for the >President to reaffirm the special relationship that we have, >longstanding relationship that we have with Britain, and discuss and >deal with a wide range of issues of mutual interest, including Northern >Ireland, the Persian Gulf, Hong Kong, Bosnia, NATO and others. > > He will return here Friday night, but I think the week >really ends on Saturday, from our perspective, and that is with his >speech to the West Point commencement where the President will talk >directly to the American people about America's leadership >responsibilities in Europe and in the world, and explain why engagement >in Europe and elsewhere remains vital to America's security and >prosperity, and why NATO, including enlargement, is the foundation for >that engagement. > > We will return on Saturday night and there are no >international events that I know of planned for Sunday. > > Let me ask Secretary Talbott to speak more specifically >about the NATO-Russia element of this. > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: Thank you, Sandy, and good >afternoon to all of you. I know quite a number of you have had some >briefings on the subject of the NATO-Russia Founding Act, including from >this podium, so I won't go on at any length on that so that you can get >quickly to your questions. > > But just to recap very briefly, the NATO-Russia Founding >Act is in five parts. The preamble and part one constitute a review of >both the rationale for greater cooperation between the Alliance and the >Russian Federation, and also the principal guidelines and understandings >for international relations. Some of these are reiterations of >principles from the United Nations Charter, the OSCE, the Lisbon OSCE >document from last December, and those of you who were in Helsinki will >also I think recognize some of the principles from that document, as >well. > > The document also sets forth the concept of and the >mechanism of the so-called NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council, which is >a new body, a new entity that will institutionalize the cooperative >relationship that already exists between NATO and Russia. And the >document sets forth a number of areas for consultation, coordination, >and, where possible as it emerges over time, joint decision-making and >joint action between NATO and Russia. > > And then the final section of the document is on the issue >of the military dimension of the relationship. A great deal of that >will depend on agreements still to be reached in the CFE talks in >Vienna, but there is also considerable reliance on positions that NATO >has already taken with regard to the deployment of nuclear weapons and >of permanent-stationed forces, and there are some guidelines with >respect to the CFE negotiations. > > And Sandy and I would be happy to take any specific >questions you have on that, but let me just say a word or two more about >the NATO-Russia dimension and the U.S.-Russian dimension of the >President's travel next week. > > There will be a meeting, of course, between the two >Presidents, President Clinton and President Yeltsin. The agenda will be >partly on the subject of NATO-Russia, which has tended to dominate their >last couple of meetings, but they will also look ahead to the Denver >summit and to areas where the United States hopes to use its influence >within the Summit of the 8 and the international financial institutions >in order to support Russian economic reform. And I'm sure that the two >Presidents will also talk about the remaining issues on the arms control >and security agenda, particularly the importance of Duma ratification of >START II and the desire that both Presidents have to move ahead with the >related issue of ABM-TMD demarcation. > > The last thing I would say is that in the weeks and months >ahead we hope to see building on the progress that has been achieved >both in the Helsinki meeting between the two Presidents and also in the >NATO-Russia Joint Document further progress on CFE. The locus of that >will be in Vienna, and we also hope to see in coming months the >NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council get up and running. I think you can >expect to see that happen between now and perhaps the beginning of the >fall. > > So we can go to questions, and Sandy is available as well. > > Q Especially at a time when parallels will be drawn to the >Marshall Plan era, could you be a little more specific about the type of >assistance -- do you mean more money, do you mean multilateral -- >insofar as helping Russia promote reform? And could somebody speak a >little bit more about the meeting with Blair, particularly the Irish >issue? > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: Yes, I'm sure Sandy will take >the latter question. > > There are several dimensions, of course, to our willingness >to cooperate with Russia on economic reform. There is a bilateral >dimension under the aegis of the -- of our assistance program for the >New Independent States. We are hoping to have more money in fiscal '98 >than was available in fiscal '97. We're hoping to have $240 million for >Russia as part of that package. > > As for the multilateral dimension, the United States is >prepared to support the Russian aspiration for membership in the Paris >Club and the World Trade Organization and the OECD, assuming, of course, >that Russia is able to meet the conditions for membership in those >organizations. And the Denver Summit of the 8 will talk, as it always >does, of course, about ways in which the international financial >institutions, particularly the World Bank and the IMF, can help. > > Q Strobe, continuing on this issue, will the meeting >between the President and President Yeltsin clarify this current dispute >over the meaning of the Charter, with the Russians saying that it gives >them a veto effectively over NATO decisions, and the U.S. saying, well, >they have a voice, but not a veto? > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: Well, I honestly do not think >that there is a misunderstanding on that score. The issue here is two >different entities, two different bodies. There is an existing body >called the North Atlantic Council, which you might see as the governing >board of NATO. That is made up exclusively of the 16 members of the >Alliance. That is a sovereign body representing the sovereign interests >of the allies. That has not been, and will not be, subordinated to any >other body. > > Now, there is going to be a new body, which is the Joint >Council, the Permanent Joint Council. The membership of that is made up >of the currently 16 members of the Alliance and the Russian Federation. >That body will operate by consensus. If it chooses by consensus to do >something, then it can do something jointly. If there is not a >consensus, then it won't do something. But the absence of a consensus >in the NATO-Russia Joint Council does not in any way affect the freedom >of action, the freedom of decision either of NATO and the NAC, or of >Russia. > > Q Well, how do you keep it from spilling over, though? > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: Well, I don't think there's any >danger or way that it will spill over. The NAC is perfectly capable, >and has demonstrated this many times, I might add, particularly in the >way that it has overseen and guided the negotiations that have gone on >between the Secretary General Mr. Solana, and the Foreign Minister Mr. >Primakov -- has guided those negotiations, is capable of acting very >much on its own. > > You know, one way to look at this is at a >institutionalization -- that is, the Permanent Council as an >institutionalization of something that already exists. There is already >in Brussels a device or an arrangement known as 16 plus 1. This means >that any member of the Partnership for Peace can hold consultations at >any time with the Alliance and with the NAC. And the NATO-Russia >Permanent Joint Council is an institutionalization or a formalization of >that. It's existed before, it hasn't in any way eroded or diluted the >Alliance and it will not do so now. > > Q So the NAC is not a constituent member of the Joint >Council through its representatives? > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: That is correct. The NAC stands >on its own, will continue to stand on its own. And the Alliance, as >such, will take its guidance from the NAC. > > Q Strobe, given the fact that President Yeltsin has >explained it that way, does the administration look upon this as >something that's necessary that Yeltsin had to do in order to sell it; >or is there a danger inherent in him selling it that way in that the >first time NATO acts against Russia's wishes, the Russian people and >some Russian leaders can say, see, they're violating what we told you >the deal was -- even though you say that's not what the deal is? > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: I understand the question. I >think it's extremely -- I take the thrust of the question and I think >that we have taken the thrust of that question ever since this issue >first arose, which, of course -- and it isn't new. It's very important >that everybody understand this agreement in exactly the same way, what >it does and it doesn't do. > > The document, itself, is absolutely explicit on this point. >It makes quite clear that the existence and the operation of the >NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council will not in any way undermine or >prejudice or overrule the NAC, any more than it will have those effects >on the freedom of action of Russia itself. This document was extremely >carefully negotiated. It's quite explicit in its terms. And that is >the document that will be signed on Tuesday. > > I don't want to get into the inner workings of Russian >domestic politics on this, but as the Russian position has been >explained back to us, it refers to precisely the workings of the Joint >Council and does not have a bearing on the NAC itself. > > Q Strobe, as you know, most -- a lot of think-tankers you >have been too kind to Russia. One of the things -- you haven't been >kind enough to Russia. One of the things you've been too kind -- > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: Who have you been talking to? >(Laughter.) > > Q Well, one who you know quite well who thinks you've been >too kind to Russia raises the point that if Russia is the cause of the >problem -- we don't know what that problem would be at this point -- is >the cause of a problem where NATO may try to take -- they consider >military action, and you discuss it with Russia in your own council, and >obviously, they disagree with the way you in the West are looking at it, >it's going to be harder for a consensus to form within the main NATO >body. Do you follow me and do you buy that? > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: I follow you; I do not buy it. >I just don't think -- > > Q You understand the thinking. > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: I do, indeed, but I don't think >there is any reason for that concern. There has been, since the end of >the Cold War, since the formation of the Partnership for Peace, an >opportunity for Russia and all of the other partner countries to consult >with NATO about anything that they consider to be in their interest. We >have nothing to fear from the continuation, the deepening, and the >broadening of that kind of consultative relationship -- not just with >Russia, but Ukraine and a number of other states -- as long as there is >no ambiguity, no misunderstanding whatsoever that NATO remains NATO, NAC >remains the NAC, and it hasn't been in any way subordinated. > > And by the way, the member states of NATO and of the NAC >have their own bilateral relationships, quite properly, with the Russian >Federation. Those bilateral relationships came in -- played quite an >important role in bringing us to the promising point where we now are. >I'm thinking particularly about the good and workmanlike relations that >exist between Chancellor Kohl and President Yeltsin, between President >Chirac and President Yeltsin. So simply institutionalizing a way for >Russia to talk about its concerns is nothing to be concerned about. > > MR. BERGER: If I can just add one other point, Barry, to >Strobe's answer, which I agree with fully. By extension of that logic, >we would not be heading to Madrid to begin the process of NATO >enlargement. I think NATO has demonstrated, from 1994 to today, that >notwithstanding the misgivings that the Russians, misgivings probably is >an understatement, that it felt that enlargement of NATO was in the >overall security interests of NATO and of Europe, and it's proceeded >without being deterred by the disagreement with that policy that Russia >may have. And I think that -- in a sense, the proof is in the pudding >here in terms of NATO's willingness to act in its interest even where >there may be a disagreement. > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: There was a question about >Northern Ireland. > > MR. BERGER: You asked about the Blair meeting. I think >the Blair meeting will be fairly far-ranging ; there's a lot to talk >about. I expect that they will talk about Northern Ireland. As you >know, Prime Minister Blair has taken some steps in the last week; there >are meetings that are taking place, actually, today between >representatives of the British government and Sinn Fein. And he has >indicated that were there to be an unequivocal cease-fire there would be >an early resumption of inclusive talks. That is a view that we support, >and I'm sure the President will want to hear from Prime Minister Blair >where he believes that stands and how we can continue to be helpful in >the process. > > We will also -- they will also talk about Bosnia as we >enter a very important 16 or 18 months when there is an enormous amount >to accomplish on the ground. I think there's been good progress, but >there clearly needs to be more progress in terms of particularly on the >civil implementation side. There are issues in the Persian Gulf that >they will be discussing -- Iraq, Iran. So I think it will be a pretty >far-ranging discussion. > > Q Mr. Berger, to what extent will the President be using >his various speeches in this trip to start selling the American public >and the Senate on this idea of NATO expansion, the idea -- potential for >American troops being called upon to join a force that might defend >Prague or some other capital -- > > MR. BERGER: Well, I think the whole trip. And I think as >I've described it. If you begin it, in a sense, at Arlington Cemetery >and end it at West Point, and all of the events in between I think will >be very much an exercise in talking about how America's relationship >with Europe in the past has been inextricably intertwined in war and in >peace; how it continues to be intertwined; and therefore, why America's >engagement in Europe through NATO enlargement and other mechanisms will >lay the basis for perhaps another 50 years of peace. And I think there >are opportunities in Arlington, there are opportunities in The Hague >speech, there are opportunities in Rotterdam and then back in West >Point, all of which I am sure will address the issue of NATO >enlargement. > > And I think this is the beginning of a long dialogue that >will take place in this country about NATO enlargement. The President >has spoken about it frequently -- he spoke about it in Detroit during >the campaign, he spoke about it in the State of the Union. But it now >begins to take on some real substance as you move from Helsinki, which >was, I think, the pivotal event -- Solana, very important meetings -- >then to Paris and then to Madrid. These things have a kind of vitality >and reality that they don't have when they're simply abstractions. > > Q You're a political advisor to the President in addition >to being a National Security Advisor. How much -- well, you go to those >Wednesday meetings and whatnot. > > MR. BERGER: I go to meetings every day. Go ahead. > > Q How much of a factor was domestic politics in the >original decision to make NATO enlargement one of the principal foreign >policy goals? > > MR. BERGER: I don't think it was an important factor at >all. And I think the notion somehow that NATO enlargement sprung up >during the '96 campaign is ahistorical. The President set this course >back in 1994, when he first articulated it in Brussels, when he talked >about a peaceful, undivided democratic Europe for the first time in >history -- a sweeping, broad, historic, strategic objective. And it has >been something that he has worked for since. > > This is not -- this has a rationale that really goes to how >you define the future and how you define America's security. Our view >is that by embracing the emerging democracies of Central Europe in an >enlarging NATO, we can begin to help build the stability in the East >that NATO has in the West and that the Marshall Plan did in the West 50 >years ago. And in Paris I think we'll demonstrate that we can do that >without undermining the U.S.-Russia relationship. > > This has sort of been the Scylla and Charybdis of NATO >enlargement. You do this in a way that both enlarges NATO and does not >undermine the security or create second-class members on the one hand, >and on the other hand, does not undermine Russian democracy. And I >think what's been proven over the last year of very painstaking work -- >the last two years or three years -- is that that's possible. > > Q Let me just follow that, Sandy. Can you address the >criticism of people who say that what the Eastern European new >democracies need is economic integration into Europe, not military >integration? And, while we're talking about Marshall, that was what the >Marshall Plan was about, was economic assistance, not military. > > MR. BERGER: It's not one or the other; I think it's both. >Clearly, EU expansion is important and the integration of these >economies into the European economy is important. Through the EU, >through the institutions that Strobe discussed, all of that helps to >bolster them economically and pull them into an increasingly integrated >international economy. > > But the EU does not include the United States. NATO is the >institution that ties the United States to Europe and ties the United >States to a Europe that ought to be expanding to embrace, help stabilize >the new democracies of Central Europe. So I don't think it's a choice >between the two, I think it's both. > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: Let me just add a word. By the >way, on your first point, I go to a lot of meetings on Wednesdays, too, >but never been accused of going to the one that you referred to. > > Let me just give you a perspective on this issue of >domestic politics versus long-term strategy. I think this notion that >persists, that this was somehow driven by domestic politics is not only >ahistorical but even counter-intuitive. And the earlier question about >the coming effort to convince the United States Senate to ratify >enlargement by a two-thirds majority really proves the point. This is >not a slam dunk. This is not going to be easy. And it shouldn't be >easy, precisely because of the stakes involved. And the notion that >this idea would be an instant, widespread political winner for a >politician I think misses the point of what's involved here and also >misses, as Sandy says, the history of the thing. > > Let me just say a word about Central Europe and its >economy. Central Europe is not going to succeed in making the progress >that it wants to and deserves to make unless it can do so in a secure >security environment, and that's what a large part of what NATO >enlargement is all about. If those countries were to be consigned to a >limbo or a gray zone between the old Soviet Union and the old NATO, and >the old NATO were to be frozen in amber, a number of things that would >be bad economically as well as politically would be likely to happen. >Among other things, those countries would be very likely to kind of >scramble around in a very ad hoc fashion to develop their own security >arrangements in a way that would pit them against each other and also >end up with much higher levels of military spending, which would, of >course, tie up money that ought to go to the economy. > > Q Strobe, I don't know which one of you wants to tackle >this question, but one of the issues that seems to be bubbling up on the >agenda is that the EU Competitive Commissioner, Competition >Commissioner, is publicly criticizing the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas deal. >Do you expect that to come up in any way, shape, or form at the summit? > > MR. BERGER: I don't know whether it will come up at the >summit. It is a matter before the FTC here and before the EU >Competition Commission, and therefore, I am told by people with >practicing law degrees, as opposed to non-practicing law degrees, that >it's inappropriate for me to comment on it. > > Q As a follow, it's being criticized as antitrust, so who >is going to be talking about it besides the FTC once you get over there? > > MR. BERGER: Not me. > > Q But who will? > > MR. BERGER: I don't know whether this will be on the >agenda. We'll have to find out how -- what is the appropriate way, >obviously, if the Europeans raise it, for the President to address it in >a way that is consistent with U.S. antitrust laws. I don't know the >answer. I'm not trying to be cute, but I have been told that this is >not something, because it's pending before the FTC, that I really should >get into. > > Q To return to Russia for a second, the Duma once again is >saying that it is not going to ratify START II, so then what is your >answer to critics of NATO expansion who say that for U.S. security it >is more important to get these limits on nuclear forces than it is to >stabilize a situation in Europe that so far is not leading to any >problems, and then what we have done is, in fact, once again, created a >confrontation with Russia? > > MR. BERGER: Well, let me try -- let me answer and then >Strobe can comment. > > We still expect the Duma to ratify START II. President >Yeltsin, as late as Helsinki and again yesterday, reaffirmed that this >was his commitment and this was his intention. And so I think it is >premature to conclude that START II ratification is not going to take >place. START II is not only in our interests, which is why President >Bush signed it, it is also in Russia's interest both on its own terms, >in terms of the world they live in if it's not ratified -- i.e. START I >-- and in terms of the door that it unlocks to get to START III, which >has been outlined at Helsinki for cuts to the 2000, 2,500 level. So for >all of those reasons it's in Russia's interest, as well as ours. And I >continue to expect and hope that the Duma will act on it and that this >is not a trade-off here. > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: The only thing that I would add >to that is that there is a false premise, not necessarily one that you >share, but sometimes when this is put forward, that START II didn't run >into difficulties in the Duma until the NATO enlargement, NATO-Russia >issue came into sharp focus. That's not true. And, as Sandy says, >President Yeltsin is committed himself several times to vigorously >pursue a ratification. He has now started to do so when he met with the >faction leaders and the committee chairman yesterday. So let's see how >it plays out. > > Q Strobe, you said that the United States will support >Russia's membership in organizations like the WTO, the OECD and the >Paris Club, provided Russia meets the routine requirements. Now, if >Russia can meet the routine requirements, does it need that U.S. >support, or is it token, or are there other forces besides Russia's own >performance that would militate against its being admitted to those >organizations? > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: I think the United States has a >very important role to play in all of those institutions. And American >support is substantively valuable to Russia. Certainly, the Russians >take that position. > > MR. BERGER: Also, John, I'd just say, for example, WTO, >our support can be quite active -- that is to say, at a technical level. >We will work -- we will be working with the Russians, who don't have a >lot of experience, obviously, with the international trade rules, with >the WTO, to help them deal with and fashion proposals that can help them >meet the WTO basic criteria. So it is not just support in a sense of we >will stand up at the meeting and give a seconding speech, the support >here is also technical assistance. > > So that you know what's in store for you, I've been asked >to indicate that when we are liberated, Lincoln Gordon and Vernon >Walters will be here to talk, who are both original participants in the >Marshall Plan, 50 years ago, to talk a bit about the history of the >Marshall Plan and give you some of the kind of flavor of what things are >like as the Marshall Plan was launched 50 years ago. > > Q In that list of organizations that you mentioned and the >requirements that Russia needs to meet, could you just refresh my memory >-- how many of those conditions is Russia able to meet at this point, >for any of those organizations? > > DEPUTY SECRETARY TALBOTT: No, I cannot refresh your memory >on that. We can perhaps get you a fact sheet on the WTO, what the >requirements -- > > MR. BERGER: I don't think -- any country that comes into >WTO has to accept the basic principles and construct of the WTO -- >national treatment, most favored nation status. There are whole set of >principles that come with that in addition to a set of tariff proposals >that are acceptable to other members. I mean, it's a fairly elaborate >negotiation. We are having this negotiation with the Chinese; there is >this negotiation with the Taiwanese. These are very -- it's not like >seven boxes to check. Basically there is a fairly elaborate set of >negotiations that take place, like any trade negotiation. > > Q But who, to the best of your knowledge -- it sounds as >though you're saying that there is none of those that you can recall -- > > MR. BERGER: No, that's not true. This discussion has been >going on with Russia and the WTO. At Helsinki, the two Presidents >committed to try to accelerate that discussion. President Clinton said, >let's try to get it done by next year. President Yeltsin said, let's >try to get it done by next year. Our President said we will try to help >you in ways that we can. So it's really --there is now a political >impetus or a political will behind something that will be done largely >by trade negotiations. > > THE PRESS: Thank you. > > END 2:42 P.M. EDT > > > > > Pat Fosness listowner rkba-co "For every honest, inoffensive, harmless citizen, there is a bureaucrat waiting to goof him up" -- Mike Royko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Marines kill Texas boy (fwd) Date: 22 May 1997 13:01:50 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- dallasnews.com Marine kills man, 18, while on anti-drug duty OFFICIALS SAY BORDER SHOOTING WAS SELF-DEFENSE 05/22/97 By Douglas Holt / The Dallas Morning News EL PASO - Texas Rangers are investigating why a U.S. Marine on an anti-drug mission in the Big Bend area fatally shot an 18-year-old U.S. citizen, authorities said Wednesday. The shooting, which occurred near the border town of Redford about 6:15 p.m. Tuesday, was described by authorities as self-defense. The young man was killed after he fired two shots with a .22-caliber rifle at a four-person team of Marines armed with M-16 rifles, U.S. Border Patrol Mario Ortiz said. The victim, Ezequiel Hernandez Jr., was tending a herd of goats at the time on ranchland near his family's home, according to a family member. The Marines unit was conducting surveillance in the remote, mountainous area, described by authorities as a popular spot for smugglers crossing the Rio Grande into the United States. It was the second shooting incident involving a military member stationed on the U.S.-Mexico border in four months, and it prompted U.S. Border Patrol officials to suspend military border activities in the Big Bend area pending a review. "One, you have the death of a U.S. citizen. Secondly, it did involve the military. And thirdly, it was obviously a very unfortunate incident," Mr. Ortiz said. "Everybody has to work together to keep this from happening again." Local officials said they asked the Texas Rangers to investigate. Some border activists said the shooting raises questions about the drug-fighting role of the military, which typically has 10 to 100 service members conducting surveillance missions against illegal border crossings and drug traffickers. "What do you expect?" said Suzan Kern, coordinator of the Border Rights Coalition based in El Paso. "We've got more and more military personnel on the border carrying weapons. They're not local, they're not trained as Border Patrol agents, and they probably don't know the field very well. You're asking for more and more bloodshed." The victim, Mr. Hernandez, was a 10th-grader at Presidio High School who turned 18 last week. He came home from school Tuesday, had a dinner of beef and green beans, grabbed his rifle as he usually does and set out near his family's ranch on the Rio Grande to tend his 30 goats, said his 26-year-old sister, Belen Hernandez. The shooting was about a half-mile away from the family's home, she said. She and other family members said they heard only one shot and do not believe that her brother fired on the Marines. "Even if he did shoot at them twice like they said, I think they had no right to kill him," Ms. Hernandez said. "They could've shot him in the leg or arm, but not to kill him." She described her younger brother, one of eight children, as respectful of authorities and not one to befriend drug traffickers or other lawbreakers. Redford Elementary School principal Tiburcio Acosta similarly described the young man and his family as peaceful and law-abiding. "He was very artistic. He was a nice kid," Mr. Acosta said. "I don't think he was the kind of kid who would stir up problems." The man's father, called by Presidio Sheriff Danny Dominguez to identify the body, believes that the young man was shot in the back while running away, according to Belen Hernandez. Authorities on Wednesday could not say where Mr. Hernandez was shot. They said the Marines unit appeared to have acted appropriately under peacetime rules of engagement that allow self-defense, but they acknowledged that the case is unusual. "The military's trained to go out and remain undetected," said Maureen Bossch, spokeswoman for the Joint Task Force 6, a Department of Defense organization based in El Paso that coordinates military support to drug-fighting law enforcement agencies. "Confrontations with civilians do not occur frequently," she said, calling the incident "very unusual." The incident already has attracted high-level attention. On Thursday, U.S. Border Patrol Chief Doug Kruhm and the commanding general of the joint military task force, Gen. James Lovelace, are to hold a news conference in Marfa. "The general will be here to show his compassion and concern, and to make sure they're going to cooperate fully with the Texas Rangers to make sure it's thoroughly investigated," Mr. Ortiz said. The Marines detachment involved in Tuesday's shooting is from Camp Pendleton, Calif. In the previous shooting involving military this year, Army Sgt. Christopher Lemmen, a Green Beret, returned fire from an undocumented Mexican in a late-night confrontation near the Rio Grande in Brownsville on Jan. 24. The Mexican, Cesario Vasquez, 30, of Matamoros pleaded guilty last month on charges of assaulting a federal officer and carrying a firearm in the commission of a federal crime. He faces up to 15 years in prison and a $500,000 fine. Mr. Vasquez was wounded in the shoulder in the exchange. Mr. Lemmen was unharmed. © 1997 The Dallas Morning News ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Vote scam, Republican Dornan and Jenkins Date: 22 May 1997 14:44:00 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Covenant Syndicate May 22, 1997, vol. 1, no. 15 (Back Issues posted at: http://capo.org/opeds/opeds.html) ******************* A Tale of Two Contested Elections David Hall (dhall@capo.org) Two seats in Congress are still contested nearly nine months after the 1996 elections. In Louisiana, Woody Jenkins has received a Senate investigation into the narrow victory by Mary Landrieu for the open senate seat. In the House, right-wing hero Bob Dornan is challenging the voting in the 46th congressional district of California. The House and Senate are both involved in investigations into voter fraud. The most recent brouha is reminiscent of the race for Indiana's 8th congressional seat in 1984. In that earlier race, the Indiana Secretary of State declared the Republican candidate, Richard McIntyre, the winner by a 34 vote margin over Democratic candidate and soon-to-be congressman, Frank McCloskey. However, the Democratic controlled US House decided not to seat either candidate and appointed a task force to investigate. Subsequently, a partisan House vote awarded the seat to the Democrat McCloskey (recalculated to give him a 4 vote margin). Present Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA), described that 1984 proceeding as "nothing short of rape." We may be on the verge of one or more of those recurrences. A decision in at least one case is expected around Memorial Day. In mid-April, several of the investigators looking into Woody Jenkins' narrow loss, recommended that some of his claims be dismissed as lacking proof -- not a good sign if he was to unseat Mary Landrieu. However, in late April Sen. John Warner (R-VA) convinced his Senate Rules Committee to broaden the investigation with a 9-7 party-line vote. Over the past month, attempts have been made to verify if Jenkins' claims, i. e., that some cajun voters cast votes as many as 15 times, are credible. Even though Jenkins had a 95,000 vote lead across the state, when New Orleans Parish reported its votes, it gave a 100,000 vote majority to Landrieu. Some voting machines reportedly would not register votes for Jenkins, and already Jenkins' investigators have found 3,169 voters listing addresses at abandoned public housing. A number of people (68) have already been indicted for vote fraud since the election, and Jenkins' team has obtained rental contracts in which mayoral employees rented vans to transport people to the polls. Jenkins' staff has also turned up over 7,500 "phantom votes," i. .e., more votes cast in a precinct than voters signatures, and Landrieu only won by 5,788 votes. The cumulative effect led Louisiana congressman Billy Tauzin to comment recently, that although nationwide turnout rate was a paltry 49 percent, in New Orleans precinct the turnout was a robust 107 percent. Under Louisiana law, the burden of proof is on Jenkins and it appears to be a weighty burden. Nonetheless, he enjoyed a definite victory with Warner's committee. Monroe attorney, M. Dale Peacock, who ran for Judge in 1996 commented: "This fraudulent process negates the good citizens' rights to vote. It strikes at the most fundamental American right: not to be taxed without duly elected representation. What our forefathers fought for, free elections, is lost when select precincts do not, at least, guarantee that voters are lawful. It is a total destruction of the right to vote." Peacock and others speculate that should the US Senate declare the election null and void, they can also declare the seat "vacated," and order a new election -- that is, if they can overcome a filibuster. Under such scenario, without a referendum like "video poker" in the 1996 election (that motivated big gambling interests to cart many to the polls), Jenkins would stand a better chance of being elected. The initial investigation should be completed soon. Of course, partisan politics will play no part of this. One also wonders if these were Democrats and they held the majority, would they be so facile? However, Bob Dornan's case was strengthened, when it was noted that more than 300 voters (out of 984 total) were illegal voters. Of course, had they just driven in for a license, they would have been fine under Motor Voter provisions. Nonetheless, the Dornan challenge may be picking up a little steam. Now, Rep. Thomas, who was the House point man in defeating President Clinton's health care reform, is leading the investigation into Dornan's complaint. Sanchez was originally declared the winner by 984 votes. Even with Dornan's proof of 303 fraudulent votes, he still has 681 to prove. This case may be headed to the courts as Sanchez and her campaign challenge the historic grant of subpoena powers to Citizen Dornan by Thomas' House Committee. Sanchez has refused to comply with these subpoenas even though the House Counsel advised their propriety. Bill Thomas is threatening to hold her in contempt if she does not answer. What outcome will prevail? The California house seat may not be determined before the 1998 elections. Dornan has already announced that he will run again. The Louisiana senate seat, however, is a different matter. Even though lengthy investigations may result, if the Senate Rules Committee finds voter fraud (although Democrats will probably filibuster), it may declare the seat vacant and claim the moral high ground if voter fraud is actually determined. Stuart Rothenberg commented, " A couple of months ago, I wouldn't have given a nickel for Republican Woody Jenkins' chances of overturning his November loss to Democrat Mary Landrieu. Now I might even give you a dime. That's still not much, . . . Jenkins still has an uphill battle to make it to the Senate. But the hill doesn't seem to be as big as it was a few months ago, and that, in itself, is remarkable." Woody Jenkins has the personal wealth to fight this case, plus he angers some people because he has a media outlet of his own: He can directly communicate with citizens through the TV station he owns in Baton Rouge. Can one vote make a difference? You bet; that's why the struggle is so intense. The larger question may be: Has a state, where one-time Governor Earl Long said, "I never bought a congressman in my life. I rent `em. It's cheaper" grown to allow full democratic participation or does it still allow special voting rights to a minority? ********************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Oklahoma Bombing Judge makes sure of coverup of Iraq involvement Date: 22 May 1997 15:56:30 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- 05/22/1997 12:24 EST [IMAGE] McVeigh's Lawyers Begin Defense By PAUL QUEARY Associated Press Writer DENVER (AP) -- Timothy McVeigh's lawyers began his defense today by casting doubt on one of the cornerstones of the prosecution's case -- that McVeigh rented the bomb-carrying Ryder truck two days before the Oklahoma City blast. (cut) U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch has prohibited the defense from introducing the theory that international terrorists were behind the bombing, the sources said. Before the trial, Jones had suggested the bombing was the combined effort of neo-Nazis, Iranian terrorists and others. _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Why it's called Red China (fwd) Date: 22 May 1997 16:47:48 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Conservative Consensus(tm) Events * Analysis * Commentary * Forecasts * Readers' Opinions What in the world is going on? www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html News Flash * V3X18 * 22/May/97 * ISSN 1074-245X Why it's called Red China The Chinese government has ordered the execution of China's most prominent Christian house church leaders. Arrested in March were Xu Yong Ze, Liu Zhenying, Wang Xincai, Wang Baoquan, Fang Xian, Mui Sheng Ging Jing and Elder Qiao. The eight were arrested after having met together to discuss uniting their house churches. Their crime was free association. Pastor Xu's church network Cong Sheng (Born Again) is estimated to be over eight million in number. The merger would have created the largest organized body of Christians is China. Pastor Xu Yong Ze was also arrested 1991 by Chinese authorities, following an attempt to meet with evangelist Billy Graham. President Clinton and the U.S. Congress are expected to continue Most Favored Nation trading status for China, which provides special trade breaks. China uses prison labor to compete with workers in the West. As we reported in our 10 May 1997 issue, China has also purchased influence at the highest levels of the United States Government: The FBI collected evidence in early 1995 that "shows clearly" that Chinese authorities intended to direct nearly $2 million in government funds to U.S. political candidates. The evidence was in logs of wiretap intercepts. Prosecutors have already questioned a businessman who said he was approached by John Huang to funnel a contribution of more than $200,000 to the Democratic National Committee in exchange for a large handling fee, and a Florida businessman who discussed facilitating a $500,000 contribution to the party with Harold Ickes, Clinton's former deputy chief of staff [Source: The Washington Post 6/Apr/97]. China's leadership does respond to pressure and understand strength. The trickle-down theory applies when we deal with those who have blood on their hands. If you have concerns about our nation's leadership emulating the Chinese leadership when it comes to human dignity and individual liberty, you may wish to make those concerns known to your elected representatives. --- --- --- COPYRIGHT 1997 by Conservative Consensus (unless otherwise noted). Please redistribute widely, provided nothing is changed, and our headers and trailers remain intact. Publications may reprint provided credit is given. DID YOU KNOW: The U.S. Constitution expressly FORBIDS treaties from "overriding" Constitutional protections and liberties? While many are trying to subvert U.S. law with treaties, their efforts do not have to be accepted. Our lead article, "The Constitution --- Plain and Simple: Treaties" will put this issue to bed, once and for all. OUR READERS KNEW! Everyone needs an alternative to the agenda-driven bias of today's national media. Support alternative media and protect your family, investments, and future. Order our newsletter today! Acceptance Certificate - Conservative Consensus - Cut here and return ___ 12 issues/year $59 (via) ___ Email ___ Fax ___ Paper* ___ Payment enclosed ___ Check or Money Order __________________________________ Name __________________________________ Email Adr. or Fax No. __________________________________ Postal Address __________________________________ City, State, Zip *PAPER edition add $4.95 postage and handing. INTERNATIONAL Fax or Airmail delivery add $20. U.S. funds or equivalent. Return to: Conservative Consensus, POB 71246, Seattle WA 98107. TELEVISION SHOW AVAILABLE! Guests, issues, news and commentary! We tell you what others can't. Should we be on in your area? Email ccnrs@eskimo.com for details. VISIT our Website: Two great newsletters! Plus, get free, downloadable news and analysis that you can copy and pass on to friends. Updates, back issues, reader comments. All TEXT -- visit us with any browser. http://www.eskimo.com/~ccnrs/news.html Mailing List Requests: put the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the subject line. Email to consensus-L-request@eskimo.com Television, Newsletter, Editorial, etc: ccnrs@eskimo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: A memorial day thanks for veterans service to America Date: 22 May 1997 17:44:15 -0500 (CDT) I sent out a message about my dads birthday and received so many replies about other peoples dads I decided it was only fitting to let you read them as a kind of over all memorial day tribute to all veterans. Give your father my respects and especially thank him again for his service to our country. My father too served in that war, mostly in the states, and later appendicitis took him out of the Battle of the Bulge, which the unit he shipped over with participated in. Similarly my two Uncles, one on each side, served in the Navy during that war. One on a seagoing tug, and the other as Naval gun crew on merchant ships on the Murmansk/Archangel run. The latter went swimming in the N. Atlantic/North Sea, *twice*, courtsey of Admiral Doenitz's(sic) U-boats, loosing toes in the process to frostbite. He's gone now and I never knew any of that in time to tell him thank you. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. ---Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! Paul -- My dad was a B-17 bombardier who got shot down on his 25th mission and spent a year at Stalag Luft III. Unfortunately, he didn't survive the cancer he got in the 1980s. But life is fullof coincidences, isn't it? Or is it? Neil -- ====================================================================== If you're a politician, bureaucrat, or cop whose livelihood depends on the drug war, you're fully as contemptible as any pusher, smuggler, or cocaine baron -- more so, because, unlike them, you profit directly by destroying what was once the greatest freedom ever known to humankind. Paul, please convey to your Dad, my congratulations and best wishes for a happy birthday. Having done that, please personally thank him for me, for all he and his brother airmen did for us in preserving our freedoms and liberating the captive masses in Europe. Tell him that there are many of us who still know what we owe your Dad and his generation, and that we will repay the debt for the rest of our lives by fighting for the same principles that he fought for. Tell him, that I'm so glad he made it back alive. One of his contributions was a son who is a fine American citizen who I'm proud to know as a friend. Best regards and respects, Joe Horn Posted to texas-gun-owners by chasm@insync.net (Schuetzen) X-No-Archive: Yes On Wed, 21 May 1997 21:06:57 PST, k5cnf1@juno.com (Richard B Morrow) wrote: )Posted to texas-gun-owners by k5cnf1@juno.com (Richard B Morrow) )------------------------------------------------------------------------ )Well said Paul, I appreciate what your dad and mine and all the rest did )for us during WWII, it is too bad that not many others now seem to even )think about it except as a holiday and never about what it cost this )country. ) )Richard Morrow ditto Paul, my father never went to war (flat feet!) but he taught me to hunt, to shoot straight, etc. camping was how he spent all of his vacations with us. One point! Take the time to take him camping and hunting as he did you when you were a kid. It will mean so much to him now, and so much to you when he is gone and you are old. Wish to God I had done 10 times more of it before my father passed away on my 53d birthday last year - at the age of 91. fwiw Chas LtC, USA, Rtd Viet Nam Vet. with 7 battle stars plus a bunch of other stuff. Paul, what a profoundly powerful, loving message. I thought of my late dad when I reviewed your tribute to your father. Wish your dad a happy birthday from a nobanning amigo located in the Granite State. Regards, Chris Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net And tell your dad that my uncle, U.S. Army 2nd Lt. (Field Artillery FO) Geoffrey Cheney Ferris, was KIA in Tunisia on May 6, 1943 and received a posthumous DSC, Silver Star and Purple Heart for sacrificing his own life to save the lives of his driver and radioman. The cost to crush Hitler's tyranny was high. Did my uncle die and did your dad fly all of those missions so that WJC could take our freedom away. In two words, "Hell, no!" My dad, a Field Artillery Bn XO during the Battle of the Bulge, was lucky to come back home unscathed. But he never got over the loss of his beloved younger brother. Never. On Wed, 21 May 1997 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > 5-21-1997 > My father is 79 years old today. Normally I would not send out a e-mail > for such a private event. But, Joe Horn sent out one about his dad who > never came back from WWII. It reminded me of how much we owe to our > parents, family and Americans for all their sacrifice that allows us to > still enjoy our country and the freedom we have left today. So to my dad; > Who taught me how to shoot and hunt responsibly and ethically. > Who taught me to work hard and respect my elders. > Who taught me to love America and our history both good and bad. > Who taught me to love God and to respect other religions. > Who taught me to respect other cultures, races and women as equals. > Who taught me there are two sides to all arguments and not all things are > black and white. > And most important, to my dad who flew 50 B17 missions from England to > defeat Hitler and the NAZI's and all the men who never came back. > I would not be the man I am today if it was not for you and men like you. > You are one of a dieing breed of Americans raised during the Depression > years who sacrificed everything in a world war. A 4th generation Texan > from a typical small town of Bowie Texas. Despite all odds with German > fighters and crash landing in Belgium and later cancer you survived. You > are a uncommon man from a frontier stock who tamed the West and built the > greatest nation on earth. I pray that some of us have the ability and the > wisdom to preserve and protect that heritage for future generations. > Thank you and happy birthday to Ewing Stuart Watson. > > Your loving son, > Paul Watson, Dallas Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: OKC Questions Date: 23 May 1997 11:22:45 -0700 THIRTY QUESTIONS ON OKLAHOMA CITY 1. If the bombing of the Alfred E. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City was a terrorist reprisal for the Federal massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco, why were no BATF or FBI agents injured? Why was EVERY BADGE-CARRYING FEDERAL AGENT absent from work at nine o'clock on a weekday morning and their offices staffed only with civilian clerical workers? 2. When the word first got out that no Federal agents had been present in the building, the BATF produced its Resident Agent Alex McCauley who told a long story about his own heroism and that of a fellow ATF man who allegedly fell three floors in an elevator, walked away from it, and then helped rescue others trapped by the bomb. This was quickly exposed as a fabrication in an angry interview by building maintenance supervisor Duane James, who described McCauley's story as "pure fantasy". James examined the elevator in question and also the central control panel and pointed out a number of technical and logical reasons why the miraculous elevator incident simply couldn't have happened in the way claimed. The McCauley account was quietly retracted and flushed down the memory hole by the ATF, with the help of the media. They now admit that McCauley was nowhere near the building when the bomb went off, although they refuse to discuss his exact whereabouts or the whereabouts of any other ATF agent at the time of the explosion. Will BATF Agent Alex McCauley be disciplined for telling a self-serving lie which falsely made himself out to be a hero? If that was not the purpose, why did he make this palpably false public statement? 3. Why was U.S. Judge Wayne Alley, whose office was located in the Federal building, warned several weeks in advance in a Justice Department memo to be prepared for an unnamed "terrorist act" directed against the Federal building? 4. Judge Alley made the above admission to the Portland OREGONIAN immediately after the bombing. He has since refused to repeat it or allow himself to be interviewed again. Why? 5. Why did Ken Stern of the American Jewish Committee fax warnings to Federal judges and officials, legislators, and prosecutors warning of a possible attack on a government building of installation on the second anniversary of Waco on April 10th, 1995, nine days before the OKC bombing? 6. "Norma", a witness who worked in an office building just down the street from the Federal building, told reporter Sherry Koonce what she saw prior to the explosion: "The day was fine, everything was normal when I arrived for work at about 7:45 A.M. There was some talk about the bomb squad among the employees at our office. We wondered what it was doing in our parking lot. Around nine I heard and felt a huge explosion. Then someone said it had to be a bomb, and we all knew. I remembered the bomb squad in our parking lot and knew what had happened." "Norma" has since quit her job, gone into hiding and refused to speak again to any reporters or investigators. So have a number of other people who saw the heavily armed and equipped bomb squad in the area up to three hours before the blast. Why? 7. Why has all mention of the facts outlined in questions 1 thru 6 disappeared from the news media after the first week of coverage of the bombing? Why has the media consistently suppressed and refused to report any information or evidence which indicates that, at the very least and regardless of who was responsible, there was Federal foreknowledge that the bombing would take place? 8. By definition, a terrorist must take credit for his violence, or else there is no compelling reason to commit a crime. The specific purpose of terrorism is to gain a political end through the credible threat to commit future acts of violence. No one has claimed credit for the Oklahoma City bombing. Militia and right-wing groups, the alleged masterminds and presumed beneficiaries, have been particularly vehement in denouncing the explosion and in many cases have cooperated directly with Federal agencies to absolve themselves of any involvement. The only statement of alleged political motive we have comes from the very government which was attacked. Why is this? 9. Did the Alfred Murrah building warehouse documents relating to the attack on the Branch Davidians at Waco? If so, what happened to those documents? Were they destroyed? If so, were any copies kept elsewhere? If not, why not? 10. Will the missing papers, if any, affect former Attorney General Ramsey Clark's lawsuit against the ATF and FBI on behalf of the Branch Davidian survivors? 11. Why did the Director of the University of Oklahoma's Geological Survey, Dr. Charles Mankin, tell the media that according to two different seismographic records there were TWO blasts, the second approximately eight seconds after the first? 12. The news media initially reported two explosions, based on eyewitness testimony. Why did this version of events disappear from print and the air waves within twenty-four hours? 13. U.S. government Technical Manual No. 9-1910 from the Department of the Army and Air Force entitled MILITARY EXPLOSIVES, which specifies that ANFO, the acronym for Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil bomb said to be used on the Murrah building, requires a greater than 99% purity of ammonium nitrate, as well as a specific dryness before it can be mixed with diesel fuel to create an explosive substance. The manual further spells out that even under ideal conditions (not often reached even by experts) 4,800 pounds of ANFO explosive would create a much smaller crater than the one left in front of the Murrah building, and its shock wave could not possibly wield the force necessary to compromise the building's concrete support. The FBI claims that the ANFO charge was made from 50 bags of fertilizer. Ammonium nitrate fertilizers comes in much weaker concentrations than the 99%-plus required for explosives. Creating concentrated amounts of ammonium nitrate is quite complex, and would require many bags of fertilizer. In short, according to the government's own textbook, the Oklahoma City bombing COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE WAY THE FBI SAYS IT HAPPENED. IT IS A PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND THERMODYNAMIC IMPOSSIBILITY. Why is the FBI lying? 14. Retired Air Force Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, former commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory, a 25-year expert in the design and development of bombs, urged Senators and Congressmen to delay the destruction of the Murrah building site. Partin stated in a news release, "When I first saw the picture of the truck bomb's asymmetrical damage to the Federal building in Oklahoma, my immediate reaction was that the pattern of damage would have been technically impossible without supplementary demolition charges at some of the reinforced concrete bases inside the building, a standard demolition technique. Partin further explained that "reinforced concrete targets in large buildings are hard targets to blast. I know of no way possible to reproduce the apparent building damage through simply a truck bomb effort." General Partin's request to have the bomb site preserved in order to examine the possibility of a second explosion was ignored by the government. Why? 15. General Partin's press release, quoted above, was reprinted in the John Birch Society magazine NEW AMERICAN. Based on this the news media launched an egregious and bogus smear campaign against General Benton K. Partin, claiming falsely that he was a member of the John Birch Society and therefore a "right- wing extremist". General Partin has been forced repeatedly to threaten lawsuits in order to force grudging and deliberately downplayed retractions and corrections of this allegation. His alleged JBS membership still appears in print and broadcast media today as fact even though the media are by now perfectly well aware that the allegation is false. Why are the news media telling a deliberate lie in order to discredit a highly respected expert who questions the official government version of Oklahoma City? 16. There have been repeated studies done by a variety of accredited explosives experts and professional demolition contractors, such as former FBI agent Ted Gunderson. All of these have stated their professional opinion that the destruction of the Murrah building could only have been accomplished with top-grade military explosives, detonators, and careful placement of multiple charges. Why have the media ignored these expert opinions? Why, indeed, have the media engaged in a concerted campaign to abuse, vilify, discredit and marginalize as a "crank" or a "right-wing extremist" any explosives expert or engineer who questions the official FBI version of the bomb's construction and explosive power? 17. There is not a single piece of concrete evidence to connect either Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols to any militia or right-wing group. Why has the news media refused to acknowledge this fact and continued to spread the patently false assertion that McVeigh was a member of a militia group? 18. Terry Nichols has been married twice, once to a Mexican woman and once to a Filipina. Obviously, a man who marries women of color not once but twice and has children with them can hardly be called a racist. Why has this fact, which clearly precludes any racist or neo-Nazi involvement in the bombing of the kind which is repeatedly implied by the media, not been given any significant exposure at all? 19. Having allegedly just committed a coldly calculated, carefully and meticulously planned mass murder, why did Timothy McVeigh then suddenly turn into a Clouseau-like klutz and do everything but send up a flare to draw attention to himself, speeding out of the state at almost 100 mph in a car without a license plate, virtually guaranteeing that he would be stopped? 20. Timothy McVeigh is a highly trained combat NCO who won a Bronze Star for courage under fire in the Gulf. Having been stopped by a state trooper, being armed with a pistol, knowing that he now faced either execution or imprisonment for the rest of his natural life, why did McVeigh make no move at all to defend himself or escape, but instead surrendered like a little lamb? 21. FBI agents are said to have tracked down McVeigh's truck rental agency by finding a vehicle identification number (VIN) on the truck's rear axle. This axle was found either in the bomb crater, according to the mayor of Oklahoma City's initial press statement, or three blocks away according to the later FBI version. Which statement is true? 22. There is another problem to the Ryder truck tale. No rear axle on any vehicle manufactured in America is imprinted with a VIN, even after recent legislation forcing manufacturers to place multiple VINS on the engine, firewall, and frame to discourage chop shops. When queried, a spokesman for Ryder told reporters than it does not imprint additional VINS on its trucks. The only conceivable number available on a rear axle is a part number, but a part number couldn't lead to the identification of a specific vehicle. We have here another case where the FBI version of events simply COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED in the way the Bureau claims it happened. Where did the VIN story come from? Why has it been created and circulated by the media? 23. Did McVeigh use fake I.D. or his real I.D. to rent the truck? The FBI has told both stories. 24. The FBI detained and interrogated Timothy McVeigh's young sister Jennifer and Terry Nichols' twelve year-old son. They announced in the media that both of them were suspects and that Jennifer McVeigh was facing indictment and the death penalty. These charges disappeared from the media and both young people were released. What is the story here? 25. Who is John Doe Number Two? Does he exist at all? The FBI first conducted a nationwide manhunt for JD-2 over a period of several weeks. Then they claimed that a U.S. Army soldier on leave, whose published photographs bear no resemblance whatsoever to the photofits, was JD-2. Then they claimed for some months that JD-2 does not exist and all the witnesses who saw him were mistaken. Now they are hedging again and say they have an "open mind" about whether John Doe Number Two exists. What is going on here? 26. In January of 1996 National Public Radio broadcast a half-hour special containing interviews with half a dozen witnesses who personally saw John Doe Number Two in the Ryder truck with Timothy McVeigh on the morning of the bombing. These witnesses all had one thing in common; other than a cursory preliminary interview by the FBI they had up until that time been approached by neither the prosecution nor the defense to appear as witnesses at the trial. Why not? Will any witnesses who saw John Doe Number Two be called to testify? 27. In the summer of 1995 a mysterious American named Daniel Spiegelman was arrested in the Netherlands for trafficking in stolen diamonds and antiques. In July of 1995 the Janet Reno Justice Department quietly applied for Spiegelman's extradition to the United States IN CONNECTION WITH THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING. This was accompanied by representations at the highest level demanding that the Netherlands courts hear the case in camera and that the proceedings be kept completely secret. Through his attorney Spiegelman fought extradition, a Dutch judge refused to impose secrecy on the hearing, the media got hold of it, and Janet Reno allegedly withdrew the extradition request, whereupon the entire bizarre episode vanished from public view. No more media blackout in the OKC case has been more complete than the blackout imposed over the name of Daniel Spiegelman; it is as if he has stepped off the face of the planet. Who is Daniel Spiegelman? What connection does he have with Oklahoma City? Is he John Doe Number Two? Does he know who John Doe Number Two is? 28. FBI informant and star witness Michael Fortier, who admits to trading his testimony for lenient sentencing on gun charges himself, claims that he and Timothy McVeigh scouted out the Murrah building several weeks in advance looking for the BATF offices therein. If that is true, why did Timothy NcVeigh stop the Ryder truck at a gas station on the morning of the bombing and ask directions to the building? And why did he park the truck on the side of the building the farthest away from the BATF offices, when there was an available parking lot which would have placed the truck bomb almost directly under the windows of the BATF even if it was seven stories up? 29. Why was the reaction of the Clinton administration, blaming right-wing radio talk shows for the incident and demanding the most draconian police state legislation ever proposed in the United States, so swift and obviously organized? The air of orchestration about the whole government response did not escape notice even at the time, in all the high emotionalism prevalent, and was commented on by a number of observers all across the political spectrum. A blizzard of OKC-related "domestic terrorism" bills were rushed into Congress in a matter of days, some of them pre-written and already printed up BEFORE THE BOMBING. These proposed laws cover everything from banning virtually all privately owned firearms to unlimited and court-admissible Federal wiretaps to censorship of the Internet to the suspension of habeas corpus in "terrorism" cases to the grotesque destruction of the First Amendment advocated in Charles Schumer's bill H.R. 2580, which imposes a five-year prison sentence for publicly engaging in "unseemly speculation" and publishing or transmitting by wire or electronic means "baseless conspiracy theories regarding the Federal government of the United States". Who decides what is a "baseless conspiracy theory'? Why, the very same government, of course. How exactly was a normally cumbersome, inefficient, and glacially slow legislative branch able to move so quickly, so comprehensively, and so efficiently in introducing these laws which will strip Americans of what remaining freedoms they have? 30. Why did it take so unconscionably long for the trial of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to begin? - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: peoples_informer@juno.com (org. 4-96): 14th amendment is dead] (fwd) Date: 23 May 1997 12:31:47 PST Looks like someon's finally getting "a round tuit". On May 23, DAVE RYDEL wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] >Return-Path: >To: gemed@juno.com >Cc: mjhmmminva@juno.com, robo14@juno.com, eagleflt@flash.net, DotHB@aol.com, > kristof@panax.com, jwatt@nemaine.com, kawaja@dnet.net, > fedbuster@juno.com, ramann@hotmail.com, nolso@sunny.ncmc.cc.mi.us, > rsout@sunny.ncmc.cc.mi.us, ralph@teaminfinity.com >Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:16:38 PST >Subject: peoples_informer@juno.com (org. 4-96): 14th amendment is dead] >X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-331 >From: maineac@juno.com (Lloyd R. Haggert) > >--------- Begin forwarded message ---------- >From: peoples_informer@juno.com (org. 4-96) >To: maineac@juno.com >Subject: 14th amendment is dead] >Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 20:16:29 PST >Message-ID: <19970312.212444.3646.4.Peoples_Informer@juno.com> > >Lloyd, > I didn't know but you might want this. > Sarah > > >Registered U.S. Mail #R 756 488 761 >Return Receipt Requested > c/o USPS P.O. Box #### > San Rafael > California Republic > zip code exempt (DMM 122.32) > > December 29, 1993 > >Hon. William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice >Hon. Harry A. Blackmun, Associate Justice >Hon. John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice >Hon. Sandra Day O'Connor, Associate Justice >Hon. Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice >Hon. Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice >Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice >Hon. Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice >Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice >Supreme Court of the United States >One First Street, Northeast >Washington, District of Columbia > >Subject: NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST > >Dear Honorable Justices: > > Notice is hereby formally served upon you, both jointly >and severally, that conclusive evidence now available to Me >proves that the so-called 14th amendment to the Constitution for >the United States of America was never properly approved and >adopted. I am under a legal and moral obligation to intervene on >behalf of the many millions of Americans whose status has been >unlawfully subsumed under federal jurisdiction, because this was >done without either their knowledge or their informed consent. > > As required by Title 28, United States Code, Section 453 >(Oaths of justices and judges), you have solemnly sworn (or >affirmed) that you would administer justice without respect to >persons, and faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all >duties incumbent upon you as Justices of the U. S. Supreme Court >under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help you >God (see revision at 104 Stat. 5124). > > Please take formal notice that it is quite simply impossible >for you, or for any other public officials anywhere in America, >to perform your solemn duties under this oath (or affirmation), >if the weight of material evidence should prove that the exact >provisions of that Constitution are still in doubt. Your oath >(or affirmation) is a binding contract which I hereby seek to >enforce, according to the dictates of My conscience, My Creator, >and the supreme Law of the Land, as lawfully amended. > > Pursuant to the Guarantee Clause (4:4) and to the opinion of >the California Court of Appeal in Steiner v. Darby et al., 88 >Cal.App.2d 481, 199 P.2d 429 (1948: the year of My birth as a >Sovereign natural born Free Citizen of one of the United States), >it is not only My Right, but also My Duty, to inform you that the >weight of material and historical evidence proves that the >so-called 14th amendment is not now, nor has it ever been, a >lawful provision in the Constitution for the United States of >America. This proposed amendment failed to be ratified in >accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of the >Constitution. At the very least, the evidence which I now lay >before you consists of the following public records and other >documents: > > State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936, 941 (1975) > Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968) > 28 Tulane Law Review 22 > 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484 > House Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, p. 15641 et seq. > > Because the available evidence indicates to Me that all >Federal and State judicial officers, without exception, have >taken solemn oaths (or affirmations) which disagree with the >Constitution for the United States of America as lawfully >amended, I am now left entirely without any unbiased judicial >forum in which to seek review and declaratory relief in the >matter of the following federal questions: > >(1) The constitutional qualifications for election to the > offices of President, Senator, and Representative retain the > meaning they had when the Constitution was first drafted > (see Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393-633 (1856)). > >(2) There is still no constitutional authority for the status of > a "citizen of the United States", unlike the proper status > of a "Citizen of one of the States United" (see 1:2:2, > 1:3:3, 2:1:5, and People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311 > (1870): the term "United States" here means "States united"; > see also Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)). > >(3) There is still no constitutional provision prohibiting > anyone from questioning the validity of the public debt, and > freedom of speech is still guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. > >(4) All provisions in Federal law are necessarily null and void, > to the extent that they make reference, either implicitly or > explicitly, to any section(s) of the failed 14th amendment. > >(5) All provisions in State constitutions and statutes are > likewise null and void, to the extent that they make > reference to any section(s) of the failed 14th amendment > (e.g. see the attached letter to the California State Lands > Commission, to which all recipients fell silent). > > > DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST > > Therefore, by virtue of the superior authority which is >vested in Me by My Creator, as a direct consequence of My natural >birth as a qualified member of the Sovereign People, "by whom and >for whom all government exists and acts" (see Yick Wo v. Hopkins, >118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)), and on behalf of each and every member >of the Sovereignty known and lawfully identified as "We, the >People of the United States" of America (see Preamble), I hereby >demand and do hereby order you to Cease and Desist from any and >all of the following official acts on your part: > >(1) any and all official oaths or affirmations which are > predicated in any way on the lawful ratification of the > so-called 14th amendment; > >(2) any and all judicial decisions or determinations which are > predicated in any way on the lawful ratification of the > so-called 14th amendment, including but not limited to: > > (a) decisions or determinations which construe in any way > the rights, responsibilities, privileges, immunities, > and liabilities of "citizens of the United States" as > that term is used in any and all Acts of Congress and > administrative rules and regulations promulgated by any > employees of the Executive Branch of the Federal > government (e.g. 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c)); > > (b) decisions or determinations which attempt in any way to > enforce the administration of the individual income tax > provisions of the Internal Revenue Code upon the People > of the 50 Union States, or upon their private property > (see Treasury Decision 2313 and Brushaber's pleadings); > > (c) decisions or determinations which uphold in any way the > validity of the public debt of the Federal and State > governments, acting in whatever capacity and through > whatever agency, lawfully delegated or not (see 1:6:2); > > (d) decisions or determinations which recognize in any way > the lawful existence of a "State within a state", with > particular reference to the political body defined by > the population of "citizens of the United States" who > may inhabit the 50 Union States at any given moment, > however those terms may be defined (see 4:3:1 and the > case law interpreting the Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. 105-113). > > Until such time as you demonstrate officially that each and >every one of you has executed a solemn oath which agrees with the >Constitution for the United States of America as lawfully >amended, I will take the absence of such an oath to mean that you >are jointly and severally biased in your understanding of >the Constitution and that you are, therefore, unqualified to rule >on these matters and hereby recused from doing so. > > The burden of proof is now upon you to authenticate the >Constitution which you agree to uphold, now and at all times in >the future, using established principles of Law and the published >rules of evidence. > > I realize that this NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST >may constitute an historically unprecedented act on My part, as >an individual California Citizen who enjoys neither elected nor >appointed authority of any kind at this moment in time. >Nevertheless, this act is necessitated by the fact that there is >presently not one single judge, magistrate, or commissioner >anywhere in America whose oath of office is not colored by faulty >(non-existent) provisions in the federal Constitution which they >are sworn to uphold. > > I realize also that this Notice and Demand must be general >in nature and in substance, because of the far-reaching >consequences which issue from the facts and Law which impugn >federal "adoption" of the so-called 14th amendment. It is not My >purpose here to anticipate, nor to delineate, each and every such >consequence. Better minds than I should hesitate to assume such >a weighty task by themselves. > > Therefore, for the time being, I will leave it to you, and >to the capable expertise on your respective staffs, to find and >recommend the course of action which will best execute this >Demand with maximum justice, liberty, and domestic tranquility. >These are, after all, the stated goals of our chosen form of >government in the United States of America (see Preamble). > > Furthermore, I do explicitly reserve My unalienable Right to >take whatever steps I deem necessary and proper to correct, at >any time, a government which has now drifted so far off course, >it hardly resembles the constitutional Republic it was designed >to be (see also Declaration of Independence (1776)). > > Thank you very much for your attention, and for your >consideration. > > >Respectfully submitted, > >/s/ John E. Trumane, Sui Juris > >California Citizen, on behalf of the >People of the United States of America > >All Rights Reserved AT LAW > > NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS. > NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. > >copies: Marin County Grand Jury, San Rafael > Bill Clinton, President > Pete Wilson, Governor of California > Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator > Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator > Lynn Woolsey, U.S. Representative > Janet Reno, Attorney General > Drew S. Days, III, Solicitor General > William K. Suter, Supreme Court Clerk > Frank D. Wagner, Reporter of Decisions > Alfred Wong, Marshal > Shelley L. Dowling, Librarian > >attachment: letter to California State Lands Commission > >enclosures >(under separate cover to Librarian supra): > > The Federal Zone, hard-copy second edition > The Federal Zone, electronic fourth edition > Chapter 11, from upcoming fifth edition > > > California All-Purpose Acknowledgement > >CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC ) > ) >COUNTY OF MARIN ) > > On this twenty-ninth (29th) day of December, 1993, Anno >Domini, before Me personally appeared John E. Trumane, personally >known to Me (or proved to Me on the basis of satisfactory >evidence) to be the Person whose name is subscribed to the within >instrument and acknowledged to Me that he executed the same in >His authorized capacity, and that by His signature on this >instrument the Person, or the entity upon behalf of which the >Person acted, executed the instrument. Purpose of Notary Public >is for identification only, and not for entra [------------------------- 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: mestetsr@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu Subject: Re: New Online Publication - Censorship Date: 23 May 1997 15:40:49 -0400 This email came to me because Jews are heavily involved in the "Right Wing Watch" thanks to people like Pat Robertson who are just itching to convert us. Rachel >At 01:47 PM 5/23/97 EST, People For the American Way wrote: >> >>Welcome to "Attacks on the Freedom to Learn -- Online," the newest >>online publication of People For the American Way. This is >>our premiere issue, and you're receiving it because we think you, as >>a Right Wing Watch Online subscriber, might be interested in >>information about the censorship of materials and programs in public >>school classrooms and libraries. **This will be the only issue you >>will receive unsolicited.** If you like the newsletter and would >>like to subscribe, you can do so easily and at no cost. Instructions >>for subscribing are at the end of the newsletter. > > >[snip > > > >>====== >>To receive "Attacks on the Freedom to Learn -- Online" on a regular >>basis, please subscribe by filling out the form at >>http://pfaw.org/aflo or sending e-mail to "maiser@pfaw.org" with the >>message "sub aflo". A subject heading is not necessary. >> >>We would also like to hear from you if you are aware of censorship >>incidents in your community. If you have an incident to report, >>please e-mail us at attacks@pfaw.org or report your incident using the >>form which is accessible from http://pfaw.org/aflo. >> >>People For the American Way | 2000 M Street NW | Washington, DC 20009 >>(202) 467-4999 | pfaw@pfaw.org | http://pfaw.org >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) Dissonance Date: 24 May 1997 09:36:57 -0700 "Dissonance and Dissidents" by John Taylor Friday, May 23, 1997 My /American Rifleman/ came in the mail today, and as usual, I read it cover-to-cover as soon as I got back from the mailbox. In it I found the usual quality articles about hunting tactics and hardware, and the latest from the pens of our three chief officers. Maybe I'm just too sensitized, but did anybody besides me notice that every day in every way we're beginning to look less like "the world's oldest civil rights organization" and more like "the world's oldest 'gun control' organization"? Let me explain. Wayne LaPierre's column, "Standing Guard" [1] is devoted to "dissing" the Joseph Goebbels of the House of Representatives, Charles "The F is for Fascist" Schumer. Schumer's latest attempted rape of the Constitution is hilariously titled the "Twelve is Enough Anti-Gunrunning Act" (HR12), and amounts to no more than another version of the same old same old from the Enemies of Liberty. But perhaps more surprising than Schumer's sleazy attempt to gut the Bill of Rights is Wayne LaPierre's response. In Wayne's World, Schumer's bill is bad because it's unnecessary -- we already have perfectly fine gun laws on the books that need to be more strictly enforced. Excuse me? Do I read this right? The existing unconstitutional code is more than adequate to maintain order, and should be used to the fullest to accomplish Schumer's goals? And we're on _whose_ side? To quote LaPierre, "All states -- when it comes to criminal commerce in firearms -- have the same law and it's there in black and white for anyone to read, especially Chuck Schumer who ought to be demanding that the U.S. Justice Department do its job and enforce the law. It is a law which now -- today -- could be used to arrest, try, and convict armed criminal predators who crawl our streets." The law LaPierre refers to is the hideous Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68), whose provisions have, for almost three decades, been used to infringe almost exclusively the rights of honest citizens. This act, relacing the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, imposed harsh restrictions on the sale and transfer of firearms, allowed the Federal government to determine what type of firearms you may possess, and set in place the mechanism for all current "gun control" schemes. GCA '68 is the Holy Grail of the anti-gunners. It is the law about which Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (a _real_ pro-gun civil rights group) says "GCA '68 ties your hands and keeps you from carrying out your legal duty to ensure your own self-defense. GCA '68 thus undermines a pillar of U.S. law and helps criminals to kill law-abiding Americans. Hitler would be pleased." [2] And GCA '68 is the existing law Wayne LaPierre refers to when he says that "criminal sanctions under existing law" should be enforced. LaPierre cites provisions of GCA '68 that would apply to a hypothetical "gunrunner" who unlawfully buys and sells handguns. The cumulative penalties are impressive in LaPierre's scenario -- 995 years in federal prison. (Of course Wayne cheats a little by making the "gunrunner" a "multi-convicted felon; a drug user; a fugitive from justice." And his "customers" are constructed as "... also career criminals; all convicted felons; in the illegal drug trade; two are fugitives." In addition to making them a presumably unsavory lot, these conditions allow LaPierre to "pad" the firearms violation penalties with a few extra years for drug and fugitive charges -- a cheap trick. But perhaps more important, the entire construction is missing one vital element that seemingly applies in every crime -- the victim. None of the hypothetical charges involve a crime against a person. There are no bleeding children, no grieving widows to enlist in the cause of "gun control" -- no victims at all. Oh, well, I guess one could argue that "society" was victimized, but that position looks pretty feeble. No, all the gun-related penalties are for crimes _that are nothing more than administrative creations of GCA '68_. That's right; no one stole anything, no one violated anyone else's rights, no one initiated force of any kind against anyone else in this little scenario. These "gunrunners" simply failed to comply with the law whose model was The Nazi Weapons Law of 18 March, 1938. And we (we're the NRA!) seem to think that we don't need any new laws _because this one will do just fine_! *** Moving on, we find an essay by Tanya Metaksa later in the same issue of the "house organ", entitled "Sliding Down the Slippery Slope". In it Mrs. Metaksa (quite rightly) asserts, "We will never lose our civil liberties all at once, by dictator decree. If the day ever comes in America when we lose our guns, it will be because once we compromised our beliefs and started down the slippery slope of waiting periods, gun bans, mandatory storage laws and the like. It [sic] became easier and easier just to go along for the ride." Yet, earlier in the article, Mrs. Metaksa is attempting to refute the assertion of a Clinton official in the Department of Justice who stated, "The current state of federal law does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of private citizens to possess firearms of any type." Mrs. Metaksa rebuts the official by referring to ... did you guess it? ... GCA '68! Says Metaksa about that law, "Congress affirmed the gun-owning rights of the individual citizen, stating that the law was not intended to 'place any undue or necessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity. ...'" Are we so naive that we actually believe such hooey from Congress? If we believed it in 1968, haven't the events of the recent past proved that at best that intent has been subverted? Do we really look so favorably on a law whose very presence lends credibility to the Charles Schumers of this country when they propose their statist legislation? Don't we _oppose_ "gun control"? Notes: [1] Wayne LaPierre, "Standing Guard", American Hunter, June 1997, pp. 10-11 [2] "The War on Gun Ownership Still Goes On!", 1993, bound in: Jay Simkin and Aaron Zelman, _"Gun Control" -- Gateway to Tyranny_, 1993 Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 2872 South Wentworth Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53207, (414) 769-0760 [3] Tanya K. Metaksa, "Sliding Down the Slippery Slope", American Hunter, June 1997, pp.44-45 Copyright (c) 1997 by John C. Taylor. The reader is encouraged to circulate this essay widely. Permission to reproduce this essay is hereby granted (and encouraged), provided its content is unaltered and this postscript is attached. Address comments to: Snail mail: John Taylor 10554 Jason Lane Columbia, MD 21044-2213 Phone: (410) 730-1265 E-mail: JohnNo6@erols.com -- John Taylor (410) 730-1265 ----------------- Principio Obstate - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: MRC Alert: Journalists Aid the Enemy; Why Brokaw's Leaving (fwd) Date: 27 May 1997 09:38:49 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ***Media Research Center CyberAlert*** Tuesday, May 27, 1997 (Vol. Two; No. 75) Huang's China Sport; Journalists Aid the Enemy; Why Brokaw's Leaving #### Distributed to over 2,300 recipients by the Media Research Center, bringing political balance to the media. Visit the MRC on the Web: http://www.mediaresearch.org. Past CyberAlerts can be read at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/mrc/cyberalert/ Subscribe/unsubscribe information at end of this message. #### 1) The latest stories ignored by TV: Huang aided Chinese Olympic effort; another Clinton buddy got a high-paid "job" for Hubbell. 2) The Executive Editor of The Washington Post would not let a reporter deliver a message that could prevent China from using a biological weapon. 3) CBS schedules Gumbel's show as CNN tries to nab Brokaw, prompting Letterman's "Top Ten Reasons Tom Brokaw May Be Leaving NBC." > 1) The guilty plea of the Lums generated network stories last Wednesday, but the networks have ignored two other Clinton scandal developments involving John Huang and Webster Hubbell. -- "Riady, Huang Aided Chinese in Bid for Olympics, Documents Show," announced a May 21 Washington Post headline over a story that revealed how, before joining the Clinton team, Huang worked to assist the communist regime. The lead to the Post story: "James Riady and John Huang...worked together in March 1993 to arrange a trip to Atlanta for a high-ranking Chinese Communist Party official involved in Beijing's bid to win the Olympics in 2000, documents show. Huang and Riady arranged the visit for Zhang Baifa, the First Executive Vice Mayor of Beijing..." -- As noted in the May 21 CyberAlert, the networks skipped a May 20 Los Angeles Times story disclosing how Mickey Kantor arranged for a federal job for Webster Hubbell's son. The ever- growing list of Hubbell "jobs" remains a story the networks rarely touch. "Clinton Pal Jordan Got Hubbell Job," read a front page USA Today headline on Thursday, May 22. In addition to all the other previously disclosed deals for Hubbell, reporter Edward Pound discovered: "Washington lawyer Vernon Jordan, a close friend of President Clinton, helped land a lucrative job for Webster Hubbell with a holding company controlled by billionaire financier Ronald Perelman in the weeks after Hubbell resigned from the Justice Department. Hubbell was paid more than $60,000 by Perelman's MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings after Jordan introduced him to the firm in April 1994, according to people familiar with the arrangement." Coverage. MRC news analysts Clay Waters, Steve Kaminski, Gene Eliasen and Geoffrey Dickens informed me: Not a word about either revelation on the Wednesday or Thursday ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, CNN's The World Today or NBC Nightly News. > 2) More evidence that some journalists see themselves above international differences -- as being too petty to concern them. At least a few see themselves as even too important to help preserve the security of the nation which guarantees freedom of the press and thus allows them to be so selfish. The latest proof appeared in a "Notebook" item in the May 26 New Republic: "Still wondering why journalists are such suspect citizens? Consider a scene at Nora, a trendy Washington restaurant. Fifty or so media and political chummies gathered to discuss a dilemma raised in A Firing Offense, a new spy novel by a Washington Post editor, David Ignatius. "In the book, a Washington Post reporter cultivates sources at the CIA, who later ask him for a favor. Will he, while traveling in China, pass a message to a scientist that could not only save the scientist's life, but possibly prevent China from developing a horrific new biological weapon? "At the lunch, Ignatius asked Bob Woodward what he would do. Considering the extraordinary circumstances, Woodward said he would pass on the message, as long as his Washington Post bosses approved. It just so happened that one of those bosses, Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., was also at the lunch, and Downie rather passionately announced that, far from approving Woodward's secret mission, he would resign from the paper rather than allow it to go forward. "Downie, who doesn't vote in order to prevent himself from having political opinions, apparently sees journalists as a priestly class above national security, citizenship, even life and death -- as if we didn't have a high enough opinion of ourselves already. "What if it were not the Chinese, someone asked, but the Nazis? Downie held to his position, if wiltingly: 'Usually we look for alternatives...' Usually? How often does this question come up at the Post?" The New Republic report reminded me of a story in the April 1989 MediaWatch on a PBS show on how journalists should cover war. Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace argued that the story should come before saving American lives, a position that justifiably disgusted a Marine Colonel. Here's an edited version of the 1989 MediaWatch article: Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace Agree JOURNALISTS FIRST, AMERICANS SECOND In a future war involving U.S. soldiers what would a TV reporter do if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit? That's just the question Harvard University professor Charles Ogletree Jr, as moderator of PBS' Ethics in America series, posed to ABC anchor Peter Jennings and 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace. Both agreed getting ambush footage for the evening news would come before warning the U.S. troops. For the March 7 installment on battlefield ethics Ogletree set up a theoretical war between the North Kosanese and the U.S.-supported South Kosanese. At first Jennings responded: "If I was with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans." Wallace countered that other reporters, including himself, "would regard it simply as another story that they are there to cover." Jennings' position bewildered Wallace: "I'm a little bit of a loss to understand why, because you are an American, you would not have covered that story." "Don't you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?" Ogletree asked. Without hesitating Wallace responded: "No, you don't have higher duty...you're a reporter." This convinces Jennings, who conceded, "I think he's right too, I chickened out." Ogletree turned to Brent Scrowcroft, now the National Security Adviser, who argued "you're Americans first, and you're journalists second." Wallace was mystified by the concept, wondering "what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by North Kosanese on American soldiers?" A few minutes later Ogletree noted the "venomous reaction" from George Connell, a Marine Corps Colonel. "I feel utter contempt. Two days later they're both walking off my hilltop, they're two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they're lying there wounded. And they're going to expect I'm going to send Marines up there to get them. They're just journalists, they're not Americans." Wallace and Jennings agreed, "it's a fair reaction." The discussion concluded as Connell said: "But I'll do it. And that's what makes me so contemptuous of them. And Marines will die, going to get a couple of journalists." Indeed. > 3) Where will you be Wednesdays at 9pm ET in the fall? Probably not watching CBS. That's the scheduled time CBS announced last Thursday for Bryant Gumbel's new, yet to be named, magazine/ interview show. When Gumbel cut his deal with CBS in March, media reports on his annual take pegged it at $5 million to $7 million. If Ted Turner has his way NBC's Tom Brokaw will be pulling in a similar amount, but for five times more hours. CNN is courting Brokaw with an offer of $7 million a year for nightly prime time hour, the New York Times reported last Wednesday. The news inspired David Letterman's Top Ten list on Thursday night. From the May 22 Late Show with David Letterman, the "Top Ten Reasons Tom Brokaw May Be Leaving NBC." (Copyright 1997 by Worldwide Pants, Incorporated.) 10. Those drunken, late night phone calls from Katie Couric 9. Can't handle grueling 30-minute-a-day schedule 8. NBC rejected his new situation comedy, Seinkaw 7. Network had petty objection to his making up the news as he went along 6. Ratings war causing friction with his live-in companion, Dan Rather 5. Network won't let him wear his lucky sombrero on air 4. Whenever he eats lunch at the NBC Commissary, Willard's toupee rubs against his leg and begs for table scraps 3. Heard that if you move from NBC to CBS, you get a boatload of cash 2. Ted Turner's offering $7 million a year and a night with Jane 1. Decided that the NBC Peacock is just "too creepy" -- Brent Baker >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: mrc-cyber-request@list.us.net. Put "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the BODY of the message, NOT in the subject line. Problems and comments can be addressed to: cyber@mediaresearch.org <<< =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: RE: SLS: essence of "Nazi" (was "SNET: Deja Vu All Over Again") (fwd) Date: 27 May 1997 10:19:20 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >Letter to the Editor >6/7/95 - Arlington, Washington Times > >During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats have >frequently denounced the Republicans as Nazis due to their attempts to >control runaway federal spending. How very ironic. I remember the Nazis. Let >me share a little about them and recall some of their exploits. > >First of all, "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize". The >Bider-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their early >struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "The National Socialist >Workers Party of Germany". Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the >nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national >resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement. > >Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed, and academic >elite against the conservative republic. After der fuhrer's election ceased >being a political conspiracy and was transformed into a fashionable social >phenomenon, pary membership was especially popular with educators, >bureaucrats, and the press. Being a Nazi was politically correct. They >called themselves "The Children of the New Age of World Order" and looked >down their noses at everyone else. As Hitler accrued more power, he referred >to his critics as "The Dark Forces of Anarchy and Hatred". Anyone who >questioned Nazi high-handedness in the German press was branded a >"Conservative Reactionary". Joseph Goebbels, minister of communications, >proclaimed a "New World Order". > >The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, >Bohemians and Gypses who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the >"New World Order" and Hitler demanded that all good people register their >guns so that they wouldn't fall into the hands of "terrorists and madmen". >Right wing fanatics of the "Old Order" who protested firearms registration >were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for "fomenting hatred against the >Government of the German people". > >Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler ram-rodded >an "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act" through Parliament that gave the Gestapo >extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of >the German people, all private firearms were to be confiscated by the >Gestapo and the Wermotten (federal law enforcement and military). German >citizens who refused to surrender their guns when the "jack-boots" (Gestapo) >came calling, were murdered in their homes. By the way, the Gestapo were the >federal marshals' service of the Third Reich. The S.W.A.T. team was invented >and perfected by the Gestapo to break into the homes of the enemies of the >German people. > >When the Policia Bewakken, or local police, refused to take away guns from >townsfolk, they themselves were disarmed and dragged out into the street and >shot to death by the S.A. and the S.S. Those were Nazi versions of the >B.A.T.F. and the F.B.I. When several local ministers spoke out against these >atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again. > >The Gestapo began to confiscate and seize the homes, businesses, bank >accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizes who had >prospered in the old Republic. Pamphleteers who urged revolt against the >Nazis were shot on site by national law enforcement and the military. >Gypsies and Jews were detained and sent to labor camps. Mountain roads >throughout central Europe were closed to prevent the escape of fugitives >into the wilderness, and to prevent the movement and concealment of partisan >resistance fighters. > >Public schools rewrote history and Hitler youth groups taught the children >to report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi remarks. Such >parents disappeared. Pagan animism became the state religion of the Third >Reich and Christians were widely condemned as "right wing fanatics". > >Millions of books were burned first and then people. Millions of them burned >in huge ovens after they were first gassed to death. Unmarried women were >paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and then given medals >for it. Evil was declared as being good, and good was condemned as being >evil. World Order was coming and the German people were going to be the >"peacekeepers". > >Yes, indeed, I remember the Nazis and they weren't Republicans, or "right >wing", or "patriots" or "militias". They were Socialist monsters. > >Thomas Colton Ruthford -- 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: Clinton's Abuse of Power: The IRS (fwd) Date: 27 May 1997 10:33:31 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Our nomination for the best description of the Clinton Administration's Continued Abuse of Power Excerpted from: Investor's Business Daily - May 27, 1997 ...At issue are growing suspicions among conservative groups that the IRS has been waging a political vendetta against them. They've noticed a pattern of rising scrutiny into their activities since Clinton took office, and they want to know if that's by design. A study by the Western Journalism Center, one of the groups audited under the Clinton administration, has compiled a list of 21 nonprofit organizations (including itself) that it says have been ''targeted'' by the IRS through audits or other actions. The list covers some of the most influential voices on the right, such as the Heritage Foundation, Christian Coalition, National Review and American Spectator. Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson testified to Congress in February about the allegations. But little has come of the inquiry because of strict IRS rules against revealing confidential information on audits. But the Landmark Legal Foundation watchdog group has found a way around the problem: Rather than dig into the audits themseles, find out who may have been prodding the IRS to start them. On Jan. 28, Mark Levin, the group's president, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for copies of documents from individuals or groups outside the IRS seeking audits or probes of tax-exempt organizations like those on the WJC's list. That information is public record, and getting it should be routine. But four months later, Landmark is still waiting to have its request honored. Under federal law, covered federal agencies such as the IRS must acknowledge a freedom-of-information request within 10 working days. But Levin got no answer to his first request. He followed up on March 6, and the IRS again ignored him. On March 26, Landmark sent an appeal to Commissioner Richardson. Finally, on April 1, the IRS's tax specialist Sharon Baker wrote back asking for more time. Ten days later, the IRS told Landmark that ''unless you provide a plan to demonstrate how you will actively disseminate the requested information, your request for fee waiver will be denied.'' All this looks like stonewalling. Landmark is well-known as an advocate of accountable government and already had made its intent clear in its January letter. Coming as it does after Landmark played by the rules for three months, the IRS demand for a ''dissemination plan'' looks like just another obstacle. Other government agencies play by the FOI rules. Why can't the IRS? Even the Commerce Department, despite the potential for damaging publicity, is cooperating with Landmark's FOI requests. The Freedom of Information Act is meant to throw light on government. We know from experience that when the Clinton administration acts as if it's hiding something, it usually is. And when the facts are finally dragged out of the White House, they are often explosive - like the true story of Webster Hubbell's income, or the list of FBI files requested by White House operatives looking for dirt on Republicans. It's not politics or partisanship to be suspicious how Clinton's IRS is handling Landmark's simple requests for openness. It's just the wisdom of experience. If you're not hearing about what's wrong with the Clinton Adminstration, you must be getting your news from Dan Rather." - Elefanceros Elephants R Us Home Page http://www.enteract.com/~wdcook/republicans Home of the Hillary-Ometer =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To unsubscribe from this mailing list, DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE and go to the Web page at http://www.maillist.net/rightnow.html. New subscriptions can also be entered at this page. If you cannot access the World Wide Web, send an e-mail message to RightNow-Request@MailList.Net and on the SUBJECT LINE put the single word: unsubscribe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: [Fwd: IP: OKC-Charles Key]]] (fwd) Date: 27 May 1997 16:26:00 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 13:02:52 -0500 (CDT) > From: believer@telepath.com > > >From the Daily Oklahoman: > > Key Pursues Inquiry Despite Sacrifices to Reputation > > 05/26/1997 > By Diana Baldwin > Staff Writer > > State Rep. Charles Key's colleagues don't view him as a conspiracy theorist > or a right-wing, anti-government advocate. They call him honorable, honest > and tenacious. > > Others wonder whether he is driven to find the truth or motivated by profit. > > Key, R-Oklahoma City, is circulating petitions calling for a county grand > jury to investigate the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. He > accuses the federal government of a cover-up. > > Rep. Charles Gray, D-Oklahoma City, said, ''I don't think he is a right-wing > nut at all. I think he has his genuine concern. He is not a right-wing kook > of any sorts.'' > > Carolyn Coleman, R-Moore, said, ''He is a man of integrity, a man of > principles. He is honest in all of his dealings.'' > > Rep. Tim Pope, R-Mustang, said, ''Charles doesn't do anything for his own > purposes. He does it for the good of the cause. In this particular case, the > case of truth.'' > > Attorney General Drew Edmondson is questioning Key's attempt to raise money > for an Oklahoma County grand jury investigation. > * > > ''Patriot'' movement followers across the country support Key. The Oklahoma > City lawmaker can be heard on shortwave right-wing talk shows such as > ''Chuck Harder's For the People,'' and at anti-government gatherings like > the ''Preparedness '97'' conference being held this weekend in Tulsa. > > The lawmaker and Hoppy Heidelberg, a Blanchard resident removed from a > federal grand jury investigating the bombing, are scheduled to speak. > Heidelberg was dropped from the grand jury Oct. 24, 1995, after he disclosed > jury secrets and complained about prosecutors. He talked to a writer for the > right-wing magazine Media Bypass. > > Michigan militia figure Mark Koernke also is scheduled to speak. > > Key is the topic of messages posted on Internet sites that discuss the > belief that the federal government had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City > bombing -- and may even have been involved in the act, which claimed the > lives of 168 people. > > He has a page on the World Wide Web explaining his beliefs and has hired a > public relations consultant to promote his cause. > > Key has produced a video claiming the federal government had prior knowledge > of the April 19, 1995, explosion. It is sold through the mail and at > right-wing gatherings such as the ''Restore Our Constitution'' convention > last year in Atlanta, Ga., with other propaganda that fuels deep distrust of > the government. > > Rep. Deborah Blackburn, D-Oklahoma City, who lives 16 blocks north of ground > zero, called Key and his efforts inappropriate. The downtown legislator said > she is offended by his actions. > > ''The idea that the government blew up its own people, that goes right into > the mentality of those who blew it up,'' Blackburn said. > > Don Kinnamon, D-Stroud, executive majority House leader, said, ''(Key) is > different from any other member out here. He always has weird ideas > anti-government-type ideas.'' > > Ron Kirby, D-Lawton, said, ''I wonder if he hasn't gone too far. These > theories can crop up anywhere. They can always read something in it. > > ''I don't believe in black helicopters or the government is putting a > computer chip in my head.'' > > But those close to Key argue he is a man on a mission. > > ''The bombing investigation has him fired up,'' said Rep. Dan Webb, > R-Oklahoma City. ''He is one of those who burns until he gets what he thinks > are the facts. > > ''He is like what I call a starved animal looking for something that is > worthwhile. Not just to consume anything that comes along, but if something > offered true nutrients.'' > > In addition to the theory that the federal government had prior knowledge of > the bombing, Key believes an ammonium nitrate truck bomb parked outside the > federal building could not have caused such extensive damage. > > Key wants Timothy McVeigh, 29, and Terry Nichols, 42, convicted for the > bombing. But he also is adamant there is a John Doe 2 and others involved in > the bombing and that they can be identified. Key claims his own > investigation turned up 20 witnesses who saw McVeigh with someone else in > Oklahoma City and Kansas on the day of the bombing. > > McVeigh is on trial in Denver. Nichols is expected to stand trial later. And > both are expected to stand trial in Oklahoma County District Court after > federal prosecution. > * > > Key's battle for another investigation began two months after the bombing. > His original request for an Oklahoma County grand jury was turned down by > Oklahoma County District Judge Dan Owens. The decision was then overturned > on appeal. Key began circulating petitions April 17. > > The lawmaker doesn't want Oklahoma County District Attorney Bob Macy > advising the grand jury because be believes the prosecutor will rubber-stamp > the federal government's case. > > Key also doesn't want the attorney general's office to advise the grand > jury, nor does he want Edmondson to appoint a special prosecutor. Key claims > the attorney general cannot be fair. The lawmaker wants the Oklahoma Supreme > Court to appoint a legal adviser for the grand jury, but Macy said that is > not the law. > > Macy said, ''This is not Rep. Key's grand jury. Although my office will be > required to serve as legal counsel, it will not be my grand jury. It will be > Oklahoma County's grand jury, which will take its direction from the foreman > appointed by the judge and the grand jury members.'' > * > > Key says his family, business, church, and possibly, his political career > have suffered from his intense bombing investigation campaign. Still, the > legislator will argue he made the right decision. > > Key, 43, denies making money from his bombing campaign. He claims he has > lost money and that he has closed his insurance agency. > > The lawmaker admits he has made ''easily over 100'' speeches about his > theories. Although, he said he only made $200 on one occasion. > > ''This is an emotional issue with me when I have been attacked and accused > of making money ,'' Key said. > > ''If anything, I have suffered financially, not to mention other ways. It is > dominating my time. It is a daily part of whatever I do.'' > > Janice Key, the legislator's wife, admits her three children have had to > learn what it is like to have a single parent, something she said she isn't > cut out to be. > > ''It is difficult,'' she said. > > The middle one cries when his dad leaves on a trip because he does not want > him to go, she said. > > ''When he is here, he is here in body and not in spirit,'' Janice Key said. > ''His mind is elsewhere or else he is dog tired. When you are so absorbed, > it takes a toll in a lot of ways.'' > > Ken Blood, a friend and leader of the county grand jury petition drive, > said, ''Regardless of what the appearances are, he really has lost a lot > pursuing what is the truth here. I have seen a man really struggle with what > price is he willing to pay in order to pursue something that the cost is > extremely high.'' > * > > At times, Key's office on the fifth floor of the state Capitol is a hub for > bombing investigation activity. Like many legislators, he runs to the floor > just in time to cast his vote. > > On one particular workday this month in his Capitol office, there was a > supporter from Texas who had just pulled into town to help circulate > petitions for a week. > > On another day, bombing videos were in Key's desk, grand jury petitions > occupied an end table, a public fund-raising letter was tucked in a file > drawer. Copies of a report supporting the lawmaker's theories were stacked > in the corner, another was in a desk drawer. > > A gift basket of food, plus calls from supporters and bombing-related media > interviews added to Key's distractions. > > The lawmaker denies his attention to the bombing affects his ability to take > care of legislative business. He claims he ''shifted personal business > concerns'' so he can spend ''more full time with the bombing investigation.'' > > Key missed two days of legislative sessions during April and one in May. He > also said he had missed one day in February. > > The lawmaker said he couldn't disclose what he was doing on two of those > days, but he > acknowledged all of his absences were connected to his bombing investigation > activities. > > The House Journal reflects that April 9, Key missed 28 votes. He said he was > in Fort Worth speaking to a business group about the Oklahoma City bombing. > > Key said he was out of state April 30 and May 1. > > ''I can't tell you what this was,'' Key said, ''but it will come out later.'' > > The legislator said his help was needed, that he had to meet with some other > people. > > On May 1, the lawmaker missed the House vote on the merger between > state-owned University Hospital and for-profit Columbia Presbyterian > Hospital. The House voted 68-24 to approve House Bill 1644. > > Key said he also missed one day at the Legislature in February, and he could > not talk about that absence either, he said. > > Also during April, Key missed an occasional vote one April 14, two April 15 > and four April 16. In the days leading up to the second bombing anniversary, > Key was interviewed locally and by radio stations and other media throughout > the country. > > On April 24, he missed one vote. > > Meanwhile, Key's failure to take care of a speeding ticket resulted in his > Oklahoma driver's license being suspended. The lawmaker said he drove > without a valid license from March 14 until May 9 when it was reinstated. > > Key received the speeding ticket Nov. 18 in Tallahassee, Fla. He and his > family were en route home after a weeklong Caribbean cruise. Key's expenses > on the cruise were paid because he was a speaker on his bombing theories. > > The traffic ticket cost $151. He paid a $50 reinstatement fee. > > Failure to attend to his personal insurance business caused Key to resign > from the American National Property and Casualty insurance company April 28, > he said. His insurance office at 5400 NW 23 is closed. > > Company officials said policy owners complained because Key could not be > reached at his office and that he failed to promptly return telephone calls. > > ''I got tired of fighting it taking one hat off and putting another one > on,'' Key said. > > Key admitted he had received complaints. The resignation was voluntary, he said. > > Warren Pakulski, vice president of marketing at American National Property > and Casualty, said he didn't know the number of complaints Key received over > the last six weeks. > > Key remains a licensed insurance agent in good standing. He plans to sell > life and health insurance out of his home. > * > > Key's campaign for signatures to call a county grand jury was delayed May 7 > when he was ordered to appear before a state multicounty grand jury to face > questions about possible violation of the Oklahoma Solicitation Act. > > The law requires fund-raisers to register with the attorney general's > office, which Key had failed to do. Also, Edmondson questions if Key's > private fund-raising letter is misleading or fraudulent. > > The attorney general even issued a warning to the public that the money will > not be going to the Oklahoma County grand jury but to Key. > > The lawmaker said he was not aware of the solicitation law -- although the > lawmaker voted in 1994 for House Bill 2210, which transferred the > registration responsibilities from the Oklahoma Tax Commission to the > attorney general. Key also voted in favor of the solicitation bill in 1991. > > Key filed registration papers with the attorney general May 13, eight days > after he was subpoenaed to appear at the state inquiry. > > The document states that the Oklahoma County Grand Jury and Bombing > Investigation Fund was established April 7. However, the questionable > solicitation letter, asking for donations to be sent to this fund, is dated > March 12. > > The Republican legislator claims the Democratic attorney general's motivates > are political and the probe amounts to malicious prosecution. > > Key said the Oklahoma County Grand Jury and Bombing Investigation Fund is > created and > administered by him to purchase government documents, hire a private > investigator and fund other expenses related to the investigation. > > The lawmaker was ordered to turn over additional financial documents Friday. > However, > Edmondson on Friday extended the deadline until Tuesday. > > The state grand jury recessed after hearing testimony from Key and Blood. > Its next meeting is July 30. > > The attorney general's investigation was initiated after a reporter from The > Oklahoman made inquiries about the seven-page solicitation letter. The > letter is posted on the Internet and was mailed to 300 households. > > Deadline for the county grand jury petition drive is June 2. > > Blood said volunteers will get the needed 5,000 signatures. However, he > said, ''We're playing catch-up with our time right now. We lost a week when > the attorney general called us in.'' > > Blood estimates there is ''a tremendous percent'' of registered voters in > the county who want answers to their questions. > > ''That is what the government is supposed to be,'' Blood said. ''Unless, we > no longer have the right to ask these questions anymore.'' > * > > Key has taken a lot of criticism over his video, ''Oklahoma City: What > Really Happened?'' He has repeatedly denied making money from the bombing tapes. > > The legislator said he turned to producing the video after Glen Johnson, > then-House speaker, refused to appoint a House oversight committee to > investigate the bombing. > > Key said he put up $1,500 for marketing. He has gotten his money back. Chuck > Allen, a friend and producer of the video, said he put up $17,000 for > production costs. He lacks $902.79 in recouping on his investment, said > Brian Cheatwood, an Oklahoma City public accountant for Verity Inc. > > Verity Inc. is a Norman company formed by Key and Allen six months after the > bombing, Key said. Verity stands for truth, Allen said. > > Opportunity Productions, Inc., in Enid, duplicated 6,199 videos between Aug. > 15, 1995, and May 15, said Vince Sheik, president and chief operating officer. > > The video sells for $19.95 retail, and a 24-page booklet is an additional > $4. Although, the videos were sold at a range of wholesale prices. Key > claims about 1,000 of the videos were given to the media and interested > people. Members of the House of Representatives also received a free copy . > > Cheatwood said through Dec. 31 , the corporation's gross sales reached > $55,473.41. Expenses were $54,909.16, giving a $564.25 profit. > > The expense figure includes $2,000 paid to each Key and Allen. > > ''Basically, they have just produced this video and sold it, but at this > point they have not made any money,'' Cheatwood said. ''Probably when it is > all said and done, this corporation will have retained earning through '96 > of $456.30.'' > > The lawmaker's 1995 state and federal income tax returns do not reflect Key > made money on the videos. The legislator said he has not filed his 1996 > taxes but obtained a deadline extension. > > His joint 1995 federal income tax return lists his legislative salary at > $32,502. His insurance business income was $13,345 with a $4,007 loss. He > had to pay $200. > > The lawmaker received a $137 refund from the state in 1995. > > Key is called a constitutionalist. Many times the legislation he introduces > and supports is considered to fall outside the mainstream. > > He said his filings are subjects that interest him rules and procedures, > criminal justice and constitutional issues. > > In 1995, the lawmaker pushed a 10th Amendment Resolution that would have > prohibited the federal government from infringing on the rights of the state > and the people. It would have limited federal government mandates on states. > > ''The 10th Amendment says you have stepped out of our constitutional > boundaries,'' Key said. ''The 10th Amendment resolution is not > anti-government. It is just saying there is a framework in which we operate > under.'' > > The resolution passed the House but was not heard in the Senate. > > Key also proposed a State Sovereignty Act that would have allowed Oklahoma > to collect federal taxes on income, gasoline and alcohol, and place the tax > receipts in short-term escrow, providing additional revenue for the state. > > For three years, Key pushed a jury nullification or ''fully informed jury'' > bill that would have allowed juries to vote their conscience -- to judge the > law as well as the facts when reaching their verdicts. > > Key said the measure would allow people to maintain their freedoms and have > control over the government. > > The bill passed the House twice but died both years in the Senate. Key > attempted to have the bill introduced this year, but it was not heard by the > House committee chairman. > * > > In the two years since the April 19 bombing of Oklahoma City's federal > building, the nation has undergone a crash course in the anti-government > ideologies of militias, Freemen, tax protesters and other right-wing extremists. > > When Key repeatedly appears at gatherings of such extremists, some have a > hard time separating him from the patriot movement advocates. Key denies he > is part of the common law court, anti-government or militia groups. Still, > the lawmaker is the target of name-calling. > > Key said, ''It has been hell a lot of times. I didn't say the government is > liars and cheats. I am not saying the FBI is crooked or corrupt. > > ''I didn't say the ATF, I didn't say Drew Edmondson or Governor Keating or > anyone else is a bunch of untrustworthy, low-life blankety, blankety, > whatever you want to fill in. > > ''I said the facts. What have they done?'' > > Blood calls Key's bombing involvement political suicide. > > ''It creates the image that he is a nut,'' Blood said. ''Labels are too easy > to be attached and not easy to be taken off. But he has been willing to pay > that price. > > ''The perception is there. The messenger becomes the question instead of the > message becoming the question.'' > > Key's political career appears to be safe until the end of this term in > 1998. He won his western Oklahoma City district by 75 percent last August. > > The lawmaker said the results of his House District 90 race is proof that > people, at least in his district, aren't concerned about his bombing > investigation. He is serving his sixth term representing the area where he > grew up. > > Key wants the government to be accountable for its actions -- not just in > the bombing investigation, but in every incident. > > ''What is wrong with that?'' the lawmaker asked. > > Bill Day, Key's minister at the Northwest Church of Christ, doesn't > understand why everyone isn't willing to hear all the information. Day's > sister, Diana Day, was killed in the bombing. She was Key's secretary when > he first was elected to the Legislature. > > ''If there is something to find out, let's find it out,'' Day said. ''To > attack him the way he's been attacked kind of indicates to me that there is > probably something going on.'' > > Key's life would be different today if he had never asked that first > question about the bombing. Still, he would make the same decision a second > time. > > ''That is fine I chose to do it,'' Key said. ''I still choose to do it. > > ''I am anti-bad government. I am anti-corrupt government ... but I am not > anti-government. > > ''So much of this shocks our system. It shocks our senses of how things are > and that is why I think there us such a blacklash, such a reaction by some > because they don't want to face this.'' > > Staff writer Mick Hinton in the Capitol Bureau contributed to this report. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe, email > majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: > subscribe ignition-point > or > unsubscribe ignition-point > http://ic.net/~celano/ip/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Ferris Subject: The Latest "Threat" To Public Safety: "Suburban Assault Vehicles" Date: 28 May 1997 08:34:42 -0400 (EDT) I kid you not! Take a look at the "Road Rage" cover story in the 06/02/97 issue of U.S. News & World Report. The author makes reference to the threat posed by what are termed "suburban assault vehicles" ... the characteristics of these S.A.V.s are much too frightening to list here. Such vehicles were all around me as I commuted to work today! Chuck Schumer and Sarah Brady had better get to work to solve this problem right away. Some initial suggestions: Banning future production of 19 S.A.V.s (a first step in the right direction) Limiting S.A.V. gas tank capacities to 10 gallons of watered down unleaded Banning installed winches, trailer hitches and auto trannies on all S.A.V.s Banning 4 wheel drive S.A.V.s, especially country club militia Range Rovers Banning "hunter green" (camo) S.A.V.s, weapon of choice of elite equestrians Banning mufflers (sound suppressors) on all S.A.V.s Banning powerful V-6 and V-8 engines in S.A.V.s (Straight 4s should suffice) Banning wide black tires bearing raised white (house supremacist) lettering Banning the carrying of TIME and NEWSWEEK magazines inside S.A.V.s Banning the carrying or use of cell phones or laptop computers inside S.A.V.s These seem like "reasonable controls" on this newly identified national menace. (I feel a Ferris satire coming on. Oh, yes I do. Check out the article ASAP!) Chris Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: Hugh Downs for the right of gun ownership (fwd) Date: 28 May 1997 10:39:56 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/articles/general/downs.txt ****Begin Excerpt**** ABC News Perspective Assault Weapons by Hugh Downs Years ago, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy distinguished himself from his opponent Richard M. Nixon by saying that he, Kennedy, knew who he was and that Nixon did not know who he was. ... Firearms, in whatever numbers or whatever configurations, are not the problem. The problem would seem to have its roots in national attitude we have toward correcting things. Where did we develop the idea that personal grievances or social wrongs can be redressed by shooting the bad guy? For example, we do not have the greatest number of handguns per capita. We just have (the) greatest number of deaths from these weapons. Israel and Switzerland are both ahead of us in number of handguns per capita. But they don't have very much of this kind of crime. Almost every home in these countries has at least one sidearm, given a person on completion of compulsory military service. They have the guns, but they just don't seem inclined to shoot each other. The assault rifle debate takes our attention away from the underlying problem: how to effect a change in our national attitude toward settling differences by violence. This is what we should be focused on. But we seem to (be) fixated on a buzzword like "assault." Hunters, professional armors, and firearm historians say the term is imprecise. Some claim there is no such thing. One common term, known as an assault rifle, refers to a long arm or carbine capable of automatic fire with ordinary military ammunition or big-game ammunition. ... Legislators who initiated the ban claim that semi- automatic weapons have no sporting use. But semi- automatic rifles have long history in hunting and other sports. The famous BAR, or Browning Automatic Rifle, is a semi-automatic hunting rifle; so is the Remington Model 7400. Semi-automatic shotguns have been on the market for many years. The banned rifles differ from non-banned ones only in small decorative details: decorations like a folding stock, a bayonet mount, or a flash suppresser. Otherwise, the banned "assault weapons" are ordinary rifles. They are not automatic military weapons. ... Unlike Britons, Americans are citizens and not subjects. And there's a very great difference between the two. Americans do not worship their government as god, which is a thousand-year-old tradition in Japan. Nor, like the Japanese, do we believe that government is infallible, as if government authority were an extension of family authority. Americans are not Canadians either. We are unlike both the strict Quebecoise and the English-speaking subjects of the British monarch. Americans are different and require different rules and laws. Maybe when we Americans learn to responsibly manage our guns, and our drugs, and our automobiles, or any other of the dangerous things in life, maybe then we will know who we are. For Perspective, this is Hugh Downs, ABC News. Perspective is an ABC News Weekly radio news magazine on KOA Radio each Sunday. Hugh Downs provides an essay each week. ****End Excerpt**** -- 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: L&J: SNET: I.R.S. WAY out of control.....read on... (fwd) Date: 28 May 1997 14:38:54 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- -> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List Just when you thought you heard it all, along comes THIS... A civics lesson from the IRS Dont call your congressman, agency warns couple SACRAMENTO -- John and Celeste Schleimer of Roseville, Calif., have been through six years of excruciating negotiations, examinations and hearings with the Internal Revenue Service over an old tax debt for a period in which Mr. Schleimer suffered a severe business downturn. They dont dispute the debt. They want to work out a reasonable payment plan. In particular, they dont think Mrs. Schleimer should be held responsible for the tax debt of her husband for a period before they were married. Secondly, the couple would like some consideration given to the fact that Mr. Schleimer was forced into bankruptcy since the tax debt was incurred. Not necessarily unique issues. In fact, thousands of Americans have been through similar experiences with the IRS. But there is one thing different about this case -- some unusual IRS restrictions on the Schleimers free speech rights as a condition to halt collection of the tax debt. Specifically, in March 1996, the Schleimers attorney, Michael S. Noble of Sacramento, was told by an attorney for the IRS that they expected his clients to cease communication with their elected representatives in Congress with regard to the case. A letter from Noble to the Schleimers dated March 27, 1996, states that the IRS agreed to cease collection efforts against the couple for four months. In return, the letter states that the four-month period may be extended if the IRS believes you are cooperating with them, Noble wrote. And how would that cooperation be measured? In my discussions with the IRS, they told me that they expected you to cease correspondence with your congressional leaders, Noble wrote. If you did not cease such correspondence, then they would not extend the stay on collection. The Schleimers honored that agreement for more than a year. But, now, because of what they see as a betrayal of the original agreement by the IRS, they believe their only hope for justice may lie in an appeal to the public and their elected representatives in Congress. The bottom line, in our opinion, is that we are being denied our constitutional rights and are being targeted unfairly by the IRS, says Mr. Schleimer. The IRS has repeatedly failed to follow even its own manual procedures and has not honored its agreements. I tried to work with them. I tried to play by their rules. Now I have no choice but to go public with this story. Last week, the Schleimers were notified of the most recent verdict in what seems like an endless nightmare of hearings -- his bankruptcy will not be honored by the IRS, and Mrs. Schleimers income and assets will be subject to seizure for her husbands old tax debt. All of our attorneys, who themselves are former IRS officers or trial lawyers, have repeatedly told us they have never seen a case like ours nor witnessed the type of behavior that has been displayed by the IRS agents involved, said Mr. Schleimer. Exclusive of penalties and interest, Schleimer has paid the IRS about $50,000 of the $86,299 owed on the back taxes. But the debts of his old company combined with the California real estate recession, Schleimer says. I made a mistake about my 1983-1989 personal taxes, but what makes this country great is that you get a second chance to turn things around, said Mr. Schleimer. This greatness is one of the reasons it was an honor for me to serve in the U.S. Army from 1966 to 1973 as an officer and decorated combat helicopter pilot in Vietnam. Since 1990, with the great help and support of my wife, Celeste, I have paid all my taxes -- almost $400,000 -- and been a good citizen. There was never any evasion on my part to hide assets or money from the IRS. I have made a full disclosure to the IRS in attempting to resolve this situation, but I see why this agency is so disliked by the American public. Representatives of the IRS were unable to discuss the case. But Shelly Davis, the former IRS historian and author of Unbridled Power, said she had never heard of a case quite like this. Ive never heard of the IRS asking taxpayers not to communicate with their congressional representatives, but Im not surprised by it. Davis. Theyll try anything. Its just another weapon in their vast arsenal. Schleimers congressional representative is not amused by the agencys effort to squelch interaction between him and a constituent. These types of Gestapo tactics, if substantiated, are exactly the reason we should eliminate the IRS altogether, said Rep. John Doolittle, R-CA. The IRS may not have wanted me involved in this issue, but their heavy-handed approach toward one of my constituents will prove to have the opposite result. Doolittle pledges to look into the case more thoroughly. Joseph Farah is editor of WorldNetDaily and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an indepedent group of investigative reporters. Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com -> Posted by: "Brian Mosely" =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with "unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Howlin' Blue" Subject: [Fwd: NEW LIST: NRA & HCI & GUNS & GUNLAW & FREE SPEECH] Date: 28 May 1997 15:38:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from usr03.primenet.com by ICSI.Net (8.8.5/SMI-SVR4) id PAA24008; Wed, 28 May 1997 15:00:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: from primenet.primenet.com (ip215.elp.primenet.com [204.212.55.215]) by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18867; Wed, 28 May 1997 13:00:38 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970528141241.006b4a2c@pop.primenet.com> X-Sender: consults@pop.primenet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) X-Priority: 1 (Highest) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The list is: firearmsreg@listbox.com pass this around. You are invited as is anyone you wish. No first amendment restrictions barring excessive, (really egregious) profanity. Pass it on To subscribe send "subscribe firearmsreg" to: majordomo@listbox.com MINUS the quotation marks, of course, in the list body. Rules and welcome as follows: >Welcome to the firearmsreg mailing list! > >If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, >you can send mail to "majordomo@listbox.com" with the following command >in the body of your email message: > > unsubscribe firearmsreg "your name" > >Here's the general information for the list you've >subscribed to, in case you don't already have it: > >Discussion of Firearms Regulations and the state of Law regarding >the same. We also welcome discussions on the current state of >firearms-related organizations, such as the NRA, HCI and others >who take an active interest in promoting or dis-establishing >firearms regulations. > >This list is pro-gun. And there are a few rules. > >Please keep the profanity down. We're all excited, but let's >not singe one another's ears needlessly. > >We can't have unlawful activities or proposals discussed on this >list, for obvious reasons. > >If we need to add additional rules, they will be posted. But so >far as possible, this list will be kept open for the use of the >community in hammering out what we think is an appropriate >policy re: the place of firearms in American Life. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pwatson@utdallas.edu Subject: The American's Creed Date: 29 May 1997 08:09:57 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hi, Bruce: Here it is, from the 1993 "Information Please" Almanac, page 634. "I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. "I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies." [In a note, the Almanac people say that William Tyler Page, Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, wrote "The American's Creed" in 1917. It was accepted by the House on behalf of the American people on April 3, 1918.] Barb Beier ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: (fwd) US Air Force pilots hee hee hee Date: 29 May 1997 08:27:36 -0700 >Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted by US Air >Force pilots and the replies from the maintenance crews: > > >Problem: "Left inside main tire almost needs replacement." >Solution: "Almost replaced left inside main tire." > >Problem: "Test flight OK, except autoland very rough." >Solution: "Autoland not installed on this aircraft." > >Problem: "The autopilot doesn't." >Signed off: "IT DOES NOW." > >Problem: "Something loose in cockpit." >Solution: "Something tightened in cockpit." > >Problem: "Evidence of hydraulic leak on right main landing gear." >Solution: "Evidence removed." > >Problem: "DME volume unbelievably loud." >Solution: "Volume set to more believable level." > >Problem: "Dead bugs on windshield." >Solution: "Live bugs on order." > >Problem: "Autopilot in altitude hold mode produces a 200 fpm >descent." >Solution: "Cannot reproduce problem on ground." > >Problem: "IFF inoperative." >Solution: "IFF inoperative in OFF mode." > >Problem: "Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick." >Solution: "That's what they're there for." > >Problem: "Number three engine missing." >Solution: "Engine found on right wing after brief search." > > > ********************************************************* > * "Here's to our Great Republic... * > * May she survive for a thousand years... * > * and may she always be worthy of the * > * Marines who defend her freedom!" * > * http://www.nidlink.com/~akmoob/cover.html * > ********************************************************* > > - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: An interview with Malachi Martin (fwd) Date: 29 May 1997 18:38:05 PST This isn't directly about Constitutional issues, but you might find it informative about some of what's happening elsewhere, that may affect such issues. Father Martin is a retired Jesuit exorcist. One of the scairier things he's mentioned elsewhere, is that exorcisms are up by _700%_ above normal. Just another little factoid for Biblical End Times theorists..... On May 29, Tom Alexander wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi All Sorry for the delay JBS, I typed as fast as a two fingered hunt and peck system would allow. :) After reading this artical, my mind went to Rev. 17. This artical appeared in the "New American" Vol 13, No 12 Page 39 and following. Martin was interviewed by John F. McManus, publisher of the "New American". Enjoy Tom A Q. You state that your book is neither fiction nor fact, but a "factional" work. What do you mean? A. "Windswept House" is a novel. But it 85% based on actual fact, and most of the personages appearing in it are real even though I have given them fictional names. There are some living persons mentioned such as Mikhail Gorbachev who appear as himself. And a few key characters are actually composites of several real Q. You left the Jesuits and the ordinary priestly life more than 30 years ago. At the time, you were assigned to the Vatican as a close associate of Pope John XXIII and Cardinal Augustin Bea. What caused you to leave? A. I found it increasingly difficult to find Christ in any of my immediate superiors. There was no liberal cause Cardinal Bea didn't peruse. I even regarded the head of the Jesuits at that time, Father Jean Baptiste Janssens, as an enemy of the faith. My colleagues believed that the formal Oath Against Modernism, required of every priest at the time but since discarded, was a joke. That oath bound all of us to oppose the "updating" of dogma so as to bring it in line with "the attitudes of the day." In essence, modernism holds that dogmas change - a total absurdity. I could no longer lend my name to such subversion. Q. So you left the Jesuits. But that didn't relieve you of your duties as a priest. What is your status today? A. At my request, Pope Paul VI granted me a universal status where I would not be under the supervision of any bishop, I don't dress like a priest and I don't hold any priestly assignment. But I am still a priest. Q. When you sought to leave the Vatican, was there any attempt to talk you into staying? A. Yes, I was told that I could expect to be made a cardinal, that I had biblical knowledge, a facility with languages, youth, excellent health, and a good memory, all of which made me a candidate for advancement. But I didn't want to stay because I saw that the faith was being compromised by many. Q. Your book begins with a vivid description of a sacrilegious "Black Mass" held in 1963 in Charleston, South Carolina. Did this really happen? A. Yes it did. And the participation by telephone of some high official of the church in the Vatican is also a fact. The young female who was forced to be part of this satanic ritual is very much alive and, happily, has been able to marry and live a normal life. She supplied the details about the event. Q. You refer to your chief characters as the "Slavic Pope" and another as the "Cardinal From Century City." Do you mean Pope John Paul II and the late Cardinal Josheph Bernardin of Chicago? A. I can't say yes to such speculation. I have written a book of "faction." It is not a documentary. There is a glossary floating about that purports to provide the real names of dozens of my characters. I did not compile it and do not concur with its claims although I must say it is well done. Q. In addition to the "Cardinal From Century City," you depict numerous other cardinals and bishops in a very bad light. Are these characterizations based on fact? A. Yes, among the cardinals and the hierarchy there are satinist, homosexuals, anti-papists, and cooperators in the drive for world rule. Q. Is there as much intrigue and disloyalty within the Vatican as your book seems to indicate? A. There is more than I have provided in the book. The Pope is surrounded by men in clerical garb who do not possess the Catholic faith; they are working with foundations, non-governmental organizations, international groups, financial institutions, governments, academia, and other agencies to bring a new world order in to existence. Q. Your book claims that subversive influences in the highest clerical positions of the Church are working to bring it into the new world order. What do you mean by "new world order"? A. In its completely planned form, there will be the total globalization of money, and the flow of capital and capital goods will be managed by a single, centrally directed entity such as the Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland. Any nation that does not submit to the new globalized system will perish. In addition, there will be an expanded United Nations which will spread its new ethical structure, already championed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong. This will replace the Ten Commandments and become the basis of a new universal and godless religion. All serious Christians, and Catholics above all, will be forced to endure a dry martyrdom where they will be required to abandon everything they believe. They will be pressed to accept the new form of the state with it's new religion. This new world order will not be centered on a collection of buildings from which emissaries are dispatched to give orders to the world. There will still be national legislatures, but the governments of the world will be directed by those who have climbed their way into the capstone. Q. What do you mean by the "capstone"? A. The underlying force I have written about in "Windswept House" is structured very much like a pyramid. It is wide at the bottom where many individuals work for its goals and hope to be elevated to a higher place. There are fewer and fewer inhabitants in each of the ascending steps in the structure. Only a few form its ultimate directorate, the capstone of the pyramid. These individuals have no loyalty to the countries they come from; they are a new type of human being, an internationalist that seeks to control mankind. Each is godless and collectively, they intend to use religion, governments, and anything they find useful to impose their will. It is my opinion, for instance, that the USSR didn't disintegrate naturally but was ordered to collapse. Gorbachev was told to vacate his power base, and also to inform the other leaders of the Soviet bloc nations to do likewise. Those orders came from the capstone. Q. Do you foresee physical repression in this new world order? A. Yes I do, though a completely new kind. The forces determined to achieve total power will indeed create detention camps, but the individuals sent to them will always be victims of completely legal proceedings; they will be found guilty of breaking fully enacted laws. Q. Is the Catholic Church more their target than other churches? A. Yes, because it is a separate international organization that cannot be allowed to exist as a competitor. The Catholic Church has its own diplomatic corps of ambassadors posted in highly industrialized nations of the world. There are 180 nations that have sent their own ambassadors to the Vatican. No other church commands this attention. Those who are working for the new world order must bring this unique organization under their control. The process by which they are attempting to accomplish this is described in "Windswept House." In the book I state, "The Church is 'sine qua non' for the advent of the new world order. Q. You have depicted a near complete disintegration of the Catholic Church which includes a refusal on the part of the Church leaders to expel heretical and apostate theologians, stop phony marriage annulments, oust homosexuals, force bishops to adhere to church laws and dogma, ect. In a previous book, you excused the Pope for not taking action to stop these abuses, intimating that he had good reasons for his perplexing tolerance. Now, however, you have adopted a much tougher attitude that no longer offers excuses for his inaction. Why the new attitude? A. It is too late to try to find excuses. The Pope should use his authority to save the Church from its internal enemies. The problem within the church today is apostasy, the standing apart from basic dogmas, especially those who hold high places. This is not the same as heresy and schism. Apostates should be expelled. When they are not ousted, the people gradually fall into the same apostasy. Q. Won't some Catholics be angry with you because of your criticism of the Pope and you condemnation of the Church's highest officials? A. Some already are. But the popes are ordinary men who are elevated to extraordinary level and given extraordinary powers. In all but a very narrow area, they are as fallible as were Judas and Peter. As for cardinals and bishops, there are many great saints but the church has long been inflicted with intrigue and disloyalty from some of them. Q. Does what you describe have anything to do with the plans of the 19th century Italian Carbonari? Didn't that group set out to infiltrate the Church so that the clergy and the Catholic people would follow its directions? A. Precisely! But the Carbonari was never any phantasmagoric association operating out of the cellars with hoods and tall hats. If you had understood the tactics of the Carbonari, you know that its leaders never intended to destroy the Church; they intended to use it. They recognized the Church as a stabilizing social force in the world and they wanted to control it for their own purposes. Their stated goal was to surround the Pope and the Vatican with their kind and have the Church follow their lead. Their plan always called for co-opting the church by sending people into the seminaries and covents, not destroying it. Q. Has anything like you have described ever happened in the 2,000 years of the Catholic Church? A. No, nothing like it. There has never been a moment when at virtually every level of the Church, apostasy is fomented, protected, allowed, and never even commented upon. All of this means one thing to me; It doesn't mean the end of the Church; it means the end of the Church's structure as we know it. And I don't expect the American Catholic Church to break with Rome and create a formal schism. When there is apostasy, the unknowing Catholic people remain obedient; if there were a formal schism instead of apostasy, that American prelates - and the prelates of any nation announcing such a formal break - would lose the obedience of the people. Q. One of the several living persons in your book whose name you actually use is Mikhail Gorbachev. Is he more or less dangerous to mankind now that he is no longer the leader of the former Soviet Union? A. He is far more dangerous. He is destined for great things in the plans of those who are implementing "the process" that leads to the new world order. Q. Your book mentions the "evening of NATO." Do you mean that NATO is about to disappear? A. No, I mean the evening of NATO as it was constructed. It was originally formed as a military alliance to oppose any possible Soviet advance westward. There is no more Soviet Union and no remaining threat of a Soviet military invasion of the west. NATO should have been dissolved but its structure is useful, so it is being given a new political and economic role. Q. You mention the Council on Foreign Relations, but only briefly. What is you attitude about the CFR? A. It is not the brain behind all of this. There is a higher level of authority and planning which draws on the CFR and other groups. This is the capstone I mentioned previously. Q. How have reviewers treated you book? A. There have been no bad reviews. But numerous reviewers have done a "gang" review of my book and Andrew Greeley's "White Smoke", which recommends the election of another Pope who will carry on what the Church is enduring today. That, of course, is not what is needed, yet reviewers refer to him as a conservative and me as a radical. Its laughable. The "New York Times" hasn't reviewed my book and I don't expect its book editors to do so. Not long ago, another work of mine that made the top of the "Times" best-seller list prompted one of its reviewers to refer to me as simply a good read. Q. What is next for Malachi Martin? A. In the 12th century a Jewish scholar Maimonides wrote a "Guide for the Perplexed" for his people. I hope to write a book somewhat like his to help Catholics during this very perplexing period in history. Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com [------------------------- 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: Chris Ferris Subject: Re: The High Mark of This President! (fwd) Date: 30 May 1997 16:10:42 -0400 (EDT) If Aldrich Ames was the mole inside the CIA, what happens when it becomes public knowledge that Bill Clinton was the mole inside Paula Jones? And also the mole inside Gennifer Flowers? What, indeed, will be the implications for national security? Just wondering. :-) Christopher C. Ferris Litchfield NH ferriscc@mainstream.net On Fri, 30 May 1997 pwatson@utdallas.edu wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > New York Post > May 30, 1997 > > PAGE SIX > > The Secret on Clinton's Thigh > > WHAT's the distinguishing characteristic Paula Jones > claims to have seen when Bill Clinton allegedly dropped > trou and exposed his nether regions to her? There have > been reports on the Internet, posted by some prankster > we bet, that the President has a bald eagle tattooed on > his crotch area. It's not likely that the draft-dodging > Democrat would pick such a patriotic image or allow > anyone with a needle to get that close to his sensitive > nerve endings. > > The Post's John Crudele has learned the truth: Clinton > has a brown mole the size of a quarter high up on the > inside of his left thigh. That's probably the mark Jones > plans to cite as evidence in her sexual harassment > suit against Clinton, which is proceeding on the strength > of this week's 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision. How > could Paula know about the mole if Clinton hadn't shown > it to her, as she claims, when he made his crude > come-on? How'd we know? > > Crudele's never seen the President naked, but one Arkansas > state trooper has -- in a communal shower at a Denver health > club. And the trooper corroborated Gennifer Flowers' description > of the presidential parts as being otherwise unremarkable. > > Curiously, Clinton's longtime mistress never mentioned > the mole. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: The High Mark of This President! (fwd) Date: 30 May 1997 18:49:26 -0700 >If Aldrich Ames was the mole inside the CIA, what happens when it becomes >public knowledge that Bill Clinton was the mole inside Paula Jones? And also >the mole inside Gennifer Flowers? What, indeed, will be the implications for >national security? Just wondering. :-) > >Christopher C. Ferris >Litchfield NH >ferriscc@mainstream.net ROTFL!!!!! - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Liberty or Death Subject: Re: The High Mark of This President! (fwd) Date: 30 May 1997 18:49:26 -0700 >If Aldrich Ames was the mole inside the CIA, what happens when it becomes >public knowledge that Bill Clinton was the mole inside Paula Jones? And also >the mole inside Gennifer Flowers? What, indeed, will be the implications for >national security? Just wondering. :-) > >Christopher C. Ferris >Litchfield NH >ferriscc@mainstream.net ROTFL!!!!! - Monte ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oh Lord, let the fire of your Holy Spirit sweep across this land, for fallen, fallen is America! Come, Lord, reveal Yourself in power and holiness to a Church that has forgotten Who You are, and to a People who have chosen to live in great darkness. Empower your children to walk in these last days in the fulness of the knowledge of Your Glory. Amen. ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fwd: Corrupt politicians protection act 1997 (fwd) Date: 30 May 1997 23:52:51 PST On May 30, CTowle9263@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This bears looking into! I don't know about the rest of you, but I for one do not want ANY CongressCritters thinking they are above the law just because they happen to be there. Regards, Corky --------------------- Forwarded message: 30-May-1997 1142) Congressional Reform Briefings May 30, 1997 to subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings send the message: subscribe CONG-REFORM your name to listproc@essential.org -- A bi-partisan group of House lawmakers is trying to stifle the internal policing of corruption, influence-peddling, and abuse of power in the U. S. House of Representatives. NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release: For More Information Contact: Thursday, May 29, 1997 Gary Ruskin (202) 296-2787 House Plans "Corrupt Politicians Protection Act" To Shield Members From Ethics Investigations The Congressional Accountability Project criticized as "The Corrupt Politicians Protection Act of 1997" a secret House plan to curtail the internal policing of corruption, abuse of power, and influence-peddling in the U. S. House of Representatives. The plan is being prepared by the House Ethics Reform Task Force, a bi-partisan group of lawmakers chaired by Reps. Bob Livingston (R-LA) and Ben Cardin (D-MD). The plan, according to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, would erect new barriers to prevent Americans from filing ethics complaints against House members. These complaints from non-House members are crucial to the enforcement of House Rules that protect the public against corruption and wrongdoing in the House of Representatives. Current rules already make it difficult for citizens to file ethics complaints in the House of Representatives. Without complaints from outsiders, it is unlikely that many ethics proceedings -- particularly those against powerful House members -- would ever be undertaken by the House Ethics Committee. "Republican and Democratic career politicians want to shield themselves from Ethics Committee investigations," said Gary Ruskin, Director of the Congressional Accountability Project. "That's why they want to pass the Corrupt Politicians Protection Act -- to take the House's internal corruption cops off the beat." Under House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct Rule 14, persons who are not members of the House of Representatives may file an ethics complaint only with a letter of transmittal from a House member or three letters of refusal from such members. According to Roll Call, the Task Force is planning to prohibit the filing of complaints by three letters of refusal. This would likely prevent the initiation of some ethics investigations, particularly against powerful House members, because House members are usually unwilling to directly challenge the propriety of a powerful member by providing a letter of transmittal. Complaints against House Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R-PA) and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) were filed last year by the Congressional Accountability Project with three letters of refusal. According to Roll Call, the Task Force is planning to "eliminat[e] news accounts as the grounds for outside complaints" -- even though many recent ethics cases were initially based on news accounts. Those cases include: former Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX), former Senator Bob Packwood (R-OR), House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), former Rep. Barbara-Rose Collins (D-MI), House Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay. The members of the House Ethics Reform Task Force include Reps. Mike Castle (R-DE), Martin Frost (D-TX), Porter Goss (R-FL), Joe Moakley (D-MA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Gerald Solomon (R-NY), Louis Stokes (D-OH), and Bill Thomas (R-CA). House Ethics Committee Chairman Jim Hansen (R-UT) and Ranking Member Howard Berman (D-CA) are ex officio Task Force members. On February 12, House Republican and Democratic leadership announced a moratorium on ethics investigations and complaints in the House. That moratorium -- a "police holiday" for House members -- is currently shielding Reps. Shuster, DeLay, and Jerry Costello (D-IL) from ethics investigations. "It is outrageous that House members have voted themselves a police holiday,'" Ruskin said. "House leaders should call off the police holiday,' and stop protecting House members from ethics investigations based on credible allegations of corruption and wrongdoing." -30- The following article was printed in the May 29, 1997 issue of Roll Call, A Capitol Hill newspaper . Reprinted with permission. Congressional Watchdog Groups Up In Arms Over Ethics Reform Proposal -------------------------------------------------- By Juliet Eilperin Some outside groups are up in arms over a proposal by House ethics reformers to forbid complaints against Members based only on newspaper reports. The ethics reform task force, appointed by House leaders in the wake of January's contentious vote to reprimand Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga), hasn't yet completed its written report on changing ethics procedures. But several sources said the task force has agreed on its proposal to bar outside groups from filing complaints based on newspaper reports, while also setting a clearer schedule for considering allegations against Members. Task force co-chair Benjamin Cardin (D-Md) unveiled some of the proposals in a closed-door meeting before the Democratic Caucus Thursday. The provision aimed at outside groups would eliminate the elaborate "three letters of refusal" rule, which requires three Members to declare that they will not provide a letter of transmittal before the ethics committee will receive an outside complaint. But by eliminating news accounts as the grounds for outside complaints, the reform could dramatically curtail public watchdogs' ability to lodge charges of wrongdoing against Members. Virtually every high-profile case against Members in recent years -- including the charges against House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga), former House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas), and ex-Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore) -- was initially based on newspaper reports. Congressional Accountability Project director Gary Ruskin, who has filed several complaints against Members, said the change would undermine his group's ability to hold Members accountable. "The net effect will be a de facto non-enforcement of House ethics rules, which will lead to a climate of increased corruption, influence peddling, and abuse of power," Ruskin warned. Common Cause legislative director Meredith McGehee said the proposal is "just going in the absolute wrong direction." "This group is going to have to be careful because they are quickly going from what was supposed to be reform to de-form in what was already a tainted process," she added. However, Landmark Legal Foundation president Mark Levin called the reform a "potentially positive development." "There ought to be an effort to pull evidence together other than newspaper reports," said Levin, whose group filed complaints against House Minority Whip David Bonior (D-Mich) last Congress. But, he cautioned, "as long as they're raising the threshold and there's a serious effort to meet that threshold, then the committee needs to seriously examine the complaint." Though Members were eager to file charges against colleagues like Gingrich and Bonior last Congress, they have been much less enthusiastic about taking on GOP leaders like Majority Whip Tom DeLay (Texas) and Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bud Shuster (Pa). In both cases, Ruskin was only able to submit complaints based on accounts in Roll Call and other publications after obtaining three letters of refusal. "Members are loathe to file against powerful Members," Ruskin said. The complaints against DeLay and Shuster technically expired at the end of last Congress, and the current ethics committee has not yet indicated whether it will probe the allegations. Cardin indicated in an interview this month that he expected the panel would follow the committee's custom of pursuing complaints from previous years. The current House rule on outside groups differs from that of the Senate Ethics Committee, which allows such organizations to file complaints directly with the panel. While one source suggested outside groups could base future House ethics complaints on the testimony of potential witnesses, like the women who accused Packwood of sexual harassment, those allegations arose directly from reports in the Washington Post and the Oregonian. It is unclear whether any Members plan to mount opposition to the bipartisan group's reform package. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif), who has transmitted complaints on behalf of the Congressional Accountability Project in the past, questioned why the ethics committee couldn't review the validity of press allegations once they are filed. "That's why you bring a complaint to the ethics committee and they make a determination," Miller said. "Courts throw out frivolous complaints all the time." Miller noted that the task force was imposing a different standard of proof on outside groups as compared with Members, who would still be able to use news accounts. "That should not be a bar to filing a complaint," he said. Cardin, who declined to comment specifically on the task force's proposal, said Tuesday he briefed Democrats "to give them some heads up" on the package, which the House is scheduled to consider before June 12, the day the moratorium on ethics complaints expires. "I thought the response was very favorable," Cardin said of his talk. Most Democrats expressed support for the reform package during Thursday's meeting, according to sources, including a provision creating a mechanism to automatically move the ethics process forward unless committee members objected. This measure, sources said, would set a timeline for stages in the ethics process. Unless a vote was taken to halt the process, an ethics probe would move forward to a preliminary inquiry and the creation of an investigatory subcommittee. This schedule would contrast sharply with the ethics committee's actions during the 104th Congress, when a deadlock between the two parties prevented the panel from announcing a preliminary inquiry into the Gingrich case for well over a year. "That is unquestionably a good thing because of the interminable delays of the ethics process in the 104th Congress," Ruskin said of the proposal. "The devil is in the details. Everything depends on how the rule is written." Cardin said he hoped the report would be completed next week so Members would have time to review the scope of the reform. Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La), who co-chairs the task force, also declined to describe the plan in detail but said this month that it would make the process more predictable and provide "due process" for Members. But one final factor could complicate the measure's package, according to Hill aides: the attachment of an amendment altering the House gift ban. Several Members have raised the prospect of revisiting the gift rule, which currently prohibits House Members from accepting anything with more than a "nominal value." Senators, by contrast, can accept gifts worth less than $50. Though no Member has crusaded publicly to overturn the ban, many have complained in private that the current limit is unworkable. It is unclear whether either party's leaders would be willing to attach a gift-rule amendment to the ethics reform measure. "This would be a logical vehicle because this is an ethics issue," said a GOP aide, adding, "The key is to avoid forcing Members to take a vote on it." Cardin said he was opposed to attaching any gift-reform measure to the ethics package. "I don't think that's going to happen," he said, adding that Members need time to consider any move by the House leadership to alter gift requirements. "I think it should be handled as a separate issue." Livingston spokesman Mark Corallo said it was still "unclear" whether a gift rule amendment would be attached to the reform package. According to Minority Leader Dick Gephardt's (D-Mo) spokesman, Erik Smith, the leadership has no position on the issue of the gift ban at this time, but he said it is "on the agenda" for the Caucus in the coming weeks. [Image] Copyright - 1996 Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. The Congressional Accountability Project is a Ralph Nader Congressional reform group. For more information on Congressional reform issues, send e-mail to gary@essential.org or call (202) 296-2787. to subscribe to Congressional Reform Briefings send the message: subscribe CONG-REFORM your name to listproc@essential.org PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY Gary Ruskin Congressional Accountability Project | Internet: gary@essential.org 1611 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 3A Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 296-2787 Fax: (202) 833-2406 % ====== Internet headers and postmarks ====== % Received: from mail2.digital.com by us3rmc.pa.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA02780; Fri, 30 May 97 07:03:40 -0700 % Received: from prince.essential.org by mail2.digital.com (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA19126; Fri, 30 May 1997 06:58:12 -0700 % Received: from prince (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prince.essential.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA07311; Fri, 30 May 1997 09:50:43 -0400 (EDT) % Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:50:43 -0400 (EDT) % Message-Id: % Errors-To: cong-reform-owner@essential.org % Reply-To: gary@essential.org % Originator: cong-reform@essential.org % Sender: cong-reform@essential.org % Precedence: bulk % From: Gary Ruskin % To: Multiple recipients of list % Subject: Corrupt Politicians Protection Act of 1997 % X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas % Mime-Version: 1.0 %%% overflow headers %%% Apparently-To: spirk@mail.dec.com, dcassone@world.std.com, cbullard@omnipoint.com, kendall@mail.dec.com, mcbinc@world.std.com, jarnold@us.oracle.com, mikewann@aol.com, hal_berenson@msn.com, towle@mail.dec.com, cnylander@mathworks.com, rkl@mooseware.com, hagarty@zip.com.au, arndt_r@orgella.com, jayp@asymetrix.com, matt_rearwin@notes.teradyne.com, 0007260483@mcimail.com, mcdonald44@aol.com, jwwhite@postoffice.ptd.net, dlebeau@aol.com, cyrano@idt.net, jgoggin@lynx.dac.neu.edu, ctowle9263@aol.com, rvgould@aol.com, peepsite@aol.com, dube@rabat.lkg.dec.com, hildebrantfamily@worldnet.att.net, dan@mrst.com, factor3@ultranet.com, bkendrick@msn.com, dkk@shore.net, simmons@dfwlug.decus.org, act2@tiac.net, robinson_j@orgella.com, bdtl41a@prodigy.com, fredread@juno.com, 71763.3046@compuserve.com, skip1@tiac.com, 74372.2030@compuserve.com, rockyhud@codenet.net, cmartin@usa.net, avbb@rmi.net, wbruneau%pvision@mcimail.com %%% end overflow headers %%% [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] -- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | If Guns are | Let he who hath no | Keep weapon in every | by COLT; | outlawed, only | weapon sell his | Your hand = Freedom | DIAL | RIGHT WINGERS | garment and buy a | Powder on every side! | 1911-A1. | will have Guns. | sword. Jesus Christ | Dry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Column, May 28 (fwd) Date: 30 May 1997 23:53:35 PST On May 30, James B. Andrews wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED MAY 28, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'They have started mounting raids to retrieve firearms' Americans who warn that gun registration leads inevitably to confiscation are usually dubbed "paranoid." In 1992, Australia enacted mandatory gun registration. In 1996, Australia proceeded to enact laws banning all semi-auto weapons of 22 caliber and larger. All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed, under a 12-month amnesty program. Noting that 7,000 United States Marines have been stationed in Australia since July 31, 1995, supposedly for training, one Australian wrote me recently, contending our Marines are there "quite probably to assist the Australian government in forceful and violent confiscation of weapons at or before the end of the amnesty period." While that fear may be overblown, I did think readers might be interested in this May 9 posting from Australian Carolyn Dillon (cdillon@mail.chariot.net.au): "Good day to you. ... I am in Australia and the amnesty is finished. Stick up for your rights now! Speaking out is easier than what we now face here. "Gun owners who did not comply with new regulations in Australia are now faced with the fact that their name is flagged on govt. computers, (and) they are liable to four years imprisonment and a fine that is about the cost of an average house. "Those with firearms licences and those who did not hand in their weapons are liable to search of person or premises without warrant. "People cannot organise because what the govt. has done is now legislated, enacted law. Therefore any attempt to communicate or organise is liable to the charge of subversion. If an individual says to another 'I would suggest that you do not hand in your firearm,' the speaker may be charged with subverting another to commit a criminal act. "They have started mounting raids to retrieve firearms and this is likely to intensify. "WHATEVER YOU GUYS DO, FOR GOD'S SAKE DON'T REGISTER YOUR WEAPONS. It really is happening and it seems to be global. "U.S. brothers, watch your six. If you don't with the politicians then you will have to watch it for real against your own troopers. "Australia to America: God bless you and pray for us poor bastards down under." # # # That "global" business sounded a bit high-strung, until S.T. in Utah forwarded the following report by Elizabeth Fullerton of Reuters: "U.N. presses for action on worldwide gun control "VIENNA, May 5 (Reuter) -- Momentum is gathering for worldwide action on gun control to stem the increasing number of deaths from firearms among civilians, a U.N. crime body said on Monday. "The United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice is expected to approve a resolution this week to urge countries to impose tighter restrictions on gun ownership and export. " 'We strongly believe that effective national regulation is important to international controls, particularly on the illicit movement of small arms,' Australian commission delegate Daryl Smeaton told Reuters. ... "Smeaton said there was no plan for a legally binding convention on gun control but that the resolution looked likely to have broad support from member states, including the United States, despite pressure from the powerful gun lobby. ... " 'At this stage we understand that the U.S. will be able to support the resolution as it is drafted and that is a very, very encouraging sign,' Smeaton said." # # # Recently, I dated the start of the great witch-hunts of the 16th century to the 1486 publication of the book "Malleus Maleficarum," which I attributed to Pope Innocent IV. Let us now recall the importance of "looking it up." "Malleus Maleficarum" -- "The Hammer of Witches" -- was indeed the book that launched the massive witch hysteria. However, the book was authored by two ethically-challenged Dominicans, Heinrich Kramer and Jakob Sprenger, who inserted the 1484 bull "Summis desiderantes affectibus" (issued by Pope Innocent VIII) as a foreward to their work, creating the impression that the current Pope had fully endorsed their efforts. All three certainly share the blame for tossing aside the safeguards of the Canon Episcopi, allowing the Burning Times to begin. As to whether the instructions to Christian clerics to sensibly dismiss charges of witchcraft as so much fantasy -- the section of the church law which became known as the Canon Episcopi -- really dates from the early church counsels at Ancyra and Nicea, or were in fact inserted by the canonist Regino of Prum around 906 A.D., we may perhaps leave to another day. # # # And while I was busy getting things wrong, I recently wrote that in Nevada, concealed handgun permits are issued only for a single weapon, by serial number. A number of readers wrote in to remind me that -- gun owners having complained that they need a lighter-weight pistol during Nevada's broiling summers -- Nevada actually permits the gun owner to list (start ital)two(end ital) guns on the "carry" permit, by make and model. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com Voir Dire: A French term which means "jury stacking." [------------------------- 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: An Open Letter To The NRA (fwd) Date: 23 May 1997 08:49:52 -0500 (CDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Posted to texas-gun-owners by clovis@wartech.com May 21, 1997 Wayne LaPierre National Rifle Association 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Mr. LaPierre: Since 1991 I have watched, with growing discomfort, the NRA's slide from being a responsible Civil Rights and Shooting organization into its present state of disrepair and disrepute. Had I known at the time of acquiring my Life Membership what I know now of the NRA's headlong slide into becoming just another extention of the usual Beltway Slimes and Jackbooted Thugs, I'd save my money. You call me an Extremist because I believe I have a Natural Right to my life, liberty and my pursuit of happiness. You call me an extremist because I distrust any official who distrusts my gun despite 47 years of living in which I have not a single discredit or stain to my name. I suggest, sir, that the reason for Militias is that you are a traitor. You were silent about Waco, about Ruby Ridge, and quickly retreated when the same Beltway Slimes who orchestrated Waco and Ruby Ridge called you on calling them what they are. You caved in. Or, perhaps more properly, you were never on our side to begin with; perhaps your whole career with the NRA is nothing more than a soft living and the thrill and convenience of being "Where the action is" that is, with the other tax-eating, counter-productive cretins who pass for a government. You fear me. And this you have in common with the same, supposedly hated "Anti-Gunners" you pretend to rail against. The truth, Mr. LaPierre, is that I do not hate anyone. I do not need to. I can defend myself. The cowardice of the anti-gunner revolts me, and I feel a certain loathing for them as a result. But hate those whom I can personally scare into a permanent retreat with a harsh word or glance? This is like hating a rabbit. You may feel this, but hatred of the timid and gullible is beneathe me. They merit my pity more than my anger. What I have against you, the Board and the rest of the existing organization is that you are traitors. Since you were On Watch, we got the 10 round magazine ban, and countless hundreds of local ordinances further eroding the most precious of all rights -- the right of the means to one's own defense. Without that right, the right of self-defense on the books of our state laws is a sham. Without that right, this nation is open from anything from Stalinism to Hitlerism. And you play with the men who, in their collectivist wisdom, bring us closer to this kind of national government on a daily basis. Let us be generous. Perhaps you began with good intentions, a clear mind and an honest heart. But given how much insult and assault we endure under your leadership, I cannot believe that these qualities endure in yourself and the other professional staff members. The truth is that you need the likes of misbegotten men such as Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy and other infamous malingerers who daily defile the American Tradition. If they do not succeed at creeping forward in the erosion of our most sacred rights, you cannot credibly pen another earnest begging letter demanding more funds to fight the good fight. Like any man selling insurance, you thrive on the frequency of disaster. Who would buy flood insurance without frequent floods? And who would send money, much of which is earmarked for Beltway Parties and other excresences (none of which have done any of us any good, I might add), if there were no "impending flood." The greatest flood I see is the flood of letters from you and ILA insisting that I must send more money. And there must be more money for that white elephant of a building you, in your infinite wisdom, used to to flatter your egotism and play Beltway Establishment. Neal Knox is right. You have effectively bankrupted the organization, are on a feeding frenzy of "In Crowd" excesses. And to stifle dissent, to add insult to injury, you refer to members such as myself, the members who believe that we really do have rights, rights that predate government, that supersede what any government might say, and call us "Extremists." I am the NRA. I am why you have a job to begin with. Membership has fallen precipitously. Instead of fighting for Vermont Style carry laws, that is, restoration of our long abused rights, you compromise with Schumer and Kennedy their continuing flood of abuse. But I shall not withdraw from the NRA, Mr. LaPierre. I am making it one of my personal charters to point out your failures and betrayals, and to restore the NRA, first by starving it for money so that leeches upon our formerly fine organization must find someone else to bleed white, or starve and, second, by funneling what monies I have for the fight to GOA and JPFO. You don't compromise your right to life, Wayne. Once your life is ended, it is all over. Neither does one compromise one's right to the means of defending that life, for without an effective defense, that life may be ended by the first demented felon who takes a fancy to murder. This is not extremism, Wayne. It is the essence of good sense. Since you have parted ways with good sense, and principle, and honor, I have no money to give you. I will not pay to support yet more corruption, yet more Beltway Perversion and Deviance, yet more assaults upon the America that once was strong, but which has been vastly weakened by this pattern of treason. I am writing to let you know, Wayne, that myself, and perhaps most members of the Association, will have no truck with you again, no moral or letter writing or fiscal support, for you or your programs until you return to first principles. Ownership of arms is an unquestioned, guaranteed right that predates and supercedes any governmental edict. The abuses must stop, and must be attacked without any flagging until they are erased. You are not doing this. You have no intention of doing this. And in demonstrating this to me, you have entirely lost my support. You have subverted the NRA itself, turning it into a nearly autonomous Beltway organization not accountable to, nor mindful of, the purpose and intention for which it was formed, and which was responsible for its great years of growth. We, the members, are the NRA. You are at best only a caretaker. And you have betrayed your oath. Without us, you are nothing -- an unemployed bum living under a bridge, to be blunt about it. Without you, we not only exist, but may fare better with GOA and JPFO. It is frustration with your treachery against us that has led to such disturbing spectres as the many public and secret Militias. You are the problem, not the solution. You and your treachery has closed off most of our last avenue to peaceful petition for, and redress of, grievances. You betray us; you betray your faithful friends; and then you denounce us in public as "Extremists" to cover the full extent of your crimes and frauds. If you want money, call HCI. You are more their friend than mine. My remaining activites with the NRA will be to see the last of you, of Tanya Metaksa and the rest of your Rogues Gallery. Painting men such as myself, men who hold to the original principles of this nation, who believe that we have inalienable rights, as Extremists, as deranged psychopaths, is the last, unbearable treachery. I am done with you, and will not rest until you are expunged from our midst. Sincerely, W. Frank Warren BGT2101W -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body.